Okay, so I think we are started and recording. So I'll turn it over to you Pam. >> Thank you very much. >> Hi everyone. It is December 11, 2025. This is a regular meeting of the community resource committee of the town
council. uh as a virtual meeting uh 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. Uh this meeting
will be conducted with rem 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 or our committee uh is possible, but every effort will be
made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. We have a quorum. We have started recording and we'll just see if everyone can be heard. Um Mandy Johanni
>> present, >> Kathy Shane, >> yes. And Pam Rooney is also present and she can hear herself speak. So that's good. Uh we have no public hearings. We have
no attendees. I was going to open up the meeting for um public comment. And if somebody shows up later, I will open it again if that's okay with you all for public comment. It will probably be on solar, I'm guessing. Uh, so we'll just
move right along. Action items. And Stephanie, thank you for for pushing to join us at 4. I really appreciate it. I knew it was clo you said maybe you could be here by 4:15. So, >> no worries. Um and we are
um dealing with a solar bylaw, clean energy bylaw model from the state and we will be talking through uh what that state model looks like compared to the material we put together.
Um I'm looking at Mandy who is >> Would you like me to share my screen? >> I would love that. You are you are our scribe. Thank you. And this is exactly this is
the kind of thing. So I'm going to recap for anyone who is listening to the recording at some point. Uh the intent is to push to get put together as much material as we can. Uh today we have another meeting scheduled for the 18th
which I'm actually going to suggest I would love to cancel. Um but that said uh we will try to get material as much through as much material today as we can. Um and then we are going to be
asking staff to take some time to re review and comment on it. Kathy. >> Um yeah I just I have a question also for the record. Um, but just for all of us is I believe the draft we're
reviewing today that we've compiled using the state model bylaw and where we were on our own and taking all of our own into this and then adding whatever was in the state bylaw changing wording accordingly. So my question with that
overall view, have we basically done all parts at this point? Because when we left off, uh I guess it was now two weeks ago, uh the the materials to be submitted section Pam was doing and I believe Amanda, you brought that all in.
So I think and so I'm making a statement. You know other we've got little comment bubbles. We've got some unresolved issues but I think we're done with consolidating them other than going through these. Is that correct?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Other than potentially needing sections because we have remaining questions, right? But but this is what we're working off of now cuz we've imported and merged everything. My knowledge is
>> Yeah. >> And and so if we can be efficient today, we'd be accepting track edits where there's a question of how to word it. Potentially leaving some unanswered questions yet while we turn it back over
to Stephanie and people who are also looking at this. Is that correct? Um, so that's just, you know, so what I'd hope is what Pam just said that we would get far enough that it was at a point that we could turn it over with comment
bubbles and these questions um without having to meet again next week because that's what I >> even better >> because that because that's what I saw in today's draft and so I was just double-checking that's where we are. Thank you. >> Yes.
Yes. So I I think as we go I had started now I'm looking for it but I had started a list of things that I particularly wanted um sort of staff to think about as it gets handed over to them and we can um I'm I'm going to try to keep
tabs on that if I can if I can find it again um as we go through things. >> I'm ready. But other than that, other than that, um um Mandy, do you want to since you put these kind these questions
together, do you want to walk us through these, please? >> Yeah, sure. Um the first one I don't think we can answer here. That's a staff question. um which is um we are you know the ZBA has its own rules and regs, the planning board has its own rules and regs that each of those have different
submittal requirements but our table has has these permits going to either location but the state requires a consolidated permit. And so one of the questions I had was how do we sort of incorporate that consolidated permit
stuff into the bylaw and do we need to override some of the ZBA rules and regs that deal with quote consolidated permits mainly the 40B permits but I don't know how specific they are to 40B right um and how do how do we do that
right but we also don't want to say none of the rules and regs apply because that would get rid of the planning board submitt require you know like some things that we were relying on applying including fees for applications so I I think it's a staff question that we
leave in here and staff can answer this consolidated permit that needs to be done for all solar you know clean energy applications whether this bylaw applies or not is needs to figure out what we do with it
basically um and how we address that >> and Pam, >> I'd like to I'd like to weigh I'd like to weigh in on just actually just go like this if you want to talk just because there are three of us it makes more sense. Um but um when I look when I look at ZBA rules and regs they are
they're fairly generic and they're and they're heavily focused on small you know residential scale kinds of projects. Um, so it it feels like much of the material that we have here in our document, the
solar document, is is more appropriate to maintain. It covers everything that a comprehensive permit would have to ask for anyway, but then I'd be happy to hear back from staff on that.
