Okay, please go ahead. >> Hello everyone. It is February 12th, 2026 and this is uh a regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of
2025, which extends through June 30, 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via
Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. I am going to go around and see if
everyone can be heard. Uh Mandy Johanni >> present. Jennifer Tub, >> I'm here. >> Andy Churchill >> here. >> And Pam Rooney is here. We also have with us Stephanie Chorello. And we have
Jeff Be. So, we're still looking for our final member, but I think we're going to just get started. Um there are no public hearings today and I will open it up for general public
comment. If the um the attendee would like to speak uh to something general that's within the purview of CRC feel free. Otherwise um we can call on you if we have questions down the road.
Uh so I'm going to close the public hearing uh public general public comment session. If there is an opportunity later and there are people in the audience um I hope the committee doesn't mind if I reopen the public comment
period to accommodate folks who might want to weigh in. Moving to our action items. Um we have Jeff Bag today who is the new planning and economic director development
director and uh he offered to give us a quick overview of some priority setting effort uh on the part of um the department and we would love to see that. If you want to share your screen that would be great.
Yeah, that'd be great. Um, I just want to say hello. It's nice to meet everybody. Um, really happy to be here. Just quick like a two minute one minute introduction. So, um, this came up recently that it's actually like my third time in Ammerst. Uh, I graduated
from UMass with an undergraduate degree. And then, um, I also was employed as a senior planner in the planning department from 2008 to 2016. But for the past 10 years, I've had sort of a wide range of municipal planning experience. I was in the private sector for a little bit. Uh I did some regional
planning and then I was the planning director in Eastampton for six years. Um you know, and through that work it was all municipal um all the time. And so I'm I am kind of bringing you know a total of like over 20 years of experience back to Amoris in this role
as the planning economic development director. So I'm really happy to be here. uh the first two months I started in December, two months in a in a week or so. Uh just been really talking to people and listening and um just getting
reacquainted. And so something I said in this process is I I know I know about Ammerst, but I I'm still learning. So I'm all listening and talking to people. That's really been my sort of uh first order of business. And then I'm about to share my screen with
some of the the general priorities, but but what's not shown is some of the economic development activity that I'm working on. You know, you know, trying to set up um renewed data, so market data about the economy in Amoris is is really important for us to have
available for us to be making future decisions. And so, a lot of that was uh from 2020 or earlier. So, we're we're I'm quickly doing a revamp of that. You'll hear about it. It's it's not a robust public process. It's a consultant coming in to help us kind of update all
the baseline information. And then you'll see through the process over the next couple months, I put in a joint um joint capital planning request for for additional funds to actually do and create an economic development plan for the town of Ammerst. And that would be
probably like a year-long's process with with community meetings and resident input and business owner input and and just that full process so that we can actually get clear and concise action items with regard to economic development. So those are things that
I'm kind of doing that I don't I don't think they directly relate to the CRC's efforts or the planning board, but it is something that's happening kind of in addition to what I'm about to talk about. Um, this list that I'm putting up
is draft. It's a work in progress and it's kind of a amalgamation of a couple different things. So, it's some staff items. It's and then it's also planning board and their housing and zoning subcommittee
have been talking about their priorities over the past couple months. So, this is kind of a blend of all of that to just get it a a snapshot of things that we do think are going to be relevant in 2026. And the the heading is really sort of to
get either to CRC for for discussion of some sort or all the way to town council. Um, clean energy is bolded. Uh, it's obviously an it's an ongoing action item. It's definitely the the first thing through the gate, but with the
remaining kind of five items, there are things that we've been hearing are important for the town to be looking at over the next year ideally. And I think the purpose of this is to show this group that there's quite a bit that, you
know, I think collectively we would like to try to initiate some level of discussion. And so I I think the discussion was just letting you know that this is out there. Um modifying the mixeduse building standards, you know, it it the HPP note is the plane board.
You know, I think I'm I'm not speaking for them. Just paraphrasing. I'm kind of summarizing. I think that they feel like that's one of the things that was in the housing production plan that they feel like is important to pursue. Um, and
we're hearing it from from property owners and developers that that there there might need to be some tweaks and changes or discussion of how that's working. Um, the PRPA's plan research park zoning district town, you know, it's spread out all over different parts
of town, but it's it's a little outdated and it's not producing the results that that we really thought it would, you know, 30 years ago. So, it's just something to talk about allowing housing and also just some general flexibility for more creative spin-off businesses or
um things like that. So, that's just kind of a suite of discussion items. Number four is student h student housing related issues. I know it's been discussed. It's a it's an important topic. the playing board is is really interested in
understanding some of it and um looking at options and so the way I'm describing it is some of them are limits and regulations and some of it would be discussion of areas to allow student housing to happen and so big topic um
not fleshed out yet but it is something that they you know as a group and probably some people in town want to have come forward and And then the last two are quick, but the ED is the educational zoning districts. And so there's areas of Ammeris College, Hampshire College, and
UMass that have this district over them. And um we have been uh approached by Ammerst College in particular has an interest in in examining some of this with the town. uh Hampshire College is just maybe some proactive kind of
discussions about, you know, how that ED district overlays a lot of their properties and it's in the news. So, we're just trying to be proactive there. And then UMass is something that, you know, I think if we're talking about the other two, we should consider some things about UMass. Those are sort of
unknown, but just kind of there present important. Uh and then the last other one kind of popped up and it's just something that we see. Not sure the timeline or the trajectory of any of this, but uh municipal use and standards and criteria for things like a fire
station or a DPW facility. So with those ongoing discussions, it does warrant the potential on this list that that could rise up and be really important to clarify some of that as a town project, especially if it catches speeds up in
its process or becomes apparently necessary to advance those projects. Um, we had that on the list. So, those are really >> I'm gonna I'm gonna pause just for a second and see if if any of the uh committee members have questions for you,
>> Andy. >> You're muted. >> You got to unmute. You're You're muted. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um I'm curious about number two and number five. Um just sort of can you define them a little bit for for a newcomer? Uh what what would in
what ways would be modifying mixeduse building standards in outlying village centers? And what do ED zoning districts do? Is that limiting building or is that limiting taxability or what what what are we looking to think about there?
