and we have seven participants. >> Good afternoon. It's November 20, 2025. This is a uh regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council pursuant to chapter 2 of
the acts of 25 and extended through June 30 of 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via
Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means.
Um I have of the committee and I'll go around and see if you can be heard. Um councelor Hani >> present. Kathy Shane unmute. Try again
here. >> Great. Thank you. NPM renews here. We also have Stephanie Cherello and Rob Mora. Um for some of our agenda items, let's see if there's I don't see Pat D'Angelus yet, but she will appear at
some point, I'm sure. Um just want to talk about the order of business. We have a public hearing on a zoning amendment that will be followed um by the general public comment period on topics pertaining to the CRC.
So at 3:03, which is in 1 minute's time, we'll we'll open that public hearing. Um I can tell you now that I have absolutely no meeting minutes to review. So, so action item 4 C, which should
have been 4B, is scratched, so we don't have to talk about that later. >> Can I ask about that? >> Yeah, >> we've got two meetings of CRC left before the new term. Um, how far behind are we on minutes? And
>> we are way, way behind. I think the transfer memo needs to have a list of all the minutes that have not been passed so that there is some sort of list of meetings that still need minutes somewhere.
>> Yep. Thank you. That's a very good idea. >> So Pam, I second that, but I would go further and say have not been received as drafts. It's not just that we haven't passed them. >> Yeah. >> It's not our in other words, not written in a way. It's not our failure to review. Yeah.
>> Right. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks both. Okay. Uh it is 3:03 which means I can open the public hearing. Um this is the time is 3:03 and this is a proposed zoning map
change uh on Main Street to a BN district. In accordance with the provisions of Mass General Law Chapter 4A, this public hearing of the Community Resources Committee of the Amoristown Council has been duly advertised and noticed thereof, has been posted, and is
being held for the purpose of of providing the opportunity for interested residents to be heard regarding the following proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw. that is to consider amending the town of Ammerst official
zoning map to reszone three parcels on Main Street known as 14B-29, 14B-30, and 14B-31 from general residence district, the RG to the neighborhood business district, the BN.
Uh, I'd like to start with probably a presentation by Rob Moira. Hi everyone. Um, >> can can you speak up a little bit please? >> Sure. Uh, do you have do you have the presentation to put on the screen? >> I don't.
>> I can do it. I I I ended up I ended up grabbing it from uh the planning board packet and putting it in our SharePoint, but was never sent it to put it officially put it in our CRC packet.
>> Right. I I emailed it to you this morning. >> Oh, you did? Okay. I'm sorry. >> I see it way down there at the bottom. Yes. Sorry. >> Is Is this it, Rob? >> This is it. Yes. >> Okay. Um should I uh if it's okay I'll just start with a summary of last
night's meeting with the planning board and then then go into the um the overview of the slides. Uh so uh the planning board heard and held their public hearing last night. Uh they closed their public hearing voted 511
in favor to recommend approval of the uh proposed amendment. Um there was a a a good discussion. Uh the public hearing went on for about 45 minutes or so. Um there were some questions raised uh uh questions about the difference in use
allowance between the two zoning districts that are part of the proposed change. Um what it would mean for the inn uh specifically the inn if the uh proposal was not adopted. Uh there were
some concerns raised um about how the proposal could negatively affect the Dickinson Museum across the street. Um I did note in response to that uh concern that the uh the planning department
received a letter of support from uh the board of uh governors of the the Dickinson Museum. Uh I uh we also uh had a concern about uh allowing non-residential uses without
special permit review and reference was made to the uh the one BN parcel at the corner of Dickinson and Maine and over the years uh how special permit review happened for the businesses that came in
and out of that building. Um, I I did respond to that uh to let the board know that uh the zoning bylaw uh amend was the was amended uh about 15 years ago to change that zoning district from
commercial to BN uh which uh which ended the need for special permitting in that district for those types of uses and all of the uses that exist there now which are mi mix of personal care establishments and business uh office
space um you know are done by administrative approval uh because there's no exterior change uh so site plan review would not be needed. Uh there was another concern raised that, you know, maybe this uh this little
change should be put on hold until the entire downtown and larger scope could be reviewed and uh you know all the pieces fill in from the the the BVC district at the corner of Dickinson and Maine. Uh so we talked a little bit
about that and how how you know we feel like this is an appropriate change as small as it is will blend in nicely and and serve as that transition uh out of out of BG uh whenever that um that downtown work takes place in the future.
So we can go right into the uh the slide uh show and we can skip to the next next slide. So, just as a reminder, if there's, you know, anyone in the public that had hasn't heard this, I know everyone on the CRC has heard this a few weeks ago at the council meeting. Uh,
but this is the map change only. Uh, just three parcels. There's no other language being proposed in the bylaw. And it is a change from what is currently the general residence district to the uh proposed neighborhood business district. Uh, and there's just as I just
mentioned a couple uh seconds ago, there is that one parcel of that one parcel that exists in the BN at the corner of Dickinson and Maine and this will expand on that parcel uh resulting in four total parcels in that district. Uh, if
we can go on to the next slide. Uh, I've talked a little bit about how this proposal can support uh many of our goals. Uh it is it is definitely uh motivated by and uh result would result
in a uh significant uh uh support and need for the Ammerst in and I'll talk about each of the parcels in a minute. Uh and and then of course the um the future look at downtown zoning and how this will this area transitions out of
that to our residential zones further down on Main Street. Uh if we can go ahead. Um I think everyone's aware of uh you know the steps that it took to get here. Uh this is a proposal that was brought to the council by the town
manager for consideration and request for referral. Uh again the planning board held their public hearing last night. Uh this would be the required council public hearing uh going on right now. Uh next slide please.
So just a a minute about each of the the districts uh as I on the bullet points here I won't read them them all but it is you know um an area of um a mix of housing a mix of non small non-residential
uses and the RG district uh and the BG district uh you know both provide for similar residential uses and in similar permitting uh paths. So, uh, for example, uh, duplexes and apartments, uh, require
special permits whether you're in the RG or the BN district. So, there there really isn't much change to the use, what would be allowed by, uh, you know, the uses in each of the districts. What does change and we just move to the next slide would be the non-residential
uh possibilities that could that could be uh opportunities as a uh neighborhood business district. Uh and that includes uh moving from uh what is now a single family home with an accessory use bed
and breakfast to a full uh primary use of an inn. And that will be um I'll talk about that in a second. Uh we can go right on to the map. And this is the current zoning map. Again, on the corner, Dickinson and Maine, there's
that one piece uh that one parcel that's in the BN. Uh I don't know if Mandy Yeah, thank you. Uh and then to the left of that, the next three parcels are the three that we're going to be talking about uh changing. And that's shown in the next
the next uh slide shows the outline of the three parcels. And we can just keep going to the next slide and talk about uh the first one which is the one that was all the way uh to the west closest to >> Excuse Excuse me. Can we go back to the map please?
>> Sure. And if it's easier to stay on the map uh while I talk that's fine. >> Thank you. That's great. Um I had a question from hearing your presentation last night. Uh directly south of the highlighted um BN parcel at the corner,
there is a what looks like a flag lot. In the in one of the maps, it appeared that that parcel and the flag portion of it was part of the same parcel, but I this map looks different.
>> Yeah, it is it is held in common ownership. um it is excluded from this this zoning change. So it remains in the it will remain in the G RG district. Uh it only has access through from Spring
Street. Uh we couldn't provide access from Main Street for any use that wouldn't be permitted in the RG district if there were to you know combine uses. Uh so it you know it does remain standalone and you know any any
potential development would be subject to the RG standards not not anything um being proposed here with this amendment. >> Thank you. >> Uh so 229 Main Street, that's the one all the way to the left there. It's about a 20,000 square foot parcel. It is
a pre-existing non-conforming duplex. Uh it does not have a special permit for its use. Uh it's been there for a really long time. Uh this is the parcel that I've uh that I described last night as, you know, being the most um unknown for
what could potentially happen there. Uh it is large enough to accommodate more dwelling units. It's large enough to accommodate maybe a small non-residential use uh with some off- streetet parking. Uh there is in no way any discussion going on. I you know, I
did talk with all of the owners of the properties. uh none of them have any interest or plans to do anything with their property, but this is one that I just wanted to point out that uh did have that potential uh in the future if it ever uh got looked at. Um all the
three parcels I didn't mention are in the local historic district. Uh so any exterior changes to the current building or any new buildings would be under that uh that thorough review uh with the historic district commission. Uh the
next slide please. Uh so 257 Main Street, that's the Ammerst Inn. Uh that is uh the largest parcel. It has uh an accessory use special permit from 1997. So uh this special permit allows for
four to six guests. Uh this is not guest rooms. uh this is actual people uh number of people that would be allowed to be uh on the premises along with the owner. This is a little bit in conflict with
some of our uh state fire codes which actually says that any more than five people including the owner uh requires a lot of life safety systems in the building in this higher level of of building safety. Uh and that's you know
what kind of led to this discussion. And I can talk about that a little bit too if helpful. Uh but it is regulated by a special permit. It's owner occupied. It remains owner occupied today. Uh there are new uh additional operators in addition to the uh the original owner
who is still an owner and uh connected to the property. Uh and um again it's located in the local historic district commission. There aren't any proposed changes. Although with this uh amendment, if it were adopted, it would
provide uh the path needed to establish the the use as a primary uh inn rather than an accessory use bed and breakfast bread and uh bed and breakfast. uh and the owner would be
required to install uh a couple of life safety systems in the building. Specifically, sprinkler and fire alarm are the big ones. Uh and it's uh although it's under review with an architect at this point, uh it hasn't been determined exactly the full scope
of work, but if there happened to be any code required changes to the building that were needed, uh that would be something on the exterior that would be subject to review by the local historic district commission and also the planning board through site plan review. Uh I can keep going to the last parcel.