I just want to add and then I'll let Stephanie talk Mandy for another bullet is um you've you've got it later but we're supposed to identify who who the person is and that goes with this consolidated permit. Where does that
lie? So, you know, if we're doing a memo to staff, it's you're kind of giving some of the guts of it here. Um it's like uh fill in the blank you know you know or leave it blank for now on the who
right yeah good so the next question should bylaw and use table include accessory uses the non- ground mount and really small like the model bylaw does when I when I look at the really small
and and um you know canopy type things. It it feels like just like it feels like we should not have to cover those in this particular bylaw. Just like we said originally, you know, this this bylaw
does not apply to X Y and Z. It feels like we want to make a similar statement. >> Yeah. And so I started that >> sorry sorry I started that here in applicability but it still has this question of do we put
smallcale best smallcale whatever this might you know like what do do we put some of it into the use table too? Um and then obviously we have to talk about what applies and what doesn't to this thing
and how that affects it. Sorry, Kathy. >> And then and then Mandy, back up at top, I was going to put a sub bullet to that. Um that we've identified some places like accessory use. This is an example
of one where if we're saying it's accessory, the accessory use table, the that's in the current bylaws has to mention solar these smallcale solar. So it's um so far we haven't explicit but there's a
list of those Stephanie where we need a definition over in the general definition table or then in this one it's accessory loose has a whole bunch of what is considered an accessory use. So I that's the we're not doing that I
hope in this but it's you know flagging it that if we decide it is an accessory use it needs to be mentioned in the what are accessory uses. Um >> yep. >> So I'm just going along thinking these are like this this is the beginning of
the memo to staff on things that we're not necessarily going to do in this. Um, so you've got other places, Mandy, where you've done it like we both do. Hazardous waste. I think there's a definition of it here and there's a
definition of it over already. Um, we flag those um for whatever we define have it be defined the same way in in both places. Um, which is different than the accessory use. I'm just saying that it's a cross
reference. Yeah. >> Yeah. Thanks, Did I miss any of the flagging that you wanted me to do? >> No, I don't think so. You know, this is specific to accessory and later I think you've got it too. Um >> you've got it throughout that change the
definition in make it part of a definition. >> Yeah. >> And that was when I read through it said see article whatever the article is article 12 with definitions and I went and looked at article 12 and it didn't have a definition. So we were saying add add a definition.
>> Yes. Right. >> Okay. >> And that's at the back the bottom of this document. Those those additions too. >> Yeah. There's another whole section on page 24 25 of this document that stuff we need to deal with. Um okay. Model bylaws separates levels of condition
based on use table permitting structure which is itself based on sizes. Do we want a similar structure? >> Yeah. So, we I think we I left this in here even though this this draft attempts to do that in the applicability
section when we get there, but I left the question in there because we weren't fully resolved on how but that we did want it to do wanted some separate easier for smaller stuff. That was the
last meeting, but we have to make the decisions on what that means. So here I'd put another bullet is for now we've left we made a decision on this. So this is when we want the staff to make a second bullet i.e. should the
bulk, you know. So, is is staff okay with the decisions we've made? Um, you know, so Stephanie, you've read the model ones, you know, they do uh, you know, unbest they've got two different they've got a best level, you know. So, is what we've done does
that make sense? You know, that we we we made decisions, right? >> Okay. Yep. Yep. >> I wanna I want to double check the decisions because I I don't actually remember. >> We'll get there. I I had to take some
guesses in what we might do when we said last week we said, >> this is why I left the comment bubble here. >> Yes. Minimize the requirements for small scale ground mount. Make it simple and easy as possible. Have medium and large go through the main process. So that's
we have to check to see if I did that correctly. Yeah, perfect. >> That's what I tried to do in this one. Hence why it's resolved but left. >> And so that that is also related to this last bullet which is should best be separated into tiers for purpose of use
table. >> Well, it come it comes see Pam it also the next best also has it. So it is the the state is very different for two twos and threes than ones, >> right? And at first we were talking
about Bess and then we realized little Bess, baby's the tier one, are more like what goes with your house, but you still want some sort of oversight over them so they don't blow up, >> right?
