Can I give Larry the quick answer on that? Larry, so. In the last 10 years, I've, I've really discouraged kind of Memorial plaques, Memorial benches, Memorial trees. In that. I think. In my mind, they privatize public land. Yep. We do have some out there. Most of them predate me working for the town. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. What I've said to donors is if you would like to donate. A tree or even a bench, we'd be happy to talk with you about that. But what we don't want is to put plaques up everywhere. We have a couple. And so donors can know that tree is in memory of a friend or a family member or a pattern or something like that. But it doesn't have their name. Because that to me kind of privatizes. I think that's a good thing. But I've worked pretty successfully with other folks who want to donate a bench or a, or a tree or something like that. And, and, and I think that works better. I'll get, I'll get back to him and get back to you later. Yeah. Good. Sure. Okay. So let's get this started since we have a packed agenda tonight. So this is the Amherst, Massachusetts conservation commission meeting. July 14th, 2021. We have a full agenda. We have a pretty full agenda tonight. So we'll try to move through it efficiently. Starting with any comments from me. I don't have any comments. Dave, do you have anything you want to. Share. No, I just wanted to introduce myself by and welcome Michelle to the commission I missed last week's meeting. I was away for a day or two. And I'm happy to be here with you. I'm happy to be here with you. I'm happy to be here with you. Enjoying the wonderful weather on Thursday and Friday up in New Hampshire when it poured rain. But anyway, it's nice to get away, but welcome to you. Look forward to working with you and Larry. Happy to have you on for another term and glad we were able to keep you. So I'll just keep my comments brief tonight because I know we've got a lot on the agenda. And yeah, that reminds me. I just wanted to make sure that we're all on the agenda. So we have her that for that hearing, but she's otherwise on vacation and Laura isn't going to make it tonight. Okay. Erin wetland administrators report. Okay. So what I'd like to do is just jump right into other business so we can try to get through as much as we can before we open the hearings. One thing, Jen, just to let you know, once I start sharing my screen, I can't see the attendees. So I just wanted to make sure that you could just kind of keep an eye out on that while I am sharing my screen. Yeah, no problem. Okay. So the first thing I was hoping we could do is just announce these, these items that are first on the list that I, I did announce them on the seventh. And I'm not going to go into the continuation dates, but the notice of intent for Haynes hydrologic at poor farm to 14 Pomeroy lane was continued from July 7th at seven 30 to July 28th at seven 40 at the request of the applicant. And then the town of Amherst trail projects, which is also being continued at the request of the applicant. From July 7th at seven 35 to July 28th at seven 35. So just to make sure that we announced that on the record, just thought that would be kind of a nice courtesy. Okay. So if we could do approval of minutes first, that would be wonderful. I don't know if everyone had a chance. I did. Did anyone else? Are we. I wasn't at either of those. So I abstain. Okay. Anyone else? How do we feel about. Motion. Motion. I move we accept the minutes of seven. Of June 23rd. 21. Period. Okay. Voice vote. Roy. Larry. I. Fletcher. Stains. Michelle. I. And I'm an eye. Is that everyone? Yeah. Yep. Okay. Then we are just looking for a motion to approve the minutes from July 8th, 2021. I move we accept the minutes of July 8th, 2021. Seconded. Okay. Voice vote. Leroy. Larry. Hi. Fletcher abstains Michelle. Great. All right. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. So I'm going to jump to the bottom of the agenda to other business. Okay. So a couple of quick updates. You guys might recall one 21 pond view drive. This is an issue where it's a backyard. In a residential subdivision. We had a couple of reports that were documented. Dave and I had gone out there for a site visit. We sent a land. We sent a letter in cooperation with Brett to the landowner asking them to file an RDA, basically to bring the site into compliance, kind of like an after the fact permit. We were doing this in an effort to avoid enforcement. So we sent that letter to the landowner and the landowner that they don't believe in the Welland's laws. They think that their private property rights should supersede the Welland Protection Act and our local bylaw, and that they're not going to be filing any permits. And they don't think that anything's wrong with what they're doing in their backyard. So I think my recommendation at this point would be for us to issue an enforcement order. And that's basically, that's basically that. I just wanted to kind of update you guys on that. I don't have any. Suggestions. I'm happy to. You know, follow your, your recommendations, but I think, I think that's our only course at this point with that one. This is the one with like the gravel path on the brook. Yeah. Yeah, Aaron, unless anyone else strongly disagrees, I think that we've given them a chance and, you know, we have to enforce the Welland Protection Act. So. You should. Forward. Does anyone have anything else to add to that or object? Awesome. All right. So I'll give you an update at the next meeting, but I'll be issuing. An enforcement order. In the next, before the next meeting. Okay. 815 main street. I got a call yesterday about that one. It's a, it's an abandoned house. It's, it's sort of going towards Pellam Hill Road, going towards Amethyst Brook, right behind. For River school. There's a house there that's basically condemned. It's all boarded up spray paint on the windows. It's in, it's in rough shape and there's a for sale sign out in front of it.  It's, it's like a mud pit in there. And then. And I do have photos. I think I put the photos in. Here's, you can see. So this is the site. And. The wetland is. Basically right there. So. My, I would just, I, I'm trying to, I've already contacted the contractor who's on site, trying to get the owner's contact information to stabilize the site, seed it down, get some erosion controls in place. And so basically just as a starting point, but that's, that's where we're at with that one, just a complaint that was received. So it's kind of an FYI to you guys. And I'll follow up with you at the next meeting on that one as well. And then 25 Stanley street. This one's kind of a tricky one. So this is the. Habitat for humanity for home subdivision that's right at the end of Stanley street on the corner of Southeast and Stanley. There was. There is. We got a complaint basically that the neighbor who's, who's all the way in at the end of the shared driveway has. A lot of the people who were there. They were there. True green chem lawn coming out and spraying herbicides and pesticides all over their lawn. And so I went back and I looked at the orders of conditions for there's, there's an original order of conditions and there's also an amended order of conditions for that subdivision or for that project. There is no requirement in there for limitations on herbicides and pesticides. However, I thought it might be worth the commission considering sending a courtesy letter to the landowner asking them. Not to. Just because. They're in the buffer zone to an intermittent stream. And there are wetlands. Along the intermittent stream and that. You know, we include that as a standard condition now on all of our orders of conditions to not. To not allow. Herbicides and pesticides and also fertilizers, you know, that. Utrifying water bodies. And I just felt like it might be an opportunity to kind of give them a little bit of information on. That it's not really a good thing for them to be doing. But I, again, it's, it's not a violation. So not really sure what you guys feelings are on that. Since they're not violating their order of conditions, I. Hesitate at a targeted letter. I am always a proponent of an educational opportunity. However. Is there a way to. Be more general. Ideas.  Pesticides and herbicides might be on the nearby wetlands. Is there a pamphlet that we could provide to the neighborhood kind of thing? I don't know. That's my initial response. Does anyone else have any input or instincts on this one? Yeah, I feel like it's a bit of a reach. I, it is tricky. I'm trying to think of like educational stuff, Jen, like. There is stuff for like landowners to go after like invasive plants. And there's like, I'm trying, I don't exactly know, but I have, I'll try to look it up. But I know there's information like that out there. Not necessarily lawn care, doing organic, whatever for lawn care. So yeah, I think this is a bit of a reach.  Well, I, it was a complaint that was received on it. So I've got the complaint saying, Hey, do something about this. So I mean, I wouldn't go after them myself. Yeah, yeah. I tend to agree with the commission members. I think this is a bit of a reach and, and given Aaron's limited time and the number of priorities we have for both enforcement as well as new projects. You know, we get these calls. You know, a number of times a year about people's concerns. In fact, I got one last week about land off of. They rode some spraying there. And I think that was probably, you know, a little more egregious than, than just, you know, green, green lawn or Kim lawn or whatever. So. Yeah, I think it's. I think it's something that neighbors should probably talk to neighbors about. Yeah, I agree. The only thing I would put in the proverbial parking lot about this is that I feel like this keeps coming up again and again recently is like how to safely handle invasive's removal and how did to deal with these on, you know, individual lots of private homeowners. So now is not the time for us to put time and energy into it, but maybe this winter when the snow flies, we can think about what an educational effort around that or just like educational materials that we could have available to easily share. You know, something you can just say, oh, you know, this is something you can talk to your neighbor about. Here are some resources. Boom. Like so that it saves you time. Okay. I think that's a great idea. I think it's something we could also partner hopefully Dave with the town and maybe try to get some, some more outreach around it, not just on our, on our concom website, but maybe there's something that could be placed out either through engage Amherst or some other avenue or the agricultural commission. Maybe. Maybe. Yeah. I don't know. I could like do more pollinators to habitat less long. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Great idea.  So. Yeah. Hi, Anna. Thanks for joining us. Yeah. No, great. Thanks for being here. Yeah, those are your ideas. Okay. Sounds good. All right. So the next item is 733 station road. I received a request for a, an emergency certification from these folks. It. At first I was a little bit. Apprehensive about this one because of the number of trees, but most of the trees in the request are, were already dead. And. Dead sort of standing in a. A buffer that's beside their property, they're sort of dead snags standing there. And several of them are leaning on other trees. They're kind of like what they call widow makers, but they're completely dead. I think there was, there was six trees that were alive and they were small diameter trees. Several of them leaning toward their house and they also are. I mean, these folks have a huge pollinator garden in their front yard. They have multiple saplings planted in the front of their house. So I just wanted to say for the record, it's not like they're. Just trying to clear cut that they, these trees are really, they're dead and they're hazard. And they, um, I think they're either, they call them spruce, but I think that several of them are dead hemlocks that probably got taken out by the. Um, William Delgid. Um, So, yeah, so I issued, um, a. They, oh, they have an, um, A, um, Arborist who submitted a report on their behalf, basically assessing the hazard nature of the trees and that they were a public safety hazard. You can see a couple of them. They're pretty large and. You know, right over their house. So, um, I think they had a lot of, they had a lot of emergency certifications so that they could take these trees down that were leaning and that were dangerous. That's great. Thanks, Aaron. Yeah. So we would just need a motion to ratify that emergency certification. I move we ratify the emergency certification at seven. Oh my gosh. I didn't put my contacts in. Sorry. 