friend over lost track of time Okay So we are recording and uh you are ready to go Yep This is uh it is March 27th 2025 This is a regular meeting of the community resources committee of the
town council pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 And hopefully whatever we get for 25 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 So um we need to go around and see
if everyone can be heard Uh I'll start with councelor Hani present Kathy Shane I'm here Pat D'Angelus present Uh Jennifer Tub here And Pam Rooney is
here And I see Chris Breastup's name which is good [Music] Um there are no public hearings scheduled for today and this would be the normal general public comment section But again
I still see zero attendees in the audience So that's great or not great however you want to look at it And uh we can move right into action
items So we have the solar bylaw basis is version 11 that came out of our March 13 discussion and today the focus is on
section 17.05 design guidelines We also have for discussion uh hazmat section We have some um items uh a particular section 6.2 2
fence fences updates as it relates to um uh solar and section 3.39 as it relates to solar And those were two documents that Chris Breastup um emailed to me yesterday and I forwarded them as soon
as I saw it today to you all So if you have not seen it it should be an email from me 2:30 or 3:00 this afternoon And I apologize for not seeing it from Chris yesterday Did anyone else notice it
They're they're fairly short sections and I I think we should have no problem seeing it for the first time anyway And there's Stephanie Cherella Good Chris is having a little bit of a trouble getting on so just letting you know she's coming but
Okay Well we don't we don't want to start without her since she provided some of the information So maybe I'll just talk a little bit about um once we get through that um I want to switch over at about 5:30
to talking about the planning board and CBA process if that works for folks uh in particular the selection guidelines which have been updated with current chair input and then uh interview questions
that we used actually for the last couple of years um are in the packet as well The last item and maybe we can talk the last item now while while Chris is trying to come in is um the interest in
moving to an earlier time of day Pat you mentioned this It had to do with your schedule I think So I've I've jumped way over to item 4 C Yeah I was just wondering and I if we
could start the meeting say at three and go to five or something like that but I didn't I couldn't remember Mandy whether and we didn't want to make a decision without you obviously but I I thought there was a reason that you had that you couldn't do something that early and but
I don't remember enjoying it as well There's no reason I can do three o'clock How do how do other people feel flow in that So I like to I could do three It means I could eat a little earlier maybe
right I can do three Yeah it was gonna help me be able to get to a workshop So so 3 to 5 starting next meeting Is that We can vote on that in just a second I want to double check though with with Dave and with Stephanie
before we commit to something Do you have conflicts I mean hopefully we aren't going to be talking about solar forever Yeah Well faith she um Dave do you have a conflict with three to five Steph No that's that's that's better
better for me Fine for me Yeah that's fine Um I'm going to ask Chris via text while she's still trying to get on Oh great Okay Thank you And I I just I'll say this now while we're waiting for Chris I will miss the next meeting is
the 10th and I will miss it But 3 to 5 we'll miss you 3 to 5 is just fine Okay And so I will make sure that we get that to Athena and Angela so that we can
and I'll make there's Chris And I'll make sure that the um the agenda has the correct time So it will be changing to 300 p.m as of April 10 Great Thank you everybody Do
that Wait a second Can Chris do that Oh yeah Chris Chris Thursday I can do that Okay Can you hear me Yes we can hear you So I'm going to take a quick vote on that I make a motion that we change the meeting
time from 400 pm to 300 pm on the Thursdays that we meet Um is there a second Second D'Angelus Let's take a vote Councelor Hani I Pam Rooney is an I
Kathy Shane yes Jennifer yes Pat D'Angelus yes Okay great We'll we'll change that for next meeting So it'll be it'll be like right in the middle of the afternoon I have to remember to stop gardening and come
inside Okay Chris thank you for joining us Thank Stephanie as well Um I mentioned that I sent along as soon as I saw the notes from you and Stephanie on uh section 6.2 fences and
3.390 on renewable energy I sent them along to folks We will discuss them today but not everybody got a chance to see it because I was so late seeing it and I put it in our SharePoint So it's in SharePoint
already So um we have we have gone through design standards generally um the first the first round when we incorporated staff comments back I don't
know last fall maybe something like that um but I I think we're now sort of poised to um dig back through section
17.05 905 design standards for LGPI and associated BES Um can someone bring that up And I'm going to Sorry I'm really sorry to do this last minute
Um could either councelor Hani or Stephanie do the note takingaking and I apologize for not having confirmed that ahead of time Sorry And while we're talking about
distributed information uh you were also copied um by Steve R ro ROF on uh solar glare and glint which was very in very interesting
Okay timely very timely can we start please um under access roads which is the very first one under 17.05 5 Working backwards just a little
bit I'm suggesting that um that we can utilize some of the information from further down in the document where it talks about [Music] um access [Music]
roads and soils that perhaps we could just incorporate a word or two in this section and get rid of the following And I'll try to remember to highlight that when um when we get to it I wondered if people would be comfortable with the
wording um in that first paragraph shall be planned shall be planned and constructed to minimize grading adding the words compaction after grading or somewhere in there but grading compaction storm water
runoff and that way we can get rid of it further on uh and also the existing farm roads shall be maintained in a stable condition Um there was a question about should we delete this and I think the
intent is to keep existing roadways in reasonable condition more to facilitate uh access in and around the site to minimize compaction and erosion So I was going to add the words existing farm road shall
be maintained in a stable condition where possible May I I can't raise my hand when I'm screen sharing Oh sure I just have to like wave Sorry Shout out shout out I was trying to read the text Yeah No sorry I don't have the the little raise hand button
Um the the gray Yeah um was a potential delete and just put it into the document that we created as we split up the the working group's proposal or information to us
into like bylaw parts and stand uh standard conditions parts for when the permit is granted and things like that the the gray I thought we were putting moving into the standards and conditions more than it's a design standard for
LGPI and BAS and so I thought they were slated to be deleted here completely I don't necessarily have a problem with the where possible addition that that I think you said where possible Um
u I'm going to look to maybe Stephanie or or Chris on that I I understand what you're saying is that is that these could easily be standard conditions Um from a from a Chris or Stephanie standpoint does either Chris
you have your hand up Yeah I think they could easily be conditions Um we just have to remember to put them in our standard conditions which we haven't looked at for a while but Stephanie I can work on that So how about we we leave the wording
right there that we just added where possible and then make a note rather than delete If we could just say these items uh move to standard conditions it's there under the delete I can't I can't delete Stephanie's delete comment
without deleting the other comment So that's why they're both there Okay that's good That's good That's good documentation Great Okay Um I we had to revisit whether it was necessary for the stuff in pink from probably a prior conversation in October Um planned and
constructed to minimize grading you added compaction storm water runoff removal Um have we decided whether it's necessary to have that versus just the compliance with local and state design standards and regulations
Chris I think it's a good idea to leave it in here It's kind of a reminder instead of having people having to go back and look at all the other standards I wonder if Stephanie agrees with me I do
I think I would agree as well because it's a it's a reminder to treat the sites with some sensitivity I think the the design standards for roads uh local and state highway standards are you know must be 25 ft wide with curbs and
drainage catch basins etc So this is really more suited to its use as a as sort of access roads within a construction site Any any concerns about keeping this in here If if not we can delete those
comments and they can and the comment will stay I'm I think I'm the one that had concerns I'm still not thrilled with it but I'm willing to move on So resolved Resolved
Thank you Okay And thanks for reminding because yeah it's it's actually green on my copy So I was trying to figure out what what pink what pink you were looking at Sorry I think Stephanie on mine until I opened it today used to be like purple or
something So seeing gray is different too Um the next item is fencing And I wonder if we have um Chris perhaps you could could
um What the heck's going on Sorry If you could um explain what you are suggesting here on there's been a lot of discussion over the years that we've been working on this about whether um something about
fencing should be in this part of the bylaw or whether we should add it to article What is it Article six of the zoning bylaw which deals with dimensional standards and fencing And I convinced myself over the weekend that we could um
put it into um the standards uh the section six of fencing dimensional requires requirements and fencing So the wording that I came up with I think is
