Okay, you are now recording. >> Okay, this is the April 2nd, 2026 meeting of the community resources committee of the town council. Um, it is a virtual meeting 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. Uh, 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. Uh 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 and to make sure that the members of this committee can attend via technological means. Can uh
we go around and uh make sure you can hear and be heard. So I'll call on Mandy Joe >> uh present. Uh, councelor Walker >> here. >> And Stephanie, >> I'm here.
>> And Nate, are you here? >> Yeah, I'm here. >> Great. Thanks for thanks to to you guys for joining. Um, so we don't have any public hearings today. Um, next on the agenda, well, just to summarize the agenda, we have public comment. We have
three action items. the clean energy bylaw to include discussion on agravaics and a little bit on the timetable uh planning board and zoning board of appeals interview questions and selection criteria and uh meeting
minutes. So um do we do we have uh members of the public? It looks like we do not. So I think we're okay on moving forward from public comment. So why don't we move into the clean
energy bylaw. There's I think four attachments related to this. One is the previous version that we came out which is called version 8 and there's virgin a version called um uh version 8 with aggravaics
and then there's a um summary of uh of I guess all the pieces that it's it's sort of a a pull out piece. Um maybe Mandy Joe can tell us what that is. Um, but I think our our
main task at this point is to go through the aggravaics uh pieces and figure out how and where they go in. So, you know, it's unfortunate Pam's not here because she's the one that did all of this, but she she had taken on the
task of looking at agravalttaics, I think, as our after our last conversation when when we had some not necessarily confusion, but some questions about how agravalttaics would be treated, how do we want them treated
and all of that. And so she did some looking up and and this is her proposal I believe along with one question and that pull out section just basically summarizes what you see in here in red I believe. Well yeah it's showing red for everyone.
Um so um I I figure we go through it. We could start with sort of one of her first questions which is up at the top. Um, >> yeah. >> And then work our way through that. And then any other questions? Because I think today the goal is to send this off
to the council or was that next week's goal? >> I think um next week is the goal is to send it off um to finalize it on April 23rd and send it for referral and legal review at that point. >> But we do have the planning board
looking at it on April 8th. >> Okay. >> And then we'll be meeting on April 9th. So, one question for Nate is, you know, will you will he be able to give us a sense of that meeting whether there's
extensive uh feedback or or minimal or how how we're how that's tracking and then we'll look for more detailed stuff in the planning board after that. But Nate, does that seem appropriate? >> Yeah, sure. Thanks, uh, Andy. Yeah, the chair of the planning board, Doug, already sent a a document. I don't I
thought I had sent it to Pam. we sent around. It was, you know, it was a lot of comments by section. It was on a previous version and, um, I think it was, you know, uh, both kind of bigger picture questions and then just kind of detailed things. You know, the planning board, I haven't
received a lot of comments from them. You know, they Stephanie gave a presentation at their last meeting. I think generally they I feel like they just have to get comfortable with it. So, they're not used to permitting solar. And so, I think, you know, I haven't had a lot of detailed questions yet. I think some of them are you know
it's just kind of understanding what their role is and what they would look for. I think generally the big question they have is given that there's so much technical kind of proficiency required to look at solar you know how much is expected of them or how much would be
expected of say staff or other others and so you know they had read through it a few of the members said well there's a lot here about say like soil erosion and I know they look at that for other types of uses but they were like you know specifically for solar it's a little different or you know how do we know if
there's going to be impacts for things from the battery storage system. And so, uh, I think they just had kind of questions like that kind of getting, you know, trying to understand, you know, if the applicant certifies that it meets these standards or meets the bylaw, do they have to, you know, how much do they
have to like review it and kind of almost like reertify that it does that? Um, and some of it might be they're just not, you know, like I said, kind of comfortable or familiar with some of the the details of all of these systems. So it isn't necessarily a way to, you know, to change the bylaw. I think it's a a
question of like, okay, when this act, if we have a permit that comes in under this bylaw, you know, you know, there's going to be a lot of coordination with staff and maybe different boards and committees, different departments to really ensure that everything does meet what's happening here. So, you know, I know fire will be heavily involved and
public works and Stephanie and others just making sure things are looked at. Um, so I think it's just kind of helping them understand, you know, how this would actually work in practice. So, you know, we do lay out a lot in the bylaw and then how does it how does it relay? So, you know, Doug had really specific
questions. The kind of planning board members kind of had that general bigger question. I haven't received any any more detailed comments and I can and I can send Doug's comments around actually. I think if I haven't, I will just so you can see them. >> Okay. And those were on the previous version, but then they're going to look
at it again on the 8th. Is that right? >> Yes. Yep. Yeah. So, I've already sent them version eight. So, I think Doug's comments were on version seven. >> Okay. Um but they've already been sent the most not the ones with agrovoltaics but the one u the previous version 8 they've been sent that um
>> yep >> okay so we'll just I'm Mandy did you have something >> I was just going to say you could send that around because I haven't seen the plan the planning board chair's comments that you just referenced so it would be good to see it at least before our next
meeting in a week so that we could look at it before that. >> Yeah. Is that something we'd want to enter into the packet for for for this week or for next? >> We should because we've referenced the document. >> Yeah. So, um, if you say, you know, if you
send it to to us, I'll I'll I'll make sure that, um, Athena can put it in the packet. So, it's here. And then then we'll look, you know, hopefully we get through these comments today. And then there'll be a an updated version for them to to look at at their next meeting
or the April 8th meeting. And then um then we're we're meeting on April 9th. So, it's kind of a quick turnaround, but they don't have to have full comments at that point, but if then if Nate if you can give us a sense of what the temperature is on that, that would be helpful. >> Sure. Yeah, I've asked them to provide
written comments. So, like I said, I haven't received any. So, um you know, it'll probably just be discussion points and I can reate that next week. >> Okay, great. All right. So, Mandy, do you want to take us through this? >> I'll try. Um, it's looks like when when
I reviewed the document, it looked like Pam was trying to sort of address our question about agravalttaics as defined as a canopy one and should it be or should it not be and what about different sizes and and all of that and what is an agravalttaic and that's that's sort of what she was doing and
one of her questions I think was um do we want two categories of agravalttaics um as as it's noted up here um and that's sort of what she posted or I think kind of wrote this on. When we go down to the
the um the use table of if it's less than 10 acres, I think she was doing a size like size of coverage of acreage. Um would it be a different
permission than if it was more? So did we want to sort of tier Agravalttaic installations differently than Canopy is tiered in some sense? Um or not? And then she had a question in the same way of tearing are some of them
accessory uses um is an agravalttaic that's small enough an accessory use to the actual agriculture going on underneath which one's a primary use or are they dual primary uses sort of thing. So where would it actually be tiered? And I think that question might
be the one we need to answer first before we go through the rest because I think a lot of the changes that she proposed sort of bases some of that decision some of the decisions on how are we permitting
these? Are we tiering them or not? Um are there two sort of tiers of aggravaics? Yeah, she she also tal she and I met earlier this week to talk about this and I don't know if this is
is agricult basically where there is agriculture going on underneath the panels. Um, and if if a farmer just wants to put up some panels to help bring in some income on separate land that's not being agriculturally used,
but it's part of the farm, is that agro voltaic or is that something else? >> So, under our initial definition, it would be >> on the same land. >> It it would have to be over land that is being used as agriculture. So using one
portion of the land for solar and another portion for agriculture that are separate sort of acreages would not be agravaics under our original definition. Um Pam has proposed a different definition
that I don't know um whether that's the same or not. Um you know on the same land what does that mean? Is that land or parcel right? Um but our initial one required that the land beneath the solar photo
photovoltaic be agricultural purposes. Um so the other one I think Stephanie you answered a couple weeks ago if they were agriculture on these five acres and solar on a different five acres that
that's two primary uses. >> Is that right Stephanie? Is that your understanding? That was my understanding. >> Okay. >> And Nate, I think Nate really is the person uh to defer to for this because he actually works with the regulations regularly. So, >> I see Nate has his hand up. So, go
ahead, Nate. >> Sure. Thanks. Yeah, I you know, I was talking with the building commissioner. Yeah, we would agree. I think the um the idea would be that you could have um agrovoltaics with um agriculture underneath. You know, staff thinks it
should be defined by mass general law. So, you know, like 128, like some something to establish what it is. Um, and there's already, you know, state definitions for that. And so, you know, the way Pam set it up, it would be a separate definition and a separate use.