733 station road. Second. Thanks. Okay. Voice vote. Fletcher. Hi. Hi. Anna. Hi. Larry. Hi. Michelle. Hi. And I'm an eye. Awesome. Okay. Um, So we received a request for certificate of compliance for 33 Woodlott road. And. I went out and took a look at it. This is, um, an old subdivision in Amherst woods. Um, and I basically, in these cases, just go out and make sure that the site is stable, that there's no visible, um, violations on the site, that there's no, um, you know, structures that are, uh, Unpermitted as part of the order of conditions. Um, you know, there was nothing, they've got a small lawn in the back and you can see the wetlands back here, but the site was fully stable. There was nothing that was in violation of the order of conditions. So I would recommend that we issue a, um, Uh, full certificate of a complete certification. Um, for the order of conditions. Right. I make a motion for a complete certification for 33 Woodlott road. Second. Oh, Larry. Got me. Okay. Voice vote. Fletcher. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Michelle. Oh, I saw an eye. Are you muted, Michelle? Hi. And I'm I thank you. Well, Tesla stock down. Okay. You guys are moving way too fast. All right. Um, so. A couple updates. Um, so ever source keeps, um, keeps contacting me about these minor field changes related to the Montague to Fairmont project similar to what they did before. Um, they're like, you know, we were going to put a, um, a timber mat here, but we can't because of topography. So we want to replace it with gravel and their proposal is typically take up topsoil, put down gravel to stabilize. Um, and then once they're done with work, remove the gravel, replace the topsoil and seed it, um, and restore it. The question is every time this happens, these little field changes, do you guys want me to keep bringing these things to you? Do you want me to just be able to review their field proposed field changes, make sure they're reasonable and, um, respond. I just want to make sure that. I'm not, I don't want to overstep by saying, oh yeah, that's a little simple field change. I want to make sure that I'm relaying all of the changes to you. Um, so if you do want to review all of them, I'd be happy to do that with you. I just wanted to check in and see kind of what your bandwidth was for these types of changes. So my instinct on that is that I'm comfortable with you reviewing the field changes and bringing the ones that are trickier to us. The only thing is just to keep your eye on the aggregate. So if it ends up that all of the proposed timber matting is becoming gravel and they're continuously removing a significant length or width, square footage of soil and putting in a gravel road and taking it out, that would defeat the purpose. Um, so as long as it's, you know, piecemeal and relatively low. Uh, in terms of the total impact on the property, then I think that's fine. Um, does anyone else have any thoughts or opinions on that? I agree with you. Okay. Thanks. Same things. Okay. Does that help, Aaron? And if you feel like it's getting to be, we need a better system. We can revisit. Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. I mean, this one, I think was, they presented it as like a 30. Foot section of, of access road that the timber mats, that the pitch of the road was such that the timber mat wouldn't, wouldn't be safe to use. So, but I, I think that what you've proposed is totally reasonable. And if I think that they're starting to get. Um, A little overboard on the changes or that they seem like they're getting more impactful with the changes that they're proposing. Um, that I'll definitely bring it to your attention. And maybe what I can do is just give you like a brief update on if there were any changes on what they were or something like that. So that you guys know, but kind of. That you know, I'm keeping an eye on it kind of thing. The good side is, of course, they're keeping us notified. Exactly. Oh yeah. They're really, they. Yeah. They're in touch with me. Like multiple times a week at this point. So. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Um, so let me see. Um, I was not sure if I included photos of the 51. Oh yeah. So. You may recall 51. I think it's 51 East pleasant street. Why this isn't previewing. Um, That's weird. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let me see. Let me see. The old part two cheese, right? The old Bertu cheese. Yeah. Um, let me just see if I can grab the email actually. See if I can. Yeah, I was able to see on this. Share point earlier. Um, So the old Bertu cheese. The project manager contacted me. Um, Invasive species plan to basically allow them to do some foliar spring and then also to remove the curbing. Um, they were, they were going to be placing the, um, The parking lot curbing in front of the old curbing. And they asked basically if they could remove the old curbing and replace it. And then they wanted to do foliar spring to treat the, um, The old. Uh, Japanese knotweed that was growing on the bank along this, this area. And when we did the pre-construction meeting, The. Gentlemen who was charged with the paving was like, Oh, I just want to rip all this out and, you know, This is ugly and it's a mess and he was not wrong. It was like sand that had been pushed in there from plowing and it was, it was a real disaster, but he was not supposed to do this and he did anyways pulled out the knot weed and so the project manager when he found out about it contacted me and was very apologetic and was like, you know, this was this guy just kind of went rogue on us and it was not anything that we wanted to have happen. It was actually, you know, they really went to great lengths to put together an invasive species plan and get an applicator and they wanted to do this right. They've been very cooperative with us. So I do think that and so anyways, the long story, the short end of the story is that they were told basically to put in erosion controls to mulch it and to put down some wetland seed mix and at this point what's kind of what's done is done, but I wanted to show it to you guys and make you aware that this had happened and I didn't really, I don't necessarily think that we should go after it from an enforcement standpoint, but I wanted to share it with you guys and get your perspective on it as well. Do you think they are still going to need to do any portion of their invasive management plan, regardless of this? Yes. So they're still planning on doing their invasive management, their full management plan and basically what their plan is is to wait until the Japanese knotweed sprouts because it will sprout back up before the fall and when it does sprout, do the foliar spraying on the shoots that come up and then basically proceed from there with their invasive management plan. And then once they've eradicated the Japanese knotweed, they plan on doing plantings along the bank. Yeah. Okay. So as I am comfortable not pursuing enforcement, it sounds like the project manager knows that this was not the right thing to do and it's not going to change the trajectory of what they were planning to do anyway. In fact, it might just make it a little harder. So I'm comfortable proceeding with the original plan, but does any other commissioners have any questions or a strong opinion otherwise? I see a head shaking, general thumbs up. They are also these, this landowner is also planning on putting together a restoration plan for this section of the brook and basically to, because I don't know if you guys remember at the last meeting and you can kind of see it here. Can you guys see my cursor? See this material right here. It's been pushed down and it's basically clogging the inlet to the culvert that goes underneath the parking lot. And so what they want to do is, is remove some of this material from the stream bed so that the stream can actually flow into the culvert because right now what's happening is the water is coming down into the side of the head wall and carving it out. So they're going to be coming back to us and wanting to work with us kind of as in a mitigation project to address that. So anyways, just to give you a heads up on that out of curiosity, is this water here part of Hopbrook? Yes. A matter of fact, I believe this is so what's really, and this is, and this is a really a testament to me, Tanbrook, Tanbrook, I was like, I'm sorry, made the wrong one. It's definitely a testament to its headwaters because this is very close to, you know, Farring Street, North Pleasant, and look how small it is. So you can tell that there's a lot of other sources that are coming into this, but, but yeah, so okay, pretty small in this section. What was the other thing that's not on here? And I might defer to Dave a little bit on this because there's more to it than what I have to share, but basically, I'm just going to stop sharing for a second. The Hickory Ridge Golf Course, I guess they did some additional testing and they want to do some more groundwater treatment to address the groundwater contamination on the site. And so Jack Gemsick, the environmental consultant who's working with them to do the treatment has been sending a lot of emails and there's there's a couple options or proposals going on right now to how to address it, but I'll defer to Dave. It's more of just an FYI on the agenda. So yeah, and I don't have a lot more to add, Aaron, thanks. But yeah, suffice it to say that we're talking with Jack Gemsick who's an LSP and he's been overseeing the, you know, as you know, the cleanup of the site down at Hickory Ridge. This was for those new folks and others. This was associated with gas and oil leaks near where they kept their machinery to maintain the course. So I think Aaron and I need to get together. We didn't get a chance to connect before tonight's meeting to just talk about which there's two options, kind of an option that involves injection of another chemical, I believe, into that into that groundwater or kind of attenuation over time. And I haven't had a chance to talk with Aaron about that. And we may need to actually bring on our own LSP just to give us a little bit more advice on that. Bottom line is we want to end up when we acquire that site, we want to end up with the confidence that we are not, we are not coming into possession of land that has any issues that we'll worry about down the road in terms of contamination 21E. So we should have more in two weeks at the next meeting. OK, thanks to you. So we saw four minutes until we can open our first hearing. Was there anything else?  The only one that I really wanted to call out to you was Aspen Heights. I had spoken with you a couple meetings ago about there's two level spreaders on the property that are perpetually flooded or they have standing water in them that aren't really infiltrating well. And I had met on site with some of the project proponents. And and I had been in contact with Janna Stone. She's the conservation agent for Hadley, basically trying to figure out the best solution into how as to how to address the issues that we're having. So there's kind of multiple things. The first is the water standing there. The second is that there was the area was destabilized at the outlet of the level spreader. And so there was no ability for any vegetation to establish at the outlets. And then they also still had the erosion control straw waddles installed. And so what was happening was the water was coming out of the level spreader. Water was standing there and the straw waddle was basically damming the water up so it couldn't go anywhere. So what we've done is take out the erosion controls, put down an erosion control mat to stabilize the ground and hopefully get some vegetation established and now we're just letting them function. But you can see in the report, I suspect that this is going to be an ongoing issue with the level spreader. Did I upload it for you guys? Why is it not letting me into. Erin, was this in the so the monitoring report that I saw? You said you said this was Aston Heights, not you drive south. Yeah, and for whatever reason, I just got kicked out of my one drive. So I was just looking back. But let me see if I can. I've got it in my folder. So I think it looks like maybe they didn't make it into the one drive. Sorry about that. Let me just grab them and I'll show you there. Are they adding more? Is this one? They're adding more units. More units. No, so Aspen Heights is just up on friendlies. Yeah, yeah, that's what I'm thinking about. Yeah, yeah. So this just gives you areas of wetland. What's that? You don't want to say again. Yeah. So this shows the post. This is on the. This is on the Hadley side, this one here. But you can see they