here on the screen I just put it on the screen It's totally not where I'll put it but I thought I'd put it right next to the fencing here It needs to go some It needs to go at the end of the document I know that it can't be plucked into this middle but I thought seeing the two next to each other might be helpful Perfect Thank you A section in
the fence um in the Yeah in section six of the zoning bylaw that talks about fencing And I thought this might be a good place to put the requirements for um fencing around solar installations So the first one is section 6.24 and I
would change the name of that to height of fences I think now it's just called fences And so section 6.240 would state fences and walls other than those exempted by section 6.22 or
those associated with uh LGPI or BESS shall not exceed four feet in height along the front lot line And this is just standard So there's really no other change than saying this only applies to things that don't have
to do with solar That's what section that's what the first section is saying Then the second section 6.241 says fences associated with solar installations large scale ground mounted solar installations or battery energy
storage systems shall not exceed 8 ft in height unless otherwise approved by the PGA Razor fences are prohibited And then we say the bottom of the fence shall be a minimum of eight inches off the ground to allow for wildlife crossing under the
fence I had a little explanation of why I thought um we should allow taller fences to be approved by the PGA because uh we do have an an instance on Sunderland Road I
think it's 515 Sunderland Road where um a bees uh was approved and it was fairly large and as part of the approval um the zoning board approved a 16 foot high
fence around that installation and um so you know they really need to be given the leeway to approve whatever is appropriate for the particular installation but the default maximum height would be 8 ft So this is the
language I'm suggesting So we would take anything having to do with fencing out of the uh solar bylaw and we would put it into article six of the um the rest of the bylaw the standard bylaw So do people understand this Do
you have any questions I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to call in Jennifer with her hand up Um yeah this might be I don't know I must be missing something But why would there be a maximum established Cuz I
could certainly imagine a case where either the the sol you know the provider or the abuters might want a higher fence So I'm just wondering what's the thinking behind you know having a height that the
exception be to be higher I could almost see requiring it to not be lower than a certain amount So I just need some clar for my own edification I'm asking well generally speaking the way our fence bylaw works is it limits the
height of fences So in my opinion it seems worthwhile to state what a maximum height would be and that would be 8 ft And that accommodates some of the fencing that we've seen around solar installations Stephanie probably
remembers what it was around the one that's on the landfill and I remember some installations have had seven foot high fences I think more recently they might have wanted to um install 8ft high fences So that's generally speaking what
we see and the outlier is this um bees installation on Sunderland Road which by the way hasn't been constructed yet So it gives the default number of 8 ft but then allows the permit granting authority to make adjustments to that if
they feel that a particular instance requires a higher fence I I certainly think we should allow for a higher fence I was just Yeah So thank you for asking why we man Councelor Hani So I added the yellow
here which so when it copied over just to remind me I had a comment about that part the solar installations large scale ground mounted we don't use a definition of solar installations anywhere no in the solar bylaw or otherwise and so I
feel like this would be unless the intention is to go to have 6.241 241 apply to smallcale solar installations too I would get rid of the word stool solar installations and say fence is
associated with LGPI or bees like it was done up above Yep Yep And if if not here then they should be the same no matter no matter what we pick Yes
And while you're doing that I I had a thought um relative to the height uh the bottom of the fence shall be a minimum of 8 in off the ground I wondered if it would be um smart to include something
relative to agra voltaics here Um so that's again that's within the fences realm section 6.2 too rather than in the in a fencing detail um dealing with agravaics And that might
be a sentence something like agotaic installations may adjust the distance from the ground based on proposed crops or somehow we build in flexibility to in particular instances to allow
um to keep the woodchucks out basically if someone has better wording um but it's it's not that the so It's it's height above ground right Can I just ask do we have a separate
section called a Yeah we have requirements for agro vote of so but it has a title you know where we go I believe it does Yeah it's been 1706
So I'm just asking because it might be cleaner for to say to say for agro vote see 7 what wherever it is rather than
have the agra people have to look here rather than it you know just to cross reference it Good question Chris I think what we were trying to do was consolidate everything about fences into one place Okay So Chris then I take it
back what I just said Yeah Okay So what was the wording that was suggested Um and I'm I'm very open to better wording I just had agic installations may need to adjust the distance from the ground based on proposed crops or crop
protection because you don't want the critters running across for for crop protection So if you just do unless other what Mandy just did that works to me unless otherwise approved by the uh Oh there
you go Yeah Okay I mean I guess my question is should we specifically call out Agravalttaics or just leave it with unless otherwise approved by the PGA I think we can leave it otherwise in if you put agravalttaics in after that
that's the only you could argue that that was the only reason that only agravalttaics could have a change of the 8 in whereas maybe in a situation there might be non-aggravoltaics that might want to
change in the 8 in I like Mandy's suggestion Yes Chris Sorry Oh sorry Lower hand And I agree with Mandy's suggestion as well Yeah I think that's I I do too I
think that's fine So with this addition I'm going to pardon all the scrolling I'm going to cut it out and move it to the bottom of this document Um is all of fencing getting deleted or only
What what part of the fencing section here is getting deleted I think all of that section can get deleted Do we do we do we need to remind people that um the need for fencing is it's not a given It's really for the security of
the property Do we want to just um keep that I think the owners are usually very concerned about the security of the property Okay Want to have a fence I don't I don't need to keep fencing in That's right
Great Good Thank you Chris for that addition Okay let's move on to the Oops There we go Okay now we're into glare So given some of the reading that was sent to us
[Music] from a former member of the working group I believe um it seems like it's you're trying to minimize the ocular impact not necessarily
the glare Yeah we we talked about this Um but maybe it needs to be more in the glare analysis section of of filings or submittal requirements about what the glare analysis should be determining
Whether you know it's not necessarily the amount of reflectivity that matters it's the ocular impact at eye height essentially that matters whether it's getting focused at a certain level Um so I don't know whether this
needs rewritten to better indicate and describe what um what we're seeking to minimize with these U Chris I I'm afraid I didn't see the
information that was sent um by the former member of the solar B working group Is that in the resources section of the um uh let's see I think I just it just came in this afternoon It came in Yeah as a public comment basically Oh so I should
Did it come to me will I will forward it to both you and Stephanie Okay And I need it Yeah I'm It's very hard to deal with things when we don't get them So or we don't see them because we're not all
looking at our emails or anything else People I totally get it Yeah Which is which is I'm finding this a bit frustrating Well no I mean it literally came in a couple of hours ago but I guess councelor Hanniki looked at read it so referred to Well that doesn't mean I can because Yeah Right Right No we
know I haven't read it either I just saw it I wonder if we just want to leave glare for later given all the fine Yep That would be fine Um uh lighting
Pam can I just make a point of clarification Yeah Um just I know that a few times Steve's been referred to as a member of the solar bylaw working group He's not a member of that group Um he is a member of the energy and climate action
committee Yes Been representing uh that committee in these meetings Thank you Yes Thank you I think I said I think it was but thank you for the clarification I just wanted to be clear Thanks Yeah Appreciate that Um so we're
looking at lighting and there was a question about the word reasonably screened I would I would ask um we have we have adopted dark sky compliant fixtures for planning
board standards Right We we have them for zoning board of appeals There's the end of the zoning board of appeals rules and regulations and generally speaking they just require some kind of a um a shield to be placed
on the backside of the light to um screen house houses and different uses like that But it could also be um an LED light that's just shining directly down And I see councelor Hankey's hand up and she's um kind of an expert on lighting
so she may have more um to add to this conversation Councelor Hani I have a complete rewrite request if if it's okay if I just put the whole rewrite on the screen Sure
Um and and I've got a So here's before you do that Um so I also have a complete rewrite for screening and planting Shall I send it to you So you had one and I think I might have one I know I have one for screening and planting So let let's start with this one If if you want to
send the screening one I'll see if I can and if if it's different than mine I'll see if I can pull it from an email but Okay Yeah I think sticking with lighting for now So um this is the three sentences here One
