Okay. Hello everyone. Welcome to the October 26, 2022, Amherst Conservation Commission meeting. Let's see quick overview of our agenda tonight. We have two continuations the notice of intent for 52 Fearing Street LLC scheduled for 730 will be continued and the request for determination for New England Central Railroad will be continued. We do have a fair amount of content to go through for the 515 Sunderland Road Battery Energy Storage Facility and a lot of content for the 47 Olympia Drive hearings and then issue in the orders of conditions we have to issue orders of conditions for Canton Ave. We have a lot to and 30 Kestrel app so the other business has some content towards the back end of the meeting. I think the big thing I just wanted to mention at the top of the meeting is it's a tough time of year. We've been having sparse attendance at our meeting which is fine it happens to everybody for all kinds of reasons, but if you can't make a meeting if it's possible for you to let both Aaron and I know that would be great because last week I think different people told one or the other of us that they couldn't make it and then by the time we got to the meeting and compared notes. We realized we were barely had a quorum. So just if you can't make it. Just no big deal. It happens but just tell both Aaron and I. So that we can. Yeah, go ahead Aaron. Yeah, I just had a realization that we can't issue Canton without Fletcher and Andre. That's right and we had pushed Canton because of Fletcher. I will email mark while we wait for, I don't know what is going on with them with Alex. I'm going to email mark really quickly. I'm going to text Fletcher and just see if there's any way he can hop on. If he can hop in at the end of the meeting just briefly. It's, it's up to you Jen but given that he shared what he shared with us I just wonder whether that's appropriate. Yeah, I mean, if he literally has a funeral. No, it's not a funeral. And I because yeah, yeah, I appreciate your sensitivity based on my conversation with him. I think it's uncomfortable just saying like, if you're not yet at this event or can hop onto your computer so we can issue can have. We'll see, I would give that a 20% chance of coming through. Okay, I emailed mark just to let him know it might be an issue tonight. I don't see Alex. Yeah, I don't see Alex as an attendee. Okay, well, I just saw him over there he disappeared. He did and then he disappeared. Yeah. Oh, there he is. He's probably confused because he's coming in as a, there we go. Alex, we can see that you're here but we, I think you're muted. There he is. Sorry for the delay. Yeah. I should have called my hair. I don't, I had problems with the link in the PowerPoint. I'll have to get a lesson from Aaron later on how that works. Oh, the link in the PowerPoint doesn't work, but you should be getting a reminder email an hour before the meeting that has a link. It sometimes goes to junk mail, just be aware of that. I didn't get home till 630 so I thought I'd be home earlier. Anyways, I have read your, I quickly read your update on your comments on 47 Olympia. And I started to read the other stuff and then it was time to log on. Okay, thanks Alex. Glad you made it. So I was just giving a brief overview of the agenda. And we've had a realization that we need fletcher in order to issue the can't nav order of conditions. So, we're trying to figure out that situation but in the meantime, Dave, maybe you, the next item on our agenda is an update from Dave. Sure. Yeah, let me let me go through a few updates for you all tonight. Let me start off, I had hoped to have a little more detail on on an upcoming CPA presentation but honestly the last two weeks have been kind of a blur so I don't have much on that I know that Michelle you're going to be the CPA C liaison. And during the month of November, the various CPA C presentations will be made in the in the four categories recreation conservation if you will open space, historic reservation and affordable housing so I asked for my requesters for $100,000 for trails and bridges access improvements, etc. And so have not gotten together kind of a PowerPoint on that but will and we'll share that with you all. Aaron was nice enough to do a quick search on the CPA Coalition website and I went over that with Brad and Tyler today and it was interesting that that really there's about 15 to 20 properties that we've purchased since 2003. We're still honing in on a couple that may not have been on the CPA C website. But it's interesting you know it's it's roughly 20 properties that between 2003 and the present that we've purchased. The CPA dollars can only be used CPA conservation dollars can only be used on those properties so that's the good news the bad news is properties like buffers pond like large hill like Mt. Pollux CPA dollars can't be used on those so so I've asked Brad and Tyler to kind of come up with a list of potential projects that are needed in in those 15 to 20 conservation areas the trails that are associated with them. You know we'll make that presentation to CPA C. I can't remember off the top of my head when we're presenting Michelle but I think it's in the next three weeks or so so I'll share that with the commission. We may be talking a little bit more about land management later, but I'm excited to form this, you know, have the Commission form this this subcommittee of the body to really kind of dive into land management and you know probably in the winter months and early early spring of 23. I've asked Brad and Tyler. I think they have a date Aaron with that they coordinated through you to do a presentation to the Commission in January I think it's maybe your second meeting in January I'm not. I didn't commit that date to memory but I think it's the second meeting is that right Aaron. So, you had asked me to do that and then Brad emailed me saying he had a conflict but we can work around and get him around that time get you get him. That'll be nice for the Commission to really have kind of a 2002 summary of what they worked on out in the field bridges. Parking lots, you name it so that'll be kind of fun and get a sense of the work they accomplished this year. We are also kicking off two projects this week. One is at the plumber upon that project was permitted through you this is the culvert removal on the south. I would call that the southeast section of corner of plumber upon. This is around the the loop trail. This is a local contractor who also did the Kestrel trust culvert if you will on their access drive. And so this would be a color removal I think there's two crushed culverts in there and they'll replace that with a bridge bank stabilization it's going to be a great project to hope for a couple of dry days here for Chris Austin who's a contractor from Belcher town got the job and that should be exciting to get that that project done and get that stream free flowing. I mean that that those culverts have been crushed for possibly decades so it's been a long long time so it'll be nice to get that stream flowing. And also up in Jen's neck of the woods the Casey trail bridge I, I mentioned that we, we kind of took a run at that and, and probably, I think honestly built a little bit bigger structure than we really needed there so we're we're kind of just going to downsize that a little bit. There'll be no virtually no excavation anything like that but we're, we're just going to work on kind of redecking something in a much smaller way on the Casey trail bridge. So we're actually going to reuse some of the overbuiltness of that project and move those materials over to the new bridge over at Plum Brook pond and perhaps use some of those materials over there and elsewhere in town so none of the materials will go to waste, but Brad and Tyler just did a wonderful job over there but it was a little bigger than we anticipated it would be. We honestly need that's what I would call a short term solution. I would probably call that like a one to three year solution we still need to address the issue of vehicular passage over that bridge. We own the land we own the land and fee, but an adjacent farmer has the right to pass and we pass over the hop brook to get to their APR farm field to the east. And the challenge for us is how do we build a bridge how do we afford how do we find a bridge that can support tractors and hey, hey equipment so that'll be the longer term fundraising goal if you will and funding goal there. Let's see what else was on my quick list. It's unfortunate that Fletcher is not here but I understand that that Fletcher is has been talking with Brad and Tyler a little bit and connected them with some folks at Mass Wildlife. They're working with. Let's see that the professor is Kelly. I may be mispronouncing that in in a course that you mass wildlife habitat management. And that class is, I think proposing to kind of do a studio out there simply, you know, looking at some of our conservation areas and you're all probably familiar with this I mean, we've done it with the Conway School of the LARP, the LARP program at UMass. Having students take a look at areas and and give us some some management ideas whether it's asking asking flats or, or other areas Eastman brook things of that sort. And I think, I'm not sure if Fletcher is going to join them out in the field but the idea would be to do kind of a walk about with members of the class they break up into small groups, and then they, they come up with, you know, management scenarios I get the sense that this is a probably juniors some juniors and seniors at UMass for kind of a fall project. So it'll be fun to get their ideas we've done this at Puffer's pond, you know, have studios focus on Puffer's pond. Where else have we done have we done anything else recently in the last couple of years Aaron I'm trying to think whether we had a studio for I don't think we had one for Hickory. But anyway, so I think Fletcher connected them with some of his colleagues or one colleague at Mass Wildlife and so we'll we'll get a sense of, you know, and they'll, they'll share those with us. I don't expect them to be at this point in the year to extensive given, you know, I don't know if it's for the spring semester or the remainder of the fall semester but there's not a whole lot of time left in the fall semester. So those were the quick updates, again kind of getting ready for winter, still doing some brush hogging out there, getting equipment ready to be put away for the winter. And then Aaron and I will work with the field staff with Brad and Tyler on really turn a lineup what projects do we anticipate trying to tackle in spring summer of 23. We still got some pretty major projects on the on the on the blocks we've got the Amethyst Brook Bridge. We've got the KC trail bridge which I just mentioned we've got what we call the, the, the bridge over off of South East Street the National Guard Bridge which was built by the National Guard about 30 years ago. Some undercutting of that by the hop brook so lots and lots of projects to kind of talk about design and permit down the road so no shortage of work for the summer staff and, and some of those projects honestly I think we will be contacting out for like the project we're currently doing that went through the commission at Plum Brook pond, really kind of assessing what is within the, what is within the, you know, kind of framework for what Brad and Tyler can do versus what we need to hire folks to help us with our building commissioner Rob more has been as well as Jason skills they both been very generous with their time. And some of these projects are going to require you know some of the larger projects will require building permits and engineered plans so you know simple bog bridging and things of that sort. But you get into some of these larger bridge with spans of 20 feet or in the case of the amethyst brook bridge 55 feet. All of a sudden you're into building permits and and engineered plans so we've, you know, I think there's probably not a full appreciation out there for 80, what 80 miles of trails means going over, you know streams of rivers, etc. And how do we keep those bridges in good repair. So I think we got to, we do need to keep seeking funding whether it's through CPA private dollars state grants, but we're going to we're going to need more money over time to to focus on that. I think the piece of that too is that I've, I've, I've scaled back a little on land acquisition, and haven't done many projects in the last couple of years purposely to focus on management and getting our house in order. So this is all part of the plan of updating and maintaining some of the land trails that we, we already on. So, I'll stop there. Thanks. Thanks, Jen. Thanks Dave. Any questions, missioners comments. Okay. Next item on the agenda is land management updates. So the land use policy I think Cameron you had it. Yes, I looked over this week. Okay. And where does it go from there, Aaron. So I sent it. I sent it to Alex and has it right now and then when Alex wraps up, it will go to you and then circle back to me for sort of a final incorporation of all edits. And hopefully from there we're going to be doing like a meeting where we review everything and maybe take public comment on it and hopefully approve it. Okay. I think Jen I was hoping to maybe take. After all commissioners had looked at it and take it. I was hoping to get in on that track changes version and, and throw my own comments in there so I'm, you know, I did see what Cameron put in there but I've been reading all along but I'd love to kind of wait till everybody. So I'm going to take their comments in and then I can do the last pass and then, you know, great. A good hard look at it. It's exciting. Sounds like your plan. Okay. So then the other item under land management updates what updates with establishment of land use planning subcommittee. I remember this is a thing, a topic we've discussed a couple of times and kind of agreed there was consensus that we thought this was a good use of time but we hadn't gotten any further than that. So I think probably the first thing we need to get a sense of is if there's anyone willing to do it. So our hero. I was just wondering what what's like the nexus between this subcommittee and, and the plan that we might approve in a couple weeks. Maybe you're getting to that. I think that the idea Michelle is the, the policy is sort of for use of the lands. This would be for management of the lands so it's to come up with like sort of an overall plan for management and that is like a mowing schedule that's appropriate for the properties based on species that might be there and we're thinking sort of holistically instead of looking at. I mean we want to look at the properties individually as far as a management plan but this is to sort of come up with like an overarching plan for all lands that would like we could present a mowing schedule to the guys who work out in the field we could present recommendations for, you know, different things that are needed parking. I think Dave and I talked a