put down the erosion control blanket to cover the area that was having a problem, but the water's running clean. And so I think that's really the big concern. I'll show you the Amherst side. Yep. There to me that when I I mean, I've I've done a lot of inspections on a lot of stormwater structures. To me, they have a serious problem with groundwater on this site. And the water is just not infiltrating. But. Sorry, for whatever reason, PDFs do not open on my computer. But this is they've it's been it. Let's put it this way. We've been working with them to make some improvements. And it is getting better now that they've taken the straw waddles out and stabilized it with the erosion control mats. But it should be on our radar screen. And I'll keep you guys posted on that as we go forward. Water flowing back into Amherst. The water's flowing into Hadley goes to Hadley. Mm hmm. Yep. The high the high point is in Amherst, and then it moves down. And unfortunately, like friendlies gets all of the brunt and that and the wetland behind immediately behind friendlies gets the brunt of all the water. This makes me wonder about the the place on the corner that we prove. Yeah, that's not the one right now. They they building. Have you seen the construction they're doing? They built up the they built the wall. They built up the stormwater drainage. I've been trying to like kind of peek just to see the infrastructure of it going in. But I'm moving so fast. I've been filling it in that like that's a major stormwater drainage system. But like now you're looking at that. And you're like, yeah, I think that this kind of fits under a heading of like now that we're in a pretty wet pattern. This is going to keep coming up now. Like all of the minor failings of these stormwater systems are going to become very obvious. I've also been keeping an eye on that site in the corner of Snell. I don't know. I forget what the name of it is. South University Drive. Thanks. Yeah. And I agree. I mean, that was already going to be a very, very steep drainage into a solid retaining wall. So isn't that one in folder or Jen? Sorry, isn't that one? Is that the one that's in her folder? And look, I look right now. I looked so I looked at it and it looked fine to me. But I think I mean, I guess I guess I'm sorry. No, sorry, I'm just making sure I'm looking. Is that you drive south or am I mixing up the names? Drive south is the monitoring reports for that site. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So Fletcher, you can see behind the wall in the picture. Yeah. That's what I was. Yeah. So OK, thank you. Sorry, just making sure I was thinking about the right one. Yeah. I mean to interrupt. And the reason that they built that site up so high was because of the high ground water table. Yeah, in those in that particular vicinity.  But where that one is on a smaller footprint, I think they are maximizing the material that they brought in to keep it high and dry. Yeah. Anyways, I think that's all of our other business. So as we delve into. Um. Hearings. I'm not going to have anything else at the end of the at the end of our hearings this evening. OK, awesome. Great work team. So we can go on to our 740 agenda item. And this is a new notice of intent, so I have to open the hearing. So this public hearing is now called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of Chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended and Article 3.31 Wetlands Protection Act under the town of Amherst general bylaws. And this is a notice of intent for the town of Amherst for trail improvements, resource area improvements and property maintenance at the Sweet Alice Conservation Area at 37 Bay Road. And so I know Aaron, you had already told me who was going to present on this. Is it Dave? Yeah, it looks like David, David and Brad are going to present. I think I think it would be me. I don't think Brad will be joining us tonight. OK, so with your permission, Jen, I can launch in. Yeah, please go ahead. And maybe if Aaron could pull up, would you mind pulling up the image of the Sweet Alice Conservation Area, the management plan? Maybe for reference, Aaron? Here we go. And I will do my best. I'm actually I'm battling a little cold myself and I'm here at town hall where we're actually doing some energy retrofits tonight. So you may hear some noise in the background, but that is just a new energy efficient lighting going in here. So the the crew is working here tonight. So if I need to repeat anything, please let me know. So, yeah, I'm happy to be here tonight to talk about, as as we always do, bring before the commission trail improvement work that is of a significant and has the potential to impact resource areas. The night's goal in my mind is to give you a project overview of the work that we are proposing to do down at the Sweet Alice Conservation Area. This is this is a relatively new conservation area off of Bay Road. Down near the double roundabout. And we'll talk more about what's in front of you in just a few minutes. With all of the work that's on the commission's plate, and I was impressed. I each each meeting. I'm impressed with the packet that Aaron puts together for you. But your packets are growing.  So this this hearing will be continued. But we do want to get out there in the next couple of days with you to do a site visit. We also need some time to address the DEP comments and questions that Aaron can go through when I'm when I'm done. So in short, the Sweet Alice Conservation Area has existed for for many, many years off of Bay Road. But in the last five to six years, we were presented with an opportunity to acquire land off of Bay Road from the Epstein family. What we've done is working collaboratively with the Coastal Trust. We hired Art Allen from Ecotech to complete a delineation of the areas that we're going to talk about in a minute. There's four or five of them that will outline on the map. But just a little site history for a minute. And I believe Kristen DeBoer, the executive director of the Coastal Trust is somewhere on this call. I don't know if if what her access is tonight, but if there are questions for the trust, I'm sure she can answer them. So this was a significant town preservation project, as I said, five to six years in the making a deep collaboration with the trust. And as most of you know, we have been collaborating with Hitchcock with Kestrel for for 50 plus years. So with the support of the commission, the CPA committee, the select board and town meeting, we were able to put together a very significant land grant to the state combined with CPA funds to purchase the land around what we're currently calling the Epstein fund. But they meant that may not be the the name we we run with in the long run. But it was created by the Epstein family back in the 19 late 1950s, early 1960s. The project resulted in the preservation of close to 50 acres of beautiful land at the at the base of the Mount Hoyok range. As I said, it's in addition to the Sweet Alice Conservation Area. It's near and accessible to the Atkins Village Center. And it really made possible a vision and kind of a culmination of this this partnership with Kestrel Trust, because in the middle of this beautiful preserved area, we were able to carve out a few acres and the former home of the Epstein family. And maybe, Erin, could you with your cursor? I don't have control of the cursor. Could you show the commission where the Epstein home is on the banks of the pond? This is about a six to eight acre pond is the Epstein family home, which is now the permanent home of the Kestrel Trust. So it really accomplished a number of things. We were able to preserve the pond, the associated wetlands, streams and the upland areas, provide additional buffering for the Mount Hoyok range. And, of course, in and our goal is to try to enhance the already existing trail system that the Epstein family had on the land. So it brought together a lot of our goals of land preservation, ecological restoration and, of course, really strengthened our partnership with the Kestrel Trust. And our goal here is to work collaboratively with them to provide access now and in the future so that they can continue to do the good work they do with us, but also with the the 18 or 19 towns in the valley that they serve. So with that, let me, if I could, I will go through very briefly some of the narrative for the work we're going to do. Is there a way to make that a little bigger, Erin, or not? Or is that our max speed? That's smaller. Oh, here we go. So I realize that some of you have not been out on the site. And as I said, we want to schedule a site visit with you as in the near future. But let me start in the upper, I guess, as you face your screens, the upper right hand corner, which is along Bay Road. You could see in the left hand corner of one of the roundabouts at Atkins Village Center. So if you're headed down Bay Road east, we are first proposing to really enhance the parking opportunity there. Right now, there's a very informal pull off there. It's dangerous. It's rutted, it's muddy in certain seasons, probably right now. And the town would very much like us to get cars off of Bay Road. That's a very significant throughway. And so our goal there is to is to complete about a 15 car parking lot in that area. This is out of resource area. It's upland. It's an old orchard. And that is part of this project is to provide more access both to the pond for kestrels, programs and programming of that area and then also for access to the Mount Hoyok Range. We've worked with the abutting landowners to create at least on paper right now, as you can see in yellow, a trail connection from the new parking lot, proposed parking lot over and through some private property crossing two driveways. And then our first site where we are potentially impacting resource area is number one. And number one is is that area is and Aaron can probably bring us quickly to an image. Area one is an already existing informal path. And what we'd like to do is formalize that and make it a trail, a very small trail. We're not talking about significant impact there. We would add steps, maybe, Aaron. All right, let me I'm going to go to my narrative. Yeah, the narrative, if you could, yeah, I should have said that. I was thinking if you ran through the narrative. So here's an image of the the existing path that is already there on the land. And our goal is to try to move it away from the resource area, which is to the north, which Aaron can probably show you with her cursor. That area there that you can see if I'm looking at that small image, you can see Skunk cabbage and other what an indicator species there. So our goal would be to move it away from that and create a small informal trail there with some steps. There is quite a grade change there. So that's really area one and for tonight, I'm not going to get into square footage impacts and things of that sort. I think we'll we'll save that for the next meeting. Area two is on again, this is all on existing trails. So area two is near and and part of the trail system that the Epstein family maintain for probably 50 or more years out on the site. And this is a very small crushed culvert that I believe I brought to you some months ago for an emergency cert. We were worried that somebody was this about an eight inch culvert or something. Aaron, it's pretty small. Yeah. And we actually I just told Brad to just pull it out because we were worried somebody would break their ankle. You can see that it's actually crushed and quite sharp. So we remove that. And what we're proposing in that location is a simple bog bridge over this over the resource area, which really crosses the old trail and part of this area. We don't have any images, I think, tonight, but part of this area is also part and parcel of the old trolley line, which connected to Amherst and South Hadley. So when we get out there on the site visit, we'll walk you through that. So area three is probably the most complicated and probably the biggest mess, I would say, of all of these areas. Again, this is this is not uncommon up on the Mount Hoyok Range. And keep in mind that the town does not own, you know, a lot of land, most of the land that is preserved in the Mount Hoyok Range State Park is owned by DCR and controlled by the state. But you have many of these. This happens to be on the newly acquired land. This is both a combination of kind of a hodgepodge of things put down on the ground to keep the trail users, hikers, feet dry. And then this this informal crossing you see here of this stream coming down off the range. And so we are proposing to completely redo this this area and lessen the impacts both to the stream and the associated wetlands. The