So, let's >> Okay, >> there we go. There we go. >> All right. Um, just get my This is the July 23rd meeting of the
uh town council and uh town council the CRC uh community resources committee of the town council. Um, we are meeting virtually. Um, so pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2025, which extends
through June 30th, 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by
telephone. Um, no in-person attendance of measures members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings and real time via technological means. Um,
so um, Pam, can can you let me know that I can hear you? >> I'm here and I can hear you. >> And Mandy Joe >> present. >> Great. So
um we bas our basic work today is is on the uh I want to call it solar but it's the uh clean energy bylaw and um
let's see here >> I think you technically have to open the hearing. Oh, we are reopening the hearing. Okay. >> So, >> Oh, wait. You got two minutes till you can. Sorry. >> Okay. So, I'll go through the agenda then. So, we have we're going to be
continuing our uh hearing on the um article 18, the clean energy infrastructure bylaw. And um we will have general public comment and then we will
uh go into the clean energy bylaw. We'll we also have meeting minutes from July 9th if people are uh able to approve those. And that's basically the agenda. Um in addition to new next agenda preview and any announcements.
Um so we're going at 105. Mandy, do you want to update us just while we're waiting on uh on what changes were made to the bylaw? Is that appropriate? >> Um, can I instead
>> can I instead just say do action item 4B and move to adopt the meeting minutes of July 9th, 2026? >> I love that idea. [laughter] >> So, I um I'll second that. Um,
so I'll in uh do we need to vote? I mean, I guess Mandy Joe >> I. >> Pam. [snorts] >> Yes. >> And I'm an I. So the minutes are from July 9th are approved. So it's now 105.
[laughter and snorts] So we can legitimately move to our um um the the hearing. Open the open the hearing. Do we need to we don't need to vote to open the hearing, right? We just declare it open. >> Yeah.
>> Continue. >> Okay. Um, and in terms of participants, we have no attendees other than the three of us and Athena. So, I don't see any members of the public here at this point. Um, but if if I do or if you
notice uh members of the public, we will ask to see if anybody wants to make public comment. Um so now that we're in this hearing which we've been in for several meetings prior um last time we
talked about um you know we we met with the the lawyer from KP Law. We reviewed the feedback and some of that feedback was or some of the discussion was about reordering the the bylaw so that um to make it in some
ways easier for all different types of applicants to understand which parts applied to them. So I believe that's uh what Mandy has done in the inter intervening time. And so, Mandy, are you
are you okay sharing the the screen and and walk walking us through that? >> Sure. >> Can I can excuse me, I had my hand up here. Um, I just wanted to publicly acknowledge Mandy's work in the reorganization of all the material because it was
>> um it was messy and and and she organized it really nicely. Um, you know, we've talked about getting it reorganized for a while, but this was a good impetus to do it, and I just want to say thank you very much because it
made sense out of a lot of bits and pieces. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> you're here. >> I can I can share a screen. Um, the one that is easiest to sort of talk about the reorganization is not the one we
would want to necessarily view for editing. So, I don't know which you would prefer cuz I can go through with quickly with the one that's like fully tracked, but that one's really hard to follow if we're trying to actually read it because there's a lot
of stuff. But it it more it more clearly shows what I did. And then if we want to talk about or change anything, we could put the clean one up if you want. Um, so how would you like to do that? >> Whatever you think. I mean, do you want to show us a clean one to show you how
how it is reorganized and then cut to that or do you want to just tell us? I don't Whatever works for you. >> I I'm going to share the um non-clean one. >> Okay, that's fine.
>> Um that should be this one. This is this is the one. What I do when I do these is I basically track everything so that we've got a record of it and then I go through and start
accepting things to make it readable. Right? So this is sort of the the shows basically everything I did. Sometimes once I start accepting I realize there's some issues with punctuations and all and I fix them without going back. But um >> basically or I miss stuff but basically
this shows every big thing that was done. And so um and I'll I'll try to go through this as quick as possible, but um I changed the title to reflect sort of the dual nature of this, which is sort of the I'll talk about the dual
nature of the consolidated permitting side and then the sort of land use side, the the as as you said, Andy, the solar bylaw, sort of best bylaw side. there's that side and then there's the consolidated permitting side um for things that are not just solar and best.