of the middle sentence the lighting shall be dark sky compliant fully shielded and not trespass on adjacent properties or public ways is the same sentence that is used multiple times in the zoning bylaw um in various sections I wouldn't be able to directly point you to one right now but I pulled that part
from other Ammerst zoning bylaw lighting language Um the color temperature is is sort of a rewrite of the bright white light H hallogen fluoresence not be used to just say this is the max color temperature which is an it it's sort of
a a warm white temperature Um and you can go lower And the first sentence is sort of a a um the safety It's it's adding the safety and in but um trying to bring in
a standard of we don't want lights on when people are not there Um and therefore we know that people might be there at night but in general these shouldn't need lighting at night because people are not doing work on them at
night and visiting solar installations or best at night but you could control them through motion sensors or something like that if people are there Um but trying to say let's minimize when these lights are on um was sort of my goal of
this rewrite So bring some sort of in in consistency with other language use in the bylaw and then a little bit new updated use of lighting thoughts Chris I
agree with counselor Haneki but I wonder if we could add a proviso that um for emergency situations brighter light may be necessary or something like that because I can imagine um you know if there's an emergency and the fire department needs to come out there they
may need to use brighter light in order to have light on the proper place that they need it Just like when a workman comes into your house he brings one of those things on a on a stand and it's you know extremely bright So can we put something in here um that in that allows
for emergency situations So I I don't have a problem trying to craft something I'm curious how that would be Um this is the bylaw with the special permit So if it's temporary lighting in
emergency situations how is is that dealt with in other parts of the bylaw like that too No No So I guess I'm not I'm struggling to understand how you would look at that during a permit granting hearing So in
other words an emergency situation is just that and it is not covered by the bylaw That's what you're saying right That's that's that's my question like like temporary lighting Is that covered in special permits normally No it isn't So I agree with you now that you've
explained what you're thinking Pat And then Kathy Okay Uh I'm seeing that except for lighting necessary for site security and safety um not just of employee of the actual whether employees or visitors
that seems to me to cover an emergency situation Yes Concerned about the level of lighting that might be necessary in emergency because you would incre Yeah but you're talking temporary use of it
Um I have a I have a thought about uh let's see Kathy you had your hand up I thought Pat said exactly what I was going to say I I think that wording on uh security and safety the safety is something has happened and we need light
Um absolutely You know I I would interpret that broadly So I think that wording covers it And I'm trying to think of the solar installation up here by the golf course There's not much lighting at all at night when you go by
it You know it's um so to the extent Chris your example to the extent something happened people would have to bring the lights in right You know they'd have to they'd have to know they're going to a dark a
dark field You know there might be little central lights Um I'm going to take a very quick break to feed my dog I'll be right back I can I can hear her Um I would I would like to look at the um um after the safety and security
because I think that's perfect Um I I don't feel any need to um direct them to one type of of system or another In fact because I I frequently have my um motion sens sensor
light go on in the backyard because mama bear comes in with her two cubs Um I think we don't we don't need to have these lights triggered all the time by motion Um I think I would rather you know have it so somebody who for security reasons comes and knows where
to turn on the light If does that does that still meet your needs Yeah I I I was trying to figure out and and this is where I was just what I was trying to figure out is outside of normal hours there should be no lighting
unless there's someone working there or visitors there you know like except if that's the case and and you might want to install some permanent lighting that that can go on at that time right I as you said some solar installations might
not have any lighting installed and then that part wouldn't come in because you'd have to bring in temporary But if you're installing permanent lighting that that is supposed to be off outside of business hours but for whatever reason needs to come on at some point because of an employee needing to work overnight
because something happened right and something went down and they're they're dealing with it overnight um or the the security purpose is to you know you hear a lot of times well we need the lights on overnight so that we can see if someone is trespassing right
and that's where the motion sensor came in of well if it's motion sensor you'll be able to see it because if they're not moving and the lights are off you know no one's there um so I was trying to figure out some wording of how do you say it should be off except when someone's there
overnight and and all is sort of what I was trying to at Y Jennifer Um no I agree with what councelor Hannik is saying but I but to your point Pam a motion sensor may trigger all
kinds of activity that you don't want The lights always going on Our raccoon raccoon Yeah Yeah The neighbors if they can see this light the neighbors would get pretty annoyed with the raccoons Yeah Now what
Which lighting shall be activated when persons are on premises What if we just left it off and left it to the to the guidance of the PGA with allowance with allowance by PGA
for means and methods or something like that Yeah because it's hard for it to be triggered just by a person It could also be Right No I I completely get that We Yeah Yeah Everyone's got that problems with the motion sensors Um I'm just
trying to figure out how do we indicate that we really only want the lights on if people are on the property Maybe we could use in uh for except for lighting necessary for periodic site security And that that implies that it's
not permanent Site security and maintenance Dan Yeah I and maintenance I think it's it's all there in the and safety of employees I don't think we need to say that it goes on and off through motion
detectors obvious lighting should be it when somebody's there the lights are on Well I'm I'm worried that someone will come in and say well for security purposes we need it on all night because then we can tell someone's there or not Oh I yeah I heard you say that That's what I'm
worried about That That's a lot of times what car dealerships say is is the typical easy reference of why car dealership lights are on all night Um because we need people to be able to see what's going on on the lot right Um when no one's there And I really don't want
lights on solar installations all night What if you what if you'd left off then um lighting necessary for the safety of employees and visitors That implies that there's a person involved Period Chris do you think that would get our
intention across to the permit granting authority that we really don't want lights on at all Yes And I think they would agree with you And I also think applicants would agree with you because what they tell us is that these sites are fairly inert that nothing happens
there and so they are not intending to light the sites um and they would only light them under uh you know what what do you want to call it a requirement of a permanent granting body So this seems
to work really well I think So we're all in agreement that the original sentence that's now crossed out um has been resolved and replaced Good Okay So it sounds like both um councelor Hani
and councelor Rooney had thoughts about screening and planting and I reorganized Um the information is essentially there but there are several paragraphs that that I propose just cutting
out bringing a word or two around so that the intent is captured and um anyway so let's see we have two different versions I think man you have one as well Yeah Um let me put mine up
and then I will be slowly adding yours in because I think you did yours not in track changes so I have to pull just the non lined part Right Um I have a question to others Do do would you rather read both versions ahead of time
and then come to it or is this too tedious to be cutting and pasting because we could we can put this off for another time if if it makes it easier for us all One thing I might be able to do is add both versions into the
comment section for the next version Okay That they're all there Okay Would would that be satisfactory to people I I think that would be helpful Okay
I'm going to make a note and then it'll come in at the end of the meeting when I clean it up That put us on to signage Yeah let's go to signage Um so you want to talk about this I sure um there's a need for some reference to
signage particularly with regard to what is there and better stay away from it and these particular things are dangerous and so signage that relates to um safety I think is really important
Um other people talk about signage that is related to teaching the public about such an installation So um you might want to have some language in here This this was taken from some other bylaw or except it does refer to our article 8
But um anyway if you wanted to come up with some language about stay away from this and don't touch that Um and also kind of a what do they call it Um not promoting but educational materials I forget
Um that's interpretive interpretive signage That's right Yes Is there anything in there that you want to put in about either of those topics If if um the note that was done back in October says that um state fire code
requires certain signage for I guess it's for emergency shut off procedures or whatever Um I guess we have that that base covered Um could we say something like Oh sorry I didn't see your hand Um