>> Yep. Good question. And I will give an like a highle summary of that. I think some of that is going to be fleshed out as it as it materializes but with the mixeduse building standards. So with for a mixeduse building like the like this historic one behind me first floor is
commercial above it is is residential. So we do have a requirement for the amount of the first floor that has to be commercial. Um I think it's 30% you know there's some number percentage. We're just hearing that it's it's extremely
difficult in this day and age in the market to fill that much commercial space. And so it's just identifying that that's an issue that we're we're encountering and we want to at least bring it forward as discussion. It's it's pretty critical for for
project development and understanding like what's financially feasible for for certain things. And so there's a lot there to that would get flushed out and and be narrative and be provided as the discussion comes up. And then for the ED zoning district, so the areas that are
already established with this overlay district allow the educational institutions to to do things that are associated with their educational institution uh without local permitting, without a lot of oversight. It's it's giving them the, you know, their protected class,
their protected use. So they're offered that protection to do things under the educational umbrella. for Ammerst College. My understanding is that they have some their their campus has grown since that original ED district was established and they're interested in
having some properties um covered by the ED zoning district to allow them a little bit more freedom to make changes or improvements. So again, not it's not fleshed out. It's just something that we see potentially coming
in 2026. And that's kind of the way that this list is structured is you know there's some discussion amongst the planning board members and then one thing that we hope to work on together with you all is
like a timeline to look at the year the number of meetings available and how how do all these fit together and something I don't have available today but it is something that we talked about and then um Pam if it's okay the next page I
there's some other stuff of first cuz there's a lot going on. These are a slightly different heading. This is priority discussions and I put in potential future items. But the three the first the first three I bolded
because they are also things that we think will come forward in 2026. not necessarily to the CRC or to town council for action, but it will be like something that the
CRC wants to be aware of and involved with at least understand that these are just discussions that are happening. the downtown design standards where you know there was a year-long process and we're charting out a schedule to have the public discussion dialogue meeting with
boards and committees understanding what what are the draft design guidelines. So that will be something that happens all throughout 2026 and we're still kind of navigating how that works. But I think you would imagine there would be a presentation to the CRC about the design
standards and what do they mean and what do they include. Similarly the planning board, the design review board, the historical commission, the commission uh of on persons with disabilities. So all those groups are going to get information and then obviously the community. So we're planning a community
meeting. So just big it's a big topic and it's going to be happening all throughout 2026. Second one is housing production plan priorities. You know the effort to get it adopted was fantastic. Um but there's a long list of of items to consider and
I think you know to some extent each group is kind of looking at those and kind of looking at which they want to prioritize and so uh there's the I think the idea has been floated about maybe having CRC host the planning board and affordable housing
trust at a meeting to just have a group discussion so that everyone kind of understands what you know what the planning board thinks are their priorities based on the production plan. The the housing trust has some priorities. They really have focused on like ADUs and supporting the
development of you know ADUs and just understanding if the CRC has specific goals coming out of the housing production plan that they want to pursue and if not just sharing the information. And then the last thing that we just know is coming we got a we got a grant
from the one stop for growth from the Commonwealth to look at East Ammerst. So, Beltertown Road, College Street area, that that village center. Um, definitely going to take a year until there's an actual product, but there'll be community meetings, there'll be
meeting meetings with property owners, and we just think that this is something that we want CRC to be aware of and and hopefully engage in some of that discussion. The remainder are other items that the planning board has had on their list. These are kind of like work items, I
would expect. um the plan board to be working on in 2026 to understand where they go, what do they do, and then maybe some of those would come next year. The asterct on temporary uses and technical amendments is something that if there
was a need for something else, uh those are easier to get ready. Um but as a planning department of of only a several couple people like this is a lot for us but this is what we see um as our
priorities. So that's what I wanted to share and stop sharing my screen for now. >> Terrific. Uh Mandy Joe >> thank you. That's a lot Jeff but I am I am thrilled after pushing for a few years through the manager's goals
to have planning happen. I am thrilled to see that there's lists and there's thoughts going into it and all. I had a question about the multiple principal dwellings on a property. Um I've been having a lot of conversations and in you know as many people know our smallest
housing dwelling is 12,000 ft for the first lot. Um, and that's a lot to get what our priorities have been on the council for the manager of find a way to sort of build more workforce bluecollar
housing. And I don't necessarily see a focus on workforce blue collar housing on the top of this list. Um, maybe the mixeduse building standard is part of that. Maybe the PRP zoning to allow housing includes some of that, but not really a focus on it. And so I'm curious
about this um multiple principal dwelling units on a lot. A lot of people might want to buy a home instead of rent one. And unless you have to condo something, you can't do town homes
on a lot and sell each town home individually. um similar to what you've seen in Philadelphia with the Brownstones or New York City or I grew up in a twin um zero lot line homes that each side was a separate property, no
HOA, no condo. Is this multiple prop principal dwellings on a property? thinking about it in that sense too where maybe we would have smaller much smaller lots potentially than the 12,000 ft minimum that the RG has right now and it's much bigger in other areas to allow
for essentially subdividing those lots into two or three dwellings each of which could be owned individually without condoing. >> It's a great question, Mandy. I will be honest and say I I don't know. Um, it's definitely something that the planning
board has been discussing, but I don't I would in full disclosure, I'm not attending every planning board meeting. Um, but I do think that's a good question. And I what I do know is that number six and number eight, so cottage style housing and traditional
neighborhood subdivision method does get a little bit closer to what you're talking about. I'm not sure about the the multiple principal dwellings and a lot, but the plan so the plan board does feel like that's really important. And I again I can't speak for them, but I think in terms of the complexity, you
know, that just seemed like a longer discussion that they would need to have. They want to have it all throughout 2026, but um and they may differ. This this I guess the list could be fluid. Um but I don't know that that's the
first thing that would come to you as a CRC in 2026. So I think that was the way we kind of triaged the list. Um, it is a good example though of the potential value of having the CRC potentially host the planning board and housing trusts in in a meeting to just discuss that the
housing production plan as a general overarching topic because they may feel energized and um happy that you as a or whether it's individually or the group feel like that actually is really good. Focus on that. Like keep working on
that. It's important. Like I don't know that there's been real clarity on the feedback loop, but also the production plan's pretty new. So it just got adopted. There hasn't really been that like debrief on on how to sift through the priorities because there's so many things that they all can't happen in one
year, two years, and probably even three years. So um Mandy, I know I'm not answering specifically about the multiple dwellings, but I do know that they are discussing that. So that should be something it's on the list. It's on the list. Yeah,
>> thank you. Your your answer did help me. Thank you. >> Okay, great. >> I'm gonna go to Jennifer and then Andy. >> Hi. Um, so thank you Jeff. This is really interesting and helpful. >> Um, so I wanted to um ask if you how much,
which I'm sure you do, reach out to your peers in other towns. At the MMA conference, I think Andy may have sat in on it too. had a conference on increasing housing and um somebody spoke from Orleans and I'm not sure if he was
on the select board there, if he was elected or if he was with the staff, but in the Cape where they are really challenged to build workforce housing for the local yearround population because everything that gets built is really for short-term rentals over the
summer because it's so lucrative. and he said that they actually put in into their zoning um that they were able to zone to incentivize housing construction for year round nonshortterm rentals. And we have the
same situation in Ammerst where really everything that gets built, you know, is built for the at to be rented at the highest price point the market can bear and that's students who share the rent. And um I'm seeing that in my district uh
which is you know in district 4 has the two RG districts and there's a lot of um ADU development since the byite ADU legislation took effect and it's all ADUs that are the primary dwelling is
rented to students and the ADU is rented to students. So, it's not doing anything to serve our workforce, our family, you know, any anybody else but that market. And I know that I could probably try and reach out to someone on the select board in Orleans, but could is that something
you could do? You know, reach out to maybe their town manager to see what they were able to do with their zoning to help ensure that everything that's built is not in their case short-term summer rentals and in our case just, you know, rented the students who share the
rent. >> Yeah, I definitely I was at the same session. So I listened to Mass Housing Partnership and the other speakers and then I was there for that um person who spoke from Orleans. So yeah, it was on the list to kind of try to get examples
or to build um that information, you know, for the plane board as they as they navigate some of those items. So I'll u raise up my note and I'll get it to the plane board hasn't really started to dive into any of these yet. I think that they're still in that process of
establishing their priority list, but I do think that makes sense to look at some other communities. I mean, I think, you know, I think um there could be there's always stuff that you could potentially try to extrapolate from another community and see how it fits here. So, I think that's good advice.
There was a couple other examples >> on the on the Cape. They were actually able to legislate that their ADUs are for are not for short-term rentals. >> Yeah, the Cape is interesting. And they have their own special legislation. So sometimes there's things that happen in
the cave that don't happen elsewhere. But >> it was definitely Yeah. Well, they they got all the seasonal community stuff too that those >> were seasonal community. You could make that argument. I mean >> Yep. So that that actually is on the list, too. It's just not it's not like >> on this list to to look at seasonal
communities and I support I'm sorry. I don't mean to cut you off. >> No, I think it's important to get that information. It's a good example. So, so I'll promise to >> uh find that and get it to the playing board when they're starting to talk about that >> because I was just to say I support what Mandy just said. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm
babysitting a dog here who's making noise. Um that it would be great to be able to build more housing. you know, along the lines of what, you know, man, councelor Hani was um discussing. Uh but if we
could ensure that it would be it wouldn't all be, you know, the housing production plan said that there were 9,000 students who didn't live in Amherst now who wanted to live here. So, we could build a lot of housing and it would not serve our workforce.