lot about this a lot of it is like habitat related how we manage the lands if we're doing early successional if we're doing force cutting if we're doing for stewardship you know like all those different components. So I think it's more of a management focus as opposed to policy focus. And if I could just, if I could add Michelle. I think I'd like to leave the door a little bit open on just a little bit open if we could Aaron to on the policy piece because I think the goal of the document that we're currently working on was really also to bring everything together to say okay let's get together. Let's kind of codify what we know right now we're I don't think we're, I don't think this document we're all working on breaks too much new ground, I think we're just kind of gathering from websites and history and, and different staff and different commission commissions who made policy and decisions and processes on on different things and bring those all together. I think when we get the document together all done, you know in a month or so, I have a feeling we will look at and say well are there policies we want to revisit and and open up again. I believe that window that that window open a little bit for this new group to maybe dive into two. So I think you're right Aaron it will be focused on the management piece, and you're right to be, it would be, you know, early in that management moment, excuse me, invasive species management. You know, how do, how do we make decisions on what land do we put in agricultural production back in agricultural production or not. What fields do we allow to to basically and not be early successional field habitat anymore and and so those kinds of things but I do want to leave the door open a little bit on policy because I think there will be some things that this commission will ask questions about and I saw some of your comments or questions in the in the margins Michelle just about, you know, even a dog policy is a great example, you know, we have two areas, Amethyst Brook and Lower Mill River that allow dogs before let's see from dawn to 10am. Is that something we want to keep is it realistic is it enforceable, you know, and, and so I think there will be elements of the policy we want to look at to. Does that make sense, because that will drive some of that policy will drive of course the management decisions we make. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me, and exciting, excited to work on it. I'm, you know, hunting fishing I've interacted a little bit with Alex on hunting and fishing camping horseback riding. There's a lot of interesting things to talk about here. Yeah, but yeah. So, so let's see. So we have a subcommittee of one so far. You got Aaron, you got Aaron and Dave for sure. Okay, perspective. I would also be interested in joining that. Awesome. I was gonna, I was going to hesitantly ask you. If that was something you'd be interested in, interested in that would be great. Okay. So without Andre and pleasure here. I don't know if we want, should we wait until we have the full 100% attendance. I think that we were thinking of starting Dave correct me if I'm wrong but maybe the first of the year as opposed to before the end of the year like because we were going to wrap up the land use policy first and then maybe get this so I don't think it's a necessarily going to be established. I think it was more for us to talk it through and kind of get a sense of who wanted to be involved. Okay. First meeting we plan for New Year's Day. Yes. We'll make it at 10am. It will be only when dogs can be at Mill River and Amherst. So it's now a time to express interest in working with Michelle. Yes. Okay. Cameron. And Cameron. Alex. Alex, I was hoping you would jump on. That's awesome. Yeah. Yeah, that's awesome. Yeah. So I mean, I was thinking of doing like maybe a for that for the subcommittee for the. Bylaw regulations, we did a noon on a Friday meeting, but we can be, we can discuss what time will work the best for everybody. If it needs to be another day or something, but figured like a lunch hour would be good because then it doesn't take people too much off of their day, but we can discuss scheduling as well. Okay. I liked that 12 to one network 12 me. So just throwing that out there. Okay. And hopefully in the spring, we can have a field component as well and get out there and make sure we're seeing these areas and understanding the history, the acquisition history, the CPA or other restrictions, CR history, any, any restrictions that might have come from the state funding that we received all of those. Those layers that I know Michelle and Alex, you're very familiar with from your professional work. So. Awesome. I think we're going to learn a lot. We're going to learn a lot about these, these lands. So with that. Thank you everyone for your interest in that. It's exciting. You have a question. Alex, do you have another question? Yeah. Okay. It's, I don't, I do not have an agenda. The agenda in front of me. But Dave asked Aaron to send out the. White paper on. Solar. Yeah. To read that. Is that on the agenda anywhere tonight? Yeah, we do need to discuss that. I think I would, what I want to do right now is. We can continue our seven 30 and shortly after that, our seven 35 hearings. I don't, I do not have an agenda. The agenda in front of me. But Dave asked Aaron to send out the. The agenda in front of me. The agenda in front of me. Our seven 35 hearings. And then if we have time, we could discuss it briefly before the seven 40. Yeah. No, thank you for that. Yes. We will discuss that. Thanks for the reminder. Aaron, unless you have a preference. Unless that. Okay. So why don't we go ahead and. Issue the. The agenda in front of me. And then we have a. Continuance for 52 fearing LLC. So. Yep, we're just looking for a motion. Thanks, Aaron. To continue this public hearing to November 9, 2022 at seven 35. Yeah, I can make the motion. So motion to move.  So second hearing street. November night at seven 35 PM. Second. The second from Alex Aaron. So voice vote, Alex. Yes. Laura. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Michelle. Hi. And I'm also an I. Okay. And then for this next hearing, I need the public hearing to March 22nd of 2023. And in speaking to Aaron earlier today, it sounds like the reason for that is that they are making some improvements to the railroad itself and the Keith Morris was worried that when they're doing these improvements, the railroad railroad itself, it will result in some movement or loss of some of the wetland flagging. So he wants to go back out in the spring and fill out some of the areas that were not flagged. So he wants to go back out in the spring and fill out some of the areas that were not flagged. Which is probably. Wise. Especially because when Erin reviewed this application and the spray versus no spray areas. Months ago when it came in, she identified a number of areas that were not flagged. So we are allowing the continuation until March in the hopes that the delineation and the flagging of spray versus no spray areas. past. But we're also, you know, very weary of continuing this hearing again and again and again. So we are going to allow this continuation. But if this pattern continues where they're not showing up to hearings and continuations continue, then we're going to have to figure out how to regroup and close the hearing and require refiling. Because this is abnormal to continue something this long. So that's the update on that front. Did I miss anything, Erin? Yeah, I mean, I told him that if he's going to continue that far along that he's going to have to repost as legal ed anyways, and they still haven't notified a butters for this, they were kind of dragging their feet on the a butter notice. So prior to this hearing, and this is kind of like a, you know, administrative thing for the continuance, we don't really even need to continue it, because they're going to have to notify a butters and have to repost a hearing to do this again. I advise that because I feel like this is continuation number seven, and they haven't even showed up for a hearing yet. So that would be fair to public to be able to participate. Yep. Okay. Thanks, Erin. So with that update, unless the questioners have any questions, we need a motion and continue the public hearing. I'll make the motion to continue the public hearing for the New England Central Railroad, a request for determination to March 22nd, 2023 at 730 p.m. Second. The second for Michelle, voice vote, Michelle. Hi, Laura. Hi, Alex. Hi, Cameron. Hi, and I'm an eye. That was at exactly 735. So we should be good. Okay. So we have four minutes before our next hearing. Should we briefly discuss this? White paper? Or do we think that that's a longer topic? Is there anything else that we can cover in a four minute time slot, Erin? Yeah, I think so. So we, there's a couple of things that are really quick. The first is there was a request for Certificate of Compliance for 150 East Leverett Road. This was a really old order of conditions for a driveway. I went out and reviewed it and everything is stable. So I would be comfortable if the commission issued a complete certificate of compliance on it. Great. So we're just looking for a motion. Commissioners. Motion to issue a complete certificate of compliance for 150 East Leverett Road. Second. I think Michelle, is that Michelle in the second? Yep. Okay, voice vote, Michelle. Hi, Laura. Hi, Alex. Hi, Cameron. Hi, and I'm an eye. Good first motion, Cameron. Yay. Awesome. And then can we do this 51 Spalding Street? Yes. So this is a really simple one. I believe it was in your packets and bear with me while I pull the plan because I'm not sure I have it conveniently to just grab. But the project that the commission approved at 51 Spalding Street, you guys might recall, the driveway was pretty large and extended. It took up a good portion of the applicants backyard and they have gone through a number of revisions to make this area much significantly smaller. They pulled it out of the 25 foot no disturb and that was per old regulations that they had designed it to. And I'm trying, I'm queuing it up. So bear with me for just a moment, just to show how much this has improved based on the pulling this back so significantly. I don't know if you guys recall. I'm just going to do a quick annotate. The previous plan showed this driveway coming down like this and then there was like a big parking area here and it was like that. So they've basically removed all of this and come up with an alternative that's much further from the wetland, much less impact and much less driveway. So I would be comfortable with the commission approving this as a minor administrative change to the order of conditions, but it's really up to you guys if you're comfortable with that. I think it's a vast improvement across the board. I am comfortable with this as a minor administrative change. Commissioners, any questions or hesitation there? I'm happy to see they reduce the size of the driveway. So well, yep, the parking lot. OK, so we're just looking for a motion to approve these proposed changes per slide. I moved to issue a complete certificate of compliance for 150 East Leverett Road. Oh, sorry. No. The top one. OK. I moved to approve the proposed change to DEP number 089-0700 as a minor administrative change in consideration that buffers own impacts have been reduced. Seconded. It's a second from Cameron, voice vote. Cameron. Hi. Laura. Laura. You're on mute, Laura. She might have walked away for a sec there. Alex. Hi. Michelle. And I. Oh, thanks, Laura. Michelle. Hi. And I'm also an I. All right. Let's move into our 740 hearing. So this is. Battery Energy Storage Facility at 515 Sunderland Road. Are you bringing folks in already, Erin? No, but I can. I believe it's Drew. Drew and Josh. Yes. As soon as I click on it to promote somebody, they change the order of the names. Yeah, I know. It was just like the wrong thing. It's really nice. And if there's anybody else besides Drew and Josh, we can pull you in if you raise your hand. There's Josh. Andrew, awesome. Hi, guys, thanks for being here tonight. So just for the benefit of anyone in attendance, just a reminder of our general protocol for these hearings. So in order to keep things moving with our very full agendas, we usually try to keep hearings to about 20 minutes. And the structure is a five minute presentation or update by the applicant or representative for the permit, five minute comments from staff, five minutes for public comment. Or if we have a lot of public comment, two minutes per person and five minutes for questions and requests for outstanding information from commissioners. And so I know Josh and Drew, you're familiar with the process. But in this case, we'll just be asking for an update of any changes you think are important to notify us of before since our last hearing. But I also understand that you guys are looking to get feedback from us on a few things and then are going to make one big round of revisions for Aaron to then review, which we appreciate as opposed to many back and forth. So unless that's changed, are you OK with giving us a brief update and then we can hear from Aaron, take public comment and then make sure we give you the guidance you need in order to make those revisions. So yeah, yeah, that sounds great. OK, awesome. Yeah, thanks for your time again this evening. So we didn't meet a chance to meet with Aaron after our last meeting and discuss, you know, a number of potential revisions to the plans. We just, you know, there was also a bit of a waiting period there while we had the test bits conducted and the results of the test bits incorporated into the stormwater design. So I'll hand it off to Drew. We did. I know today Drew sent through, you know, just because we had already made some revisions, a plan just to share with Aaron and what we'll share on screen. But yeah, Drew, I'll pass it to you to kind of go through the various major revisions to the site. And then we can kind of listen to feedback from there. Yeah, thanks, Josh. I'm trying to share my screen, but it's disabled. So, Aaron, you can pull up the plan I sent or if you want to give me access, I can do that as well. I'm going to try for two seconds to see if I can get you to be able to do that. And Drew, I also can try as well. Yeah, I don't know why something there seems to be a change in the setting on Zoom. So if just out of curiosity, Josh, are you able to share? I just tried to a second ago and it said I didn't have the portion. Oh, I got it. Yeah, there we go. OK, what was the setting, Jen, that you're doing? So if you click the up arrow to the right of the share screen button, it says who can share. And there's an option of only the host versus all panelists. Is that under advanced settings? No. It's just to the right of the green share screen button. Like there's a little up arrow and I clicked that and just allowed. Oh, there we go. Got it. OK. So can you see I'm sharing Aaron's memo? Yes. Thank you, Drew. Thanks for your patience. Sorry about