council Hicki you can go on um that if it said something like uh contact phone number of the installation owner or op operator um additional signage um with permission from the PGA only or something like that
Mandy so I'm looking at the the sign bylaw which this defaults to um which has general standards and then it has different standards for different districts and most of these
installations would fall under the standards for residential districts because that's mostly where the size of the lots are that could go here Um and so my question is are the standards in residential
districts um the standards we want to use for insert cuz for example if I'm reading this right it says no more than two signs pertaining to the use um can be used and it's hard to this um
and that the combined total square area of those signs clearly visible from any point off the premises shall exceed 12 square ft only under certain permits if I read it correctly So you wouldn't only allow two signs to fit all of whatever
information you want Um but if you're thinking of putting one on every side of the fencing that's clearly going to be more than two signs So I know I argued for keeping you know referencing other sections there but I wonder if given that these might end up in
different districts if we want to potentially be more specific and override some of the stuff in article 8 Let's go to Chris Breastup She had her
hand up that she may have a response I think that's a good direction to move in to come up with some language that allows more flexibility for these types of installations rather than adhering to article 8 which is very restrictive So for now can we just sort of cross out
shall comply with bylaw article 8 basically the first the first sentence I'm wondering if we just need a rewrite of the whole thing Yeah we do Yes Yes I'll make a note and think about
it We're making good progress So I'm going to resolve these other ones cuz we're just going to rewrite the whole thing Yep Super Are we moving on We are moving on to
slopes and soils Did anyone have any problems with this I had some ideas in here Um there was a question to the right that said you know is this for existing or proposed So I thought we
should perhaps put in LG at the very first sentence LGPIs shall not be installed on existing slopes greater than 15% To be very clear you don't start with something and then make it worse or
start with something and try to regrade it Do we need the explanation of what 15% means No I don't Nope Some people get it confused with degrees
Mhm Some people say 15 degrees instead of 15% Yeah And so that's I think why we put that in there but we don't really need it Um this is this is one of the things where that came from another section and
it was on it was number five on page 10 that I'm suggesting Um let me just read it out loud and see if it makes sense here Minimize So we're talking about soils on slopes um minimize soil disturbance during con during construction including grading
compaction soil removal and soil replacement And that that would that would be let's see I thought we had that at another place that that's right here on page 10 You're suggesting move it up to design requirements
Uh yes because right now it only applies to farm prime farm Exactly Exactly And all and then that second this number five it it was actually number five that I was looking at but but both but both are
appropriate and could be incorporated So you're suggesting remove these from here Yeah and and put them up above Yep Yep And I'm you know it's it's not clear where we use numbers one two and three
and where we don't use any for it It's not cleaned up for Yeah how this would read at all yet So this made from my perspective it made sense to talk about minimizing soil disturbance here under slopes and soils
and that any soil replacement shall be clean So that next red paragraph shall be clean and without contamination by hazardous substances Period What was your other one Um this in that second red paragraph it would the the
thing would stop after the words contamination by hazardous substances Period I don't know I would I would have to ask Chris and Stephanie do you know does DPW actually approve or somebody from conservation
approve uh the import of of materials I can jump in It's just um with the conservation commission it's one of the things that they review um at a project site in terms of conditions They would um explicitly require clean fill So it
is something that they do look at Okay So can we just leave it as approved by the Ammeris Department of Public Works or just um period maybe period after hazardous substances and and the jurisdiction goes
to whoever whoever's jurisdiction it is to the PGA Yeah So if you go to the next just look at the next paragraph The last sentence says "Offsite soils shall not be imported unless improved by the PGA."
All right Oh yeah There you go Is that enough Sorry No I I think Yeah Do we even need this at all if we keep this offsite soils sentence Oh right Um
no Uh um um Dave Chris and then Dave I think you know you're talking about something that happens during um permitting and then you're talking about something that else happens um during
construction So I think I don't see a role for the PGA in approving um the import of soils unless it's just quantity And I think that they do have the ability to approve quantity There's a section I think it's 3.21 or 3.12 in
the zoning bylaw that talks about that Um so you could say off-site soils shall not be imported unless approved by the PGA as to quantity or something but the PGA isn't going to look at the quality of the soils or whether they're contaminated or whether they have
invasive species in them or anything like that Yeah that answers my question Then both are necessary is what I just heard So it would be would it be offsite soils shall not be imported unless the
quantities are approved by PGA Yeah you could say that Yep Can I just jump Sorry Yeah go ahead Yeah know I agree with Chris's comment about the quantities but also Kathy is right we we do need both because one you know
many projects are going to require off-site soils so you you know even though you may have stockpiles they may not be the right kinds of soils or you still may need to bring on you know um additional soils so I think we need both
um I'm not exactly sure who's going to approve those yes in certain circumstances you know near or adjacent to wetlands you know that might be conservation the conservation agent but in situations where it's not near
wetlands That might be something that you know Stephanie or Chris could reach out to Jason Skills and and and DPW because I know you know DPW is is listed here Mandy has her hand up Sorry Thank you
Thank you Pat Um I'm I had interpreted Chris's comment differently actually than than the other committee members are I interpret it as this where I'm adding this comment this entire sentence about the invasive
invasive species and importation of soils was inappropriate and not needed for the zoning bylaw cuz PGA's don't get into that it's the conservation commission and others that get into it
Um so maybe I interpreted that wrong So I guess my question is did I interpret that wrong Um such that Chris was saying this sentence could be deleted Um or is and then my next question is if the PGA does get into it is it better to be a
condition of a permit not within this That's a question Yeah I'll give her a minute That's that's good Um let me go to Jennifer and then you two can think about it So I'm just if it's not the permit
granting authority because they really have no way to know about soils do they or do they confer or do they just refer it to like DPW if it's not because the conservation commission would only address it if it's wetlands related
So I I guess what I'm wondering is it does it have to be in the bylaw or is that something Well I guess it would I mean so the PGA knows they need to I mean some I guess what I'm asking is does anything else trigger them
referring this to the proper body that has the expertise but it needs to be there that somebody is weighing in on whether the soils are acceptable to be transported there
Yeah thanks Chris So um usually in the specifications that go along with a set of con construction documents there are specific requirements about soils um that can be imported into the site And then there's usually someone on the site
who actually tests the soil to find out if it's what is being required by the specifications And often that's an owner's you know geotechnical engineer or testing company or something like that So the owner wants to be assured
that what's coming onto the site is good material and will be compacted Um I guess I'm not sure what the role of the public works department is and whether they actually come on you know private property to
check on this I think probably the building commissioners people might do that Um but maybe Dave knows a little bit more about this than I do No I think you're headed in the right direction Chris I think it's probably more I'm leaning more toward the building
department than public works Mhm Could we um could we resolve it this way and just leave it as any imported soil replacement material should be clean and without contamination by hazardous substances and the rest of it it will go to whichever jurisdiction
it needs to go to and we don't need to specify it here But it's it it feels important to to at least note under the soil category that we don't accept hazardous substances
Chris that makes sense Oh I'm sorry Forgot to lower my hand That's okay I have two comments I'm not sure why we're not including invasive species Um I I don't want soils coming in here that have invasive plant matter in them that
might grow up and bring something here that we don't have So I'm I'm curious Pam why you are proposing deleting the invasive species reference And then my second question which has nothing to do with that comment is this section in yellow I I'm not quite understanding why
it's here and wondering if it can be deleted Well can we hold one second and go back to invasive Yeah let's go back to the invasive first because it should be there because this was this was taken from the farmlands section And I'm not saying it has to be replaced back there
I'm not disagreeing with where it is but we definitely don't want invasive species uh if possible um being read added to farmland and stuff like that Um so I don't think it should be coming out