>> Yeah. No, I appreciate that. It's okay, Andy. You're muted, Andy. >> I remember another example from that um session at the MMA where I think it was conquered, but I'm not sure where they had sort of they brought together their
various housing related committees and boards and had some sort of consortium. I don't know exactly how it how it worked. I I tried to do a Google search, but housing and conquered brought up a whole bunch of different things. So, um, but the idea, you know, I like the idea
of getting the the planning board and the, um, affordable housing trust and and us together to sort of, you know, um, figure out what what what our common or respective agendas would be. Um, the
only thing I would add to that is that it would be really I see I see housing as a revenue source as well as just as as dealing with the housing crunch that we have. And so, you know, it might be worth bringing, you know, the finance side of things in
to say, you know, what would it take to, you know, erase our structural deficit and then how many projects would it take to do that and what would be acceptable to the town's people in what parts of town to to help do that. So, sort of mapping the the
revenue axis as well as the, you know, the the housing supply axis. Thank you. >> Yeah, I will just say I think revenue is is critical. Just understanding that that's growth that at some level the
town needs to continue to sustain the services it's providing. So I do think that's an important narrative to kind of weave through all these discussions as as they unfold and move forward. So I think that makes sense. Um I'd like to just wrap up um but also say that in fact CRC has on its uh list
of responsibilities uh economic development. So, I I'm going to speak for the the committee that we would be very interested in in hearing more about um certainly the data >> um the opportunities and as that
translates to what does the CRC do to help promote whatever you know you're trying to accomplish. I think that's helpful to be reminded of. And I think if I didn't describe it, this data collections phase one and there will be results and products and information as
a result of that. But then phase two is going to be the longer much more robust community engagement and I haven't started any of that. So that's something where that'll be something we can bring to the CRC and make sure that the engagement plan and the like that whole program is brought to you before it's
done. So before it's created, I should say. Super. Uh, do you feel comfortable sharing your lists that you showed us with this committee? >> Yep. Yep. >> If you want to email those to me, I will distribute them to the rest of the committee.
>> Yeah, I will put a draft on there and I might put I just might put a note that it could be subject to change. So like the plane board is still kind of going through the discussion but I I did I really genuinely tried to distill >> and we talked we talked you know Nate
Mallaloy is the staff person to the planning board and we talked and so I feel like the list is solid but I just I will put a could could change and I'll put a draft on it and I'll send it. >> Totally. Totally. Yeah. And and we certainly respect the fact that um I
mean each each entity is going to handle some of these things at a different timeline. So that's understandable. Draft is good, Jennifer. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say that I Jeff, you were probably in East Hampton when it was having its renaissance downtown.
So >> part of it, >> it's great that you're here and >> thanks. >> Yeah, we could take some of that magic. >> A lot of the stuff happening, but >> a lot of stuff happening in was happening way before I arrived, but I I helped. I did what I could while I was there. So thanks,
>> Jeeoff. Thank you. We'll we'll hear more from you. I I know in the future and really appreciate you being available to talk to us. >> Yeah. And I'll stay on the call. I'll I'll turn off my camera, but I'll listen to Stephanie's discussion and just if you need me for the clean energy stuff, I'll be here, too. >> Super. Wonderful. Thank you very much. >> Thank you.
>> And I and I will note that we also have Nate in the audience. Um if we have questions for him. Stephanie, um let's turn over to you. Do you know everyone on this committee? Also, have you met Andy? I I did attend the last meeting,
so I don't know that we were formally introduced at the last meeting. Really nice to meet you, Andy. >> And I should have done the same for Jeff. So, sorry. Sorry, Jeff. Um, back in December, the CRC
uh asked for assistance from staff to go through and answer uh 10 or 12 questions that we sort of had left un unanswered. um as we wrapped up our work on the draft solar bylaw, clean energy bylaw
and the staff did a wonderful job. The the memo, their response is in the packet. Um and I know you all have read it. Uh Stephanie, I think um in in working
forward, do you want to just give a very short overview of any of the key uh some of those key questions and and how they've sort of settled out through the staff responses?
>> Uh well, I think there were some a few key points that I and I think I even mentioned some of them at the last meeting. Um but one of them one concern was sort of the overall process of how this new structure is going to work in
terms of the changes in the state regulatory guidelines for sighting and permitting and uh the question was who is going to be the point person. So the way that's been handled within the context of the bylaw is to identify the
town manager andor their design. So that it's really not the onus isn't really on the CRC to identify who that person is. It's really kind of a a town manager function. So, um, in terms of the actual process, that will be worked
out, uh, with the town manager and staff and, um, once I think the that process gets finalized, it will be shared with with all of you, of course, and the and the council. But I think it's, you know, I know that that was sort of a a
question that was looming over this review and updating process. And so I just wanted to sort of um alleviate this committee from feeling the need to have to sort of identify exactly what that process is. So uh there's that. And then I think there were some questions about
identifying the different categories and sizes of the systems. And so staff had put together uh two charts that can be added to articles three and five uh which would help identify the the tiered
um identification of how to identify those projects. So that has been updated. Um I think some of the questions, you know, just in terms of um general questions about setbacks, uh some of those things were addressed
within the staff comments. Some of the distances that have been recommended to you all are a result of consistency with other setback guidelines or that they were recommendations for protection of for instance private well resources. Um
and that was came from the water protection supply committee. So staff incorporated those recommendations into the updates. So other than that, I think those are kind of some of the bigger things. Um, and I know we summarized a lot within the context of the memo
questions that were answered. Um, so you have >> Yes, I really appreciate that. One one remaining topic that may or not be addressed yet and that is the topic of fees. So, we have a normal somebody
submits an application, a development application, they pay a fee, and it sounds like that uh it's not clear, you know, who's going to actually end up developing the fee for a comprehensive permit. And when I Mandy may have the
answer. Um, but when I think about the work for a 40B uh housing project or any kind of comprehensive project, I know there is sort of additional staff time to help shepherd uh something through the
process just because of the the accelerated time frame that's required. So that's at some point we probably talk about fees. Mandy. Um, I think Stephanie and staff addressed that in the draft bylaw
section 18.07 where they said to rewrite the fee section to say all applicable fees apply and must be submitted with a complete application cuz that then allows the town to promulgate the fee schedule as they are already allowed to
do. And so we don't have to put it in the bylaw, but it would still apply as long as there's a fee line on whatever the schedule is. >> So the ability to set the fee is is now taken care of. But I guess in my
mind it's like, okay, who's who's going to actually sit down and figure out what the fee needs to be for, you know, a complex project like this? And so it it's the ability to set the fee is obviously or now that you say that is is
captured, but you know who's going to set it? >> And I believe that's something that staff um well the town manager and staff will address as they do with the other permitting fees. >> Yeah. >> So >> great. >> I think this is just yet, you know, yet another fee that we need to calculate
and we just haven't, you know, sort of um addressed it. We have been having conversations. It's not as if we've just kind of keep putting this off. We're just trying to figure it out and um you know, we definitely think because it is going to be a substantial amount of
staff time that we want to reflect the time that that's going to take. >> Yeah. >> Good. So, um, I'd like to, you know, just sort of dive into the the document that
I hope Andy, you've had a chance to read and sort of start to start to absorb. Um, again, appreciate the staff comments tremendously. They answer a whole lot of, you know, the questions that were posed by us as we turned that document
over to you, Mandy. Do you want me to share it and do the changing like we've done in the past? >> I would love that. I actually texted you earlier to ask if you would and appreciate it greatly. >> I must have missed that. Sorry. >> That's okay. That's okay.