that. All right. Just just for the record, again, I'm Drew Verdoches, civil engineer and project manager, now with WSP, formerly Wood. But like Josh said, we've done a lot of work since our last meeting. We had test bits done at the site back on October 12th. And when I refer to comments, you know, generally, we're referring back to this memo from Aaron from September 23rd to the commission. So as I go through the plans that I'll flip to the plans here. So mainly the updates we on the existing conditions plan, we talked about revising some flagging. So we went back out there and moved some of the flags that were not shown in the site down here, Wetland D. So we moved some of those because previously we had located them by GPS. So we had made some adjustments in the field and then at the same day, had our survey or there and survey located all the flags. So all of the flagging locations have been updated via survey. So that's been done. The test bits were done all along the proposed access roadway by these test bits symbols here. We notified the town engineer. He couldn't make it that day, but we provided records of those to him for the record. Generally, the soils were what we expected them to be by mapping. So we confirm the soil type and updated stormwater model accordingly. But generally, most of the comments from from Aaron and also from the the planning staff will mention those comments as well because we're trying to address everything all at once, like you mentioned in one comprehensive package. So kind of doing those tandemly side by side, but some of the comments regarded stormwater on the planning side as well. So we took a deeper dive into that model for stormwater. So essentially what we did was previously we had an infiltration trench modeled underneath the roadway. So we we changed that roadway to a narrow width and added a dedicated infiltration trench along the inside of the road. So that way it's not co-located underneath the road. So we have a trench there alongside the road, but then also on the southern side alongside the inside of the fence and the east side over here. So that way there's separate treatment practices that are separate of the road. In addition to that, there were some comments about containment concerns about the batteries leaking. So we added a separate containment trench solely surrounding the batteries that's that's lined so that if any runoff gets in there, it's lined and captured and spills out to these outlets, which then go into the trench itself. So that way it's captured and then goes to a treatment practice there. There were some comments about landscaping, so we updated the landscaping plan. There's some details in the following sheets. You can kind of see in plan view, some different trees and shrubs. I will flip to that for just one second. But we had our our ecologists look at some native species and a very staggered manner so that there's trees, shrubs, grasses. So it's a mixture of of landscaping. And then we provided some potential species. And that was that was a comment that was listed there. And in terms of the flood storage, we talked about the VLSF last time and, you know, the one sixty five elevation versus the one sixty six. It's it's our understanding that in the future it will be one sixty five. But we're currently planning for the currently current standard of one sixty six. So we were looking at some compensatory flood storage. Initially, we were looking on the southern side here because it's just lower topography. But we had a good call with Aaron last week. To go through some of these comments and changes and to mention the ideal to have the flood storage area adjacent where the filling is. So our most of our filling in that one sixty six contours over here where the road turnaround is. So we moved that essentially a cut of flood storage area from the south and moved it over here. And Aaron also mentioned that would be an opportunity to somehow enhance the existing wetland, a the roadside ditch that's there. So we were looking at putting just, you know, a cut along that along that wetland area there to enhance that as a flood storage area. I'm trying not to go on too long. Those are most of the highlights we've been working on. I know there's some more, but I'll leave it there to see if there's any further comment. I'll flip through my notes in the meantime to see if there's anything I missed. But those were the highlights there. And I know Josh had been in touch with the DOT about culvert improvement. So Josh has been working on that for concerns about the crushed culvert that runs along the driveway there. So we're also in discussions there. OK, great. Thanks, Drew. What is there anything outstanding that you need feedback from us on outside of Aaron's comments? Or do you have what you feel is a clear plan forward? Josh, correct me if I'm wrong. I think we have a clear plan forward. It was essentially the plan for the stormwater was the biggest piece. So the fact that we've pulled out these VMPs to be separate entities on their own and surrounding more of the site, adding a containment area. But that seemed to be a common theme with all the comments. So we think we've addressed that the best we can. Also on the landscaping and species, we've just provided a varied plan. The previous plan just had a single row of evergreen trees, but we've tried to address that with a variety of heights and depths and species. So we believe we've addressed those concerns there. Josh, what else am I missing there? I think those were the main things, the stormwater, the screening, the containment, the test pits that was that confirmed our soil types. I believe those were the major items. Yeah, I think those were the main items as well as the flood storage piece. Yeah, Drew's correct. So I am in touch right now with DOT. We may need to obtain an access permit from DOT just to complete work within that that drainage ditch area in terms of the culvert replacement. But in speaking with the regional engineer from DOT, some from his perspective shouldn't be any issue getting that and providing that, especially since we're not adding additional discharge stormwater-wise to that ditch. We're treating it on site before it gets there. So really, it's only a benefit to the DOT in terms of the highway drainage. So yeah, so I really think that's from our perspective. Obviously, we'll wait for Erin to review the revised plan, Drew, send over, confirm if she's comfortable with the changes or if there's any other additional details that we need to make or change. But Erin, I wanted to let you I don't know if there's anything from our conversation that you felt needed clarification from the commission or if we just should go with go through you for this meeting. Yeah, I mean, I think it's it's the idea was just for you guys to get feedback before if there's any final other changes before November 9th, because I think that the idea is as we move towards November 9th, hopefully we can move toward closing this and moving it. I do have two questions. The first is whether for the containment area, there's a liner of some sort underneath the battery storage. And then the second question was stockpiling during construction. I know we had talked about that and I just wanted to make sure if there was some incorporation of where stockpiles were going to be just to make sure it's clear to the contractor. Yeah, so exactly that spill containment trench, the detail shown here. So that is a that is a impermeable membrane that surrounds that. So that collects it and then discharges it out to the side towards the infiltration trench here. So that's that's the side detail. And that's that's this area that is just around the battery units. So yes, that is a line trench. And then your second question, yes, we did add some potential. I think those were a couple of comments for snow storage.  Yes, we mentioned, you know, if anything, it would be temporary just bringing in material for the day to build the road or bringing in gravel to spread throughout the fenced area. If anything, it'd be temporary. But we did add some potential areas here so that if they're coming in on the road, they can stockpile material here and then spread through the site surrounded by sediment barriers. And we still have a few more things to add to the plans here before we finalize and submit, but definitely recognize that this upper area, upper elevation area is preferred rather than, you know, saying stockpile down here next to the roadside ditch where that can get filled in accidentally, you know, things of that nature. So is it just the trench that's lined or is under the batteries lined? Just the trench. Yes, I think the idea would be that with the high point time in the middle to say if there's stormwater discharge and flow into that trench where it's lined and then they collect and be treated before for going to the further out structures. So so I guess the question to the commission is so and this this was a good thing for us to just talk about collectively to make sure you guys have good guidance on it. But at the last meeting, we were talking a lot about stormwater and impervious surface because the applicants were basically saying they're they didn't they weren't considering it in pervious surface because of the small size of the pads and that water was just going to move around the batteries and directly into the ground to infiltrate. And then also later on, we talked about what happens if one of the batteries breach and there's like contamination or hazardous materials that come out of the batteries, then it's going straight into the ground. So that's when I had requested that some containment be added around the batteries, basically to capture any material that leeches out of the batteries before it's infiltrated into the ground. Can I ask the question please? Yes, sorry, Laura, I was waiting for a moment. Go ahead. So typically, so the batteries are in container, right? And so I don't expect regular runoff from the batteries themselves, unless there is some sort of system malfunction. One one thing I am interested in knowing, though, is and I don't know if this is within our purview, but you know, there is a hype certainly in comparison to solar, which has very little ongoing risk. There is a risk of fire with batteries, battery storage. And because we're building so close to a resource area, a lot of times the chemicals that are used in fire suppression are, you know, I don't know if that's something that's in the purview of the commission to look at, but those are pretty, you know, they're PFA's, they can be really nasty things. And I'm wondering if it's something that Blue Wave could address if not now, later on in their in their proposal. I'm sorry, go ahead. And maybe I can tack on to that. Have you ever built a system where you line under the batteries? So typically for many of the storage systems, that are present in Massachusetts, that I've seen built so far, though a lot of them are typically concrete slab foundations. There are many battery systems that don't have contain, you know, containment designed either into that concrete pad or around it. And I think that's typically just due to the fact that, you know, as Laura mentioned, during the normal operation, you know, the containers are fully sealed. They're, you know, even if there was a breach within the container of the cells, you know, whatever material that liquid electrolyte, you know, shouldn't be a risk for spilling outside of the container. So typically, so I would say out of the ones I've seen, there's there, you know, I haven't seen ones built with containment. That being said, obviously, this is, you know, you know, the concern from the town, both from the concoming on the planning boards or excuse me, planning office. So so this is, you know, intent to kind of provide that additional layer of containment beyond what the containers will provide. And then obviously we, yeah, and then to add on to that, for this particular system, you know, we propose or we talked about these kind of concrete peer foundations, you know, they obviously can be done with a concrete slide foundation. But yeah, that's that's kind of where we've landed. And I didn't want to address Laura's point on the P, you know, potential for PFAS and the fire suppression agents. So the system would come equipped with likely, you know, two methods of fires built in fire suppression. So one is a is a aerosolized fire suppression agent that kind of, you know, inherits the atmosphere within the container that we can definitely, you know, after this meeting, prior to the next to kind of close that out, we can provide an MSDS for that that agent. It's non-toxic. It wouldn't have PFAS chemicals. Beyond that agent, the only fire suppression method agent that's used is just water. So there wouldn't be any recommended, you know, there wouldn't be any other. You don't use, you definitely don't use water for battery fire suppression at all. So you wouldn't use it for directly on the battery cells. Typically it's it's water is used in lithium ion fires as is a method if kind of is a, I don't want to call it a last resort, but if there's, you know, in systems, previous systems that have been developed in the past where thermal runaway was more of a concern, water was, I wouldn't call it a suppression agent as more of a cooling agent. So really the water is just there to cool off the batteries so that that thermal runaways is contained typically. And this would be, you know, incorporated into the site response plan. But nowadays for newer systems, UL95, 49 for 48 systems where they have to be tested to ensure that thermal runaway and fire doesn't propagate. Really, the fire department is going to be there to use water as a containment measure. So, you know, spraying and adjacent enclosures to keep the temperatures down. Obviously spraying, you know, if if something were, you know, adjacent, you know, in the site that's the whole side of the container to catch fire, they would spray water on that. But generally speaking, you know, you would, a lot of these systems are kind of there's a controlled burn that takes place. The system kind of burns out and then it's fully energized and then treated. Yeah, OK, so. I'm sorry, addressing that. And that's something I'd be interested in knowing more about. And then, you know, normally. I don't know, Jen, how deep we want to go with this, but. You know, the decommissioning of these are lithium ion batteries, I assume. Yeah, so the decommissioning of the lithium ion batteries. I would be interested in knowing what the plan is for that. What's the lifespan like 10 years now? Are these expected to have like a 10 year lifespan, roughly? Typically for systems where and where, you know, charge discharge cycle were expecting once per day for most of the units. So typically, you know, closer to 15 to 20 year lifespans.  