Conservation Commission Meeting Sep 9, 2026

Good evening. This is I'm Bruce Steedman, the uh I guess I'm the assistant chair tonight. Um this is the conservation commission for September 9th, 2026. It is 7:03 and we have a quorum. Uh there's a very brief chair's report. Um, as of August 7th, the drought status remains significant. And as you see from the the signs around the town, there is a water ban. To understand specifically what that means, please go to the town website and and look at the details of what that means for any particular thing you might want to be doing out there. Uh, welcome to any members of the public who are here. Thank you for joining us and thank you for the commissioners this evening. Um, as you know, we have a vacancy on our commission. So, if anyone has an uh an idea of someone who uh could be recruited to join us, they should discuss uh with Dave Zomec about doing that. And there is an application form that you need to fill out. And there's a couple of simple steps going forward. Um, I also want to report as the town liaison for the Fort River culverts project that for all intents and purposes, all the assessments of the culverts in the town have been finished. Uh, there's a few that they're going to go back and look again and that kind of thing. But basically, at least for Ammerst, we're done. Um, there's a number of uh, educational outreach efforts that are still underway. And so if you want to learn more about culverts, come and see the table at the um block party or the source to see cleanup on the 19th. Um every so often we'll have a table with information at the farmers market. So culverts is our topic every week. So please come and see us. Uh is there a director's report? Hi, good evening Bruce and everybody. Yeah, uh if I could, I'd love to just share a few things with the commission and anyone in the public. Um you mentioned the source to see on Saturday the 19th. Um, I think there's plenty of information on on on uh online about that event, but you know, we'd welcome any and all volunteers to help us clean up along the Fort River and enjoy this. Um, it's going to be more of a, you know, a fun time with music and food and and all sorts of things for children and families at Gra Park on Saturday, September 19th. The other announcement about meetings or upcoming events I would just share with the commission and again you can go to the town website um and we have um a a parallel website if you will on the Hampshire College process but on September 22nd and 24th in the evening I believe they start at 6 p.m. at the Eric Carl Museum there will be kind of a companion uh set of meetings. Um, and this is this is yet another opportunity for um public engagement and this will really be focused on what the community would like to see with regard to zoning on the on and and and with regard to the h the future of the Hampshire College campus. So that's on September 22nd at 6 at Eric Carl and then the 24th. If you can make one, great. if you can make them both. They kind of one builds the second one builds on the first one. So, um check out uh our Hampshire College uh website uh for more information uh and agendas for those two meetings. Other quick updates for the commission. Um uh we are trying to work the commission permitted some work to perfect a trail uh and create a trail off of Vista Terrace. That's the uh small um culde-sac, if you will, uh at off of Bay Road down near Atkins. And we've been doing some um some work to to create that trail. Um we'd like to have kind of a dedication of that trail before the snow flies. So, I will keep you posted on that. Um let's see, other trail updates. uh at the Plumbrook Pond at Sweet Alice, the Plumbrook Pond loop around Plumbrook Pond. I'm sure most if not all of you have been there. We have been in touch with Kestrel and and I've observe some some uh vehicles maybe taking liberties there. If if you know that trail well, you'll know that um there's nothing that keeps somebody from driving across the trail and and across the dam there. And uh our intention all along was to put up a couple of ballards there, simple 6x6 ballards, so the public could pass through there walking um with family and friends, but not have vehicles pass through there. So we will be adding two simple ballards there with a cable or chain between them and some appropriate signage. Obviously, pedestrians will be uh free to walk um to one side of of that uh that um that structure, but a very simple structure just to keep people from um driving across the dam. And again, I I just think people don't know. They they might be coming there to fish or hike and they pull up, there's no signage that says you can't drive across there, and some people have, and we want to keep them safe and keep um users of the trail safe. Um, another trail update. I would like to get the commission out or members of the as many commission members as possible. I'll work with Aaron on scheduling this, but I'd love to get you out to the Orchard Arboritum. This is our 8 acre conservation area um adjacent to Applewood. Um, this is a full welldeveloped arboritum. Has anybody been to the arboritum? Um, I'm just curious by show of hands, Carol. Certainly. Um uh this is a relationship the commission the town former commissions and and the town has had for over 30 years. Um and it's a wonderful walking path ADA accessible and I'd love to get commission members out there. Maybe we'll do kind of a little PowerPoint for those members who can't be there and take some photographs. Um but the orchard arboritum committee, a group of uh dedicated uh Applewood residents, um would like to add a small wildlife pond there. Uh very small, not not anything of any large scale whatsoever. Um and so they're interested in talking with the commission about it. And I'd love to have you all walk the site first and better understand our 30 odd year relationship with uh the wonderful folks at Applewood who have developed this quite stunning arburetum. It is it is mature trees and and native plantings and and all sorts of beautiful beautiful uh um shrubs and trees. Um so those were my quick updates around town. the CPA the CPA process is started. Jason will be your representative to the CPA committee. I think we have a planning meeting coming up. I don't know if that's on the books yet or not, Jason, but it will be shortly and then we'll kick off um proposals are due by the middle of October for CPA projects. >> All right, quick updates around >> Does anyone have a question for Dave that's not related to something else in the agenda? Okay, hearing at hearing that, we're going to move on to land use updates. Uh Aeron's um report to Dave and thus to us has some details for each one. We're going to take the first one is CLU 264 pollinator research study at Amethyst Brook and Wentworth Conservation Area. Um, and the it doesn't say who the applicant is here, but uh let's hear from Aaron and then talk about that one. >> Yeah. So the um the application the proposed project is a a pollinator study and the the um applicant is proposing to to collect some pollinator insects to um uh do some lab analysis of them. It's a um a study to look at the impacts of um pollinator species um from neoniconoids. I don't know if anybody on the board has heard of those, but they're um a type of uh pesticide that's sprayed on seed. And a lot of times like the the seed you get sort of at like the big box um uh landscaping stores will will spray down seeds with neoniconoids. And so they're they're doing a comparison between um the the pollinators that have have pollinated pollinated neoniconoids versus native species. So that's what the um >> the study is and those are the two properties they want to do it on. >> Who's the applicant? >> Um the applicant is a researcher I believe from UMass who's been doing pollinator research. um I believe statewide um on pollinators. We've actually come close to partnering um on a number of projects that she's been working on, number of studies um and she's explored doing some other studies on some other conservation areas and town lands, but they just didn't work out. And this is the first time that um well, she's she's coming back. She had proposed a previous study and um that one never went forward but um she's coming back with this one. >> And so what are the dates? When is it when does it happen? >> Next spring. >> Um let me see here. Excuse me just a sec while I open the application so I can talk more specifically. Um, >> it would be helpful if you named the professor, Erin, and also I believe she wanted to start this fall if I'm not mistaken. >> Yeah, they wanted to start really soon. Um, so the um they they were actually wanting to start a couple weeks ago, but we didn't have a a second meeting in August. Um, so the I think she was going to try to push it out as long as possible. Um, but it the dates were 8:26 to 92, which obviously have already passed, but I I think she was going to try to push the dates back um from the ideal sort of testing range. Um, let me see the >> Her name is Laura Figurella. It's in the upper right hand corner of the application. >> Thank you, Jason. I was checking my email and not able to find it. It's Laura. Yes. >> Well, let's see if there are any actual questions based on what we've been given. Okay, seeing none of those, I'd entertain a motion to um approve this. >> I move that we approve the land use application number CLU-26-4. >> I second it. Sorry, >> can I just um really quickly could we just uh in my report there's a condition suggested condition that the >> results of the research study are shared back to the conservation commission. >> Right. >> Absolutely. >> Could we could