And so, if a property owner has agricultural land, they could decide to do agrovoltaics. They could decide to do accessory solar which isn't agotics and they could decide to do ground mount solar as you know I think Andy just asked on parcels that's not being farmed
and would go through the permitting as a ground mount system and so you know I that's clear to me and Rob more the building commissioner and that's the way we would understand it with these definitions so you know property owner would have a few different options um we would just want
to establish kind of that criteria of what farming um you know like you know such as crops or livestock and you could say or you know it could just be like or as farming defined by Mass General Law 128. Um and
it doesn't have to be pre-existing. I I think Rob Moore is like you know someone can decide to do it at the time. You know at one point I had questions about what does it need to be in existence like you know a year before they apply for solar or two but he doesn't he doesn't think that's necessary. Um,
you know, I just, you know, people probably try to figure out a way to do it. Um, the different the difference is Pam has this just as a a yes use. So, it's not even site plan review. It's just a buy, right? Yes. They still have to comply with this bylaw, right? So, they still have all the submittal requirements is my understanding. And in
the zoning districts where it's being proposed, if someone says, you know, I want to do agotics and I have farming underneath, it's just a yes. So they still have to have the setbacks, you know, and everything we have here, but they don't have to actually get a land use permit. Um, and so then the question
is like, you know, Pam was suggesting um 10 acres or less, it's some maybe it's a yes and maybe greater than 10 acres up to the threshold is another permitting. Um, maybe it's a site plan review. I mean, Rob and I talked about it and we had said would what if it was just all
yes up to 25, you know, up to the state standard. So anything that's it's it'd be pretty big, right? treatment could be a very big solar installation. Um we're just trying to figure out what is the idea to incentivize solar over farmland or is it you know I guess some of it's still kind
of the purpose of it right. So if you want to make it easy for farmers then it's a yes if it's all of a sudden because you know we don't we don't permit farm the way our zoning bylaw works. If someone wants to establish a farm >> we don't do it's it's just a buy right yes too. So someone wants to, you know,
plant 100 acres of corn, they don't have to go through a land use permit. So you know, do we want to have kind of an analogous permitting path for that or do we want to have some permitting, land use permitting for solar even though it is over agricultural land? Um to me that becomes part of the definition and the
use and yeah, >> Mandy, are you raising your hand? >> Yeah, I am. When I share I can't so I get to do this. Um so if if we wanted it just a yes no matter the size but clearly defined agravalttaics isn't the
current sort of definition of agravalttaics as a canopy as specifically a canopy solar photovoltaic cover that because that's this yes up here. Would we need a separate use table
for that if if we weren't splitting the the permitting pathway up based on size? Yeah, I don't I don't think you would need uh to call it out separately unless unless
um you know unless you there's a few pieces in the bylaw that may need to reference agrovoltaics. So you could still keep it as a defined term. Say it's a canopy use and then where you have requirements whether it's
to height you know some design requirements or the reporting you just can refer to the agrovoltaics because it's a defined term knowing that it goes through the canopy um it's considered a canopy use. So you you could do it that way. So if we
didn't want to sort of split the sizing for permitting purposes, keeping it as a canopy use would be sufficient if we wanted yeses. >> Yeah, I think so. Y >> okay. Um I guess my qu next question
would be Nate do you and Rob think keeping Agravalttaics as a complete yes so keeping it under canopy use even if it goes up to 25,000 kilowatts is what your original intention in this proposal
was or are would you advocate for two different permitting pathways based on size? >> Yeah, it's a good question. I um you know I guess some of it was although there was the definition of canopy in the bylaw you know our
you know I guess my so say it was like our kind of I don't say misunderstanding right was just like oh typically it's over a parking lot or impervious or already kind of uh impacted area and so it's like okay that could just be a yes and we you know and we do say in those
zones it's a yes other areas it's by the permanent grading authority for the principal use so for instance if you're in the commercial district and it's a special permit use and you have a big parking lot. It's a special permit for the canopy. Um
um I think when I think Mandy someone pointed it out right that it was like oh actually it could be anything underneath it you know although the definition reference like parking canals I don't know whatever else it said but it could be anything underneath. Um I think you know Rob on further reflection thought
that was fine. My only thought is that 25,000 KW can be a really big system. Um, and is that okay? I I I'm still, you know, not sure. I guess some of it would be with a agic and maybe it's not a big deal. You know, the height can be higher than what we
have in our bylaw right now. So, if someone was to really do like row crops underneath and they wanted to actually have, we'll just say corn and a tractor go underneath the low point of the panels, they're probably going to want it to be like 15 feet. And right now, we say 10 ft. And maybe it could be
modified, but you know, I could envision a farmer saying, "Well, given my equipment and maybe the land, the slight changes in topography, they're going to have like a 17 feet to the low end and then the high end could be like 25 ft, you know, depends on how many, you know, you know, what their system is." That's
a pretty high, you know, pretty tall uh installation. And is that okay? I mean, I don't Some people would say, "Sure, that's fine, right? There's already farming happening. They're going out there with their tractors and they're doing all those things." or is that is that a really, you know, is that a an a more
impactful installation? Um, then if you did a ground mount, you know, sometimes your panels on the low end are like four, five, six feet and the high end it's, you know, 10, 12 feet, not 25 feet. Um,
>> but so the goal to then encourage farmers or to to keep agriculture going even if they're installing panels. So so to do that sort of simultaneous agra agotic or
or is there a concern that putting that size uh canopy over agriculture would degrade the agriculture in some way? So I think the solar working group's goal
was to preference agravalttaics over plain old solar panels without farming on places that are already farmed or could be farmed. I think that was their initial
>> hope. Um and I think you know so so if if we're trying to abide by that as well as the yeses for canopy right because we're trying to if it's already disturbed let's put it there right the parking lots the that let let's preference that
I think one way to preference that is to make it easier to permit so if it's a site plan review the easier permitting pathway is a yes then right and so if we want to preference agravalttaics over just a
dual use on an agricultural land or single use right of just solar I think we need to make the permitting pathway easier if we're trying to encourage that personally um >> yeah so then there would be a canopy use
or canopy whatever category aggra aggravates would fall under that with the opportunity for you know getting varian ES in or variation in, you know, accommodation of height uh limits that that might be otherwise not necessary for other types
of canopies. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's, you know, to me that's one of the Sorry, just jump right in. That's one of the considerations and Pam brought it up in her in one of those documents. But I think if you know, if you're comfortable with that, then I think, you know, defining it that way, it could just be
under the canopy, you know, row and it's easier than trying to call it out separately. Um, unless you like this idea of having like Pam suggested, you know, up to a certain acreage or kilowatt and then, you know, you know, so you you basically you're
creating a se another set of tiers. staff didn't like the idea of, you know, using acres because below we're using kilowatts. And so, and I kind of agree with Mandy that if you want to encourage it or incentivize it, it should just be a yes. Otherwise, you're, you know, you're creating parallel permitting for a ground mount and there's no benefit to
doing acrobtaics. So someone you know a property owner in the RORO if you know if it's aggravable site plan review and tier two and three are you know a tier two is a special you know site plan review and that's the size they're going to do they're you know
there's no difference at that point. Um, so >> yeah, I kind I I mean I I kind of like that idea of keeping it. It's a canopy and if you're putting agriculture under under it, there may be certain
um little, you know, adjustments elsewhere, but it's still up to 25,000. It's a canopy. Great. If you want to put it, if you want to do aggra full t, then that you're not being disincentivized to do it.
There's only three of us here today. Do I have So, I've heard two of us say maybe keep a canopy. Um, >> yeah. Should I just delete this then? >> What What are your thoughts? >> I I'm in agreement. This is not I am not
the most knowledgeable about these kinds of things, which is why I'm mostly listening and not necessarily contributing, but based off of this conversation, I am comfortable with that. So >> yeah, >> I'm gonna delete those cells then.
Well, hold on. >> Yeah, >> I'm just going to do that for now. I'll deal with the accepted. That was weird how it did that. Okay. Um, and that means before I go back up and we deal with other things, um, that means
we would delete this part too about because they're not accessory uses in a sense. their canopy specifically defined as canopy. >> Yeah. >> Up here. Um okay. So, I'm gonna go back up here.
Um we dealt with that. >> The answer is no. Um and so down here um she wanted to add and agravalttaics the tier one.
Oh, we didn't talk about canopy. Oh, but canopy are yeses. So, they're not permitted administratively. So, with this tier, we would get rid of this ad, right? If it doesn't apply to canopy, that makes sense to me
>> because they're not administratively permitted even though they're so where do we where do we identify that aggravaic falls under canopy or or or with or or may have some ability for variances on
height. I think it would be down here where >> Okay. >> where we say it's a canopy, but Nate and And we still have to deal with up here. >> Yeah.