The units that are outlined in dash dash lines, those are units that wouldn't be installed day one. Those be added over time to supplement the degradation of the system. But generally speaking, most of, if not all the units would be expected to the last 20 years, closer to 20 years. Interesting. And sorry, good. Well, good. I was just going to say, in regard to decommissioning, you know, our plan would be first off, we would have a deep, we would look to post a decommissioning bond with the town. So there's funds there available for decommissioning itself.  And, you know, most ideally we'd be taking it to regional or, you know, local, if there is one at that point, recycling facility for the batteries as well as themselves.  And I think we're still so early on with battery storage that we're not sure what the state of the soil will be after the decommission or after the decommissioning period. So I don't know if this is something you can require, but I do think there needs to be some degree of soil testing, post decommissioning. And then, Dave, I know this is not our purview, but the decommissioning bond should be looked at, you know, differently for different committees in this instance. So obviously batteries are super important. I get it as far as, like, maximizing renewables. But the technology has just got a while to evolve in my opinion. So, all right. Thanks, Laura. Was there a helpful thing to think about? I have to think about how to give Josh and Drew kind of actionable. Can I just ask one more question? Who's going to be the ultimate owner of the system? Blue Wave would own an operate system. I'm sorry, my company. No, I understand. Blue Wave is now owning assets. Yeah. So historically, Blue Wave developed assets and then sold them to long-term owner operators. But, you know, recently we've partnered with a group called Axiom. So nowadays we're looking at. All right. Got it. Thank you. OK, so, Alex, I see your hand is up. Do you have a question kind of pertinent to this conversation? If it's a change of topic, I want to hear from Aaron, take public comment and then come back to kind of finish the conversation. Yeah, it's on this project. On this on this topic about kind of fire suppression. Yeah. Are you commissioning? OK, great. Go ahead. Aaron, we just read the white paper on solar and has an excellent section on battery storage. And it calls for heat sensors and a containment for a special fire extinguishing material such that if it is used, it doesn't go anywhere. It's contained. And I would appreciate it if you would consider what's in that white paper and bring it forward in discussion with Josh and Drew in terms of battery storage. There's talk about the BESS system. And I thought whoever wrote that did an excellent job. And I don't know if they've already got it included here, but it's pretty clear that water isn't used. And the battery storage that is talked about in that white paper calls for heat sensors in the batteries to see if something's overheating and then a certain fire retardant on site to be used. And also that a containment system is built in so that the fire retardant material doesn't go anywhere, doesn't go into the ground. And I don't have that in front of me, but I would just ask that you take a look at that and then bring it into your discussion with Josh and Drew. So that that subject is covered. Alex, I think that this question of suppression, containment and decommissioning of the battery storage facility is pertinent to this hearing. The white paper is something that is a product of a separate committee and isn't fully reviewed or kind of sanctioned by the Conservation Commission. So while maybe that piece of it is interesting, I don't think that we should kind of cross jurisdictional and project lines with that particular white paper. But I think the actionable part of this conversation is point taken, you know, fire suppression is the subject. And all I did was I asked Aaron to take a look at what's in that white paper and see if there's material in there. She can bring to this discussion with Josh and Drew. OK. Aaron, yeah, just to be clear, that white paper is still under review. Yeah. And the storage is still very new in Massachusetts. And there's not yet best practices. And I think we're asking all the right questions. I want to just reiterate that I'm appreciative of Josh and Drew responding to all of our inquiries. Thanks. Good summary, Aaron. Yeah. So I just wanted to say to Alex's point that what he's referring to is the guidelines that were issued by DEP and the Bureau of Resource Protection for the drinking water program. Those are referenced in the white paper, but those are actually a DEP policy. And they're very specific with regard to site design for protection of public water supplies. And particularly, there are recommendations for containment for battery storage to protect groundwater and surface water. So while I agree, the white paper isn't pertinent. I have read the DEP guidance for the drinking water supplies information. And I do think that there are elements of that that we can use. And DEP has also in my conversations with them on previous projects has recommended that we could use some of their guidance as conditions on Welland's permits to protect groundwater. Yeah, those guidelines are out there. They're not. They're final. They're already out there. So it's there. That's all I'll say. Thank you, Aaron. Michelle. On fire suppression, slightly different. I just wanted to confirm that there is going to be a reviewable and maybe standing agreement or notification with the fire departments in the area for emergency response so that they don't get there. See what they might believe is an electrical fire and spray retardant and not water. So is that is that something that we can see at some point that that communication has been established and that emergency response knows what to do and what not to do in this case since it's so close to a resource area and we don't want fire retardants ending up in that just due to lack of communication. Yeah, great question. And yes, absolutely. So we we have had a meeting with the fire department already. We're as part of the planning comments back on our application from a zoning perspective. We are submitting a draft emergency response plan. They'll they'll have fire department feedback incorporated. But so there would be a formal plan in place. And I say that will remain a draft all the way up until the construction site where it'll be there'll be an official site visit done with the fire department confirming the as well conditions confirming all the procedures that need to be taken where things are on site. All the details of the system itself. So and I'm happy to share the draft of that plan once we submitted to you know, once it's prepared and we're going to be submitted to to planning, they can certainly be sent through to the commission as well. But but that will take place and we'll we'll be providing training to the fire department as well, specific to not just the site and lithium ion batteries, which they may have already had some training on, but specifically this this this system in particular, just because obviously, even with the same battery chemistries, each system is going to differ in some ways. And so I want to make sure they know the correct procedures and and order operations, if you will, when it comes to a site response. Thank you. Great. Aaron, do you have any comments or any topics we haven't touched on yet here? I mean, I think they they have addressed all of my comments. The only thing I am and I'll be totally honest, a little uncomfortable with because on some level, it's sort of setting a precedence as we move forward with regard to battery storage is when I said containment, I meant containment under and around the batteries I meant fully contained so that the materials inside are contained from getting into the ground. And here I see that there's nothing under the batteries. So things can still leach into the ground under the batteries. And yes, I know that there's a aligned trench around it. But I think I was envisioning sort of like a concrete pad under and around it. So I just want to make sure that the Commission understands that if we permit this and then find out that there's contamination on the site, that that's something that we can't, you know, we can't go back and change once it's. Granted. So Josh is a continuous cement slab. A possible is that an option here in order to prevent potential contamination of the soil underneath the batteries? Yeah, potentially what I can do is and what I would recommend is just the wood and blue wave just after this meeting kind of look at the containment again. We can look and see based on the impervious surface added, you know, whether it kind of is I don't, you know, I don't think I'd recommend the whole kind of that whole area being concrete. But if instead we can look at, see like if we switch to a concrete slab foundation and then just each slab had its own trench around it, what that would look like in terms of runoff. So we can take a look at that with wood and see if the site and the overall storm water system can can handle that or if not, like what potential changes we needed. And then we can certainly follow up with Erin prior to the next meeting. Once we take a look at that. OK, great. Thank you. OK, commissioners, any other questions? I mean, is is concrete slab the only option? Is there some kind of impervious lining that could go under it? I don't know, just I guess you could. So obviously the the within the fence line, it's going to be, you know, crushed a crushed stone yard material. So you could put a liner beneath that. I think I guess from a stormwater perspective, it probably doesn't. You know, if it was either all concrete or just like a liner, I don't know if it would change much in terms of that, how you calculate that impervious flow. So I don't want to speak out of my realm of expertise. But we can we get multiple look at just whatever options possible. Obviously, we definitely want to limit the amount of concrete on site, just generally from a more permanent and previous service perspective. But yeah, we'll just take a look at however we can, you know, maximize. I guess maximize infiltration, reduce any kind of compaction needed, but also, you know, provide the containment that gets that is the commission's comfortable with. I was just thinking about remediation and decommissioning in that respect. Right. That would be anyway, that's all. Thank you. Sure. Thanks, Michelle. OK, I want to quickly take public comment. I'm not seeing any hands up. And I don't want to forget. So if you're in attendance in this meeting as a member of the public and you have a question or comment about the proposed battery storage facility at 515 Centerland Road, raise your hand. I will allow bring you in as a panelist. I would ask that you identify yourself and how you're related to the project for members of the public in the press so they can identify you and then keep your comments or questions jurisdictional to the resource areas and limit them to two minutes. So I see Michael Pinsky. Bringing you in. Drew, would you mind stopping sharing so we can see everybody? Thank you, Michael.  I'll set. Yes, thank you. I'm like the Lipinski 167 Shootsbury Road and I have an interest in all things solar and batteries. And I think a lot of you have echoed the comments I would have made, which is this present plan with the trench around the batteries to me just doesn't seem like it would work. One of the things that the developers touted was the fact that the ground underneath the batteries was going to be permeable. That's why they were put up on pillars instead of using pads. Well, it makes sense, especially if you look at the centrally located batteries, that if there's a problem with those batteries and things are leaking out, they're going to go down into that permeable layer. They're not going to just magically work their way over to the sealed up trench going around it. And so I think that that design is flawed and it needs to be reworked so that each one of those batteries has some sort of containment, putting containment under the entire site. If you think about it, if there's a rainstorm, it's basically going to catch all the rain in that containment system. And you're basically building a swimming pool underneath the battery storage. There's no way for the water to escape. So there are some engineering problems here. And I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think the proposal that was made tonight having having a trench around the whole thing certainly isn't the solution to me. There's no way for leaking material from the central batteries to find its way into that sealed trench all around the site. So hopefully they'll go back to the drawing board and come up with something that could contain anything that may leak out of those batteries in an emergency situation. Thank you. OK. Thank you, Michael. All right. Any other members of the public in attendance with questions or comments about the proposed battery storage facility at 515 Sunderland Road, please raise your hand. All right. I'm not seeing any more comments or questions. OK. So commissioners, any further questions or kind of clarifying comments for Drew and Josh, I want to make sure it's clear to them what we're looking to see or what we'd like Aaron to have to review before our next meeting. So it sounds like in summary. If it's possible to share any kind of emergency response plan, it sounds like you're working it out with the fire department. That would be great. Sounds like we're interested in a reworking of the current filtration or lack of infiltration basins around the battery storage unit. It sounds like something that could figure out individual capture for individual storage units. We'd be really interested to see scenarios there. What else, Laura? So fire suppression. So, yeah, I think that's about the summer now. Yeah, Alex mentioned and I'm happy to provide some more detailed information as he mentioned heat sensors and the closures. Yeah, I'm assuming those are already built in. I mean, that's right. Yeah, OK, yeah. So the information on that, Josh, would be great, the details. Anything else, commissioners? OK, so Josh and Drew usually I mean, I know that you've got a lot of moving parts on this and that you're working with Aaron on it, but just keep in mind that if we can have something to look at at least the Friday before that Wednesday, November 9th meeting, so Aaron has time to process it, can send it out to the commission so we can look at it. That gives us our best shot at taking the next step in our next meeting. One thing I want to make sure we we did incorporate, I think we did, we talked about decommissioning, but I would like to see something on making sure the soil quality is maintained, post batteries on site. I never have this concern just with solar and I'm not certain about that here. So just want to make sure we capture that. OK, so some sort of like when we want like a baseline soil sample. I mean, that's already there. You guys are already doing soil sampling. Obviously, you've done a phase one, I'm assuming, before you're built. So you have a phase one, I'm assuming for the project and that's telling you what's on site. So basically, we would want an identical phase one or a phase two with the wrecks in place to, you know, to to sort of restore it to its original condition. And I think that's actually going to be a really good precedent moving forward for battery storage sites. OK, thanks, Laura. So commission, it looks like we're looking for a motion to continue the public hearing. And we have to continue the public hearing to November 9th, 2022 at 7.40 p.m. for 5.15 Sunderland Road. Second second. I got a second from Cameron. Voice vote, Michelle. Hi, Cameron. Hi, Laura. Hi, Alex. Was on mute. Hi. And I'm also an I. OK, thank you. Josh. We will see you in a couple of weeks. Thank you. Appreciate it. And we'll call you. Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you. Bye bye. All right. Thanks, everyone. Moving on to our next hearing that was scheduled for 7.45 p.m. This is an NOI for SB. So see it's on behalf of our bloggo investments, LLC and 47 Olympia Drive LLC for redevelopment of 47 Olympia Drive, including demolition of existing structure, construction of multi-storey department-styled dormitory associated driveway, parking, drainage and utilities in the buffer zone to BVW and an intermittent stream at 47 Olympia Drive. So I see Mark and. Does Kyle usually want to be brought in last week? Yeah, he's the he's the applicant. So it doesn't hurt to pull him in. OK, Kyle, would you just raise your hand if you want to be brought in as a panelist? There's Mark. Hello. So here we are again. So just as a reminder, and I know. That you know this, but I'm going to do it for the benefit of members of the public who might be interested. Our usual drill here is that we try to keep this to about a 20 minute hearing. We'll have a five minute update from the applicant. Then take staff comment or questions and update from Aaron for five minutes. And then we'll open for public comment before taking questions and comments from the commission. I know we've had a lot of movement on this. We have Aaron's Aaron's updated comments and we have a comment letter from Jason Skeels, the town engineer. So we have a lot to discuss. Yeah, so Mark, with that, do you want to give us an update of development since our last meeting? Sure. Since the last meeting, a comment was brought that we should show a swell that directs the storm water that is flowing along the northern property line to the rain garden. So I added that Aaron's comments was to have a note on the plan that said no, non-native plants to be planted within the 100 foot buffer. This is a revised landscaping plan. But if you look at, sorry about the hopping back and forth. OK. If you look at the previous one that we sent in on Friday, there's a note that shows that all native plant pallet within from the end of the bike rack to the property line. All of this area is supposed to be the woodland garden that has all native plant pallet. And then from the end of the generator to the property, the eastern property lines also supposed to be our native plant pallet. One of Aaron's comments that came in yesterday was the drawdown time calculations. She couldn't find it in the report. I believe I did one general drawdown, so I broke it out and I sent this to her today, showing that the infiltrated or the infiltration retainant systems, which are the two six unit retainant systems, if you use that point one seven, the minimum infiltration rate that Aaron asked for would still meet the 72 hours. As those of the four inch outlets of above the invert for the bottom of the retainant system that gives the same square footage or cubic feet of storage required to infiltrate compared to the same square footage of the bottom. But while I conducted the soil test pits, I found that the soil is a sandy loam. Therefore, the walls rate becomes a 1.02 and all of the infiltration systems or areas meet the required 72 hours. These are three revised comments that we had from Aaron on Friday or not Friday yesterday. As you can see, most of them we satisfied. There was a few minor revisions that were requested in the operation of maintenance logs. Those have been corrected and sent to Aaron. It was just adding more information about the required maintenance in the box. And then the additional items, Jason Skeels sent the letter of his review of the store model to the municipal system. And then we'll have to discuss the buffers on automations. I don't know if Kyle wants to jump into answers. Some of them, but so Aaron brought up that if there was a way to reduce the buffer zone to not exceed the 20 percent, unfortunately, the building was designed back in 2021 and was submitted to planning board in March of 2022. So we would have to basically restart the whole design process to not exceed that 20 percent. We discussed with Ward Smith, a wetland scientist, the impacts to the wetland, and we agree that since we're firing a notice of intent for this proposed work, that there will be impacts. We're proposing mitigation with like 60 percent of replanting the buffer area within the site in the only area that's not going to be replanted would be the proposed building. And to offset that, we're willing to work or see what the commission would like to do for additional mitigation. And the options that we may have, I think that's pretty much everything that's happened since the last meeting. Thanks for that overview. I think I agree that that's a good summary and I agree that kind of the major thing we need to figure out here and get a read from the commission on is how to handle mitigation, given the large impact to the buffer on the site. So, Erin, before we get into that, is there anything else that you want to make sure we cover or bring up at this point? Yeah, just for clarity, Mark, would you mind? So on the on the alteration, the 87 percent alteration of the buffer, is that all permanent alteration or is the area that you're restoring compensating for some of the 87 percent? I just want to clarify that. So the only permanent disturbance would be I have on the plan. It's like 27 percent of the buffer. Oh, two four, two four, seven. Yeah, so the only permanent would be the 27.3 percent that is the building. Everything else we're proposing to mitigate by planting, pollinating seeds and planting the area back with native trees. OK, so the OK, so this is an important, an important item for that 87 percent so that we fully understand this. So what you're saying is the 87 percent alteration is during construction. And once construction is complete, that the building would only be 27 percent of the buffer, but that you're replanting that buffer with mitigation to try to correct the construction phase impacts. Correct. We're trying, we're going to try to mitigate it by replanting with native and pollinated plants. And then that would be access to the manholes and the required maintenance will probably be more like twice a year. So there's an access path for them. But otherwise, and most of those access holes are outside of the buffer. All the ones that are in the buffer can be staked, so they don't have to actually mow and they can just find them easily. But other than that, yes, we're proposing that we replant and mitigate that way within that 60 percent. That's not going to be permanently with hardscape. OK, I just wanted to clarify that. That's a big clarification. Because I think in our bylaw, we permit 20 percent impact to the buffer on the site. And 27 is a lot closer. So yeah, I look at the 80 percent. I just like a temporary impact compared to the permanent degraded buffer, which is that 27 percent. And it's probably an improvement to that other 60 odd percent because is it improvement to what's existing on site now in terms of buffer quality if it's replanted with natives? Karen. I didn't really take stock of invasives too much. When I was out there, there is right now the building is 100 percent out of the buffer, but there's there is a lot of poison ivy down there. That was what I observed was the ground was covered in poison ivy. But obviously that's a native, so no judgment there. Gotcha. OK. OK, well, let's if it's OK with you guys, let's take public comment quickly. And then I'd really like to discuss this as a commission and think about how we want to handle this long term 27 percent impact to the jurisdictional area on the site. Is that OK with everyone? I can see two people and they're not so we're going to go with that. So if you're here as a member of the public in attendance to talk about the proposed project of 47 Olympia Drive, you could raise your hand. OK, not seeing anyone. All right, commissioners, thoughts on 27 percent permanent impact to the buffer zone on the site. Twenty percent is what's permitted in our bylaw. So we're talking about seven percent of this buffer area, which is how many square feet roughly mark? It is, I believe. Like two, oh, yeah, two thousand square feet of. Seven thousand of buffer. That's the total buffer that's on site is seven thousand. And the building is of roughly two thousand. OK. So permanent impacts to two thousand square feet. OK. And so it's permanent impacts to two thousand square feet of the total seven thousand that's present on site. Yeah, roughly. If you using whole numbers, that's what it is. It's really nineteen thousand thirty two square feet of permanent, but they can just round up, make it easier to discuss. OK. Alex, do you have a comment or question? Yeah, in previous discussions or in what I read, I. I saw something like 67 percent of the 100 foot buffer was going to be impacted. How did we get to 27 percent? So after construction, they're restoring the that area so that it during construction, there is what is it an 80 percent? Eighty seven percent. He said an impact to the buffer on the site. But after construction, 60 percent of of the buffer on the site will be restored with native plantings. So it leaves 27 percent of the buffer on the site permanently impacted. Oh, what coming at this again? I just trying to get clear on the the amount of impervious surface, which will be created by the building and any other part of the structure is what percent of the 100 foot buffer? That's the 27 percent. Well, proposing we're proposing to replant all of the disturbed area with native plants and native pollinating seed mixture. The only area within the buffer that's not going to be receded with native vegetation will be this area of the building. And in our bylaw, we permit a 20 percent impact to buffer. So this is a delta of seven seven percent of the jurisdictional area on the site. Yeah, I have that in front of me. OK, yep. That's section B, where we talk about buffers and in the preamble and so on and so forth. So we're I think they there's an assumption that. That if it's if there's building in the hundred foot buffer, there will be an impact to the wetland and that's an assumption. And that's in the law, the rules that were passed in June of 2022. It is it's the responsibility of the proponent to show why the wetland will not be affected. And I haven't seen any statement in what I've read summarizing why the wetland will not be affected. And I'm forgive me, but I I. I'm not sure that planting native plants compensates for the impervious surface, which is going to be created within the hundred foot buffer. Absent an explanation from the proponent on why the wetland will not be affected. And it's clear in our rules that it's the applicant's responsibility to state convincingly why the wetland would not be affected. I haven't seen that. So if I can just step in for one second, I think what Mark has already said as applicants representative is that by submitting the NOI, they are saying that the wetland will be affected. And so at issue here is not whether or not it will be affected. Everyone is in agreement that it will be affected. At issue here is the mitigation for the twenty seven percent of buffer on the site that will remain impacted after the end of construction. So I'd issue on the table here, Alex, is what what level of mitigation can we work through here in order to feel like we are compensating for that long term, twenty seven percent impact to the buffer on the site. So the first step in first step in mitigation is to avoid. Second is to minimize compensation is way down the list. And I would like to know what they can do to avoid the impact. And one of them is to reduce the scope. I mean, what I've heard about that is that they don't want to go back to the drawing board because they're already this far down the line. But, you know, our position is not their inconvenience. It's the wetlands bylaws. So that's that's where I'm entering. Are you talking? I was going to say, I think we also need to look at precedent here and what we've done in the past. And there's been a number of cases that have looked similar to this historically. So I think Aaron, Jen, you know, to the extent that you can speak to those would also be helpful. I don't know if Dave's here, too. Is the precedent under this set of bylaws? Correct. Yeah, so can have, for example, which we're about to condition at the end of this meeting has permanent impact to resource area and we they're mitigated. They're somewhat mitigating on site and they're also making a contribution to the wetland mitigation fund. So that we would be open to it if required by the commission. I didn't quite catch that, Mark. Could you say it again? I said that if the commission deems that's an appropriate way to mitigate, then I believe my client would be open to discussing that. It was one of the ways to mitigate. Just be clear, it wasn't the only way. But yes, here you are. Right. But the assumption here is that there's just no there's not a lot of other space on the site for onsite mitigation. Right. So this is definitely a story we come at again and again and again. I mean, and we're still early in this well and mitigation fund process. So having benchmarks in order to attach numbers to square areas is something that, you know, we don't have an answer for in science. And so we struggle to work through it. And I am working on that. Right.  