And and I think um if everyone is in agreement as we as we make our way through the documents as and if we can have the text as big as we can possibly get it, that would be great. um as we go through and say
we we agree with the change, can we actually delete the comment and the and the not notification so as we go through we either accept the change um and clean it up as we go.
Mandy, you've got your hand up. >> I'm not sure I can un raise my hand now that I'm sharing a screen. I'm trying to figure out how to >> but I I so I thought I had unraised it and then shared. I don't have a question but yes I can do that as through. >> Okay Andy.
>> Yeah I'm just um you know coming up to speed on this. I just had sort of a global question which is um you know I know there's state regulations or whatever and and um just want to get a sense of what are we
trying to accomplish in general with this bylaw. Are we trying to align with the state? Are we trying to go beyond the state? And are we trying to encourage or restrict solar power? >> I'm I'm happy to try to answer that. uh
we want to make sure that we reflect what the state is requiring and if there are in our case dimensional setbacks and things that the state doesn't necessarily set specifically
those are setbacks that reflect as Stephanie said um existing guidance um within the town for protection of clean water for drinking water. Um, this is a this is a bylaw
which will promote and regulate solar production. So, if we get solar production, it's it's handled in a careful manner. It's not definitely not precluding solar
development. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any anybody else want to add to that? Okay. Okay. So, um I would love to just dive in and and we talk about the
insertion of new language from staff and um what's the easiest way if I just say okay change it you know if I mean if somebody has a a an issue um speak up. I >> I think that would be it. do it by
section or min section and say anyone got questions otherwise we'll accept the change or accept the comment or do it that way something like that. >> Sup super. That's great. Okay. For section 1801 purpose, does anyone have a reason not to accept the staff change?
No. Let's accept the staff change. Great. um section 1801 through05 there was a deletion of uh one section
and it's primarily because we now are talking about tiered a tiered system does anyone have a comment or a need to work through this I see no hands in the next section 18
03. >> Should I let let me type the rewrite in the 180102 that that okay Stephanie >> yes >> recommended. I actually have a question about that one. Um, I think it's
So, I the question I had for Stephanie was when you you had the rewrite that just said with sections of this bylaw, I wasn't sure if you wanted to specify what sections because I think the question was for some of it, do the application requirements that are
extensive apply to tier one accessory uses and tier one ground mounted or is is that why should we continue to name certain sections? >> Um I think the idea was to continue to name sections. Um that's my recollection. Uh I would
ask Nate if he has uh Nate was part of this uh editing process. So if he has a different recollection, I would ask him to comment. >> Nate, let's see if we bring you in allowed to talk.
Nate, are you there? He may be he may be not quite with us. Uh let's let's leave this as is and we'll we'll move on. I think that's a >> Yeah, we'll leave it like that. >> Yeah, good. We'll we'll we'll keep all
the comments. Uh section 1803 definitions. I had one comment and that is the aggravaics. Uh the suggestion is to Oops, you're still busy with something else. Oh, no. I was on the comment for just definitions reading Stephanie's
redefine accessory use. Did we get an accessory use definition? >> I don't see it added yet. No. >> So, I will leave that comment there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I will say too that some and I apologize because I'm not as skilled at the um editing as Mandy Joe was and
sometimes when I made changes they just sort of got automatically incorporated although they should have um shown. That means that one might be that one defined use. >> Exactly. >> Okay. >> But we should double check.
>> So the 18030 is actually the suggested um No, it's not the suggested wording. >> Yeah, I can't really I'm sorry. I can't really read the comments that well. Um, so I'm trying to uh refresh what that
>> I'll I'll add a comment to check to see if it's different than what we sent you. >> Yeah, that would be great. And I can get back to you before the next meeting obviously. >> Yeah, we'll try to wrap up a lot of these if we can. Um, the the 0301
agic canopy solar foot whatever as defined in article 12. There was a staff discussion about I think dropping the use of aggravaics and the discussion of aggravates altogether. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. That was the staff recommendation. So when we get to um I think it's the soil section um one of the one of the tenants of agravtaics is that
the work on the the work on the land won't um won't keep it from being used for agriculture in the future. We don't want to do anything that would preclude its future use again as agriculture. And
I just want to keep that as a note that we don't I don't want to lose that um ability to hold, you know, a development to to um their feet to the fire. So, if it's okay, I'd like to I'd actually like to keep this comment just
um Okay, I see no suggestions or changes. Um on the next page, which is 180305 through 180318, did anybody have that? There was a request to move everything
into article 12, I think. So, >> and staff said, uh, let's keep >> Well, staff said move it all into article 12. >> Oh, I I read it remain. Sorry, move everything into article 18, not 12.
Remove them from article 12. So, all of these will need replaced. I just can't do it on the fly. >> Got it. At least all the ones that say as defined in 12 will just pop in that 12 definition unless that was changed recommended changed by staff.
>> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Make a note of that. Sorry. Um can you make a note of that somewhere? I think we understand it, but I'll just make a um Okay, so we'll bring the article 12
definitions here into 18. Got it. Okay. Um >> All right. Can I just jump in real quick, Pam? Because there was that >> there should be um a statement that clarifies the definitions refer to this article only for all of the ones that stay in this article.
It's It's written in the comments. I just wanted to make sure that didn't get lost. It might need rewarded, but does that work, Stephanie? >> Yes. >> For now, at least. >> Yes.
I think Nandy just what you just passed by though had a couple strikeouts. Do you want to take care of those or we just come back and clean it later? >> Um I I will clean this. These are the changes we're making today. Um that are not already changes that we're accepting. Does that make sense?
>> So these are what I'm adding right now. Oops. You just uh 15. Number 15, >> right? I'm I'm working on trying to find >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, that one's one that's already defined in article 12. So, we don't need that one then.
It's already in the current bylaw. Um, Stephanie, when we get to something like large scale, small scale, it seems like you guys went to tiers. So, do we even need the large, medium, and small scale definitions anymore? >> Not if you're going with tiers, >> but we might need the tier.
>> So, maybe not. Right. I think it'd be helpful to have the chair. Okay. So, I'll leave those two for those uh 23 here. Shall I accept that?
>> Yes. >> So 033 was the next one with um Stephanie, do you want to talk a little bit about this? It's uh drinking water regulations. >> Oh yeah, this one. >> Yeah. as defined defined as surface
water supply protection zones A, B, and C. >> Right? So, this came from um the assistant superintendent of DPW uh to make language consistent. Great. Thank you, Mandy, for catching
all these comments stashed somewhere in in one of these little bullets. >> Great. Okay. >> Do we need to accept that? >> That comment is good. We're done with that comment.
>> Yep. >> Okay, >> great. Okay. Section 1805. Um, oops, no, sorry. 1804. Is there any change in 1804?
I see none. 1805. Pre-filing requirements. There's a note and we and we have taken care of the individual responsible. So I think we can great
I'm just making something up here. Well, we cover in 1808 the consolidated permit application requirement does say it shall be submitted to the town manager or designate. So, I'm not sure if we have to cover it both here in '05
and in ' 08. I think we want a general statement of who the local government representative is because that's the wording that's used for any purposes because we might not cover some of the purposes of what is used referenced as local government
representative for the purposes of the regulations and the law. But we we can come back to it with a I can leave a comment of is is this check check that definition and whether it's
necessary. Okay, great. >> Um, which which brings me to in that sense um do we want to get that draft um consolidated permitting bylaw from KP Law?
