Okay, so we are recording at this point and we are live at this point and there are at least two people from the public. So welcome. So today is September 9 2020. This is the Amherst Conservation Committee meeting. And so, starting off with comments for me the only comments that I have is really for you Dave and just a kudos or maybe Aaron that if you could pass it on to Brad and Tyler I like the signs that they've been putting up and particularly the little maps of them putting up around town. I think that those look really nice. Hopefully they stay well for a while, but those are mixed touches. They've just been crushing it all summer, like just to kind of piggyback on those kudos they've been so great about getting out there and clearing when we notice something over like overgrown and the signs are really great yeah. Yeah, well I will certainly pass it along to Brad and Tyler. Yeah, we all I think appreciate their hard work and again as we shift to some of these reassignments I think we're already seeing some of the benefits of really having both of them 100% on conservation land and trails and there's a big backlog of projects to do, some of which require notices of intent and we'll get those to you and have Aaron work with staff on those but yeah I think we're really seeing the fruits of their labor and that focus on those couple thousand acres that are conservation land. Yeah, and they did a nice job with the old community gardens at Amethyst as well so that's looking nice. So that was probably quite the project. It was yeah and we actually I honestly I'm not sure if any of the comments were directed to the Commission but we got we got some mixed reviews on that work and and I did do some explaining just about how we maintain early habitat and folks rightfully are concerned about pollinator habitat and monarch butterfly habitat but but I think you know I had some really good conversations with people who absolutely love Amethyst Brooks so I think there's some things we can learn and as we develop and one of the things Aaron is going to work on with with all of us are these management plans and as we work on those together. We will come up with a rotational mowing plan and schedule that works for for all of us and then hopefully for the ecology of each of these areas. I have a comment that a comment good comment from my daughter my daughter was here for the weekend she's actually lives in Rhode Island but she's got four people in the family, and they came up here and they did the seven sisters. And then yesterday they went to Puffers pond and they really thought things were working great out there. Okay, she's you know she's been there she you know she's mid 50s so she's been in Amherst for all her life effectively so she knows the place but she would have the family very happy up there was bought. Okay, nice to hear positive comments. That's right. Okay, so that's it for me so Dave you're next on the agenda. So would you like to. I want to leave most of the time I know Aaron has a lot of updates for you, but why don't I start with buffer spawn so so in short at buffers we're continuing to have a presence there through the 20th of September. Brad is working with the staff from LSSC and parking enforcement so so we got through the Labor Day weekend I think you know I was out of town but I know it was 80 plus here and so I think there's quite a bit of activity but I'm glad. Larry reports that you know things are going well up there but I think overall it's been a huge success to have a presence there both from parking enforcement and and other other town staff so that'll go through the 20th. We're continuing to do the water testing on Mondays. The pond has been kind of off and on with the E. Coli levels so this week. Lacking any significant rain. It was fine. As you probably see from the website. Fort River continues to fail the the E. Coli standards for the state so as we've talked about before that's going to be a deeper kind of analysis of that watershed and take a look at some of the sources of that E. Coli and that we'll be talking to DPW and and our friends at the Fort River Watershed Association about in the coming months. You know Brad and Tyler have been out doing a lot of mowing early successional brush hogging. I think Atkins Flats it's the first time in years that most of Atkins Flats has been mowed. And I think our goal there being that it's the largest area and probably the most likely to sustain grassland birds like bobble angst and meadowlarks. It's really good to try to bring that back. So we'll continue to work on that maybe do a lot of bridge repairing simple bridge repairing, not significant in that they are doing mostly structural stuff. And we still have a couple of NOIs that were already approved for bridge work such as Amethyst Brook and the KC trail off of Southeast Street. And I'm not sure of I think the moment we're likely one to proceed this fall would be Amethyst Brook. And I know Aaron has reported on getting some donations of telephone poles to get that going. That's exciting. Last couple of weeks Aaron has been kind of getting caught up on wetlands work which is fine because I've been kind of preparing a list. And we'll share some of that with you perhaps at the next meeting, some of the projects that she and I are going to tackle together with you and with staff. She's a very extensive list. I think she's going to be, she's very going to be very pleased at the variety and the depth of some of the stuff that is on Dave's master list for things we haven't gotten to over the past four or five years. So it's going to be exciting from dams to management plans to, you know, working on complex projects with Kestrel Trust, a lot of nifty things on that list. It's going to be pretty exciting and I think the commission will like us checking some of those things off the list. We are getting a donation and it may be coming to you at the next meeting the Kestrel Trust and I've mentioned this before, off of Bay Road next to the sweet Alice conservation area, which is near the double roundabout on Bay Road south. Kestrel has been working on a seven acre donation, and they're actually poised to accept the donation and then flip the seven acres to us. It's a combination. It's mostly upland forest, but it'll be a nice compliment to us, we'd Alice and at no cost to us. So I'm going to be checking through to see, you know, what is the next step gifts are fairly straightforward. The commission has to accept the deed for Allison. There's no money changing hands. So there's no town council vote that is needed so we'll have more on that at the next meeting but we'll have some maps for you in advance of the next meeting. And then lastly, CPA projects. I know CPA representation for the commission is on the agenda tonight. I think we talked about this at a previous meeting but the CPA committee has decided to move up their deadline. So they would like proposals in October instead of December. They'll help in the overall budget process that, you know, with the town council that were, you know, they've been establishing over the last two years, since we changed our form of government. But it does mean that we need to have our active together a couple months before normal. I will tell you this I don't have any land acquisition projects on the horizon. I think we just finished up Keith Haskins. We've got work to do at Zala. And if Hickory Ridge comes through which I think it will be our collective plate is going to be quite full in 2021 so, and there's really nothing, you know, urgent in terms of that to any property that I'm aware of that can change. So, in all likelihood, I won't recommend an acquisition project, but I may recommend to the through you the CPAC committee, some additional funds for trails, parking areas, trail improvements, signage, things like that, because there's a huge backlog on that. Well, I'll stop there that's kind of a smattering of what's going on out there in the in the project world. There's lots more going on with Brad and Tyler but we'll have more on that coming up. I think the other thing and I'm not sure if Aaron has arranged this yet but we recently talked about having Beth Wilson from DPW come and do a presentation for you on update on the Faringbrook project. I'm not sure if that's on your schedule yet, but it'd be really good to have some informal discussion on where that project stands. That'd be great. And Dave, any additional insights that you have about Hickory Ridge I heard you say that everything still looks good but anything more specific or not really. Not really a lot of the work is falling to the owner and the owner's partners in this project. And it's really just kind of a waiting game for us to get the green light to say they're ready to close. You know, we have all the town meeting votes excuse me town meeting town council votes. We have all the votes from the commission from the CPAC. So as far as I know we're ready to go. They just need to say, give us the green light. They're working with a solar developer so that hasn't changed in the project. They're addressing some of the 21E issues on the property, which was a prerequisite of our acquisition. So that's a good sign. They're continuing to mow the course if you've driven by there. They have not let it go completely to seed if you will. I will say this, you know, and I think as Aaron gets kind of up to speed on a number of projects that I have on on our kind of master list. It's probably not too soon to start thinking about how we're going to pull together a master plan and a master planning process for the for the property. Almost weekly I get inquiries from people expressing their interest in wanting to be part of the visioning for that property. So we have a butters. We have people from the agricultural community. We have the Fort River watershed association. We have the Connecticut River Conservancy. We have the Kestrel Trust, and lots and lots of other people who want to be part of that process. So I think it's going to be, it's going to be a complex process, particularly in light of COVID. But I think, you know, we're going to need to get that underway, probably late this fall or in the winter, so that we can spend 21 really planning that out. David, has, has everything cleared through the state on that? And is it all set for them to begin building and getting money from there? Has everything cleared? Well, the solar project, the solar project is what's involved. If the solar project doesn't go, it's not going to work. So is everything approved and through the state so they can begin construction? The understanding is they have gotten most of their OKs from the smart energy program. The natural heritage program is poised to move the project forward. So there's not a lot of impediments to them moving forward at this point. I would not see construction of the solar any earlier than fall of 21, perhaps even 22. Yeah. So I see that Tom has his hand up. So Tom, you should be able to speak now. So I don't know if you have a question on this, or maybe you have some additional insights. Yeah. Hey, Dave. Hey everybody. So I just wanted to help Dave out a little bit. I represent the landowner. So I'm happy to answer any kind of give an update answer any questions relative to Hickory. We are in the process of going through the, we had a phase one 21E done a phase, limited phase two, some subsurface investigations turned up some hot spots, a couple of hot spots. I believe we're going to have there's a 500 gallon underground storage tank that needs to be removed. I think that's probably going to get removed this week. And there's a, there was a diesel spill that leaked into the ninth fairway that we've got to just pick up some dirt and dispose of it properly and we're working through a license site professional for that. We have cleaned out, I think the clubhouse is all cleaned out that equipment barn area is all cleaned out as well and that's what it's allowing us to do these environmental investigations and ultimately clean up. As far as state approval for the solar facility goes we've received all local. We need to come back for an additional approval for for modification. I don't think it's going to happen. As we're working through the final solar design. We have not received what's what's called an SOQ a statement of qualifications from the Department of Energy Resources, which is really the green light to build a solar array so all industry is December maybe and so what happened to give you a little bit more information is ever source West and ever source East are merging their territories for solar purposes and so the Department of Public Utilities DPU needs to weigh in and so it's just a slower process. So the solar industry understanding the priority that this has been given across the state are really pushing for that process to be bifurcated so that those who are in the waitlist like this project would get the SOQ sooner rather than later. And once everything is lining up so that this conveyance happens. We were targeting October I don't know that that's the date it may be November, because we obviously want to clean up the land. Also, you know make sure that it's clean and that's what we're starting now so everything's moving forward as they've suggested and we're hopeful to be able to convey it to the town sooner rather than later. Thanks Tom I'm sorry I hadn't seen you on