I I actually think that um sorry that um it's funny actually the uh the tier one and the tier one accessory are just yeses and we would consider that administrative approval
permanent administratively. I think what staff we hadn't looked at this the section too closely. But what this is trying to say is that um it's confusing because it gets detailed really quickly, you know, like what's highlighted in yellow, >> but what it's basically saying is even if you don't have to go to a land use
permit, you still have to follow these submitt requirements or these requirements of this bylaw. >> Mhm. >> And that's what like the 1801 through 1807 and the rest of those are saying. So they're saying that even though you don't have to get a land use permit, you don't have to go to planning board or special or special permit through the zoning board, you still have to submit
this information for staff to review. And so we would still want that for um the building mount, canopy mount um installations. I think we just hadn't uh I was trying to look at a previous version. Maybe at one point it had referenced them separately or something.
Um but I think that's what we would want or or or not. And so um I think that's a decision. So staff right now I guess because we hadn't considered agrovoltaics but I think we were
considering um what happens over a parking lot or on a building we don't ask people to submit all these things um right now so when they you know if someone wants to put solar on their roof you know they need to have um you know the solar specs they might need some
fire information they might need engineering specifications on the roof if someone needs to look at it but we don't ask for all this information I'd have to go through and just see what those that highlighted section yellow is so are we then increasing the burden on the building mount canopy installation. So someone now, you know, wants to put
solar on their roof and right now it's a pretty simple application. If we include it here, does it just, you know, increase the amount of information they need in the cost of that? Um, and I don't I don't know enough. Um, right now
I'd have to look at those sections. Um because what it what it would mean then if we don't include it here is that that use category in the chart. So building mounted and canopy um doesn't comply doesn't need to submit
anything with that's in this bylaw which seems a little weird but >> yeah. So I I think the question is here and I'm just going to delete the sections. Um, >> yeah,
>> I think the goal was if they're yeses or you know, which is what these are, I think, how do we make the application simpler, >> right? >> Um, and so I'm reading rereading this one. Um, and I'm wondering if we have to say
shall comply with these sections only or or need not or maybe it's the opposite. Do not sections blank do not apply to canopy blah blah blah blah blah. Maybe it's not these are the ones you have to comply
with. Maybe it's the negative. So it would read instead of shall comply with those sections, it would be sections 1808.04 to05, 18.09
09 to 11 and that do not do not apply to canopy tier one ground mount tier mount that does it just need rewarded to say these are the ones you don't have to comply with >> Nate >> yeah I think either um I think either way is fine I was just trying to go skim
through the bylaw I yeah I think either way is fine um I was just trying to think of like a you know another way to to state it um you sometimes is it better as pros or could it be like
sub bullets? I I don't know. I think it gets it it is really tricky because you know I think if this is right in the beginning so for me if I was someone reading this I'd be like okay first I do I don't even know if I'm a tier one. Where do I go to find that I'm a tier one? And then you're going to have to scroll through the bylaw and say I was
just that's what I was just doing like okay what's 1801 to 1807 and these other parts. I think I think it's fine. You just, you know, someone has to, you know, staff or others can help. I think people are going to be, you know, they're gonna have to just kind of be patient to do that. Um,
yeah, I think it's either way to have a a narrative a more narrative approach that would make it clear to people. >> Yeah. I it's um sometimes it's like you can have like the narrative and say we're trying to make it you know I don't want to say you
know we don't want to like say easy but it's like oh you know these uses are going to be permitted are a by right use and so you know this sections of the bylaw don't apply you know the next tiers are um you know are um allowed by site
planer review youth the planning board um and then you know you know you know it's just maybe it's like a it's also serves as a guide to say staff and applicants. So, >> you know, you're putting that in there and then you're still referencing the same things here. You're calling them tier one and whatever. You're just kind of having a little intro.
>> Um, and it could be like subsections or almost each tier or something is then broken out as a separate bullet or you know like under applicability. Um, >> I think that's attractive if we can get the language >> right. >> Yeah. So, I added a comment that we have
to decide the language sort of thing. Um the next one is >> Pam was trying to include in Agravalttaic installations a uh 11 something and 13. Um and then
asked where do we reference 20 225 CMR28? Um do we need to reference 225 CMR28? That's that's probably a Nate question. Um, you know, I was just trying to find it. I thought that I'm not sure that I
think those are the um 28 is the uh pre-application, right? Or the um requirements. Is that what it is? Yeah, I think we'd have to just look at that. I mean, typ
>> 22 29 is the 22529 is >> Is that the >> Maybe she mistyped it. 29. Is is it 29? >> I think it's 29. Yeah, >> maybe she mistyped it. Is the the ones we're trying to comply with here.
>> Right. Right. Cuz 28. Yeah, that's I think she mistyped it. 28 is some I think something different. Um >> we don't have to reference 29 for agravalaics because they're just
>> right >> part of it. >> So um how do we want to resolve this? do I I don't think we want to write this here, but I think that having that sort of intro be a little bit more um narrative and you know if you're in this
tier or whatever if you're the you know these sections are by right and these are if if you're you know whatever Nate just said far as you know here if you're in this category this is what you need to this is what applies or doesn't
apply. >> Yeah. Sorry, just quickly that the CMRF Pam references the smart program and I don't I I think we had referenced it um it was referenced in the bylaw later for reporting requirements but I don't know that we need I don't think we would need to do it up here in applicability.
>> Okay, >> I just changed the wording a little bit. I have an a comment here that basically says which way are we doing negative or positive? And we have to determine what sections apply. >> Yeah. And maybe maybe add something like
um you know use narrative approach for different categories if if possible like that. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Pam's going to really regret not being at this meeting. um definition. We're keeping it canopy and she proposed a different definition. I like that she sort of Nate, you said
used for farming purposes instead of agricultural purposes. Um, I liked her reference to crops and livestock you know is farming a better term than agriculture. >> I think sorry if I can just jump in. I
just think you want to keep your language consistent and so I think agriculture has been typically used not farming. >> It's also part of agri voltaic. So, >> right. And purpose versus production.
>> Yeah. Sorry. This goes back to kind of Sorry. Uh to jump in again. The um I'm happy having this be sort of a freewheeling discussion. >> I guess you know under master in law farming or agriculture are used um >> kind of in parallel um and it means the
same thing. So, I think, you know, Rob and I really like the idea of trying to tie it to the state definition just so, you know, someone can't say that, you know, oh yeah, you know, I'm I'm a farmer and they put out like, you know, they have like one sheep every once in a
while out there, right? And so, no, but I mean I'm, you know, I I think what we like about the state definition is um it's used for other purposes, right? We, you know, we reference it in our zoning bylaw >> and it's used for other things. So then it's a it's a criteria that we're not trying to come up with. I mean we can
come up with our own if we want for this, but it just seems strange that we would establish kind of a separate definition for farming as it relates to these agics that's different than say how we define farming or other farming uses in our zoning bylaw. >> Do you know the reference?
>> I mean we you could just say mass it's chapter 128. I don't know if you want to get specific. Usually we've um >> mass >> mass general law. Yeah. Chapter 128. definition of agric of agricultural purposes or what?
>> I just added the phrase in accordance with MGL chapter 128. >> Yeah. >> Okay, >> that sounds good. Are we Are we all on board with that? >> Hearing hearing no objection. >> I'll move on. I think Pam found that I
spelled floral alkal wrong. How could you do that? >> I have no idea. >> So easy. >> I mean, come on. Right. Okay. Um, >> what does the yellow mean? Is that just >> yellow for now is just highlighting our
section references in case they change. It's just easier to >> cross reference if we start deleting stuff. >> Okay, great. >> So, if you just want to go back up to the farming, you could say, you know, it's section 1A is kind of it's a pretty it's a pretty broad definition, which I
think Pam was trying to go for. Um, so it's, you know, it says shall include farming and all of its branches and the cultivation and tillage of the soil. you know dairy production, cultivation, growing or harvesting of any agricultural, agricultural, floricultural or horicultural commodities and it keeps going on about
forestry, animals, you know, bees, lumbering. So it's it's a pretty broad definition which I think is what the was trying to be captured and so we just think that you know like I said it's we reference it in other places. Um >> Okay, great. >> So I just added chapter 128 section 1A.