This one uh is uh an existing pre-existing non-conforming apartment building. It has six units. Uh it is uh extremely maxed out on building and lot coverage. Uh you may remember that five
or six years ago there was a fire that uh caused the building to be fully renovated and updated. Uh the site's been improved with new parking, paving uh and walkways. Uh so I I think there's there's very little opportunity, if any opportunity at all, to do uh to do
anything with this property and and highly unlikely given the investment that was just made to rebuild it and and make improvements. Uh the next uh slide shows the map. If it were to be adopted, it puts all of those three parcels into the BN district
with the uh the one current parcel at the corner of Dickinson and Maine. So that's uh the the presentation and happy to answer any questions. >> I'm going to go to the audience since this is a public hearing. Uh we have
three attendees in the audience and would uh encourage you to ask any questions that you might have or make any statements. Just show your raised hand. >> And I want to say >> and Pat's here and Pat is here. Thank you very much.
Your face suddenly appeared. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a statement or ask questions at this time? I see John Wyn raising his hand. Let's bring him in. Do you want to do that or do you want me to
>> Mr. Wyn? Would you like to say something? We have uh up to three minutes to talk about this subject. >> Hi. Uh thank you very much for your time. Thank you Rob for the presentation. Uh my name is John Wyn. I'm here with my wife Christine Dingler who are the owner operators of the inn.
We uh took over management of the inn from an who was still owner uh of the inn building itself um at the beginning of the year and it's it's been a fruitful year so far um with its challenges as well though as we found
out about these um these the zoning uh issues earlier on in the year um we would just like um to express our our our gratitude to being a part of the downtown business district
here and just kind of explain that we would love to keep this historic in going um in its exact condition as it is right now as a nice compliment to the wonderful museum across the street for as long as we possibly could into the
future and be a big part of bringing people to the downtown area as we have been able to um in a limited capacity this year but we'd hope to do it in much larger capacity going forward along with our uh great relationship with Amherst College and all the the parents and
students who have been coming to visit and to to to uh see Ammeris for their first time or sometimes their last in the uh situation of graduations. So uh we thank you all for your consideration and um I appreciate your time. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Would anyone else like to Let's see. We need to Would anyone else like to raise their hand and speak to this issue? I'm not seeing any other hands
indicating interest in speaking. So, I will turn to councilors. Do you have any questions for Rob Morrow? Uh, councelor Hani. >> Yeah. Um, th this change makes a lot of sense to
me because having one BN parcel next to a BVC is is kind of weird to me. So expanding that BN seems to make a lot of sense to uh to parcels that are in essence
sort of commercial. I mean obviously apartment buildings aren't necessarily commercial, but um and a duplex isn't necessarily commercial, but we're on a commercial strip that has a lot of commercial in the area. Um so this makes a lot of sense to me. Um
I I'm curious about that explanation about that tea sort of lot. um portion of I guess it's 14B28. Um that's not included in the addition to the BN. It looks like it's that that
Pam asked asked again. Um it on the GIS it looks like that that sort of flagish lot there is actually part of 14B28. Um, so why can't it be clue included in
the BN if it really isn't a separate lot at all? Um, can you help me out? >> Sure. It could be. It absolutely could be included in the BN, but it was uh deliberately not. Uh, you know, it is uh
the the parcels that we're talking about are almost entirely surrounded by owner occupied properties in the RG district. Um, we did not want to disrupt the RG uh stretch along Spring Street and given
that it has access uh in both directions, it was more appropriate in in my mind to keep it in RG with the abuing properties on that street uh and and not uh not open up the the
dimensional standard allowances that come with the BN that are not available in the RG. that could could really have an impact on the on the Spring Street side. >> Thanks. Another question or should I just go to
Kathy? >> You can go to Kathy. >> Kathy. >> Uh, so that actually leads me first to a question that builds on Mandy's. If I think you're saying that the owners who have ownership of that property are
in the place we're resoning, if they should in the future wanted to carve off the leg, the little narrow strip that goes out to Spring Street and say we would want to combine the lots. I don't know when people want to combine lots.
Would they be able to do it um and make that a deeper lot than is currently there? just I'm not sure how when people say I want to merge two lots together and and then the strip they could just choose to sell that strip off to one or
the other of the owner occupied properties that's along that strip. Do you understand what I'm saying with the way that T comes down? >> I I I do. Yeah. The the district that the property is in does not affect that uh potential from happening. Uh what
does uh happen by not changing the zoning district even if the even if the parcels are combined or altered or you know put together with a budding properties that they don't own today the zoning district line doesn't change the the um potential to build to one
district or another doesn't change where actual the actual construction takes place or development takes place that use is subject to the district that that work is in so that that piece in the back that you described with or without the leg would always be uh regulated by
RG >> okay >> dimensional and use standards. >> Okay, that answers that. So my other one is just a completely unrelated to this particular proposal. So I'll just do it quickly for thinking. Are there any other um around the village centers? Um
uh a few years ago, Chris Breastup changed uh a few of the properties around the uh village center in in the north section of town up by us to expanded it. So at one point we were talking about what are the boundaries of village centers and
what is the core of the village center which is the RB or do you have more coming up and if if there be in a cluster so people could look at the group of them you know whether it's in this east village or in the north village or in the pomeroy village you
know because I think this is an interesting approach to think of what what are the lines that how far out does it radiate before it becomes RN um as opposed to BB or or RB or whatever. Did you understand my
question? >> I I think so. Yeah. So, we we are looking at a couple of things. Uh we're early on and uh really setting uh work priorities for both the zoning subcommittee, zoning and housing subcommittee, the planning board, and staff going into the new year. and and
and I don't think we're, you know, we're not specifically looking at changes to BN specifically, but uh I think East Ammerst Village Center would be a standalone project because it is pretty large in scope that we we envision uh
both looking at village center zoning and maybe additional zoning outside the village center. And then we are looking at really parcel by parcel opportunities in various locations. one of them in Pomeroy Village and other locations
where, you know, perhaps there could be some overlay or some other approach to uh to design a a either housing or development opportunity that fits those locations. So, at this point, we're hoping and expecting and trying to to
frame that as a uh being presented as a package. you know, the a a a number of parcels that might be subject to a a set certain set of standards that would work uh for that approach. And then I think East Ammerst is its own larger project.
We have some capital money that we need to engage in a consultant for to do some buildout concepts and renderings and and that again is a uh early 26 hopefully launch to uh both of those efforts. >> Okay. Thank you. because it was one of
the undone things in the planning master plan. I mean undone in that it said needs to be further delineated, not Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thanks. And I'll I'll add a couple of my questions. Um maybe Rob, for everyone's benefit, can you describe the
differences in lot and building coverage uh between the RG and the BN that's being proposed? >> I do have that. Um so there are dimensional standard
differences. Um in the BN district lot coverage is 65% building coverage is 35%. Now the building coverage is the same in both districts 35% and in the RG the the
lot coverage is less at 40%. So 40 to 65 in the total lot coverage and 35 and 35 for building coverage. >> Thank you. That's great. Um uh >> can I clarify Pam?
>> Sure. >> So I'm looking at my dimensional regulations and it's got RG at building coverage of 25%. Do do I happen to have an old one? Uh, oh, sorry about that. You are right.
>> You are correct. >> I didn't happen to have mine open. >> They're small They're small numbers when you're looking at the page. >> So, can we can you repeat? >> Yes. Um, well, maybe I should have Mandy do it. Um,
so RG Yes. RG starting over. RG building coverage is 25%. BN building coverage is 35%. So 10% more. Uh RG lot coverage is 40%.
And BN lot coverage is 65%. and a lot coverage for people's clarification is all the all the other structures and this and the parking and the and the hardscape. That's part of that coverage. >> Um, thank you. Then I had a a question
that um when you were talking about 257 Main Street, uh I I lost the track of uh it's now an accessory use and this this zoning change would allow it to be uh
considered a primary use. Um what I didn't catch was that at at any time the changes to once it's BN the changes are by uh site plan review rather than having to do special permit.