but I this approved by from a I think there needs to be some reference and we can confirm it and come back to it that there is an approval process because we're all talking about there is whether it's the building inspector So we can come back to that
part and now Manda you can go to 17.0 Hold on No let's Well let let So let me give my explanation of why I was going to take it out And that is that we we had a brief discussion about the fact that you don't really know what's in the soil You don't know what seeds are in
the soil So I you know I order a load of compost And I put it on my garden All of a sudden I have all these little shoots and and whatever is coming up that I had never had before It's clearly come from the compost material that I bought And
um you don't know when you buy something if it has you know it has it has ragweed seeds in it or you name it It would be generally speaking if you're buying commercial compost whether it's at the garden store or in larger quantities
isn't that um sterilized first And I don't No no no I bought it at I bought it from Wagner's and I got you know a dumpload truck dumped into my pickup and Chris has got her hand up Chris I agree
with that it would be impossible to have soil Okay actually know if there were invasive species in there because you know it's seeds or little pieces of of material that could eventually grow So I think that would be really difficult to
figure out and it does come in big dump trucks and you wouldn't know whether the seed was dropped from bird poop later Right Now on to number the yellow the yellow section I think that was a reminder that there was also a sub that there was a
submitt requirement and that we didn't want to be redundant So can we delete the yellow section I think so And we can resolve it too So it doesn't have to show up as a track change Well it won't when I send the
clean version on for the next thing Okay Okay Utilities Stephanie and I had a conversation with STO the other day about the Aven power line interaction committee and we think that might be something that was brought in from California Yeah And that it may
not be necessary here I don't think there are going to be a lot of big um high stansions with wires on them and most of the solar comfortable deleting it so we could delete it Yeah
Yep I agree that it's probably from California Vertical clearance This is an important one because allows um machinery to move move around underneath it but it also keeps it from
being too high So 10 ft is the maximum height down to the bottom of the solar panel that's being allowed here And any height that's greater than 10 ft has to be approved by the permit granting authority And that could be for reasons of wanting to have aggravaic equipment
moving around underneath But you don't want every single installation to be uh higher than 10 ft Not that I think applicants would do that because it would be expensive So I think this is a reasonable um a reasonable statement to
have in here And Chris it it seems to limit the the upper the upper elevation if you will but it doesn't you know it could also be that um a panel is 4 in from the ground Is that correct Well it
says the lowest vertical clearance of the solar array Oh the lowest elevation of 10 feet or less So it could be 2 in because that would be 10 feet or less It just can't be The lowest vertical clearance can't be more than 10 feet
unless it's approved by the permit granting authority Mandy Mandy I had a hard I think I had to read this like three or four times to figure out what it was actually doing So if people bear with me I rewrote it for clarity
And if people think what's there is clearer I didn't try to change anything but I I tried to rewrite it I think that works really well Yes
Chris and can I ask you a question um looking at the um do er model weren't there a limit Weren't they saying you couldn't um limit height
Who said you couldn't limit height I'm trying to uh I don't know if I'm going to find it Uh you can't have unreasonable limitations on these things but I think
reasonable limitation but you are c never mind all right well Pat it does allow for it says greater than yes it's fine to approve a greater one yeah that seems a little clearer I I have another question as I try to make
sure that this is clear and and we know what we're talking about um so a lot of pan you know it used to be that when solar pan panel fields were and installations were done They were fixed fixed mounted and
so saying the lowest part of it cuz they'd be fixed at an angle and they'd be fixed everywhere And so having something like this made sense because the panels were never moving So referencing the panel um as the measurement height made sense
But now that I think about it with the panels constantly on a rotating base now almost all new installations I think are sun tracking installations Um should we be referencing the height
of the mounting base the top of the mounting base instead of for that measurement instead of the lowest part of the panel Chris and then Pam I think the way you is to say that for a panel that does move that when it's in its position
where it has a a a lowest um point to the bottom of the panel that would be the the place where you would measure it And then the fact that later on in the afternoon it's higher than that I think that would be okay Okay that's the way I
would interpret this Great Visual impact We have one one Oh Dave Sorry Chris I just wanted to follow up um on that last the the solar panel from the ground to the lowest part of the install panel shall be at an elevation
of 10 ft or less I guess what I'm wondering is you know are are we in a position to I'm thinking of the solar installation out at Hickory where the
panels are are now going on going on the the the mount the pole they're being pole mounted now And to Mandy's point about you know they they're all tracking now They track you know east to west Um are
there you know how much how much flexibility does the solar uh the owner of the solar installer have in in that height You know in other words are there are there products that simply must be
higher I just don't know the answer to that I don't know enough about solar So I'm just wondering that might be something we we research a little bit You know do do we prescribe that lowest
point if I'm reading this right I'm I'm going to try to respond to that My understanding of the height is that when you have rain runoff there and Stephanie probably has a better answer but the rain runoff you know over 10
feet you start to really get erosion and scouring from water dripping off those panels Um Stephanie am I am I correct on that Yeah And that wasn't going to be my point but um that that is true But I was
also thinking that it's also got to do with maintenance of underneath the panels Um because you want to keep vegetation low So there's going to be maintenance that's prescribed for the site as well So I think that was also part of the height limitation It's not
just about the panels themselves but also the maintenance too Gotcha Okay I mean it it if I think about maintaining panel that is lower than 10 ft you're now talking about hand
equipment that that has to go in and do the maintenance Um so I mean it sounds like it's kind of up to the developer on the style they that they want to to um request or install and it's up to them
that we're trying to set a limit of how high it is Not necessarily for their for their benefit but sometimes just for the um knowing that it will be maintained properly and knowing that we aren't going to incur a lot of
erosion because I think that's one of the bigger the bigger issues is that erosion scouring There was something in the in the um agotic section I think too on the scouring It's or actually in the water supply protection the next the next thing we get
to can we move on everybody okay with that generally I I don't disagree that maybe we it needs a little bit more research um I'm sure somebody from the um working group probably could set us straight in about two seconds but they
aren't here let's go to visual So I agree with Stephanie's comment here that I would like to delete this part We do have something about visual impact in the submittal
requirements We have a requirement that they submit something about um an analysis of the visual impact I would delete it there too but well not there but here I think deleting it here
is fine Uh this is also a place where um the state gets very antsy Um so I don't think it should be there at all here It's a pretty bland statement saying that it's you know to the greatest
extent feasible You try to I mean we talk a little bit about screening and planting to to do just that Maybe maybe it's already covered in under screening and planting Um u Kathy and then Jennifer I
would delete it It it it it it's not meaningful and it's not uh health or safety Right That's right I mean I think we've got to structure
this I mean when we get through the messiness to try to clean it up you know to have a clear what things have been added that are healthy and safety and what are you know just trying to make sure that this thing is well designed doesn't blow up you know um you know
right Good Jennifer I agree I think we should have screening and shading but I think this is also in the eyes of the beholder What right What they feel about the visual impact Sounds like it's gone
So now this next section your hand's still up Oh sorry If it's definitely don't gone could we just remove it it it will be removed in the next draft Yes Okay Thanks Mary No I will the the
way I do things is I keep the draft of what we do and then when the next one comes out and I mark it discussed at meeting and the next one comes out clean with all those changes accepted That's fine Thank you Good good question Um where does this version this marked up
version get stored So I normally send both of them to you and yeah you sometimes only post the clean sometimes you post both right Okay Yeah I'll try to make a point to do both Thank you So this next section um
are sort of health and safety requirements Um I just want to keep in mind you know we're we're thinking of design standards What are the design standards that we need to request Um and and most of these
I think comply but let's go through them Um I don't know why they're yellow I think this was an earlier maybe added originally perhaps by Chris Is that correct I still have problems getting rid of half the yellow on here but I do it when I clean it up but I don't know