>> Yeah. So best was was one we we talked about it for solar, but we hadn't talked about it for Bess. Um, I don't know how big a aggregate energy capacity of 250 or whatever is, but I know there's still concerns about all
the water issues on stuff. So, it might not be a size issue more than a location issue maybe um as to where things apply. I don't know. Uh, but we did not talk about how to do that. it might be good to just get staff's opinion on that one
instead of making a decision ourselves before we hear from staff. And so >> I'm gonna I'm going to just add my my thoughts on that is is that uh with the exception of you know small house battery type things it feels like
whether it's a whether it's a a large or medium bass the the the sighting is similar the the conditions for access for fire trucks is similar. It feels to me that we have a a
category for best for everything except the the residential scale stuff. And I think if if people disagree with that, it would be good to know why we would want to break it down further.
>> Well, and I don't know what the town now does, Stephanie. We must have some homes that already have their backup batteries. you know that they're running off their battery, not just during the period. Um, and I'm assuming somewhere
in the town we know who those are and that they went through I'm I'm making an assumption they went through some permitting po uh process. >> Absolutely. They had to go through, you know, at the very minimum they had to go through for an electrical permit. So,
all of that gets checked out. So, um, I don't know how they're necessarily dealing with it, you know, under the current structure. I, you know, I think they're treating it as any other energy system associated with a home. So, um, you know, I think
I don't, you know, I think, you know, sort of treating that separately, the residential is sort of like treating the residential solar separately. Um, you know, I think they're similar scales. So, you know, yes, you're going to have some concerns
about fires, but some of that is also current perception on on fire on, you know, battery storage and the danger of battery storage. I feel like some of that is like a current concern that's
maybe uh I don't know people tend to get fearful when they hear about something and suddenly make it more exponentially larger than it is. I think treating it as we have where we have an electrical inspection um and we treat it the way we have with
solar, you know, I think that's sort of the the pathway to go is treat it sort of similar to solar and residential >> sites. Yeah. Okay. So, we we did not really answer
those questions on the first page. We added to them. Um, but >> Pam, can I just say to me the first page, you said you were going to do a memo to staff. The first page is the beginning of that memo. So, whatever else when we get to the end, whatever
else, this is questions to be addressed by staff, further discussion, but it is the beginning of a memo to staff when we turn this over. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I have so I full disclosure I am I am I can spend some time on it
tonight and that's it. Um I am going to be in Brooklyn with a brand new baby for the whole week starting Friday tomorrow. >> I'm fine with I'm just saying we can be official today. I'm taking notes and
>> I'm taking notes too. Yeah. if you want. >> So if you get at the end of all of this, if you get to tonight with the draft memo to staff and you send it out, I will have notes and I can finalize it for you. You know, I mean, you can ask Mandy and me to say, "Did you capture it all?" And we'll get and we'll get it to
final. We can lift it over the final curve. >> Yes. And we we all know that that this is the target. It's it's not an exhaustive exhaustive list. >> Good. Okay. Um, go ahead.
>> It relates to the conversation on the the tiers of BES, right? Um, >> well, we haven't tiered BES particularly. Um, with colllocated, we did um I think in the use table we can go down there. But what we did say down
here and this is what I highlighted. Do we put it here? Do we put it in a use table with a yes? um you know can does accessory use regulate these well enough, right? Um essentially questions we left above. But
um I guess the question I have while Stephanie is here is building integrated best is in a sense what we think of well I think some of that is the battery for houses maybe um and colllocated best
with an aggregate energy capacity of less than 250 would be small but commercial probably um and right now we've said just like we did canopy installations which are parking lot because we took out agravalttaic canopy.
Um, building mounted, which is your rooftop solar behind the meter is is some of the most residential ones. Um, would all be accessory uses. Um, is everyone okay right now with this list and the question for staff? And then we
can go back to the one above that has the the changes. My only question my only question would be with the aggregate energy capacity of less than 250 kilowatts um I I still have a hard time
understanding the size of these various elements. So 250 kilowatts is actually a pretty good sized system. Um >> so that's what they called a tier the model by law called a tier one system.