Is that correct? >> So right now the in exists as accessory use to a single family dwelling. It's the only uh opportunity in the bylaw. So there there wasn't a another path for the owner operator to take in the RG
district to operate the inn other than as an accessory use that comes with the limit of the the number of guests. >> Yeah. If we change to the BN district, it now allows the inn, which is uh by
definition a a structure of 75 years or or older uh to be used as that primary use, not an accessory use anymore. >> Uh and that is permitted in the BN district by site plan review. So, what I
could expect here, um, if things go well, uh, the owner would request administrative approval to change the accessory use in to a
primary use in and not go to this the the planning board at all for review as long as there were no exterior changes to the site or the building being proposed. So the the seven parking spaces would remain on site. The building would remain having its its
eight uh guest rooms as it does currently. Uh and really we would probably see no no change at all or know any difference from the way it has been in maybe the recent years. >> Got it. And then and then um if they should decide to do something that that
um affects the exterior use, it would be a site plan review by the planning board. >> It would and it is Yeah. And it is possible um I I I've got a uh you know the very uh early preliminary review from the architect and it is possible that there could be
things that are happening that trip thresholds uh where say you know an accessible ramp would need to be included to provide access to the front door of the building or a door of the building. So, if those things develop as as the owner works through
uh satisfying the fire department requirements, uh we would, you know, those those items would be looked at individually and they they are not exceptions to site plan review and none none of the exterior changes would be exceptions to the local historic district review.
>> And as you pointed out, all of all of the parcels fall under the the local historic district. >> They do. Thank you. Any other questions? Any comments? >> Mandy, >> sorry. Uh, can Rob, thank you for your
overview of what the planning board discussed. Um, I guess it was last night and voted last night. Uh, you said the vote was 511. >> Yes. Um, was there a reason someone opposed this? Did they state a reason?
>> Yes. Um, the two of the concerns that um that I mentioned, one having to do with would this negatively affect the Dickinson Museum across the street was raised by that planning board member.
Uh, I believe I answered that. uh you know I mean I think in the packet there was a letter of support uh that I think took care of that question uh but that same uh board member uh felt very strongly about
uh the value of special permit review for non-residential uses and talked about his experience on the board uh and the the the businesses that uh came in and out of 319 321 one uh Main Street uh
and and his role in and helping to protect the the neighborhood with that with those permitting uh conditions and reviews. Um we didn't get a a lot, you know, the conversation kind of ended at that, but I you know, those were the reasons that he stated and ultimately
stuck to his reasoning and and voted uh in opposition of it. uh you know I think we didn't we didn't get into the discussion to talk about why why we believe you know changing from special permit review uh for those types of uses is uh exactly what we've been trying to
do for all these years is to you know make make it uh a cleaner shorter more predictable uh encourage businesses to come and fill those vacant spaces and I didn't get to talk about this and and I'm not sure I
even thought about it at 1020 was that all of the uses that are currently in the building right now have had the benefit of administrative review and that very streamlined process to help get businesses up and running quickly.
Uh so we didn't really get to go back and forth on that discussion, but those were his reasons. And if I could add the the the one abstension is a an Ammeris College uh employee who recused himself.
>> Yeah. >> Pat, any thoughts or concerns? >> No, I think this is a really good idea. I support it. Kathy, you've gone blank on us. >> I'm still here. >> Oh, good.
>> I am blind. Yeah, trying. You should be glad you've got me at all. I had to get my computer hitched directly to the modem. Um, no, no concerns. I'm insupportive of this. >> You've gone from can't signing in to you
can't even get a Wi-Fi. >> Well, the the Wi-Fi card is what broke on my computer. So, I went downtown and they gave me who knew you could still attach by cord to your computer, but they had to give me the dogle that
would allow that to happen. So, I am on my computer, but but yes, it's a long >> long story. Do you have any other comments? >> No, I don't on this topic. On this topic, >> um I I'll just uh weigh in. Uh I did I
did hear the conversation or or I appreciated the the concern that because of the sensitivity uh proximity to the Dickinson Museum that uh there would be concerns probably activity look and feel of any
businesses or any changes to these buildings um that were expressed at the planning board meeting last night. Um, I think it is makes sense here to to adopt a zoning
change. I I do support zoning changes when they're reasonable and appropriate and I I would support this as well. We could uh we have a couple options. We can wrap this up. Sounds like there's
pretty much consensus on this. Does somebody want to make a motion? >> Um, I'll move to close the public hearing. >> Okay. Is there a second? Just raise your wave your hand or something. >> Pat is Pat is a second. Okay, let's go
around and and vote. Uh, councelor Hanni. >> Hi. >> Uh, Pat D'Angelus. >> Hi. >> Kathy Shane, >> yes. >> Pam Rooney is a yes. We have closed the public hearing. Um, >> I've got another motion.
>> You've got another motion. Okay. >> I guess I don't know how the agenda is worded, but presumably we can move on to making our recommendation. >> Yep. >> All right. So, I I move to that to to recommend that council Oh gosh, I don't
even know the word changes here. adopt the map proposed map changes, zoning map changes to parcels 14B 29, 14B30, and 14B31 from RG to BN.
>> Second. >> Um, let's just double check with Rob. Does that cover the base? >> It does. >> Uh, let's take a vote. Kathy Shane, >> yes. Pattelus >> I >> Pam Rooney is an I councelor Hani
>> I >> thank you. It is 4 Z one absent I mean four yes one absent and um we will make that recommendation. I will
write a report to town council that would be in a couple of days. So, we'll try to get that report to the council before the meeting on the 24th. >> Question. >> Yes. >> You need to also do we still need to
send this one to go. >> That was the plan for um Oh, yeah. David might know. I think it's the 26th. They had offered I know was to to hear it on the 26th, I believe, if that's still available.
>> Okay. I'm so I'm going to I learned my lesson last time when I tried to do a very complete report on the ADUs and it took me the time to write the report. I could have just simply said CRC voted here. Here's the wording of the document that we voted on. And so I will do the
same here. I will just say we this is this is our recommendation. Here's the the wording of it. And then I'll follow up with a report for town council. So thank you. >> Yeah. Great. Thanks everybody.
>> And that that should for the if CRC is going to try G's going to try and do it next Tuesday, you probably need to get that to Anna today to make sure she gets it. >> Yep. I'll follow up after this meeting. >> Posted posted with the right agenda. >> And if you could, Bam, if you could just
copy Athena on that, that would be great. >> Of course. Absolutely. Absolutely. I always copy Athena. Okay, that was that was uh item two. We are now going to
>> Thank you, Rob, very much. >> Thank you for joining us, Rob. >> Uh going to item number three, which is general public comment, and that is an opportunity for the public to weigh in uh on express their views for up to three minutes
uh on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes, which I just said. CRC does not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment. Uh when called upon, please identify
yourself by stating your full name and your district or address. And we have two people left in the audience. If there is any interest in expressing your opinions about anything within the purview of the CRC, we would love to
hear from you. think about it and raise your hand if you'd like to even just to say we really enjoy your meetings. These are so so interesting. >> You shouldn't encourage people to fib.
>> Okay, I think I'm closing the public hearing. I do not see a single raised hand. Thank you though for attending. Um, moving to action items. the solar bylaw/clean energy bylaw. We have Stephanie with us.
Thank you, Stephanie. Um there's been a bit of activity on this just for a recap for everyone. Um, there have been a couple two two
separate uh pages of notes on notes on annotations, notes on a plan forward. And um I think I'm going to maybe ask councelor Hanaki to do a quick summary of what
I've called the Kathy Mandy to-do plan and then just notes on annotations. There's a whole list of questions to be answered, but in terms of tackling this, um why don't you take a stab at summarizing that?