So um per the attorney's suggestion, I changed the title [laughter] to try and make that clear. Um um the the stuff in blue on this screen is what the attorney added. So that's that's the attorney's comments are in
blue on this screen and red is anything I've done. Um so I basically tried to clear up applicability in a variety of ways. Um, and you'll see a lot of red in what was
O2 and I created a new O2 that basically does the apply or not apply set. And then O the new 03 talks about site plan review and special permit. So I split what was O2 into an O2 and an O3 basically. Um, which is why the second
half of of here is now deleted because basically that was reorganized and moved up to here. >> Um, in addition, um, the parts, this part here was in 01
originally. Um, and I and because it was a this doesn't apply, it made more sense to move that into the this doesn't apply section of O2 instead of leaving one random part in 01. Um, so and then I actually filled in ground mount and all
of that um to try and make that clearer. So that was the big sort of change in the applicability section was finally doing the make it clear what
what applies in article 18 to what size systems I guess is the way to do it. Um and that's where some of that reorganization takes place. You'll notice that prior it was like this one thing here and this one thing here and it had sort of like five different yeses
or nos and I reorganized and moved stuff so that all of the nos were in order basically could just be one big section. Um you'll notice it's not >> from a certain point to the end. There
are stuff at the end that does apply to these things because it made more sense in my mind to keep things like waiverss for anything in the article at the very end and decommissioning at the very end instead of putting that up front before any of the other things which is why
it's sort of the middle part of the bylaw that does not apply in certain instances not the end. Um >> okay >> but that's why and then um I fixed some references to we had originally said the article is intended
to comp align with the consolidated sighting and permanenting process and I just referenced the one big section now because of that dual use of this this whole section 18. So that was another sort of big change there. definitions. I
took um the attorney's suggestion um and did her language of capitalized terms in article 18 are defined in 12 except as noted below which apply to article 18 only and then deleted the as defined in article 12
ones. Um so that's why there's a lot there. It it made it a little shorter. um referenced similar things um facilities just um just consistency and referencing. I added the local
government representative in here that she suggested down below be put into a definition. Um so that was added. I think that's the only definition that got added. And then you'll see the attorney liked the 0.00
at SEC. So that I I went that way with everything um instead of the other way. We can discuss that deciding what people want, but you'll see there's a lot of additions of the at sex to say to to do that because I went with what the
attorney did one way in one. Um >> you >> lawyered that part up at the attorney sort of again consistency. She had done it in a couple I did it everywhere then. Um >> okay. 05 was originally just the
pre-filing requirements and the local government representative. I retitled that and now everything related to consolidated permitting is found in '05. So I turned that from pre-filing and who the local government representative is
into the consolidated permitting section. If you're going to do consolidated permitting, you got to apply with you got to comply with these things, too. And so that's the she talked about the choice. If the you know put a thing in about the choice if
they do they have to comply for SPI and best with all of article 18 too. So that that's clears that up. Um who they submit it to. Um hence the definition of local government representative and then
you just do it up there. Um and then the local I define who the local government representative is for that reasons there. And then um some of the things we had in um the submittal requirements
um and in the site suitability requirements I moved up into here. That's what this red is. So, you'll see some deletions of submittal requirements that related solely to consolidated permitting. Um, and I tried to move them up here, which
was applicants must submit um documentation that the project has complied with all pre-filing requirements. That that's I think one of the ones that that got moved up. Um, and the the attorney recommended deleting
the site suitability stuff here and just referencing the thing. So I did but um but added that they had to submit the site suitability score and criteria specific suitability scores as part of their application.
>> Now is that is that not listed in 225 CMR29? >> I did not look. So [laughter] this was a I we could look and see if it's already required. I assume it is. Um, I thought that was a different consolidated and the and the
>> So, we might be able to get rid of that. Um, I just I didn't want to as I'm deleting whole sections, right? I didn't want to be just get rid of this. Carolyn had actually recommended
um delete it entirely and then add it in as a submittal requirement. So, that's what I did. um it might already be required as part of CMR 29. Um but that was her recommendation. So that's what I did at this point. We can revisit that
later. So then I deleted that whole 06. >> Um >> did you say that did you say that it is included? >> I think it is. >> I have to but we'll we'll double check. >> So that's an area to check maybe. Yeah. >> Yeah. But this was this was I I really
liked moving all of the the 1806 stuff um as and just um acknowledging it and and putting in it as part of this new 1805 section that was really really good. >> Yeah. >> And so fees I determined this one with
her rewrite the lawyer's rewrite um really was just a consolidated permitting reference and not the general reference. the the rules for everything else already require if we submitted the rules and regs of the planning board and all. So that's why it's now under the consolidated permitting and not its own separate section. Um and the blue is
what she rewrote it to. Um I split submitt requirements into two things. General submitt requirements. This was my easiest way to figure out how to have a nice easy have to apply don't have to apply up in application
applicability. Um, so the general submittal requirements now have the three things that have not been moved other places. Um, or were not the big stuff. Um, and then a new section is the big stuff. And it just to be really
clear, it even tells you what it who applies for it, even though we've exempted some people up above for it. But this sort of reinforces that this is just these items that have to do this. Um so >> okay
>> that's that's that um fixed some references um in dimensional standards most of the changes I didn't do anything other than fix the numbers and um the blue is what she recommended
same with design requirements basically um and hazardous materials basically the same you'll see the herbicides and pesticides. I want to talk about this one. Um, you'll see I simplified the use in public rights of
way because it had a whole big preamble and then said they shall follow these requirements. So, I basically got rid of the preamble and said you need to follow these requirements. Shortening it a little bit, the preamble was really not anything other than describing what 30
33 CMR11 was. Um, if people have a problem with it, we can we can chat. And then this is where it gets there's now two herbicide and pesticide sections. Um, this section here was one that we had
originally applying to the big stuff plus agravalttaic canopies. and I couldn't figure out a way to easily keep it within this big stuff while also referencing agravalttaics. So
agravalttaics have its separate section we'll get down there and that is why you see this deleted here. Agravalttaics shall adhere to MDAR. I did not delete it from the bylaw. You will see it later on. It's just when when it's a big stuff
it's not really applying to agravalttaics. I created a new section regarding agrovoltaics that that both sections actually show up in including the MDAR. So so we'll see that later. Emergency response Carolyn said move it down. Um so
that's the move down this red here into the emergency response plan. Um for the emergency stuff here I just responding added it to meet the requirements of that and shall include the protocols. So that was just what she had recommended. Building permit question.