Yeah. Okay. I'm just looking for more highlight stuff. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So, this is under What are we in right now? Um, applicants for tier two and three ground
mount and accessory and standalone best need the following. And that's where she put agravalttaic. I'm not sure it should be under that, but she wanted to have a management plan. If this is a canopy, do we need that at
all? Cuz I I didn't see canopy mentioned. >> I think her concern is if there are large enough canopies, is there a management plan for soil stabilization? >> Okay. She even said, "Do we need this?" Right.
Um, so >> I guess that's talking about do we want different standards for larger aggravaics or are they the same as a canopy, right? >> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah, I guess my question is you
know the 228 or the CMR 22528 is the smart um program you know and tries to incentivize you know solar including over agricultural land. So if you want to qualify for those um credits, you have to do certain things according to those
regulations which I I guess is in includes a management plan which is probably different than what we have. And so sometimes we wouldn't you know in the bylaw sometimes we don't reference those things. So it's like if an applicant wants to come in and propose doing you know say agrovtaics they could do that
and not be part of the smart program I think. Right. I don't think they have to be. I don't know Stephanie if you I don't know I feel like that's something we have to I don't know enough about um but if they wanted to come in and be part of the smart program then they have to submit a management plan in
accordance with the CMR and typically we wouldn't we might um maybe in the definition somewhere we might just reference that but we don't then typically try to um you know pull in those separate requirements of the CMR so we might you know somewhere we could
reference that you know in order to meet the smart program or something agix you know you have to meet this this the CMR um and leave it at that and then really it's the applicant who has to
confirm to staff or to the the town uh I see many what you're doing >> like I don't even know how to do this oh wait um relevant sections right? I mean that could that could be
the way. Um just do we want to say the smart program or not? Is that what that is? >> It is >> according to Nate. That's what this is.
>> So if we said, you know, the smart program parenthesis 225 CMR, I don't know. I >> I just worry it would change names at some point. >> Oh >> yeah. What I don't know is like for instance
um >> does some of these do some of these solar installations have to be part of the smart program or can they you know be permitted locally and not be part of it? I I I don't um
>> I mean I would guess presumably if you don't want to be part of the smart smart program and get all those credits and all you don't have to be. >> Right. Right. >> It monetarily it makes no sense. Um, right. >> That's Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I just trying to skim through the It's a
long regulation. >> Well, I think if we do it this way, we've covered >> Pam's concerns and therefore don't need this one down here, >> right? Yep. Agreed. >> Okay. You want to make a note of that so that
or we'll just address in blah blah blah or do we are we good to >> I I think she'll see it up there and therefore notice that we we put it in there, right? >> Um now this is the question right? This is
where you get into your I'm growing corn and I've got a really tall tractor and I you know I want a 25 foot high canopy. Um but that seems okay, right? I mean that's this is where we would say this is how we're accommodating agric voltaic
or not yeah I was just looking I think in 1810 what we don't have is um yeah in some sections we say within that section that that condition or criteria
standard could be waved or modified. And I'm not sure that it's clear that 1810 is design requirements, right? That any of those I was trying to just see where I thought we said somewhere about >> wait waiverss are down here.
>> Yeah. And I guess I was trying to get there. Um any requirement of this section. Yeah. So basically, so that's what we're saying here. So when we say this section of the zoning bylaw, we mean section 18. So that means the the permit granting authority can wave or modify any
requirement of this section with the written findings that it meets these two things. So to me, we wouldn't have to add that um that waiver provision that Pam had had added. Um
so essentially you know anyone could come in anyone any it doesn't have to be agroics you know any solar applicant could come in and say you know I don't like the setback of my fence could I have it be you know moved and then the permagrating authority would have to
make written findings that you know one and two that given you know that yes it's fine because these two things are met >> so you think this section 18 means we don't need >> Yes. >> this here.
>> Yep. Yeah. The way this is the way we wrote this when we say this section of the bylaw, we mean all of 18. So, and someone can come in and wave any request a waiver of any section of 18. Okay. And then land clearing 18.
>> Oh yes. So 1810. What do we have? We say 1810 is not for canopy right now. Not for canopy tier one and tier 2. So that's saying that 1810
the design requirements are not required for those ones. That makes no sense in some sense. I wonder why we skipped 1810. Like wouldn't we want ground mounts, even the small ones to
comply with 1810. >> Yeah. >> Or >> well, we could >> Yeah. I mean, we may have Yeah. >> Can you go back to 1810? So 189 is dimensional standards which
are not required for SPIs under the one the setbacks there. Um >> and 10 is >> and 10 is the design requirements about clearances and glare and all. So soil erosion, wasn't she saying that
something? Oh, down below then she says a voltaics where crop production I mean you're you're plowing the soil. I guess you said there is disturbance of the soil anyway. I'm not quite sure. You know what I mean? >> Yeah.
I guess I would defer to Nate on going back up to the the smaller ones and then the canopies. asking staff to really look at which parts of this bylaw need to be complied with >> or on the smaller ones and thinking
about agravalttaics potentially separately or which ones would the default dimensional requirements of setbacks in section three I think it is the dimensional table be fine for like I think we need a a better defined list of
what do you have to comply with if you're the small yeses basically. >> Yeah. I mean I think quickly you know the 250 kilowatt is you know half acre um maybe a little more acre at most I
think. So we, you know, I think the way we broke it down into tiers was um based on the potential size of what the solar system would be and then also kind of what the complexity of say the battery system would be the um colloccated battery. And
so I I think when we you know the way we permit some of this now we don't require a lot like I said for some of the solar pieces. And so we were trying to say that the smaller whether it's ground mount or building mount they don't have to comply with some of this bylaw because we don't make them now. So it
actually we'd be putting in pretty big requirement you know if you have to go through and do all these things. Um I I can make a note to do that. Um but Andy to your point then it's like okay well it's it's interesting because then with um the impacts with agrovoltaics right
you could be disturbing a lot of land and it could be pretty big um >> okay I added it to this this comment over here Nate >> okay y >> of we're requesting that you figure out which ones
it should do and it may be a different list based on the type of, you know, tier one ground mount might have much smaller requirements of which ones apply or don't apply versus say aggravaics. >> Yep. >> Um
>> the same one where we're talking about having a bulleted narrative approach which might help. >> Yes, that's all in that same comment. >> Yeah, I mean I think that would really help. So I think when I read this by the first time I right when I got to applicability I think a few staff were
like okay. >> Yeah because it's you know like I said you have to know what your what the definition or what the tier one means and all those things. Um >> yeah if that's upfront then people are like okay >> right >> I have a little more guidance going into the rest of this. >> Right.
But to but to Pam's questions here um >> so this one is should her question on this part is should it be added up above in applicability and so I think we can get rid of that part because we've got the note saying look at that >> y
>> um but then she wanted to add into land clearing >> the management plan again. >> I guess what is the definition of land clearing? Well, we're saying um you know to a disturbance area of less
than or equal to 5 acres >> is then you mean 10 acres or is it >> well well this is five acres here. I guess I think part of Pam's question is >> if you're operating agrovalttaic say once construction is over
does it still fall within the land clearing construction operation and maintenance right um once you've got your operating permit when you till the land after you harvest the hay are you technically land
clearing and violating this I mean, isn't it >> that's how I read her? >> Isn't the concern during the construction phase once you're once you're once you got your canopy up, then you're doing agriculture and you're
do, you know, you're not you're not disturbing the soil to do agriculture. any more than it would be if you're just farming. >> Yeah, you know, we do I was going back up. We do require a soil management plan that minimizes soil during construction,
which is really right I agree is what we're concerned with. Um I I think what yeah I think the the issue could be that you know there can be if the panels are high and the rain comes off there can be a lot of scour
and erosion from the solar panels. So if you are >> if you have bare ground underneath them even if you're in an agricultural you know you're in agricultural use you still could have impacts. Um, so to me that would be,
you know, if you want I if if we were um going to do that, I think we'd have to up in 18 0804 D whatever number. Um, we almost have to then have some
maybe have some additional uh criteria under the soil management plan for agrovoltaics. that we wouldn't we wouldn't re you know we we we could reference then just reference the section here but I think we would want to capture that I do think it's a good point you
know so say you're in the say you're you know you know uh farmers you know plant cover crops now right they do rye grass or whatever and so it's like you know just because you're doing solar doesn't mean you can you have to stop doing that um Right.