>> Um sure. So, in the the document, it has the new Ammerst draft clean energy bylaw, which is obviously a a working title. Um, but noted that it's formerly solar, so that if people are trying to track stuff, the word solar is still in there. Um um
the first page is sort of still remaining things that came up for at least me and and potentially Kathy too and and some things here of of as we were drafting sections, things that might still need larger conversations
and decisions to be made that are sort of on the bigger scale that aren't necessarily in here. Um, so, so that's sort of I would say that first page is a document we should at some point work our way through either
as this committee or when the next committee is situated. Um, because that's that's the one page that probably might uh end up with resulting in major adjustments to what is drafted after it or potentially major ones. So, so for
example, there are questions on there about do we in this bylaw deal with accessory uses or do accessory uses of, you know, accessory solar uses? Right now, the bylaw says, hey, you permit them under the accessory side. Well, do we want to add stuff on into the
accessory use section of the bylaw, you know, things like that. Or with BES, one of the big questions remaining is, do we tar it like the model bylaw did? We haven't had that discussion. And if we do, that's going to result in a lot of changes to to the draft beyond it. Um,
you know, there are some questions later on as as we do other things, you know, but but that's where I put a lot of those questions is, oh, here's something that the model bylaw did that this bylaw is not doing. Should we do it? You know,
um, so bigger level questions is what I would say that first page is. Uh after that there's a lot of comments in here. So after that the article 18 that is in here is basically complete I would say it's missing obviously the submittal
requirements. There is a separate document there hopefully we'll get to talk about today. Um, but other than that, other than inserting the submittal requirements into this, every section that was in the prior CRC version 16
draft has been inserted into here, many times with changes, many times with minimal changes. Not all of it is extensive. um but has been compared to the draft bylaws, the model bylaws, the
guidelines, the the regulations, the things like that. Um so is updated is what I guess is the better way to say it. There's a purpose a new purpose statement. There's a new applicability section. Um much of it actually one of the nice things I think I found and
Kathy you can speak to that is much of it of what we drafted was reusable. um which which helps me feel not so bad about all the time we spent on the old one that we were able to reuse a lot of it um and and do that. So, so that was
good to see. Some of it was updated based on the model language and all, but it it basically, you know, there's you'll see comments that says this was taken from the model bylaw. Some of that we'll just delete in the next version that was there to try and save some conversation time here of oh, where'd
that come from, you know, so that you knew when something was new there. Um, big I don't know how much there are huge changes to this. Um the applicability is a little more fleshed out than the prior
version um in terms of defining what this one applies to versus what accessory uses are. It's just a little more specific in some of that. I would say um Kathy can speak to that a little bit more. there's a new section um of
pre-filing requirements um and that one and and sort of pre-filing requirements, consolidated permitting, things like that are are kind of new um that we've tried to deal with some of that new stuff with. We might have to
relook at that a little bit closer because they're brand new. Um there's questions on whether some of these needed. There was a site Kathy added a site suitability minimization and mitigation requirements. Um which was a good idea and as a way to sort of
address some of the stuff we discussed I guess it was last week. It was only a week ago on on how to deal with site suitability. So you'll see some attempts at language on how to deal with what those assessments come back at. Um it's not necessarily fully fleshed out. Uh
there's questions as to whether we need a fee section and how that works if we do. Um the new design standards are in here. The new um you know things like that are in much of them was kept um I tried to keep close to the bylaw on some of them. So
yeah I in some sense I think it's pretty I I haven't read it through. There might be conflicts. There might be a little repetition, but I think it's a pretty solid in a pretty solid state once we get those submitt requirements in to pass on to the next committee without as
much sort of hashing over stuff that we seemed to still potentially need to do in the old one. But we'll see with comments of people, but Kathy can comment on stuff, too. >> Yeah, I I'm gonna I'm gonna just like just before Kathy starts, um it it
occurs to me. So I'm I'm very intrigued with you know what what is what is recaptured and which sections are completely new. Um it would I mean part part of me is visual is like I feel like going through
and saying if it's a new chunk a new insert let's just make it a a yellow color or something like that so that we understand what's uh what's the baseline from the model what are the
new topics that I mean that's just an idea Kathy >> okay I I have to say, Pam, that I thought Mandy side by side did that. Um, but and so I don't like the idea of trying
to colorify this if we could pick, you know, you know, in terms of reds, yellows, blues, or greens. Um, so, but I think we could go through the draft to make those comments as we go along. You know, they consolidated because I saw what you did with the submittals was a
little different. you showed piece, you know, you kept them as side by sides. So, I just wanted to say one thing that was totally replaced um from our draft was the thing called the nexus statement. It's it's gone. And um I was
the one who deleted that um because when I looked at the site suitability what what's happening before it ever gets to it. It seemed like the state is intending to do a lot of what we had talked about in the nexus thing. They're
looking at carboniza carbonization. They're looking at deforestation. They're looking at prime farmlands. They were looking at the slope. And so in theory, if that part of their draft s is sustained, I mean, we're working with a
draft state bylaw and a draft suitability site suit, we would get a site scored that might have an extremely high number, which would mean very unsuitable. And that was where Mandy was saying, you know, the little section
that we dropped in. It looked like a town could say if you have a high score on any one of these or on multiple of them, uh there's no permit period. You know, it it looks like you could say that the middle level
scores were you could minimize or mod uh mod modify and they indicated modify would require a lot or require a little. And each of them you'd have to read that other document to see this. But a few of them had four four layers of
everything's fine, which is a score of zero. A one is very little change and you'd be there. A two is quite a bit of change and four is probably can't. But that would be on only one of them had four. Some of them had a score that went up 12 14 a lot more where the again the
highest score was it it's totally unsuitable. So what's not clear the way that the state drafted it is if the score was really high and you're supposed to get the score 45 days before you apply. Can the
municipality say um no permit or could it would say or do you apply yman's effort to change a lot and that's where we left it not clear and if it's anything left then super high it means some modification needed and do
you require the state would presumably uh not say what the modification is they would just say a lot so I'm just saying that the nexus statement is gone because I I think every one of the categories that that addressed are in this suitability and I didn't know whether we
should say more about that so people from our public Pat who worked hard on that would know what's in that site suitability those there's either four or five different things they're looking at to score um so that's >> so question a question a question on
site suitability um that is one of the pre-filing requirements correct >> yes they They have to have done it before they even >> Yeah. So the question in my mind because because I think I got the sense that
many of the the submitt excuse me the submittal requirements um that we've been asking for would actually show up in what um a an applicant puts into their into their
presentation for consideration for site suitability. I didn't see a I didn't see actually a listing or an a specific location for submittal requirements and maybe the two of you or
Stephanie have looked at that um to figure out if we if we create our own >> no well I'll suitability matrix if you will >> no I'll I'll answer it quickly and then Mandy can ask more to the extent there
is an overlap with what we would do. The state has made our their job easier that because they could just plunk the same thing they told the state into our um this is what you need, you know, because they're going to have to say how many trees are on the lot, you know, what the incline of the lot is, you know, is near
waterway. They would have have to do that to get a score. So they would have already done that, but they could then plunk it into plunk it in is probably not the right word, you know, paste it in to our application. So it doesn't mean that we would just say look over
there. So that that's my partial answer to you, Pam. And then they weren't as specific. So Mandy can talk more. It's a 20page document on the site the site scoring. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That that I have not seen yet. Can
I ask, you know, so section 1808 in this draft is the holding section for the submittal requirements. Um, but it it is a consolidated permit at this point, right? Um, so that's why I retitled it. Um, cuz cuz there's only my
understanding is there's only one set of submitt requirements for all of the hearings. like like I don't think the the application is the application for a consolidated permit and so you've just
got one set of submitts. I don't think each board can require different things now. It has to be listed together. I think I could be wrong but that's why that's what that section is there for. Um >> so that's where we would put it all. And
so I guess my question for you, Pam, is are you asking about for the permit or a a different set of submittal requirements for the pre-filing requirements listing? Like are you are you expecting to have a different
listing of submitting pre-filing requirements or are you talking about once the pre-filing requirements are done and they are ready to apply for their consolidated permit that listing? >> So it occurred to me that
we don't line up exactly line for line with with um material pulled out of 6.2 to whatever for submitts. Um
>> in some cases it feels like the state the state is asking for um in most cases very very similar to the items that we had on our submitt list. And I didn't mean to get into this particular detail so deep right now, but um I I understand
that if an applicant comes along and says, "Okay, I'm putting together all the materials I need for pre-filing for site suitability review um and it and it requires the following 10 documents.
Is there is there any additional um I don't even opportunity or requirements that might be overlaid by the town because we are allowed to
um we are allowed to ask for more information in some cases. Is is the is the pre-filing is the pre-filing the pretty much a canned a canned list do we then get an opportunity to overlay with our
>> requiling is the canned list from the CMR and then when the pre-filing requirements are complete when they want to ask for and actually apply for the consolidated permit which is like step three in this whole process right
pre-filing happens before they actually file an application for a permit. Um, you know, that is a different list. And so the list we are drafting for the bylaw is the permit application list that
should should include everything that was in our submittal requirement section as well as maybe whatever's in the model bylaw and all, but the pre-filing is like step one. They have to do all of that and that's where they submit for the site suitability assessments and
they do all their pre-filing um the notice to intent of intent to file an application, the site suitability assessment, the public hearing, the public meeting and notice requirements, the public engagement requirements. And then when
all of that is complete, they can file an application for a permit for their special permit or their site plan review. Those are the submitt requirements we need to put in the bylaw. All the pre-filing stuff, wherever they'd submit that and do that,
that is according to this bylaw completely. Canned follow the guideline, follow the regs. >> And Pam, just so we can have exactly the same as what you had inside, we can duplicate anything
and we can add. It's a whole new process when they're applying to us. So, we should have what we want as submitt. And as you saw the the draft uh model by law, the wording was often really sim similar. So, if it's similar, we could keep our wording. We don't need to
change the wording we had worked out at all. Um because they were all and that's that that model bylaw they put out has some of the same elements that are over in sight suitability. They're treated as two separate things. And all I said is that if an applicant has already gone
through sight they've already thought through some of this stuff. So, it should make it easier to fill out fill in the blanks in our permit because the terms will be similar. What we're asking for won't be a surprise and they'd have to look at what else we're asking for
that wasn't part of that initial site suitability. Does that make it clear? >> Yeah. So, so it occurs to me that if if it was clear what is required in the in the pre-filing, does our bylaw need to cover all of
those submitt elements again that have already been checked off in the pre-filing or do we just want to include those additional elements that we think are very important? >> I think we need to include everything. I personally think we need to include it
all because they did the first thing just to get a score. Um, you know, you know, because I don't think it's a duplication. They already had to do it. So, we need in the folder that the town has the documentation. It's not going to
be in the same format, but Mandy may have a different reaction. I would and I also would try to double guess what's going to end up in sight suitability. I think >> I'm g I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to actually look at Stephanie and just get a little bit of feedback here
on on this topic which is uh and then and then Mandy. >> Okay. There's just so much fun in this thing and I've >> put you on the spot. >> That's okay. I've attended several meetings and I just attended one at the green communities conference the other
day yet again. um similar presentation that we've heard all along. And um it is complicated because um and I just want to make sure that I'm hearing what you're all saying about the scoring.