So they're the smallest it's it was their smallest split in the model bylaw. >> Yeah. >> Hence I >> But it's still but it still could be it still could be up to five acres. >> Uh no this is best. This is >> best it could be it's a collocated BES. So it
means that the that the installation itself could be up to five acres. >> The solar installation might be but this isn't talking about the solar side. This is the best side is an accessory use to the solar side. If it's that small, >> if it's not that small, it's a it's a
nonacory use. >> This is specific to best, Pam. If that's not clear with this, it's not the system. It's just best. >> I was Okay, I'm I know it's just best. It was sort of the size of that unit
that I'm grappling with. Okay, I'll I'll take your word for it. We'll we'll assume it's actually small and we can keep as far as I can tell we could keep it lumped into this section. >> No. Okay. And then the other one was
I tried to with the note that we had above about smallcale ground mount solar um which is um 25 megawws or smaller I think um for solar
I think is what we did it as. Um, this is where I tried to split out similar to the model bylaw what do they have to do and what they don't and 01 to07 they would have to do and then portions of 08 um and then 12 and 15. So 1 to 3 and 6
in and 08 and we can go and and show you what they are. Um and then 12 and 15. Those matched as best I could. I know it sounds weird to have these like that, but I tried to match what the model bylaw had applying to the yes stuff cuz
the the model bylaw did it by was it a yes, a a site plan review or a special permit? Um, so we couldn't really but I tried to get it to more of the um yes side of the model bylaw on what it
would in include. So what that includes is applicability. Apparently our definitions is three and we don't have a two anymore. Um so we might have to fix these numbers. >> Yeah. >> Um but definitions
um the compliance with the laws, the pre-filing requirements, the site suitability and the fees. And then for permit application, it would be who it's submitted to. Um the plans need to be
signed and comply with the requirements of the CMR um um and the conflict issue and then but not the submittal requirements here. So they would have the submittal requirements of the CMR and whatever the
permit granting authority is. And then number six is um the waiver and modification of the submitt of submittal requirements which I don't know whether it needs to be there if you don't have anything else but I I thought I'd
include that one. And then 12 is um so dimensional design is not included in the small scale ground mount. Um neither is the specific installations but then what would be for smallcale
is storm water management bylaw. Um and then 15 so not the hazardous material stuff. This is smallcale solar um not best. And then and not the emergency plan but the building permit and inspection is the ones that I did for
smallcale solar. Um, so if there's others, >> we should add them in. >> But that's what happened. >> Yeah. >> So I only half listened to this last
piece. I looked up what a 250 best or slightly near that. No, it's it's the size of a small appliance or a cabinet. Um, it's multiple batteries, but a typical household would be more 20 and 50.
>> So, we need some guidance from staff on, you know, is there something the state laid it out as one, but it's and Mandy, you're right. They said it would typically be with a a commercial a small commercial building. A house a uh a
freestanding house would typically not have it. But maybe, you know, I'm thinking of the collection of um duplexes here that's coming in in Ball Lane. They don't have solar arrays, but if they ever got solar arrays, they might want to connect to it. and
certainly our school if we ever we don't have a best but if we did we have a platform waiting for it. So I think all of those are going to be in the 250 range. They're not the super big ones. Um, so we just we just need some uh they're they are quite different than
the small house more household backups, >> but they're also quite different from the large commercial best >> and they're really different, too. >> When you when you walk the social the solar field up here, they're giant. Um, you know, they're really Yeah. So, and they make a lot of noise. So for now
they might be best we might best leave them under accessory use instead of primary use. >> Yeah. And as I said I just need someone who actually knows you know our electrical people Stephanie would know how much more complex these are. You
know uh worried about the biggies how much more you really want to make sure they're far away from a wooden house or something. Yeah. >> So, so Kathy, so Kathy, the the items, the sections that we just ran through
are the ones for small ground PIs. So, the list seem to be pretty inclusive. Um, if we in fact are aiming to simplify a process for small >> Yeah, I'm only focused on the best one,
the tier one. And I guess the other question would be then should should smallcale non- colllocated best be included here? >> Yep. >> Can we put that? >> I'm just going to call it tier one best for now. I think tier one's the
smallest. >> Yeah. So, I just have a qu can I a question? Um, as we go through, if we like the words we've added, um, uh, you know, we're not going to have enough time to go back. I wouldn't mind just doing an
accept the edit if we like it so that we can >> That's all right. You just did one, but leave the leave the comment bubble, but accept accept the um edits. Um, so >> I said oops because the comment
disappeared when I accepted the edits. >> Yeah. No, the the track changes here are the things that changed from one week to another in essence. >> Yeah. No, I'm just I understand that Mandy and I appreciate I'm just saying if we say it's okay. >> So the answer is yes, we can try to do that. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So I moved in definitions aggregate energy capacity to the article 12. Um I did not change it. I moved it to article 12 uh because it's now in the use table.