So, you know, except for agravaltaic where crop active crop production or and I I I think I get where she's going with but when you think about it, if I look at the farms on in Hadley, they don't when they harvest their rye or their
hay, it's the whole thing at once, right? Is tilled, not up to 10 acres, you know? >> Right. You know, so how do we word this to say except for agrovoltaics during what when actively farming, you know,
farming underneath or something or actively harvesting crops or during the harvesting of crops or something? >> I mean, isn't the agricult? Yeah, I mean you can almost say except for agotaics and just
>> Well, but I want agics during construction but not operation I guess. I mean could you say it that way except for during the operation or after construction except for aggro voltics once
construction is completed. >> Yeah. >> How did we do operation? I think we referenced it somewhere in here. Um, in reporting, how did we do it? Where's our reporting?
Post construction. This one says post construction. inspection completion. >> And that one says first five years of operation. I mean, you could say post construction. >> Something like that.
Yeah, I think we can at least start with that. Okay. And I think it's just another question here of reook at that what what apply what sections apply. So
>> there will be a section in that initial thing talking about aggravable hit take canopy SBI. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> At least I've I've called it out separately here. >> Great. Okay. So then that will be
covered there. Yeah. And we were down at what what were we down at? 10:04. No. 11:02. >> Sorry for all the scrolling.
>> Okay. That was just a fix that. Okay. I think Pam was trying to add this italics, but I'm not sure. We're in herbicides and pesticides. So just to go back. So we're we're saying that um
18112 we're saying that the um on prime farmland or soils of statewide importance they have to follow those types of installation methods. Yep. Yep. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yep.
And we've added agravalttaic canopies on those which were sort of missing from it in a sense. >> All right. >> Although maybe it wasn't with apply to SPI. It wasn't necessarily missing from this section. It was missing up above as to canopy application.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um so and then we're down here. I think I don't know whether she added this language here. Um, and I don't know why she highlighted that. And then she's got her comment
here. >> I I think her um I think the italicized is not added. I think what she was saying is isn't doesn't mar already cover the use of pesticides. Um, so do we need to even have
um >> I is she asking do we have to have the highlighted part? Yes. Yep. That's what I think she's asking. That's the way I read it. >> Um and you know what staff we had
recommended that highlighted statement to say that really the chemical fertilization herbicides is can only be used to get vegetation established. So that you know after afterward
um you know you really can't use it in vegetated areas but >> Pam has a good point about the agravalttaics where they do >> right >> use some stuff that might fall under the MDR regulations.
Yeah, I feel like we'd have to put in something. Yeah. >> So, this is just in saying that they have to comply with MDR regulations for any pesticide or herbicide application. >> Mhm. >> No matter when it does, it doesn't limit
it to a specific time period. So then the next the the highlighted sentence is more for non aggravate. Yeah. Or or Yeah. I mean so the that's the way we were inter we hadn't
interpreted it yet even to we weren't sure where how agotics were going to be incorporated but it would to me it couldn't apply to agolics necessarily. I mean it could maybe um >> would you want >> do you want to keep the highlighted section? >> I mean Mandy you had in the previous
version said you know the state had there were some I don't know if it was um case law about >> how much you regulate um use of herbicides and so to me it's almost like you'd move that sentence up above the um the talicized one. So,
clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited. Um, and then you'd say vegetated areas shall only be subject to chemical fertilization would be the second sentence there. I I I think that might actually make it read better.
And then so then if they want to keep using um pesticides they have to follow MDAR. >> Yeah. >> How about something like that? >> Yep. What about text? I guess I we were we
were did we want to say something? >> Well, I guess that's the thing why I added this phrase here. After vegetation is established, then they have to follow MDR. >> Yep. Yep. And then >> Yeah. And that applies to agroaltics as
well probably. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> That would be for everyone. And and so I'm sure the attorney will have a we can add a note if we want. Is this a problem for Agra Voltaics? >> Yeah,
>> something like that. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Um So I think this is why it's in the list of reports because we're in the reporting section now. >> So I would just delete Pam's comment
here. So it's our >> So this is part of the reporting section already. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Right. Because here here's the list of reports reporting and here's the general >> for everyone and then Agravalttaics has
this second one that says for the first five years um if they're required to submit a report to DOER they have to submit it to us too. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That's way I read it. So, it's not a it's not an additional requirement.
It's something they'd already be doing. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> And then we dealt with this. >> The only other um >> and then we need introduction language here yet. Oh, I thought you know thought
they actually had started the with the solar the agrovoltaics. Um the only the one other question staff had would be if you know if they change use if they stop using it for agics
>> we're not we're we probably won't chase it. Um the only time we would is if they want to change the use. So, for instance, if someone comes in and they get permitted or they say they have an agotics uh installation, unless it's like a complaint driven or
they come in and they say, "Oh, you know what? We're no longer doing it. We're going to do something else." Then then it would have to go through some kind of permitting. Um but we may want to say that in terms of you know if we define what farming is it seems like anytime if the farming stops they may not may not you know we I guess
what we're trying to say is like I guess we want to be a little lenient on like what how active is aggra um agriculturally you know used so you know there is some exemptions if they take a season off like you know what what does that mean um
you know in 20 is what does that mean? Um maybe it's fine. We say active I mean I think we say active agricultural use or how I forget how we defined it or we just we just use the state definition. Um >> so I just added a phrase in modifications.
>> Yes. Okay. >> That sort of says material modifications would include a change of use from agravalttaic. It sort of includes that sort of change of use. Mhm. So they would have to get approval.
>> Does that make sense, Nate? >> I think so. I think we I guess the question would be when who who determines that? Um so say for instance they you know they have a say they're in a 20-year lease for solar in year 17
they they kind of let it go. um you know, are we we're not asking for annual reports from them to confirm that they're still in active agriculture. We could with the state definition. The reason why we put that in there is, you know, you have to have meet certain thresholds to say you're actually a
farmer agriculture. Um but we haven't put that requirement in here. Um and so we're kind of just we could we're just taking, you know, we're kind of, >> you know, we're taking the applicant or owners, you know, word for it, right? that they're gonna have this agriculture
um and this solar. >> So, we could add into this reporting requirement here and a yearly yearly confirmation that they meet >> something under whatever it is. >> Yeah. Yeah. That there's still an active, you know, that they still meet
the definition, you know. And so I guess yeah, like if we talk through that. So then um if it's just the we're still you if it's just being permitted as it is with a canopy in those areas, it's just a yes for the
most part anyways. And so nothing really changes in terms of the permitting except for in those few districts where it's by the permit granting authority, >> but what changes is what they have to comply with in terms of submission requirements and all potentially or
setbacks or stuff like that depending on how we >> Well, that's what we were saying. like are we would we really make them then go move their solar panels back because they're no longer um active agriculture or would we just let it go until there's you know a
change of use of the property. So it went from agriculture to, you know, they want to do half of it, put a cluster subdivision or something or they want to, you know, >> when you look at some of these, depending on which ones they'll reply to, apply, you might make them change
their lighting. >> Who knows, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's just something, you know, Rob and I just we kind of said quickly. We hadn't really talked through it. It's just like, okay. Um, typically it's odd to have a a use
almost contingent on another use, >> right? >> I think that's fine. You know, this will always come back to us as the plane board members have started to say like, you know, even once you get it going, it's there's a chance for it to come back during public hearing to look at it all over again so we can
>> Yes. >> Oh, I was looking. It's 128A. What was it under though? Is it agricultural purposes? Okay. Okay. And then she had a lot in fencing apparently. Oh no definitions.
She was moving agravalttaic here because it was going into the use tables. But if it's not going into the use tables, we don't have to move it. and Pam asked for a fencing amendment. I think what um what staff had said previously was that we we still have to
amend section 6.2 uh zero in the bylaw. So that section is the fencing section and what we would do is have a reference. Um we already say it um in certain districts, you know, this doesn't apply and what we'd have to add is that
you know directs users to to um Yeah. So it' be like a a second sentence. The last sentence is 6 6.20 would say that you know any fencing related to solar you know this does section doesn't apply see section 18 or something. So it's a cross reference.
>> So that's what Pam I guess was trying to do here >> right. Yep. But we'd have to it doesn't you don't have to say it here. I think we'd have to say it in section 6.20. Um yeah. Uh and so you know this is only
the fencing the way I'm understanding is it's only the security fencing around the solar installation is the way section 18 is written right so say for instance someone puts solar on um you know say they have a big
property on the back of their property we have these requirements for setbacks for the fence but then say they want to put you know another type of fence just around the along the front edge of their property. this section doesn't apply to it. So, the fencing here to me is really the fencing. We'll call I'll call it the
security fencing around the solar. It's not the And it could be the same as what is along near the property line. So it's under screening and planting right now. >> Yeah. So the way to say it, we say solar um photovoltaic or best insulation still
be enclosed by fencing. And to me that's different than if someone wants to put like a split rail fence along the the front of their property line too, even if they have a solar installation on it. >> Yeah. So it's not this part that we need to add.