So this the applicant scores themselves. So I just want to be clear, it's the applicant that scores themselves and that's the score that comes to you for review. And then um especially as the town will be
assessing any projects that are 25 megawws or smaller. Anything above that is then obviously the state's jurisdiction above 25 megawws but below is all you and so they would be scoring themselves. And
I would think that at that process for the local permitting, for the consolidated permit, you want to have everything, right? So anything the state requires plus anything that the town requires. So that's at least how I'm
envisioning it would work. And also in terms of the it would still go before the concom I think the idea is that there has to be like a concurrent review process. And the way I've been the way I can wrap my
head around this is I'm thinking about the ZBA's comprehensive permit, >> right? >> How that works. I feel like that's our best analogy for how this process would work. And so again, it would be that the concom would review, but they would get
all of their conditions that they would propose would then be ushered into whoever that final permitting authority ends up being, right? So they can have concurrent processes and then the the conditions all have to sort of get
funneled to that final permitting authority. So again, we would want to have everything plus whatever we're requiring. I would think would make >> Yeah, that answers that question. Thank you, >> Mandy.
>> Um, yeah. So, I'm looking at the regulations on pre-filing requirements and there really aren't a lot in terms of documents that need submitted. So, I'm not sure there's a huge amount of overlap there. Um, so we definitely want
to put what we want for the consolidated permit documentation, all of it listed separately. Um, because also it might change between the time they're filed with the pre-filing and the rest. It does look like under the CMRS that the pre-filing the notice of intent to file
is has to go to a quote local government representative. um and that person at some point or that representative um makes a determination as to whether the applicant has completed all
pre-filing requirements. Um so we need to probably find a place in this bylaw to designate who that person is because I think we're allowed to have different local government representatives for different parts of these requirements.
like at some point we still have to designate which body issues the consolidated permit. So like those sections for some reason weren't in the model bylaw but I think should be right. Um um >> there might need to be a section that
says for the purposes of CMR that the following are the local is the local government representative for the following areas. Right. building commissioner for these parts, you know, the permit granting authority for these parts. You know, we probably
either need a section or need to be clear in the pre-filing say section who the local representative for pre-iling is versus who the local representative for consolidated permit is. But I do think we should list all of the submitt requirements for the consolidated permit
within the bylaw, even if some of them are duplicative of whatever CMR lists for pre-filing. >> And we were and in in doing that analysis, we are very much in alignment with what they're asking for. I think
ours are a little more explicit and and clearer to understand. Well, then Pam, then I think basically, you know, with the bringing it into the document where I plunk sections in column that's ours that you what we want to do is anything
that was in addition should be should be brought over, you know, to just expand it. Um, you know, so when I was looking at it, we are more comprehensive on the wording of a few things and then every once in a while something's in the other
column that didn't seem to be mentioned in our column. So that would be right. >> Pull it in >> like snow like snow removal or >> Yes. >> snow plan. Yeah. >> And that was the best I could do on the pieces I had. I had a limited share of
all of this, but it was definitions. I just tried to figure out what we hadn't defined yet. >> Yeah. >> You know, and bring and they they were defining things that I didn't even undercomp. And now I don't know whether you've seen it, Stephanie, but the way
this working draft is, it refers to our uh title 12 and assumes a whole bunch of definitions are going to be added to that one to be the governing document. So, we don't even define some of the terms that need to be defined to make this bylaw work. they're being thrown
into uh the our zoning bylaw. I mean, we we still need those definitions, but there it says C article 12, C article 12, C article 12, the way this is currently drafted. >> Yeah. And those definitions are provided at the end of the document. >> Yeah. It just means that there's article
12 is getting revised while we're doing this because otherwise you can't see article when you go to look at article and I picked up for example was it hazardous waste material one of them we defined it in article 12 and we've defined it differently here. So we just
need to reconcile those two definitions if we like the one in this one better make that the article 12ition. Yeah, >> I I actually would appreciate perhaps I'm looking at Stephanie. Um that seems like a really helpful
um process that town staff might take a look at because because you manage the definitions essentially for uh the entire bylaws. um you know how much of this do we do we
need to include in the new article 18 or whatever it's going to get end up name being named or 19 or whatever >> I see Stephanie's hand is up also Pam I don't think necessarily on this >> oh I couldn't see it thank you Stephanie
>> um it was just more of a um maybe suggested in terms of submittal requirements and in um specifying what is sort of the state submittal requirements and then maybe and in addition to local requirements are so
just so that there's clarification about what is the additional requirements um just some suggested language along those lines um and as far as the um staff looking at the process and how article 12 I think once you get really sort of
finalized this and this looks great I'm my hats off to um both Mandy Joe councelor Hanniki and councelor Shane an amazing um job on making sense of everything that you know we were doing plus what the state is doing. So, thank you. Um but I was thinking it might be
helpful once we have this final draft for me to convene staff to review it with and sort of come up with comments um like we did early on in the process. So, I can sort of convene that group um again to take a look and try to do that.
As soon as you're comfortable with a draft form that you think should be reviewed by staff, I could do that. >> Kathy, >> I just have to make a comment. Stephanie, my husband is asking me constantly, why aren't I just turning this over to the staff who know more
about this than I do, where I'm looking up every term and trying to figure out how critical that term is and what exactly it means, you know, and I'm also anticipating in terms of the types of permits we may get, we may get a lot
more for BES than we do for the large solar just in terms of the amount of land we have available for large solar fields. the way we've defined them. So, having staff really look at it for what you were already thinking about for best because we've tried to put them together
in this draft and and and I'm just thinking Pat, you know, we're adding Bess to Hickory Ridge, you know, and what do we have on Bess? We there's another big solar field up here in North Ammeris. There's one behind some homes. larger bets as opposed to the little
household battery battery energies are are as likely to be starting to be proposed to us as giant solar fields. >> Right. And I think that was staff that was staff feeling long ago is that in
the in the draft that um Christine put together um was was focused on best which was much more likely to occur. So um in terms of got to start turning lights
on here. Sorry. Um we also so we have sort of the plan to do and are there any the the next the next steps uh the questions to be answered. I think the questions to be answered
um are important are important to get tackled maybe sooner than later. Are you prepared to kind of walk us through that and do we have the information that we can make the decision or do we just be able to say h more homework is needed? I
think for some of it we might be able to if we pick carefully and then others I think really do need Stephanie and the staff to to sort of just take some time with this new draft and and look at those
questions and say hm what do we do about X Y and Z given that some things are in a model bylaw that I'm not sure we should have in ours or we might not need and stuff. So, um, but I think we can tackle potentially some of some of them. >> You put them up on the screen. So, we're because I don't have I didn't print it
out. I just And so, I was also going to suggest Pam that you've given Mandy the side by sides. If you given us all, but if you want to have her just do what Stephanie suggested required by state and then all
of ours, just mush. So, we get one document with the submitt requirements in it. um by the next meeting. >> It's in your It's in your SharePoint. I I copied everybody when I sent >> No, yours is. I'm just saying it's not in the other document. If you want to
give >> it let her drop it in to the other >> That'd be fine. That'd be fine. >> All I did was send her sections and she figured out how to copy and paste them in and then you didn't designate decisions on a few of yours on bring this one where the state had an
additional one. you didn't say bring this one in. Um, so in any case, I would just like to see that so we next time we could work at one document would be great. >> So I'm going to ask councelor Hani because
um because the section that I reviewed which was our 18.04 4 all of the submittal requirements. Um it's it it's I guess it could be it could be popped into the new section
1808 which is consolidated permit application requirements. >> Yeah, that's where it was waited. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, that's waiting. But but what I this one I can't really
pop in because I don't know which ones you're intending to be in. Right. There's a oh here's the we had that and their model bylaws have that or this is the guidelines and we had that or not. It looked like some of them were kind of listed multiple times in my brief
reading. So So what we really need is just the list that gets popped in. They're literally take a draft Pam and make one document that says here's the new submitt and to the extent you need to say this one's new added to ours
>> from the state document. >> Right? So for example, we listed and said it was topography. A decision needs to whe be made whether we'll stick with the word topography or whether we'll use contour lines with an
interval of no more than two feet for example. and we in we license you to make that decision, >> right? >> Okay. So, let's go if we uh if we could go up to the top and this is where I
basically went through anything that I that could potentially be uh required. So, I I was just trying to consolidate what an applicant would expect to ever see. So, the pre-filing requirements I
just listed, but you know, including but not limited to filing a notice of intent, meeting public notice requirements, and submitting a pre-filing engagement completion checklist. So, just to capture it so I better understand now
that um it's good to know this. It's good to know what would be coming down the pike for the town eventually. And that particular one is already captured in our our draft bylaw in
>> well we didn't we didn't have pre-filing requirements. We never had a >> prefil in the current new draft bylaw. It is section that that item is captured in section 1805 as applicable per 225 CMR 2908. Applicants must complete several
pre-filing steps including but not limited to blah. >> Yep. Great. So I that's good to know. So I can go through and then um disassemble this table essentially
and and and make note of uh requirements that the state might have listed that we do not have. >> Yeah. And I'm just saying make it a document as if you were writing it the same way we wrote it. you know, to make it one long column of um and don't worry
about the number. The numbering can still be in this 180401 and we that can be fixed. Um just it it just makes it easier to bring it all in and you still have this document and say did we miss anything? Um >> yep. Yep. This is this is my nice
checklist then. Okay. So I can do that. So for instance right here that's on the screen right now 6.2.8 XV location noise producing equipment. We we don't ask for that. Or trees with a diameter of 20 in or greater. We don't
ask for that. >> If if it's in the state and it looks like it's in, then bring it in. >> Great. Yeah, you you can bring it in or or make a decision to not bring it in based on conversations we've had previously about submittal requirements.