If I could just comment on that. I think you wanted to get it just to see if there's anything that potentially should be included in this one. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's what you all decided at the last meeting. >> Yeah. >> Do you want me to request that, Pam,
since I had the conversation? >> Sure. >> Okay. We'll do >> super. So, as a heading, so let's go back to second. So, 1805, it's now pre-filing requirement and
local rep. So, um even though Okay, so even though I'm getting a little confused here, 1808 does talk about the the submittal requirements. I guess it's fine to have it here. 1805. Uh so the local government rep is used not just for
submitt requirements but also for pre-filing requirements also for filing of the final permit also for there's like a lot of things that it's referenced in the CMRS. So this would cover all of it and it might just be better to put it somewhere else
in the end. >> Okay. But that's that's good. So it covers >> it's somewhere now. >> Yeah. So section 06 site suitability assessments minimization and mitigation requirements
and I think that title was added. Uh any any reason not to not to accept that title >> that's there. It's just the comment. We had a comment on that and I don't think we need to change anything based on Stephanie's comment. >> Oh okay. Right. So we can just accept
that and drop that off. Yeah, >> great. Okay, this is fees. Um, was there anything my question on Okay, I've already covered this with how are the fees determined? Um, but
but we know it will be handled by the town as a way of preparing for any kind of application. I don't think I need to insert anything here. It's just changing the language to what Stephanie recommended. >> Yeah.
Okay. Now we get into the lengthy section of submittal requirements. Great. We have to figure out where to put that in. So Stephanie, for this comment here about the model bylaws, what applied, what didn't,
you we cleared that up in the applicability section. Is that what you meant by this comment? >> Um, I believe so. Um because we just so some of these comments happened. I think this was one of our earlier review sessions. So and we did go back through
even some of our initial comments just to see if there was anything outstanding. So I think we did clarify that. >> Okay. So we think this one's resolved. I >> think so. >> And this one was resolved.
Okay, we're accepting the suggestions. That's great. So, let me ask a question about that one. Um, the reason this was in here, 18.08.04, is if we go up to
here, 0.08 to 03. Oh, because we didn't say 04. Never mind. >> Okay. That's why. So, that's that. Yep. So, we're
accepting those changes. Okay. Um, oh, and then I had a question, but it's it's really going to be more of a process thing. So, whoever the permit granting authority is, the PGA, um, if they find uh, uh, let's say the
mitigation plan has been submitted and the the PGA says, "We don't find this sufficient." How does the how does the PGA stop the clock on the 12 month process? And I
think that's something we'll have to work through. Um, but that worries me that, you know, something comes in as a really shabby um, mitigation plan and it's just not
acceptable, but there isn't time to require them to to correct it without damaging the the timeline. Stephanie, you have your hand up. >> I do. Um, the way this has been all laid
out is that applications have to be complete when they're submitted and that starts the clock. But recall that there's a pre-filing period. So, some of those questions can be answered during that period of time. And if someone
submits an uh any element that is deemed incomplete, then it's an incomplete application. So, I think that's the answer. Okay, thank you. So, it's Jennifer. I sorry I missed your hand.
>> No, that was very helpful to hear Stephanie's reply first. So, I I guess I'm just wondering is whoever receives the application. So, let's say they look at the mitigation plan. Hm. I'm just wondering how much that person will have the
expertise and the time to really determine if each section is complete enough to cons to close the application because they were so you know at MMA during the the session they were said that there would be no exceptions to the
12 month timeline even if the applicant agreed that they needed more time. >> So that's what I'm just wondering is how How will that intake process work? Who will be looking at it? I know we may not have determined that yet, but
will they really be able to determine if every section is complete to the standards of the permit granting authority, if that makes sense. So, it sounds like in that pre-filing period, you have to have all those kinds
of issues worked out. And I don't know if an applicant would just continue to roll along even if they heard complaint because they're they would be pretty sure that nobody would be able to hold them
against. I don't know. >> That's a good point. >> Stephanie, >> thanks Stephanie. Um, yeah. So, I, you know, even though it's sort of designated as one person, there's just really no way that this process can
happen without input from the various boards and committees that have to do the review. It just it agreed. It's a lot of onus on one person to sort of know with the processes for each and every board. So, it doesn't really honestly totally make
sense. But I think the idea is that it's coordinated communication with those other boards and committees. So for instance, that design will have to work with um you know, communicate with Erin Jacques in terms of the conservation
commission process or they'll have to communicate with um folks from the planning department or those that work with the ZBA. And so I think there's going to have to be a lot of coordination and communication to sort of ensure that that particular PGA's
requirements are being addressed and I think that communication has to happen in the pre-filing. So and I think that's point of filing >> is to sort of have that time frame in which to identify what those things are.
um you know agreed I I think we all find this and that's why even you know we are sort of like trying to figure out how is it gonna how is this going to work and it really won't be the onus of one person it'll probably have to be the coordination of several people working
together >> thank you Mandy you have your hand up >> yeah um >> really >> really the 1804 starts with applicants for MGPI LGBTI stand LG PI standalone best and all of this with that
um it needs rewritten for the tier system. What tiers should be included here so that I can rewrite it offline? >> Um I think those were maybe identified in the charts. >> Okay. >> That you were
>> that were shared with you. So I would refer to those. >> So it's the charts >> the charts that you submitted with the memo, >> right? Yeah. But it's is it everything but what's up in that 1801 section that has the administrative approval or
accessory use approval? >> I think we'll have to double check on that for you. >> I I would think so. So it would be I think it's tier tier two and three of of um solar and and any any best that's not
um that's like great greater than 250 kilowatts. That's just recollection from the table. Sorry. >> I'll I'll check it and the next one will have that whatever it is in there. Mhm. >> But I think the question so everyone
understands is is because the very you know the the the house the housemounted or the the solar canopy um parking is administratively covered and so doesn't necessarily have
to follow for um this major application process and all the requirements that a larger project needs. Is that is that that's the understanding? Yes, that sounds right. >> Great. Okay.