why It's permanent yellow It kind of is It's not a highlight because when I say unhighlight it it doesn't do anything Yeah You have your hand You have your hand up for another reason Okay I do Um I have some general comments about this
Um the zoning bylaw has a water protection district section and an aquafer recharge protection district section And I'm curious whether you know Stephanie has some points over here
about definition of water supply protection area and all of that Um I'm curious whether we should pick one of those districts that those districts have a lot of sort of requirements for protecting water supply for any building in those those sort of districts And I'm
my question is would it make more sense to reference one or both of those districts and say those requirements apply to all LGPIs or certain parts of those requirements and and I looked up some
that might make sense to incorporate but they they apply to all LGPI whether located in the district or not something like that where we're just sort of saying we've already written water protection requirements we're incorporating them to
apply to this so that we don't have to go through and rewrite stuff That's a that's a good point Uh a thought that goes through my head is if I think of I think of Northeast Ammerst I don't know that they are in a
water supply protection area So we would want to make sure that whatever we do applies to both within and and outside of Chris I wanted to point out that um the water supply protection zone is very small and
it's just right around the Atkins reservoir So it is up in northeast Ammerst but it's it's very small and it does have some particular requirements but they're mostly related to like residential development And then the aquafer recharge protection and that
protects surface water obviously because it's Atkins reservoir Then there's the aquifer recharge protection district in South Ammerst that um protects Lawrence swamp and that's really protecting water that's below ground So those are two different kinds of things So I think
what would be a good idea and I'll volunteer to do this and work with Stephanie is to compare the requirements of the water supply protection zone the aquifer recharge protection zone and
these things that are written here And there's another section that's like one page later or maybe it's two pages later that's pretty much the same stuff all over again and winnow it down to what makes sense And does that make sense And we could bring it back to you next time
we meet Yes Okay Yes it does Pat Yes it does Thank you That does make sense Chris I do have one question though because we're talking about um water you know aquifer protection and and specific areas but what about uh houses where the
water supply is wells it's not you know um um hooked up to the sore system So is there any are there any of these conditions very specifically that
um address the issue of wells to how do we protect that water supply On page 11 um we haven't gotten there yet under protection of drinking water supplies there is a limitation on where you can place um LGPIs with regard to private
wells So when we get there we can think about I mean that's something that we're going to try to um combine into with the business what's on page 11 I don't see it on page 11 but it's section 17.10
Okay It's further on Yeah it's basically exactly the same Yeah Yeah Gotcha Yeah Good Good catch So So Chris thank you So you're going to compare water supply protection requirements aquafer protection areas and section 17.10
Yeah 17.10 and whatever this one that we're looking at now Thank you Chris And it it occurs to me just off the top of my head that much this might end up as a as a beefed up section 17.10 10 Yes Yeah
Okay Great And definitely don't need to do it twice Thank you Okay Um Oh here's here's the gray So um Council Hanicki you're talking about you
know the heights of of these panels Um there there's the thing about the erosion and scouring along the drip line that had caught my attention as far as elevations of those panels
I mean you could potentially for now move you know right now up above we have 10 feet or less heights greater than 10 feet shall be approved by the PGA Um and shall use best best management practices
Yep Yeah that's great Yeah something like that Yeah that's perfect And I think those Stephanie's right that both of them are now covered somewhere else Yep Super So we have gotten through 17
roughly through 17.05 Um I just want to keep an eye on the time because I want to talk briefly about uh I want um Chris to talk about her use chart um which is section
3.39 before we end up switching over to talk about ZBA and planning board appointments So if people would bear with me if we could switch over to Chris now and talk about that that'll probably take us to about 5:30
So if someone else could share that chart that would be helpful because I'm hopeless at sharing my screen Hold on This is the Excel chart Yeah please I had submitted a different version of this previously I think we'd had pretty much special permit all across the way
and I rethought it um this past weekend and decided to go a different uh a different route and I wanted to talk to you about it Um and also I think I've talked to um councelor Hani about this before Um
there are principal uses here which is the LGPI and the bees as principal uses That's where they um you know stand alone and aren't connected to any other kind of use Then we have accessory uses
like the solar array on the Hampshire College campus which is an accessory use to the use of the campus as an educational institution So I'm going to come up with some language to talk about that in the accessory use section So what we're looking at here is a new
proposed part of the uh use category chart in the zoning bylaw that deals with principal uses And um I spoke with uh Rob Mora the building commissioner about this and he suggested that we come up with a new um section and call it
renewable energy uses So that's what I'm I'm proposing here Um so the uses are down the left hand side of the page and the types of zoning districts are across the top of the page Um so what I'm suggesting here is
generally where we think um largecale uh groundmounted solar will go is in large zoning districts that have a lot of land associated with them Um and we are not expecting them to be proposed in some of
our smaller districts that are already heavily developed So that's one of my reasons for um having the no in certain places So um starting at the left hand side of the page in the residential outlying and residential low density
zoning district which is you know areas like along Bay Road or um Orchard Valley you know uh neighborhood or a lot of Hampshire College property A lot of it is in South Ammerst but we have some in
in North Ammerst and East Ammerst and West Um but it's a pretty big they are pretty big zoning districts and a lot of the land is undeveloped So that seems like a place where it would be reasonable to expect solar arrays to go
Um I'm sort of wedded to the idea of having these be approved by special permit I'm not sure that's going to fly with the state government because these are not supposed to be unreasonably regulated and um councelor Hanaki may have
something to say about that But that would be my first suggestion that in the large residential zoning districts R O RLD and then RN which is residential neighborhood and that would be like Echo Hill and I think uh Ammerst Woods and
then RVC which is a small residential area clustered around um the village centers that we allow these largecale installations but allow them by special permits so they can be carefully um carefully looked at and reviewed And
then for the smaller zoning districts RG which is general residence that's like around High Street and Cantonav in that area RF is fraternity residents that's up by uh Olympia Drive and also near the Newman Center in Ammer in uh near UMass
BG obviously is the center of town BL is um along University Drive and around the center of town BBC is in the village centers BN is a very small district And then we have commercial and office park
And I thought you know those none of those districts is very large So we're not really going to find a large scale ground mounted solar boat installation which is like an acre or more in any of those districts So I just said why don't we just say no across the board and
reserve those zoning districts for other uses And then we have um LI which is limited industry It's not a very big district There's a little bit of it up on Meadow Street And there's some more over um in
the eastern part of the town near the railroad tracks again in the vicinity of Cantonav and and that area And then we have PRP And you know that PRP is really big It's um where Kate Atkinson's office
is on Belchuretown Road It's on um Northampton Road where Green Leaves is and there are um pretty big tracks of land up in North Ammeris that are his own PRP So I thought those are kind of areas that are that lend themselves well
to largecale things and potentially you know semi-industrial things Unfortunately both of them have some limitations with regard to wetlands But anyway I thought that those could be by site plan review with the planning board And I think you know there is an
argument for making all of the um solar arrays that we allow to be by site plan review but that's kind of a different topic And then in FPC which is floodprone conservancy I just said no because I don't think it would be allowed So that's the large scale
groundmounted solar photo photovoltaic installations And then for the bees I said again for the large residential districts R O and RLD and RN we could allow those by special permit Again
there is one of those that's been approved already up on Sunderland Road and that is I believe the RO district And then we would allow them also in LI limited industry I'm starting to lose my voice and PRP by special permit and then say no in
all of the smaller districts because we really don't want a bees kind of embedded in an area that's already highly developed with people Now of course people will argue well they have them in New York City so why couldn't we have them in the center of town But you know we have enough land elsewhere So I
just thought let's go with this for now And then again in FPC I would say no So do you want to talk about this now or Well let's let's take some I'd like to take some questions and and we can decide if we talk about it further Uh