I'm thinking particularly the DBH 20 in I think we actually decided to get rid of that in our last at some point some version had it and then we deleted it because of the difficulty in identifying all those trees. Right. I I think you
can use >> your knowledge of the past two years of conversations to decide, oh, we already made a decision not to do that, right? It's a model bylaw. It doesn't have to have >> Yeah. So, in so, so part of that was
that um we actually were looking at 8 in or greater, but part of that was that there was no mitigation. There was no need to essentially note what we were losing because there was no mitigation plan to recreate or replace. Pat. Pat
has her hand up on this one. I just said Pat. >> Yeah, thank you. Uh Pam, I I think it should uh be in here. The trees with diameters at breast height. If we took it out because we had we had made it too small. I think if the state is
supporting it and it would help um maintain some level of health in the forest, I think we should do that. And then if you do make that decision, Pam, just drop in a comment bubble saying included because it was in the state,
>> you know, to just make a note that it wasn't that you went back and reread it that people know where it came from. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. Good. Okay. So, I will produce that and send it to Councelor Hani.
>> Yeah. She's the keeper of the big document. She I just did her my drafts and she >> copied and pasted them in. >> So on that note, and I'm looking at the time, it's 4:20. Um, on that note, our next meeting is December 4
and then December 18. So I certainly can put that together and get it to you before Thanksgiving. Um, and so we have a document in place uh a week or so be a a week before our next
meeting if that's helpful. >> Okay. So now we can go to the questions. >> Yeah. So that would be helpful. But if you want it posted to a public packet before Thanksgiving, it probably needs to come to me Tuesday at the latest because I don't know how long Athena is
working on Wednesday, if at all. Right. Well, theoretically she has until Tuesday morning, I guess, to >> say the 2nd of December. >> Well, if you want the public to have time to review it more than two or three
days. >> Well, >> next Wednesday, next Wednesday won't won't be helpful because it won't get published till probably the Monday of the next meeting, December one. That's what I mean. I'm going to make I'm going to make a comment and that is that um I
have tried hard to get material to be posted uh like a week in advance and it often does not get posted until very close to our meeting date. So I will ask with bended knee to please post
it as soon as possible given the given the the holiday coming and giving people more chance to to read it. No. >> Okay. Thank you. So, let's look at the questions that uh if if Yeah, right
there. Good. And can we enlarge that as much as possible? >> Okay. >> I've also got I've also got it in your >> So, I think we should actually start with something like this one um before we get
into ZVA rules and rags. Um um these are not in any random order but I think this might be one. This would small small scale ground mounted photovoltaics that are under 25 kilowatts um ever get a loc
a colllocated BES. So um and that is a question because let me go down here. >> We allow the small scale in all in lots of districts. Right now the use table is
allowing the small scale in some districts that large and medium scale are not allowed in in particular these districts and when I drafted the colllocated best section of the use
table I copied the large and mediumcale more restrictive side I well the large and medium scale use so if it wasn't allowed in a larger or medium scale zone. I didn't put colloccated best is
allowed. Um, but you know, and so you'll see that it mirrors sort of large scale except for this medium scale ground mount where I added it in in commale goes in there with a colloccated best. But otherwise
um if we think smallcale ground mount solar might get a colllocated best if it goes in um we need to address that within the colllocated best use table and maybe
Stephanie or Dave Zomac have a better idea and colllocated is not standalone primary >> Kathy. So Stephanie as you ponder this the state best has uh
three definitions four levels of best one being little best medium and big best where we haven't done that. So I don't know some homes with small solar that we've exempted
including groundmounted might or very often might do battery storage because then they can completely be off the grid. They can be generating and storing their own. So Mandy, in in my thinking,
if we had a definition of little best, you know, the um small battery energy storage, then I could see uh saying co-lead at best with small scale can do this cole best otherwise other that
would be my my thinking on it you know and what I don't know is when the state is talking about battery or I uh to give you a more simple example, my brother built a house
in New Mexico that is independent of the grid because what his solar generates he stores in his battery and and all of his equipment. He didn't had no wires coming into his house. Finally, he had to get cell phone coverage, but he had nothing.
So, it is possible that homes will be independent this way. So that's the only way I would see allowing Bess to be in all these neighborhood areas colllocated. Mandy, >> we could define as you said two tiers of colllocated
with one tier being whatever their smallest one was. >> Yes. So that's what we would do is define so up in the best definitions small >> the way we've defined small solar >> so that we could differentiate colloed
best with small that would be my my thinking and answer to your question. Yeah, because if we're talking a 12volt battery as storage for your solar capture, that's that's definitely one thing. But I guess to in my mind,
what is the cut off point of when BES is um poses some of the issues that we know are associated with them? >> And I think both tier 2 and tier three batteries both did, Pam. The way the state was defining them, they treated them as quite different. And the third
one was big. >> Yeah. So the state had tier one an aggregate energy capacity of less than 250 kilowatt hours was their smallest tier. So that that's just my suggestion in the
answer to Mandy's um making this since we're trying to consolidate making it somewhat more complicated with best we've already differentiated. solar by the size of it, >> Stephanie. Does that make sense to you? >> I It does. And I wanted to say that I
think, you know, um when you're making these decisions, I'm thinking in terms of staff and implementation. So the better you have these things defined, the better and easier it is for
um implementation of rules and regs. >> Thank you. Yeah. >> And so if we're going with the small ones, would we want a site plan review across the board? >> What do you do now? Do you do anything
when a homeowner is putting groundmounted solar with Bess if do we have any in town would be the other question. Do we do anything? I don't know what we do now. >> Um that I can't I'm not I don't have an
answer for that because I'm not in the you know. >> Okay. So we could just find out Mandy. That's what I I just don't know. Um, my roof mounted solar just went through an electrical expense inspection. Didn't go
through permitting. >> Right. And that that's a possibility that if it's lower than let me add a note smaller than 250 kilowatt um
the possibility is that it becomes an accessory use >> and go through the normal making >> and goes through the accessory use section >> that it's it's electrical and it's got to meet all sorts of standards for electrical. Yeah,
>> because we could add that within the accessory use within the applicability section. >> Okay, so that one's taken care of if everyone's okay with that right now. >> Yep. >> Um, and that kind of goes with this question
here. Do we need anything in the accessory use section of our zoning bylaw? um for solar photovoltaic and best and that's a question for I guess Stephanie and and the planning department to answer maybe um right now
applicability is that these specific things building integrated best agravalttaic canopy other than agravalttaic so that's mostly parking lots and all building mounted solar so on rooftop solar behind
the meter those that are um using it on site um and just building integrated best. This is where we could add potentially colllocated best below a certain amount considered accessory uses. Um,
>> you want to just you want to just add that as a friends >> or a note and question mark. um you know so if we consider them accessory uses that means we can delete
that from the use table. Um we'll put a >> um Pat has a comment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I must admit I'm getting more and more nervous uh thinking about small homeowner having a coll-located Bess uh
given the fires that happened at Olympia Oaks from lithium ion bike batteries uh and the devastation that happened to housing there. Why are what safeguards are we going to have into place
for these buses um in my backyard or or whatever. Um so I just want us to think about that and to think there really needs to be and in many of these neighborhoods there are access to water because that's what we need for the
suppression of any fires that are started. So, we need to be thinking carefully about properties that are uh well that their water supply is wells. Um I just want to make I'm just bringing it up because I'm sitting here getting
really nervous. Um, >> but that pat that >> and I'm trying to keep it intellectual and not emotional, but I want to make sure that we when we go through this bylaw that we have as much protection as
possible for any best that's installed for the residents around that area. >> What you're pointing out is we might not want to put it in accessory. We might want anyone who's installing it to need to get a permit. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I think there's no reason there's a good argument for doing that
because it's where is it you know how is it protected um that we don't it's more than just a simple you know it's the placement of it may matter as well so I think I think your nervousness is correct that we should quickly just
call it like another garage it's different >> Dave >> yeah quickly I just wanted to thank Pat for that comment. I I appreciate that and I think that's something that Stephanie and I can take back to staff beyond the planning department because
you know given recent events um you know up in North Ammerst multiple events um I think um you know consultation with the fire department on water access and and whatnot throughout town is important. So we will bring that to u to staff in
multiple departments. >> Excellent. Thank you, Stephanie. >> Yeah, I just wanted to say that when I think it would be helpful to maybe make a note or as a side comment for a staff review, um if there's a specific question or a specific distinction you
want to make and and inquire of staff because I don't think Dave or I will have all of the answers for you for these questions. So, in that staff review, it would be good to actually note exactly what it is you want answered. Um, so that we can be very clear with them what it is you're
looking to accomplish. And I and I agree that I think when it comes to safety, I I don't think you are being um overly cautious. it is this note here good enough or should I add in things like
um you know why would we want it in you know are the permitting I I guess part of that goes to I think I think the big question with this is none of these requirements are
required if it's an accessory If I understand the the um zoning bylaw properly, only those covered under section five in exe
accessory use would be required. And so things like for BAS, the emergency response plan requirements that are listed that we created here don't apply if it's permitted under an accessory use. Do I understand that correctly?