we just include that as a condition in the approval? >> I will amend motion to amend >> that the uh results of the study be shared with that. >> All okay. Uh Sarah, >> hi >> Jason. >> Hi. Carol, >> hi. >> Rachel, >> hi. >> And I'm an I. Okay. >> Uh Clu 265, the Chile challenge for a violence-free community at Puffers Pond. And there's a lot of recommendations from the staff. So you have them in the report. does either by other the other documents in your folder or by what's on her report. Do you have any questions about this? This is happens a number. This is like I don't know the third, fourth, fifth time this has happened. So >> I have one if if other people but go ahead >> Bruce could I just add one thing you know this is >> this is an as you said this is uh I believe this is our second or third uh year working with this group they're extremely organized very very responsible uh I can't say enough about their pre their preu event work with the fire department the police department portaotties safety. Um uh so you know staff recommends to the commission that we you approve this application. >> Okay. >> Any other questions or not other but are there any questions based on what we know? I have one if others do not. >> I don't have a question but I have a comment that I don't see application in the packet. >> I didn't either. Okay, Aaron, thoughts on that? >> Yeah, >> and the date >> the dates. When is it going to happen? >> Um, so it's going to I can pull the application up. Um, sorry if there was some issue with that. Sometimes the if it's interrupted when I'm uploading it or something, they're they don't show up. Um let me just do a share and I share my screen and you can see it. Um so this is the application. Um Chile challenge for a violencefree community put on by the center of women in community. Polar plunge raises uh increase community engagement enhance access to resources for survival survivors of sexual violence. proposed to be on November 14th at from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Number of participants 100. This is put on by um the I believe it's the center for women at UMass. Um Nova Flory is the director of that program who's submits the application annually. >> Okay. Now, now are there questions? I I have one which I'll do after you you're done. Uh it's 2H on Aaron's report. It says the commission would like lifeguards or the first responders. Um I would like that change to requires that there be lifeguards or first responders. And my understanding is they do that anyway, but I I just want to be clear in the documentation. So, do I have a a motion about 265 with the um additions of A through H? And in H it would say the commission requires lifeguards and first responders. I'll move that we approve uh land use application CLU-26-5 with the additional conditions that the commission requires lifeguards and first responders. >> I think it's or or first responders to be on the site during the event. So, okay. Any other I need a second >> for first responders. >> Yeah. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Uh I think it was Carol. Um Rachel. Uh Rachel, can you hear me? >> Yes, I can hear you. >> It's It's your and I. Okay, Jason. >> Hi, >> Carol. >> Hi, >> Sarah. >> Hi, >> and I'm an I. Okay. Number three, CLU 266, Sweet Alice, Kestrel Saw, Wet Owl Mistnetting. So, here we know how the applicant is and there are four provisions conditions. Um this has been done before and these are the according to Erin's note her her report these are the same conditions that have been done in previous years. Does anyone have a concern or a question a comment? >> Bruce if I could. Staff recommends this um this this request to you as well. They've done it for a number of years. all all the appropriate permits are secured by Castrol for bird banding. Uh we've not had any issues. It's a wonderful opportunity for people to learn about um migrating uh birds of prey and we feel like it's a compatible use for sweet Alice. >> Okay. >> So before we go on, there is someone on the phone 5087693659. If you have a comment on any of these, if as a member of the public, please raise your hand so we can hear it. Um, I didn't do that for the first two. I apologize, but um, I don't know the name. So, and there are two other members of the public here. So, please raise your hand if you have something uh up on each one of these as we do them. Um I have one thing which is uh let's see 3B says provide results of research or data collected back to the conservation commission and what I don't think we know is what did they learn from these the other years. Um it's not uh Aaron was not able to quickly find that they had sent us the information, sent us the data and so it would be interesting not that we shouldn't do it but just at some point I'd like to know what have they learned from all this. >> I would just yeah I think it's a great point. Um certainly Erin is in almost weekly contact with with Kestrel so we could get that information. I do know it's a long-term research study. So year to year >> year to year there may not be okay there may be trends like this year we got >> you know a hundred saw owls and last year there were 20 or whatever but it is a long-term study of of saw owl migration but uh yeah I think it's >> fair enough >> the followup is needed there for sure. >> Yeah I'd like to hear about it at some future you know five minutes here's what we've learned so far. Okay. Any other comments or questions, member of the public? Do I have a motion for CL 266? No one wants to >> move. >> And can we just make sure the special conditions are also included in there? >> Moved with the special conditions. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Second, Pat. Okay. And Okay. Uh, Carol >> I >> Sarah >> I >> Jason >> I >> uh Rachel >> abstain >> and I and so that means it passes because there's four eyes. Okay, the last one is the Amethyst Brook trail head improvements minor activities. Doesn't have a number. Um, but it's so we may not have to have a motion about it, but um Aaron has given us some information about this and does anyone have a question about and and Erin, do you want to say more about it than what's on here? >> Yeah. Um, so Dave and I have been working with Kestrel to do uh plan some trail head improvements at Amethyst Brook. Um, we have engaged a um an engineer to do some I would say resource area improvements. Um, uh, repairing the trail entrance where there's a a very mucky spot where it goes through a wetland which we want to repair or andor, um, sort of reroute slightly. and then um do some covert replacements for some very undersized culverts. But um that work is going to take a little longer than anticipated to permit with um a notice of intent application. And so, um, we were hoping that we could start on some of the other sort of less, um, invasive trail head improvements like, um, striping the parking lot, um, installing the new kiosks, um, there's going to be a double kiosk placed there, um, with some new, um, displays in them for the trail systems. Um and then uh some fencing, particularly some um uh kind of curbing fence style fencing that would go along the parking lot edge as well as some split rail fencing that would close off a portion of the trail that um goes along the Amethyst Brook that's kind of um currently really badly compacted and there's a lot of erosion there. So, we want to close off that section of trail. So, um the installation of fencing is a minor activity under the Wetlands Protection Act and under our bylaw. Um, again, I'm still recommending if the commission's okay with us moving forward with this prior to the filing of the notice of intent that um erosion and sediment controls be installed prior to the start of work and that those be inspected and that any spoils from the um uh augur digging holes for the fence uh would be removed off site, properly disposed of um and then the area be um stabilized uh with seed and mul seed and straw and or mulch after the work is done. >> Um you know just kind of some basic housekeeping kind of things. >> Um >> fair enough. >> Yeah. So given that and that there's not a number, uh it sounds like your recommendation is you'd like us to just to approve you to do this this small limited amount of things and then if it's more significant, you're going to come back to us later with a different approach or a notice of intent or whatever is required, >> right? A not Yeah. Does anyone to that? hearing. Seeing or hearing no objection, um I think we'll just move ahead and say please do that. >> Great. >> Okay. Um we're going to move on to the hearings. Um there's only one and given that it's going to be continued. Do should I read all of the things that are on that sheet that normally gets read? I'll read the language of the hearing, but but that other sheet, do I need to read all that now? >> I I don't think I mean, you can use your discretion, Bruce, but I don't think it's necessary if we're discontinuing the single hearing. >> Okay. But we're going to move on to hearing number one. An amended notice of intent submitted by Pier Sky Energy for a change to the previously approved transformer containment system on two equipment pads associated with the solar facility at 191 West Pomeroy Lane, Map 19D, lot 10. The applicant has requested that the um that this be continued to the next meeting. Do I have a motion to continue the public hearing for amended notice of intent DP0890728 to September 23rd um at 7:25 p.m. >> some moved. >> Second. >> That was Sarah. >> Okay. >> Carol, >> I >> Rachel. >> Hi >> Sarah. Hi, >> Jason. >> Hi. >> And I'm an I. Okay. All right. Um, okay. Again, thank you to the people who are here as members of the public. If please do raise your hand if you have a comment or with regard to any of these uh for which there is a motion. I failed to ask you for that one because it's just being continued, but there are other motions coming later in the meeting. So, please do let us know if you have a comment. Um, the next is on Erin's report on page two, compliance. Um, Bruce, could we do you want to go to compliance first or did you want to do because in on the agenda I so in my report I skip the um land use policy stuff but it's on the agenda next. So I don't know if you prefer >> I don't uh sure we'll uh we'll do that. So the next topic is the land the conservation land use land management policy and regulations. This has been underway for almost 4 and a half years and we are this close to the end. This close. What you had in your packet was a fi a review a final clean draft of the policy and Aaron um would like to comment on two things having to do with the hunting paragraph that's been inserted and one other thing. So if you could just explain to us the final final thing before this goes off to the the the town attorney for their review. tell take us through the steps. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Um, so, uh, just a I mean there's these are basically housekeeping things. I just wanted to kind of roll through them with you. So, there were some pieces in the general rules and regulations that hearkened back to hunting before we finalized hunting. Um this particular um E that's highlighted um references off leash dog training for upland bird hunting and retrieving and it references this window from uh May 1st to July 31st. The commission in the last meeting determined that there would only be hunting during very specific hunting seasons and this was not one of them. So, I would just recommend that we take that out um since it doesn't correlate with the policy that the commission agreed on at the last meeting. >> Okay. Before any concerns about taking this out? >> Okay, moving on. >> Okay. Um so this is the sort of drafted um section that was added in based on um Andre's draft that he created and that we discussed at the last meeting. So um the list I'm still going through the list to check the deeds to make sure that everything's um uh in order in terms of um including those properties as proposed. Um there was just a couple few things. Um one is we at the last meeting decided that hunting would only be or I'm sorry public access would only be permitted from dawn to dusk and there is um hunting seasons that are open for night um night hunting which are raccoon and possum hunting. And I thought it would be important that we maybe make a special reference that um due to the lands being closed dawn to dusk that we don't allow that. Um so that was one suggestion. >> Can you point to that with your pointer so we know where you're Okay. >> Right. So, it's just not specifically called out in in the hunting policy, and it wasn't something that we talked about, but um there is a um and I can find it in the rules and rags, but we had discussed um having the dawn to dusk allowable hours for conserv use of conservation lands and the raccoon and possum hunting happen um >> like in the middle of the night. It's like a nighttime hunting activity. So, it would just clarify that nighttime hunting wasn't allowed on conservation lands. Um, and that's basically just suggesting that we add that in for clarity for anybody who's reading our policy. Um, because that's my understanding based on the rules that the commission's established. Um, the other thing was, um, Andre had had this reference to hunting with rifles in Ammerst being prohibited, and I did do some research on that particular, um, item. Based on the findings of the research, which are in your correspondence folder, I'm going to recommend that we remove that reference. Um, so apparently it's kind of a veiled reference in um in an old town bylaw that has since been updated and that um reference has been removed. So um there are restrictions to um hunting with rifles statewide um for deer hunting. And so it where we would hearken back to the state law reference and because this doesn't really have anywhere to point to since that old bylaw has been updated and it no longer exists. So just >> okay >> wanted to highlight that. >> Okay. >> Um the other suggestion I made was um this section that Andre had put in here. Hunting within 150 ft of any paved road which includes the Norwatic trail is prohibited by state law. So, my recommendation was going to be that we um replace that with something to the effect of please refer to 321 CMR 3.0 appendices um reference and state um the section hunting uh to see that section for the most current hunting setbacks from paved roads and dwellings. And note that the um Norweatic Trail is considered a state or hard surfaced highway. And just to keep it like that because my concern is that the state has been um uh proposing that we make some adjustments to hunting setbacks. And I just want to make sure that whatever rule we establish doesn't directly conflict with what the state rule change um happens that's made. So this would just refer back to the state law to reference those setbacks rather than us having a setback that conflicts with state law. or a potential state law in the future. The >> the town attorney thanks you for finding it before they had to find it. >> Yeah. And I think that's my only other comment on this. So those were my outstanding issues. So the process from here is that if there are no objections that Aaron would clean this little section up and it then goes to the town attorney for review and then it comes back to us and then we set a hearing date. Is that correct? >> Um if that's the process that you guys want to go through. Yeah. Um I I'm I'm more than comfortable with following that protocol. Um I still have to >> Yeah, that is that's what we do across the board with these types of policy documents. So yes. >> Okay. And there would be an opportunity for you to once comments come back from the town attorney, you may have questions for them and we may if they are significant enough, we may want to invite the town attorney to attend one of your meetings to discuss them with you. So there may be an inter intermediate step there before it goes to public hearing. >> All right. So any questions, concerns, comments at this at that those set of steps from here? I don't see I need to keep toggling to see Rachel. There we go. Okay. All right. Seeing hearing none, um then we will ask there is one person who has a question from the public and I will entertain that question from Maria Copeki. Um can you bring her in? Yes. >> We're not gonna have a motion for this, but I do want to hear what Maria has to say. >> Great. Can you guys hear me? >> Yeah. >> Okay, super. So, um I would just like to know how the public is going to be notified about the hearing. I know that there has to be notifications in papers and so on, but if you could just um uh give me a little bit of information about that because this is something that people are interested in in talking about and weighing in on. So, uh if you don't mind, >> I'm going to pass that to Aaron and Dave in terms of what the process is once we're ready to set a hearing. >> So, I would post a legal ad in the newspaper. um that's sort of the the standard that I would follow for um scheduling the hearing and then of course it would be posted on our agenda um as a as a public hearing as well. >> And yeah, I think we would, you know, anytime there's bylaw changes, regul regulation changes, we would follow that protocol. I would say that um you know I know that the at least the gazette has covered this topic a couple of times over the last two two and a half years as the commission has discussed it and I would also reach out to Scott Msbach who who covers Ammerst for the Gazette and you know at least ask him to you know if if possible write a story on the upcoming hearing and what is being considered. So, we try to get it out there on our website. U required notices in in newspapers and then perhaps a story in the gazette as well. >> That's that's helpful. Um if you don't mind, I'm I'm here covering uh for the Indie. So, if you don't mind uh shooting the Indie uh a notification, we'll get the word out there as well. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, are there any other comments before we move to the next uh compliance updates? Okay. Well, Aaron, and just to say as a per as the one remaining person from the subcommittee, um, my interest is to get this done sooner than later. So, uh, yes, if there are serious issues that the at the town attorney finds, that's fine, but I don't want to keep going over and over and over this. We need to wrap this up. Okay. Uh thank you all. We're going to move to compliance updates which now is again on page two of Aaron's report. There are lots of details there. And so we're going to take Canton Avenue first. So maybe Aaron, just a very quick overview. We've all had a chance to look at the materials and your report. Um just very quickly. >> Okay. >> Particularly for members of the public to kind of get an understanding of what the issue is here. >> Okay. Um do you want me to give the backstory of the situation too or just Okay. >> Yeah. Briefly. >> Okay. So, um, early August, I observed in the inspection reports for the Canton Avenue project, I believe it's 48 CNAV, that the erosion controls were, um, deteriorating really badly. And so I had requested that by the end of August, which was a 30-day window, that the um, Wilson Construction, who's the owner and builder, um, replace the erosion controls on the site. um that that date came and went. Um I received a complaint call from a neighbor right around that date and I was scheduled to go out and take a site visit. So I went out and um observed that there was some issues on the site with water um turbid water leaving the site coming out into the roadway. It looked like just from my observations that the roadway had been widened beyond what had been approved in the order of conditions. And the other observation was that the house site appeared to be much higher than what had had been permitted in the um original order. Um so the commission issued an enforcement order and has asked that by I want to say it's um September 16th that they um let me just make sure I got the dates right. um that they uh address the commission's concerns by rehanging flags of where the limit of work line is and replace the controls to align with the limit of work line. Uh this is in part to verify whether a wetland has been filled by the widening of the driveway. So the Wilsons um have basically asked number one to have a site visit ahead of being required to do that. So, they had asked me to come to the commission with that ask tonight. Basically, they don't want to have a surveyor come out. They wanted to have a site visit to have the commission come out and walk the site. However, I had also spoken with the building commissioner um expressing concerns about the height um because it looked like they had brought in a bunch of fill and that the the elevation of the house site was significantly higher than what had been permitted in the original order. And um just by way of also a little bit of background. So um the plan that was approved was dated um September 20th, 2022. Um the applicant did come back to the commission in um April of 2025 requesting um to raise up the house site to make the house a single a two I'm sorry a two family structure and also to change the storm water structure design on the property and the commission reviewed that um request to be considered as an amended an a request to amend the order of conditions and the commission determined that the change to the site plan was significant enough that um they would not consider amending the plan that they would require the filing of a new notice of intent for the project. So they said if you want to proceed with this plan come back with a new notice of intent and we'll consider it. So instead, what actually happened was even though the commission hadn't approved the work, the Wilsons proceeded with constructing it not as per the approved plan, but as per the plan that had not been approved, um which included bringing in the extra fill, raising up the house, um this modified design. So now we're in a really difficult situation um where the commission basically with the with the project constructed as is the commission is in a situation where it's almost impossible for us to issue a certificate of compliance because the the project hasn't been constructed as per the approved design. So, um, I did have a conversation with D about the complexity of the situation and I was advised, don't amend the enforcement order, leave the enforcement order, have them continue to try to meet the deadlines in the enforcement order, but that the applicant will need to file a new notice of intent for this project as soon as possible. And the idea being they file the new notice of intent, hopefully get an approval for it, get that recorded, and then that new notice of intent would basically cover the design of the new project that had been um constructed. And that the old notice of intent would be closed out once that new notice of intent um was on the books. So that was sort of the recommendation that was made to me as the manner to sort of resolve this um regulatory conundrum. Um so I did convey that to um Ward uh the the owner and contractor's uh consultant and they he said he was going to relay that to them and make them aware that that was going to be required. So that's that's the update. Um I'm not recommending any action tonight. I mostly just wanted to update the commission on what was going on. >> Comments, questions, >> Jason, what happens if the new NOI does not get approved? >> That's a great question. Um, I think, um, I'll leave that to D and the town attorney for right now because I don't really know the answer. What are you know why why did this how how did this project move forward without an approved >> sorry what was it plan set or design like how how >> yeah I mean I think what happened was um it was >> I can't really speak for the inspections department but the commission denied the request to approve the plan for for the modification. And it sounds like the owner contractor just submitted the building permit documents to the building department and proceeded as if it had been approved and proceeded with construction. And >> so is there no conversations or links between the commission and the building department? >> There is. Yeah. I mean, I I did relay that the the proposed change to the plan required an amended notice of intent. Um, >> but that's about as much >> issued the building permits. >> Well, the building permit had the building permit I think had already been issued. So, ordinarily when a building permit comes in, um, I review the building permit and sign off on it to make sure it's in compliance with the commission permit. In this case, that process happened. They submitted their building permit. I signed off on it because they had an order of conditions. And then I think after the fact, they sort of modified the design. Um, and then that slipped past my queue in the online system. And even though I had relayed that the commission didn't approve the work, somehow the work just proceeded as as if it had. Um so yeah, >> other thoughts or questions? I mean the I suppose the charitable way to look at it is what you just described and the less than charitable way to look at it is they just went ahead and built what they felt like with and just ignored us. So >> right >> which is I I'm not happy about that. So let's your recommendation is to uh not revise the enforcement order and keep pressing the applicant for a new notice of intent which would in effect codify something that we didn't approve beforehand. It's like after the fact. Um but at least we'd have the applicant in front of us and we could discuss it, >> right? Yeah. I mean, the the only So, the structure's in, the structure is being framed, the structure has a roof. Um, and so I I mean, it's gone this far and I don't we get into these situations. We've got a couple um uh compliance cases tonight. And I mean the the only other recourse really is, you know, if they're not going to comply with the enforcement order is is fines andor just withholding a certificate of compliance. Um, you know, I had conversation with D about this already. Of course, you know, D involvement is also a potential option. Um, but the hope is always that the applicant will work collaboratively with the commission to try to resolve the situation. >> Okay, Carol. Well, obviously this is not the way we want things to happen. And I'm wondering if this has happened before, how did how does it get resolved that our work is we feel like we're doing our work? >> Well, augment an augmentation of Carol's thought is how do we use these as examples and figure out how to prevent them from happening in the first place? And I don't know the answer to that, but it's worth maybe reviewing this one and the three or four others that have over the last few years where people have just gone off and done stuff. And let's maybe we need to have a special sitdown about how to prevent this ahead of time. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It it sounds like unless someone else has a comment or a question. I uh Jason >> Yeah. Um Aaron, can you just elaborate on what it means if a certificate of occupancy is not issued? >> Well, um I can't speak to the certificate of occupancy. Um, I mean, the the commission could certainly ask the building commissioner to withhold any um approvals of a certificate of occupancy until this matter is resolved. >> Sorry, what was it? Sorry, you said a certificate of compiance. >> Compliance. Oh, I'm sorry. >> Yes. Yep. >> I'm sorry. >> Um, so you're saying if a certificate of compliance isn't issues, what's the ramification? um they wouldn't be able to sell it >> at least not without >> they would be able to occupy it. >> Correct. So like for example they could rent it um but they wouldn't be able to sell the property um andor they'd be able to sell it just with the the the buyer would know that there was an incumbrance on the deed which uh you know it's difficult to do a transfer with that on it. And if there was, and like you said, you can't say you can't really speak to the certificate of occupancy, but if we were to be able to work with, say, the building department to prevent a CO from being issued, then they wouldn't be able to rent it. No one could actually move in. >> Is that >> correct? and and we've and we have um uh I guess collaborated in that way before on certificates of occupancy when there's been um compliance matters uh to work together as departments to try to make sure they resolve all of their compliance matters before the town essentially signs off that it can be occupied. So I have coordinated that with the um inspections department previously. >> Okay. Sounds like a potentially good tool in the tool box. >> Carol, are you still in the queue or your hand? >> Yeah, I just have one other question. Um, does the fact that the driveway was widened and more fill was added to raise the level of the house significantly impact the wetlands that we're