Okay. So, 1804. That's great. Thank you for catching that. Um section A, B, and C. Are there any um changes that we want to make or accept? Um I like I like the
G. I like the wording of that. >> It is a measurement over over a 100 foot distance. That's that's correct. Yeah, I'm sorry to interject, but Jeff has his hand. >> Please do. Yeah. Hi, Jeff. >> Hi. Um, I don't have comments
specifically on the language, but the discussion about the completeness determination. I just wanted to chime in quickly because initially when I caught up to speed on this, I was nervous about that as well. But um when you look at the presubmission requirements under the
CMR that's listed, I actually got a great deal of comfort about that process cuz it's multi multi-steps that happen before the application is submitted and I built myself a little timeline. But so this there's a requirement that 60 days
prior to submitting um they are the applicant already has to get a site suitability from from DOER. So they they've already submitted information from the state and get a response and then there's a required staff meeting um that's 45 days prior to
submission and they have to provide um all the information they have available. There's a list and I think I think this uh mitigation plan is part of it and then there's a public information session that happens 10 days prior. Then there's one there's another checklist that they have to submit and it gives
the town 10 days to review the checklist for for a determination. And then finally they submit um and then the town has 45 days to make that uh determination that it's actually complete. And so that's that's the
that's actually a lot of checks and balances that you don't get when you're just reading the bylaw. There's a lot in that presubmission stuff that when we were looking at this, that started to give staff a lot a lot more comfort to know that the applicant has to be taking it very seriously at all those precursor
stages all leading towards their like their best effort is to give a complete application. Um, and then that during that 45day review period, there's there's some language in there about us determining that it's complete. And if we determine it's not complete, it the
clock doesn't start until we say this all looks pretty good, like good to go into that 12-month process. So, I do want to give the committee some some like, you know, assurances that there is a robust process leading up to that application. Um, and maybe that's worth fleshing out as you go a little bit
further. I think like the planning board might want to know that information as they get a hold of this. Um, and maybe that's something that we can help with is just really hone in on what's actually required before they submit. So, so your timeline sounds very appropriate for us to to see and also
planning board. That's great. >> Yeah, I think being aware of that timeline that actually happens all before they get to this to this bylaw might be helpful. >> Thank you, Mandy. Is your hand up? >> I can't take it down when I'm
wave when I want to speak. >> Perfect. I just just wanted to check. Um, so we're on we're on uh we've accepted G and on H. So I think um this is this is for trees that are
big bigger older trees. This is like a 60-year-old tree. And I think I I think the state required this. We had talked about maybe eliminating this requirement, but I think it's appropriate if it's within the area of
the project that will be removed. And I think that plays to um mitigation plans or uh that kind of thing. So I'd like personally I'd like to keep it. Um but again it's not it's just within the area
that would be um cut rather than the entire parcel. >> I had a question about Stephanie's comment. The comment was survey that should be included in the plan. So did that mean
that staff wanted this somewhere else? Um well again I think if my recollection and I'm sorry that Nate isn't is no longer with us. Um my recollection is that we felt that there should be a survey so that when the plan is submitted it includes the survey that
identifies those in the project area and again specifically to the project area. Our concern was not the entire site. So I don't know if it's not sort of otherwise expressly written you may want
to ensure that it is. Uh well we have an existing I mean this is all under existing conditions plans. Um it's I mean it's asking them to identify tree large trees I guess as something they would have to go survey. So it to
me it sounds like it would be surveyed. They know in advance that they have to pick up really large trees. I think this was just I think um staff wanted it to be clear that it should be a survey or it should be included in the
survey with the plan. >> Okay. Well, all of these are based on a groundbased survey prepared and stamped by registered land surveyor uh including the following. So, it is picked up under
what needs to be a landbased survey. feels it feels like it's covered >> and it very well may be I think there some of the comments came from folks who only had had a cursory review prior to discussion so
>> I think they just wanted >> okay >> are we done with that comment then >> so uh let's see number three Great. Gone. We had this one. I don't know why that comment is under
active farmland. It's hard to find being accidentally. >> Yeah. It just might have got moved somehow. >> Right. Exactly. >> So, we just defined wellhead protection areas, right? >> Yep. We are
distance should be included within all setbacks identified in 1809, >> which I think it is. Well, I think Stephanie, what you were trying to get at is um private wells within instead of maybe 400 feet of property lines, it's
within all setbacks identified in section 18.09. >> Yes. >> Would that be better way to do it? >> Okay. Okay. I'm just adding it instead of deleting that part.
>> Yep. That's a simple correction. Thank you. >> So, we're going to use this language when it comes up again. Okay. I think that was it. This number D. That's That's a good catch. Great. Okay, now we're on to the next
section, which is all of the D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D B D 1 through 15. Um, >> why was snow storage in red? >> Um, >> Stephanie said keep it. Okay. Yes, >> it was it was added from the state
example and it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, but it's fine if somebody at the state level thought it was appropriate. I think that it seems like more for an urban area where you, you know, you got to like figure out where you're going to
store your snow. >> Well, but we have that issue, too. So, >> there's also for wetlands. That's why um that request to sort of to ensure we keep it in was from Aaron Jacqu.
>> Great. Good. Uh E was a keep keep this in that note can be removed. Let's let's if we could just back Yeah. The 184 was a was a um reference to the emergency plan. Yeah, that's just a
highlight in case we change the section numbers as we go through this so that it's find easy to see them to fix them when they come through. So that's not anything other than >> this is still draft mode. >> Great. >> But visualizations.
>> Yep. Then down to Q, which is the noise level projected to be generated. And the good question was at what distance are you um is it at property line? >> That's what I >> Yeah. Do you do you have any
recollection? But a noise projected to be generated. >> So yeah, staff was asking this question. though because it's states it but it doesn't state at what point you're measuring. >> Would that be satisfactory Stephanie
at the property line? >> Yes. >> Great. R through S, RS and T, excuse me. Um, the question was, do we need a hazardous material management plan? And the comment by staff is include this. One is
a plan and the other is expectations. I I had >> made note of that myself. I I think this is a good answer. >> Yep. So, we're not changing that at all. Right. >> Yep. We get rid of these comments. Just think of all these comments we're
getting rid of. >> The next the next one will be much clearer. All those resolves will just disappear. >> Good. Um impact analysis. So again, staff uh review on all of T 1 through 7. Um, is
this necessary given the site suitability assessment? And um, I guess the question is, and maybe Stephanie you can weigh in. Um, do we have to list this item T? I think
the question was right, do we have to list item T because it's already required as part of a um submitt, >> right? And I think the bottom line response is that Erin was suggesting that yes, you do need to keep it and that you should
>> Okay, great. Okay, now we are I think we're down to 09 dimensional standards. >> So photo solar photovoltaic installations the note is um
can the section be combined for more efficiency? Um and the >> it was can it be combined with the best section? Yeah. >> And Stephanie said the let setbacks are different. So >> yeah.
>> So we'll we'll see >> keep them separate. >> Yep. >> So 1809012 um the idea of with the exception of the building mounted in tier one accessory uses makes a lot of sense.
Yes, that does. >> Okay. This next section below the 0102 and these are the front setbacks in in each of these there is the phrase um so it says it shall be the front yard depth shall be at least 20 ft in all zoning
districts where such uses are allowed. And my question is, do we really need to say where such uses are allowed? Because they won't be building here if the use isn't allowed. >> Um, where are you?
>> Uh, in 1809 21. >> Okay. >> So, in each of these it says where such uses are allowed. Well, it's sort of self-explanatory
explanatory. If they're not allowed in a particular zone, then it's a it's it's not an issue. >> If we >> So, you think we can get rid of that? >> Yes. >> Wait, not the fence line part.
Well, actually in all I think in all zoning districts stands or maybe maybe doesn't maybe we don't need that either. I think we kept that in all zoning districts. I would be concerned about keeping the
all zoning districts without the phrase where such uses are allowed given at the MMA conference the attorney warned of having those potential conflicts. If you say all zoning districts, are you overriding the use
table? Like whereas all zoning districts where such uses are allowed will not override the use table. Like would you be creating that conflict? I'm not saying it would. >> I have that language actually. So, I'm not sure why this version differs from what I have, but I can read the version that I have that was staff comments, and
it says, "The front yard depth shall be at least 20 ft measured from the property line to the fence line in all zoning districts where such uses are allowed." >> Yeah. >> Provided, however, that where the lot is within or abuing a residential district,
the front yard shall not be less than 50 ft. >> Okay. The front yard depth shall not be or setback. >> Um, it says the front yard. Sorry, let me find the second. >> I think the front yard depth. I think the
>> Yeah, we usually say setback. >> Yeah, >> we could just change these to setback. Um, yeah. So Stephanie Pam was suggesting that the phrase be deleted as redundant.