>> Sure. >> On the her on the herbicides and um pesticides that's all part of a section that doesn't that that said that's not addressing agrovoltaics. Right. >> Correct. It is part of it [snorts] is part of well it's a hazardous materials
waste management and herbicides and pesticides but it's 1810 now and when you go up to applicability 1810 is not applying to agrovtaic non-aggravaic or the tier ones the smaller stuff. So, so we had
tried to keep everything on what we had originally decided that that hazmat and herbicides wasn't going to apply to the smaller tiers except in Agravalttaics. Um, hence the issue. Um, I'll show you what I did when we get down to Agra
Volvtaics there. Um, I did not remove it from applying to Agravaics. You'll just see it in a different spot. Um, so building inspection, Walker Pal thought we didn't need it, so I deleted it. Um,
so if there's questions with that, this is why I thought going through the red line would be easier because I can't remember what I did without seeing the red line. If people have problems, when we get to the other one, we can potentially redis that. Maintenance and monitoring. You'll see some of these have moved up big in numbers because
this is where I've started moving stuff back. And then reporting again, mostly just number changes um in all of these and whatever the attorney did. Um and then then we get to where we moved
stuff. So so 17 um is additional design requirements for best uses best only. So this was and the bigger best. So this is the wiring the um
containment issues um NFPA stuff really only best stuff and big best. Um and then I added agravalttaic well then I added I I reabeled we had had this best one which was just general
additional design requirements. We had some for best as you see I deleted the Bess only and then there were some for agravalttaic and well some for prime farmland and soils. I split them into separate sections. I didn't delete anything. I
split them into separate sections. Um so that there's a best section and then there's a best plus and then there's essentially a prime farmland and soil section. Um and so agravalttaics, this is why agravalttaics stop at 17 up in
applicability. Um because 18 and 19 apply to agravalaics and why the other small stuff starts at 19. Um and then I added the section for agravalttaic canopy SPI. This is where the herbicide and pesticide got moved.
Um you'll see here aggra you know it it's deleted here because I put it up here of agravalttaic canopy shall adhere to MDAR regulations and CMR 333 CMR11 so I moved it up here two short things and then kept the
chemical fertilizer thing there so there's no change in what was there it's just in different spots now um the reporting requirements were originally in the reporting requirements section and I moved it to agravaltaics so that
it was clear just just a if it cuz it only applied to agravalttaics. So those are the things that are in agravaic only. It's again a new section. Um and then we're basically to the things starting at 8 at um
at 20 I believe is back to things that apply to every SPI and best application. So, storm water management modifications and waivers. Um, it just seemed weird. They're not at the beginning because it seemed weird to put waiverss of
wave or modify any requirement of this section at the very beginning of the section instead of at the end. And same with modifications to um building permits and and and site plan reviews seemed weird to me at the beginning
which is why these three sections are at the end of general applicability. Um if you want I can go to the clean one if that would be easier or I'll take questions on this one before we move to the clean one. >> I I was going to just chat with the with
this. So, storm water management. Um, the only one of the few notes that I made was would those be better off? Um, because they apply to everything except the small scale. Um, I mean, I think it
works this way. I was just sort of thinking if if I if I thought about it and wanted to consolidate everything that's applied to most most all projects, would I put 2021 and 22 in
before the additional design requirements for best and then additional requirements for agrovoltaics? I did, you know, um I mean I like the way you did it. I was that was my one question.
>> Yeah. So, so if you go up to applicability agic is 7 to 17 doesn't apply to so 0 0 1 1 to six and 18 to 22 apply
>> but for other canopy and then the small ground mount and building mount bass and all >> 1 to six and then 20 21 and 22 um with that extra aggra voltaic. We could put those three as 7, 8, and 9. But then you
end up with 7, 8, and 9. Um that those three, the storm water, the waiverss, and the modifications um come before um come between submitt requirements or
come before submitt requirements because I wouldn't want to split submitt requirements. That >> that's fine. then I'm I'm very comfortable having it the way it is. >> So So that that's why I did it. I just thought it would be weird to stick it in before any of this. I had originally had
that up there in one of my earlier drafts and then I was like that's just weird. >> So this is how I settled it. [laughter] >> So it it doesn't make sense to have just like all of the things that are applicable to pretty much everybody first and then and then additional
things for particular subsets. So, we could potentially um move 18 to 22 somewhere else. We could move it um
after 4 and before consolidated local permitting process or after consolidated local permitting process. Um I wouldn't starting at 7. This is where the non the one here I wouldn't move it after
six because you've got general submitt requirements and then the additional for the big stuff and so splitting the submittal requirement sections makes no sense. So you've got a choice to move them before any of the submitt requirements basically. But the sections
that you'd be moving um are um let me get them. You'd be moving um this section that applies to
big stuff and Agravalttaic. Um it actually it applies to big big SPI agravalttaic SPI and best farmland and and so big stuff um you'd be moving that
in the beginning if you wanted to get all the aggravaic stuff up there you'd be moving this agravalttaic with herbicide and reporting up and then you'd be moving this mod the thing to me was the modification and waiverss um
addressing all material modific modifications made after issuance of the BU building permit shall require the seems weird at the beginning of a bylaw instead of the end of the bylaw. That doesn't mean it can't be done. It just seemed weird to me. If the committee wants these three moved up or once all
five moved up, we can certainly do that and renumber everything. Um it would require a lot of renumbering. Uh it's it's just preference of the committee basically. >> Okay. My only my only thinking is if 18
I mean if 20 um 20 21 and 22 went after 1816 which is abandonment or decommissioning. They they felt like they were you know of the same nature that that applies to just about everything.