fourth area is closer to the pond and closer to the land and now owned by the Kestrel Trust, but part of this loop trail. And in a minute, we'll go back to the image of the trail and and take questions. Area four is again, one of the feeder streams to the pond. And there are two significant culverts there that at least one of them, if not both of them have been damaged over time. Again, they've probably been there for 50 or 60 years and they're really impeding the flow of water into the pond and also creating an impediment for any fish or any other critters that might want to move upstream in that the stream that that comes down off the range. And so what we're proposing here is to remove those culverts, restore the bank and put in a small footbridge. Again, there would be no vehicular traffic over this section. It would simply be for hikers, nature, enthusiasts, runners, etc. to enjoy that section of the loop trail around the pond. So again, we believe this would be improving the current the current status and current conditions out there at these crushed culverts. When we were out there, you could actually see small brook trout that are in the pond trying to get through and upstream. And it's quite impossible to for them to navigate this these crushed culverts at this point. And then I guess area five would really be the dam proper. And again, this is a dam that was put in by the former owners. The town of Amherst is now the proud owner of this dam put in in the in the sixties. It's the area outlined in red. The goal of our work there really is to really manage overall to manage vegetation, as most of you know, typically dams in Massachusetts. This is a low hazard dam, I will say. But I will say that the Office of Dam Safety requires the town to manage vegetation so that the dam, the integrity of the dam is not compromised. So our goal really would be to protect the dam structure through a management plan that would include annual mowing, vegetation management and the removal and control of invasives. We'd also like to propose the installation of a small dock in the corner of the dam to concentrate and we'll work with Kestrel Trust on this to we do have some even currently, but in the future, I suspect that we will have small numbers of folks wanting to launch kayaks and or canoes on the site. And we'd like to concentrate those those impacts and make them as safe as possible for launching at that site along the dam. There is a significant flow structure which controls the level of the pond. And we do want to do some take some precautions to safeguard people and that flow structure during the use during the warmer months of the year. I think the important thing here is we do need to comply with DCR dam safety requirements. So some management of the dam, the vegetation on the dam and the emergency spillway, which, Erin, if you could show where the emergency spillway is, it's over on the western portion of the dam right there, some management of vegetation. And again, this would be all manual cutting. I would say cutting the vegetation. I'm not proposing any herbicides or anything like that. So those are the five areas that are covered by the notice of intent. Perhaps, Erin, you could go back to the image of the management plan. I just want to give the commission a sense of so this gives you a sense that what we're trying to do here is to is to present access for Bay Road, safe access, well-defined access with new kiosks, new trail signage, safe passage to the trail at the number one site and then safe passage over the dam and around the pond for, you know, what amounts to a fairly flat, simple, accessible, not fully ADA trail, but at least accessible and safe trail around the pond. From here, we hope to build or at least enhance some of the connections to the Mount Hoyok Range, which include the old trolley line and a number of other trails. Again, I think our goal here is to concentrate use and not create more trails. There's plenty of, in my opinion, there's plenty of trails on the Mount Hoyok Range, both on our land and DCRs. Some of those are what I would call bootleg trails that have been created by mountain bikers or by hikers or others. And I think the goal here is to concentrate those those uses and make them safe and protect the resource areas that are being impacted by the current trail system. So I think I'll stop here, maybe take some questions. But again, I think our goal tonight was to give a more in-depth overview and we can talk more about resource area impacts at the next meeting and on our site visit. Thanks, Dave. And just as a reminder, we have to continue this because it sounds like there's some DEP comments and we need to get into more detail on resource area impacts. But first, I did make Kristen a panelist and able to contribute. Kristen, if you have anything to add, please raise your hand. You should be able to unmute and talk if you have anything to add. Hi, I think Dave did a great job preparing and explaining that the proposal with Aaron. Yeah, I mean, I think it's a straightforward loop trail with public access and I'm hoping it will be in place soon. And I'm grateful to the town and the partnership that we have in order to make this a place that can be enjoyed. By members of the public. So thank you. Thanks. OK. So commissioners with the knowledge that this we will see this again soon. Did anyone have any questions relative to this just introductory effort here? I'm seeing head shaking. Everyone knows we have a really full agenda. So, Aaron, did you want to mention anything about the DEP letter tonight or can we take that on in the next? Yeah, so what we'd like to do is just take a little time to respond to the DEP comments because they're just to let you guys know that we're taking that we are taking them seriously and addressing them just as we would expect of any applicant. And yeah, and so what I would like to do is maybe at the next meeting we can well, I'd like to do a site visit, go through the plans with you, show you the sites and then at the next hearing, go through the DEP comments and let you know how we've addressed them. That sounds great. And if I could, Jen, just kind of concluding tonight, I think the emphasis here, as I've stated, is really not to create new trails, but to improve the trails that are already there to improve the condition of the wetlands and the streams that we are now the caretakers of. And so, you know, I hope we can look at it through those lenses next next time and on our site visit. And again, overall, I'm really, you know, Erin has been great. We've worked closely with Kristen and her staff and then having Art Allen and also Berkshire Design come in with and these are all in your packet. Come in with samples of what bridges and or bog bridges would look like. I think is really made, you know, a strong package for for this NRI. So we'll have more detail and we'll respond to the DEP comments before the next meeting. And we hope to get out there on the on the site with you in the near future. Great. Thank you. So with that, I think we're looking for a motion to continue. Erin, sorry, Anna, I was just going to I was going to take a stab at it. But I don't have but I don't know the time or the day. So I realized that as I started, which I think is that's where I was going. So July 28th at 7.45. All right, so I move we continue the hearing for the Suite Alice Conservation Area to July 28th at 7.45. Is that reason? Yes, some break. Second. OK, voice vote, Leroy, Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Anna. Aye. And I'm an aye. OK, thank you, everyone. All right. Next hearing is another new notice of intent for an addition to an existing single family home. So I'm going to open the public hearing. This public hearing is now called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of Chapter 131, Section 40 of the General Laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended and Article 3.31, the wetlands protections under the town of Amherst General bylaws. And so this is our first hearing on a notice of intent proposing an addition to existing single family home in the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands at 142 Harkness Road. So I'm going to see Karen was Steve. So I promoted Nooray, who is Steve's wife. I'm not sure if they're logged in together. OK, yes. Yeah. Yes. I don't know if you can see us, but. We can. No, we can. But that's not on you. I think that's on that star. OK, so you're good. OK. So I just I just want to I know when I spoke with Steve on site, he basically asked for a little bit of assistance presenting this. And if if you guys still feel that way, then I'm happy to assist. OK. OK. So basically, I had a building permit application that came across my desk for this addition. And it is if you look at the at the plan set that is here. You can see that there's a boarding vegetated wetland on one side and a boarding vegetated wetland on the other. And if you actually measure out, they're probably about 90 feet from both wetlands on either side. But even so, they're within concom jurisdictions. So important that the commission reviews and approves this work. I don't know why I'm having problems with one drive, but I'm going to try to open it up so I can show you guys the photos. Basically, looking at this site, I really don't have any concerns with it. It's on a plateau area. There they were proposing to put a line of erosion controls along one side. I can maybe share the air. Yeah, let's see if it allows me to. So I think they were proposing to put the erosion controls along this side here, this boundary of the house. That's where the and we're not seeing your screen. So is it over on the stone wall, Aaron? Or again, we're not seeing we're seeing your menu still. Oh, nothing. Can you guys see now? Sorry about that. I was clicking around a bunch. Good. Did you guys see the original plan that I had up? No. Oh, OK, sorry about that. All right, it's not really letting me zoom in here. So what I was getting at was there's a wetland on this side. The house is located here. The addition is on this side of the house. So you can see it's it's like right on the outskirts of the 100 foot buffer on this side. And then there's a wetland on this side and it's extending the 100 foot buffers extending out here as well. So they're they're like 90 feet away from the wetland on either side. They're proposing to put controls along this area here. This is their building application and all their plans. This is what the addition would look like onto the side of the house. And this is what the house looks like. So the house is up on a sort of a plateau and. Out here behind Steve. Plateau and then it kind of drops off over that side. So the erosion controls would be kind of back in this area is what they're proposing because the wetland is down in that side. And then this is looking toward Belchurch Town Road. So. Basically, my recommendation is. As follows that we issue a negative determination of applicability checking box three under the Weyland Protection Act and a positive determination under the town of Amherst-Wellins bylaws for 142 Harkness Road. Thanks, commissioners. Any questions based on that information? I think it looks pretty cut and dry to me. I'm comfortable with this. So unless anyone has any further questions or comments or I'm looking for a motion. I'm going to issue the negative determination of applicability under the Wetlands Protection Act and a positive determination under a town of Amherst-Wellins bylaw for 142 Harkness Road. Second. Great voice vote, Larry. Aye. Anna. Aye. Leroy. Aye. Butcher. Aye. Michelle. I didn't hear you, Michelle. Sorry. You're muted. Still muted, Michelle. Aye. Gotcha. And I'm an aye. Thank you. Sorry, Michelle. Great. OK, so checking the time. 7.50 or good to go. So now we are going to open a new and read an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for boundaries at 52 Fearing Street. You want to let Naray and Steve know that they're all set. OK, thank you. I don't know if you can hear us. Thank you. Have a nice night. Please come to the maple farm. Thank you.  Yes, yes. We do. I'm a great cook. You know that. All right, ma'am. We'll treat you to lunch. We'll treat you to lunch. Thank you. Briving with the line. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We just six it up right now. Thank you. God bless you guys. Thank you. That was awesome. Thanks, lecture. Sorry about that. OK, so are we ready to move to this and read to open this hearing here and do I use that RDA or the NOI? I would use the NOI and just substitute and read if you can. OK. Well, it doesn't really say OK. So. This public hearing is now called to order. This hearing is being held as required by the provisions of chapter 131 section 40 of the general laws of the Commonwealth and act relative to the protection of wetlands as most recently amended and article 3.3 1 wetlands protection under the town of Amherst general bylaws. And this is again an abbreviated notice of resource area delineation for confirmation of resource area boundaries at 52 Fearing Street and Amherst mass. Before we get going with a presentation from SWCA, I just want I know we have a lot of interested parties in this and rad. And I just want to remind everybody about what our general flow and protocol is one of the really great hidden benefits of doing moving online is that we have a lot of great participation in our meetings now, but we have to make sure that in order for it to be equitable and everyone to be heard, we kind of have to stick to time moments. So what we're going to do is have the delineation as it currently exists, introduced by SWCA, then we'll have and we'll try to keep that close to five minutes, then we'll have any questions and clarifications from the commission and input from Aaron. So site visits, any other information that Aaron has selected about this and rad will be presented and then we'll take public comment. Usually we have five minutes for public comment, seeing the numbers of attendees that we have that I'm assuming are related to this and rad. That's not going to give everyone who wants to say something a chance. So what we're going to do is limit public comments to two minutes per person. So when we get to the public comment period, I'll make that clear. And then if you have something to say, you can raise your hand and I'll let you talk for two minutes. I'll give you a 15 second warning as you approach the end of the two minutes. And then we'll have to, unfortunately, mute you so that we can make sure that everyone gets a chance to say something. If you are one of the people who took the time to write us long, detailed emails, we appreciate it. And Aaron has shared all of those with us. So if you're one of those people, we have that information. So and thank you. Do not feel like you have to come here and say it all again so that we can kind of move through this and make sure that that everyone gets a chance to talk. So with that, we already have an attendee ready to speak. With that, who from SWCA, Aaron, is presenting? Mickey Marcus, I believe, is presenting on behalf of SWCA. OK, I see you. I'll move you to a panelist, Mickey. You should be joining us. And I'm not sure if. Is it John? I'm not sure if John is joining as well, but I know Mickey was going to be presenting. OK. So Mickey's here. Yes, I even see him. Hi, Mickey. Hi, everybody. So I think I have like a five minute presentation, so I will I will make it quick. So my name is Mickey Marcus. I'm a professional wetland scientist with SWCA. I'm an Amherst resident and our office is located in Amherst. So this is an an read filed with the Commission to review wetlands and resource areas on several parcels that front on both Feering Street and North Pleasant Street. So currently there are no development plans, but this is usually a precursor to anybody who wants to do any development in that area. So there's no plans that I've seen. There's no there's no active project at this point. It's just asking the Commission to review the wetlands and the delineation. So we delineated the wetland resource areas on the site. I know several of you went on the site visit today with Jonathan Schuster and based on the initial comments, you've asked for some modifications of the wetlands. And so at the end of this presentation, we will ask you to continue the hearing so we can modify the site plans, address comments that you have tonight and any other comments that come up. So we're not going to try to close this hearing tonight. And I'm also aware that there are many neighbors that have concerns that that want to have questions. And so we'll give both the Commission and the neighbors time to voice whatever concerns they have and give all the Commission members a chance to evaluate the regulations, look at the site if you haven't already looked at the site. So the there's BVW. We flag top of Bank of Tambrook land under water. And I think an issue when I've seen from the neighbors comments is the status of Tambrook as it intermittent is a perennial. And our approach is always to fall back on DEP regulations. So what DEP asked you to do to determine whether a site is intermittent or perennial is refer back to the USGS maps. If it's perennial on a USGS map, it's perennial unless you provide evidence to the contrary. In this case, the stream is not shown at all on the USGS maps. Then the next step is to look at the watershed area. If it's over one square mile of watershed area, it's presumed to be perennial. If it's less than half a square mile, it's presumed not to be perennial. And they refer back to it. So the state went when they adopted the Rivers Protection Act, they referenced it to the USGS mapping and also to the US Geologic Service Stream stats. And so like this figure is is from stream stats. And so what we find is that the watershed area mapped by by by the state and the federal folks at stream stats is that there's a point four four square mile of drainage area at this point at the low point of the site. So it was our determination that the stream was intermittent by the regulations. And it's also if you recall in 2019, UMass presented the commission with a similar project just downstream of this after a lot of debate by the commission, a lot of review back and forth. This Tambrook was determined to be intermittent, but becomes perennial. I believe it was at Mass Avenue to have the commission determined. So I'm not going to go into the details of the hydrology right now. I just say that we filed a plan showing BVW, the top of bank, the wetland resource areas. As I already mentioned, I think the commission asked for four or five flags to be changed. We'll make those changes. We'll update the plans and we'll update any additional information of the commission requests tonight. So I'm going to stick to my five minutes. Sorry, I was just looking for the plan set so we could further down in the document. And that lower right hand corner of the plan is a little table. And that, you know, ultimately, so what we do is we try to we try to identify exactly what we're asking for in the an read. So, for instance, there's little streams within the BVW. We didn't separately delineate those. What ultimately what we'll ask for is we'll update this table with whatever the wetlands are and then ask the commission once you're agreed with what the resource areas are to approve this plan. So, for instance, there's an opposite side of the bank. We didn't delineate that. We're not asking you to approve anything other than what's shown on the plan. That's great. Thanks, Mickey. And so I guess the next move here, Erin, would be for you to share any photos from the site visit today. And maybe, yeah.  Or do you want me to just flip through? Um, yeah, if you can talk through what we're looking at, that would be great. And thanks. OK, so it's a residential single family home on Farring Street. And when you pull into the driveway, you're facing sort of the back of the lot and immediately sort of to the front left of the site. We noticed some standing water and what looks like a swale that goes back toward the the Tanbrook. And so that that became sort of the first question right when we started walking the site was that and it's not flagged right now. It's not shown on the plan as a resource area. But I do have some questions about the potential for that to be a wetland, even if it didn't qualify as a wetland under our by or under the Wetland Protection Act, I think it likely does under our bylaw. But I haven't had a chance to really research it. The reason being because typically under our bylaw, all it takes is hydric soils or the presence of wetland vegetation. And we did identify some some hydric indicators in the swale itself. So where that point was taken, that's that's behind me in this photo. And then you can see the standing water and then straight ahead, it becomes a more pronounced dug swale. So that's walking toward that. And then this is a picture of the swale. And again, none of this is flagged as well. And so this is this to me is a big question in my mind. Like, what is this? It I there is some anecdotal information that there used to be a pond on the property and that this was a drainage from the pond to the the river. I did look at aerial imagery going back to 1990 and I couldn't see the pond on the aerial imagery. So I did investigate that. But nonetheless, this is this is turning around facing back so you can see the house sort of in the in the left hand over here. You can see the house. But this is looking back in the opposite direction of the swale. So what to do with this? How to include this in the delineation is a major question for me and something that I think it would be helpful to have some assistance with. Just this is a jewel read right in the middle of it. Plans in the middle of it. So then we walked the entire line. Myself, Leroy and Fletcher walked the entire line. And just taking some pictures of the of the wetland flagging. And some of the vegetation. So this is facing west and the property line is a pro is is right in this vicinity where I took this picture going off site. I don't know why that one's not working, but this is turning around in the opposite direction and then facing east northeast. There is also there's a there's a trail that goes up to there's like an apartment building on Northeast Street and there's a trail. And this this trail clearly is is kind of a conduit for water. So you could see some collection of sand in that walkway. But I didn't see any indication that that was a stream or anything. Huge, huge diameter trees out on this property, really unique. There's some, you know, pop poplar tulips, tulip poplars. What were they? Yeah, tulip poplar, black walnut, obviously the red oak pinnoke. Yeah, there was a couple of redwoods is really, really interesting. Like the largest piece would go to LaRoy, right? What's like the largest piece to go to your scene? I didn't even know what it was. Yeah, I guess I got it.  The picture doesn't even capture it. There's a doesn't I don't believe there's a permit for this little bridge crossing, but there is a bridge crossing, which indicates to me that people have been using the property probably as a, you know, a walking area for trail folks. This is Jonathan pointing at one of the wetlands flags. So this is the upper extent of the wetland along the bank of the Tambrook. Sorry, Erin, can you go back to the picture of the bridge? And of course, the question, how wide do you think the stream was there at Bankful? At Bankful, I would say probably.  