are now recording. >> Great. Thank you. We have a quorum of the community resource committee of the town council. Today is February 26, 2026, and this is 1 p.m. regular meeting. Pursuant to chapter 2 of the
acts of 2025, which extends through June 30, 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via
Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. So, we have a quorum. I'm going to go
around and see if everyone can be heard. Mandy Joe, >> present. >> Andy Churchill, >> yes. Councelor Walker >> here. >> Jennifer Tob >> here. >> And Pam Rooney's here. Great. Um, we
have no public hearings today. And we have uh we have no public attendees. So, I'm going to bypass public comment at the moment. If people appear later, we can
invite them to comment. I better keep keep that on. Okay. Um, action items. Item number four, we are working on the clean energy bylaw. Town staff weighed in with significant uh,
effort and we got through the beginning of that document up to section 18.10.9 which is signage. So, we made good progress. and Mandy Johanni agreed to be the
scribe again as she has in the past which has been really helpful. I'm actually going to close down my attendees section so that if if somebody does show up um
just so I can make my screen larger and see the text better. Okay. So, um we left off exactly there and would like to work through uh the remainder of the document as best we can today. Uh just a note, councelor
Walker said she may need to step away at around 1:30 and otherwise I think we have everyone here. So uh section 18.10.9 were there any comments? Um there was
well I should say um were there any comments from staff or um CRC members on this particular section? Seeing none, let's move to 10 1010. Utility connections. Were there any comments?
Seeing none, let's move to 1811. And we make our way down to 1813. Got to love these numbers. And there were some um clarifications of
um who is who reports are to be made available to. Does anyone have any disagreement with the proposed wording for the folks and just shout just say just say stop or
something because I'm looking hard at the text and I'm really not looking for hands. >> What's a building? Pardon? >> What is a building official in that 18113? >> Uh, the product shall be made available
to the fire fire officials as opposed to a fire marshal. >> So that would go ahead. >> I'm sorry, Andy. I think your question is who are the building officials, which is also noted in that line, and that would be the building commissioner and
building inspectors. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. I guess the question is should we just reference the Ammerst fire department and the building commissioner instead? >> If that's >> we reference the fire department in other in other sections.
>> Seems cleaner. >> Yeah. building commissioner and the GPGA. Does anyone have any reason to not accept this? We can accept it and clean up the text. Seeing none, let's clean up the text.
>> So, I will do what I did last time. I'll clean this section up afterwards, but this at least creates a record of what we changed during the meeting then. >> Super. Thank you. >> Okay. And right below we have the Emmeris Fire Department. So that is in
line with. So, in sections 11 throughout section 11, there are no additional comments until we get to uh 01.11 under emergency services. The comment is that if this it says the
best owner or operator shall provide a copy of the project summary, electrical schematics and site plan to the Amoris Fire Department. Um, >> Mandy, can you state where you're going with >> I went to Sorry. I went to 8 1814 to see
if what was there was in 1814 because that's where Stephanie said if it was there we could delete it up above. It was schematics and site plan and everything. >> Yeah. >> Does it have the electrical the
electrical schematics? I think it I think it did. >> I'm not seeing anything about schematics in these sections about what the emergency response plan needs. uh in the submittals which is 18.04 04.
I think there was a there was a requirement to provide the electrical line drawings I think but that's to the PGA and this is to the fire department. So could I just jump in real quick here because this was one of those things
that came up that was >> I think from fire standpoint. Um I think they sort of questioned why having any kind of emergency plan specific specifically stated any details
specifically stated here when they would require they have their own separate requirements that have to be met. So rather than putting them in here I think they felt we should just be referencing their emergency plan and following their
protocols. Um because if you look at the comment at 1814, that's basically what it says is do we really need this? Shouldn't we be referencing them instead? And I think that was a question that fire had for you. Um
I think they thought it was maybe confusing. Um, I don't have a problem with eliminating it if the fire department already asks for it, but I want it to be really clear somewhere that a complete
emergency services plan must be given to the fire department to their to their specifications. And maybe this is the kind of thing that in the in the interim when other people are looking at this document, we can
spend a little time backtracking on some of these potential redundancies. Would that rewrite work? I think for now because you I know that we'll be asking folks to take a final look at this when you have the complete
draft just to make sure >> that that language is correct. So we'll definitely have staff review it one last time. >> Okay, >> move on to 110201. Does anyone have an issue with adding fencing
to the use of concrete? They're not often installed with with concrete, but they might be. Should we accept this? Did we already accept it? >> Yes, we did. >> Okay. >> Right here, I accepted that one.
>> I am really having trouble seeing the wording. Um uh 11:02 newly constructed access roads shall meet Ammeris Fire Department requirements. That was the concern of the fire
department. Okay. 1803. Uh there's a comment about the requirements shall apply to SBI and best installed in prime forests. Uh the comment from staff is that um
or one of the comments is that that there ought to be a section that similar to the comment about maintaining land for future use in agriculture. Um the um the material from the state
actually goes into a lot more detail than our original bylaw did about protecting the infrastructure of the forest. I'm just going to use those words which aren't correct. But um
does anyone have any problem just leaving this as it is? So I'm reading Stephanie's of the definition is broad and how do you prove things and given the the this was drafted before we had um in
some sense or thought about and added in before we had the site suitability guidelines and the the mitigation minimization sort of thing that can go along with them. So I'm wondering if this is necessary given that new sort of
structure that the state is using with site suitability because that that scoring will take into account if it's a prime forest and and then would require its own sort of minimization potential mitigation that this might be
sort of confusing or slightly redundant. So, I think I favor deleting Stephanie's comment, the deleting part of the comment here. >> So, I thank you for reminding me that it was a site suitability. So, I think all
the numbers 1 2 3 through through seven are the I think those are the wordings from the site suitability requirement. So, I think isn't that why they're now in this paragraph?
Oh, you're asking me to go back months on how this paragraph was redone. I actually have no idea if that's what we I'm not sure that's what we captured because but maybe it's part of the a subset of the site suitability. It's not
the main like six site suitability does, but maybe it's a subset of one of the site suitability sections. Yeah, it definitely came from It definitely came from the state wording.
>> Can we just refer to the state suitability? Just say it must meet state suitability standards or something >> and not jeopardize per state suitability standards. Yeah. And not have to list them out.
>> Yeah. Robert. >> Yeah, this this wording is is wordy and definitely from the state. >> I I don't even know where to change stuff. I think that's one of the reasons I just favor deleting it.
Do we have do we have >> I guess part of it is if we stick with the wording not jeopardized we might be going a foul of s site suitabilities which means you cannot deny something for a bad site suitability per se. you you have to allow mitigation and all.