You guys were going to come up with language, right? >> Yeah. I think I had it somewhere. I mean, it was like as simple as at the end of 6.20 like you know, we could say like fencing that encloses solar or or best. Um, you know, this section does not apply to apply to fencing that
encloses solar or best C section 18 or however we define it. You know, we've um Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So is Yeah. It just be something like that. >> You got a typo in security there. Yeah, >> Zoom's great except for when you have to
do live edits. Yeah. Okay. I think then that is all of Pam's stuff. So, where are we then? Are we going to there there's a couple things that need
to be added just like a nar that that piece up front and uh and a couple of questions to look at. But otherwise I can at the end of the meeting afterwards accept the changes
and get this out as version 9 to everyone. >> And then will that go to the planning board? Are we going to try to have that one initial section the narrative piece added or before it
goes to them? >> I know we're getting the plan word packet together tomorrow for their meeting next week. I think this should go even with the applicability and some other questions still remaining just so that they can see and I can discuss the agravalttaics um and just some of the changes. So,
>> so they would get whatever the the version with the changes accepted. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Reabeled version 9. >> Yeah. >> Sorry to jump in, but Nate, you were you said something about doing the introductory paragraph for the use
table. Mhm. >> Um, are you going to do that and present that to the planning board or are you going to try to get that to them or are you going to have that come back on the 9th? >> Oh, I'll get it to the plan board by the
8th. I mean, when I say introductory paragraph, I'm thinking it's like a statement, you know, a line or two. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> yeah, it it just needs something that references accessory uses for SPI somewhere. um and adds this table because there's not
really a table, >> right? >> Um and we just need it in some sense by the time we refer to for hearing because it needs it it would need sort of referenced in the hearing notices. >> Right. Right. Yeah. Know. Yeah, it would be
Yeah, I'll come up. I think I had already started it with Rob, so I I can do that. I'm just thinking that it seems like after the 9th would be hopefully the final draft. So that's at the point that I think we
would we would want to get it out to department heads and boards and committees with a reference to the hearing dates so that they understand that's their opportunity to weigh in is during the public hearings. Mhm.
>> Yeah, I think you know um you know Erin has mentioned that the conservation commission is you know would like to see this and so they might have a fair number of comments um you know public works so you know I think >> yeah I mean staff have reviewed it right
>> already so staff to those departments has reviewed it but um I think we wanted to give department heads an opportunity uh as well as other committees that maybe staff has looked at it but the committees haven't so That was the opportunity to get it to them, which we planned all along to do.
>> Yeah. I I think whatever shows up in the council packet for the 27th is the one to send them. >> So that's >> cuz that's the one that would be referred for hearing >> and what uh what's the 27th of what
>> of April? >> April >> is the goal. So I think I think as as Andy said earlier, the 23rd is when CRC will at latest vote to send it to the council for >> Mhm.
>> recommend that they send this to public hearing basically. >> Okay. >> And so that's the one that should should get distributed. That'll be out >> I guess the 23rd. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, we have we have a meeting on the 9th where we'll
hear what what happened at the planning board on the 8th and then we'll do any finalization. Well, I guess currently the 23rd is the latest finalization because there may be more comments from the planning board between the 9th and the 23rd.
>> Yeah. And I I forwarded Doug's email. Hopefully you received it. The um Yeah. Yeah. And it may be that, you know, unless there's a specific section I I'll again I'll remind the planning board. It might just be like I told like you know I kind of relay kind of some
general comments about you know kind of their understanding of the bylaw. Um I'm not sure you know it's interesting they haven't um I was hoping to get more comments but I think they're just I guess I think they're still kind of just digesting it and understanding it. Um,
>> all right. So, are we at a point where we've gotten to where we're going to get today on this one or >> I think so. >> So, what are the what what happens to it next? >> You'll you'll you'll accept the changes, Mandy, and you'll send out a version.
And it's version 9. >> Yep. >> And then that's the version that will go to the planning board and then we'll hear from Nate the day after the planning board and then we'll see if we need, you know, what else we
need to do before we refer it to town council and legal. >> I think so. Yeah. >> Yeah, sounds good. Okay, great. So, well, thank you Nate in particular
and Mandy and Stephanie and and all of us. Um, this is a long time coming and it's quite technical and I think uh but it's you know I think the discussions have been thoughtful. So,
um all right. So, shall we move on to the next part of our agenda? Um, which is planning board and zoning board of appeals interview questions and selection criteria. I guess Nate, you don't need to be around for that. Um,
Stephanie, unfortunately, I think you're running the you're you're hosting the meeting. I don't know. You can you can check out while we're discussing it, but you need to to turn off the thing when once we're done. So, >> Sure. I'll be hanging around in the background. >> Okay.
Um so we have um several documents in the packet. There's a planning board draft interview questions and planning board selection guidance and then there's uh
ZBA draft interview questions. And there's sort of two versions of selection guidance. I guess there's the ZBA chair input on selection criteria and then a sort of abbreviated version uh that would serve as selection guidance for
that. So why don't we go to the planning board selection guidance? Um let me see if I can pull it up. Can I do that or
>> um >> am I enough of a host or Mandy? Do you want to do that? We're doing selection guidance first. I don't know whether I have the right version. >> It's what's in the packet. Um, >> hold on. You I I'll share something and
you tell me if it's the right one. >> Okay. >> I'm operating on last week's packet because I had assumed they were the same. >> I think it is the same. >> So, >> yes. >> Is it the one that's titled amended? Um,
let's see. >> Hold on. >> Planning board. >> I was going through my email to see if I had a a different one. >> If you scroll down, you'll see um there'll be like if there's new text at the bottom, it's amended.
>> Mandy, can you scroll down? >> Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. There there's some So the green is the 2026 input. So that that's as amended I believe. Is that square with your understanding Alicia?
>> Um I'm just trying to make sure I have the same one. Okay. Yes. >> Okay. >> So this then is um Can you scroll back up? This is um gu selection guidance. Um has anybody
been on this committee but previously in going through this process? Mandy. So is this something that gets released or is this something that we just use as the committee as we're considering um people's responses? So it is released um
it is sent to all so so there's a there's a process that uh a policy that the council has adopted and part of that policy is the selection selection guidance questions and and there's a whole process um
>> once there are interviewees the people who have submitted their statements of interest um everyone who has submitted a calf gets a request request to submit a statement of interest at some point in time and they get sent the selection
guidance um I I think they get sent it at that time but anyone who submits a statement of interest gets the selection guidance and the interview questions ahead of time. >> Yeah. >> Um so both of these go in the packet for the meeting we interview people at. Um
and they are sent to the candidates ahead of time that are being interviewed. Um so yes it is not so so everyone knows what the selection guidance is. Um it is what we are supposed to use to make our recommendation to the council.
>> Okay. So this is uh this this is basically the guidance that was adopted last year and then um there are some amendments based on in input received from uh the planning board chair and that is basically the green part down
below. Yes. >> So, so under the policy, we have to have two two parts. The what we think are criteria for a healthy and effective multiple member body. We tend not to change that yearly, although we can.
>> Um, and then we are required to ask for input from the b the >> body's chair. So, this would be planning board chair. Um, and so this is what he submitted. And we tend to adopt that input
word for word, although we have not always depending on what. Sometimes there's been names mentioned in things and we've redacted names or we've done other things. um or it's been repetitive or something, but we tend to not try to
modify the wording that of the chair or were clear if we are modifying the wording of the chair. >> Yeah, I think you'll see in the ZBA one that that there was a three-page submission from the former chair or the current one, I forget which. And uh Pam
decided to it it had headings for each of 10 different criteria which each had three sentences of text underneath them. and I think she chose to just include the headings. Um so, um you can see the text from from last year
and then you can see the the the the changed text or the proposed text for this year which is the ideal candidates would balance the experience the expertise of continuing board members so that all areas of relevant expert experience are represented. The three
board members whose terms are expiring are a sustainability advocatef fundraiser and two interested citizens without relevant professional experience. One of whom has experience as a landlord. The continuing board members consist of a retired architect, an architect/planner,
one affordable housing consultant, and one community member. Given the makeup of the continuing board members, I would recommend prioritizing. Is that do we usually say um I would recommend or would we change that to um you know we would prior we would
consider prioritizing something like that. >> Sorry Andy, can you state that question again? >> Yeah. >> I'm just wondering this it says that the uh the CRC includes this below. I I was just wondering if it should say I recommend or if if the if if it should
be more like um you know uh the committee will be looking for you know but um >> so I'm I was just looking at the language we have up here to try and answer your question. So input received highlighted some items to consider when
making appointment that the CRC includes this below. >> So it's okay then because it's been identified as his >> as his stuff. Yeah. >> Okay. So I would delete that and then I would just keep that. >> Yeah. So then it's I would recommend prioritizing candidates with expertise
in areas potentially lost or departing aspiring members or areas otherwise not well represented. Under reppresented areas of particular benefit would be first a landscape architect or urban designer. Second a civil engineer especially with expertise in traffic and storm water engineering. An attorney or
person with real estate development experience would also be beneficial. So, are there any questions or concerns about this language? Um, and if not, do we want to take a vote to uh approve it?