looking to protect in your opinion? >> Right. So the driveway >> widening >> what's the negative effect of of of going ahead with this >> right? So the driveway widening is still a question mark and I think we need some survey um stakes put in place to determine where the correct limit of work line is and where the previous wetland flagging was located. Um, I'm going off my eye that it's been widened and also based on measurements from property pins which indicate that it may have been widened 5 or 6 feet wider than what it should have been which would mean five or six feet width um like let's say 30 or 40 foot length of wetland would have been altered. That's a suspicion at this point. And so I would want more information before I mean I would want to actually see that survey data staked out to be able to further make that determination. As far as the fill, I mean I don't I don't think the fill is really the issue to be totally honest. I think the issue is the storm water system. So there was a storm water system that was designed to have a specific capacity associated with the house and in the version of the um revision that was presented to the commission in in April of 2025 that storm water structure was modified. So the um capacity of that structure was changed, but there weren't hydraologic calculations that supported the change to the structure. And so that was part of the commission's hesitation to approve it as an amendment was because they wanted to see hydraologic calculations that the modified size, depth, um etc. of the um storm water structure was adequate for the the proposed project >> and the contractor never fulfilled that request. >> Correct. >> Right. Um >> before Okay. I just want to make sure there's any other comments because we got a lot of other topics to do here. Um it sounds like it's clear that we're going to need a new notice of intent. Correct. So maybe our our choice is to either wait for D to get involved in it or go ahead and insist that they give us a new notice of intent even though it's after the fact. At least require that they file a new notice based on this the changes that have been made. And I'm not sure what else we can do, but there may be things I I don't know. So, if that's your recommendation, does anyone object to uh Aaron taking the next steps towards that? Okay. Well, seeing none, please do it. Let's move on to the fort unless there's any other comments because I I want to get through these and if something bubbles up later and you go I wish we' talked about that. We can go back but let's go to Fort River Elementary School. No uh Erin's recommendation. No further action is recommended at this time based on what you read in the packet. Any questions or comments on that one? Okay. Amoris Monasuri, another complicated one. Very quickly, er, uh, Sarah, did you have your hand up? No. Yes. >> Yes. Sorry. Um, I just, uh, I'm a Did you already address this? There seems to be a difference in the agenda and the report, >> right? So, my report is only followup on previous um uh compliance matters, but your item is on the agenda. So, um >> I see >> we can't bring that up. >> I didn't Okay, >> let's go to Fort River Elementary School. Anything else? Any comments or thoughts on that one? >> There's a public comment or a public question, Bruce. >> Okay. Maria Copeki has a question or a comment. Uh, Maria, there we go. >> Yep. Thanks. Um, so I mean, I saw your reports, but you know, I'm trying to interpret them. So, I I I watched your previous meeting and I know your concerns that you had over um Fort River, actually now known as Amethyst Brook Elementary School. Could you would you mind briefly just saying did they do what they were asked to do? Did the did the um GC behave? >> Did you want me to feel that Bruce? >> Yeah, thank you for the question. It's probably one one of us would have asked too. So go ahead. So, um, yeah. So, the timing was a little wonky because I had done that site visit um like a week and a half prior to our last meeting and then immediately following our last meeting, I was away for a week and then we missed a meeting. So there was basically a month in between that site visit when that um initial compliance matter was um documented through today. And so when I came back on the 24th of August and walked the site, I saw what I had expected to see, which was that significant progress had been made. Um they had done a significant amount of hydra seeding, a significant amount of planting. Um they did address some of the commission's concerns with regard to um adding additional erosion and sediment controls. They did have an engineer come out and do an inspection of the structures. Uh basically to just uh take a look at the structures and and visually verify um whether there was any um uh sediment material that had visually accumulated um during the construction process when they were unprotected that was of concern. Um those reports came back and basically said that that the storm water structures looked okay, that there wasn't any concerns with sedimentation accumulating in them. And there was some recommendations for some additional erosion controls which were added to the site and um a lot of um ground cover has since established in between those two site visits. So it's it's been a pretty substantial um metamorphosis in a very short period of time. Appreciate it. Thank you, >> Commission. Yeah. Commissioners, questions or comments? Uh Aaron is recommending no further action. Okay. U just checking. Okay, there we go. Okay. Um let's move on to Amoris Monasuri. Oh, no, sorry, to Olympia Drive. Uh it's there. Aaron does not have a report on that. Um, my understanding is that Sarah has a a thought or two about this, so let's take that and and address it. Um, so we talked about this a really long time ago and um I think the question at the time I think Andre had wanted the town attorney to come to our meeting but instead we were told to submit questions to the town council which I did and my question basically had to do with um the you know it had to do with what what had been happening since the fire, which was >> there were requests from the the from Aaron and the conservation commission to to do a whole bunch of things to, you know, clean up the site and also conduct testing and all this stuff and and we hadn't gotten a we basically weren't getting any response from the owner. I don't think we've ever gotten any response directly from the owner. Um and then at a certain point there was a um the contractor offered to do some cleanup which I believe was done. I lost track of whether the town itself has ever done any testing. But my question for the town council had been just basically since we weren't getting anywhere trying to communicate with the owner. Could the commission order or basically order because there had been this unlawful discharge. I mean it's not obviously the fault of the property owner but nonetheless there was this fire and this unlawful discharge into the wetlands and we weren't getting any response from the owner. Could we as the commission just issue an enforcement order saying, "Look, you know, we we want you to do some testing and we'd like you to also we'll hire a licensed site professional to do some testing and also check out what the contractor did, you know, did, you know, and make sure it was done properly and and basically isn't is that something we should consider doing since we kind it's kind of gone radio silent. We've never really heard from them. So the question is should we vote to have a to have a enforcement order sent to the owner addressing the things you've described and we'd have to you know craft such an order to make sure it was properly done and all but question at this stage is do we want to do that >> right I'm I'm raising this for discussion purposes because because it was a followup to a long time ago. >> Let's take Dave's thought on this. >> Sure. Thanks, Bruce. Um, I just want to clarify, and you know, I agree with with pretty much everything Sarah's chronology. I did just want to point out that through the months there's been some question about the difference between the owner and their contractor. And really, I don't see that as really material. The contractor went out and cleaned up what could, as you all recall, cleaned up what was on the surface of the land east of 57 and 47 Olympia Drive. And so that was with the knowledge of and the support of the owner of 57 and 47. So, who did it to me really doesn't matter and I'm not sure it really should matter to the commission. They are working for the owner. So, I just wanted to clarify that. So, we've gotten some there's been some progress. They did clean up that material. I believe Aaron went out and and I I'm not 100% sure. It's been a while on that point, Aaron, but I believe you went out and yes, they did clean up a number of bags full of material on the surface. The town, as you may recall, was poised to to uh seek uh quotes on what it would cost to do the soil testing. at one of your meetings, and I would have to look back at at your minutes, but at one of your meetings, the response came in from the town attorney to Sarah's question that said something different than what was previously shared with town staff, which was agreeing with you, Sarah, that the commission could um uh could uh take enforcement action and move forward with an enforcement order. um um to to order the uh the testing of the soil. So that's where the town we stopped. I was working with the town manager and and our special projects uh coordinator um and we stopped at that point because I thought you were going to move forward with the enforcement order and then a couple of