I mean, I'm I'm not entirely sure, but I would guess that Bankful on this is probably 22 to 23 feet. Erin, was this the bridge that was referenced in one of the public comment emails about, thank you. Yeah, there was a couple. There's a couple planks going across, so I couldn't say definitively. But yeah, I know one of them referenced that it was tied down and I saw this side. So, yeah, yeah. Yeah, and that's like pretty significant incision, right? So this implies that right where the original flow this stream saw it seeing more now, probably due to impervious surface flashy stormwater contributions to the creek. Right. So for the most part, along Tambrook, the delineation was pretty straightforward. There were some structures along the other side. I did notice a illicit discharge on the other side of the stream, not that that's relevant to this this permit, but more or less just showing you what some of these features I was taking a picture of were. Um, there were a couple areas that were like sort of standing water stain leaf staining. And so we investigated those a little a little bit more and we did end up relocating some flagging. This is a there's a intermittent stream that comes down into Tambrook on the backside of the property. This is in the vicinity of where we rehung the flags. There was a huge diameter tree that fell and it was it's like one tree fell and fell into another tree and fell into another tree. So there was three trees toppled one after the other and there was some pockets of water in there. But basically after looking at soils and looking at vegetation along that particular section where that those trees were down, I requested to to rehang a couple flags to adjust the delineation, because like this is an example right here. This is a big patch of sensitive fern and the wetland flag was like back over on the other side. So it's difficult because it was clearly like there's a transitional area in this area between the wetland and the upland, but it wasn't like there was a clear line of vegetation. There was sort of like these. It was like an undulating topography where some of the areas were were wetter and some were drier. Anyways, I feel like I'm taking too long, so I'm going to try to move a little faster here. Coming up and around. I believe this is back to that that original swale that we started out at. So those are the photos that I had to share with you. Thanks, Aaron. Fletcher, LaRoy, Larry, anything that Aaron didn't cover that you want to add about the site visit this morning? Aaron was on it. OK, I found the Mars fern, found the New York fern. It was awesome. OK, yeah, thanks everyone for making that work this morning. Um, so I think the next step would be some questions from commissioners. My input first on this first and foremost is that I sure I feel very strongly that we should go for a third party review on this delineation, both the delineation itself and the designation of Tanbrook as an intermittent versus a perennial stream. I've read the D.P. regulations and I'm extremely familiar with stream stats and all of the USGS data that goes in to determining whether a stream is intermittent or perennial. And I think in this case, it might be that the relatively low resolution of the digital elevation model that stream stats relies on to do delineations might mean that we miss a portion of the contributing area to this location on Tanbrook. Further, another very important qualifying criteria for intermittency versus perennial stream is not only the drainage area, but also the surfacial geology of the land contributing to flow to that point on a stream, and that is what we call the percent stratified drift, which is essentially alluvium. It tends it's over pertaining to water deposited by water. It tends to be surfacial material that's high porosity and high hydraulic conductivity, so it means that there tends to be more immediate flow from a contributing area to a stream when there's higher percent stratified drift. The stratified drift layer that data layer that streams as relies on is also a little bit outdated. There is much better data now available for the state of Massachusetts from MassGIS. So between higher resolution digital elevation models being now available and higher resolution surfacial geology data now available, I think this 30 party review should include a very detailed re delineation of Tanbrook from the point of interest. So and I think we're set up to do that. I think the third party reviewer might be, I don't know if it's one person. It might be almost two people, like somebody with wetlands expertise to do the delineation and then potentially even a licensed engineer, a PE, who can understand contributing area versus drainage area. That is understanding the area, including stormwater contributions to the stream and then somebody who can literally do, redo a GIS delineation to the point on the stream. So I mean, Aaron, we can talk about what that might look like, maybe down the road a little bit here. But with that said, unless anyone strongly disagrees with me, commissioners, does anyone have any other questions or clarifying points or things to add here? You said it well. Strongly agree. Great. Great. Thank you, everybody. So at this point, we'll move towards any questions or contributions from our public attendees of the meeting. And just a reminder, I'm going to try to keep these to two minutes per person. So Rolf Kallstrom, you're our first up, Aaron. Could you just have the attendees state their name and if they're comfortable, their address, but they don't have to just their name for the record, so that I can include it in the minutes. Sure. Thanks. Yep. So this is Rolf. I'm going to allow you to talk. Maybe he put his hand down. I guess if you are here as a public, oh, there it is. All right, Rolf, you should be able to talk. If you can state your name for the record and then ask any questions or provide any contributions, please go ahead. Thank you very much. I'm not on camera. Is that correct? I haven't done this before. Just my voice. We see a picture and we hear you. Oh, that's a younger me. OK, so Rolf Kallstrom, 73 Fearing Street. I've been a butter of the stream. It goes through my property for most of the east and southern borders of my property. And I've lived here for 22 years. So I can affirm that this this creek actually has been flowing at greater than 0.01 CFS for the 22 years that I've been here. And that's one of the criteria that USGS places on a perennial stream. So if anecdotal evidence is any use, I can certainly affirm that. I know it's it's a much more complicated formula. So I appreciate all of your work and I appreciate this is my first meeting. So I appreciate how much you are attending to the well being of Amherst wetlands and the conservation of our green space. I sent you the letter, as you know, seems like you've all read it. The main points in that were to point out some discrepancy with the applicants data regarding the size of the watershed. And so I absolutely agree with this idea to have an independent review and get get good data from an independent person about the size of the watershed. It's a huge wildlife resource, particularly in drought years, when there is not water elsewhere, we've seen deer, bear, fox, you name it, come down through our property in the middle of Amherst. So it really is a huge wetland resource. I am just south of Fearing Street. I'm sorry, north of Fearing Street where the Tambrick comes out from under the culvert of Fearing Street. We get major flashing, major erosion and sedimentation issues that are needing to be addressed. And I think redesignating this as intermittent is the opposite direction the town should take on on trying to restore this wetland. So the thing I want to add from my letter, you saw the map, which has a different boundary based on UMass research for the wetland area. But I want to add one thing here and that is and actually, Ms. Farre, Jen, you said you'd like to look at the USGS definitions based on and I have to get the technology, the terms here, right? It's this USGS publication, WRIR004135, page 99, in which they talk about the flow needing to be above 0.01 cubic feet per second, 99 percent of the time in order to be designated perennial. And I can say that's certainly the case, but they provide a formula to define the stratified drift in which we need the watershed area, which we calculated at 0.448 square miles, the slope, which we calculate at 1.8 and our region, which is minus one. What we need is the formal calculation of the stream length. And I've not done that yet. I will do that. And I'm encouraging the independent reviewer here to use this formula and determine whether, in fact, this could be defined as perennial for the entire length of Tanbrook or at least as it leaves where it comes out of the culverts. So I realize we're short on time, but I encourage that type of analysis in this independent review. And I certainly appreciate this commission's decision to look for a continued discussion that has more and important and accurate data. Yeah, that's great. Thank you. And just to respond to that your observation that we have the drainage area, we have the data we need to put into that equation and understand the predicted flow duration value at very low flow, the 99% flow duration. The only trouble is for these small drainage areas, they're kind of outside of the envelope of possible drainage areas for which that regression equation is valid. So it's basically in a zone of low drainage area where those predicting covariates don't necessarily predict the appropriate flow, flow duration volume of the stream. So it's actually for the watershed currently delineated in stream stats, it doesn't really apply. That equation does not apply. But I agree with your head in the right direction. I know that publication very well. If we redo the delineation based on updated digital elevation models and updated surfacial geology data, and we find that the watershed is larger to the point where we can apply that regression equation to predict flow duration, then certainly we will ask our third party reviewer to do that and weigh in on a predicted flow, 99% flow duration value. But can I just say appreciate that expertise? I'm a biologist, not a hydrologist. So this has been a learning experience for me. And I that's that's that's that nuanced information is very important. I appreciate your. Yeah, that's just that's why for that drainage area, stream stats won't report the value you need for the flow because it's outside of the acceptable range of drainage areas for which that equation applies. All right. Well, anything that commission can do to take a proactive approach to preserve this important resource, I really am happy to help you in any way I can, as in a butter, just so you know. Great. Thank you, Raul. Yeah. All right. So we'll move on to any other attendees who might want to make any comments or ask any questions. I see Edwin was the next person and then we'll move to Michelle. OK, Edwin, if you can just introduce yourself for the record. And I'm going to start the timer. OK, thank you. My name is Edwin Gensler. I moved to Fearing Street in 1995. And it's been lovely. I just really enjoyed living here. It's a beautiful neighborhood and I have what I think is a park that's grander and more beautiful than Central Park right across the street from me. I did notice that there were there was a flurry of activity on the property this morning, and I hope you enjoyed your walk through that very special space. There are a couple of deer hanging out. I don't know if you saw them. There's there's some rabbits. There's some badgers and there's a bear in the neighborhood. I'm not sure it's actually residing on that property. I don't know. Did you see any bear today? No. I also raised a daughter here. And my daughter went to Wildwood and then the junior high school and then the high school. So I've been walking. This. Watershed. I was a bit surprised to see that the that what is it? Mickey Marcus's study only came out at point four four square miles. I believe the watershed begins at that lake up near the Wildwood cemetery. Edwin, I'm sorry to interrupt you about 25 seconds. OK, but I think that I and and Rolf has talked about the the the watershed size and he sent you a UMass study. I think that has a different delineation. And then I also wonder about this two thousand and nineteen UMass study, the water that goes into that culvert is split at UMass and some of it goes down to a soccer field and some of it goes down to the pond and the water, if that's perennial there, then the water certainly coming under Fearing Street, past Rolf's property, probably under that bridge, if that bridge is 18 to 20 feet wide. Hello. Am I still on? Yeah. Yeah. OK, if that bridge is 18 to 20 feet wide and the water is three or four deep there, certainly the water flowing into that culvert is is quite a bit. And I don't I don't want to question that that earlier hearing and why one decided that the water flowing into the culvert is intermittent where the water flowing through the culvert is perennial. I I don't think anybody who has seen Tanbrook on 52 Fearing Street properties or by going past Rolf's house or going down past the Lincoln Street departments has ever seen a dry river or a cessation of flow. So I don't know if that's a wrap up here. Edwin, all right, that's all I want to say that Aaron has been lovely and so nice in dealing with all of these resident quiddles. So I really thank the Commission and especially Aaron for their great work. Great. Thank you, Edwin. And to just address a couple, I think those are very helpful observations. I just want to clarify that when SWCA and Mickey Marcus are doing those delineations, they're using a tool that the state requires them to use online to do that delineation. So there's no kind of user. They don't just they're not they're not adjusting the delineation themselves. It's it's done by the tool. And so we're addressing this by asking a third party reviewer to do that same delineation with more detailed, arguably more accurate and certainly more up to date data to make sure that that delineation is the best that we can do within the resources that we have. But just to be extra clear, SWCA is not making any kind of judgment call on that delineation. They're using a tool that the state requires them to use to delineate that drainage area. So it is a problem with the data that builds the string stats tools if if there is a problem here. Thank you for looking into that. Thank you very much. Of course, thank you. Michelle, so