>> Let's let's leave it. Let's leave it. >> I mean, you know exactly what it means. Yeah. And then in in 024 it says increase the minimum setback requirement >> period
>> and getting rid of the max. Yeah, >> we don't need the word minimum. It just it's it's increase this. It's not it's no longer a minimum setback. It's the maximum setback. So if we just say increase the setback
requirements. >> Does that make sense Stephanie? >> Yes. I don't I think that sort of stays within the intent the comment. >> Okay. >> Okay. in 03 these 03 0405
um 03 um >> so we're under solar >> so I'm curious why Stephanie staff said 250 for because it's similar to an underground storage tank that would make sense for best but this is a an above
ground SPI >> I I think the idea was that because of potential runoff and all that that they felt that um you know because of runoff from potential PAS even though we're saying you can't have PAS but just in case of runoff issues I think the idea
was to be consistent with other setbacks and again this came DPW this was a DPW recommendation >> I'm I'm comfortable with a higher a higher figure. The next two the uh the 0104 and '05 to
me seemed very very similar. Um if we say in ' 04 it's a minimum no disturbance area of 400 ft from a public water supply shall be maintained.
Um and then in ' 05 it says all installations shall be constructed outside of a 400 ft no disturbance zone from public water. Isn't that the same thing? So P
Yeah. Is public water supply different than public surface water supply? Yes, because public water supply includes groundwater and public surface water is surface water. So they are different. >> But public water supply includes surface
water too. >> I believe the public water supply refers to groundwater. >> Okay. >> Public surface water is different. >> Okay. >> So that's why there they staff didn't combine them. >> Okay. One one of these says a water
supply well, right? >> Oh yeah, public water supply well. Yeah. >> Which is definitely different than surface water supply, >> right? >> So that's the groundwater. >> Great. Good. >> All wonderful. Okay, let's see. We uh in
the standalone and colllocated. You want to accept that? No, this one was Stephanie said it should be no disturbance. So, so, so could it be combined from
instead of be constructed outside, is it is it just the same language but replace public water supply well with public surface water supply? >> Um, sorry, I'm trying to follow your question because
um Say that again, Mandy. So we asked in ' 05 here should it be no disturbance or be constructed and you said no disturbance. So should the language mirror the ' 04 language except simply
replacing public water supply well with public surface water supply because I think there's a buffer zone versus a no disturbance area. >> Right. We want them all to be no disturbance. >> Right. We want there to be no disturbance.
>> So it's Could we just then get rid of 05 and add public water supply well >> or public surface? I mean, yes, you could. You could as long as you say specifically public ser
public supply well, which implies underground and surface supply which is above, right? So, you want to define both of them. If you want to have that in one, you just have to list both. >> Just list both and then we can get rid
of this one. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. and specifically say no disturbance. Yeah. >> Good. Uh so the next one is Oh, okay. Now now our numbers change. Um minimum
200 no disturbance. Okay, great. Straightforward. Okay. So, this one's >> um standalone standalone and colllocated best installations. Um is it colllocated now too?
>> I think I feel like we got rid of colloccated. um because I think that became like another category and I don't know if we have that comment elsewhere. I'm sorry that it's not referenced here, but I know there was a question about
identifying colllocated um >> in the table it includes colllocated it's it's solar installations and colllocated best >> included there. I know the conversation
came up but I don't remember what we what we ended up saying. So >> the new the new table that you guys gave us was standalone best or groundmounted solar with or without colllocated best
but there was no colllocated best listed in the use table >> right because if it's groundmounted with best then it's colllocated >> well the right but the best then becomes
the accessory use is that it. >> Let me look. >> I think I believe that was the logical >> the accessory uses don't have best in their tiers. It's just behind the meter,
>> right? >> Oh, no. And or best. Okay. No, it does. So, so accessory uses do include best. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I don't have the tables open right in front of me. So >> yeah, tier tier one tier one is photo sp
SPS uh building mounted canopy or ground mounted under 25 kilowatts and or best under or equal to 100 kilowatts. So we have we have them combined and then tier two is canoper ground mounted for a
larger size and or be and or best at greater or equal to less than equal to a thousand. So we have to determine whether colllocated needs to stay here or is it just like is it just
right that's our question right now. Well, if we don't say colllocated BES, um we can't apply any of these conditions to a project that has BES.
And so we would we would lose our ability to I think to kind of regulate the best part of it because we don't we don't talk about best in the 0901. >> Yeah.
Well, I think we need best installations. The question is co collocated to Okay, never mind. We're leaving it as is, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. I think I'm getting into my head too
much. I'm not sure what the note for O203 is. Um uh we included we so we inserted language. >> Yeah. Great. >> We accept that we want to get rid of the
minimum here like we did in the one above. >> Yep. Yep. And again, this is uh the buffer, not the buffer zone, but um it's the same conversation about the minimum no disturbance area.
And I can make a comment as to the recommended distance. um the um water protection committee had recommended an additional 200 ft of protection. So that's why this went from 400 to 600
So, we have we have the we'll call it the upgrades from the staff. Can we accept those changes of the distance? Okay. So then we're at these two deletions. >> Yeah,
>> we have covered those above >> and then this is an addition that staff added. Everyone okay with that addition? >> Yes. >> Okay, we're making good time. I'm taking a
note. It's 2:36 and we're making good progress. We have um I'd like to reserve. So, we'll go for another seven or eight minutes and then switch gears.
So, now into design requirements. Stephanie, can you can you um weigh in here? The access roads should be planned and constructed in compliance with um you talking about state regulations. >> Yes. In addition to those
>> Okay. >> Is that just what I need to add? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Well, it says including in this is fine. Yeah. We don't have to say state clearances. Uh staff believes this to be
okay as written. >> Okay. >> So we can accept that comment in glare. Yeah. Red. Thank you. the second paragraph under land clearing um reduces the area of disturbance to five acres at a time. Um
I think that's great. I thought I thought 10 was sort of the um business or industry standard, but five is better. >> Federal five is five is the federal requirement and you can't go larger than the federal requirement.
>> Oh, great. So um right here the applicant this paragraph applicants shall avoid using I had I just had a note um in that paragraph shall avoid sighting in a manner that would require construction or tree clearing activities or compacting soil within 100 ft of
groundwater monitoring wells. So a groundwater monitoring well is very different than a water supply or drinking well. Correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, this is this is something that they're doing on site to test whatever
their movement of water in the site. And the suggestion is that they can't they can't do any clearing within 100 ft of those wells. So, for the next one, this comment about clean, is that a recommendation?
um sort of engineering need and imports with is it something instead of just a rewriting that the fill must be clean
or clean fill. Well, so I guess the um the question that staff had is how do you determine clean fill because are you saying um you were talking about or I think the question had come up about invasive plant species?
>> Yeah, >> staff doesn't isn't aware of any way to make the determination whether or not it includes or doesn't include invasive plant species. There are certainly ways to tell if Phil is clean in regards to contaminants, but
not identification of invasives. Like there's no analysis for that. So they just wanted to be clear when you were saying, you know, saying this, you're identifying invasive species, but
there's no test for it. So, it does say it has to be obtained from a source approved by the Department of Public Works. And my only thought was if you had a site that was, you know, your your source of material was a site
surrounded by very obviously, you know, um, invasive species that maybe they could say, "Hey, you know, that's not a good site. We're very likely to bring all these invasive species into the site." Um,
I guess as long as as long as it says the PGA, you know, is sort of approving where it comes from, I guess that covers it for us. >> Yes. >> So, are you suggesting delete this section that that last clause, Pam?