the attendee list but problem. Right in there. One, one question Tom when you said December. When is the project when when is construction going to be and when when are they issuing NTP for the project. Yeah, so SOQ will probably happen quarter four of this year so we're saying December 2020 maybe not till March first quarter of next year. I've seen some numbers that show it's going to start in August of next year, July August next year so I think that's probably the earlier date July August depending where everything shakes. I wasn't too far off. No. Thank you. Excellent. So yeah great to have you on Tom and so thanks for that. Any other updates on Hickory, or any other questions rather. Yeah, just one other Brett, I have been having conversations with the Connecticut River Conservancy and the Fort River watershed, I think it's association I keep on calling them association but on that front on on the ecological restoration looking forward to see if there are federal, federal and or state I think more likely federal programs that might help us with some of that restoration so the applicant will be required to restore about 18 meters of the river front, but there's a lot more to be restored so we're looking, looking forward and and Connecticut River watershed or Connecticut River Conservancy has done quite a bit of work getting federal grants for other projects in the valley. So we're going to be starting, we've got a meeting or two on that looking at some of those federal sources and kind of thinking a year down the road as to how that might play out for an application so we will keep the commission apprised and again nothing's been submitted now it's just a couple of meetings where we're talking about options. Fantastic great thank you Dave. Any other questions or comments. Oh, I, so you're good Dave I'll hand it over to Aaron. Yeah, so Aaron I don't know if there are certain things you want to hit first if you undo 45 Montague Lane or Montague Road or some other item. Yes, I 484 I think it's 483 Montague Road. Like to do that first. Just sorry I Yeah, so is there anybody from the public here who is associated with the 483 Montague Road property, or application if you are he just raise your hand and then we'll move you over to a panelist. I think if you see Becky. There is a Becky. Yeah, Becky should be. I, she might have called in so if you could appoint her as panelists that'd be great. She is now. So, as we jump into this I'll just give a quick quick background. So the property is 483 Montague Road. There's a conservation restriction and Dave and I have met internally to discuss the situation but basically it's, we think the oldest conservation restriction in Amherst. The property is under restriction that it can only be used for agricultural or in conservation uses and the owner is running a small beef operation there and they have freezers that require a lot of energy and they'd like to install a pole mounted solar array to provide additional power to their storage freezers. I went out and did a site visit with the owner took pictures and we sought out advice from town council. The picture on the left is the location. It's the farmhouse is located. I don't know if you can see my cursor but the farmhouse is located here, and there's kind of a split rail fence that goes around the yard. The proposed solar pole would be just outside of the split rail fence on the south side of the house. And then this is a picture showing what the solar array would look like facing south and this is a photo of the property and the location where they were hoping to put the solar array. We got advice from town council and they basically stated that if the concert. Well, you can read this but if the conservation commission determines the array is reasonably related to the use of the property for farm purposes. So that would allow the install of the panel. They're just recommend councils just recommending that the owner certify that the panels are to power the storage freezers and that there's little or no excess solar capacity that would be sold back to the grid. So with that. That's just kind of a brief background and Becky I don't know if you had anything you wanted to add, if you can hear us. I'm trying to unmute Becky but for some reason doesn't work. Maybe she has to do it. Yeah, if she's called and she might not be able to. So just in case she's not. Oh, there she goes. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay, my husband Joe is here too and he's the one who's mainly involved with this project but it's definitely for farm use it will not produce any extra power and any other questions about it should go to him and he's right here. Okay. Yeah, I think everything that said has been accurate. I think we've resized the, the number of panels to pretty much match what we're using for power so with, you wouldn't have to run a generator if there were an outage or something and we'd save a bit on our power bill every month to. So it's pretty small scale and designed to be kind of low impact and just get as much sun as possible. So it's really straightforward. I think, I hope. Yeah. So do you have any plans in case you decide to take the freezer is offline, or, you know, for some reason your power usage goes lower than expected would you be taking the panels down, or I'm just wondering about sort of long term and sort of sunsetting the system. I think it's, it's unlikely that this is this is second hand because I'm not a solar expert but I talked to the person we'd like to hire to to install the system. And he said, Nowadays it's difficult the power companies don't even want to buy your power so I don't think it's really an option that we're going to so it would just go unused or it would just charge charge the storage batteries. I don't think there's as much of it but there's no. I don't think there'd be any need to take the panels down. But I don't think there's also any, any plans to sell back to the power company either. It's for its size to meet our needs here on the on the homestead. Yeah, I mean that all sounds great. I mean just given the direction that we were given from our from from our lawyer so as long as it's still being used for farm purposes I think we're good if you know that does change then you know it would be good for you guys to kind of come back and with us in my opinion. So how big is the and perhaps it was covered how big is the array how what's the size. I don't know the dimensions but it's 20 panels I've been told. But do you know how many kw it is like heaven. Yes, seven kilowatts was the approximate. Okay, so it's really small.  Because we have a lot of shade trees and an old barn that wouldn't be safe to put panels on this to be the, but the only option. And who I'm just curious who are you considering using to install the system been talking to the solar store in Greenfield have known the owner for years and feel very confident in him. He said he's a good honest guy.  The solar store in Greenfield is the company. So I think that's a good idea. And I think that could I weigh in with a couple of other. Please. So first of all, I think, you know, Aaron and I have reviewed this. We've talked with Sharon Everett, our town attorney. And you can see her email there. I think I certainly feel confident recommending this. Be approved by the commission. And I'd like to, you know, go on record as saying that. I think the applicants. We should get something in writing. It could be a very simple letter, you know, dated this week that they certify that the, you know, that the power is for agricultural purposes. I think what we want to do is have something follow and be amended to or added to the conservation restriction so that that follows through to future owners, which is important. I don't want to think about these things as today, but, you know, you know, we all move on one or the other in the future and the property will change hands. So I think it's important to really kind of certify that today this is what this is for, and the commission is only approving this for this purpose. Just to round out for the commission, this is a very unique conservation restriction. I think that's what Erin said. It certainly is, is quite old. I think it's what mid 80s 70s, maybe 76, I can't remember, but back then, and this predates me doing conservation being involved in conservation restrictions. Unfortunately, the conservation restriction covers the entire property. So there's no exclusion for the house. There's no exclusion for the farmstead. So it does put the owners at a, at a significant disadvantage, and I previous owners on some of their requests and it's, it's challenging. We've learned a lot in the last 25 years about how to write conservation restrictions, particularly for farm properties, so that you allow some flexibility for the owners now and in the future to continue to farm. I think this is a reasonable request. I would like to have something on the record a vote on the record and then something in the, in the file so that future commissions and future owners of the property and staff know that this was approved for this reason and if you so, so move forward on this in 2020 so happy to answer questions but it's, it's a unique it's, it's kind of a homegrown APR if you will, before, before there were APRs. And Dave, do you think we need something more than what's in the email that's on the screen right now. Um, I would love, I would love a signed letter I think it'd be really nice. Here's the letter. Sorry, I did send a letter and I did send a letter and it was about it being used for farm purposes. It was a few weeks ago. Great. So is that good enough. We have that. That's right. I might have missed that I'm sorry Becky. I also, I appreciate your saying that would be helpful to get approval quickly. The one reason that we're feeling kind of in a crunch is the solar credits will expire if I understand correctly, at the end of this calendar year so we're really trying to get the project done to save 30% of the cost. If it doesn't happen, I don't know if we can, if we could actually do it. So, the sooner we could get an approval, the easier that would be and we'd really appreciate it. I have a question or two. It sounds like you're sizing the collectors to be able to provide the total amount of energy you need for a year for that freezer system. Is that correct. You know, it's not broken out for, but it's approximately sized to be our in, you know, our power use per year. And again, I'm, I'm going by what John word told me 20 channels would would give me. My question goes on because in fact what what you're doing is having storage online and so you you're figuring out what the integrated use is going to be and you've gotten up storage to accommodate that. One of the reasons I'm asking this is I have somewhat concerned about what the town lawyers said about you can't sell back to the grid. You know, you know, the issue is the net thing in your case now I have no I don't have any problems with the idea of putting in storage and so forth. But I also will go on to say why can't you have enough energy generated to take care of your other farming operations as well. I'm very liberal in the idea of doing this is part of my question. I think it just kind of it worked out as a practical matter fairly, fairly well that the, the amount of power produced by one rack with 20 panels pretty much match the amount of power we consume. So we'll, I don't know if we'll always eliminate a power bill but we'll greatly reduce it for most of the year. Yeah, but you're talking about integrating it because the sun doesn't shine at night. You're, you're, you're relying on the fact you're going to have size enough so you've got an integration in the, in the, in the inverters and storage capacity. Yeah, no that's not how it works on Massachusetts it's just it's by by very nature of the fact that you're connected to the grid you you know you will be exporting to the grid. It's just going to balance out the load of your home but I do have a question. Lawrence is earlier point. I don't know how big your facility is but just, you know that that seven kw is quite small, especially if you actually do have. You know, I don't know how many freezers you have but anything that has sort of intense load like that that's actually a pretty small system something that like I just a plain household would use. I agree. So if you, I mean if you're going to do it. I mean I'm also very much in favor. But you might want to look at that size again. You were you're two saying two things. They're saying they're not going to interconnect they're going to use local storage, I would you know, I have PV. The utility stores my energy. That's fine. There will be, there will be a probably a lithium ion battery. I don't know which battery array but lithium ion batteries to store the surplus, and those will power an inverter when when it starts or something. I don't have the specs on the, on the final system in terms of the battery size, but probably in case there's like a major outage will probably have a generator that could charge those batteries if necessary if they recover with snow or something but the goal here was never to sell sell a lot of power back to the to the utility. It was just to get a little more sustainable and a little more a little more resilient here on the homestead and not lose thousands of dollars worth of beef. So that was the reason for it. And then both Laura and I are supportive of this and my concern was the way the town lawyers said you couldn't interconnect potentially. And that's what I was concerned about because I thought that was unnecessary to say that in the town lawyer state. Yeah, so I'm not hearing any problems from what people are saying some additional ideas which I think are fine. Any other comments from other commissioners or commissioners who've already commented. Anybody from the public have any comments you just raise your hand. Okay, so not hearing anything. So I think that there's two steps that we need at this point. So we have that letter is that a signed letter, Aaron. Oh yeah it is signed there. Yes. I mean it would be nice just to reiterate that that's not going to be sold back to the system just so that we, you know a little bit more explicitly. And what the lawyer was stating does that make sense or. I don't, I don't agree. I think that you should not have that in there because the authority is becoming your bank of storage if necessary. And I, you know, I think it deprives the concept of what solar is doing if you do that. So but I don't like the attorney's statement that says they can't basically they're saying they can't interconnect. Larry they're using a battery it's not connected to the system. It will be connected but it's narrowly we're using it to charge the battery. Definitely grid tied. Okay, so that's, yeah. Aaron, could you put up, could you put up Sharon Everett's. Yeah. I don't know if it goes beyond our jurisdiction but I do agree with Larry. I mean, it, it sounded as though based on the earlier discussion that you were going to be grid tied so I, I'm not quite sure why we care. I don't know if it goes beyond access power during certain times of the day goes back to the grid.  