Pat and then Kathy Yeah I I'm really curious Chris why you want special permit particularly since you kind of hinted that the state wouldn't like that Why can't these all be site plan review Not the NOS I agree with those but the
RO and RLDS And why can't that be site plan review I think that it's mainly a question of what people in town would be favorable towards and I think people in town we can't get it past the
state then it doesn't matter We already um we already regulate large scale solar via special permit because it's considered a right you know transformer use or whatever it is Um so we already do that and we have a lot of them Well
we have five of them that have been approved in town So we seem to have been allowed to do that to date But I understand that there could be an argument as to why we want site plan review in those areas as well But I think that generally speaking the
populace of Ammerst feels more secure with a special permit than they do with site plan review for whatever reasons they have for that So that's kind of why I went with this because of sort of a political um point of view Thanks Kathy
Um so I I'll I'll tag on that one Chris I I think it's not just political but this is adding something I would call quasi industrial next to residential areas So you know we just did this long
list of worry about this worry about that Um so that would be one thing you you would want to be careful Um so that would be another argument It's it's it's not the same as building an ADU next to somebody's house Um it's
it's different You know putting a factory next to someone's house It would also I would hope would go through special permit So that's just a general comment but I have a question on RN I know what is RN up in North Ammerst Um
and it's fairly dense um in terms of houses and the roads I don't know other parts of town So I'm wondering about the battery energy storage systems in the RN So just you have a better sense of what
what RNs look like Chris than I do Um you know the RO RLDDS I know what those are and the PRPS and some of those have big wide open spaces and you could easily do you could you could do something that was quite protective but
the one RNA neighborhood I know is pretty dense Um Chris it's just a really it's just a question about what is actually in these the RNs that we've got in town Yeah Echo Hill
and Rolling Green are in RN So that gives you an idea of East Ammerst and I can't remember where RN is in South Ammerst but that's a good argument not to allow large-scale solar in RN On the other hand unless you have a an area
that's you know an acre or more in size you probably wouldn't have one proposed So I didn't want to be too restrictive Well I was mainly questioned the battery not the right you know not not the not the large scale solar because if if there's not enough land you're not going
to do large scale solar but you could put a battery on if it wasn't attached to solar in a smaller foot a smaller footprint So it's just it's it really is just a question on um you know it there
was an issue with where the placement of one was up here and I think they ultimately put it nearer to the solar field rather than next to a house the battery you know the backup battery So so that was not I wasn't questioning
large scale solar I was questioning battery in our end Thank you Um I have a quick question and then councelor Hanniki Um I was thinking about the optics from the state's p perspective and even though our
commercial and and office park um districts are may may be very small Uh I wonder if we if we allowed uh discussion of those or to include perhaps include them as site plan review
or site plan our special permit um just to give a better sense of confidence to the state that we're open and we're really just uh keeping um you know this development out of out of denser
residential So that was that was a thought that went through my head And then um I was curious why the new category rather than putting this under section 3.340 which is utility utility uses
because I think um transformers and things like that fall under the 3.340 So I think um the way Rob Mora um told me is that the category that you just referenced is really more of a public utility right You know like Eversource
or something like that rather than a privatelyowned um entity like this Well Eversource is a private company I understand that Yeah that's kind of how he explained it to me that the se that the section that this
would have been under previously is more of a public um kind of entity an institutional entity and these are more as as a followup to that I didn't I didn't actually I looked at that category and but I didn't I didn't look
at where which um which zones they're allowed in and if if we are I don't want to I don't want to open a can of worms but if we're consistent um you know do some of those do some of
the renewable energy opportunities uh align with where we allow um utilities as well That's just a question and I don't I don't need to disco go further into it
Um it doesn't really matter in terms of the use chart where you put Okay Yeah that's fine Um council Hani and then and then maybe we decide what our next steps are for that Yeah Um a couple of questions
Um I um Kathy there's some RN off of Strong Street that has some fairly large properties as well as off of Sha Speech Street that have some larger properties Um in RN I was more curious I I think Chris I thank you for going back and and
um thinking about my comment of how could you ever fit a large scale LGPI in the BG because the lots are too tiny you know So so should this use chart just acknowledge that uh sort of the existing conditions on the ground
And with that comment I I was struck by the RVC column more than anything where the LGPI is listed as a special permit but Bees is a no And it seems to me that
that's almost a swapping of what I would have thought if we're trying to find places where there are lots large enough for each of these and match them to it given the state requirements um of of essentially not trying to get in the way
of all of this because you need at least like an acre and much of the RVC lots are smaller than an acre or more and and you need even more with all of the setbacks and all that we're going with The biggest lot in an RVC is the Fort
River School Um and so I was curious whether that was the reason that might be in there for LGPI is because it I don't think the solar's going on on there is qualifies as LGPI It would be an accessory use to educational but much of
our VC is smaller lots Um and so I was curious why you chose special permit for that for LGPI but no for bees when I just thought BESS was a little more dangerous and having it in a more dense
area might be a problem So um we could potentially say no for large scale for LGPI in RBC Maybe that makes more sense since there really aren't many properties that are large enough Yeah I think there's I I I didn't have time to look totally when I saw your email but
there's very few because we we don't have a lot of RVC anyway um at this point in time but it's it's concentrated around um Pomeoy East Street and up in at North
Ammerst intersection is where RVC is concentrated There's a couple but not very many at all there It's pretty dense there and it would best is much more dangerous than an installation the solar panel instantly I think LGPI would need to combine ownership lots to to be able
to be built in that area And so I I would not necessarily object to going to no because I think it's or special permit for both but I I think it's it would reflect the reality of the
lots on the ground if we said no in RVC I think um I'm going to I'm going to cut us off here and ask Chris how she would like to proceed It sounds like there's a little bit more thinking and you're going to do some explanations as well
Yeah Not right now but in the No no not right now As a next step right Um well I have a number of other questions that I've been asked over the last few months that I wanted to go back and look at So certainly this um chart
here I sent it to Rob Mara but he didn't respond with comments So that's one thing I wanted to do I don't think I showed it to Stephanie um the final version And um yeah so there are some more conversations that need to be had
Okay So let's let's plan on talking about it again Maybe there's some feedback that we hear from uh from other folks I think it would certainly be a discussion topic when we go to public hearing Um so that's good And thank you very
much and uh to Chris and to Stephanie for putting that material together We that we got the section 6.2 to fencing And um the other the only other item that we haven't talked about in detail was the hazardous waste And I don't I
don't want to start it now because I want to switch gears but um we certainly want to talk If it's on the next agenda I would like to actually get to it Yes I agree This is getting a little silly Yeah So it is it is the next
uh it's been on the next agenda and the next agenda and the next agenda forever You're right But we've gotten through a whole bunch of really dense stuff here So thank you Pat and thank you everybody else I'm going to switch gears to um um
and thank you You there's no need to hang around if unless you feel like listening in on guidance selection guidance for ZBA and planning board Okay Thank you Byebye Thanks very much Thank you
Bye um planning board ZBA selection process We have in the packet selection guidelines and interview questions I think I would just open it up to I don't does anybody feel the need to actually
see them in person or um should we just talk about them Councelor Hani I don't need to see them I I have them up on my computer I had an initial Are we starting with selection guidance or interview questions Uh which which do you have up on your computer It doesn't
matter which I start with I just have an initial question if we're starting with interview questions Okay let's start with interview Uh that question is I think the policy of the council requires that we need to ask counselors to submit questions prior to us voting on them So
I'm happy to discuss them today but I don't remember seeing an email asking counselors to submit questions for interviews for these That is correct I have not sent these this time around Um yes I could certainly do that for the
interview questions for ZBA and for planning board Okay good point So we ask for questions from counselors and then we talk about it next meeting So we'll give a timeline Great Okay Good We finished