So I just wanted to show that that was a change. Does anyone have other questions about the um Oh, I had a question here. We had a draft definition, but article 12 actually defines hazardous materials
currently. Um, so we probably don't want to conf create conflicting definitions. >> If we have it in article 12, we don't need it here. >> Okay. >> Right. That that's the thing. And so
>> I think the u the the question also for staff is is when we whether it's definitions or other um mostly let's let's just stick with definitions right now. If we have some of these definitions in article 12, you
know, is we we do we want all of the associated um do we want the definitions from this bylaw all plugged into article 12 or shall we keep them here as much as
possible? Because in a comprehensive review, it's so much easier to go to one source. I'd like to keep as much here as possible that's solar related. >> Yeah. So Mandy's adding a piece.
>> Yep. You know, I to Pam I react to something when I say see article 12. I go and right now a few of and a few right now a few of them don't exist. So that makes it even more confusing. But you know we we have to make sure we write them in
article 12. And Stephanie what well you're not necessarily the writing of all of these. Some of our bylaws do put it in even if it's over in another one and some don't. So yeah. Yeah, that was the case with even while we were working on I believe
the you know the beginnings of the solar bylaw and we were going back and forth about what to include, what not to include. And I think there are some as long as there's consistency in the definitions uh like sometimes they're sometimes they show up in both and sometimes they're just in one
article. So just making sure that there's consistency in terms of if they show up in both. >> Yeah. So on this 03.26 I I take it that the state model said significant.
>> Yes. The state the state regulations and guidelines used the term significant storm event. So I thought we'd be consistent with that. So I changed heavy rain event to significant storm event. Um and they actually defined it or proposed a definition that was one inch in 24 hours and ours had been a half
inch in 24 hours. So, I just wanted to note that I did make that change to be consistent with the state model stuff and regulations. Um, >> I can agree with this, Kathy. >> Yeah. >> Yes, >> we'll delete that. Um,
anything else in definitions? I didn't have any changes in 804. We pulled that one. I think Kathy, you and I pulled that directly from the model bylaw. >> Yep. >> So, >> and it wasn't that diff, you know, we had some word in a few places the model
bylaws was very close to ours anyway. >> Yeah. And it was then I cross check with Shootsberry since I know it's past muster and it was either identical or >> the model bylaw t took a lot of their stuff from Shootsberry
>> and and the the main thing that we've done here throughout Stephanie I think you heard us say instead of having a solar and a BES we've used solar or best because we looked at the state model and the wording was identical. So rather
than having best in one place and solar in another, so it said best had to comply with blah blah blah blah blah, so did solar. So this is a combo here. Um, >> yeah. Good. >> Yeah. Trying to shorten the length of pages in the zoning bylaw.
>> Yeah. Uh, in section uh 1805, the filing requirements. Here's a sort of a staff question. Um, um, oops, not that one. In ' 06, sorry. Uh there's a says site suitability assessment shall not require
minimization or mitigation measures. Um what I the question I had is who defines the minimization and mitigation measures. Is that defined in a site
suitability rating or is that who actually puts together you know we can accept this if you do X Y and Z. So not deter. This is a section that we
created our own that's not in a model by law at all. Um and the highly suitable the suitable or moderately suitable and the not very suitable and unsuitable are pulled from the state regulations draft
guidance documents. Um, and those guidance documents basically said if it's highly suitable, you're not going to be able to require minimum minimization or mitigation measures, but it didn't talk about who. I think the who is the permit granting authority.