So, yeah, so I don't read that as, you know, I don't read her is saying, you should not number one you should not approve this. Larry. Also, you know, to be honest, I mean, the town attorney, they offer their opinion and sometimes committees boards, town manager, town council don't always take their advice. I'm not not advising that but I don't read this as restrictive as you do. I'm not either it seems pretty clear, I guess from that last sentence that that there's little to no excess solar capacity which is just assuming you did your measurements right around what you need, whether sold to the grid or otherwise like it doesn't seem as restrictive and so I'm wondering if I'm missing I think I think that's what we should approve the fact that it's not going to be a net exporter, it's meant for internal use and so that under those circumstances this satisfied, they can do it either way by connecting the grid or putting in battery. Yep. Okay, so again, I don't think that we have any sort of major disagreements here a little, you know, a couple of things around the edges. So Dave, do you think that we need anything in addition to that letter that we already have from the applicant. I think if you craft the motion that that works and you have that motion in the minutes, I think the combination of the letter from Becky the supporting documentation we have from from from the owners and your vote, I think that should be enough to carry through in the record in the in the in the public record of this property in the conservation restriction. Okay, and then Aaron can actually attach what the motion is to the CR. Yeah, I'll create a folder in the in in the department for it so that we'll have a record of it with all the documents that were submitted. Okay, excellent. So does anybody have any other comments. Okay, so if not Laura or Larry would either of you like to take a crack at making the motion. Yeah. So I move to approve the seven kw solar system. What's the address at 383 Montague road at 483 month three mommy road for the purposes of powering the, the, the freezers on site. With an accompanying storage system. Yeah, or we make it so not just the freezers but any farm related. The way I would the way I would make the motion is we have the application to provide solar farming purposes on their farm. Well, I don't know if I have to go any farther than that. I mean, just we approve the idea of doing solar for farm purposes. And I don't, I wouldn't put any kilowatt size in addressing because that, you know, what if they get bigger in their business they want to put in more freezers. Well actually, Larry, I would disagree. I think we got we have to review the size system that they're going to put in. They would need to come back to you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's not to say we'd be prohibitive but I do think you get you got it you got to review the size so. Okay, so I move to approve the seven kw solar array for agricultural uses at 480 Montague road 483 483 Montague road. I think that's it. Second it. Okay, excellent. So we'll go around for a voice votes or Leroy your top of the list today. Hi, Laura. Hi, Larry. Hi, Jen. Hi, Anna. Hi, and I for me as well. So, I'm Joe and Becky I think that we are in good shape. If there's any additional documentation that you need or that we need Aaron will be in touch so Aaron do you have any final housekeeping tips. I guess I have one question will be meeting with the people from the solar store. Very soon after this. They'll be pleased that it's been approved. Okay. I'm going to show them just the minute will be available online shortly. I imagine. Joe, I can provide you guys with a letter that basically states that on this, on this day that the commission made a motion to approve the system, the so install the solar system. Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Yeah, so thank you both. And yeah, the old CRs are definitely a little complicated. And good luck. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I have 742. So just to let people know that our 730 is going to be continued. But do we want to go and do the 720 at this point, Aaron? That's the mill river. Yeah. Yeah. I think that that should be. Yeah. So if we could maybe keep it to, you know, five or 10 minutes and try to just get a quick update from. Meryl who should be on the. On the call. I'm sharing. So I can't see her, but if somebody could go on and see if Meryl is on as a participant and add her as a. Panelist. She just had a quick update for us as far as the program. I think she's just going to. Get engaged in the program. In a few minutes. When it's on. I think her final results, I would say the overalls. Approvals are taking too long. Okay. And yeah, she is a panelist. And I think you can. Speak at this point, Meryl. And so if you just wouldn't mind introducing yourself real quick and just giving a really brief. A recap, I think we're mostly familiar, but in case there's some folks who are. Okay. Sure. Yes. My name is Meryl, Miss Selle. And my hope was to open. have the exemption from needing a license from EEC. So that's sort of on hold. But I hope that maybe that can happen in the spring. That's the briefest summary. OK, thank you. I know that one of the comments I had for you, Marilyn, I don't know if I saw a response to what you submitted was related to access to the program, particularly for people of lower economic means, financial means? Yeah, that was a really great question and just helpful for me to think about. So something that I thought about was having it would be great to have if this program gets running essentially a partner, an assistant teacher. And so then their child could attend for free for essentially an hour's worth of work. So that was one thought I had. And then after reading that question again today, I was thinking a sliding scale could also be possible. So if looking at each session would be $25, is what I have it as now. So if it was one session over an eight week period, that would be $200. And then if it was 70%, 140%, 80%, 160%, and then the full percentage. So those are sort of the two models that I'm thinking about. Great, thank you. And yeah, I mean, we're always looking at that, particularly because it's on public lands. Yeah, absolutely. It's a good question. And if you have any feedback on either of those things that I'm kind of mowing over. Yeah, it was basically to leave it up to you. I'm one very happy with those responses. So thank you. I mean, the other thing people have done in the past is done some sort of scholarship or something like that. But this is your business. And so I am fine with that. And then I had one question, really. So the program ideally would work best really not in a grassy area of Mill River, but sort of in the woods. So I'm wondering with the Mill River area, does that include using some spaces off the trails? Or is that really using the recreation space at Mill River? Yeah, I mean, so this is, I mean, I read it as the broader area. And truthfully, probably off of the grassy area would be even better. And there's plenty of room there. Obviously, you'll need to be careful of poison ivy and all sorts of other fun things that are out there. But I'm sure you're well versed with that. OK, really great. The only issue that we did have with Mill River that we're not positive yet is when the bathrooms are open. That might be a little bit of a challenge. And so Dave, I don't know if you can remind us about what the bathroom schedule is, so to speak, for Mill River? Yeah, there really isn't a set open, closed. I think a lot of it is weather dependent. I missed a potential start date. Was that talked about in the spring? Is this April May? Yeah, I'm waiting on EEC approval. So at this point, I think it would be spring at the earliest. Yeah, I mean, Mill River really, you know, 1st of April, even late March sometimes, when Little League practice starts, they need to have the restrooms open. So that's probably about right. And again, just to your earlier question, I agree that really the commission only has authority to authorize use of the conservation areas, not the recreation areas. Again, the recreation areas are public. And of course, you're free to use those. But I think the commission can only grant official permission to use the trails and the conservation areas. OK, that's wonderful, because that's what I would prefer to use. Thank you for clarifying. The other piece I would just add in a recommendation of the commission is I really prefer these to be annual approvals and not going to blanket approvals long term. So I think that's been our practice for a number of years is to have applicants come back annually and ask permission. So if things go well or not, it's nice to have a report on how it went, what were some of the upsides or downsides and experiences out there. And then if you want to continue in 2022, come back to the commission, say, in the winter and seek permission again. So that would be my recommendation. Yeah, that sounds good, Dave. So does anybody, any other commissioners have any questions about this? Anybody from the public? Brett, I have a question. So the commission had approved for fall, but it sounds like Merrill's not going to have the program up and running in time for fall. So based on what Dave was saying about an annual approval, do you guys want to reconsider an approval for spring season or do you want to approve something for the 2021? Wow, that's crazy. 2021 calendar year or something like that. It's an alternative to the fall approval. Yeah, I mean, if Merrill's OK. I mean, seeing that this is relatively new for us, it'd be great to get some feedback after the first quote, unquote season. It shouldn't be a very intensive reapplication or anything, but it'd be great to just have some additional information. OK. If you know. Yeah, I'm happy to do that. And then that would mean I could sort of when approval happens or when EEC approval happens, I could move a little faster. Yeah, yep. So what I'm hearing is granting approval for the spring and then reconsidering for the following year. OK, anything else before or request a motion? OK, so I assume that we do want to form a motion for this one. So is there somebody who wants to make this motion for use of Mill River land use by the outdoor learning program? Oh, boy, I lost their name. Forest folk. Forest folk. All right, so it's I motion to approve is it one year use of the Mill River conservation land for the forest folk? For one season. I'm so sorry. For one season. Motion to approve the use of the Mill River recreation land for the forest folk for one season. Yep, for spring of 2021. Yes, spring of 2021. OK. Why not make it the first season in case she can't get the permitting? Because Larry, I already made the motion. And you did it very well, Anna. Thank you. It took me a long time. I second that. Thank you. OK, so going around for a vote. So Laura. Hi. Larry. Hi. Jen. Hi. LaRoy. Hi. And I, for me as well. So Merrill, for next spring, you are good to go from our side. So best of luck. All right, thank you so much. I'm an I as well. I don't know if that matters because I made the motion. Oh, did I skip you, Anna? Oh, man. OK, I just wanted to make sure you knew. I'm all in. My apologies. It's all good. Thanks very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. OK, so we are good with that. So the 7.30, which is for dredging at Uncampus Pond, I assume that there is nobody here. Do you want to just give a quick update on that, Erin? I assume that they're just behind on paperwork and other issues. Yeah, so for dredging projects, there's just a number of approvals and permits that are required. And they're still in the process of having their 401 permit reviewed and approved in Boston. So that's why they're not doing this because they're doing their due diligence. It's just the permit reviews are taking a long time. So they have requested at least one month to continue the public hearing. OK, so do we have a date and time we want to put this off to? So I have October 8 at 7.30. OK, sounds good. So looking for a motion for continuation to October 8 at 7.30. I motion to move this to, or sorry, the word, the word that I'm looking for. Continue. So don't move. I motion to continue this until October 8 at 7.30 PM. Excellent. Looking for a second? Second. Thank you, Laura. So before you vote, Laura? Aye. Larry? Aye. I know this time. Aye. Thank you. Jen? Aye. LaRoy? Aye. And aye from me as well. So we are good on that one. OK, so moving on to our 7.35, which is a continuation for the power poles being replaced by Eversource. So do we have people who are here to present on this?  