>> Yeah, with the invasive species part. >> No, I I already rewarded the invasive species, but the source is approved by the DPW. I think that's fine. >> That's required and I think that's currently required. >> Yeah. >> For Phil. So
>> I think we want to leave that. >> Great. Um all combustible the one one where you are now. Um it it just occurs to me if we're talking about bass I would say um uh vegetation should be removed for a
minimum distance of 10 ft around any bass. That's easier than trying to describe it as combustible or not. So what does vegetation mean though? Um you know I I'm reading Stephanie's the staff comments of where did the distance
come from? Um, does that mean no grass at all? >> 10 feet from any battery, you know? So, it's going to be a 10- foot blank ad of concrete or of crushed stone that
then needs monitored for weeds because that would be vegetation and has to get weed killer on it or you know what? >> Well, any I mean any vegetation is combustible. It would be really hard to
identify some kind of >> I understand getting rid of the word combustible. I guess I'm trying to figure out what what in practicality does this sentence mean for someone building a bess. >> I think it means that they spray herbicide if they have to to keep it
bare. It just means that you have nothing you have nothing available to catch immediately should something happen. should have should have burst into flame. Stephanie, does that does that uh was that something Aaron um could accept?
This was actually fire um had this question about well everyone sort of had the question about combustible vegetation as a phrase but then also um I think there are already some
guidelines within the fire regulations that identify distances and that's what they were getting to here. >> Oh okay. fire regulations already define what combustible materials are and also
the distances you want to have from systems. So I think that's what the point this was a fire comment. >> So they were saying maybe we don't need this at all. >> I think so. Fine. 1005
kept extinguished outside of normal hours of use. >> So, could we just reword this to from dusk to dawn? >> Sure. I think we just needed a some kind of parameter to identify that.
>> Yeah. Yep. Except in the case of emergency. >> Were you asking me to add that phrase, Pam? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. I mean, that's the only reason you would want it on 10:08. The next comment is um drought
resistant species and what was the comment? Um, oh yeah, and then it was added and shall be an effective screening at time of planting. So, let me ask about that one. Didn't we have some sort of like within
a year of planting? Cuz what's effective screening? I I've always had an issue with the screening section to begin with, but what does effective screening at time of planting mean? Does that mean that we're going to require them to buy 10 foot high plants instead of five foot high
plants or instead of two foot high plants? >> Yeah, I think the idea was height that they be an actual screen versus um you know buying them smaller and then sort of waiting for them over time to actually develop into a screening. Um
and this came from planning folks. So, I'm going to defer to uh to them in terms of, you know, I think they just wanted them to be of a certain size where they're an effective screen. >> It just seems weird to require it at the time of planting instead of let them
grow into it. That's like a massive increase in cost. Again, I um I can only say that this was planning folks, you know, and if this is if you sort of have an issue with the screening, then I think this is just
consistent with how it's addressed. >> They want it. >> I mean, the PG the PGA can can describe, but we do say up above it just says um vegetative buffers to provide an effective year- round visual barrier. And it doesn't say, you know, in 10
years. So it it probably will we will rely on the on the PGA to direct the sizing of it. And I don't mind just at um I mean we already say it needs to be an effective
year- round barrier, right? To provide an effective year- round barrier. It's just whether it needs to be at planting or within a certain time of planting. Do we just leave it as is and let PGA I
mean I I love having an effective screening in time of planting. I think that's I I would support that. Um but I understand it could be pretty costly. But from from the examples that I've seen in different communities, they're
putting in pretty goodiz stuff. to create a new comment. I'm just trying to figure out where it goes. cuz it's not always vegetation, right? >> It could be BMS. It could be fencing. >> Fencing. So, it's not a time of planting,
>> time of installation. >> Yeah. or I was thinking when when that the project comes online. What's the wording for that? >> At time of acceptance. >> Time of beginning when it begins operations or something.
>> You wouldn't want to say beginning of operations specifically. I mean >> that could be a year after they >> Yeah. Um >> remove all the vegetation. which would allow them to plant smaller vegetation initially and let it grow for
a year. But installation can work for now and then we'll just add a comment. >> Yeah. And then we can leave plantings to be drought resistant species. Period. >> Yeah, I think I period back in.
>> Good. And so we'll accept that. I think we need to stop. We're at 18109 signage. That's a very good place to stop. And we have made really good progress. And Mandy, thank you as always for your diligence in this. Jennifer, sorry
I didn't see your hand. >> Yeah. No, no, no. I was just going to say to Stephanie, you know, thank you and please thank all the staff. This is like a lot of progress. Not that I contributed to any of it, but in this meeting as we had, yeah, all
these copious comments. >> Well, thank you all and they were, you know, the comments were certainly guiding. So, you're just responsive. So, thank you all for all the work you're doing. >> Yeah, really, really appreciate that staff help. It was sort of at a point
where it just we just need to get it across the line. So, um I'm switching gears. We got about a couple minutes and uh I think you all saw from or maybe you all saw from Athena that we have January
29, 2026 meeting minutes as um uh action item C actually. And did you all get a chance to see it or shall we just bring it up and allow um a couple minutes to read it and approve them?
I didn't hear any answer. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I was able to see it before. >> Okay. Anybody need time to read it? >> I've been looking at it. I think I'm good. >> Okay. Would uh so I make a motion that we that
we approve that we accept the meeting minutes as written. Um >> second. Is there a second? Okay, we'll go around. Mandy, >> hi. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Andy,
>> yes. >> And Pam is a yes. And I will I will reach out to Andy later to just talk about meeting minutes and where they go as something that that you might enjoy
doing. Let's put it that. Okay. Um, next agenda preview item five, clean energy bylaw. We made huge progress. Um, one of the things that I did put in our packet for this this round uh was a timeline
for ZBA or andor planning board. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Um, was a timeline for um this handoff of of this document that we're working on. clean energy, having it go to the planning board for an
opportunity to for them to become acquainted with it before it goes to council and gets referred for public hearings. It's, you know, it's this passing the baton back and forth. Um, I would love to have you all look at the
at the very draft timeline. Mandy had some comments. She added a go uh handoff and um there was something else that you added that was that was um part of that. Anyway, take a look at it please. I
would like to look at it in more detail. I think we can tighten up a lot of these discussions because we're making huge progress. We don't need to be talking about this for four meetings. I'm seeing um
the only thing I want to say about ZBA and planning board Andy you are new to this process but this this committee has the responsibility for um getting folks who have expressed interest uh getting
them rounded up getting their community activity forms in order and their statements of interest and then we go through the process process uh a little bit later in the spring to interview um and then make some recommendations to
the council for planning board and ZBA. Right now I can tell you that there are only about three people that have expressed interest or sent in a calf this year and um we would need we would need a lot more than that to have a
sufficient pool of people to get the work done. So anyway, put the time, put the word out. Um, let's see, announcements. Next CRC meeting is two weeks from now on the 26th at 100 p.m. Is there anything else
that anyone wants to bring up before we adjourn? Uh, and just to clarify, Mandy, all the work that you did today, you'll give you'll send a cleaned up draft of that and I will put it in the packet for the 26th
and um, it'll also get posted as whatever version we are at now. >> Yes. Um, do you want me to in that draft combine we got new use tables and an accessory use table in a completely different document? Would would the
committee like that just moved into this one document so that it's all in the same document? >> Yes, please. >> Okay, I will do that. >> Thank you. We haven't talked about it, but it's still but it's >> I'll I'll just move them in. >> Yeah, perfect.
>> Great. Then I make a motion that we adjourn. It is 256. >> I'll second Um, let's go around Andy. >> Uh, yes. But do you want me to stay on to talk about minutes?
>> Um, I can give you a call. >> Okay. Yes. >> Or we could do it at the at the chair. >> Oh, there you go. >> Great. Great idea. Um, Jennifer, >> yes. >> Mandy,
>> hi. >> And Pam is an I. Thank you everyone. Thanks Athena for hanging out with us and Stephanie so much for your help. Thank you. >> Goodbyes. Bye-bye.