And so how would this fit in with that >> if we just said following values are not jeopardized per per the state site suitability standards. I mean they're the ones that would set
the bar. But again, if you if if you can jeopardize the standards and then mitigate, then just saying they may not jeopardize is not quite correct. >> Right. So site suitability. >> Is that the state language?
I don't know whether it is cuz you can jeopardize but then have significant mitigation to still get your permit because this is sort of the language we pulled from some of the site suitability guidelines, >> right?
If this is potentially conflicting or confusing in relation to that, maybe we should just defer. Is there a I'm trying to remember if there's a special section in in the state template for
um for construction in forest lands. >> There was not in the state template. And >> but isn't that a criterion of the suitability? >> It's it's part of the site suitability
assessment when you get your score. and the site suitability report. Um, so if I could, I would just point out, you know, again to staff comments of how do you prove that these values are not
jeopardized? So, um, just pulling one out, maintenance of air and water quality. Um, I would say that these are problematic in how this is written because there's no real way to,
I think, definitively prove that these things have not these values haven't been jeopardized. So, I would either delete them or defer. >> A question. So, some of these actually seem to me to be um almost like general
conditions that the that the permit granting authority needs. I mean, it's similar to what ZBA says like you can't increase, you know, erosion, your your project can't increase air quality or something like that. It's it's pretty
general, but um are these perhaps better suited in as little reminders for the ZBA or planning board reviewing something? I would say maybe. I mean, in reading some of these things, I've actually got some real problems with requiring
improving of conditions for outdoor recreation, improving of conditions for wildlife. like like h that doesn't even make sense. They might not have any outdoor record. It's a private land. You don't have to, you know, like I I think I I just want to
delete. >> Anyone have an issue with that with deleting? Go ahead. Go for it. Section 1812, storm water management. The first sentence was recommended to be deleted. We already state that in everything
else. Okay. Moving into section 1813, hazardous materials. To me, this the hazardous material section and the um some of the the tail end items and general conditions
are probably one of the more redundant areas I think in this whole bylaw. So, let's make our way through here. A lot of this is just some wording upgrades, which is fine. Um, as a as a followth
through once this document's clean, I do want somebody with expertise in the hazardous materials review and and oversight to really go through and comb this to make sure we aren't being redundant.
>> I would agree with that. So under 181302 looks like we can accept all of these proposed changes. except the change to prohibited. >> Yep. >> So 180 or 1303 use in I would just add
in the public right away. The only right of way that we're dealing with really would be a roadside use of herbicides. Okay. The comment here, check the attorney general's comments on pesticide regulations resolar bylaw. Do we have any update on that particular
comment? >> I might be able to find something quickly. I can I can go back and see. Basically, the AG has said that you can't that state law regulates the use of herbicides and pesticides. So, bylaws can't. This is my vague memory from
reading the stuff a year ago. Um, so I can go back and look up those comments and see if there's suggested language or not, or at least paste a comment into here so we can see what the concern and stuff is. But we do paste a comment in and then
come back to it at another time and recognize that once we wrap this up basically it will go to the planning board for at least introduction. Maybe they have some comments relative to some of these conditions. >> Yeah.
8304 except the except the change to fire department section 1814. The question here is says for all ground mounted solar photo solar photovote installations,
agravoltaic installations etc etc. And the question is would it be better to uh should we apply this to small groundmounted, medium ground mounted or simply and only large ground mounted
>> or now it would be like tier three only or two whatever the biggest tier is, >> right? Um >> so the question is do we do we want an emergency response plan for small systems?
It does include best so standalone bests and colllocated bests are already included in this coverage. So the question is, do we want emergency response plans for anything other than
large groundmounted solar arrays? Jennifer, >> um I'm just wondering if staff had an opinion about that, Stephanie. >> Um I don't think we did. Again, our
the general response from fire was, you know, shouldn't we be just basically referring to the process, their process for any kind of emergency response? So, we didn't necessarily identify it specifically by size.
>> Yeah, thank you. I I don't have kind of the expertise to know. So we could potentially add in this same language meet the requirements of NFP that and >> it already has that the second sentence says the emergency plan shall be
developed in consultation with Ammeris Fire Department meet the requirements of NFPA 855 and be approved by the Ammeris Fire Department. So I I don't mind leaving it as for all ground mounted solar, you
know, for just include all and the fire department may come back and say, "Well, we don't really need it for small and medium." >> Or it could just be a different type of emergency plan then. >> Yeah. >> And then delete what it includes.
Do people like the addition of the requirements of the fire department too or do they think that's unnecessary because it's already going to be developed in consultation and approved by them? >> I would I would simplify and delete the
specific A through Z A through O as you know reflect in the comments there. >> So delete that. be hold on before we delete >> I can unddelete it if if >> the question is
um as in many cases do we send do we send a developer off to the planning I mean to the uh fire department and the fire department has to develop their own
request list. So here we have procedures for safe shutdown, procedures for inspect, inspection and testing, procedures to be followed in case of fire, explosion, da da da. Is it more helpful to include this list
here rather than make the fire department develop this essentially the same list? Stephanie, >> I think um the fire department's
representatives felt that they already had requirements and so I think identifying them here was redundant to their process. So when when you know they may not specifically provide a list
but they certainly have a process by which an applicant would have to conform to whatever their procedure is. So it again this is where I think they felt it might be somewhat redundant
um and unnecessary and I don't think contradictory but it might be confusing because again they have their process and they want applicants to go through their process and not necessarily defer to this as well I provided my emergency plan.
Okay. So, this is this is um I think one of the submitt requirements back in 1804. Um I think emergency plan is on there. This this outlines what the emergency plan
contains. Am I correct? We just said if applicable in emergency response plan as detailed in section 1814. We could say compliant with section 1814
or something and com and then and then 1814 is simply going to say for all of these following you are going to go and consult with the Ammeris Fire Department. So, so it it never does actually spell it
out, but it at least is very clear that it has to be developed in conjunction with them. >> Yeah. And that they would have to approve it before system commissioning. So, they might have to submit their draft at the time of submitting, but it
couldn't be commissioned and given its final whatever from the building commissioner until the fire department's approved it. >> Yeah. which I believe is the case. >> Yeah. >> So, >> so we would we would probably have at
least a a a paragraph covering this in section 1814 since we're being referred here. We would keep what I've highlighted in gray. >> Yes. Although I've added a comment that I
will check the current wording since we changed a lot of the the language to refer to a lot of this to make sure it agrees. >> Great. >> And then we would delete the the specifics of what it would include,
>> right? because that is actually up to the fire department, >> right? >> Everybody hanging with us. >> So, you know, editing by by committee is awful. >> That got rid of like a half a page, so
we're shortening it. >> Excellent. Um I see I see a comment under 1815. Um oh that was where we stopped. Need to check with staff to confirm whether this section is needed. And it says fine to
have as is. So section 1815 remains in place. Section 1816. Simply a change uh to call out the fire department. We're accepting the fire department.