But I but I haven't. >> But 17 does not. Right. Be right. It applies um it would apply before 17 18 and 19 which are sort of the outlier exceptions. Um
right but if you flipped it before 17 even the nonagravalttaics even if you did 18 and 19 differently 17 does not apply to any of them. So, if you moved 20, 21, and 22 to 17, and 17
became 18, that's that's the weird part, right? Um because then you'd have sections 7 to 16 and 19 do not apply. >> Got it. Okay. Okay. Yeah, let's leave it as is. >> That's the weird part with the aggravaic
and the best. We could do do that, right? Those two could be at the very end somewhere else, right? But it was it was that I agree. it made more sense in abandonment and de decommissioning, but there was extra there that that didn't work well unless we reorder those, which
might be possible. Um, >> well, I I think this is a lot better. Um, so, you know, it's it's definitely much clearer, you know, what category you should should or should not be looking at depending on who you are. So, I think that's that's the main thing. I think we
can look at the clean one and you know if we have further questions you know for next time you know for next time we could we could add that but or we could look at it we could certainly look at it now but in general it seems like a
you know mission accomplished. >> Yeah Mandy I really >> a clean one. >> Yeah. I really like the I really like your 180202 now just you know that that was very very helpful. [clears throat]
>> That was all KP law. That was the wording they gave us and I was like I tried a couple of different I was like this is the easiest. This is the simplest. It's the clearest. Um >> yeah it's good. It's good. >> Yeah. Carolyn Murray was was good. I thought she was very helpful.
>> Yeah. So, and and as as with before, the highlights are all the sections in case they do have to be reumbered. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> And if you scroll down, where's the where's the comprehensive? Um there's definitions. >> It's 1805
>> consolidated. Okay. That's good. So, it's far enough up front so they see that. >> Yeah. It's it's right after basically definitions although there's a compliance section but it's [clears throat] basically the first thing there. Okay.
>> Um I I guess just clarifying whether we need the uh site suitability uh score and you know whether that's redundant. Um you could say including the site suitability score and then if it's redundant you're you're you know rather
than and but but it probably would be best just to check whether it's in there or not. I I thought it was I mean it's one of the things that they must do as part of the application process. They go it's like
step number one is to get a suitability score. Yeah. So then do we have remaining questions in terms of like Carolyn Murray asking what what constitutes a compelling reason for a waiver or
>> you know >> hold on. >> I I don't mind letting the permit granting authority decide what's compelling or not. Oh, my friend is my friend is Oh, Stephanie has her hand up. Oh, >> Stephanie. >> Hi. Um, >> hi.
>> Sorry to be late. Thank you. Um, so as far as the uh the site suitability score, the applicant has to come up with that on their own. They sort of create or develop that and submit it. So, it does have to be submitted and then I
think the town reviews it um as part of the pre-application process. So, it is a required piece just >> it's listed in 225 CMR 29 >> I believe. So, >> that's the question. >> Yeah.
>> So, all right. Well, and and they they need to do that as part of the comprehensive >> the consolidated. Yes, >> consolidate. I'm sorry. consolidating process requires that. Yes. >> Yeah. And we don't in our
>> It's a new thing. >> If Yeah. If we we haven't in the past, it's new. And I think it's only as far as we are concerned, it's only in relation to that consolidated permitting process because that's a new requirement
by the state. So if we're doing this, we have to require it, but it's new. So Yeah, >> I think we're requiring it in compliance with the state. >> Otherwise, they would go through our usual processes and go to various boards and it would the suitability would be
established by other means. >> Exactly. I mean, and yeah, I all it, you know, in some way it really formalizes a lot of what we do already because when an applicant, you know, especially for a more for a sizable project brings it in, they're meeting with, you know, the
conservation commission, the planning board, they're meeting with staff ahead of time prior to um even the application submission just to ensure that it's as complete as possible. So, this really just formalizes that process. >> Okay.
So then what else do we need to do on here? What what what remaining questions do we have? >> We have the compelling reason discussion >> and and she she recommend >> language >> a potential language we could change
that. I I don't It looks good to me. I mean, that seems I mean, yeah, it's basically laying out what is implied by by the compelling reason. So,
what do we think? If someone says there may be a lawsuit because um you didn't identify what was compelling um or we don't think it's a compelling reason. I'm not sure the additional words make
it any clearer. Uh Stephanie, don't we have don't we have wording like that um you know as part of as part of just about any of the rules and regs for ZBA and and planning board? You know
>> I don't know the regulations of the ZBA and planning board as well as I do the conservation commission. Um I I know compelling is a word that's been used. I don't know if they have it defined
though. Um, so >> I I think, you know, to me it's one of those words or if we are you going to use it, I think we do need to define it if we haven't. >> So I I mean I'm okay with with Carolyn's
wording. That's that's fine. >> I wonder if we need it at all with this section here. >> Well, I think it was a waiver of submitt requirements. That's my that's my understanding. It's not a waiver of >> but submitt requirements are a
requirement of >> article 18. Right. So does this section on waiverss cover waving submitt requirements in a way that we could just delete the submittal requirement waiver up above?
>> Oh, I see what you're saying. >> Great. tighten it further. Yeah, I I don't know that we need it. >> Maybe we leave that as a question cuz the planning board may know better.
>> Okay. So, what you you want to add a comment up there? >> Oh. Oh, so if we went Sorry, I'm squinting to read. So this this 180603 is specific to submittal requirements. I
think this the 22 number 22 is um waiverss of waiverss of modifications of of any component. And maybe we could get rid of it here as long as we say um in
22 including submitt requirements and then it's it's actually covered. question is does written findings make sense on that? Not necessarily. [laughter] Well, the proposed design
>> the need for the requirement. So this design doesn't need X submitt requirement, >> right? >> I think it works, but let's leave it for the >> Yeah, >> let's let's leave it for the planning
board to discuss at their next at their next hearing. Okay. >> Which I believe is July one if I'm not August one, you mean? >> No, not August one. August five.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's the first Wednesday. >> Yeah. And then did I did I get that section changed? I think I got all those sections changed properly. Okay. Um,
>> what was the uh Murray comment there? >> Something about setbacks. >> Did I miss one up here? I >> think so. >> No. >> Okay. >> No. Paying for improvements.