meetings passed and we never came you never came back to it. So here we are. Just to be clear, Dave, I tried to get it on the agenda. I mean, I I I did try. >> Oh, that's that's I can't I'm not allowed to myself. I have >> No, I'm just saying some time passed there when the expectation from staff was that it would come back on the agenda. It didn't. So, here we are in September. >> I'm not I'm bring The only reason I'm asking is just it's a follow-up thing. I'm not trying to I just thought we should talk about it and it might be best if the attorney and you know it probably would be best for a crafting of that to come from town council anyway if that were going to happen. >> Town attorney. Yes. So if the if the commission takes such action tonight, >> right? >> Uh Erin and I could work with our town attorney to craft that enforcement order. So, I leave it to you as the commission um because it's well within your power to to move forward with that. >> Let's hear from Carol and then we'll see if there's a motion to that effect. >> Uh Carol, you're on mute. As for the I know why I got confused about the connection between the contractor and the owner because um on a site visit talking with the contractor at that time he said he had had no communication with or from the owner and he was offering to do that on his own at that point. So that's why we thought you know we didn't know that there was any >> okay >> yeah we we talked about that too actually I remember raising that question but anyway I don't think it really ultimately right >> so Sarah can you make a motion about the enforcement order that you know more or less asking the town and the town attorney to craft something for us that we can actually vote on at the next ing. >> Yes. Okay. Um um I make a motion to ask the town ask Aaron and Dave to work with town council to draft um an enforcement action that would would uh require the owner of the property to um to hire a licensed site professional to sort of review what's been done so far in the clean up and make sure that that's compliant and also do some testing to make sure there isn't further um you know that there isn't other uh cleanup work that remedial work that should be done. >> Thank you. Do I have a second to Sarah's motion? >> I second it, >> Carol. Okay, let's take the vote. Uh Jason, >> hi. Uh Rachel, >> hi. >> Sarah, >> hi. >> Carol, >> hi. >> And I'm an I. So, uh Dave and Aaron, please take this motion and get us something for the next meeting that we can actually vote on that is uh concrete and and specific about what the enforcement action would be. Thank you. Let's uh now go to amending orders of conditions. Oh no, wait. We still have Amoris Monasuri. >> But let me I Yeah, Ammeris Monasuri is not on the actual uh PowerPoint um thing. So let's The next thing is to do the amendments to the orders and conditions. Correct. Following the agenda. Well, it's up to you. So, you know, that's fine. I I like to loosely follow the agenda, but if things come up, you know, less than 48 hours ahead of the meeting, I try to sort of integrate them into the section that where we're having that discussion. So, there is a little update on Amoris Monasuri, but we don't have to talk about it now. >> Let's come back to it if we don't run out of time. Let's make sure we get to the things. So, the next thing is the request to amend the orders of conditions at 23 and 28 Green Sleeves D Green Leaves Drive. And Aaron does have a a note about that. >> Right. So Glenn Krovaski is here um from um I believe it's EBT environmental uh to present the uh it's a it's a request to amend the um order of conditions. Uh so I think it would be helpful for him to present first and then I can you know we can take in his pro his presentation and then go from there. >> Okay. So, uh, can you bring Mr. Kosski in, uh, for five minutes to describe his, uh, request? >> Yes. >> Sorry, I'm attempting to add him as a panelist. Um, seems like it's Oh, there he goes. Took a couple tries >> doesn't seem to have changed. Okay, I'm just going to allow him to talk because um promoting him to panelist doesn't seem to be working. So, let me give that a try. >> Hi, D. >> Yeah, we hear you. >> I'm not sure if I'm on the phone or on the screen. So, so thank you very much. We uh we are we our presentation would be this is 23 and 28 green leaves. You might be familiar with it. There was a change in the replication area. Th this was designed back in 902 2002. It moved forward. We eventually when we got involved with the project we found that the replication area originally built was undersized. Thank you for putting that on the screen. Was undersized and We also found out through Levasque land surveying that part of the what was built which is the blue on your screen is in the burm of the basin for number 23 and it also part of it extending in a let me just say in an eastern direction is actually in a wetland. The red red um polygon is what was originally proposed. What's blue is what was built. And again, we can't build what was proposed because it again, it's part of the burm of the basin. That would be the southern side. And in the east, it's actually in a wetland. So, whoever delineated it originally was incorrect. The gray is a is a I delineated the full blue and gray area and you see WL's going around. What we're all we're doing working to do is add the 700 square ft. The replication was originally short for this whole pro. This is the last part of the whole 23 and 28. We did the water line under the wetland 400 ft 14t under it. place uh 12-in co uh pipe that was draining a wetland. We also finished the detention structure. We also finished the parking lot on 28. Part of the again sewer line started, excuse me, the water line started on 23 and went under the wetland to to 28. That was all approved. The only thing left to close this project out is to finish this. You're showing it on there proposed replication area 700 square ft. Uh this is in a pine grove that the land is up. I I did use soils and vegetation to delineate it in hydrarology which is part of soils and uh if there was an inspection by Aaron or anyone else, they'll find I believe that this replication is accurate. We would propose to come in off of the existing drive to 23 access. We already have a contractor ready to go. Come down the slope. There's no trees to be removed on the plan. You might be seeing some red maples and we're avoiding all major trees and just staying to the small pines in that gray area where you'll see SB10 YR uh which would again be north of the blue area. The blue area was dug a little bit low. It it is not growing. It's you might say it's it's not a vulnerable pool because it's not low enough to hold enough water long enough. It it it would be a resource area. It was dug low enough for that. But the area that we're going to build will be a shrub tree swamp. We have details on the plan of how much we're what we're going to plant in there. I would oversee it. The material is going off site over 100 ft from wetlands on more property that 28 owns where the there's a potential 55 and over coming in and that area would be more to the excuse me for saying this. I'm sorry. It'll be more to the east. Clear this up. Yes. So there's either going to be a this is a it could be determined as a minor change that we could show as an asbuilt. That's what we wrote in our email to Erin. It could be determined by the commission to require an amendment. It could be determined by the commission to file a new notice of intent for this last point of the project. We're here asking those questions. We're here also to walk the site obviously with your agent Eron to get it more clarity to the commission. Thank you. >> Okay, thank you very much. Um, any questions or thoughts on the next step on this one? Okay. Um, oh, Jason. >> Yeah, sorry. Glenn mentioned that who had ever whoever delineated it previously didn't seem to get it right. Has it >> Yes. I didn't catch. Has it been red delineated >> through the chairman? Yes, I did mention I it has been delineated. There's fresh blue flags out there. I delineated by souls vegetation hydraology. We delineated the original smaller wetland which was all they created at the time. Let me just tell you what the in my email I described that the original wetland was supposed to be 1236 and it was short by 690. I'm talking square ft. The proposed replication it's only 10 square ft more at 700. The original delineation actually encompassed a portion of a wetland closest to the driveway. Again, this is many years ago. Let's just round it to 1990. this very old Dave Robinson plan. And when when I took on the project, we want we looked at everything the orders and we found again that this replication once reviewing it and and delineating it originally looking at it by survey it was undersized. So I just added into the overall project. >> All right. So let's let's see if there's any so uh Mr. Kvoski gave us his view of the three different options and are there any other comments before I have my comment? Okay. Well, I I would not feel comfortable making a decision about which of those three options to do without a site visit >> because I I need to see it in person. that yes, there's a good plan there that we can work with, but I think that several of us and Aaron need to go there and and walk the site and see what Mr. Kvowski is talking about. Aaron, >> so I I'm fine with that, Bruce. I just want to say from my standpoint um a minor administrative change for um a resource area replication uh you know we have a we have an order of conditions that was recorded at the registry with a plan of record that's not going to match up with what the finished >> installation