OK, so Jonathan? Mary? Oh, let's see. Stephen? OK, there we go. OK, so I don't know. I thought it might be Mary. I assume that you might be presenting, but whoever would like to present, if you could just reintroduce yourself and just give us a brief update on where we stand. Sure. I'm Mary Britton with GZA. I'm here with Steve Ribritie of GZA and Jonathan Roberge of Eversource. So we were at the last hearing. And we presented our notice of intent where Eversource is looking to replace structures along the line that runs through Amherst from Leverett down to Granby. It's called the Montague Fairmont Structure Replacement Project. So there's 36 structures within the right of way that are associated with the Wetlands Protection Act that we submitted the permitting for. So at the last meeting, we provided to Erin our wetland replication plan, which is for to compensate for the loss of 620 square feet of wetland from structure replacement activities. And that wetland replication proposes about 1,400 square feet of new wetland within the right of way. We also provided an updated specification for a proposed bridge that we plan to install to access a portion of the right of way over a stream in the southern part of the project at Amherst. And then recently, we provided to the concert to Erin a response to comments that we received from Mass TEP as well as some comments that came up at the last meeting. And you'll see here on the slide, one of them was mitigation for tree removal activities that are planned within small sections of the right of way throughout the extent of the right of way, but not everywhere. Just areas where, because of the new structures, that some of the trees have to be removed in order to provide safe clearance for the wires. So this is what we had proposed. Great, thank you, Mary. So Erin, do you have any additional updates or anything you want to add before we open up to discussion? Yeah, so just a couple of quick things. This was really the most concerning comment from the DEP comments. And I had a long conversation with Mark Stinson at DEP this week. Basically, he was very concerned. So we realized that we're doing replication for the wetland alteration, mitigation for some of the wetland impacts, and mitigation for the riverfront impacts from all the things that we've discussed. But what he was concerned with was there was something like 30,000 square feet of proposed tree removal in riverfront and DBW. And he felt like we could not permit that as proposed. So and GZA was aware of that. And so I had asked them to come up with, basically, come up with something as far as an offer for mitigation. And so the first thing that you see with the $5,000 is what they came up with, which was the one acre area, 500 trees per acre times $10 per tree, which comes out to $5,000. And that's based on a 24 inch tall sapling in a one gallon pot at a cost of $10 each. I countered that with a suggestion that instead of 500 trees, that we do 200 trees. Because I had asked them, a lot of this is canopy removal, not straight trees being removed. And I kind of asked them to estimate how many trees do you really expect are going to be removing. They said about 200. And I said, well, if we say 200, I'd like to say $75 per tree and get larger trees. Because if we could get a 4 to 6 foot sapling in a 5 gallon bucket, it's going to have a lot greater success of survival. And then also, we're talking about town staff that are going to be installing these and installing 500 trees versus 200 trees, I think is a pretty dramatic difference. So I had proposed the $15,000. But I said, you can counter that. Again, I'm just trying to come up with a middle ground here. Because I think it'd be better for us to have bigger trees to plant. And also, that 500 is way too many. And it's not just the planting, though, Erin. It's also the maintenance or the establishment. And so did you talk to Alan Snow at all, or? No. No, because Alan only deals with trees on townlands. So these trees are being removed on ever source right away. Yeah, but where are the new ones being planted, though? Well, that remains to be determined. I mean, I'm sure some of it will be on conservation lands. I mean, I was thinking we could put some in Amethyst Brook on the banks of the Amethyst where there's such severe erosion, putting a couple along that area might not be a bad idea, potentially near Puffer's Pond. But that's something we have to discuss the best placement for those trees. Yeah, can I jump in, Brett? Please. Yeah, I certainly support this idea. I think, and Erin and I briefly talked about it earlier this afternoon, I think the idea, as I understand it, is really to kind of, if you will, bank these 200 trees or the equivalent $15,000 and then come up with areas. Like Erin said, there are areas that are eroding banks. I mean, we just talked about the Mill River Recreation Area. We've got compaction and erosion there where trees could offer some mitigating impacts there for erosion and trail compaction along the Mill River. There's a long places on Puffer's Pond where banks are falling in, caving in, and likewise at Amethyst Brook. I certainly, 200 trees is a lot for town staff to plant, so I certainly don't want to make a commitment that they would all be planted at once. I would see that we would do this strategically in places on conservation land, not in town right of ways. We have plenty of trees to plant in town right of ways, but this would be specifically for places along trails and conservation areas. Yeah, and the more that they were directly improving existing water resources would make sense as well. Excellent, yep. Yeah. So that's one item for discussion and consideration between Eversource and the Commission. And then I just have sort of a running list of conditions. We did receive correspondence from Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program, which I believe I uploaded to your packets. And they have a very specific list of phased requirements for Eversource in terms of putting together plans and how the time of year restrictions and things like that for some of the work that they're doing. So I would recommend that that be included in the order of conditions. And then we discussed having an environmental monitor be present for stream crossing installation, wetland replication installation, alteration of wetland and riverfront areas, and also natural heritage areas, which they may have to have anyways, that we require additional erosion controls beyond sort of the standard that a contractor might install for protection of the stream for the installation of the permanent stream crossing location. This one's really important that for the area of wetland replication that there needs to be a condition in the order of conditions and in the certificate of compliance that that area can't be altered in perpetuity. That's pretty standard for any area that's designed to replicate wetlands that are altered. And DEP also recommended that we include a special condition that outlines all offsite mitigation that's being completed. That way it's tied to this order of conditions. And there are still some outstanding permits that Eversource is waiting for, MEPA determination, and CMP from Natural Heritage. And so just a general generic condition, which we typically include anyways, but just that all state, local, federal permits that are required for the project must be received in hand prior to the start of work. And all associated conditions must be followed. I think that's basically my running list, but I'll stop there. Excellent. Thank you, Erin. So does the applicant or their representative have any feedback on the counter proposal and number of trees? Is that acceptable? Yes. Yeah, Jonathan here. Yeah, we went over that. And that seems reasonable. So yeah, thank you for that. Excellent, thank you. OK, so commissioners, any comments or questions you have? Feels like most of the loose ends have been tied up at this point. I will say, if I could just add on the one comment about the replication area that's within right away and protecting it in perpetuity, I can't put a conservation restriction on our easement. Every source relies on its easements to provide electric transmission and reliable power out there. And I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a conservation restriction on every source's easement to use their right of way. So as far as the language about in perpetuity and that wetland replication area, we could certainly put up signs or boulders or something to protect the area so that it wouldn't be impacted hopefully during the use and maintenance of the line, but should something change and it needs the line needed to be altered, the every source needs its flexibility within its easement to continue its operation. And the wetland, of course, would still have protection under the Wetland Protection Act and would be, of course, protected by if it was ever to be impacted, mitigation and under the Amherst bylaw for compensation for that, just like any other wetland would be. I just can't authorize a conservation restriction within our easement. So I wasn't suggesting a conservation restriction that would be recorded on anything. It would just be an ongoing condition in the certificate of compliance. As far as my knowledge of Wetland Protection Act goes, if you're creating a replication area, it's required that that replication area not be altered in perpetuity because you're altering a wetland, you're permanently altering wetland and you're creating replication to compensate for that loss. And so you can't then say, well, we're going to fill it again and compensate somewhere else. I mean, I hear what you're saying and I totally understand. It's just that my recommendation would be if you don't want it on the right of way because you're concerned it's going to impair your use of the right of way, then it should be created somewhere else, off right of way. OK, there. We can find another place for it. That would be ideal. I mean, so my understanding is that Eversource is on a tight timeline for this project for a number of reasons, particularly because we're coming up to the end of the growing season and they're wanting to get started to transport some fern, which is endangered and it needs to be moved out of the work area. So I don't want to kind of throw a monkey wrench in the middle of it at the 18th hour. It's just that I'm not sure that we could condition the replication area unless it was in perpetuity. I'm not sure how I've never seen a replication area not be conditioned that way. Yeah, I mean, I obviously have no idea on this one. I don't know if any other commissioners have any ideas or I don't know if this is something that we'll have to seek. I mean, I get two ways of moving forward. One is we can seek outside counsel, be that from Stinson or town lawyer or something along those lines. Or I don't know if Eversource wants to make a if they have something else in their back pocket about different areas. It's a really nice place to do replication. It seemed like it was going to be very easy. There are some endangered plants there. So it's nice from that perspective. I'm surprised that this hasn't come up before. From the Eversource angle, have you guys ever, I mean, it seems like you would have done replications in your right of ways before, or do you usually try to stay out of your right of ways for replications? Well, I would say I think more recently, we've tried to stay out of our right of ways. But certainly, legacy, this was a common way of doing it. But more recently, we've tried to stay out of the right of ways. OK, so I mean, anything else? I mean, I think we're at kind of an impasse besides what I was suggesting, unfortunately. Well, this is Dan Nitchie. Could I say something? Please. Thank you. This is I'm with GZA in support of the Eversource Notice of intent. Is it possible in a similar manner to the tree type activity where we're sort of banking something, could we have a condition that we still owe the 1,400 square feet, but look with the commission's guidance, potentially, other areas outside the right of way that we would be willing to make the replication area there versus within the right of way, and maybe stipulate within a 12-month period this all has to happen so that we're