So, that might be the planning board or the ZBA during those negotiations of, oh, you're highly suitable, we can't require minimization. And the one thing that all of the regulations, no matter where you look and no matter which department, they don't talk about what is minimization or what is
mitigation and they don't define it. They don't give true examples. So um we have no definitions in the bylaw. Um maybe I know that was some people were making comments like what are you going
to define those terms? So that might be something maybe we we put a bullet that says see if modified regulations define these terms or something. >> Well, yeah. I also wanted to say that,
you know, since this is still in in motion with the state, this initial suitability assessment, the entity that's proposing it is creating a rating for themselves. So,
what we're saying is the state is accepting this and we're receiving it. So the question is do I just I don't want to change this wording at all but we made um >> if the if it comes back to us with this
kind of rating it was basically you'd be hardressed to stop it but you could challenge you could challenge the rating and say you know so I think I just want to is this question necessary and is this okay because Pam it's not quite
clear you know whether there is there is professional group who's going to help with this rating, but it looks like it's driven by the proposer. Um, and so they might come, they might characterize it in a way that is highly suitable. And
when we look at it locally, we say, "Wait a minute, it's X, Y, or Z." It's clear that if it comes out as not very suitable or unsuitable. So this was again, can we just reject it outright? The state model doesn't say that, but it
implies it would be pretty. >> So that's not the point though that thank you for that. But I'm I'm actually sort of fixated on the words minimization and mitigation measures. You know, that's pretty well defined in federal standards like NEPA and all that kind of thing. They'll they'll describe
what this is. I'd like to keep it in here for now. It sounds like it is a little bit in flux. Um and I'm I'm happy to move on. I just was kind of questioning who actually describes those measures ultimately. >> Well, we're also accepting the rating
here. Pam was the one I was isolating not how much they define those words, but we're accepting it's either a one, two, or a three. And we might look at the same thing and challenge it. And there is an ability to challenge it. So, it's all I'm flagging. I like what's
here. But I think at some point the people in town who know more about this might say, you know, would we make the sage judgment? And then in addition, what does minimization mean? What does mitigation mean? Um it's two things.
>> Okay. So I'm I'm fine with this and I like >> and I like us trying to just say if it's deemed not suitable, we don't have to go through the permitting process. It's gone, you know. Well, you so if it's deemed unsuitable, you might
be able to, but it you'd have to go through the process, but the permit might be zero be a no >> ultimately noted. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Fees I the question stays the same. I don't think anything in here changed week to week, right?
>> Um we just have questions about do we even need it and stuff. So, for Pam's sake, I think I said this, everything in red is things I changed from what you sent me. Um, everything in black is what you sent me. Um, some of
it is >> Oh, shoot. Okay, so hold on just a second. So, this when I sent it in, everything in black was our material andor the states because it was similar. >> Oh, red. >> So, so, so wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me let me I I'm on red on the
screen. Everything in tracked changes is what I changed. If it's red without a track change, it's what you had in red. It's just my track change also put it in red, which is So if it's underlined or or struck struck through, it's a change
from what you sent me. >> That's everything then. >> No, >> no, no. Just the underline. Underline is track change. >> Yeah. read. Apparently, you wrote and read, Pam. >> Yeah. >> So, where you wrote and read like
>> So, for example, 801 and 802 are new from what you sent me or moved. One of them might be moved >> in sort of a reformatted >> and if you look at the bottom where >> Oh, yeah. Because I struck the professional engineer here.
>> Okay. So, we're coming to that one. >> Yeah. So I I struck, for example, >> I struck professional engineer from existing conditions plan and moved basically that requirement. >> That's I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. >> I am.
>> Okay. Let's so let's let's make our way through. Um those are fine. >> One one is attempt to say who are we submitting this to? >> That's good. And that's that's that should be kind of a staff review question. Correct.
Yeah, >> I'll fix the colors afterwards. So, you must have put this one in blue or something at one point. >> Who knows? >> Blue was new. Blue was new. >> Blue was new. Okay. So, that I I basically copied and pasted
into into a different section. Um and then three I modified a little bit. Um but I don't think I changed. Oh, I I moved the It's not anything that we haven't seen before. I just sort of reformatted I
think some of what you wrote cuz I think you did all applicants submitt requirements here and then you had the the colon and did stuff and I moved that down into a new section sort of to clean things up. But um and I added the
conflict. I think we had it might have been somewhere else and I moved it up here. Um and so this what I changed here is clearing up that anyone including
smallcale ground mount must comply with the rags the state rags in addition some have to submit what's in four >> right >> and if there's a conflict between the rules and regs of the PGA and four four
rules Yep. >> So, I don't think it materially changes anything you wrote and submitted, Pam. >> Yep. Okay, let's keep going. >> And then I had to write a new sentence because I created a new section for what
you wrote. >> Which makes it hard to for me to go back and look and see what I sent. Okay. So, so that's good. >> Oh, wait. I think this is MGPI too. So this is where the red PM is you. I
find it very confusing. >> Yes, this is where the red is Pam except for this one that's highlighted because that that I moved up. So I'm going to accept that and get rid of it right now. >> Okay, hold on. Don't don't get put it back, please. the words based on a ground the one that you highlighted right there based on a
groundbased survey those are words from um those are words from Christine breaststrip and what it means is that that these plans should not be based on aerial photographs or like GIS they really need to be a groundbased survey
>> okay I had read that wrong because I was I was thinking it was the PE and a copy of the PE the PE and it wasn't. So, >> it's fine. >> Yeah. No, but it wasn't. So, I thought it was a duplicate of the PE and it's not. So, we I just rejected my change.