with them Uh let's talk about um this the guidance selection guidance for ZBA And for planning
board the the intro paragraph essentially the um the criteria for a healthy and multi effective multiple member body is pretty much from our uh Jennifer you might have already said
this but ju just so we all know that you um conferred with the chairs of chair of the planning board and the ZBA So their recommendations and suggestions are part of this document Yes the the 2025 drafts
have the new uh input from chairs of both of both boards So our criteria for healthy and effective multi- multiple member bodies remain essentially the same That is I'm looking at I'm looking
at Mandy That's from the policy Um uh and then section B and both in both cases is input from the body's chair and so those have been updated with current
information Mandy councelor Hani Yeah I know we've done this standard this way for years now but it struck me in some sense particularly when reading I think
it was the ZBA one um where the the input from the chair if we don't summarize one from four years ago and the criteria for a healthy and effective multiple member body doesn't really talk
about skills at all Um background experience skills at all And that that struck me as in some sense strange to me Um you know it it you
know it it has a little bit of background housing architecture construction but I I was thinking maybe it would be good to add to section A Um there's there's the council considers the following for that comes right out
of the policy but then there's nothing about what we're looking for um other than seasoned members new members and diversity of the town And then what the chair says would be helpful And so I
wanted to pose that could we add to our section something about um backgrounds you know people or you know backgrounds with or experience in areas that would be
helpful to the decision-making needs of either the planning board or ZBA depending on which one it is and then pull in some of those areas that the planning board chair and the ZBA chair have talked about since they both deal with land use stuff and say those
background or experience would include potent you know includes but doesn't exclude you know or is not inclusive of X Y and Z things Um so that we've got a list
of it's not necessarily hard qualifications but it's something to refer to that says "Hey," and that they will read and say "Hey this is sort of the stuff and knowledge about that would help you on this board and that we're going to be asking questions about sort
of thing." um more than and word it in a way that's not like if you don't have this you're out but we're going to be asking you about this and we're going to want to see some knowledge of it Are you thinking that that could be um an additional element
under the three under the three items that the council is looking for considering the factors or just a little paragraph I think it would be a paragraph outside of those three factors underneath that but within the section a that that
um you know it it could be like a diverse range of experiences that relate to or you know relate to and would be help I don't know what the exact wording would be but relate to the
the you know the subject matter the planning board deals with you and then list some of something like that You know we don't want just all civil engineers or we don't want all lawyers or you know we want diverse range of
that too Yeah Yeah Uh Jennifer yeah I I mean I agree but I think where it says let me pull it up I mean the it does say um what am I looking at under preferred
qualifications at least for the planning board where it has you know number four it lists all the different professional skills and qualifications and I have heard in there has sometimes and I don't know if we want to get away from that
but that over at least in the three and a half years I've been on this committee and I think we all have except for Kathy that some people have seemed to have wanted people that didn't have these qualifications
So I I think it's I think they're there but I mean just to be cognizant or just you know recalling that there were times like I remember during one interview one candidate wanted to take themselves out
and because they didn't really think they had the qualifications and they were urged to stick in there So I'm just saying if we're I'm comfortable the way it is but if we want to add more we should be cognizant that we haven't always wanted we've sometimes
intentionally wanted to include people that don't have those qualifications I'm I'm willing to take a stab at I'm actually looking at the planning board guidance and there are some good skills
and characteristics that um would be appropriate and maybe if they're incorporated into the uh the council's criteria then the chair doesn't necessarily have to um uh repeat it The other the other point though is
too that we have in the bulletin board either in the bulletin board announcement uh there is some discussion of you know bring skills that that come to the table to deal with these kinds of things Um
councelor Hani Yeah No Jennifer I I agree that the planning board one within the chair's descriptions covers it much better than the ZBA one It was I read the ZBA one first and it struck me that almost none
of that was discussed at all in either section which which is why I thought about this like we should have something and I absolutely agree that we don't need it's helpful not to have everyone have [Music]
specific background that meets that and and and we have argued and I've been one of them that argues and so I would want it worded that's not like you must or you we prefer but more of you know we're looking for a diverse group of
people many but not all of whom have some sort of experience in you know I said I haven't come up with a wording but something that that gathers all these these areas together in one place that we don't lose when another chair comes in and doesn't list anything sort
of thing that we have it in our own section that says we want a diversity of backgrounds too and that includes people that I think the planning board chair referenced it as is just residents who are interested right You know like um but those that also have other
backgrounds And like I said it struck me but I haven't figured out a good wording for it but I thought I'd propose seeing if we could put something like that into section A Great And I'll I'll take a stab at that Uh the question is since it's general discussion it's not like
we're deliberating on something Can I email it to people ahead of time or is that a violation of open meeting law You would be able to just post a new document for consideration Okay At the meeting with the new language in it Okay Great Jennifer Yeah
You know I just want to say because I agree with what um councelor Hanniki just said and part of I think the it's not a fine line but the balance we're trying to struck is strike is we have had times when we really we haven't had enough applicants and so at one point we
were concerned that we were requiring so many you know we professional and technical skills that it was scaring people away and we couldn't close you know the pool So that's the balance we're trying to strike Okay So we'll
we'll um I'll send I'll send the interview questions to the council and I'll and I'll do a little job on this and send them out for us or post put them in our packet for next time Uh and then I really want to keep moving on um
minutes and approvals of that Oh we already did did ch time change Pat muted You're muted Sorry I've gotten emails and this is not something we can do this time but I'll just throw it out because I promised I
would There are residents who are interested in having resident members on the planning board and ZBA search committee which might be some I don't particularly support that right now but I promised I would bring it up and it is something to think about It works on
finance um in a different way but those are non- voting members Um Pat can I can I understand are they interested in having they want to be on the search committee On the search committee So in other words the
interviews Yeah Even though it's a council committee Okay Um Kathy and then Jennifer Oh I was just going to say finance doesn't have anybody on an interview committee because right on interview We don't do the we don't do the interviews but um being on the
committee would be interesting I was just going to say that one of the ways at getting at interest and you already have it I think in a question but is have you attended listened to planning board meetings or ZBA meetings You know
if if people are truly interested they should have at least tried to to view a few of them you know I mean that to me would be would be an indication of interest like no Um so that would be another way of teasing out you know I've
gone to the last several and in the interview question I'm saying you know not as a condition Yeah And and that may be one of our questions Anyway I'm I'm going to switch gears Uh we need to uh have a motion We
need to uh review minutes from January 30 2024 That was the meeting from hell if I remember correctly where we had not that was your first uh CRC meeting you chaired and we
were zoom bombed and and uh and the three zoom bombers Dave is shaking his head Um does anyone want to make a motion to uh amend or modify those that that that those minutes
Shall I make a motion to uh I'll I'll move to adopt the January 30 2024 and February 27 2025 minutes as presented Second Second Dean Jennifer I don't care And we'll we'll go in order of screen Pat
D'Angelus Hi Jennifer Tub Yes Kathy Shane Yes Councelor Hani Hi And Pam Rooney is an I Unanimous adoption of those meeting
minutes Um next agenda preview Hazmat section of the solar bylaw We'll see And I think we're and I think we were gonna get some information from Stephanie and Chris on that is my recollection So I um
I'll I'll get back in touch with them as well Um I have no announcements except that we will post next April 10 meeting at 300 p.m
Don't forget to do that I'm not going to forget to do it It's It's written down on my to-do list Uh and then nothing anticipated 48 hours in advance So I think we could make a motion to adjurnn I make a motion to adjurnn
Second Thank you Um let's vote Councelor Hani I Kathy Shane yes Jennifer Tub yes Patricia D'Angelus hi Cam