Yes. I was still reading the comment here. Uh, so this comment, I don't know why it's sitting with construction maintenance. >> I'm so confused. I think I put it in the wrong section, but we'll resolve it.
Okay, we've got modifications. Stephanie says it is needed. >> Yes. And then special permit waiverss. I see no. Um it says not sure if this is needed
>> and they don't know at this time. So, we'll leave it for now and leave the comment. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> On to reporting and monitoring. Oh, I think we said we weren't ready to talk about it. I think that's what this
comment is that we weren't ready to talk about it because we needed more guidance on like what are the reporting requirements in big things. So well was that was our comment it was if
it was back a year ago um September that was before the state material came out. >> Yeah. or it was sort of while we it was right before or while we were working on that and I think it was more is this
I think my argument was the reporting shouldn't necessarily be more I was worried that this was too overbearing and and tough to comply with and not what and and beyond what we
typically ask for in large construction projects and so I think the question was what's typical of a big multi-acre construction project. You know, if we pointed to stuff, what has
Fort Rivers school undergone and reporting requirements and afterwards and sort of the duringness and then the p the after stuff? I think we wanted to I wanted to see better alignment with current practice in other largecale
construction projects. And it sounds like though that weekly is fine and consistent with concom. >> Yeah. So that that one for this one. >> Yeah.
>> But the question is how many years >> is the blue from staff? >> I think the blue is from staff. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I I feel comfortable with accepting that.
I mean, these are these are things that certainly certainly um erosion control methods and those are checked on a regular basis just to make sure they're still intact, they're still doing their job. Um,
you know, if there's fire compliance, plumbing, electricity, safety inspectors, uh, that sounds like staff would know more. They they added that in. >> So, should the monitoring requirements be based on the conditions for approval
in the consolidated permit? Because the consolidated permit will have all it's it's just one permit. or should it just remain from all town bodies with jurisdictions >> and the idea to try to have it be cons
consolidated? >> I mean it has to be if they go that route but then we keep hearing from like KP law and the state that people can choose another non-consolidated route and I have no idea how you do that but What does Stephanie
>> Yeah. So the question is the very last sentence says monitoring requirements shall be based on the conditions for approval from all town bodies with jurisdiction which to me sort of overrides everything else. Um, I'm, you know, I'm I'm sort of
thinking this through while we're talking about it. Um, I think maybe perhaps this is something we want to make a comment for staff to take a look at again. Um, you know, again, because we were spending two hour sessions going through
this and um, you know, we may, you know, it may be one of those things that we didn't really think as carefully about. >> Yeah. >> So, maybe just have have us take a look at that one more time.
>> Yep. Okay. >> The next section 19013 the question might be during construction fine and then for how many years post construction? So I think
>> are these are these different than the one above because the other one's got the storm water compliance and stuff too. >> Well, the this paragraph happen is is
strictly talking about 24-hour rain events or within 24 hours of significant storm events. So that's that's pretty specific. I think the very first couple of words during construction and for I
we've already covered during construction. I think we should get get rid of the words during construction in the in the 0.013. Does that make sense Stephanie? I mean this is a new topic. This is post construction.
>> And I would say that you know just sort of practically speaking once these are constructed. I think a year's worth of monitoring is probably enough because
they're not going to change. Right? So I would say a year when you're you've gone through a growing season, you've been able to sort of see runoff and how that impacts the land, the soil. I would say a year should be sufficient.
So, monthly reports to confirm compliance with the storm water prevention plan because this one just says literally monthly reports to these places but doesn't say about what the first sentence. >> And again, this is one of the ones where
I'm wondering how carefully folks really read this because it also we didn't change fire chief. We, you know, that should be fire department. Um, and I'm I'm feeling I mean again this
feels a bit redundant to me to some other places that storm water is referenced. So maybe read this one again more carefully. That would be good. As well as as well
as 014. So, I'm gonna at least delete that part so it says what the report's about. Okay. Um >> um so Mandy, I think what the report is about has to do specifically with the
24-hour significance within 24 hours of the storm event. That is the kind of thing that probably wants to be spelled out for the storm event. So then it's not monthly reports. It's within 24 or 48 hours of significant
storm events, >> right? >> So we would reject this part. So Stephanie, here's a staff question. So within a year of construction or or the start of operation,
if there's a if there is a significant storm event, the third party person goes out and does a complete report on essentially how is everything holding up. Um they would be required to do that close
monitoring for one year and then it's basically it's it's what it is. until some neighbor says, "Hey, you know, the detention bond is overflowing." Um, does that make sense? So, the the
>> Yes. >> So, it's So, I think Mandy, the way we might want to say it is is for one year post construction, there will be a there will be a third party inspector going to the site
after significant storm events and on a monthly basis to confirm that everything is in working order. the monthly and
within. >> So, so back in up there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Andy and Alicia, aren't you glad that you raised your hand to be on the CRC? >> We're trying to get through this as
quick as possible. >> So, are we good to go to 14? Yep. 14 looks fine. >> Stephanie says delete. >> Oh, >> so again, this was um staff comment was
that if you don't do this for other large scale projects, why are you specifically calling it out for these installations? >> So noted. I'm I'm comfortable with taking it out. the solar bylaw working group will be
raising havoc. But so debris cleanup, there was no comment on that. Um 06 there was a simplification.