I'm assuming you still would like to make a contribution. I'm going to allow you to talk now. And if you can just introduce yourself for the record and I'll start the timer. Hi, thank you. So I'm Michelle Haas and I live at 60 Fearing. So I abut this property at the road on Fearing Street and also at the brook. And I am going into my seventh year here. And I did send in a letter, so I'm not going to take much time. But one, a couple of things I do want to comment on. First, I really do want to applaud you guys for really listening and being thoughtful about getting another review. I would like to request that I know that you did a site walk today that was not involving the public. I'm curious if you're going to do another site walk and if the public would be invited to participate in that would be lovely. And maybe I'll finish my two minutes and then you can comment. The other thing I wanted to just point out in the application in the introduction in the first paragraph, the last sentence states that there is no bordering land subject to flooding or rare species evidence at the project site. So I also shared pictures of my backyard under water. And this is a reoccurring theme happens multiple times a year from the brook to the point where my lower I have a higher backyard and a lower backyard. And the brook goes behind my house and along the side. So I have quite a bit of brook exposure on my one acre of land and that my lower yard is getting to the point where it is becoming saturated where my lawn care folks are even afraid to drive their heavy equipment because they are afraid to get stuck in the mud. So this even in the short seven years that I've lived here, the saturation levels due to the brook runneth over have increased and continue to increase. And I didn't share that in my letter. So I just wanted to add that to the meeting and I'm done with my comments. Thank you. That was a perfect two minutes. Thanks, Michelle. Erin, do you want to address land subject to flooding and then kind of how that's designated and then be if we can have a public site visit? So I'll start with a site visit. So site visits typically are not open to the public. And the reason for that is because, number one, it's private property. And if we hold a public site visit, what that means is that we literally have to invite the entire town to attend. We have to post a public meeting notice. And I have, as a wetland administrator, conservation agent, never seen that happen. And really it's at the discretion of the landowner as well, because this is private property, so we can't as a commission invite, you know, hey, everybody, let's go walk this landowner's property. So that was the first the first one that I wanted to say. It's I have heard of it happening before. But again, you have to accommodate for parking. You have to, you know, post it as a public meeting. So it would basically be there would be minutes there. You know, there would have to be a recording of the event. There's multiple factors that go into that. As far as the boarding land subject to flooding, that also is not really like a discretionary thing, like, oh, this land floods, so it's boarding land subject to flooding, it's actually a mapped land that has been assessed by FEMA in terms of being a hundred year flood plain or a flood hazard area. So when Mickey is saying it's not boarding land subject to flooding, he's referring back to the FEMA flood zone maps as opposed to, you know, the bank doesn't overtop its banks. And yeah, that was all I wanted to say. Thank you for those clarifications. OK, sorry, I dropped out there for a second. All right. So I guess if there are any other public questions, please raise your hand. I'm not seeing anything, but everyone, no, no. OK. So I'm going to assume that between the letters and the people who have contributed tonight, everyone felt like so commissioners, does anyone have any further comments or questions here? I think our next move would be Aaron to discuss if you need any support and what our plan is for this third party review. Yes, I have a quick question. Sorry. Yeah, we're looking at. With that review, are we going to try to actually designate the Tambrook in terms of intermittent or perennial? No, you can't. Can't do that. So what we would be doing is looking at the factors that contribute under the regulation to whether or not a stream is intermittent or perennial. So that is drainage area. OK, and just that portion of just those just whatever the. The. The and rad part of. Right, but so it was the seven years that piece of the. So it would be specific to the review would be specific to this parcel. I think is what your question is. And so yet the answer to that is is yes. But to go a little deeper, Fletcher, I have been in touch with USGS about the discrepancy after reviewing the published research that's been done specifically on Tambrook and the discrepancy is in the watershed size that come out in the stream stats reports. And so I did reach out to them to make them aware of the situation. And hopefully we can prompt Tambrook and also Faringbrook getting a second look by USGS to try to make it more accurate when the stream stats reports are run. Helpful, Jen. Jen is our hydrology expert here. Is that why this is referenced in a few of the letters that we got? Right, like the discrepancy is between property line and property line. It's because we've done it and read by and read, right? Like that just to explain it's not favoring one over the other. It's that we do this when and read's come in. It's not. Yeah, yeah. It's because there's not a holistic approach to this. And so this is I mean, this is ubiquitous across the state with small, flat watershed. So one great example is we have a USGS gauge that's just downstream on a small stream right adjacent to Hanscom Air Force Base and Hanscom Air Force Base is flat. There's not a lot of relief. And so the digital elevation models available for the state for stream stats in the state of Massachusetts are 10 meter by 10 meter pixels. So that means 100 square meters is assumed to be the same elevation. And that can make a big difference when you have a flat area that you're trying to delineate the watershed. And so likely that's part of what's contributing to the drainage area issue here. And so that's what we're asking the third party reviewer to look at. And, you know, and what Aaron's exactly right is ideally, you know, we would stop and we would take a look at the all of Tanbrook and all of Bearingbrook, probably, to try to understand this from the whole watershed standpoint that is probably we would need grant money and funding in order to do that. But yeah, yeah, exactly. I do have a second question. So my other question was about the pond that was referenced and the like the channel around the pond, is that something that that totally piqued a couple flags for me? And I wasn't sure like the idea of someone filling in this filling in a pond and then also filling in the channel to it from, I think, from Tanbrook. Is that what that said, or to Tanbrook or something? Is that something we're going to explore more down the road? Yeah, Aaron, I'll let you pick up. But I know Aaron looked into it and can't really find evidence of there having been a pond.  Yeah, so this is like going back to 1990. I remember you saying that I just I wasn't sure if that was something that we wanted to like make sure not to lose in the conversations. And I'm sorry, I know I prompted more hands coming up and I'm super excited about that, but I just was curious if because they had mentioned that the town actually like supplied some of the material and yeah. Yeah, I mean, these are photos with the area circled, you know, it's I don't I don't see a pond there. So I don't know. I don't know. But I do have anecdotal questions into you can see the area here. It looks just like a field. So I don't know how far back that issue goes. But just letting you know, I did look into it and I did inquire with W about it. I think inquiries are ongoing. And, you know, one thing we could also ask this third party review is to try to look at historic aerial imagery and help us understand if there was ever a pond on the property that was cut off or filled in. I mean, that drainage channel looked like it also could have been just a, you know, like a flood chute in an active plane where you get aggregation and degradation of sediment, especially in a flashy brook like the tan brook, it would not be that unusual to find something like that. So that can be caused by multiple sources. Yeah. And I'm not I don't I don't mean to suggest that we we push that issue. I just I was it kept pinging little flags for me and I wanted to make sure it wasn't like part of the full picture that we really investigate. Yeah. And I just if I could just state for the record, there was also a complaint about tree removal at the front of the lot. And I just wanted to state that so those the area where the tree removal took place is outside of resource area. I did refer it to the Historic Commission and they said that they weren't charged with approval of the trees. And I also forwarded the issue to Alan Snow. But I don't think that those are in the public way. But I forwarded to Alan Snow just the same. So just wanted to make sure that you guys know I am. We are following up on all of the issues that were raised. OK. With that, any other questions or points of clarification from the commission? All right. So, Erin, do you feel like you have the direction you need to identify appropriate person or persons for third party review here? Yes, I do. I just would request that we make a motion to for whatever expertise to conduct the review per whatever expertise you guys feel is necessary to conduct the review. OK. Mickey, I see your hand just went up. Did you have a question or comment? Otherwise, we'll move towards the motion to continue here. If I if I may, I just have a couple of quick comments. So first of all, Ty and Bonn did a watershed study of Tanbrook for UMass. That study was provided to the town DPW a couple of years ago. I'll dig that up and provide that to the commission. You may find that that useful. And I would appreciate it if commission could send me copies of the comment letters that you've received. I haven't seen those.  It sounds like from the discussion that you're looking at a peer reviewer for the Wetlands Protection Act issue and then somebody else, you know, basically looking at GIS, digital elevation models. And I think that may be beyond kind of like the wetland scope. And I'm not sure that the applicant once is or should be paying for that larger scope study. So I'll have to check that with them.  But I think what you're talking about, Jen, and the other commission members, is maybe beyond the scope of the Wetlands Protection Act. OK, I appreciate that. I think it might sound more complicated than it is. I mean, it's a question of delineating with GIS layers that are readily available from the state, from the MAS GIS Clearinghouse. So it's not developing any data. It's not anything new that isn't already publicly available. It's more just making sure that we're accurately delineating the contributing area to that point on Tanbrook. It's not a major exercise for somebody who can operate GIS. So I guess I would appreciate if you could ask the applicant that. And just, I mean, again, it's not a data collection effort. It's not a field effort. It's a desk survey at this point. We just want to understand that if they use a higher resolution DEM, if the additional the Wildwood Pond and contributing areas to that pond are included in the drainage area or not, that's kind of the issue. And Mickey, if you haven't seen the letters, that might help kind of clarify what we're up against here. It's a question of if a certain little pond in its contributing area is included or not, and it sounds like that will really clarifying that will really help us clarify this whole issue for everyone involved. OK, and as I said before, you know, I will continue to address these issues, update plans, information. It sounds like if there's a peer reviewer, they'll need some time to look at this. Yep. Absolutely. Yep. And thank you for mentioning the time bond report. That sounds like that could be extremely helpful. OK, Erin. So I think that the big question is towards them now. Yep. Go ahead. Do you guys want, Mickey, do you want to look at like the first meeting in August, like August 11th? That will give us a little more time to. OK. Sure. Yeah. So yeah, I think your next meeting was on the 28th. It's probably not enough time. Yeah. OK. So 7 30 on August 11th. And I mean, it would be useful for me before we continue and continue the public hearing to have a motion basically that outlines exactly what you guys I've heard it stated, but I just want to have a motion for the record and then a continuation. OK, so. I mean, I kind of line up this motion if somebody could pick up where I leave off here. So we're looking for a motion to continue the hearing about the ANRAD for confirmation of resource area boundaries at 52 Feering Street to the August 11th meeting at 7 30, pending a third party review that addresses both the delineation and reviews more recently, publicly available data to understand the delineation of the contributing area to flow at the property in question in the Tanbrook. And that would probably be two people of two different expertise, you know, one with the ground wetland delineation expertise and the other initial effort would be a desktop review with publicly available data. Great place to say so move. I was going to say, Larry, this is your time to shine second. All right, voice, voice vote, Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Anna. Aye. Roy. Aye. And I'm an aye. That was a great motion. Jen, I've missed your motions now that you're leading the meeting. Well, I guess you haven't escaped them entirely. OK, so that ends the and rad. And now we have one more. Thank you, I know why. Good night, thank you. Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Mickey. Take care. And the fact that I can still see Edwin and Michelle is does that mean that they are different somehow? But I think our panelists are panelist, so we should be OK. Right. It still says that talking is permitted. Is that I mean, not that, like, I don't think they're going to. Jump in, but I wasn't sure. Yeah, I can't. I can't seem to remove them as panelists, but they're they're muted. So I think we'll just. We saw the Hawking. Disabled. Oh, I can do remove, but I don't want to remove them from the hearing. I think they left on I think they. OK, I disabled their ability to talk. Thank you, Edwin and Michelle. We appreciate your input. All right, so now our last hearing of the night, and this is. The Tafino property that's been ongoing since October 2019. And Ted, on the other hand, maybe Freddie Manning. Did they have anything to say? Oh, we just continue that hearing. It looked like came up right after I know if it was for the next. But keep going. I'll do it. OK, OK. So, Freddie, if you were trying to contribute to the hearing on the Anrad for fifty two Fearing Street, the public comment for that, we've continued the hearing to August 11th at seven thirty, so I would encourage you to check the Conservation Commission website to make sure that it's not further continued, but otherwise please join us on August 11th. Um, all right. So. Ted, I see Ted here who I'm going to move to a panelist. Do you know, Aaron, if anyone else or Ted, maybe you can unmute and tell us if there's anyone else that I should allow to contribute to the meeting at this point? No, I'm here by myself. OK, thanks. Thanks for your patience tonight, Ted. So commission. As you know, we have these individual notice of intense for these individual lot numbers. Up for these to Phineos associates, single family home construction. We did a third party re delineation and Ted had those added to the plans between since our last meeting, he sent them to Aaron towards the end of the day yesterday, so and we're concerned Aaron has not had the bandwidth to look at them. I certainly would like to be able to look at them before we make any decisions on the particular lots for which that that those moved flags are super applicable to the decision we have to make. So what I'm thinking that we're going to do with everyone's OK is continue the hearings for lots one and two, because those are the ones for which we would really want to revisit these new flags and the new delineation, but try to close the five, six, seven and eight tonight. So I guess the question is, is that OK with everyone? And really the reason is we just need more time to look at the delineations and how that might might impact the plans on lots one and two. Aaron, go ahead. I just want to clarify one thing you said, Jen, so the flags actually impacted lot eight. Lots one and two were revisions that were provided for two lots where the houses were previously shown in the 100 foot vernal pool buffer, but those lots weren't specifically impacted by the flagging. So I just wanted to point that out and I'll share an image. You guys can see it. OK, sorry about that. Yeah, so I guess the point is we wanted more time to review. Yeah, for one and two. If I could just try to get through all of them, except one, two and eight tonight, are we also trying to know we are going to try to get through eight? OK, thank you. Ted, I saw that. Sorry, go ahead, Aaron. Well, I just wanted to for one sort of point of order on lot eight, which is that on lot eight, the movement of the flags impacted the deck and the limit of work being within the hundred feet of the vernal pool boundary. And so for that one, I guess my question is because a variance was requested by Ted if the commission is willing to consider that variance. And if the commission is willing to consider that variance, then I would recommend closing the public hearings for lots five, six, seven and eight this evening, and then we would issue the orders of conditions on the 28th for those four lots with conditions which we haven't yet been able to draft. But again, as Jen noted, continue the public hearings for lots one and two because those ones, the revisions have just been submitted for and those might need a little more time. Thanks for clarifying, Aaron. First, commissioners, does this seem like an OK game plan? Speak now if you have any major objections. I'm not seeing any and Anna is grimacing. See what we can do, see what we can do. I have so many documents, I've been about to Fino and I'm trying to make sure I'm looking at the right one. Yeah, gotcha. OK, and Ted, Ted, is this OK with you? Or do you have any comments or questions? Yeah, it's fine. I was just going to point out the same thing that Aaron was pointing out about where the changed flags were affected, no worries. And then I, because this whole process has taken so long and I understand that you were trying to get this in, you know, during the mid during the term of, you know, members. That's why I we added one and two. We had been kind of tabling one and two for a while because they're a little more complicated than five, six, seven and eight because the 100 foot buffer gets a lot closer to the front line. If it would make any sense, maybe this is a cocky, many idea and feel free to reject it. But if it made sense to, I don't know if you're still trying to include Brett in this process, that's what I kind of thought was happening. No, OK. So if we wanted to just we like have a new hearing on one and two, that would be fine with me. It wouldn't if that made any sense to be able to include all the current commissioners in the discussion rather than excluding those who were missing from the beginning of the discussion. Just it would mean that, you know, it would mean another notice would have to go into paper we would pay for. It means that we would have to re-notify the butters, I think. But but I'm just throwing it out there as an idea. I'm not attached to it either way. Yeah, no, I 100 percent appreciate that. Aaron, procedurally, would that make things better for us? Do we think? I think I think that that's a fine idea from my perspective. And I think for Ted, it's a good idea because as we move to future meetings, we only have four members right now who can vote on this. And so if we can get five, six, seven, eight issued and then readvertise and re-notify a butters for lots one and two, then we can basically start the review process over again for lots one and two. And I think that would be fine. OK, so what do we do with one and two right now? Do we have a moment or we just don't continue them? And then that's the end. OK. So then the question is, do I have to resubmit the NOI and pay a new fee? Or is it just closing the hearing on the original notices of intent on those two? Yeah, so we would just basically let the hearing let the hearing. We're not closing the hearing. We're not taking we're taking no action on them, essentially, with the intention that the hearing would be would be reopened from scratch. A butters would be re-notified and we would start with those lots. Basically, from square one. So the question does, if you don't have to submit a new notice of intent? No, no, I wouldn't require you to reapply and DEP that we've already got file numbers for them, so you would have to resubmit every, you know, and pay a new fee or anything like that. Thank you. OK, that's fantastic. Thanks, everyone. So on the plan for tonight is five, six, seven and eight. Should we work from? Let's see, what is that roughly north to south? So start with eight. Start with the most complicated. OK, go ahead, Erin. Yeah, and so I don't think we should reference DEP file numbers here because I was going through the DEP file numbers and they don't specifically link back to the lot numbers. So I would just specifically note that we are closing the public hearing for lots five, six, seven and eight on the Tafino applications on Concord Ave and and that at the next meeting will issue orders of conditions. OK, so you just so we are closing the hearings for Tafino associates at lots five, six, seven and eight on Concord Way, and we will issue order of conditions at the Conservation Commission meeting on July 28th. Do we need another public comment or are we good with that? I mean, that's at the discreet that I would say that's at the discretion of the board at the once the public hearing is closed, there's no more public comment. So it's more just the issuance of the orders of conditions and the specific conditions to the sites. I don't think it doesn't seem like there is a lot of pressing public comment. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't leaving that out by accident in case we needed it. So well, why don't we we have four attendees here? Why don't we before we officially close the public hearings for those four lots, Barbara, Becky, Paige or Shelley, if you have any comments or questions. And this is again, lots five, six, seven, eight of Tafino associates. Please raise your hand and we'll unmute you so you can make any contributions. I'm giving it the full 10 seconds. That's good. I like that. OK, all right. I think thank you for reminding me Anna about that. So I think with that, Erin, we need a motion to close the hearings for the Tafino associates. Construction of single family homes on lots five, six, seven and eight Unconquered Way and Amherst mass. I move we close the hearings for Tafino and associates on lots five, six, seven and eight, yeah, unconquered way. Second. All right, voice vote, Larry. Yes. It's just the four letter. I. Anna. I. And I'm an I. And for the record, Michelle abstains, Leroy abstain and Leroy abstains. And we're taking no action on lots one and two this evening, pending renodification of the butters and re advertising in the legal ad. We don't need to move anything, though, right? Like, no, no. All right. Oh, sorry. Sorry. All right. And so I don't know where you guys want to go from here. There's no action further action required for tonight on this. I think we're you know, this will give me a chance to draft some orders so that you guys can be prepared to to issue those orders with conditions at the next meeting and then we'll wait until you guys are ready to renodify and repost your legal ad and we'll take care of that so we can get it on for a future hearing when you're ready. Hopefully soon. Yeah, hopefully soon. Can I ask for some guidance on one and two? Is that is that a thing? No, no, I'll just submit plans for the next for the next time. Yeah, I'll talk to you, Aaron, outside about about when to submit an ad and when do you think it's the first reasonable time to get one and two back on the agenda? Yeah, that sounds great. OK, great. And I think generally anything we can do to get structures outside of the 100 foot full boundary in general is always a good thing. Yeah, I just it's not possible on one or two at all. So it's going to be, you know, I'll do what I can. Gotcha. Roger. OK. OK, thank you. Let's go ahead, Aaron, what I forgot. I think we just need a motion to adjourn at this point. I think we've covered it. OK, all right. Awesome. Oh, I got that. Go for it, man. I'm going to make a motion to adjourn 920. Second. OK, voice vote, Larry. Aye. Fletcher. Aye. Anna. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Leroy. Aye. And I'm an aye. All right. Bye, Ted. Thank you. Bye, guys. Bye, y'all. Thank you.