>> So, I'll I'll make a motion to adopt the planning board selection guidance as amended on April 2nd, 2026. >> Okay. Um, >> I'll second. >> Okay, thank you. Um, any discussion?
Hearing none, I'll take it to a vote. Um, Mandy Joe, >> uh, I, >> Councelor Walker, >> yes. >> And I'm also Yes. So, that's a three three with two absent. Uh, it's
approved. So then I'm sorry to keep uh asking you to pull stuff up Mandy, but you seem to have some skill at that. So if you want to pull up the questions then these are the questions that have been used uh in the past. And um my understanding is
that this is a group interview process. So and everybody gets a chance to answer each of the questions um and so in a rotating version. And so not every not one's has having to answer
first for all the questions. They they take turns going first and rotating around. Um so these are the questions that or this is the the the sheet of interview questions that would be sent out in advance to the interviewees. Um
and can you scroll down just to see what else is on this sheet? That's it. Okay. So basically just saying that we'll conduct conduct interviews as a group asking all each question all candidates and rotating who begins each question. They'll have two to three minutes to answer each of the questions. So there
are nine questions at this point. If we have five people answering um nine questions with you know at three minutes a piece that's that's a lot of that that's some time. So maybe not all of them will take three
minutes for each question. But um I guess I would suggest is there if there are any other questions you want to add, maybe we can um you have to delete something to add something. Um Pam see Pam indicated that she thought that these questions worked
pretty well in the past. Um you know there are some characteristics that are listed in that guidance that we just looked at. Um and and there will be other um guidance for ZBA where um you know you're looking for people who
you know have good judgment and are you know have integrity and it's you know I we only know so much but I think you know these questions sort of cover a lot of a lot of the question you know the typical questions you would figure on for an inter for an interview for this
type of board and uh Does anybody have any um Mandy Joe, you were on this committee last year. You used the these questions. Um did they work? Okay. You know, what's your sense of how they worked? >> So, yeah, this has been an evolving
process for seven years. Um and we're slowly getting to a set of questions. The biggest new one last year was the housing production plan one. Um, and it worked really well, I thought, and created, you know, the the the danger in interviews, as you'll see, is when you
do them all in a row and everyone's sitting there, you get a lot of I agree with that person, I agree with that person. Um, and we've we've sort of tried to hone these to try and draw out not as much I agrees or they said it perfectly, but we still get a lot of
that. But the I I think they're working well to get us some information that helps us make decisions um based on the criteria for for choosing people um or recommending people. I would change draft housing production
plan to just housing production plan um because it was draft last year when we did it and now we've adopted it. >> Yeah. But um otherwise um you know um and and I would get rid of this thing to link here. But um other
than that I I think they work well. You are right Andy. Um eight and nine generally don't take two to three minutes to answer. Nine is generally a yes or a no. Um, so it's not as many as it looks. Um, but but I I I personally
think they work well. Um, so I wouldn't necessarily make any changes myself this year. >> And it is it your sense that the group interview process works? Okay. I mean, I think that's the danger of a group interview process where you get a lot of sort of like, oh, yeah, what he said or
or or going to school on on the other, you know, if you really want to hear what people think, you do you interview them individually, but maybe you see how people interact in a group. So, maybe that's helpful. >> So, the group interview process is required by the policy. So, we must do
it that way. Um, >> it they either way they get the questions ahead of time. So many people come in with their answers pre-written. Um, and and so sometimes you you get a lot, but I would add this to this or
something. You know, it it works as well as any public interview that anyone would be able to watch in whatever order they wanted, even if you didn't do them group. Um, so in some sense if you didn't do them as a group with rotating
like we do, the person who went first is almost at a disadvantage than the person who goes last who could watch all say seven people's interviews ahead of time and and then do something with that, right? It's one of the reasons we rotate who answers what questions first, too.
Um, so you know, it it's not an ideal policy, I would say, but it's it's what we have to abide by right now, unless we're changing the policy, which is a council policy, not a committee policy. >> Yeah. Well, I know I know Jennifer ran
this process or, you know, did logistics on this process last year. Pam talked about it. Um, you know, it given that we have to do the uh whole process in public. Um, I I guess, you know, I think this seems
sensible. Um, uh, Alicia, do you have any concerns or or or thoughts on this? >> No, my only comment was the same thing that Mandy Joe just said in terms of the last two questions seeming like they wouldn't take as long. So, I think the
number of questions was fine. And I think um I haven't been able to utilize any of these questions like formally, but it looks like a good mix to be able to tell whether or not folks are meeting the criteria that was outlined previous. So I am okay with these.
>> Great. Um well then shall we vote to approve them? I'll I'll take a motion. Um, I move to adopt the interview questions for 2026 planning board interviews as amended on April 2nd, 2026.
>> I second that. >> Okay. Um, vote. Uh, Mandy Joe >> I. >> Alicia. >> Yes. >> And I'm a yes. So that's three to zero with two absent. Um, so then we have the same for the
ZBA. there's the guidance and there's it looks like there's two different guidance um sheets. One has more extensive comments from the chair and the other one has is sort of a a bridged comments from the chair which I think is
the one that we would propose to send out. So I don't know if you had a chance to look at them before but um that's my quick summary of them. Um, so the one that says
draft 2026 ZBA selection guidance is the one that's up for discussion, but if you want to see the longer version, it's the chair input on selection criteria. >> I'm I'm going to have to download that one because I only have the longer version. Give me a second.
I mean, if we feel like there's something missing on on this one, we can always go to the longer version, but I think it was Pam it was Pam's attempt to make it readable for for folks. >> So, which which one are you selection?
I believe this is uh 4B2 ZBA draft 2026 uh ZBA selection guidance. >> Okay. I have a selection guidance- reference a selection ZBA chair input on selection criteria and a selection
guidance with chair input. >> Oh boy. >> In the packet. >> All right. Well, let me download all three and and I will figure out >> I'm actually looking at the at what was posted uh on the on the on the website.
I'm I'm on the website rather than in the SharePoint. So, um >> I am also looking at the website >> but I do see those those also. Hold on. Let me let me download these
two and I will open them and and see and and then I have the one that was sent to us by email last week. So, let me I think that's an old one. Uh I think
>> okay. Um so let let me try this one. >> So there's one that that the one I was looking at has one page and then a paragraph on the second page. >> Yeah, that is the zoning board of appeals selection guidance. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah, >> this one. But then there's also, let's see, >> wait, that's DBA selection. Hold on. That was the one that was emailed to us. >> Oh, well, >> hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me let me
let me try to Like I said, I'm trying to figure out Okay, I think this is it. Hold on. Okay. Oh, yeah. See, that's right. See? Yeah. I think this is the one that you that that we want to consider. This is
what was emailed to us. I'm not sure if this one made it into the packet, though, so we should make >> it. It is. it. I downloaded it just now. >> This is the one in the packet. Okay. >> It just says selection guidance with chair input. >> With chair input. >> The the title's up here. I think you can
see it. 4B2 ZBA draft 2026 selection guidance with chair input. Um. All right. Well, in the packet, and I'm just looking. There's ZBA chair input, which is the longer
even longer than that one. >> There's interview questions. There's ZBA draft 2026, ZBA selection guidance, which is short. >> And then this one's sort of an intermediate level. So, but it has the headers or the the 10
things at the end are things that are in the chair input but were done, you know, which had multiple bullet points underneath each of them. So, what Pam was saying was that she was looking to to boil that
down to something that was a little bit more um you know, digestible, but it still had had the input um of the of the 10 items toward the end that are in red. So, I think this is the one that we should
consider um approving or editing. >> The one that Mandy Joe has up. >> Yes. And this one, >> it's not on the website, but it was the it was emailed to us. >> Okay. >> So, we should we should make sure
>> this one was never emailed to us. This one right here. Right. >> Where did you get this one? >> I'm not sure. I have a couple documents open, but none of them. >> I've just downloaded this from the SharePoint packet. >> Okay. So, it's in it's in SharePoint, but it's not on the website. >> It might be on the website under a
different title. I don't know. I I like councelor Walker. I downloaded the two that appeared to be guidance and neither of them had one had more detail and one had less detail. So this is the Goldilocks version.