Oh, do we need to So, so she asking whether we need that clause. >> Yeah, I think she's saying is this clause necessary? >> I don't think it is. >> Why would we need to? Is that just to make sure it's gonna
happen? >> Yeah, maybe it's I what we what we do require is that it's very clear that the that the power company, the owner of the lines or whatever um knows the project
is and is is accepting the project. And I and I don't know if this somehow reflects, you know, that agreement. like we're not we're not privy to that agreement. >> Isn't that this though? The application
for interconnection. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so do we care who's paying for it? >> I don't. >> Yeah. Okay. Oh, there's a Zack. >> I think that was I think that was a
state item. >> Yeah. >> Well, we had that conversation with the planning board and we arrived at this level, >> right? >> And Carolyn didn't know that that conversation had happened in detail. So, I think she was
commenting based on her knowledge. >> Do we want to leave that in for the planning board to see though? >> Or not. >> I can hit resolve. Um, and then it's still in there and they can read it without deleting it. If I do that, you
can still see it, >> but then they'll know that CRC thought it was fine. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And then there was this one. I'm having a really hard time reading the fine print here.
>> So, this was the It's unclear what that measurement is, which makes sense, which property line and which fence line. And then she had an issue with compelling reasons. So she's not the fence line is is the
required fence to protect, you know, the safety of neighbors or whatever. Um, >> so we're we're making the fence can't be on the property line. >> Isn't it the Isn't it from the >> property line to the best that we're
concerned about? As long as there's a fence in between somewhere. >> August at 4 p.m. shuttle service available from tickets. Uh yeah, I think actually it was that's a good point. So was setbacks of 50 feet measured from
the property line to the to the installation. >> That's the wording we used. classic. >> Well, it's best and or >> what are our setbacks
now >> from the property line? Do when we talk about setbacks in other locations, do we ever say property line or we just say minimum front and side rear setbacks of 50 ft
>> in all zoning districts or to best or something like how are they done in typical references? >> Yeah, I don't I don't think we do say from the property line. >> Yeah, they usually are just that's implied or that's assumed. with great music
is classic WS >> and then there's the compelling reasons. >> We could just leave off that may. Just say may for reasons of maya for reasons of public safety or site design increase
the site this we don't have to add the word compelling >> so now I'm I'm I'm actually not finding our dimensional setbacks just from >> we have all the disturbance you know
>> so SPI we say front rear and side setback measured from the property line to the SPI in compliance with table three so we actually do say from the property line to the SPI >> but >> oh yeah there you go there you go
>> we don't have specific ones we just say you have to comply with table three um >> so measured so We could continue measured from the property line. >> And why do we need to say it again?
>> Um, this is the best side. >> Oh, yeah. >> The SPI was was just whatever is in the table three dimensional table, but best we wanted at least a minimum of 50 feet.
But if the dimensional three if if the zoning district dimension table requires more um then they have to go higher than 50.
>> Right. Right. >> So our wording our wording could be exactly like >> um >> 1808 Oh, one two. >> Yeah. >> But with a minimum of 50 ft, right?
Measured. >> Yeah. >> Is it also compliant table three or is it in a different table? >> I don't think it spells out best in table three. >> Well, it's the zoning district setback,
right? setbacks are not any specific to any particular use. >> All right? >> So, it's just this table three. Um, and so, so could it, so under under best, so this is the 0.023, 023. Could we just
say minimum front side and rear setbacks of 50 ft measured from the property line to the to the best? I mean, >> yeah, give me a second here. >> Yeah. So, that that's what we're doing here, you know. So I added the of all
setbacks in table 3 dimensional regulations for the zoning districts where they are located or the following um me 50 ft measured from the property line to the best installation.
>> Yep. >> So now it better mirrors the other one. Okay, next she asked about a phototric plan. The 2700K doesn't need a phototric plan, I don't believe.
Did we we had some discussion of this where it's like they're not going to have lights on at night. It's it's >> they have lighting, but they're not going to use it at night.
>> They can use it at night. I mean, they have at night they would use it >> if they're in the case of emergency or maintenance purposes, >> right? >> So, there'll there'll be lighting. It's just hopefully won't ever be on. But if it is on, we want it 2700K or less.
>> I do not want a phototric plan. It just doesn't need it. >> I don't think a Kelvin requirement requires automatically a phototric plan either. They're they publish the Kelvin on the lighting. >> Yeah. these days.
>> I mean, this isn't this isn't like a this this isn't like a downtown, you know, what what are the lights and what are the you know, >> it's just >> and they should be off 99% of the time. So, >> exactly. >> Um, and then documentation to
demonstrate compliance to PAS and noise. I think the the PGA would would ask for that. I think so. What was it? PAS and noise. Well, there's location. Oh, that's location of noise producing equipment.
>> Yeah, because that was the location one. >> There's the glare analysis. >> Um, oh, here's the acoustical engineer of noise levels. >> So, the noise is there. Um, and the PAS,
didn't we, technical specifications. So we could add into the technical specifications. What did she call it? >> That's good. Yes. >> What was it called? Um I I don't even know what to say though.
information on PAS. What how would we word that? I'm like certification of nonpaste, but that seems that's not quite right. I almost feel like pet information or >> I mean it says technical specifications
of major system components to be used including the photo photovoltaic panels. >> Yeah. manufacturer, model, rated name, P plate capacity, reflectivity, performance, and any potential PAS
release or something like that >> or or PAS PAS containment, you know, PAS. Yeah. >> Components. PAS releasing components. Uh yeah.