So if 016 the applicant shall submit an annual report, do we still I thought we just got rid of an annual report. So this is a report about safety incidents
and up here were inspection reports, >> operation and maintenance plan and it doesn't have an end date for this one. which seems a little excessive. >> I think the let me read it. Um
>> I think this one is if there is an incident >> any any safety incidents that required notification. >> Right? So this is more of an incident report, not an inspection or monitoring. This is whether something actually
happened. So, I'm I'm going to um I don't know if Dave is still with us, but um in terms of Hickory Ridge, you know, putting putting on the cap of what does what is staff going to be
looking at over time at Hickory Ridge? Um, are any of these requirements things that they really feel should be in place or are we okay saying we'll have enough, you know, oversight of these projects
that we don't need to worry about it? >> I don't think Dave is available. I think he stepped away. >> That's fine. That's fine. So, so I'm looking at 17 and 17 says you have to do it within a week and 16 says do it
annually, but they seem to be wanting the same thing. Well, isn't the um second saying if there's an incident, the other is requiring it regardless of an incident. I mean, I just added that if it was applicable, you you'd do it if there
were incidents within the year. So, I I think the question is, do you want them after the incident or on a yearly basis? But I'm not sure you need them both. >> Uh, Go ahead, Stephanie. I was going to say if there's an incident,
I don't think you would wait a year to have a report. Although I have to imagine that fire has their own specific requirements for when incidents occur. Um, so you know, again, this is something I
might have staff double check. >> That would be great. I could see combining those two paragraphs, you know, I mean, it o6
says, you know, an it's almost like a wrapup, an annual report detailing all of the incidents that that happened. Um 17 is what do we what do we want to hear about each incident
which could be combined. >> Well, I will say there is a distinction between the two in that one is also including complaints. >> Yeah. Um, and the next one is really specifically about any kind of maybe
emergency response to an incident um that required first responders. That's separate. I think 1917 is more specific to something that's more of an emergency whereas the above is actually maybe not
specifically an incident. It's more, you know, like I said, it includes complaints as well, and that's an annual report. So, it seems like there's, you know, um, they have different levels of gravity.
>> I just ask something. Do you think the solar bylaw working group what they were getting at was to have an annual report in the hopes that might avoid an incident? I mean, there would should be a report if there is an incident. I'm just wondering if that was their thinking in
the one that we just deleted above. >> I Yeah, I don't know what they were thinking. Um the if there's an incident requiring first responders, it makes sense maybe to submit a report and we can pop the
any changes and the necessary if any changes, you know, we could pop this down into here, right? Um, and then maybe make the complaint reports
the focus of 16. So, it's only the complaints. But then I'm like, what what complaints? And why are we asking them to do that? Like that seems so broad and vague that I
don't understand the reason behind submitting yearly reports about complaints. Complaints about what? Anything. You didn't mow your grass. Like there was a pothole. Yeah. I I just
don't understand what the point of 16 is in the complaint side of it. I'm I'm almost thinking that it's it's people people on the ground living nearby. So, you know, they're being asked to plant trees and shrubs. And I
could imagine that someone says, you know, they put in an extensive amount of trees and shrubs, but they're all dead. And so that, you know, they really need to address it. That's the kind of complaint I could imagine. Um,
>> would those complaints go to the operator? Would they come to the town? >> They probably would be raised with the town so that the town would go back to the operator. I don't think most of us have the, you know, the the operator's
contact, well, contact information should be posted, but I think the town ought to be aware of non-compliance. Let's put it that way. >> I would think people would contact the town. Most people first. >> Yeah, I would think so, too.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. I feel like 16 should just be deleted. >> As staff, I would agree. >> Yeah. What are you going to do? Yeah. >> Because I think it's going to come to the town anyway. I I agree with all of you that, you know, these complaints are
going to come to the town. They're not going to call um the owner or operator at that point. >> Yeah. Yeah. So 07 um is yes there is going to be a report
to fire chief or or the Ammeris fire department and the building commissioner within one week of an incident >> and I moved the necessary changes made >> to that section. Great.
>> Would it be the necessary changes if any? Sorry. >> Yep. >> 1902 >> Agra Voltaics. We had a request to I think there was a suggestion to get
rid of the specific definition of agrovoltaics to begin with. Um I don't know whether that changes this section or need for it. >> The state the state seems to Stephanie
sorry you have your hand up. >> No. Um Pam, why don't you finish your comment and then I'll comment after. >> Okay. I think the state is is certainly encouraging agics. We we were and certainly the working group
um was very favorable about agriaics. We would like to see land maintained in agricultural use. Um the the point being that maybe we're going to be more lenient with them because because of this
favorable use. And so if we don't mention it, how can we be more lenient? I guess that was the point of that, Stephanie. >> So, and I noticed this when I was reviewing the document before the meeting as well. Um, agrovoltaics does
show up in the chart. So, >> I know that staff comment earlier about agrovoltaics specifically was confusion by some staff members who didn't understand the difference.
between what an aggrava like what is an aggravaic system quote unquote versus a groundmounted system right so I think agrovoltaics refers more to the in my mind the general practice of
installing solar on farmland whereas a groundmounted system is the system that's placed on the agricultural land so I I think it's just a matter of semantics maybe and I think that's what
just has to be maybe addressed. >> Okay. So the definition we're using is a canopy SPI where the land beneath is used for agricultural purposes. >> Yeah. And so I think this comment from before Stephanie Pam had wanted to keep it in
if we're asking for agravalaic reports later on then keeping the definition in to so people know which ones have to comply with that makes sense then >> definitely >> yeah I would agree because as I said
it's also mentioned in the chart So >> we can we all all can agree to keep agriable tapes. >> Yes. >> Great. >> Okay. We're at 18.20 transfer of ownership and there was um
the comment was on 1820.03 03 that if there are changes made to the project, they do require the approval of the P the permitting granting authority permit granting authority and staff said
definitely yes, keep that. I'm happy with that. Can we accept it? >> I resolved the comment, so I'll delete that comment. >> Great before sending it out again. Great. Okay. 1821 financial sherity.
There were two to be no comments on that section. 1822 abandonment or decommissioning. >> I'm sorry. There were X's there. Is that Oh, yeah. That's what we're talking about. Okay. >> We We just have to figure out I haven't
put the section number in. Well, so it occurred to me it if we just said consistent with this bylaw, we don't need to specifically reference anything because it's actually this section that we would refer people to.
>> Okay. >> 182203. Any any other comment on that? Um there was an addition of I can't read. Um we were s suggested to add for uh if the
facility seals ceases operation for over 12 months. The comment was add in for photovoltaic systems and one month for best systems. That work for everyone >> for me.
And then we come to the X's again. Um, the town may use financial shy as described in section X for this purpose. >> We could just say as described in this bylaw for this purpose. >> Yeah. And that is basically the end of the
text. So, we have a few a few sections that um would appreciate uh another deeper dive by staff. >> And um we've got the >> the use chart to go and some other
things to go too. And then maybe we can circle back to some of the changes that are in >> red that I left in red and tracked for this version last time. >> Right. So, this chart that's on the table now is the old one, but I didn't want to delete it and all the comments
associated with it. The staff proposed this chart in this new set of um definitions of tears and stuff. >> Oh. Oh, good. I was Oh, good. I was thinking that
we were using both of them and it it >> No, I just didn't want to delete one without >> Thank you. >> So, so this is the chart that was proposed by staff. Um, and the one above it, this one is the
one we sent to staff, if that makes sense. >> Right. Right. Great. because I really like the organization of the staff proposal, >> the one that's on the screen now. >> Yes. And the reason I like it is that it
does it in tiers from least least and smallest to largest and and most complicated and the other one was all mixed up. So, this is this is great. >> If I could jump in real quickly, too.