not dragging this out for the three-year, the typical three-year time period of the order of conditions. So we're definitely going to give, we want to give a replication, a required replication. But I think you also understand the complication of restricting their use of the total right of way. Yeah, thank you for the suggestion. I mean, at least I'm not all that comfortable with that. I mean, what happens if we're not comfortable with what the offer is and we kind of go back and forth? It'd be kind of tough. Yeah, so my take on that is that it would have to be reviewed and approved by the board prior to being done. And if it was off-site mitigation, that it would need to be outlined in the order so that might require an amendment to the permit once it's finally approved. And then the other thing is that it would need to be approved prior to the start of work as well. Well, I understand that part. We shouldn't need to amend it. I would think if the condition is that we're required to find or at least one vision I'm having here is trying to find at least two options for you folks to look at. We'd have an income look. If you guys are in agreement, you saw our first plan of this replication area. You liked it right from the get-go, so there wasn't a lot of misunderstandings. So we understand what we're putting together so that we can get sort of a pre-approval of two areas and then we would give you a design for one area and give you your 1,400 square feet. I understand your conundrum, but I'm also trying to represent our conundrum with our timing. And we guarantee that we will be giving you a wetland replication area that you can be proud of, because we want to be proud of it too. So I mean, I'm just trying to think of the compromise here. I appreciate your indulgence to let us discuss this. Yeah, and I appreciate the idea. And yeah, we're definitely looking for, yeah. Right. Could I jump in? I apologize, I did not see the site nor the plans, but I was kind of following up on the discussion of the trees. I mean, I believe I'm trying to think back. We have in the past, well, let me stop there. I'm wondering whether there's, I'm sure, ever sources come up with a cost for the replicated wetland. Is there a way to really kind of put that in the conditions to basically say, if a suitable place can be found off-site, say, on a conservation area where we would like to create a wetland, it will be so many square feet and have the similar characteristics, if you will, to the one that they're proposing, and have a cost, a relative cost of X, because I'm sure they know the cost of creating that wetland within the right-of-way. I think we had a similar discussion, if I'm remembering correctly, with the Southeast Street proposal for the mixed-use building on the corner of Southeast Street and College Street, there was one discussion of doing an off-site replication there. So anyway, I was just trying to kind of riff on that idea a little bit, that it could be a monetary equivalent if a site isn't found, or what is the cost of creating this wetland, so that that can be memorialized in the conditions. And I don't know if Erin's ever seen that before. I've never seen it before. I mean, so my only concern is that the DEP stated that any off-site mitigation has to be detailed in the order of conditions. So any location where off-site work is taking place has to be detailed in the order. But could the detail be what we proposed to say this is what you have to give us? You have to give us this kind of plant density, this type of a scrub, shrub, swamp, whatever details we gave, there's the detail to cover you, folks, that you I just think that it's got to come back to the board regardless for the board to approve the application. For final approval, for secondary review, exactly. And I'm not necessarily saying an official amendment. I'm saying it might be a minor administrative change where we approve the amended change to a specific site and put it in writing somehow in the permit so that it's documented. Great, I appreciate the clarification. Amendment makes me nervous because we have to reopen the public hearing and all that whole process all over again. Right, I just mean like it's got to be before the commission in a public setting to have them approve it, I guess is where I was going with that. But balancing that secondary review, let's call it a secondary review against what we're proposing today because we feel we're obligated to give this kind of a wetland system back based on where our impacts were. And so that can be the detail. That's what we're required to give. Yeah, absolutely. And I know we had talked about this before. Like I had suggested POTIC, but obviously that was selected as a mitigation site for the substation folks. And so it kind of came off of this project and then the proposal changed to be on right-of-way replication, which I thought was very strange, but I was like, okay, whatever. So yeah, I mean, it's really up to the commission what they're comfortable with. But I mean, I think if we carefully condition it and I mean, I'm not sure how DEP will feel about it, but we could give it a shot. And if we carefully condition it so that it's clear it's 1400 square foot replication area, it has to be approved by the commission advance, the cost for the replicated wetland has to be estimated and provided to us. And that potential suitable locations have to be proposed to us. It has to have similar characteristics to the existing wetland. And then if it's not done within a given period of time that the monetary equivalent is provided to the board. I mean, I don't know. Maybe that's just throwing out some notes. Yeah, I mean, I'd be careful of using what they proposed as a baseline for any cost estimates. I mean, they found a very sweet spot that was gonna be extremely easy to replicate. And they just had to scrape off a little bit of soil. I think they would have been there. And it all depends on what the new site is that is found.  It's not that I don't trust that it'll be done well but it's kind of hard to say to kind of put that in the conditions. I mean, is there any problem? I mean, on your and the applicant's end, if we postpone, if we continue to the next meeting which I don't know when that is, Erin. And if you were able to come back to us with one or two proposals, then we can close then. Proposal locations, you mean? Locations and design, yeah. Okay. The next meeting is September 23rd. And right now we have literally 11 hearings on that agenda. So just putting that out there. On our end, the complicating factor is we're running up against the time that we need to transplant the ferns. We can't go too late into, we probably can't push past the first week of October. Okay. This year. That's one of our constraints on our end. And those ferns need to get transplanted before the work occurs, obviously. Correct. Yeah, that's the goal is to move on this year to be in the growing season. So they have enough time to root and establish before winter sets in and the soil pops them out of the ground and freeze and thaw that type of stuff over the winter.  That's what should happen. If we want to put in some caveat related to cost I would like that to be for more than the cost of what the wetland would be. So, you know, double meaning that I would much prefer for them just put in the wetland and we'll be done with it. If that doesn't happen, there's kind of a an incentive to make that happen if that makes sense. How about 1.2 times cost? Just to throw a number out there but I appreciate your suggestion. Yeah, I mean, something along those lines. Yeah, I was thinking double, you said one, two. I'll go one, five. I hear what you're saying because if you folks to pick it up from scratch it is gonna be more effort to get the ball rolling and make that happen, but yeah. Jonathan? And again, I mean, what I think all of us want and I think, and I'm pretty certain that it will happen but I just want a little reassurance that it will happen that yeah, we will find a location and we will agree on that location and this will happen. I just want to have a little bit more security to make sure if that doesn't happen that we have this and we can do everything that we need to. So, but does that mean that we need to come up with not just, can we just say one and a half times the cost, Erin, or do we need to come up with a cost? Has an estimated cost been determined for creation of that wetland? I would, Jonathan, but I doubt it. No contract has been selected to do the work at this moment. So, we don't have a number. Is that something we can provide within a week? That that's where obligated to give you that number within a week and then that becomes part of, I don't know, I know what you're saying. I'm trying to make this work for everybody. Looks like a sub-condition and a condition. I know, I know. Conditioning myself to death here. Well, and any condition, I mean, this is like a precursor. This is like almost like a pre-construction meeting. That's how it would be conditioned. So, all of the requested information would need to be received and everything would kind of be in the works as far as approval of this before any work could start. So, just to make that clear, if it was conditioned, that's how it would be done because we don't wanna have it turn into like a runaway train where the work is going on and yet the replication area hasn't been determined yet. Yep. Yeah, I mean, are there some general figures that we can rely on, you know, not necessarily for this project? Because again, this is a specific area and I don't really care about this specific area because I think this one is special. Again, it is very nice. Can I just throw an idea out there? From the folks who do this, Stephen and Mary, we kind of did something similar before. Ballpark, what do you think something like this would be to create, do you think it really depends on the site-specific conditions or do you think you could say between X number of dollars and X number of dollars, this is the general cost of how much it would be to create this, just trying to ballpark it? Offhand, I don't know what number. I'm not the one that puts specs together for contractors but given that this is a very small area and we're not excavating much soil and it's gonna be right off of the matted road for the use to construct it, I wouldn't think it's a very expensive endeavor to build this at all. It's probably two days of excavator time, a couple of truckloads of material and the plants. So we could talk to our engineers and get a rough number relatively quickly. I'd estimate, I'd estimate, sorry, Brett, go ahead. Yeah, I mean, quickly, we either need something tonight, unfortunately, or we postpone and it might have to, I don't know if we're gonna be able to do it to our next meeting. I would say that that area for that square foot is around $12,000 with plants all installed. So one and a half times that is $18,000. Jonathan, cut me off at the knees here if you don't like what I'm saying. No, no, I think you're ballpark for sure. I think it's a little, 12 is probably a little on the high side because they're not moving much dirt but I know you guys have to deal with certain pricing because of being a utility so it's probably a little higher than most folks would pay. Does it, does it make sense? I don't know, Aaron, what your opinion would be to revisit pairing this with the PODEC mitigation? That's gonna be sizable compared to what it's doing and maybe, I don't know, maybe it does make sense to pair the two. Is that an option? I mean, that's, that was kind of my recommendation from the start because the area was so small at the substation that I thought it would be more beneficial there but I think for tonight, you know, we have, we don't really have enough information to definitively identify a site. You know, I think, I think what we, I mean, at this point, I think what, this is just an idea we could throw out there and say, you know, the estimated cost is $12,000 to construct this wetland and the commission would require a bond of $18,000 basically to be put in place within, when do you guys expect the work to start? If I may, the bond would only kick in though if we don't perform, meaning we don't find you another spot. Exactly, that's why I was- Obviously, this is the incentive part that Brett was talking about. Exactly. Right, so I don't know if we don't have to bond it but I mean, if we, right, we have to bond it if we don't provide the, there. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying if you guys are planning on starting work within a year on the structure replacement, we say this has to be approved within eight months and if it's not $18,000 has to be bonded to the town so that we can hire somebody an outside source to construct this wetland somewhere else. That's reasonable. When you say work, Erin, so we obviously were the real construction part of this project which would incur the wetland impacts will be next year probably some point after February. We don't know at what point they'll be into Amherst but late February and March is probably the earliest but we would be proposing to do the transplantation this fall. Yeah, I'm not talking about getting in the way of your transplantation. No, I'm talking about the work for the structure replacement. Oh, thank you. I just wanted to clarify. Yeah, thank you, Steve. And so Erin, does that, I mean, these are just kind of random numbers and when we start playing with random numbers I'm gonna always round up given where we are at this point but does 18K seem like a reasonable number? I mean, that's where we are. It's crazy. Yeah, well, I mean, we could round it up to 20. I mean, I think it gives them an incentive to do it themselves and get it approved by us. I'm with both of you, round up and incentive. I think the goal is if they can find a site and they can do it for cheaper than that, wonderful. If they can't, then this is our insurance policy. So Jackie, this is Mary, so quick question. So if we do condition this like we're discussing and we decide that, yeah, let's go back to POTIC. We can help out there and be part of that and expand the wetland area there. That would still fit the bill, right? It'd be a wetland replication area. I assume you meant me, yes. Yes, Erin, yeah. It happens all the time. Oh, what did I call you? Jackie, it's okay. Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. No, I think if we can too, if we could work that out, I think that would be wonderful. You know, I think we'd have to work out the details of it, but yes, I think that would be wonderful and reasonable. Yes, from my perspective. Okay. So before I move forward, are there any other outstanding issues or is this the only one at this point? Well, I think that the cost for the trees we've already determined is acceptable. So I think this is the only outstanding. Okay. So I heard Leroy, what about other commissioners? How are other people feeling about the price, about the general approach? Okay. All right, I have a really loud fan, and so I keep turning it off before I try to talk. I think that I would agree with Erin and Leroy's point around making it a little bit higher as that sort of insurance policy. That makes sense to me, I'd be on board. So 20 works for you, Anna? 20 works for me. I don't know, they're numbers. I mean, you know, it's not 50, but I'll allow it. I think it's really very reasonable. The whole approach, and so you're- Yeah, I mean, it kind of accomplishes everyone's goals. And I also think 20,000 is more than enough. Okay, excellent. Rhett, could I just confirm something about the POTIC proposal? Erin, and I might be conflating things. I might be pulling things from recent conversations we've had, but at one point we were talking about the possibility of creating a specific rental pool targeted at a state listed species. I just wanna make sure that's still what we're talking about here, and not just a generalized wetland in POTIC somewhere, which is probably 70% wetlands now. Yeah, that's a great question, Dave. The creation of wetland at POTIC is, we've thrown out a lot of ideas and nothing's really been solidified. So I think we would need to have that reviewed and approved by town staff. And the board, before anything went forward at POTIC, regardless. Just not to be cryptic, POTIC, Catherine Cole, and the New Zala Conservation Areas are within an area that has Eastern Spadefoot Toads, which are a state listed species. And I've been involved through the years with at least one, the creation of at least one artificial breeding pond for them, which is in Sunderland, not far from this site, but clearly breeding pools are a limiting factor for Eastern Spadefoot Toads. So I think we could get a lot of interest from the state in creating one of these pools and they're not terribly expensive to do. In some ways, they might be less expensive because there's not as much vegetation, but I don't wanna get ahead of ourselves there. So I would be very supportive of something like that at POTIC, Catherine Cole, Zala, that whole complex. Okay, so I don't think tonight we need to decide. I don't think we will decide on a specific, but that's helpful, Dave. But yeah, so any other comments? And is there anybody from the public who'd like to weigh in at this point? Okay, so yeah, so thanks for moving us in this direction. I think we're good. I know I'm comfortable. And I will wish anybody luck who would love to take a stab at a motion for this. I know Anna's got it in her. So if I could just, I think one way to do this might be for me to read conditions and then for somebody to just say so moved because I have it all written down in my notes. And the only clarification I need is how long Eversource wants to complete the design and approval for the replication area prior to us going to a bonding phase. If we know how long they need to develop and get that approved, then I'll include that in the conditions. And Erin, that is just for the design and selection, not the actual construction itself, correct? Correct, yep. We want to say February 1st because I think that's the anticipated best case scenario start time of the overall project, not necessarily in Amherst, but I think it would free it up in case for whatever reason Amherst did start first. I don't think that's highly likely, but is that okay, Jonathan, February 1st? For us to have a mitigation area approved? Yeah. Yeah, yep. Okay, great. Erin, the floor is yours. Okay, bear with me. So let's just go through these conditions again one more time. Sorry. So the environmental monitor is recommended for a present onsite. We do have a plan to have species monitors out there as well as inspectors for erosion controls and our SWIP compliance based on weekly rain events. Is that what you're sort of envisioning for this? Because we do have monitors out there already. Yeah, so for the condition that I had listed was present during the temporary and permanent installations of stream crossings, the installation of the wetland replication area, the proposed wetland and riverfront alteration work, and then the work in natural heritage and endangered species sites. And Erin, do we specify who that's gonna be? Is that somebody from GZA or a equivalent or is it, because not just as environmental monitor. Our intent is to, I think we're gonna have GZA folks. The, like proposed wetland and riverfront alteration, I guess so they don't need to be there like to babysit, like drill crews, installing a structure in a wetland for like two days. They just need to kind of pop in and make sure it's going, you know, like kind of kick off with them. So it goes properly and inspect it periodically during the work. I think that that's reasonable. Yeah, not necessarily be there through the whole, I mean, I think at the start of work is always good and to do like sweeps for, you know, organisms and things prior to the start of work. Okay, and then as they're moving between structures, we've had issues with that before. Okay, yep. Yeah, that's what we're planning. Thank you. Um, erosion controls, I think that's great, you know, for those stream crossing and all that, beefing up erosion controls is absolutely reasonable. Yeah, just on the permanent one, on the permanent bridge crossing. Okay. So then we would remove the condition for the perpetuity because we're gonna be replacing that with a different condition. Um, so the order must outline offsite mitigation being completed as part of the order. So that would include the amethyst brook riverfront restoration, includes the 55 foot utility poles, the installation of signage, a split rail fence, beaver removal at Pomeroy court, the funds for tree planting and also the mitigation area. This condition here for the 55 foot poles, it was, we haven't got absolute confirmation on them. I think this was originally written, it said 55 foot poles or funding for them. We just make sure that's back in there. Just, I still anticipate we can get the 55 footers, no problem, but I don't have it confirmed by management yet. Yeah, thank you. And just clear, it's two poles that we're looking for. Yes. So, okay. Okay. And then the condition for all applicable local, state and federal permits required for the project must be received in hand prior to the start of work and all associated conditions must be followed in their entirety. So these are just special conditions. We have another boilerplate set of conditions that go on every single order of conditions that we issue for state and local. So these are just the special conditions that are being pulled out here. Erin, this is Mary. For what you just typed in offsite tree planting, I would suggest funding for offsite tree planting, not that every source will be doing the planting. Yeah, that's fine. And should we put anything in here about the transplantation of the ferns? You mean that it can begin sooner to accommodate the growing season? Yes. I mean, as soon as you get your permit, you could start that work. But, I mean, if we want to explicitly state something like, I mean, you tell me what language, like transplantation of endangered species can occur after expiration of appeal period or something? Do we really need that if the commission's in agreement with that? I mean, aren't we all in the honor system? I guess. Yeah. I mean, unless you're uncomfortable, unless you really want protection to have that written if you think, but it's only gonna protect you if someone challenges it. True. Yeah, no, I'm good either way. Okay. All right. Are we ready for me to list these off for a motion? Okay. Okay. So staff is recommending approval of the ever source Montague de Fairmont Structure Replacement Project with the following special conditions in addition to the state and local boilerplate conditions. All requirements outlined in the correspondence from Natural Heritage Endangered Species Program dated September 4th, 2020 must be followed in their entirety. Environmental monitor must be present for the stream crossings, temporary and permanent installations, installation of wetland replication area, proposed wetland and riverfront alteration work and all work in Natural Heritage and Endangered Species sites. Substantial erosion controls must be installed to protect the BVW and the stream for the permanent stream crossing location, which includes straw bales and silt fence. Special conditions in the order must outline the offsite mitigation being completed as part of this order, which includes Amethyst Brook Riverfront Restoration to 55 foot utility poles or the funding equivalent for the poles to build the bridge, install signage and the split rail fence to block the trail once the bridge is constructed for better streambank restoration success, beaver removal on Pomeroy Court, funding for offsite tree planting and offsite wetland mitigation. Conditions for the offsite wetland mitigation are that a wetland has to be constructed similar to the one already designed that would be 1400 square feet in size. It must be approved in advance by the Conservation Commission. Suitable locations with similar characteristics have to be presented. The commission is requiring that if offsite mitigation is not approved by February 1st, that a bond in the amount of $20,000 be put in place so that the town can properly install the wetland replication area and that all applicable local, state and federal permits required for the project must be received in hand prior to the start of work and all associated conditions must be followed in their entirety. Well done. Oh, done. So we're so moved. So moved. Second? So, oh, I'm sorry. Could we just add the thing about the ferns? I would feel better if it's in there. Just to say. Yeah, I'm sorry. We have a motion on the floor right now. Oh gosh, I apologize. So, yeah, so no, technically we can't at this point. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. So, and so we have a first, and I heard somebody say second, but I wasn't quite sure who that was. It was me. It was Anna. Oh, thank you, Anna. Okay. So looking for a vote. So, LaRoy. Aye. Jen. Aye. Laura. Laura. On mute. Aye. Thank you. Oh, no, I lost my order. Jen. I already went, but I.  Aye, aye. Aye, aye. I didn't get it. Aye. Anna. So, Larry, did you already? Aye. Aye, everybody vote. I lost that one. My apologies, and I for myself as well. So yeah, my, my apologies, Jonathan, about cutting you off there just kind of. No. And Jonathan, I wouldn't worry about that because that's outlined in your narrative and in your application. So, really, I don't think that that's going to interfere or be a problem. It's, it's, it's in your permit and there's nothing saying that you can't do that. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. So I think that we are good on this one. So this is closed on our side.  And yeah, we look forward to hearing back from you in regards to a alternative spot. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you all for your time. Thank you, everyone. Thank you very much. Okay. So I just got to change up. Oh, everybody left. So I think we are good. Okay. Cool. Okay. So we are good with that. So I assume that we want to move on to the enforcement order at this point, Erin. That would be great. Okay. And so I did see a couple of people here for that. So can you just raise your hand? But I assume that Andy Sabina and Nancy apparently. Oh, Nancy's, Nancy's on a butter to the projects. They're just... Oh, okay. Actually, if that is the case, Nancy, I'm going to put you back as an attendee. And then when we open it up for public comment, we'll definitely get to you. So my apologies on that one. This is just for applicants at this point. Or not applicants, landowners. Okay. So Erin, would you mind giving us a update or a re-encapsulation of what's going on where we currently stand? Sure. Yeah. So I want to say two weeks ago, I received a complaint about brush hogging and that there was tree debris blocking a trail on the trail. And I apologize, I'm blanking on the name of the trail. I think it's the, I'm blocking on the name of the trail. Is it the KC trail, Erin? KC trail. That's what I was looking for. I was going to say K something, KC trail. And so I had sent out a series of emails, kind of trying to figure out, get to the bottom of what was going on out there. Cause I knew we had had some hazard trees in that general vicinity from the tropical storm. I had reached out to Brad, our land manager, and Dave as well, just to find out if they had been doing work out there. Also reached out to Sabina, the landowner at 214 Pomroy, just to see if any work had been going on out there. Sabina was very responsive. She said there was work happening on site, but that they were, you know, abiding by the determination that was issued. So, and then Dave and Brad went out and they had identified that there was some brush hogging going on. So Dave had suggested I go out and look at it. I went out and looked at it. And when I got out there, I just identified right away that there was some serious problems. Clearing appeared to be right up to wetland boundaries into the 25 foot no disturb. And in some places it looked like the wetland itself had been mowed over and grubbed. There had been stockpiling of materials right up against within say 20, 25 feet of a vernal pool, clearing up to 25 feet of a vernal pool, clearing in a riverfront area, and also natural heritage endangered species area. This was all just what I could view from that small section of Casey trail that runs, that abuts the land directly. So I could only see from that vantage point and so based on that information, I spoke with Dave and Brett and we issued the enforcement order with kind of a just cease and desist to no action required as part of that. So generally with enforcement orders, there's a couple of different ways it can go. You can require an after the fact notice of intent application to basically legally permit the work that was done in violation and or you could just require a full restoration plan to be submitted to restore the site to its previous condition. So those are two potential options. We specifically left it open ended so that the commission could evaluate the site and make a determination. We did try to set up a site visit for today, but unfortunately, just because of schedules, scheduling conflicts, we weren't able to make it happen. I know the representative has thrown out some additional dates. Which we can revisit and maybe try to nail something down this evening if possible. Or and or the commission can just wait until we get out on the site. There may be additional alteration on the site that we have not documented yet. So that's another concern that we might wanna assess the entire site before taking any action whatsoever. Thank you very much, Erin. And so from the landowner side, is there somebody who wants to take lead and provide some background from your side? Sure, Brett. So I'll do it. Tom Reedy, attorney with Bacon Wilson and Amherst here on behalf of and with Sabina Shelby who's one of the landowners. Also with us is Andy Bone from Place Alliance Landscape Architect. You know, I think this is and I've had a conversation with Aaron and Dave. It was probably about this time last week. I had a conversation with Sabina and it seems like it's a little bit of a cart before the horse. Ultimately, I think as you all know, Sabina and her brother Nick want to ultimately preserve this land and they want to farm this land.  And from the sounds of it and I haven't been on site, I think Andy has, I know Sabina has, he went too far. So he went, I would guess beyond the limits of what that RDA said. Ideally, we would have gone through, you know, an NOI process with the board, with Andy, with Sabina, initially to say here's the work that we want to do to prepare this land for the agricultural use. And then obviously you say yes, no, or if it's yes, here's how you do it, right? So that's the path it should have taken. It didn't take that path. We are here now. And so part of the thinking is, does it make sense just to continue the cease and desist for now, not to do anything, but to have at least you, Mr. Chairman, maybe other members of the commission and Aaron meet with maybe Sabina and Andy on site either later this week or beginning of next week to talk about the site. Generally because, you know, the sincere intent is to farm this site.  You know, ha ha, we got you. It really is, it's to farm it. It just, they went about it the wrong way.  So I've got Andy here because I think he's very good. I think he has a very good sense of ecological balance restoration and also Jeff Dawson in his office has a good handle on farming and farm development. So I thought that they would be a good mix for this, but obviously we're happy to have a conversation. We're not trying to back away from any of this. We're just trying to figure out how to move forward. Okay. Thank you, Tom. So I don't know if Andy or Sabina, if you have anything that you would like to add at this point. Sure. If I could just jump in Sabina and then if there's something you want to add, but so I was able to walk the site early this week with Sabina and start to get myself equated with the site itself. I got the RDA plan to start to understand where there may be these potential conflicts. There's clearly a polygon that goes through the site for the threatened endangered species. So understanding ultimately how to come up with a plan for an agricultural use that kind of works within kind of the boundaries and limitations of what's on site today. And there's some areas that I haven't overlaid anything yet, but if there's, I think there's some areas that need to be restored. I did see some of the piles of woody debris along the edges that certainly we'd want to get out of there. So the hope is to walk the site, as Erin mentioned, hopefully later this week or early next week with Erin and members of the commission, really start to see it and see what areas there are and where these potential conflicts may be. Come up with a plan for an agricultural use that would incorporate areas of restoration if they're needed in that plan. So that we can go about this as Tom mentioned, kind of in the right way to make sure that we're all on the same page about how to restore this agricultural use back to the property and protect it in the long term. Okay, thank you, Andy. Sabina, anything you want to add? And you don't need to. Well, just a little bit of background. When we purchased in September, 2019, Dave Burgess had, we had mentioned to Dave that we wanted to, we've always abutted the land and had for 53 years had seen it as farmland and told him that we did want to make it a 61A. And he said that it was fungible or it was something that could be easily done whenever because we felt like it was September already and we were not prepared to figure out how to make the revenue that's necessary for a 61A. You need to make a certain revenue every year as an agricultural use land use. So we waited until 2020. And we were not exactly prepared to put in the notice of intent because we hadn't figured out yet what we want to do with that barn. It's a very old barn. Probably needs to come down but we didn't know whether we would be replacing it with putting tools in there or whether we'd be storing hay. And so we hesitated to do anything that because you had mentioned that you wanted a complete notice of intent, not just piecemeal. And so that's sort of how it happened. We would like to submit the 61A application by September 31st and we would be prepared with Andy's help to put together a notice of intent. So thank you all very much.  We assume no ill intent. And so, but yeah, we are a little bit hamstrung that we haven't had a chance to kind of go out and assess the site. And so I think that is in my opinion sort of the first order. So if we can set up a site visit and then after we have the site visit then we can sort of come back together. I agree with what Aaron was saying, there are a couple of different options. If there was work done directly in a wetland, yeah, I mean, I can't speak for the commission personally. I would like to see restoration done there. If it's within 25 feet, that's also potentially problematic. We won't know that till we're actually out there. So other commissioners, do you have any thoughts at this time is site visit and then sitting down again, a acceptable? Yeah, I agree with your approach. Yeah, that seems like a good way to go, Brett. Okay. I would agree with it and just to echo Aaron's photos earlier, I blocked the site from the same easement today. And I think an actual site visit walking the entire site would be much more helpful and informative to everybody. Yeah, much more holistic. You can see a bunch of cases each year that particularly the part near the road is difficult to see. Okay, before we sort of move on, I know that there's at least, I think Aaron said there was one person from the public who might've had something they wanted to say. So if that's true, if you just want to raise your hand and then yeah, I'll go back to you, Aaron. Okay, so yeah, Nancy, you should be able to speak at this time, Nancy. I just want to thank Aaron for her presentation and thank everyone for their attention to this. You are most welcome and yeah, thank you for, I'm not sure who brought this to our attention initially, but we're thankful for that as well. Okay, so Aaron, you had something you wanted to... Well, just that the enforcement order needs to be ratified, just a motion to ratify the enforcement order that was issued so that I can put board signatures on it and make it official. And then once a site visit's done and we hold another meeting, we can modify that however the board sees fit. We'll move to approve that. Yeah, and so one potential, I don't know if the applicant, so you mentioned that you're trying to do something by September 31, but I don't know if this is gonna interfere with that. I mean, we need to set up a site visit and then our next meeting is gonna be a little bit tough. So preferably putting it off to the meeting after that, but again, I'm not sure if you guys have specific needs at this time that we should be. I mean, I think it's okay, Mr. Chair. I think what we're talking about is filing the Chapter 61A application with the assessors, the Board of Assessors. So we can do that. We don't need to have all of this in place. It's just within that fiscal year, we've got to create a certain amount of value from the land, as you know, from the land. So, but I don't see this as stopping that. Okay, good. I just want to make sure that if there are issues on your side that we're as flexible as can be. Okay, so does anybody have any other comments at this point? Erin, what's the best way that we can sort of set up the site visit? So you sent around a couple of times. I know I sent back a response. I'll put all the other commissioners on the spot right now. Have other people responded to Erin? Not yet. I had to look at my calendar. I'm not sure. Yeah, it's tight for me. Yeah, I responded that I probably couldn't make it, Erin, just because I don't want to schedule around my crazy schedule, but could you notify us of when you guys decide to do it and if I can make it, I will be there? Yeah, definitely, definitely. And for me, just looking at my schedule, I believe pretty much any of the times that Andy threw out Friday, Monday, or Tuesday would work with the exception of the three to five on Monday. And I'm thinking maybe two hours set aside for the walk if it doesn't take that long or wonderful, but it is a big site to walk the entire boundary and document stuff. So I don't know if there's a day that anyone else prefers, but Friday, 9.30 to 11, Monday, 10.30 to 1.30, Tuesday, 9.30 to 1.00 PM are all times that would work for me. Yeah, as I responded, because the semester has started, my time is definitely tough right now. I can only do like a half hour or so early morning. But will we be able to drive in right now? It's posted. Yeah, it was requested by the applicant that we be accompanied by one of the representatives. My question was not that. We'll be able to drive into the property rather than parking out on Hummerway. Oh, I got you. So when the visit happens, okay. Is that true? So just because of accessibility issues for people have a little more challenge walking. No, that's fine. If you want to come into 214 where the farmhouses, there's plenty of space to park. Right now it's posted, I think. It's what? Oh yeah, people were dropping off their washing machines and stuff thinking it was abandoned. So yeah, you could just remove that and just drive in. Okay, well, I'll nail down a time with Andy, but that, and I'll send it around to everybody. Okay, thank you. Nothing's jumping out right now. And Erin, if you need additional dates or different time slots moving further down that week, just let me know. Okay, yeah, I'll probably respond tomorrow. And we can nail something down. Erin, I just checked briefly again, the only times I can do are on the 15th. And so I'll email you that, but just so you know, it's just a little nutty right now. Sorry. Could you do something between 9.30 and one on the 15th? Yeah, I could, I'm free 10.30 to one. Okay, why don't we say 10.30 on the 15th? Okay, I might, sorry. I have to get there, like 10.40. 