Dave, I see you have a hand up and maybe some wisdom to share. Yeah, I stepped away first. Can you hear me? Yes. I stepped away for a second. But I think Laura brings up a good point is, you know, really what what has been this commission's practice precedent and also past commissions. And I don't know if Erin can do it on the spot, but I wonder if that's something we could look into, you know, after this meeting between this meeting and the next meeting is, you know, you mentioned, you know, other other applications that are before the commission right now. But we also have mitigation. And I'm thinking of Southeast Street Commons, Southeast Street Commons, Mr. Mikchi's project where the commission did allow for some some impacts there. And then I believe I believe there were. Erin can help me out there. What was the mitigation package there? That was that was before my time. Yeah, that's right. That goes back to that. It was a contribution to the fearing to. It may not be the best example, but I'm saying and I recognize what Erin is saying, too, which is it's hard to really, you know, apples to apples. Each project is very different, right? So it's hard to to come up with a dollar amount to put into that wetlands fund or whatever. But maybe we could do a little research on going back in time here and looking at some previous projects. Yeah, so the way the approach we also took at Canton Ave was we asked the applicant to estimate the costs associated with if they were able to do mitigation on site, what that would look like. And that was a benchmark for a contribution to the wetland mitigation fund. Just to remind people, yeah, Michelle, go ahead. I have extreme reservations of the way we handled that. And Canton Ave was kind of an anomaly in its history of the permit process. And the only reason I think we pushed through that is because we were worried about imminent domain being sued over it. So I really don't want to stand on the shoulders of that as our precedent. And, you know, we still haven't approved that order of conditions, but I think it drastically falls short. And if we're going to keep doing this over and over again, I think we have to think of a good established way to go about it. That's not just the developer, you know, giving us their short list of tasks that they think would suffice. So I just, I don't want to keep coming back to Canton Ave as how we handle things. I think that was a, yeah, like I said, sort of an anomaly. I think we also have some ever-sourced projects, but I'm not sure they're one. That also was something we benchmarked in order to kind of ground truth that Canton Ave number. So we used ever-sourced plant pricing in order to make sure that we were in the right ballpark for Canton Ave. But Michelle, your point is taken. Canton Ave is by no means a regular case. It was something that we had very few options in. Well, I would really appreciate from commissioner's thoughts on what you would be comfortable with in terms of how we attach a dollar value to an impact like this. So I did a little research today on this. There's in lieu mitigation programs run by the state of Massachusetts. They have a pretty well-established one. It's by a square footage. I don't think that we should use it per se because we're working on a different scale and different level and complexity with individual projects. But there are, I think, Northeast programs out there that have dealt with this that maybe we could look into doing some research to see what people are already doing up to date, up to date ones. That's just all I have to contribute. Yeah, so what, yeah. Go ahead. I mean, I work in a mitigation environment. So I can help in the calculation of things but there's like standards that we'd have to decide on before any of that made any sense. Do we have wetland mitigation banking available in the state of Massachusetts? I think that might be what messed the DFW, DFG, whatever is sort of doing. It's not necessarily a bank. It's an in-loop fee program. I don't think anyone's running a bank per se. It's more of a monetary exchange for, it's like our mitigation fund from what I read briefly. And I can send that information to Erin because they have just a brief back sheet. Again, it's a larger scale project. It splits up Massachusetts and they, but yeah, they have a fairly developed program. I didn't find their calculations per square footage, but they do have those by region in Massachusetts. Okay, that sounds like a really promising benchmark. I know like other places that do this really actively like North Carolina is known for their very active wetland mitigation banking. I mean, it's controversial no matter where it is. I mean, I did just do like a property analysis for a mitigation bank, but it's a different ecosystem. So I, yeah, like I think we'd have to have some commission discussion on what wetlands are worth and water resources are worth to us before there is a dollar attached. Right. Yeah. Yeah, this is a tricky world to figure out. I don't think we need to decide on a dollar value tonight. I think we could maybe, I could connect with Michelle and try to come up with some recommendations for, I mean, a short-term use until we have a little more solid policy in place, but come up with some ideas that at least can hopefully provide some guidance and then check in with the applicant on, you know, whether they're amenable to what we're proposing and check in prior to the next meeting on that with them. I wanna be clear that I was unclear reviewing the plans that that 87% was not permanent alteration and that was something when Mark was giving his presentation that was clarified for me. So that's why I wanted him to clarify it for everyone. So I feel much better with the restoration that's proposed, but I also recognize that, you know, it is important for us to mitigate these impacts and that we need to have some sort of standard to make sure that there is mitigation for the impact and I think we can do that. I 100% concur with what Erin just said. I, going into this, did not grasp that that replanted area was mitigating and so the total final impacted buffer area is much smaller and much closer to our bylaw permitted percentage than I thought. But, you know, we're wading through this, Mark, and trying to figure out, you know, how we can be fair about attaching a dollar value to these resources, because once they're gone, they're gone. So is that an okay? Cameron, I see your hands up, give me one second. Mark, are you comfortable with Erin and Michelle, who has, you know, extensive professional experience in this area, comparing notes and coming up with a couple of benchmarks that we could use to put a dollar value on that permanent impact to the buffer on the site? That's kind of the applicant. I feel like he should speak to this, but I think that's a fail thing to do. I would be, I'd like to ask the commission if they could put that as like the final payment or final monetary value as a condition, obviously, but Kyle, can you talk about what, how you feel about it? Sure, I'm just hopping on here. I appreciate Mark's efforts. I wanted to just state that I understand you guys are working through this. I think that if we could, we're before the planning board next week, if we could continue that process and handle these two tracks concurrently, that would be great. Okay, yeah, and I think, Kyle, the question was, so we're trying to figure out how to attach a dollar value to the permanent impact of buffer on the site, which is 27% of the total buffer on the site. And the way we've handled this recently in projects is through a wetland mitigation fund with the town. So we attached a dollar value to kind of that permanent impact to the buffer on the site and the applicant would make that contribution to the wetland mitigation fund as part of a condition of the NOI. So what we've been discussing is how to do that, how to attach a dollar value to the permanent impact of the resource on the site. So the way we were proposing to do it was Michelle, a commissioner who has a sense of professional experience in this can help us figure out kind of local benchmarks for that calculation.  Does that... I think that sounds great. That sounds great. Thank you. Great. Cameron, I'm sorry for the delay. Go ahead. No worries. I agree that seeing some benchmark could definitely be helpful in evaluating this. And I had a clarifying question about the roughly 60% that will be mitigated. I was just wondering, will that essentially restore that part of the buffer that's being affected? And is that why it brings it down to the 27%? My understanding is yes. And that's why Mark was sharing the planting plan that you saw on the landscape architects plan view that he showed, specifying that it's a mix of native plantings and pollinating seed mix, kind of restoration of vegetative cover. And that's why I was asking Cameron, you may have heard me ask Erin, how does that future proposed condition compare to the condition of the existing buffer on the site? And she said, she didn't really note invasives there, but there's a ton of poison ivy. So my guess is like, BVW in a very heavily developed area, probably native plantings and thoughtful native pollinator seed mix is if not equal potentially even an improvement over what the condition of the buffer is now. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying. Mark, is that Erin, Mark, Fair, Summary? Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Cameron, good question. Okay, so it sounds like we have a plan.   I'm okay with it. I feel like it's a big ask too, but that I'm gonna come up with a dollar amount for our town's well ends. And I'm wondering what the timeline is for this. Yeah, okay. Well, this is certainly something I can help with. I'm comfortable researching this as well. I speak, I'm not you, but I speak a little bit of that language. So I could at least help us approach the Massachusetts numbers. It feels like there's gotta be a resource for this somewhere in the state. I think we're gonna have to contact some people. What I read today was it was information, it was like their front information for people interested, like developers, but it didn't give the background metrics on anything, which is what I would like to see. So that's why I'm just wondering about the timeline because if it requires contacting some professionals that are doing this in Massachusetts, that might just add a little more time. And I can start soon, but yeah, are we talking about it too? I can do a chunk of this too.  I think it's, I can call and coordinate if you have some metric that you have established that would help guide us. But I don't, I think we should see what we can do before the ninth and I can check. I just wanna say that if we do this, I don't want it to be the precedent that we do every time. I want us to be able to have the flexibility to improve on what we learn and keep moving with it and not just do it again and again because this kind of stuff has been developed over decades and other places. And to determine it once and for all, just that doesn't seem like a good approach. So that's my concern. So thank you for just checking it on that chin. Yeah, of course. Yeah, I understand. And I think we would be relying, we'd be asking Aaron to do a lot of the research on this and relying on you for like a straight face got check to some of this, but I 100% agree that we can't keep like case by case basis comp like stumbling through this because it's a slippery slope and a really tricky thing to do. Okay, Dave, did you have a comment or question or did we resolve? No, I think I'm feeling pretty good about it. Yeah, I just was responding a little bit to Michelle and something Aaron said a few minutes ago that I just wanna make sure we keep our options open for the future. I agree that we should come up with some consistent metrics for doing this. I mean, eventually I would suggest that this would become a formal policy of the commission that this is how this process goes. But I agree with Michelle that with the limited time we have, we will come up with something you all will do the best research and propose something but stay open, keep the door open in 23 do there's new information and our equation could change, right? Your equation could change in 23, 24. So don't lock something in, but yeah. So I think you're going in a great path. This is good. Just the use of the term equation makes me like a little bit panicky. But that's okay. I mean, I think, listen, I think the message is just like anything, even just like the battery storage project we looked at, like we're gonna be, we will know a lot more in two years from now than we do now. And we just need to constantly be open to learning more and adapting policies. That's how I hear Michelle's comments. Thanks, Laura. All right, so I think we have a plan. Thank you, Mark, for all the detail and the overview. And it sounds like we will be in touch with some ideas on what the scale of that, what the mitigation fund contribution would be in this case. And can I just add for the record because I don't know if Mark and Kyle know this, but so that fund, I don't know if it's been stated that that fund doesn't just sit there. We then use that fund to make improvements to wetland systems in town. So the fund goes directly to mitigation that the town might wanna do, like removing culverts on a stream and associated wetland buffers in South Amherst and Erin helped me out protecting riparian corridors along the Amethyst Brook and many others. So that's where the money goes. It doesn't go into some fund that the town, it doesn't go into the general fund of the town, for instance. It stays within the control of the department and the commission and we turn that back around to improve wetland systems throughout town. And in this case, it's working exactly how it's designed because it's designed for projects where we literally cannot, for a number of possible reasons, mitigate onsite. And so it enables us to have funds that we can use in aggregate to have a bigger restorative, our mitigative impact in the town of Amherst. Thanks, Dave, that's a good point. We hadn't discussed it. I appreciate that. Thank you, Dave. Okay, any further comments or questions? Otherwise, I think we're looking for a motion to continue to hot off the presses, November 9th, 2022 at 745. So moved is fine. So moved. Just need a second commissioners. Seconded. Seconded by Cameron, voice vote. Michelle. Hi. Laura. Hi. Alex. Hi. Cameron. Hi. And I'm an I. All right, Kyle, Mark, thank you again. We'll see you in a couple of weeks. Thank you for your time. Good night. Thank you. Okay. All right, that's the end of our hearings. That was a good productive discussion. Thanks, everyone. So with no fletcher, can we issue this order of conditions? No. Okay. No. I think we should hold this and just let them know that, you know, hopefully they'll, hopefully they're going to be granting us some flexibility to extend this to the next meeting since we don't have a quorum to vote on it tonight. Okay. And we could also do a special meeting of the commissioners who could vote on this. We could. Yeah. So if, if you want to float that to Mark, I think that's appropriate. Given that literally asked them to wait an additional meeting for this reason. Yep. Yep, absolutely. And please pass on our apologies. Yes, absolutely. Okay. So. Astrolene. Yes. So just to, I did to speak with them. My ask there was 14 mature blueberry bushes on their property or a equal monetary contribution to the wetland mitigation fund, which I calculated out based on actually the Canton Ave quote, which was really convenient and they were nice blueberry bushes to $35 a plant. So it came out to $500 for those plantings to compensate for the additional lean too. In addition to that, they were proposing to do autumn olive treatment, autumn olive removal and spot stump treatments with herbicide to try to remove some of the invasives on their