Um, this chart, I'm double checking, this chart actually doesn't reference agrovoltaics. Um, and I think again the I just want to be clear about what staff was was reacting to um because this does refer
to canopy systems which are on so agrovoltaics are canopy canopy systems on agricultural land. So again, just >> making that point, do you need to have a definition for agrovoltaics? But if you think the state clearly does and you
want to be consistent, then I will leave that comment there. >> No, that that's a good point, Stephanie, because under the current definition of agravalttaics in the draft, it's a subset of canopy solar. So it would be
yeses no matter how big across the RO RLD and RN which is most likely the zones it would be built under. Um unless we threw Agra specifically into um groundmounted
like the next one down with different tiers. I think that's that's potentially conversation to have. I think the way agravalttics is used within the bylaw for just reporting requirements is fine to keep it in the bylaw. Um because we
might want that report if they've installed an aggravaic but that becomes did staff understand that agravalttaics would be a yes no matter how big when they proposed this chart.
>> I would have to ask. Yeah. >> So maybe do you want to make a comment? Is that a good enough comment? >> Yeah. So if if in fact we end up incorporating or including agics under
building mounted canopy, we might in fact put in parentheses including photovoltaics. So that would be a a clear um reminder. >> Yeah. And we're going to delete this
this change the original proposal. >> Yes. Yes. >> Any concerns about the rest of the table? >> Um, I think not spending time today just double-checking, you know, if we feel comfortable the yeses, the nos, the site
plan reviews or special permits. I think it's good to to leave it at this. It's the kind of uh conversation that I hope the planning board would have when they're sitting there and talking about it. So, I' I'd be happy to move on. um
having I'll say adopted this format, I think that's puts us in good shape and I can I can try to make a note um in my in my little report to the to the to them.
>> Yep. And then they proposed a table for article five, but they need to draft staff needs to draft language for article 5 regarding accessory uses. >> Say that again. >> So
what we got back from staff included a table to be inserted into article five, which is accessory uses, >> right? um talking about where they're permitted and I guess
we might need the this classification up here maybe. Um, but we don't have they wrote new section to be added. We'll need an introductory paragraph that directs readers to these
articles. And we don't have that paragraph or anything yet from staff. >> Right. Uh, as far as the as the suggestions in red, that makes sense to me. >> Yeah, I I just thought it was clearer. I
added the SPI best because I thought it was clearer. >> Yeah. Yep. I like that. So, now we are into Okay, I'll let you finish. Sorry. No, I was just accepting two I added. Okay. >> Yep. So now now for folks awareness, we
are now into sections of the bylaw that might get impacted by adding a solar bylaw, clean energy bylaw. And so that affects uh different sections of the bylaw, including perhaps the height of fences.
And the staff comment was that um doesn't believe the sections necessary. Some of the height requirements conflict with other permit granting authority limits and requirements. So staff recommends we don't change any wording in the fences section of the
bylaw right now. Is that correct, Stephanie? >> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Shall I delete that whole thing? And >> the the only thing that sticks in my mind in terms of fences, and I think
this is something that came up at at um Hickory Ridge, is the requirement to leave a gap from the ground up to the bottom of the of the fencing so that the rabbits and turtles and so forth can come and go through those through those
areas. And I don't think there's anywhere else that we establish um fencing. And and I'm actually also uncomfortable saying, you know, you must have a fence. Well, maybe, you know, a developer doesn't want to have a fence.
That would be okay with me. Um >> um if I could jump in here, Pam, very quickly. >> Yeah. I so the um >> height from the ground for wildlife >> I and I don't know if this was specific to concom regulations but I know that
that was a requirement under conditions for concom approval. So I don't know if it's just a sort of general condition in fencing or but as one of the program granting authorities they would
certainly be requiring it. Um so I again I don't know if it's in the I haven't looked in the sort of general bylaw section. Um but certainly Concom would require that. So
they are one of the reviewing bodies. Um and I think the second part I think you said something else. Um besides the height of the fencing, >> the requirement for a fence. >> Oh, right. So I think that has to do potentially with safety and access. I
will say that probably most most developers will probably want to protect this asset. Um so I think in general um I' I've not really seen large
installations that don't have fencing. >> I haven't either. But but to actually say, you know, the the installations shall be completely enclosed by chain link or comparable fencing to prevent entry. I mean, that really is the burden
is on the developer to do that, I would think. >> But there is a safety issue. >> So the town is saying if if there's a solar development, we the town really want to protect our people, so we should
include this I would think so, >> but you recommended we delete the whole thing so that it wouldn't be required, >> right? >> I'd have to I I just don't remember if
we had it referenced elsewhere. We into this section and not in the requirements in the solar bylaw itself because there was a fence section already >> in the bylaw. >> Right. >> So we cover it we cover it in the bylaw.
We don't need to go to to section six fencing. >> Right. We put it in the bylaw. But there was but then the question was which one prevails six or or whatever number it would become. I think that's why since there was clearly a fence section we had
thought to put it here or why Chris Restrip recommended at one point here. But if they're conflicting with other limits and requirements, you don't want to write something that conflicts. Right now, I've got to go back and look at the
at the fencing section. Um, we ask for site plans that show where the fencing is. I guess this I mean this section in in fencing which is where fencing could all be together um
it gives the details of what is and isn't acceptable and maybe we could take another look at this and and winnow it down so it's simpler. Come back to that again. And again,
maybe the maybe the planning board because they deal with fencing a lot, they may have some desire to um put their mark on it. So, I'll make a note of that as well. of particular interest to the planning
board. >> I'll leave for planning board consideration of whether to include and if so where and what. >> Great. >> Moving on. >> Moving on. Definitions. >> Okay. Um so what is in red? Let me
explain what's in red. Um what in red is new definitions um provided by staff or moved or removed because of um how the use table now references
stuff. So we had needed an accessory use um staff gave us one. So I I tried to meet what Nate gave us in that email here, but I wanted to show what that change was compared to what we had had, which is why I left it tracked. Um they
the use the proposed use table had a reference to building mounted SPI, which we actually didn't have anything about building mounted SPI. So, I um made up a definition for it unless maybe that was one where we moved we actually I think I
moved that one from um it was either provided or I moved it from the the definitions in article the draft article um but it needed moved out here. solar facility I deleted it was not requested to be in article 12 and you'll actually
see that I deleted it from the proposed article too because it's not actually used in the proposed article anywhere other than in the definition of solar facility if we weren't going to use it I was going to get rid of it um
and groundmounted SPI was sort of that change um so this is the one I made up building mounted was provided ground mounted was a new one that we did not have. Um,
and so I made it up by saying it's neither canopy nor building mounted and then added the tears from the table um, in and I cleaned up SPI because we always just used SPI, not solar facilities. So
just cleaning it up and then added the tiers for standalone vest. Any questions, concerns, requested changes because I could then accept all of these. Anybody? Let's go for it. Was this in our packet?