>> Yeah. You want P? Yeah, >> something like that. Okay. For now. >> Yeah. >> I mean, it would be good to capture it. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And then we then we can Do we get rid of this or do we
>> I'm just resolving them. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Here. Saying it's going to be a here's a new one to to them. It'll be a here's a new one that includes our changes at our last CRC hearing. You can see them all. It's fully tracked from what you were
first sent sort of thing. Um and then next comment they will always be required. So what's interesting is applicants expense and she says reference this section
>> it says the applicant's expense right at the top. >> Right. This one is the consultants are hired by the town with applicant funds. >> Oh >> yeah. Maybe we could just say per per MGL 44.
Yeah. How come she doesn't say MGL? >> I don't know. >> We should probably add MGL. >> I got to see how we did it in the rest of them. >> Yeah, I think we've always used the M. I
know she got rid of it in one. Oh, >> really? >> See, she's So that's that. >> Yeah. >> So, we have just those GL's
and we have one GL >> MGL. So, we'll just do this for consistency. Okay. >> Where were we? So, we took care of this one.
>> Yep. >> The same question, right? So the question is who's submitting them, right? The >> Well, yeah, >> because I feel like a third party person doing weekly reports is ridiculous.
>> Yeah, it's crazy. um that that the third party construction inspectors should be called in when we think there's a problem. Right. >> Well, so let's let's pause for a minute.
I don't know if Stephanie is still on, but um during Hickory Ridge, either Aaron Jacques or Dave was down there, I would guess weekly. And I don't know if there was a third party
inspector for that project. I re I really don't know that answer, but um it's it's like a construction job and you you check you make sure that you know the erosion matting is in place and
this and that and it's not it's not ownorous. It's just checking making sure the standards are being met. you know, sort of Stephanie, >> I can tell you um historically we have
had um third-party inspectors for various aspects of a project. Like for instance, um we had an environmental scientist come and check a site after significant rain events and then they
would provide reports. So, it's not uncommon to have someone come out and inspect for various aspects of concern, >> but this is calling for weekly reports that seem to be sort of the general
construction inspecting reports, which what Pam just said about Hickory Ridge was not done by third party, was done inhouse or by the owner or operator. >> Right? >> You know, this says owner, operator, or a third party. Somebody's got to submit an inspection report. >> Yeah, you
>> I'm just saying that like if you put the onus on the contractor or the developer, say, they may choose to hire a third party >> to come and do the inspections for them. So, I think the point is you just want to have weekly inspection reports or
it's requiring that. I don't know that you absolutely need weekly, but if you did, then you could hire someone or I think the point is again just to have somebody do it. So, so I feel like this one could say the
owner shall submit inspection reports on a weekly basis during construction. There's no operator during construction. There's an owner. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. Or there's a developer. Um, I think developer might be more
>> develop. >> Is the developer the same as owner? >> How about the applicant? >> We do applicant up here. We could say the applicant >> would be more consistent. >> Okay. Resolved.
I think that was just an information thing. I assume that you know our designate would just would decide what's adequate. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There is there is no specific
documentation that they can they can provide they can provide record of uh success if you will of lack of lack of fires. >> Yeah. I I don't know what we would ask
for, right? A lot of the times the UL testing is what shows whether it will or not in a sense. That's what the U certification and all is for. >> Well, it's certainly a nice aspiration.
I mean I don't know what >> here it says certified by them to this standard which is fire testing and thermal runaway propagation risk. >> Do we need this this uh subsection?
>> I think we still do because this meets the standard. I don't know whether that standard is fully full containment or whatever. Right. >> Yeah. But this this standard at least there should be a a test report for it
and and everything in terms of >> Yeah. I'm just wondering I mean obviously we want them to safely contain fires and thermal runaway but specifically what they do is they follow they follow these standards and they get inspected by the fire department and I
you know I don't know what more that what more we're we're asking for with that 181704. It's our it's our it's our objective. It's it's >> okay. >> Okay. So, it is being reviewed. That's up here
somewhere. >> Yeah. Yeah. We definitely have emergency. >> Yeah. And so what is she saying? >> Yes. So this is a good point.
[clears throat] It it really goes for facility staff. Since there's no staff at these places, >> we have an emergency response plan, right? >> Yeah. Um
that is up here somewhere. Yeah, >> we should actually probably respond and call it an emergency response plan down below. >> That I mean that's basically what that covers that that would cover it, right? So it says it designed construction and
operated with this standard which is emergency training but they don't have facility staff. So I'm not I think her point is who would be trained. We were asking that the town essentially the the um fire or first responders
would be trained. >> Yeah. I'm not sure that we can require the applicant to pay for that training under what I >> under what I've read from all of the AGS on prior solar stuff. Um
because they just basically say emergency training is, you know, a collective payment, right? We don't require the person owning a forest to pay for the training in wildfire
response. It's just expected that if you have a town that has forests that your emergency responders are trained in wildfire response. [sighs] Um, that's my memory of the AG's responses to town bylaws that required
>> that required training that required the applicant pay for the training. It was the paying that was the problem, not the training. So, a plan to train >> [sighs and gasps] >> But her her um question seems to be
saying an emergency plan reviewed by the fire chief or designate. >> Yeah. And then the question is should it be here or should it be up in the emergency response plan section? It seems weird to have it here.
>> Yeah. Do we need this here or do or is it covered by the emergency response plan up above? I mean, I feel like it's covered by the emergency response plan. >> That applies to Bess, right? >> Yeah. >> Developed
meet NFPA 855 >> fire department >> prior to commissioning shall include protocols for discharges of hazardous waste. I mean, we could add other protocols from down here up there.