property. And then there's just some, you know, the standard boilerplate for state and local residential projects and some additional requirements. Just make sure that they're following the plans and they bring any changes before us. They have to get all of their other permits before they start work, that they have to record their order at the registry that no additional wetland buffer zone alteration is permitted on the law and perpetuity besides minor activities. So, you know, their deck sheds, patios and pools that they don't require to get a permit for us from, but other than that, you know, home expansion and stuff like that, they're getting pretty close to the buffer zone. So that was one condition that I recommended we include. I've been starting to do sign-offs on permits for orders of conditions, basically as a green light for them to start work because a lot of applicants have been skipping pre-construction meetings and erosion control inspections. So that's a way for me to actually have a requirement for a sign-off and also a contractor sign-off that they have read and understand the order of conditions prior to work beginning. But this is a relatively straightforward one buffer zone project. So it's not too extensive as far as conditions. Commissioner, is there any comments or questions on this? So I just remember that I didn't want to use the herbicide. And now I'm remembering what was the, like, the buckthorn stamper or something. Is that something we could recommend to people as, like, easy contained herbicide? Blaster, yeah. Isn't it just sort of a... Yeah, the buckthorn blaster, yep. Is it blast or just... No, it's a... I don't know why it's called the blaster. That's actually a mislead egg. Just, like, it just hits the stump. Yep. Okay, it seems like a convenient sort of, I don't know, contained herbicide application for people that maybe don't want to feel too much of it. That was all. Okay. Should I just make the motion? Yeah, sounds good. I moved to issue the order of conditions for 30 kestrel-aigned EP number 0890708 with the above noted conditions. And don't read them all. That was noted by Erin. Is that a second by Laura? Yep. Okay. Voice vote, Cameron. Aye. Michelle. Aye. Laura. Aye. Alex. Aye. And I'm an aye. So we did Spalding and East Leverett. Okay. So, sorry, go ahead. Do we want, do we need a motion for us? What do we call it? The executive session. I don't think we do right now. So we can hold on that. I always put that in as a placeholder just in case something comes up where, you know, I think we're going to need it, but I don't think we're going to need it for the next meeting. Okay. So the last thing we wanted to talk about was the white paper from the water supply protection committee. It's called. And so I guess commissioners, you probably saw Erin shared a version of, I'm just trying to pull it up. Sorry. Here we go. Solar and drinking water white paper, which was written by the Amherst Water Supply Protection Committee. It's called white paper on large scale, solar ray installations and potential impact. Amherst drinking water. The committee asked Erin to provide some comments. She shared her comments with us. I guess, so full disclosure, this got buried in my email. I didn't get a chance to look at it until Erin mentioned it to me today. It's tricky because a lot of the discussion is something that's jurisdictional to the wellans and water resources in Amherst. So I just wanted to flag that and see if any other commissioners had any comments or concerns about that white paper and what a productive way forward might be. Yeah, Michelle, go ahead. So I read the whole thing today. And I appreciate Erin's comments and to point out some stuff that should just be included. So one thing specifically that I have concerns about are the well setbacks they use. My neighborhood specifically gets called out as being basically the only place in Amherst with some density of wells. So it gets a little personal for me. But yeah, I live in the High Point Flat Hills neighborhood and everybody here has wells. And there's land that has been proposed in the area. Mostly shoots very. But here is my concern is that the setbacks are DEP setbacks. And they're based on distance to a septic system, which we also have. And those setbacks are based on organic contaminants and well waters. They're not based on inorganic materials that can be the product of routine maintenance or the taking down of solar arrays. So specifically what I was reading about in this white paper are the cleaning solutions, which I assume are some kind of solvents. They use water sometimes. And there was something about injection into the groundwater or just trying not to dispose of it on site. There is something about using pesticides for poison ivy, which I see as a mistake. But there's something about using pesticides. I think they meant herbicides. I assume that maybe they might need rodenticides at some point or some kind of rodent control if there's problems on site. There's just a lot of potential toxic contaminants that could come not from the solar panels themselves, but from the routine maintenance of them. And all of that within 100, but well, I think should be considered differently than just a regular septic system, which is treating brownwater. And they did increase some of the setbacks for public drinking water supplies based on greater discharge. But collectively, the neighborhood, there's like 50 houses in just my neighborhood all on a well. And a large solar array would impact all of those to some extent and could come within 100 feet of quite a few wells. So I guess my point is that I think that the impacts to well drinking water, both public and private, should be considered differently for a potential inorganic compound contamination than it is for organic septic treatment, which is what it's based on right now. And there seem to be no effort to reevaluate it. Yeah. OK, Laura, I see your hand giving me one second. So I think the most productive conversation we can have now, acknowledging that there are a lot of comments that we could have about the contents of that white paper, I think what might be more productive is trying to understand how we should be involved or not involved in it. So it's a white paper from another commission. It's their decision to write this white paper. It's my concern is that it's confusing if you're a member of the public in Amherst where this white paper is coming from. And I don't think that the commission has had a sufficient chance to review and be involved or seen any kind of processing of any kind of solid review process that would make me want to have us have any association with that. So when I read it, yes, Michelle, I had some serious technical concerns. But I also think it needs to be made clear that either the commission should be, our commission should be involved in writing that and editing it, or it should be made clear in the document that we were not involved in writing it and editing it. And my concern is that it's just like there are some technical things in there that I don't think any of us commissioners would feel comfortable with our names on it of ourselves or our commission. So I don't know. And Laura, I want to give you a comment on that. Yeah. So I don't know what the best way forward here is. But for me, I just really wanted to flag that either we should be involved in the process of providing technical insight on the impact of solar to drinking water supplies, or we should make it clear that that is not our position or doesn't sufficiently capture what would be our position. Yeah, go ahead, Laura. I was going to say, I mean, even with the publication of this white paper, it doesn't change our mandate at all. I mean, you know, like still if you cite solar, and I guess the difference is if you are not within a protected area, we wouldn't be looking at it. Right? I mean, I think that's that if there's any solar that comes for development in Amherst, and it's in our purview, whatever the white paper says, we still have our mandate, right? Totally. But it's confusing. Yeah, I mean, for me, I agree with you. For me, I can tell you that I've developed so many projects. And I have never seen what they are talking about. Like injections, I'm like, what are you talking about? I've never seen that. I've actually, so yeah, I mean, I don't know how. Yeah, I'm not a, just to give you guys some clarity too, we were asked as a solar bylaw working group to review that white paper and ask questions as part of the process of informing our bylaws. And but the bylaws are still not going to supersede like the conservation committee's work. You know what I'm saying? Like. Yeah, I hear you. I mean, it doesn't mean our jurisdiction is still our jurisdiction. Yeah. But the issue is like, you know, when we're, we're going to get these gray area, solar developments where we are going to rely on solar bylaws and those solar bylaws should have input from the conservation commission. Right. So the concern is, does this white paper somehow become, you know, But the white paper is not even written by the, by the solar bylaw work. Right. But you can imagine how it would be confusing if you don't know. Right. Like if you aren't you. And you are either someone looking to develop solar, whether that's a landowner or developer, or just a member of the public in Amherst. I mean. That is concerning to me. We have, we have a lot of committees in Amherst, Jen. Yeah. No, I know. And I mean, I didn't really know this one. And so. Yeah. We have our own little touch on things. Yeah. But in the end, we're the ones who spend the hours in these hearings and have to make these decisions.  And I just want to make sure that, you know, Our integrity is maintaining this process. And that we're able to do our job to the best of our ability. And I just want to make sure that that's clear. Dave. Yeah, boy, there's, there's a lot here. Yeah. They're at 920. Yeah. But yeah, a couple of points. One. I think Laura. Laura's point about, you know, the. Well, first of all, this is a draft paper. So there's still time for the commission. Erin submitted her comments, which you've all seen. There's still time for the commission. To draft something to send to the water supply protection committee. And. At the very least, Jen, addressing your question about. What, what version of this draft comes out later. You know, the commission could say. You know, could say a number of things. The commission could say, we'd like to, we'd like to review another draft after getting all the comments from. You know, they're, they're getting comments from staff. They're getting comments input from other committees. You know, they're getting. They're getting a input from the solar bylaw working group, the ECAC, I believe, reviewed the document. So a lot of committees and individual staff members and members of the public are sending comments over. So, but to your point, Jen, I think it would not be good. If, if the next draft or the flannel draft of this said, this document has been reviewed and edits incorporated by the commission. And I think there's a lot of information commission this, you know, because that then gives it kind of a broader, you know, stamp of approval, if you will. But I, I, I think there are so many elements here. They're, they're potentially our solar projects. That won't. That the commission really won't have jurisdiction over. Because if, if it's something that's going to be at risk, it's going to be, it's going to be a big risk. And that's what may be coming. So, you know, we, we've heard about. But at the same time, I think. I think it's also important to note that. This commission, I don't think your purview. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think your purview is really the protection of drinking water and Amherst. I don't know. We'd have to really look at your charge. Yeah. Resource. But I think that's a technical liability, right? Because. I can imagine a lot of overlap between what's considered a drinking water protection area and jurisdiction. The first, the first interest of the wetland protection act is protection of public and private water supplies. Okay. So, so going to Michelle's point earlier. Yeah. I think the paper does not give enough. Give enough emphasis on two areas that jumped out of me. One, as Michelle pointed out was private wells. It really is focused. On, on public wells and public sources reservoirs and wells. But I think the water supply protection committee. Also. I think the commission. Drafted it with other communities in mind. I know they did. Particularly shoots very impelled. So. I think they, you know, again, I think they're getting, I think they're going to be surprised by how much input they get. And I think the commission, certainly, Jen, you could bend something from the commission that could be sent from the commission and not staff. Right. The commission. The commission could come out. You could develop your own. Your own white paper on this topic. There's nothing that, that stops the commission. The concom from doing that. Right. Thoughts on that commissioners. Best route forward. I mean. I don't really think like we have to, evaluate jurisdictional cases like this on such a detailed case by case basis. I'm not sure it's appropriate for us to be writing a white paper. I personally feel like the science fund. That's a dissertation thesis. In order to be done right. So I don't think it's really our job to do that. I'm more interested in. How we. Handle our. Inclusion. Handle our inclusion or lack of inclusion in the white paper. But I really, I'm really interested to hear other people have to say, I also know that it's. 924 and everyone's been probably fried. So I don't want to belabor this. If. If I'm flagging something that isn't to be necessary to be. Talked about this much. But I also think it's, there's time sensitivity here. You'd have to kind of decide what to do before our next meeting. I think. Yeah. Laura. I think Alex was first. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead, Laura. No, I was just going to say. You know, I'm, I'm actually, it's interesting that both committees are. Sub are required to protect public and private drinking water supplies. And maybe it's just the only difference here is that their mandate is broader beyond Amherst, but it does feel a little weird. So I feel like I think it'd be ridiculous if we had our own white paper and no one's got time for that. But, you know, I'm still not totally intended like clear on. I mean, if anything. I think in my mind, there's like two paths. It's either we review it and heavily mark it up. Or we say, Hey, we're not like, this is not us.  