Yeah, it's the it's the it's the clean version. So, it the title is now clean energy bylaw draft. >> Okay. Because I like to read it on my own. I put it on my own screen because I can't read this. So, okay. It's too small. >> I think we can get some of them bigger
now. I can't see the comments when I make it big, which is the problem. >> Yeah, I understand. >> Um Oh, we fixed that thread. Um okay so then the left the things I left changed
was we added a definition of groundmounted SPI so then we have to re-reference it here um offgrid system was not used in the bylaw >> right >> so I deleted it here as at some point it
must have been but in all the revisions it disappeared from use within our draft so I've deleted it Um, for primary SPI, we don't reference LGPI anymore. We're using a tier system. So,
that's why I propose deleting that sentence because we're just not using that sort of thing anymore. Um, solar energy and solar facility were not used within the bylaw. So, I started just trying to clean some
stuff up as I was playing with definitions. And so then the rest are that's the only changes and definitions here. I added them back in. We had added them into here. I I went back to with article 12 when we got the clarification from Stephanie. So
>> does everyone feel comfortable um uh accepting these changes? >> I'm seeing thumbs up. >> Excellent. Love it. Accept all changes. >> Yeah. Okay. So, those definitions
I can feel the weight lifting off my head. >> We're getting there. Um I think that might Oh, yep. No, we just changed that one today, I think.
>> Okay. Now, you've gone back. You've gone back to section. >> Yeah. So, the only other thing that was in this bylaw before we started today that had a track change was this screening and planting section because we had that question,
>> right? Right. >> That we needed to discuss. Um, so based on what was emailed from staff, I deleted the effective at time of installation up here and added the sentence about at time of planting
shrubs minimum height and tree minimum minimum caliber diameter and left highlighted the t the numbers because we have to decide the numbers. >> I'm I'm going to weigh in on the size of the plant material. Um, these are really
large for something that's, you know, a massive scale of, you know, whoever knows, 100 shrubs or something like that. And I think I think they need to be small containers. They'll adapt and and they'll acclimate quicker than a
large um than a large plant will. And I would say shrubs would have a minimum height of three feet. and trees a minimum of one inch caliber. >> I like what you're saying, Pam. Like I I I think I agree that they were huge.
That would be a huge cost. And um who knows how long they will be maintained. And the bigger you put them in, the more likely you're actually going to end up with dead >> dead plants instead of things that will thrive. >> Yeah. the smaller ones will adapt
quicker. >> Great. >> Any any other comments about accepting those changes >> and everything else we did today? So I guess the question I would have if we're still have time to talk about this
is how to it's in this consolidated permit application submittal requirements. Um KP law their small clean energy facility bylaw
in their definitions just defined somewhere in here what a consolidated local permit was. what the application was and um the local government representative. They literally just defined the term local government representative. Um,
which I'm not sure belongs in our definitions if we're not trying to bring their consolidated local permit in. But I think we could use that in this section of consolidated permit application. you
know, it's being submitted or somewhere where it's where we could create a section that says, oh, this section that says and local government representative um the way the I don't know whether we need to change it. Um
KP Law did it this way. They they picked someone, but um I as long as we've got something It said check the lang necessary.
>> I don't I don't even like their language. I don't like their wording. I'd rather just keep that whatever is in pink. >> Yeah. Okay. I I just wanted to check on that. >> And we don't have a title that community and economic development,
>> right? No, that that's who they for whoever they were using it for, right? Um but where's the local government? But I wanted to make sure we had something that kind of matched what they were. So I think we can resolve the checking the
language. I would say it's necessary. Um I think that was my only given the KP law stuff their their draft consolidated local permit that they provided us really did just
track a lot of the regs. It looked like So, I wasn't didn't think there was much to add to ours. >> Yeah, I think we were pretty complete to begin with. >> Yeah. I didn't want you guys to see my scroll.
The um the other outstanding one was actually on page five. This is also under permit application submitts. There was one outstanding comment about of staff for staff review. Which of the
sub items are duplic duplicative of all boards and committees? Um, no, we already we already dealt with that. We already >> we just we just had a st uh need to make sure that they're each each the requirements of each PGA are included
somehow. I think that's a return to staff for that. And my only my only yeah my only consideration is under D it says plans showing proposed changes to property for the property site number one was those
requirements specified by 225 CMR 29 or associated guidance. Um, I'm suspecting that 225 CMR has a bunch of the I know they have a bunch of these already,
but I would rather have them in our bylaw than to send somebody off to 225 CMR to get their list. >> So, so 225 CMR 29 is the clean energy rags. So, they're going to be pulling they're going to be so familiar with
those anyway that I'm not too worried >> cuz that's where the site suitability requirements are. It's it's where it all is. >> Yeah. Good. So, we'll leave it here. >> Yeah. Um this is kind of a monumental moment.
Um, I think we are at a point. I will put together a short transmitt letter and Jennifer, go ahead. >> No, no. I just want to say thank you to Pam and Mandy for shephering this
through. I was on CRC last time, so I can't say I'm just coming into it, but this is all been out of my comfort zone and really very too technical for me and so you guys really pushed this through. and of course Stephanie and the staff. But thank you
>> totally. >> Are are we basically saying we're sending this off to planning board and >> yes we are >> back to us in like less than a month with their comments so that we can get this to the council. >> Yes, but I'm but I'm gonna a little
caveat. So Stephanie >> um I was just going to recommend actually before you do that because you do have some requests for staff to review a few things. So, I would just give us till the next meeting at least I can get this out today right after this meeting to staff and have some responses
to those final things so that you have a really fully clean draft to get to um planning board. And I know that we maybe wanted to um introduce it to them informally maybe prior to a formal >> definitely
>> um submission to them. So, >> it gives a little more time for that as well. So, can can I just respond or suggest something? >> So, we can't formally submit this to planning board because we're just one committee. Um, and it's not being
submitted for hearing. So, I'm wondering if we're trying to get this done, done, or moving and done. Would CRC mind if staff just respond to those comments within and and we hand
them sort of a clean track change version? those lingering comments. I can even clean up. They can track it and send it right to planning board for their review so that we're not waiting delaying two extra weeks. Um and we can
just deal with it in conjunction with planning board's comments. >> Yeah, because we can continue looking at it at the same time the planning board is. Um, I I put together that very very
draft timeline and I'm looking at today being the February 26. Shall I show this on the screen? Would that be helpful? >> It might. Yeah. >> Yes. Because it was hard. I printed it but still had trouble. It still came out small.