>> Yes, Mandy Joe. >> So um I I'm fine. I'm not sure we need all the bold and stuff, but you know, I would reformat this to because because everything's
sort of wonky, but >> I'm I'm not pleased with the deletion of the bullet points under each of these. Um because when I read the bullet points under each of these, which is quote the
longer version, um >> there were some things in here in those bullet points that were mentioned that I thought really helped explain what a ZBA member is and why it's different from a planning board member
in a sense. um you know the bullet points ability to evaluate evidence um you know it it talked about what that means and what members need to focus on. Members should focus on what's in the
record, not outside information. That's really important for hearings. Um impartiality and integrity. The the chair wrote ZBA members must act more like judges than advocates. um you know it it's just stuff like that that ZBA as
a quasi judicial body is much different than even the planning board and I thought the descriptions that the chair provided were in some sense the first time
I've seen a great description of what that quasi judicialness means that make sense and getting rid of that in my mind um I think is a a doing a disservice to not
just the chair who provided it but actually to the applicants in the town by not putting it out there. So I I would want to see the chair's full guidance in the document not just the
the shortened version here. Well, >> do you want to pull that one up so we can look at it? because I there is a certain level where they they sound sort of like platitudes if it's just the headings, you know? So, so maybe there maybe there is I just
don't want to scare people off by like here's your >> it is quite long, right? and he adopted I I'll page down um you know he adopted this input from the chair which is in bold here understanding of quasi judicial in some sense I would almost
rather delete some of this old stuff that is relying from 2021 and beyond like that's just been held over because I thought um this paragraph about the complicatedness
and then this set here was much more descriptive than even that bolded paragraph above. >> Yeah. And it could probably be formatted in a way that we don't have effective members
and then, you know, a double space and then effective members and then a double space and none of the zoning bylaws. So, it could probably be tightened up. I'd be happy to take that on. >> Yeah. I mean, I could try to tighten it up now, but
>> Oh, yeah. I mean, >> well, in terms of like what we might delete and all. Um, >> yeah, I mean it >> but councelor Walker has her hand raised. >> I'm sorry. Yes. Go ahead. >> Um, it's okay. I just want to make sure
I'm following along. So, are did this draft come before the draft, the shortened version we were just looking at? But we're are we saying that we're going to revert back to using this as the base draft, or are we going to edit the new one and read the bullet
points? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that we're proposing we do now. Um, and then I do have some other comments about some of the wording. >> Okay. Um, >> so this draft, uh, not the changes I'm making that are in blue, but this draft
is what was emailed to us right before last week's meeting, um, in an email to Pam. And so I thought it was in the packet, and it might be one you >> maybe >> this one's in the packet. This one I have open, but the one you were looking at before I did not have. And so I just
wasn't sure which one was the newest version that we should be using. I think the one that had just the one to 10 with nothing underneath again I I don't know that that seems to be Pam's amended
version based on this one to short >> yeah I I discussed this with Pam she she put this one together first and then she was thinking it looked long and so she said well one way to approach that would be to um just have the headers and not
the bullet points um here. But I think Mandy's making a good point that without some of the that some of the you know the nuance of what these things mean is included in the in the bullet points.
So I I think we can consider this one if we think that that offers something that the a bridged one does not. Um that was we we received this one previously and then Pam um tried shortening it by by just using the headers but we can
consider either one. >> Okay. I think personally I while I definitely appreciate and would love to give everyone a shorter version. I agree with Mandy Joe in terms of keeping some of these bullet points just because
sometimes it's not always clear exactly what the bold header means. And so having those specific examples also is helpful for um like a candidate to be able to fully describe that to us if they have that better understanding. So
I think it's also helpful for them and for us. Um, but I am not a huge fan of the language good ZBA members as opposed to effective. I just don't like the idea of like, well, a bad ZB member is one
who doesn't do these things. Um, so I would just appreciate that sort of alternative language consistently underneath the um titles, but also not sure if you necessarily need them at all and you could just list the bullet
points under the titles. So >> yeah, I think I think I agree with that and I think that's sort of what um Mandy Joe's been uh suggesting with some of these edits. Um there's a there's a few cases where
it's not just um it's not saying good or bad, but I think that was sort of the default like a good member does this or an effective member does this. But when it says each case come with plans, testimony, expert reports, I think that seems important. Um
you know, that kind of stuff. So um but yeah, I I agree. So, I'm showing you what it would look like edited at this point without showing you the deletions because then it's a little shorter. >> Oh, yeah. It goes into three page three pages.
>> Um, we'll we'll see. Hold on. I I'm moving some of these last sentences. >> Yeah. >> Into just bullet points. I don't know whether all of it makes sense to move it into bullet points if we're trying to shorten stuff though. But that's why I was just moving some of
these into bullet points. Yeah. Well, let's see. >> Maybe members now or >> Yeah, I was going to change this one to members. That one, that bullet point could just be a comma. >> I don't know why that one.
>> You just move it uh to the left there. Yeah, I'm trying. For some reason, it's not doing it. >> Okay. >> Weird. So, I'll do it this way. >> There. >> More than one way to
>> Councelor Walker has her hand up. >> Yes. I'm so sorry. I just wanted to interrupt because I do have a hard stop at three and that gives us about four more minutes and I know you all will lose a quorum so I figure it might be helpful to figure out how to round this up.
>> Okay, great. Thanks for that. Um why don't we other than sort of scribner's you know improvements not changing the content but if there's formatting or something um why don't why don't we um
I'll take a motion to approve this as currently uh written with with possible formatting uh corrections. >> I'll second so moved and council you second.
>> I will second but can you what can you say what it was again? Sorry. >> Basically there were as this is as this is currently looking but maybe with some formatting. So the bullet the the bolding might change or you know the bullets might be we might tighten up
some spaces or something like that but other than that this is what we would do. >> Okay. Yes, I will second that. >> Okay. So, um I'm g All right. Mandy Toe. >> Hi. >> Uh councelor Walker. >> Yes.
>> And I'm a yes. So that's three nothing with two absent. And then the only other two things on the agenda are are to approve the minutes from the LA that that were in the packet. One was from last week. So there's it basically says we didn't make any decisions. And then
there's the minutes from uh March 12th. So, are people comfortable uh you know moving and approving those minutes? >> I just want to note that we did not get to the ZBA questions. >> Oh. Oh,
>> which we're don't have time to do today. It's fine. So that that can but it needs to be moved to next week's agenda. >> Can we hold on to I mean I guess we we have time. >> We have time on that one. That one can be held till next agenda. next time.
>> But it needs Pam needs to know. >> Okay. So, that's let's approve the minutes at least if people are okay with that. I'll I'll move that we uh approve both sets of minutes. >> Second. >> Um any discussion, any changes?
Uh Council Walker, >> yes. >> Mandy Joe, >> I >> and I'm a yes. So, that's three nothing with two absent. So we will hold the uh discussion of the ZBA questions but it
was quite a lot of work done in this meeting. So thank you and I will let Pam know that we need to put the ZBA questions on the next agenda. >> So Amanda, you're going to send the la the the final version of that. >> I'll send all four things we modified
today out in the next like probably 30 minutes or so because I just want it off my table. >> Great. The next CRC meeting is April 9th at 1 PM. I don't have any items anticipated by the chair. So, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> I second that. If it needs a second, I
don't know. >> All All in favor say Mandy Joe. >> I >> I >> Oh, sorry. You said all in favor. >> What's that? >> No, you said all in favor, but also called on Mandy Joe, so I also said I. Sorry.
>> Yes. All right. So, we're out. go uh go meet your hard stop and we'll uh Thank you very much. >> Awesome. Thank you, Andy. Thank you, Mandy Joe. And thank you, Steph. >> Yes. Thanks, Stephanie. >> You're welcome. Bye. >> Bye.