I thought the way the state lower rent went on that is that the exception was on co-cloated best that they still had to conform. But I think I think we should flag this that best needs to be treated best in general needs to be treated differently than simple
accessories. So how do we address that? You know >> that's a good question. Like that's to me that's the question. Yeah, >> that's the question. Yep. I mean, getting getting a building permit is still a permit requirement.
Is is the building in is the building commissioner prepared to review those projects if it if it ends up going to that department? You know, and Mandy, we could rewrite the accessory thing to say with the
exception of best, you know. So, it's it's the interaction between these things if we need if we mean best is special. >> Well, that's why I I rehighlighted the comment to both building integrated and the colllocated. >> Yeah. Um, for staff review, here's the
new comment. Like, can the accessory use section control it well or would it be better for all best systems to fall under this article 18? That's really the question. Um, okay. So, that sort of dealt with this one
here, too. Um, can we go can we go to can we go up up? Yeah. to the definitions needed. I just I'm looking again now at at Stephanie and Dave. Um, do we really need definitions for mass D and MEPA? >> And I'm not even sure MEEP is used in
the bylaw anymore. >> I don't I didn't I didn't come across it. >> As long as you're saying mass department of environmental protection, I don't think you need anything more than that. >> It it's in there because I just haven't double checked to see if it's still needed or not. I can take care of that for the next
draft. But I'm just saying in general we we we don't we don't give definitions for for public departments. >> I think if we're going to refer to it as D, then we should define it versus if we're going to write out Mass Department
of Environmental Protection every time. So why couldn't you just do what you normally do when you write any document spell it out the first time put mass DP next to it so that any reference in the future it's already defined the first time >> it's not a definition it's just it's
it's nickname >> right >> yeah no I I just haven't seen how many times we reference those two yet I didn't get to that part >> okay great that seemed like an easy one >> okay so let's deal with the model fee section of this bylaw this is one I'm
curious if Dave or Stephanie know anything about I have to find it in here though. Um these So this section was not in our draft bylaw. It came from the model
bylaw and I obviously modified it to reference our correct designations. But these are talking about building permit fees, which is in my mind different than an application fee for a special permit
or an application fee for a site plan review permit um allowance. Um, so the question I had in putting this in here is, is it even necessary? I mean, isn't
isn't it obvious somewhere in our laws or something with the building permit application that you got to accompany it with the fee for the building permit? Like, why would it need to be in the zoning bylaw here? Um, and then where do we deal with the the next question is
where do we deal with fees for applying for special permits and site plan review? Because this doesn't deal with that at all really. Um although as I said the
the fee here that's this one um you know the rules and regs talk about fees but that's not a building permit fee. So maybe Stephanie has some sort of or Dave has some sort of idea whether we even need this section. Dave,
>> I was just gonna say say for the sake of time, I'm not sure if Stephanie would agree with me that this is something that we will cover with staff because neither one of us are experts on and again Stephanie, if you know more about fees than I do, but um I think this is
something that Rob and and Nate Mallaloy can help with, you know, as part of this review. So Stephanie, I don't know if you agree, but I don't know all the intricacies of all the the building permit fees and and whether we need all
these references in here or whether it's assumed. >> That would be very helpful. Thank you. My thought my and my quick thought was just sort of um typically in the bylaw you would just maybe just make a general statement about fees and I you know again it would be like you know um all
applicable building permit fees and other fees you know shall be submitted along with the application. I mean, one of those sort of general statements that then sort of covers, you know, what it is you're trying to to
get to in this particular section. I don't know. Um, again, you know, typically they are fees are typically in the rules and regulations, not in the bylaw itself, but sometimes there is um a reference to the requirement of a fee.
So, I would just say you could just have a general requirement of a fee that's referenced and then the specifics as to where it would be and where those fees would be, we can find out from other staff later. >> Yeah. So, it's great to have that note in the section. Yeah.
>> And and could we assume that it might the fee might be dependent on where it ends up that you know, whoever the point department is, if it's if it's planning board, if it's building commissioner, etc. >> Yeah. because at this point I don't think we sort of know where all of those
fees would land, >> right? Good. That would be very helpful. Thank you. >> I think we Yeah, they'd probably end up in the general fund. We know that, right? I think >> and and it should be it should be uh
sufficient enough to cover the the amount of time that you know it'll take to administer a project. So, so, so this is another one. Mandy just wrote a flag for staff review. She said, >> um, you know, there's this whole new if
it's a consolidated permit, you guys in planning and permitting, we'll have to figure out what that means in terms of the permitting fee. It's a Right. >> Okay. >> So, I flagged that up there. >> Great.
Um, oh, that one's going to be hard to explain, so we'll do that one later. Um, oh, this here we go. Um, many of the sections th this this is the question I'm dealing
with. How closely should our bylaw adhere to guideline documents that contain construct constructive approval conditions? So let me try and explain that a little bit closer. So there are in here design requirements here. Um in
sections like appertenant structures, I don't think that one came from the model bylaws. I think I pulled that from the guidelines on design requirements for conditions. So all of those guidelines that I pulled either that
from or the glare. I know the glare section came came from that one. Um come from the guideline documents and what those documents are will how those documents will operate once finalized is
if there is a constructive approval granted because our town does not issue the consolid or make a decision on a consolidated permit within 12 months of the application. the guidelines in those those design guidelines and requirements in those
guidelines are become the conditions of the permit. So um most of the time we have permit conditions um you know of you need to talk to the bu building commissioner before X or you know it
must it must meet Y code or something. You know, I think some of our our some of these potential standard permit conditions, right? Required to repair damage to public roads that result from construction.
That's not really in a bylaw. It's a standard permit condition if the permit is granted. The guidelines have a lot of those standard conditions. Some of which I listed here for potential common conditions in our um standard permit
conditions. Others show up in the model bylaw or don't show up at all, but we had a section in our mo in our bylaw before. How closely do we want to adhere to them? In other words, should we make our bylaw
as close to those conditions as possible or sort of not worry about it? >> So, I have a I have a reaction to this, Mandy and Stephanie, you'll love this. I want to flag this for staff
because I think the question you're asking is uh in a scenario where we just don't get all the way through it um by the end of 12 months, these are the things that are going to be governing.
So, should we put them in ours because we want to at least know whether they're being met. Um, and is it uh is that level of specificity needed in our bylaw? And I don't have an answer to that. You know, we've got some pieces of
this, but not all of it. Um, and uh, what I've been struck by is the state that wanted to streamline this process has turned it in to a multi-step extremely complicated. you know, if this
doesn't happen, then this other thing prevails. Some of which are very protective. So that it wasn't bad what they did. Um, so I think I would just flag this because I have no way of knowing whether making ours longer with these in it is protective or not since
they will hit these conditions if we fail to meet the 12-month deadline. So that's I think that's paraphrasing the question you asked. >> Okay. I I'm gonna and I'm going to say I I really I would actually really like to have this language in our document as a
essentially as a checklist um so that nobody in this in this expedited process nobody goes oh gosh we really forgot you know to talk about hazmat and and here it is that you know you really need to
these aren't submitts these are these are did you did you check this block kind of a thing I'd like to I'd like to include them if that makes sense. >> So, some of them I did include and some of them really aren't like zoning bylaw rags. So, something like in an emergency
incident including a fire, the applicant follows federal, state, local emergency procedures, right? What's in our bylaw is the actual submit the response plan, right? Not, you know, but the permit would say you got to follow those rules,
right? But the bylaw might just say you need a plan that is approved. Um so I tried to the question was though if we disagreed from the guidelines should we adopt should should we try and match the guidelines because if we don't issue
a consolidated permit and act in time the guidelines are what prevails. Do we want to potentially have differing conditions depending on whether it's constructive approved or not? So, you're asking, >> wouldn't wouldn't we default wouldn't we
default to the state guidelines if we if we goof up? >> I mean, so why? >> Yeah. I mean, my my gut feeling on this one is that if constructive approval happens, then it doesn't really matter
whether you have them or not because that like Pam said, it prevails. >> Okay. I mean, it certainly doesn't hurt to have them, honestly, but I just think constructive approval prevails and it
doesn't matter. >> So, so Pam Pam's view was to look for any of these that we love and bring them in if they're missing and otherwise leave. >> And I tried to do that already. I think we did that. But but we should all look at it again to there's
something we liked as opposed to >> Okay, here's two big ones. We probably don't have time for both of them given the time. So the model bylaw separates the number of conditions you
need to follow based on whether so they did it based on whether it needed a special permit, a site plan review or was a yes essentially. And most of that was based on size. And so, um,
and basically they had, to give you an idea, cuz I put it in here, um, let me find my thing. Um, where's my note here? In the model bylaw, basically everything that follows,
including the submittal requirements um only applied to what we've defined as large scale ground mount solar, some mediumcale ground mount solar, and the
larger best systems, the ones above 250 kowatt aggregate energy capacity storage capacity. Um, most of this stuff, dimensional standards and everything else did not apply to canopy solar,
smaller bass, smallcale ground mount solar or building mounted, roof mounted solar. Um the way this is worded right now, um the whole bylaw would apply to
anything other than what we've exempted under the applicability. So all of those extra standards would apply to everything but canopy um and building mounted solar basically and non-aggravaic canopy. Um,
do we want to make a similar sort of distinction of dimensional you know this section of say dimensional standards and design requirements don't apply to certain parts of smallcale ground mount
solar say um to pick one um or when we get to the best sections, tier one best um because the model bylaw essentially made that distinction. >> But Mandy, we our bylaw was always large scale. So we were in a sense bypassing
small. >> Yeah. Our well our our bylaw was originally going to be only largecale, which now includes medium scale. Our our our medium scale is part of what was large
scale. Um and our small scale is small. >> But so we've always although ours always exempted small. >> Yes. >> Talked about treating best one as differently >> and exempted canopy parking lot canopy. >> Yeah. So the big one that this one
doesn't exempt right now in that sense is the small scale because we exempt um built building mounted which the bylaw we drafted didn't apply to and canopy which the one we drafted didn't
apply to although we had it applying to Agravalttaic because we didn't consider that can canopy. Um, >> so should we exempt smallcale solar? Is that the question? I >> I guess in some sense that's the question and then the same question for Bess, but we've sort of dealt with that
question of Bess here. Um, well, so we've exempted in some sense building mounted and canopy by saying that they're considered accessory uses and regulated based on >> the permitting requirements of the principal use. Um and that it that
question comes in with this article does not apply to so SP systems of less than 20 250 kilowatt which is um so the consolidated permit process does apply to sol solar photoic under 250. um
which is medium and small. Um so at some point so so we we had exempted essentially medium and small from what we were drafting before but the consolidated permit process does apply to medium and small but in the model bylaws the only parts of their model
bylaw that applied to you know certain ones they based it on use permit requirements but if we wanted to exempt we could apply essentially only the pre-iling the definitions the pre-iling requirements the site site suitability
assessments and the fees and then everything else not apply to medium and small like it's this weird like how do we integrate those two? >> How do you propose to differentiate? >> So what you could do is consolidated
permit application submitt requirements. One would be for large LGPI this and best this for MGPI and SGPI um you'd basically be able to say something like
the requirements in CMR 29 or whatever it is only 225 CMR 29 only. Um nothing additional to that and then dimensional standards and all of that. you know, you you'd probably add a section that says something like um MGPI and SGPI
shall follow the requirements in 225 CMR29 only or something. And then these sections, sections 18098 to whatever apply to LGP. We'd we'd find a way, but it it could be written kind of like that. The way the model bylaw did it was
to basically say um they had a sentence in there that said um how did they word it? Um for projects categorized as by right only sections four and five below apply.