That was a lot of work. Thank you. >> So, does that show up? Oh, no. I was saying the other you sent us something else that was so so that is that is a little confusing but it's it's the timeline across time. Um maybe this
will be helpful just just for now as we talk about it. Today is the 26th. I highlighted that in yellow and I wasn't sure if we would finish our deliberation uh today or maybe our next meeting which would have been March 12. I'm very
comfortable at the position we're in to send this to staff and say, "Can you focus on the following items?" And Stephanie's aware of the items. Um, and maybe maybe Mandy, when you when you
put send the clean version, you could just highlight the ones that that we still wanted staff to take a look at. >> That would be extremely helpful. um so that we can start sharing on for
instance uh March 18 if if the planning board has time on their agenda that's you know that's a factor that there could be the introdu introduction at that time to this bylaw and they
could spend that meeting and possibly April 8 meeting talking about this bylaw and and confirming ing decisions that have been made. >> And I would say if they can do it even one meeting earlier, that would be even
better. But I don't know when their next meeting is. >> That would be that would be lovely. Um otherwise it would go to their April 22nd meeting and that would be the third opportunity to to for them to discuss
it. they would have to turn around immediately or I would listen to the meeting and take notes. Um the 23rd is the next CRC meeting and that would be the point at which we kind of put a stamp of approval
on it and then immediately send that to KP Law and to town council if there's time and if you're aware of it, Mandy, um for the April 27 town
council meeting. Yeah, if you I mean obviously Alicia and I uh Councelor Walker and I sit in this this committee so it's a little easier. Um but if we know we can probably put it on that meeting. Um
it's a referral only and referrals tend not to take huge amounts of time especially when they're this complicated. Yeah. >> Um there, you know, there this there seems to be a a medium between the more complicated the the less the more people
rely on staff almost because it's so much to comprehend, especially at the referral stage. Um, so I suspect we would have time to deal with that on the April 23rd agenda or even the agenda before that if it's ready for the agenda
before that early April is especially since it's just a referral. Um, which would likely just go on consent potentially. Um, >> yeah. So, are you thinking >> the previous town council meeting would
be April 6. So, that's that's quite a bit before um I think we would be >> ready. >> Yeah. >> Because the April 8, two days later, is only the second time the planning board can talk about it. And we don't know
their agenda. We don't I I think Nate said that >> the earlier the better. We'll just have to play it by ear, but I think either April meeting we could find time on the agenda to get this referred
out because it is something that takes a lot of time. And the earlier it's referred out, the longer the hearings can last and the less pressure there is under the hearing stage, which I think it's more important than >> this end of extending time. I think the
hearing stage, more time for that is probably more important. Yes, Andy. >> Yeah. So, I'm I guess I'm wondering, do we send do we want to have a track a completely clean document to send to
planning board for their initial orientation to it or if we have a few track changes or a few comments in it and send that to staff and they send it to planning board. Is that okay? >> I think that's okay. >> Yeah, we've we've received stuff from
planning board with that in the past when it's sort of in development stage. and and and I also sometimes resent if if something is is thought to be absolutely perfect, it's like why bother asking us to look at it if you think it's so perfect. So, I'm completely open
to to commentary from that planning board on this document. Yeah, Stephanie. >> Um, I do want to note that the energy and climate action committee would really love the opportunity to review this and weigh in as well. And I'm thinking that at the time that we
submit it to the planning board, so once we have the staff recommended changes, I could get it to them as well. Um, and they could provide some feedback also. >> And maybe they could provide their feedback to the planning board. Might be that that might be a good time. copy
both of us. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I mean, it does doesn't mean that that the CRC members can't be looking at it in the meantime. So Stephanie, just going back to confirm
um today is the 26th. If this document comes to you and um and then it gets passed along uh directly to the planning board. I think they had a meeting
yesterday. I did not I did not listen. So that would have been the 2nd and 4th. I think their next meeting is probably March 11 and March 25. We would target them having it well in advance of the next meeting so they can
have a chance to look at it. >> So I think I thought Nate told me that the planning board had a meeting proposed on the 18th, the planning board. So >> okay, maybe it is the 18th. Maybe it's the 4th and the 18th. Sorry. I think so
because I I think that was what we talked about because we thought the fourth was too soon. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Yes. >> Because we want to give staff time because that would be next week. So that wouldn't give staff enough time really, >> right? Either. Okay. So we're aiming
we're aiming for this to go well ahead of time if possible to the planning board for their March 18 meeting. So, I'm just trying to confirm my responsibility here. Um, I'm not sure I need
anything very official then if if Stephanie and staff are going to take a look at it and then they are going to send it along to the planning board. Um, it doesn't officially have to come from CRC.
except except maybe a note today to Pam Nate Jeff Doug Marshall maybe and just say you know we're asking staff to take one last look and then it will be just sort of a
heads up. I'm happy to do that. Any thoughts? Can we include the um chair of the ECAC as well? >> Sure. >> Send that message, please. Lori Lori Goldner. I can send you her contact if
you don't have >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Yep. Perfect. >> Uh then a question maybe for Mandy and or Stephanie. Um,
KP Law, KP Law referral. Uh, my question here on my time chart was, can the CRC send this directly to KP Law without town council referral? So, our charge now allows us to try and do that. We'd have to send it through
Paul. Um, and I think once we submit it to the council for its referral for hearing to the two bodies that if if you submit it to Paul at the same time and say we'd like to get KP
Law started on this so that by the time the hearings start we've got their responses back so that they can be included in the hearings. I would guess that he wouldn't have a problem with that. Um, so I would say sort of ask ask him
at the same time it's it's going on a council agenda so that the responses can be back. >> Yeah. >> Before the hearings start. >> Yeah. >> Doesn't go send things via Paul to KP Law without going >> No, we we just changed it at the end of
the last session so that all the committees can do it directly. Well, directly that that that we can do it while we're working on the substance. >> Much more efficient. Yeah, great. And that's about the same time frame anyway if if April 23 22 is
sort of the completion of their planning board's draft review, if you will. Um, our comments, it's a pretty good package. At that point, I will ask for a referral, a request for a referral for public hearings. It will go to Paul. It
will go to KP Law. Great. Okay. So, that's a little ways out. That's a little ways down the road. Good. Okay. It is quarter of three just about. Um, we actually have minutes. I'm going to
move on to the next agenda item and that is action action item 4B. minutes for um March 12 that were in our packet. Would anyone like to move their
approval? Any comments? Jennifer. >> Oh, no. Are you moving? I was just going to move to >> I was going to ask if anybody wanted to move. >> I so move. >> Any second?