is. And that makes me really concerned because again we're coming back around for certificates of comp compliance that boards you know 10 years from now could potentially be issuing and I I would prefer to have and the other piece of this is looking at the plan that Glenn provided tonight um I think he's done a great job of delineating it and outlining what the plan is but the level of detail is sufficiently lacking in the information that's been submitted that it's difficult for me to really assess what's going on. So, for me personally, based on what Glenn has provided, I feel like a site visit feels a little preliminary. Like, I'd like to see a real detailed plan that um outlines exactly what's proposed. And and frankly, I would want to see I mean, for me, this would be a new notice of intent partially because I feel like it should be separated out from the other orders so it's not holding up the other orders and partially because it's going to need a clean certificate of compliance, which I think is going to be difficult to tie to an old project related to a parking lot or an old project related to a sewer line. So, I would want it to be a standalone permit that would need to be completed and closed out separately. Um, >> okay. Given that, are there any thoughts or comments on how to proceed from the other commissioners? Um, Jason, if you're speaking, I'm not hearing you. Okay. So, I I want to um I see the point that Aaron is making and I would propose that we go in the direction of a new notice of intent and at the appropriate time in that process have a site visit. Any objections to that approach? Seeing none, um I leave it to Mr. Kvoski and Aaron to work out the details of how to proceed unless you think there's something more formal we should do here. >> Glen Kvass I'm talking to Aaron about formal formalness. >> Thank you again. >> Okay. Anything? >> I I >> should we have a vote on this? Um, I think I guess I'm just a little worried about like the head nods. It would be good I think maybe even if we just do a straw poll to confirm so that Glenn feels like he's got >> sufficient sort of guidance from the commission of direction. >> Good. >> So the straw poll is that raise your hand if you are in favor of working towards a new notice of intent that at the appropriate time would involve a site visit so that Mr. Kvoski has the direction we're we're head that we want to see him go in. Raise your hand if you're in favor of that. I see two. And then I got to get Sorry, I got to get my everyone's in favor of that. So that's that's the straw poll that will take us to a place where a new notice of intent can be filed to keep this clean. And I still want to site this as part of the process. Anything else we should do on this? That That's enough. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kvoski, for joining us. >> I appreciate your time. Thank you. We'll get working on other thing. I might say if I could was that we we feel that and we'll work on the plan even more, but we have plants area delineation depth of uh the replication area to be adjacent to the existing level. Not quite sure how much more detail is needed on the plan for this. That's all I might say. >> I'm going to leave that for you and Erin to to she can convey to you what she needs. >> Thank you again, sir. >> On our behalf. >> Appreciate. >> Okay. >> Uh the second one is 90 194 College Street. Staff recommends be approved as a minor administrative change. >> And I'm not sure if anyone is here. uh for this project. So, I think it's relatively simple. Um okay, >> we we recently just approved this uh maybe one or two meetings ago for an ADU behind an existing um home. >> They're basically just moving um a second story uh staircase egress from one side of the structure to the other. Um so previously the structure was on the um storm water um structure side and because of the uh setbacks to the property line they want to move it to the driveway side. So that's the only change to the proposed plan. Um I I don't really see that that's a a significant change. Uh so that to me would fall under the category of minor. Um >> okay. Do I have a motion to amend the 194 College Street uh order of condition to allow the the change that Aeron has described where a staircase has moved from one side of the building to the other? >> So moved. >> Seconded. >> Second. >> Sarah with a second. Uh uh Rachel >> abstain. Carol >> I >> Jason >> I Sarah >> I >> and I'm an I. The motion has passed. Okay. Um that takes us to the high school track and field project. >> Yes. >> For this we do have a formal motion but quickly describe our situation. Um, so there was an asbuilt provided to us which um, Rachel had requested at the last meeting. Um, I don't I don't have any objections to us moving forward with a complete certificate, but I don't know if Rachel has any concerns because I know she had some >> her hand. >> Yeah. Um, yeah, the the asphalt's incomplete. Um, it doesn't show the actual stormwater structures that were involved. their inverts. Um it says topo map of the top layer and they're required to provide all the subsurface systems and the structures on the plan. So that's incomplete. Um, and we specifically requested information on the soil conditions of the subsurface system where they were installed because the civil engineer was using a not a not a really um approved of method given the soil conditions for justifying the placement of the of the storm water system. And instead we got kind of an anemic letter saying that in his opinion everything was fine. Um, I would expect to see photographs and some documentation about the soil that he encountered just to show us that he did encounter what he was hoping to expect. So, I I would recommend that we get more information before approving this. Okay. Other questions, comments, thoughts on this one? anyone from the member of the public here? So, this suggests that the motion is to continue this to the next meeting and for Aaron to seek the information you've described. >> Yeah, I I mean, I can pass the information on to the project manager and I would say just just move on to the next one and we'll we'll bump it to the next meeting. >> Okay. The next one then moving uh seeing no uh challenges to that, let's move to 246 College Street at the 17K substation um DP0890719. >> So that one's also being tabled pending um uh engineer uh letter. >> Okay. The next one is the Norwater Truck Trail 0890702 and this seeks to uh issue an and approve a complete compliant compliance of compliance. I think that means certificate of compliance certificate >> of compliance for D089072 with ongoing conditions as noted and then in your note you say that you support it. Any other questions based on what people know and have read about this one before we move uh have the motion? >> Yeah, so just to refresh everybody's memory on this one um and I did upload the previous documents associated with it to the packet. So the um Nuratic Trail project they they basically repaved it um I want to say maybe two years ago now the work was finished and they filed a request for certificate of compliance. But when I went out to do the inspection, there was a significant stretch of the um uh of the bike path that basically had had no vegetation or stabilization um established on it. And I was still concerned about that because there was wetlands on either side. Um so I did work with Mass DOT. We conducted a number of site visits. We we were trying to see there was there's sort of a a native moss layer that we were hoping would become established there. um over the course of six to eight months, but that didn't really happen. So, they did actually eventually put down some wood chips um which I went out and inspected. So, they they've applied like a mulch layer um on the area where vegetation is just refusing to establish. They've tried receding it multiple times and um it's just such a shady spot under this hemlock grove that nothing really wants to establish there. So based on um where we're at, most of the stretch has reestablished with vegetation and the section that didn't reestablish, they've put mulch down. So I'm comfortable at this point moving forward with a certificate of compliance. >> Okay. So do I have a motion to issue a and approve a complete uh certificate of compliance for DP089072 with ongoing conditions as noted? >> So moved. Uh, that's >> Sarah. >> Sarah. Sorry. >> Second >> Jason with a second. >> Carol, >> I >> Rachel. >> Hi, >> Sarah. >> Hi. >> Uh, Jason, >> I call I called in you already. No. And I Okay. >> All right. The last one on our agenda for tonight is UMass North Village Culver Replacement and Restoration D0890717. >> Yes. Uh so um I see Meredith um Borenstein from uh SWCA is here. Um, while I add Meredith as a panelist, um, I'm just going to give a quick update on my end, which was at the last meeting, um, the the well, but I guess the ASB built um, was lacking some detail, and so the commission had asked to have it, um, uh, revised to include a a specific condition of the order, which was that, um, the uh mitigation area be more um uh rightly identified, more deliberately identified on the plan. Um and also the commission had requested a couple additional signs being added. So we had some mitigation signage to be um installed on the edges of the mitigation area. Um, so the the my understanding is that the additional signage has been installed. >> Um, and uh, >> Jason, >> Jason, mute >> um, the additional signage was installed and this additional asbuilt has been um, submitted. I will just note that um uh I was communicating with Rachel offline and she did submit some questions about the asbuilt specifically