Mhm. >> including smoke detection, fire control and suppression system, explosion control, and spill response measures. >> We've got the spill response measure, but let me just copy this whole thing and put it up here for now, and then we'll work on it.
It's not a smoke detection system. Protocols for responding to discharge of hazardous waste. Protocols for smoke detection. >> Yeah. >> Fire control and suppression. Explosion control
and explosion control. Spill response is the discharge of hazardous waste. >> Yeah. >> And then I think we can delete this whole thing then. Yes. All modifications. All >> I mean it's it's significant
modifications. It's not you know I I changed the fence. It's it's I I added a bass to the unit or you know to the >> I planted some flowers.
>> Yeah. I planted golden rod instead of black eyed susans. So, should we just say all modification or what? All sub all substantial >> significant significant. >> I I'm working on finding medways because I thought they had something in here for
that. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Oh, no. Theirs was boring. Um, applicant may seek a modification of the decision. Modification shall follow the same procedure as the original application. um submission requirements limited to information related to the modification
and may be waved. So um so their their modification is much >> she said she says though that the second sentence is really what defines material. So >> well but is that is that comprehensive? And I would say I
would I hate lists that are supposed to be comprehensive because you never know what it is. >> Yeah. >> Right. Well, either we leave material in >> say here we go. We could say significant. >> Yeah.
>> Modifications. Great. >> There. So, it's a list that helps people discern what significant is, but is not comprehensive. >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. So, I don't think I talked
about the changes here. And there's a couple of comments here. Um, I don't think I changed anything in here. And I left Walker's comments. >> Can't read. >> Uh, check with staff why the smaller
unit is a no and the larger unit is a special permit. >> Oh, that's here. in Office Park. I wonder if we just screwed up which it was supposed to be.
Um well, in this case, tier looking across that line, tier one is is site plan review. Tier two, which is the larger one, is is special permit. So that's that's fine. Oh, over here under Okay. Office Park. Got it. Yeah. So, we
moved this one to site plan review. I guess it was a no at some point, but this one's still a no instead of special permit. I think the thing was in office park. And I mean, here's my guess. I could be
completely wrong. These are standalone buses, which means these are primary uses. Um, and we don't really want our village centers and office parks having small best as their primary use. We want them
as a se a secondary use, right? So that could be why we had originally said no. But um we've clearly changed one to site plan review at some point. I think I think we could put it site
plan review and then resolve these. And then you have you added greater or equal to. Thank you. >> Yeah. I'm trying to get this over here. It's clearly not getting over there.
>> Okay. And then >> this is where I added the greater than or equal to in one of these. Yeah. Wait. Tier two. I think we've got something wrong here.
SPI greater than 25 kilowatts. Oh, greater than 25 kilowatts. Um and less than or equal to 250. Yeah. Um okay. >> Hm. [clears throat]
>> But the best has to be greater than or equal to >> best has to be greater than 100 kilowatts. We're missing a Oh, I don't think I can. Yeah. So, let's let's walk through this. This
is a tier two. This is um >> so tier one is under for SPI is under 25 or equal to 25 and for best is under or equal to 100. >> Yeah. >> So tier tier three is bigger than both
tier one and two but tier two is the middle. Um and so for tier two it has to be greater than for SPI greater than 25 but less than two less than or equal to 250. And for best, it has to be
greater than the hundred. That's tier one, but less than or equal to the thousand >> because if you just have the thousand, >> tier one and two intermix, so you have to have that middle. >> Yeah. So, you added greater than 100.
Yeah, >> I added the greater than and I fixed the greater than less than issue. And we're going to fix these capitalizations that are just weird. Um, okay. There we go.
So, we >> KW KW or is that KW one of the >> So, for SPI it's kilowatts and for best it's kilowatt hours for some reason I think. >> Oh, okay. >> I have no idea why. >> Um, it's up here in the best too. I guess they're measured
>> slightly differently. >> Okay. You'd think [laughter] after you'd think after five years we would know this but um okay I did nothing with fences in definitions here I added
small clean energy infrastructure facility and I literally just said as defined in that section. >> Yep. And were we going to add local local authority, local governmental authority?
>> Is that in in the other definitions? >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, these are these are the ones that are these are the ones that are going to to definition 12 or article 12. >> Yes, these are the article 12 ones. And I think that's it.
>> Wow. >> We had >> it looks pretty good. I'm very happy with it. So, >> I mean, I still wonder if we could get those last three sections up in the
upper part, but I I think you've explained why not. So, I'm I'm okay with it. I might look at it one more time before the hearing, but I mean before the planning board meeting, but >> thank you. So, I think >> what are we we are
>> I mean it seems like we're ready to close a hearing, but we can't close it until the planning board does. So, we have to continue it again. Um, >> right. [sighs] >> So, do we need to vote to continue the hearing? >> We would have to leave.
>> We have to vote to continue. >> Yeah. To a to a date specific. So if we look at our calendar, I do believe the uh planning board is on the 5th of August. We have a meeting on the 13th of August,
I think. Yep. Andy's away. I already made that note. [clears throat] >> Um and we would need to >> Could I ask a question?
Mhm. >> Are we expected to join the planning board meeting on the >> 5th? >> Because we did it the last time even though we didn't have a hearing. I'm I'm wondering because if we did and they closed, we could potentially close
>> York >> at that meeting. It' be a joint meeting. >> We both voted at that meeting to recommend we can get it to go by their August 11th meeting. Then >> um >> not that I'm advocating for an extra
meeting, but [laughter] >> well, we might be able to then delete a meeting >> or would it be better for us instead of doing the 13th to try and do August 6th? Um, it's equally
it's equally awkward for me. >> Um, >> go meets August 11th and then they don't have anything scheduled till September 8th. So, they'll if we can't make August 11th, they have to add a meeting.