>> I'll second. Okay, we'll go around the horn. Uh, Mandy Joe, >> hi. >> Jennifer Tub, >> yes. >> Andy Churchill, >> yes. >> Councelor Walker, >> yes.
>> Pam is a yes. So, we have a minutes for approval. and I'll I'll work with uh Andy just to do the however we set it up and ship it off to uh Athena to be um posted as approved.
Um number five, next agenda preview. We may not have to talk about clean energy bylaw. Um which would be great. Uh I would like to spend some time uh talking about the
ZBA and the planning board the time that it takes uh and the fact that we don't have very many people having submitted community activity forms for these two prestigious and
wonderful boards. So, we are we are real thin in terms of folks who have put their names in the hat. Um, announcements. The next CRC meeting is March. Oh, any any other Sorry, Annie,
go ahead. >> No, I just had a question about how many openings are there and on the planning board in DVA? There are two full members whose terms will end on the 20 uh on the end of June. Both of them have served
only one term. There are two associate members whose terms always end at the end of the year. We can have up to four associate members for these one-year positions. That's the >> ZVA.
For the planning board, there are three members whose terms have uh will end on June 26, sorry, June of 26. >> And uh two of those people have served each only one term.
>> Who are the do we know who those are or I can just go look? >> Yep. You could go to the form, but um the person who's has filled uh two terms, served two terms is Johanna Newman. She would come off uh again at
the end of June. And there are two two folks um yeah, I'm forgetting right now who have only served one term, >> but there's a there's a table right on each each of their websites. >> Okay.
So, one of the one of the topics is, you know, shake the bushes a little bit, Jennifer. >> Yeah. And we can certainly ask in a council meeting for the counselors to get the word out. Um, >> yeah, >> through their mailing lists,
>> but these are, you know, can be time consum. It's been harder to I think that there's something also intimidating about these committees. You know, I find when I reach out a lot of people So anyway, that's I think
why it's it can be a hard Yeah. Actually, there are a couple people who put their names in. One person just got selected for the uh Ammeris College student just got selected for the um cable TV committee.
and was looking for a way to get involved. So, I think he's found his involvement. So, I made a note of it in the uh Andy, just a quick qu Mandy, go ahead. >> Yeah. Um, should we post the notice of
vacancies or whatever so that we get that going? And then is there a way you could ask Paul if you rewrite or you know resubmit the we sort of do the news and announcement thing every time to get that on the web page and get a news and announcement sort of email out to people
like Paul does with the other vacancies. Can can you submit that too to Paul to ask the communications director to put that on the website? Yep. Uh so next so next meeting I will I
will um do I need to get approval from the committee for a a posting notice? >> I think we're technically supposed to approve it under the policy. I think you have to read the policy. >> All right. Well, so next meeting I'll
have a draft for the notice to be approved. I mean to be posted and you all can weigh in on that. And then I will also um I mean we can start preparing all of the questions to be asked. We can do all of
that ahead of time. We don't need to wait until last minute. Jennifer. >> Yeah. And if Andy is going to be helping with the setting up the interviews as vice chair, there's samples of all the correspondents from other years.
>> Yes. Yes. And I'm going to ask Andy, do you have access to um the CRC SharePoint folders? >> Not that I know of yet, but I I'm working on it. >> Okay. Me, too. I I can't get into the
TSO one either, so I'll I need some help on that as well. >> How do we go about getting that expedited? I am going to call um I am going to send in a request to it and copy Athena. Athena has given me some
instructions on how to do it, but I'm pretty technologically poor, so I need help. Stephanie, >> um sorry, but this literally just came in my inbox. There is going to be a hybrid meeting of the ZBA and the
conservation commission on March 3rd at 7 p.m. with a representative from KP Law to discuss the solar sighting um changes and it's going to be followed by a question and answer session and the
public is invited to attend. So I just wanted to make you aware of that opportunity. >> What's the date again? I'm sorry. uh March 3rd. So it's next week at 7 PM. So it's a Tuesday, 7 p.m. Um and it's posted. I can I'll forward this to um to
Pam so that you can send it to all the members of this group. >> That would be great. That'd be great. I'd love to hear what they hear. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, Andy, I will reach out to you to just
sort of walk through all the folders and files that Mandy explained to me three years ago. >> Um, because it's all very organized. It's all very organized. >> And maybe we we can we can combine our
um, you know, connection with it or whatever. Same. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I may reach out to them immediately after this meeting because >> I'm getting tired of not being having access. Okay. Um,
the next CRC meeting is March 12 and we will be talking about obviously the ZBA and Z planning board appointments. That does not take a whole meeting. Uh, were there any other
potential meeting topics? We may we may spend I think I'm going to keep clean energy on there because we could talk about timing of the sequence and that kind of thing but we won't be talking about content unless well wait a
minute we'll have we'll have some feedback from staff by then correct. I'm sorry. By which date? >> Um, by our fe our March 12 meeting date.
It looks sounds like staff will have um put together thoughts again uh on the remaining questions. The material will have gone to the planning board and back to CRC. And we in fact could spend some time on
the 12th talking about the staff changes that were suggested. So I am going to leave that on the on the agenda. >> Okay. >> As >> that's good for me to know. Okay.
>> Great. As a future agenda item. Um, there was nothing that came in unexpected in the last 48 hours and so I think we can adjourn. I'm going to make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Let's go. Let's go around the horn. Uh, Mandy Johann, >> hi. >> Jennifer Tao, >> yes. >> Pam, yes. Andy Churchill, >> yes. >> And Councelor Walker, >> yes.
Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> This has been very productive. We have made our way through a huge mountain. >> For those new to this committee, it's like what 18 months in the >> Oh, for some of us it's been a whole lot
longer. >> Oh, at least I think it's been at least two years. >> I don't know what you've been missing. Yeah. I greatly appreciate all of your patience and I will forever have Mandy Joe's face ingrained in my memory of sheer joy.
>> Thank you. >> Even better when we're done the hearings. >> Exactly. Exactly. Exactly. Um so is one of the staff going to hit record or shall I stop recording? >> I'll stop recording. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you everyone. Byebye. >> Thank you so much. Bye.