10.40, yeah, that's fine. 10.45, yeah. Yeah, that'd be great. If that were- 10.45 on to say the 15th is fine. Yeah, I forget working from home that like getting places takes time. Yeah. Yep, absolutely. Okay. Sorry, I'm not going to be able to be there. So, but yeah, it'd be great. Get some, have Erin there, and then yeah, at least one commissioners and whatever else can make it, that's great as well. Okay. You have a motion, Brett. So I didn't hear motion on the floor, but I know that we need to ratify. So we do need- That's what my motion was to ratify it. Oh, okay, I'm sorry. I didn't hear that Larry. So can you repeat the motion? Because it was so moved, we approve the notice of cease and desist. So, okay. So basically ratifying the enforcement order for cease and desist for, I'm just looking for that address for two, 14. 14, yeah. Okay. Second. Okay. So Leroy, second that. Okay. So Larry, your vote. Yes. I. Leroy. I. Jen. I. Laura. I. And I for me as well. So I think we have a path forward at this point. And yeah, looking forward to working with you guys to resolve the issue. Thanks a lot. Have a great night. Bye everyone. Or bye to those people. Commissioners, we're not done yet, so. Thank you. Okay. We might be close to done, but- I was going to say, this is like the part of the meeting where Erin goes, okay, people are starting to look tired. So we are going. So yeah, do you want to kind of pick and choose how you want us to move forward, Erin? If you want to do common school. And I noticed that Mickey, that you're on the call now. Are you here, Mickey? I'll, you can talk now. So Mickey, I don't know if you were here for the, for the dredging piece and that one got postponed. No, no, I think we're all set on that. Thank, thank you. You know, I just wanted to talk about that UMass parking lot expansion. If you have any questions on that. Okay, great. Yes. So I can pull that up. UMass for their blanket order of conditions. I'll call it submitted a plan to expand a parking area, gravel parking area, and I'll just kind of let Mickey take it away. Cause I think that'll be the fastest. Yeah, this was on Olympia Drive. And so they have an existing gravel parking area that they want to expand in the area that shaded. And so there's a proposed plan to expand you know, a minimum of a 30 foot buffer to the wetlands. And what I was suggesting is allow the folks to clear it, put in the erosion control, Aaron can look at it and then they can do the work. There is, it's like a little finger of wetlands that you can see. And right next to that is actually an existing gravel driveway that I'm suggesting they actually restore replant with maple trees and basically put back that 30 foot buffer that doesn't exist now. So it was a little bit of restoration but it's basically an expansion, a lot of scrub growth. It's very thick back there, very hard to get to. So anyway, they want to clear that and add more gravel and this parking lot is primarily for contractors working on university property. So Aaron, I don't know if you had a chance to go out there if you have any thoughts on this one? I have not had a chance to do a site visit. I haven't had a chance to go out and take a look at the site. I would be happy to go out and take a look at it with Mickey or on my own. Not sure how I know that these, I feel like this is a new thing for me with UMass maintenance permits or the operation maintenance permit, how kind of what the procedure is going to be when they come forward with a, I mean, I reviewed the plan obviously to see what they were doing and but I'm not sure kind of what your expectation is as far as every time one of these comes through because I think they might be coming through more often. Yeah, I think a lot of it kind of depends on what the specifics are for the action. So there's not really a blanket that we have and yeah, we're all feeling our way through this. But Mickey, can you just reiterate for me? I think you already said it, but so I'm a little confused because you said that there's some areas that are going to be restored, but then it's an overall increase in impervious area that's happening. So it's an existing gravel parking lot. It's going to remain a gravel parking lot. So one of the things that the conditions say is that when the university has projects that are anywhere in the buffer, if they put erosion control in, stay a minimum of 30 feet away from the wetlands, they can do that work with approval of the agent. So for the last couple of projects that have come up, that's what I've done, I've just sent the plans to Aaron who's brought it to the commission so you know what's going on. But on this particular project, so there's no work within 30 feet with the exception that there's actually an existing driveway that I just want to get rid of. So it's right at the end of that little finger that you see there on the right side of the screen, there's a roadway that connects this existing driveway to the north. So they can just abandon that and expand that buffer. And what I'd like to do is just, it's very, very dense, very like briars scrub, but I'd like to have them do the first phase is just go ahead, clear that area, put the erosion control in place, and then at that point have Aaron look at the site and make sure that everything's okay. Okay. Yeah, I mean, particularly if there's no expansion and actually use reduction, I mean, I think, yeah, that's what the sort of blankets in place for. So I don't see any issues. Any other commissioners have comments or thoughts on this one? I think this makes a ton of sense. And it's like exactly why we did the blanket NOI. Forget what we call that. What was the nice technical term for our five year NOI? Operation maintenance, maybe? I don't know, but this is why we did it. So I think it makes a lot of sense. Yeah, and just to give us an opportunity to just look through it real quick and I think that's all we need to do. So I don't think there's anything else that we need to do today. So this is more informational. So as long as you're comfortable, Aaron, I mean, we can, I don't think we need to vote on this, but if you feel otherwise, let me know. I mean, thanks for sitting through the whole meeting to tell us about that. So may I just tell the university to go ahead and do that first phase of work and then let Aaron know what's going on? Yeah, the only thing I would say, Mickey, is that those areas, please make sure that they are thoroughly identified as being 30 foot no touch, that when they go in to do the clearing that they're not going beyond those areas. I mean, I might even suggest that they put in some monumentation in the form of boulders or something just so that they, as they're clearing, they know they're not going beyond the 30 foot. It's actually already staked out. Oh, okay. So the surveyors went and staked those boundaries already. Okay, so there's some kind of rebar or something? Or wood, wooden stakes. Okay, okay. So that the tree clears nowhere to go. Okay, all right. And those will remain in place for when I get out there to do an inspection. Yep. Okay. Okay, I think we're good. So yeah, thank you very much, Mickey. Okay, thank you all for your time. I appreciate it. Good night. Okay, Erin, next. Okay, so the common school has another request for minor administrative change. It's number three. So it's definitely, it's been an intense process and an intense thing to work through, but let me just open up the plan. Or minor than the other one. It's very, very minor. It is basically just a grass. They want to just put in, this area has already been approved. This has already been pre-approved by the commission for one to three years, but this area is just a grassed learning area. So very simple. It just, they want a, the commission to consider it a minor administrative change to the permit to have that there. It's just going to be minor change as a pop-up tent. There's going to be no change to the underlying vegetation or main grass. Correct. I am fine. Other folks? I'm good. I'm okay. Fine. All right, I'm just going to say we have a consensus on this because it's such a minor change to the, sorry.  Okay, next is. So we have the CPA appointment as well. Oh yeah, CPA appointment, which was historically Fletcher. And I know that they are really trying to get this appointment done quickly because I think CPA is going to start meeting soon. But I don't know what Fletcher's feeling is about being appointed and because he's not on the call tonight, he had a personal situation or if anybody else has interest in being appointed or how the board wants to handle that. I just, I think Fletcher, if Fletcher wants to keep it, I do think he's doing a great job from what I've seen of him on CPA, which I know we can't make that decision for him, but I would back him if he were interested in doing it again. So my only concern, I'm with you, Anna. I would love for him to stay and I think he's done a nice job is, Erin, do you know when his term limit is for concom? Yep, the June 30th, 2023, I plugged it in there. Yep. Okay. Yeah, so if he is willing and able, unless there is somebody else who is also interested, I see Jen shaking her head. Okay, so Erin, can you reach out to Fletcher and tell him that he has our full support? That being said, if he doesn't have the time or desire to do it, that's his prerogative and we'll figure something out. I was gonna say, I can be a backup. I would like strongly, strongly, sorry, sorry. Don't let me get in your way. Strongly like Fletcher to do it, but I can back up if you need me to. Excellent, thank you, Anna. Dave, do we need a motion for the appointment or could we just have that? Well, I don't think we should do anything at this point until we at least get Fletcher's. Yeah. Yeah, I think, I think if Erin, it would be good if Erin reached out to Fletcher. I'd also be curious to know how long Fletcher has been doing it. It is really nice, I don't know, it's nice. It's a nice experience.  You get to work with a number of people from different parts of Amherst and make decisions or at least make recommendations to the council on about potentially $1 million in spending every year on the four categories. So it might, but I agree, let's see if Fletcher wants to still do it if he doesn't, you still have time you could, they don't meet until I think the second week in October. Oh, okay. I'm at your next meeting to, between then Erin can confirm whether Fletcher wants to do it. If he doesn't, maybe another member of the commission would consider it. Unfortunately, there's no backups. I mean, the person who is recommended or voted by the commission is then appointed to the committee and so other people can't attend and vote or represent the commission. It's only Fletcher. No, on a human if Fletcher didn't want to do it. Yeah, I mean, if Fletcher didn't want to do it. Okay. Yeah. Good, so let's check in with, let's check in with them. Okay. So I think we're good on that one. And yeah, then assuming that he is okay with it, we can do a formal vote next time. Okay, that sounds good. So the only other items are that you might notice if you drive by that some work has been done at one university drive south, they've gone in and done some tree clearing. Erosion controls were installed. I went out to do an inspection. Basically, I told Barry Roberts when I did the inspection to stake the straw waddles and also that I suggested that they add their monumentation now prior to work starting because it's just, it makes it much easier for contractors to know where boundaries are and also keeps the site from the limit of work line from shifting towards the 25 foot no disturb. And then also just some really great news that the Colvert Daylighting at 33 Mountain View Circle was completed two weeks ago. And I went out and took a look at it and it looks fantastic. And just kudos to Bob Predmore who really drove that home. And it's, they put in the hydro seed, I think right at the perfect time because we got a good amount of rain and it has been seasonably cooler so that we could get some growth. And it looks great. Fantastic, nice. Okay, so anything else for tonight, Erin? No. Okay, so thank you. And yeah, just a word of warning about next week. So, you know, if you need your coffee or tea. So at this point, Erin, I assume that we have not heard from Tafino but we should assume that they will actually be presenting. That was my understanding based on the previous call was that we were gonna be expecting some kind of presentation or something to be provided to us prior to. The other four hearings besides Tafino are all for individual requests for determination. They're all relatively minor sheds, pools, minor work, buffer zone work for the most part. So. Yeah, but Tafino, once we get into that, that will take a little bit of time. That will be a big boy, yeah, for sure. Yeah, okay. And yeah, we should expect people from the public to be at that once that is finally presented. Yep. Okay, so that is it. So looking for a motion for adjournment. So moved. Second. Okay, so looking for a voice vote. Anna. Aye. Jen. Aye. Laura. Aye. Larry. Aye. LaRoy. Aye. And aye for me as well as Laura gives a nice yawn. I know, Laura, your yawns have been contagious. Sorry. I've never heard such a-