For projects categorized as site plan review, sections four, five, and six apply. for projects categorized as special permit sections four, five, six, and seven apply. So, they did it that way. We could do something similar, but do it by size. >> I I guess well I think exempting small
from all of this makes sense to me. So, whatever small is um you know, homeowner small um which >> except for perhaps small bath. >> So, I'm talking small solar. Yeah. Yeah. So small folder
photovoltaic is approximately up to 60 to 80 panels just so you know. >> That's all right. >> 60 to 80 panels. Yes. >> A lot of panels for a house. >> It's not a lot of panels for an apartment building.
>> That's true. >> Right. It's a very big It's a very big field. I I guess you know I I just think of the the staff time on our side. Um I'd like this the the homeowner level
solar to be easy. So that except for best Pat you know so make best its own category >> including if the homeowner is ground mounting or if the business is ground mounting because the building mounted is already moved to accessories. >> It's the ground mounted. I'd like it to
just I' I'd like it to be simple. Let's put it that way. you know that someone has to um I've only seen a few homeowner ground mounters and one of them up near us is maybe not 60 panels but they clearly didn't have a house it their house wasn't oriented in a way that they
could put them on the house. So Stephanie I don't know what we do now but I I just don't see any reason to put them through this process and to have a table that's is so complicated. >> Yeah. I'd rather have the medium and large go through the same process and
the big besses two and threes go through the same process and the little besses go through a process whatever process we we want them to go through baby best. >> I think that sounds reasonable. >> Can I ask a question? I don't know
whether Dave or Stephanie know this. Um, if the use table is a yes, not a special permit, not a site plan review, what are the requirements that they have to meet to get their building permit? So, would they still have to, if it's a
yes, but article 18 doesn't exempt them, do they still have to comply with all the article 18 requirements, including say submitting all of those things, even if it's a yes? Do you guys know or should I add that as a staff question? >> Add that as a staff question. >> Okay,
>> that's a very good question. >> Does Yeah. Does a yes does a yes preclude having to go through this process in a way. >> Pam. Oh, sorry, Kathy. >> So, I I'm just noticing it's two minutes
of five. >> Yep. Yep. >> And for me to be able to think concretely and substantively much more on topics of which I know very little, which will be difficult. Um, so what I
what I would like to propose is that you work on your piece so that Mandy can put it into a document. Mandy gets it into a consolidated barkment, leaving these remaining questions, these staff call outs. Stephanie gets the word document
so she can begin to think of which of other things should be flagged for staff, you know, beyond what we've done so that when we meet again, we my hope would be we get all the way through something um to including the
use tables with the remaining questions being in big bubbles so that the staff really has an extended period of time to get their hands on it because I'm trying to think of a way to get it out of CRC >> with a decent draft but not having
answered all the questions because we don't even have the state law finalized yet. So, we're working off of drafts that go with drafts. So, I I just think we should get as complete as we could can be. So I would I'm I'm moving
forward asking to end the meeting now and then come back >> a piece just because I can't think anymore on the question unanswered questions. >> Kathy, I was about to close the meeting. I I was going to say in my own words, this is a very good stopping point. So
let's So yes, my m my material will go to Mandy for inclusion. Um there may or may not be time for staff to answer some of those questions, some if not all. That would be great. Um I was now going
to go to um uh action item A I mean for um C, which is do we have any end of end of term carryover items? My gut feeling
is is that I need to draft something that might include solar energy, solar B. >> Absolutely. This is not gonna be done. >> So that's I will start drafting that. We'll update it as time goes on. Um and
and again, we do well our last council meeting is on the 15th of December. So that that material needs to uh be in um presentable shape before that meeting. I would be happy to send each
of you my draft of that report so that we have some sense of it. Um and you can add in the blanks that I've missed. Uh councelor Hani. >> Yeah. Um two things for it. I I mentioned the minutes. We need a list of minutes that are carryover just for
completeness and and knowledge purposes. um for solar. I guess my recommendation is or my hope is that the carryover memo basically says we've given our latest draft to staff to comment on.
CRC, the new CRC will need to take it back up when staff is finished commenting on it. Something like that. um you know so that it's clear that that it's in process but it's also sitting at staff at that point in terms of that
that >> you know I don't know that that's my best way I don't know whether we even we scheduled a meeting for what the 4th and then the 18th but the 18th is after the last council meeting so I don't even know are we getting any are we doing
anything that one because the carryover memo apparently needs voted before that >> before that. And so I guess that's why I'm thinking maybe if we put in the carryover memo, it's with staff at this point and staff will come back with
comments on the draft, we maybe if we decide to meet on the 18th could modify it a little bit more after that to send it to staff. I don't know. we could we could perhaps um move along in the material that we do hand to staff knowing that that at the end of the the
18th that document would be fully in staff hands. That's that's one way to look at it. Stephanie. >> Yeah, actually I was going to maybe recommend that you do actually continue and on the meeting on the 18th um so that we
do have time then to sort of start with a new like we can get it further along. Staff will have more to comment on. I think you'll have more comments that you'll want to raise and you might even finish with the comments at that meeting. So I I think it makes more
sense to do it that way and then when staff has it then we have a new makeup of the CRC that can then take it from there. >> So a document as of the 12th I mean the December 18 meeting would be is is being
passed over to staff for their review and comment. Okay. >> Right at the end of that meeting. Yeah. >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Um next agenda preview. Guess what? solar bylaw. H and I and I can cross out the
zoning change proposal and we and at that meeting on the how about for the meeting on the 4th I have at least a draft memo for our carryover and you can all take a look at it. It'll be in the packet. >> Do we have to vote that memo? What are
our council rules on voting carryovers? Do we have to vote it as a chair? I I think it was just the chair. I don't remember you sending something out for review. Yeah, I'm happy to just draft it up, but
it's always nice if I goof to have somebody catch me before it goes public. I could I could send something out to each of you and just say, "Hey, if you have any comments, let me know by a certain date." No, I was just curious what the if we're
just reviewing it on the next meeting or whether we're have to vote it. >> There's really there's really I mean there's really nothing to vote. What are we voting? We're voting, you know. Yeah. And I don't even know if council has to accept it. Do they have to vote to
accept it? >> Again, we should look at the rules. You should look at the rules of procedure to see what it says about carryovers. >> Okay, I'll look at the rules. Great. Uh, I move that we adjourn the meeting and thank you Stephanie and thank you Dave for your input today. That was very,
very helpful. >> Thank you. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Councelor Hani >> I. >> Pat D'Angelus. >> I. >> Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> And Pamuza. Yes. Thank you everybody. Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Happy Thanksgiving. >> Same to you. Thanks Stephanie and Dave.