So that's you. And you're not really reviewing projects. And here's us. And we're reviewing projects. And that frankly was my instinct was asked them to add a caveat to the front that this is not. Does not reflect on the roles and responsibilities of the conservation mission when reviewing. Solar projects within our jurisdiction. It's going to take us like many, many hours. To collectively put our, I mean, it would be, you'd like quadruple the size of that document. So, right. Not to mention that some of it is just not known by science. I'm Alex. Sorry about that. Go ahead. Yeah, I'm, I took a little bit different tacked when I read it. I first of all, I really appreciate Dave. Asking Jen to send it out. And Dave had a purpose and in sending it out. So that we'd all be informed. And I'm reminded that in the. In the last couple of years, I've been working on a very storage project tonight. We talked about. Infiltration to groundwater. With the idea of protecting groundwater. If that's not our jurisdiction. Then why are we talking about that in the battery project? And Jen went to great length to try and protect the wet land. From things that might come out of the batteries. And I think that's a good thing. And what I hear the group saying is they want to back away from that, that that's not our charge. And I, I don't buy that. No, that's how it is your charge. Yeah, that's how. This is our Daleks. I also very much appreciated. The work that this group did. They did a tremendous amount of work. And I'm sorry, Laura, but I haven't. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. This is the group. This is the first on. Solar and. Impact hammers drinking water, which has ramifications. On things that we talked about tonight, for example. They did a beautiful job. I thought of summarizing. Concerns about batteries. And a lot of the documents that they cited are. Already out there. For guidance. And we dealt. We talked tonight. About. Fire and. Contaminants that come from. Stuff. And that's all discussed in this paper. I, I very much appreciated. The work that they did putting. Pulling it together. I learned something. And. I learned a great deal. And I learned a great deal. And I learned a great deal. And I really appreciate the work that they. Had to do to pull it together. And I appreciate Dave. Sending it out to us. Yeah. So just a couple of points, Alex. So just to be clear, my concern about it is because. Protecting drinking water is our charge. So my concern is that. That it could be construed or confused. That this white paper says something about how. That our conservation commission. Deals with jurisdictional solar projects. And I'm, I just want to make sure that, that. That is not our position. You know, we have a regulatory responsibility. We have a regulatory responsibility. We have a regulatory responsibility. And that explains what we do. And I just want to make sure that that is clear. I am by no means saying that. That, you know, there. That everything in the paper is wrong. That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that I want to make sure it's clear that. That is not that when we get a project, a jurisdictional solar. Development project. We're going to follow our rules and regulations. And I think that's what we're talking about. Is that we're going to accept the risk of. The drinking water supply protection. Yeah, I didn't get the sense that this paper treads on the responsibilities. Oh, the concom. Yeah, it does though. I think that's what we're talking about because our mandate is absolutely to protect. Public and private drinking water. And you received your enormous. Binder when you signed up to the commission. And that's essentially, those are essentially the guidelines that what you're hearing, at least Jen and Erin say, is that if we were going to fully, because I, listen, Jack did a great job running that group to sort of educate people on solar and so forth when it comes to drinking water, but that is also the way I look at that is that is also for areas that are beyond our jurisdictional control in the conservation commission because you might get a solar project that's cited not anywhere near where we're looking or where we do our work. And those are good guidelines, but just for the record when we spoke about this white paper at our last solar working group meeting, solar is a very well known technology, batteries are still emerging. And when this concept of batteries was introduced in this paper, the caveat is this is a brand new field. There are not guidelines yet. There are not best practices known. There are a lot of resources out there, but we are still learning very much as we're going along. So, you know, it's gonna be an evolution for sure. So anyway, that's a little bit digressing, but. Can I suggest one other option given the late hour and which might be, and I realize everybody has a lot on their plate, but I guess, I wanna kind of acknowledge that the members of the, you know, Jack Gempsick and Brian Yellen and other folks, Lyons Whitten, you know, spent a lot of time researching and you know, they have the best of intentions with this paper. I don't think that's been really said. However, I think you've outlined a number of concerns you have, but one thing we could do is somebody representing the commission could ask to speak at their next meeting where the paper will be discussed. And, you know, I mean, Aaron or I, you know, could, you know, speak for the commission, but it would be much more effective, I think, if a member of the commission could go to their meeting when the paper will be discussed and explore some of these issues. And that way, at least get them on record with them and have a discussion about the jurisdictional issues. And I think it was said earlier, I mean, clearly their purview is broader in some ways than the commission's authority is. In other words, you can have a solar project that you all may not come before the commission, but it still could impact groundwater, right? Totally. I'm interested to think about that because your purview does include the protection of drinking water and groundwater and surface water. And, but yet from a permitting standpoint, that may not come, you know, there are projects that won't come before you. Right. So it's a weird gray area. But they may be asked to comment on, and this is the reason for this paper, they are going to be asked to comment on projects, solar projects and battery storage projects or combination projects in both Amherst, Schuetsbury and Pellum. Right. But I think going to their meeting, reaching out and saying, hey, I don't know if you, you know, I don't know if you all realize, but they're shared interests here and shared jurisdictions and shared goals. And how do we, how do we reach some compromise there so that there isn't misinformation? I think Jen, that was a really good point you made earlier, which is, you know, you want to make sure that people realize that the concom has authority and powers that can protect these resources as well. Right. Yeah, that's a good, that would be actionable. Their next meeting, it looked like I was on their website, it looks like their next meeting is sometime in January or something, is that? Yeah, I don't know off the top of my head, don't need to deeply get that information. Yeah, okay. Michelle, sorry, I've got your hand raised. Yes, I just want to state that I'm sort of concerned about the whole of, there's a hole in our jurisdiction and how this would affect, you know, the potential effects on groundwater and drinking water, like that we may never see come before us. So I don't know what I'm trying to suggest or anything with that, but maybe we should have some input there somehow because I would hate to see that just get away from us because it's pretty important. And I don't, I mean, are we going to request that they like stamp not like approved or reviewed by Concom or should, you know, as a memo to them stating that we haven't reviewed it or we may have our own positions on things? Is that useful? That's why I was suggesting we could reach out to them. I mean, it could be chair to chair, just having a conversation. Yeah, it doesn't have to be, right. That's a good point. It doesn't necessarily have to be in writing initially. You know, we could have a conversation and see where they are on it. But I agree, Michelle, you know, my eye is on that. You know, I just don't want it to be confusing. I think Lyons Whitten is the current chair. If I'm not mistaken, he's an LSP. I don't know if he's a geologist or hydrogeologist. I don't know his full background but I know he's a licensed site professional. It does a lot of work with contamination, as a matter of fact. But, you know, it could be something, Jen, where again, I know you have a full plate, but reaching out to Lyons and saying, hey, we have these concerns, we talked about at this meeting, how do you suggest we interface with you on this white paper? We have concerns, but we also think it's a great opportunity to come together and make sure we're all on the same page because we all have the same goals. We want to protect, you know, surface wetlands, surface sources of water, private wells and public wells, both in Amherst and the surrounding towns. Now, again, they have no jurisdiction, neither do you in other towns, right? Right. Part of this paper was recognizing that Hellum, Leverett, and Schuetsbury do not have the deep technical resources that Amherst does. Right. Part of it was to provide water supply, yeah, right. Yes, the part of it was to provide them and their boards and committees with some, at least a framework. Yeah. But I think a call would really move us forward and that might result then in a member or two of the commission, you know, obviously, it can't be a quorum unless the meetings are posted as full meetings of the commission, but it could be two members of the commission going to their next meeting and articulating these points. That sounds like a good path way to navigate this. There's been a hand up from a member of the public in attendance for a while, so I'm going to let Jenny ask a question. I thought I just brought her in. Oh, yeah. Nope. You're on mute, Jenny. Oh, there you are. Thank you. OK. You hear me now? Yes. It's very late, and I apologize. Jenny Callick, I live on Schuetsbury Road, and I appreciate this conversation enormously. I just wanted to follow up with what Michelle mentioned about a space where drinking water is not protected. The Board of Health is charged with protecting the private well water. They were offered a seat on the solar bylaw working group, and they chose not to fill it. They were also sent the white paper draft, and we went to their meeting last week, and they hadn't read it or distributed it at that point. So the concern for people on wells is that the Board of Health, which should technically be advocating and watching for our water, seems to not be fully participating in all of the conversations that are ongoing. So if we could rely on the Conservation Commission, we would not be worried, because we know all of you are attentive. But the Water Supply Protection Committee is focusing more on public wells than it is on private wells. We are a kind of footnote in the white paper. So that leaves private wells sort of as an orphan. No Board of Health attention, no representation on the solar bylaw working group, and a sort of afterthought on the Water Supply Protection Committee, including in the white paper. So the point that Michelle made and Jen is pointing to, all of you are thinking about, that private water seems to be losing any kind of attention. So I don't know what we can do. Maybe people in town can figure out a way to get the Board of Health to be more active and more involved in it, which would help. But there is a huge disadvantage being on private water and not having the attention of all the expertise that exists in town. So thanks for hearing me so late and all your work. I appreciate it. Yeah, thanks for hanging in, Jenny. Point taken. We're going to try to figure out how to navigate this. And just to that point, Jen, I'm happy. I just made a note to myself that I will follow up with Jennifer Brown, our health director, on really trying to see if we can get the Board of Health engaged on a different level. So I'm happy to do that. Thank you. Yeah, they have jurisdiction beyond ours when it comes to especially private wells. Yeah. So that is alarming. Michelle highlighted earlier, yes. Yeah. I know we're all going to drop off, but I'm going to just make one comment because I feel like there's this sort of, in particular, when it comes to solar here, I do hear a lot of fear-based dialogue just around the community. And I will say one thing that in our last solar working group discussion, Jack made a point regarding water quality. He said essentially that solar development, which I certainly know to be true, is the equivalent to grassland in terms of runoff and water quality. And I'm as long as I don't bring chemicals in the ground. So I just want the commissioners to know that if there's a solar facility that we don't have jurisdiction over, it's not as though a ton of chemicals are running off into the ground and infiltrating groundwork. And so anyways, I just want to put that out there. And happy to discuss that we've been doing this for 17 years. Yeah. Yeah, I think my concern is more it's jurisdictional and how we navigate this and just making sure that we're clear on our jurisdiction and making sure that the public is aware what our role is. Michelle, I see you have a comment, but then guys, sorry, that white paper does outline a lot of potential contamination sources that are not from the solar panels themselves. So I agree that solar panels themselves you don't have a lot of or any leaching, but it's the maintenance and the other materials that it and the batteries that are potential contaminants. So that's all actually in the white paper. And that's where I have concerns about the wills because they don't really tie that into groundwater potential contamination. So really it's on long term maintenance rather than solar panels themselves. OK, thanks everyone for the dialogue on this. I think it sounds like we have a little bit of a plan maybe at our next on the next November 9th meeting where you add this to the kind of like other topics, Erin and the agenda. And by then I will that will remind me to figure out when the next meeting is. I was just looking at the website and so I will be sure to figure out how to get in touch with that committee and just reach out and start a dialogue on this. I'm sure that everyone here has a shared goal and we just need to figure out how to best kind of locate ourselves in the situation. So to be continued, but I think we should continue it later and and call this meeting because it's late. And I really appreciate everyone's attention to all the detail on these hearings. This is a complicated meeting and this has been a really important discussion. So thank you. I'm sorry it's so late. Hi. Anything would you say, Michelle? I was just jumping the gun. Oh, yeah. I think we have to have a motion to adjourn. I may have to adjourn at 9.45. We're still in the same digits, guys. We're doing well. 9.45 on October 26, 2022. Seconded. Thanks, Cameron. I have a voice vote. Michelle. Hi. Cameron. Hi. Laura. Hi. Alex. Yes, good night. OK. It's unanimous. Good night, everyone.