I can do the 6th. I'm not here on the 13th. >> Oh, so maybe that's an even better reason to do that. Um, so I could send out a message saying we're going to cancel the 13th, but
we're going to hold our our meeting on the 6th. And at least can the three of Can the three of us make that meeting? >> I can make the sixth. >> Okay. at at one o'clock. >> Yeah.
>> Right. >> Um I could I can make it. I'll just make sure I make it. >> Hopefully Jennifer and Alicia can. >> Yeah. >> Um but then we might be able to get
this to go by the 11th. Um, >> yes. >> So, we're we're continuing the hear our hearing till the 6th, but >> but we have to vote. We're trying to decide what day before we make the motion to vote. [laughter] >> But, I mean, yeah. Are we going to sit
down on the planning board meeting or not? We're not, right? >> I mean, I feel like someone should just to explain what was done. Um, >> I will I will try to attend it. >> When is it? The 5th. >> It's that evening. Yeah. 6:30.
>> Yeah. >> All right. I'll put it in my calendar, but I don't know. I I don't know. I One of you are probably better for explaining where we've gone, but I I think I followed it, so I can probably do it
if I had to. >> Yeah. I mean, I think the biggest thing to try and iterate to them is we need to get this out. >> [laughter] >> If if if you're [clears throat] basically done with it, close your hearing and vote. >> It's largely cleaned up, I think. So,
>> um and yeah, because because it goes to the council, there will be an opportunity for people to make comments and there may be, you know, punctuation changes or tweaks that are made within the the council meeting itself.
>> Yeah. >> And that's and that is an opportunity for somebody to Okay. Um I I will communicate with the planning board folks. Um that will
um I I'll I'll try to commit to doing that on the 5th. Again, I'm I am also on vacation now the two several weeks. Several weeks. >> If it makes sense for me to do the fifth, I could do the fifth. Um, I don't
want to stay very long, but I I did do the reorganization. I'm I'm happy to sort of do what I did this time with them. I'm available um for that. Um, >> it could be done quite quickly. >> Yeah, I I could do that on the 5th. Um,
if I know about it and have the invite and all and they want me there. Um but yeah, so >> let's let's communicate that you you could be a panelist. I will certainly try to attend um and I could be there to
answer questions and if you can't make it, you would just send me a text or something and and let me know. >> So we'll ask for panelist. Okay. >> You can ask for me, too. Just >> Okay. Yep.
>> Since I'm around. >> Yep. >> Yeah. We can't probably technically have a quorum there, though. >> Oh, all right. Well, >> if Well, if I'm in the audience, I don't think I count as quorum. >> That's true.
>> Oh, yeah. I could also be in the audience, I guess. So, doesn't really matter. >> Okay. Let we'll communicate that. Um, it seems like August 6th makes the most sense. It certainly would preede um
it would precede go and that's the that's the important one right now. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> And that's on August >> that's that's on August what did you say? 11th >> go.
>> Yes. G is August 11th. >> Okay. So, I would also send an email to um uh to Anna and just say, "Heads up, it is coming. It will be whatever the document that we send out on the 6th."
>> Yeah. I think I would just tell her we won't have it till the 6th, but put it on your 11th agenda. >> Yep. >> Right. Exactly. I'll get it to you on the 6th, but they have to post on they'll probably want to post on the 6th before we meet, but
>> I will I will let her know right away. >> Just put it on the agenda. Um >> yeah, >> that that might clear up. Um that'll help. Um means we might be able to get to this on the 17th.
I will say we're still going to have two meetings in August. Um, we're going to have a 17th and a 31st. Um, I'll update the council on some agendas, but I would love to get this on the 17th instead of the 31st. >> That would be great. That would be great. >> Um, >> could could So, we could have first
reading on the 17th and second on the 31st. >> Um, we could consider it right now. Um, I would probably hesitate from doing that, but but we'll see what ends up on the 31st on how I actually
There's some stuff in the works for the 31st, and I just don't know how I'm going to notice the meeting yet. Um, I think it depends on how much non action items are on that [laughter] >> or action items are on it. like if I can keep action items and votes off of that
meeting, I might get noticed slightly differently than if I have to have votes on that meeting. Um, we're still working on what things there's a potential to add something that has a significant discussion with it. Um, >> so it just might change how it's
noticed, but I'd love to get solar because we could potentially do that or if there's real problems, it gives CRC >> more time to deal with those problems, too. Um, >> right. Right. >> So, okay. So, I'll make a motion to
continue the public hearing to August 6th at 10:05 p.m. >> Second. >> Okay. Pam seconded. Um, so all in favor I'm I'm >> pretty clear. We're all in favor. Okay.
So, um, so we're continuing till the third till the 6th. >> Yep. And I think we've we still don't have any public attendees, so we don't need to do any public comment. Um, there was some quest some some suggestions about future agenda items at
the bottom. Did Pam, did you want to say anything about that? >> At this point, it is clean energy by >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Article 18. I mean, let's keep it we'll just keep it simple for now. >> Okay. And I think that's it.
Move to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh I'm in favor. Pam >> I. >> Mandy. >> I >> Okay. Andy. >> Thank you very much. >> You were able to be here for a lot more
than I thought you were. That's congratulations. >> I put I put him to sleep. >> Wow. Great. Yeah, [laughter] this will do that. All right. Take care. >> That's right. Bye. Thank