which are in the packet and those came in really late this afternoon so I haven't had a chance to share those with u Meredith or with Kristen but that's basically where things stand. >> So Rachel I can see your name but I can't see you. Something has happened. >> Oh, >> I don't Now Rachel's gone all together, I think. Oh, dear. >> Well, oh, there you are. You You switched to a phone or something. >> My computer crashed. Anyway, so I'm on my phone. >> Well, let's um let's let's hear from Meredith about her representing what's needed here, and then we'll hear from the commissioners. Good evening everybody. Hi, I'm Meredith Bournestein, SWBCA Wellland scientist. I'm um just standing in for Kristen who's the project manager and really has been the point person for this project and she updated me on the project and where you guys were at today. So, I don't have really any new information. It was my understanding that um there were multiple hearings and a site visit where things were um requested and that it's my understanding that those things were addressed as far as I think some photos were requested the um as built some notes were requested to be changed on that and that was done and then the additional signage was completed >> and also So Erin requested um the two annual reports those were emailed and hopefully those are in your packets as well. Uh Kristen just basically said that as far as she understood that all um things that were necessary to be able the commission to issue this were >> okay >> completed. So that's all I have. I didn't know there was other issues. Well, what I what I I don't see that there's an actual motion here. So, uh we may not be ready for that yet, but let's hear from Rachel who had the questions that and she may want to seek your advice or or wait and get it in writing afterwards, but Rachel can now I see you. Okay. >> Yeah. No, thanks. Um, thanks Meredith for being here to answer questions. Um, I think Oh, and I don't have my notes in front of me, but um the we're looking at the asbuilt and comparing it to the stormwater report that was prepared and um it seems like it'd be helpful to have some more detail of the inverts of the of covert number four. um that's that information wasn't on the asbelt and it I know that there's been some question about flow rates through that structure and just wanting to check that um it was installed per the design um and what was originally modeled. So some of that information it just may be a clarification of um you know getting that information on the asbelt survey what was actually installed um and then also uh what type of structure was installed because I think there were two two structures in the permit and that it all ties back to that invert elevation of the culvert and the reason why we're asking about this is cuz it appears to not be flowing as we thought it would. Um, so there's a structure that is basically like a box cover culvert with stone in it. And then there's another structure that's called an arch cover, which is what's listed on the plans, but then in the photos, and I haven't been able to get out there, but in the photos, it looked like there was concrete exposed at the bottom. So again, wanting to make sure that all those uh pieces of the design relate to the right that we have the right design that matches what was modeled. Um, and we have a functioning coververt, but it's not too high. >> Okay, let me well, let me repeat those questions so I can relay them to you and Kristen. So, you're wanting invert elevations on the asbill. And I haven't reviewed it um in detail cuz I was just kind of thrown in here. But you're asking for invert elevations on the asbuilt and you want the structure actually labeled. >> Yeah. Clarification which type of culbert was installed. And the reason why I'm asking is the photos suggest something different than what was modeled. >> Okay. The one thing I will say is that we did receive a letter from the engineer. I don't know if that was shared with you certifying that the project was built according to the plans. >> I mean that's >> it was stamped it >> the general so like there's language in there that's not sub is not the typical language we usually see. >> Oh from the engineer that let certified that the >> they didn't say it was substantially complete. They said it was generally in conformance, which is a big question. >> Okay, we can probably just get them to update that letter. Um, >> well, we've also heard that the water hasn't been flowing through it as expected. >> I wouldn't I mean, we have been in a drought for the past few years and Kristen did supply photos. Um, did you get to see the photos where water was flowing? >> I did and the storm water model. So again, it would be helpful to have the engineering team kind of look at it and and get back to us. Um, >> okay. >> From looking at the storm water model and the original plans, the pipes that were there before the culvert were was installed um were at the same elevation in both the culverts. So water would flow through both culverts three and four at the same about the same time. And then what was modeled was both culverts were at the same elevation. But the but there there are some um elevations on the asbuilt that we just want to clarify that show that the structure may be 2 ft higher than that invert. And so if we are concerned about water not moving through it and it was modeled to flow through at this lower elevation but it was built 2 ft higher that could be that could be part of the problem. It may be fine. It may just something that we need to clarify. I it's I just we don't have enough information from the as of what actually is happening underneath the covert in terms of elevation. the the the wall tow wall was identified as like 150 2 ft uh elevation 150 2 ft above the the invert of the what was modeled. So that's interesting. Okay, we'll have to look into that further. I can't speak for the engineering team. So >> we'll have to circle back with them. >> Um >> thank you. Please, please do that. >> Sure. Is that was that all the outstanding? >> I think so. When Erin, >> well, I did just have one other comment, which is um so the commission had asked, and I'm sorry, I'm I'm running really low on fumes here, so I'm going to do my best. The commission had asked uh because the order of conditions specifically detailed that the um restoration area be um highlighted on the asbuilt plan um in its entirety. And the asbuilt plan that was provided, it showed what appeared to be a portion of the restoration, but it didn't appear to include the entire restoration. So for example, a portion of the restoration included the stream itself like um the out the um outlet of the culvert. Um but the but the asbuilt plan that was provided showed that the restoration was only on either side of the river, not within the river itself, which was part of the restoration area. So, I just want to make sure as long as Rachel is asking that we um update the asbuilt to include the invert elevation of the covert that we also include the accurate representation of the full um uh restoration area because that's going to be recorded with the certificate of compliance eventually. and um that it's just really critical that that entire area be included because it's part of the restoration. >> Okay, great. >> All right, >> appreciate that extra comment. >> Okay, any other concerns or questions for um Meredith to take back to the engineers and the and her counterparts at SWCA? >> Can I add one more, >> please? >> Yeah. So, um, according to the model, water will flow through the culvert in high enough rain events. So, that's that would support seeing water flow through the culvert at at some point. Um, but it's just in those lower flow events that um that it was intended to to flow um appears to not be. That's >> okay. Hopefully, I mean, hopefully it's just a drought related issue. Um, but we'll have to circle back and get some additional information. >> Okay. Thank you for taking the message. >> All right. Anything else before we uh move to the very last topic? >> All right. Thank you, Meredith. >> Thank you. Have a good night. >> Okay. All right. The last thing on Aaron's report, which is not well, I guess it is. It's under monitoring reports, she says the Amity Street roundabout inspections, weekly inspection inspections are required, but an inspection report has not been received since June. And that's concerning. >> I I wouldn't I would Bruce, I'm sorry. I wouldn't be get too worried about that. I've been I'm in communication with Beth. I'm sure Beth is monitoring it. I think she's going through a really busy season right now. So, I just earmark those for myself so that I don't forget and make sure I follow up with her. But, I don't think any action is required on the part of the commission to that. >> I just my only reason for bringing it up is that I want to be sure that we hold the town to the same standards that we hold to the the non-town applicants. That's all. So, and she knows that and I but let's just make sure we get a report so we know what's going on over there. >> Y I will seek those out >> for you. >> All right. Anything else before I uh are there any other public comments? Were there any other topics that were not reasonably anticipated 48 hours before this meeting that we want to bring up now? Seeing none of that, I would ask for a motion to adjurnn. >> I move we adjourn. >> Second, >> Sarah with a second. Carol >> I Rachel >> I >> uh Sarah >> I >> uh Jason and company >> I we >> and I'm an I. Thank you Dave and Aaron for great work tonight. Um have a good evening and everyone be sure to come to the source to see cleanup on the 19th. Thanks so good