>> So, we're keeping it. >> So, in C1, we can get rid of stamped by registered land. No, that's a land surveyor. >> That's a land right. I had thought they were duplicates, which is why I deleted it. >> Got it. >> So, now we're looking Now, Pam, we're looking at your words. You just see
>> I understand. I understand. >> Yeah. You wrote in red, >> right? And the red, the red is stuff that was brought in from the model material, >> the model bylaw, >> right? The black is what we had originally. The red is from the model
material. >> All of that is fine with me. So, I will just give permission to change it to black. >> I'm I'm also good with it. >> So, the one I struggle with is the the
tree. because we had >> we got rid of trees. >> We got rid of this like identifying every tree above a certain thing because it seemed impractical impractical and I think that's what Stephanie suggested at one point. So I'm
hesitant to put it back in. >> This is from the state from the state model. So I'm going to explain uh even our ZBA says uh I think all trees greater than 8 in DBH need to be documented. ZBA is obviously again sort
of smallcale residential type projects. It makes sense there. This is 20 in or more. These are these are large trees. These are 50 60 year old trees. And I think the intent from the state is that
if they're going through some mitigation process, then you say, you know, we lost this biomass, this, you know, these key species or something or other. Um, it's important that we that we replace them
and that's that's the basis for um documentation. >> Can I just suggest put a comment bubble? So Stephanie realizes that that's in the state draft. You know, the reason we pulled it back in is because the state
went to this giant tree measure >> and it was in the model. >> Yeah. >> You know, so it wasn't that we we originally pulled it out, but with Pam is what you just said I think is correct. The state said these are really big.
>> Yeah. >> And I just wanted to jump in real quick when Yep. So that comment came from staff during the staff review process and they were just saying you know the challenge of um you know ensuring that every tree was
accounted for and you know that but I and I don't disagree coming from the state because I think there was there's been a lot of push back about deforestation. So I I think it's fine. I mean I think this is a bigger issue in the eastern part of the state
>> than this part of the state. So you know I would you know leave it in if it was in the state model but and I can explain that when I review it this draft. >> Yeah. >> I'm okay with number four. I think adjacent parcels it's important to show
where you are relative to everything else. >> And that's your change, Pam. So I like it, too. >> No, that was state. That was state material. >> Oh, well, you brought it in though. Oh, I I see. >> Pam brought it in for the state. >> Oh, I got it. So, it wasn't necessarily that you agreed with it. It was just you brought it in one way or the other.
>> I brought it in and I agree with it. >> Yeah. >> So, I have a question about our active farmland. We don't define it. It's not. It was in our our draft. I wonder if we should get rid of it and just stick with
the prime farmland and the soils and farmland of statewide importance that are easier to define. >> Let's see. So this this is us including in an existing conditions plan identification of active farmland
versus just prime farmland and soils and farmland of statewide importance. Otherwise we have to come up with a definition of what active farmland is. >> I thought it would I thought that had already been defined like has been used has been modified or or managed within
the last 5 years. It is not in our definitions. >> Okay. Okay. Let's put a staff a staff review comment. >> I lost where I was. Sorry. >> It I mean it goes to our lost
our way laid nexus statement that you know we thought this was important, >> right? Active farmland for Ammerst is is probably more of a of a thing than farm than forest. We don't have that much forest.
>> Yep. Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, wealth and protection area. I think this this is something I would really like um, Stephanie and the wetlands coordinator to to look at. We have
in my mind the most important element of solar development is is impact on wells, private wells and town water supply. It's like the biggest thing to me. >> So is the blue pimp, tell me what the blue is.
>> The blue was new material. I pulled that from um setback and definitions. Not definitions, but setbacks. um um what do you call design guidelines? >> I like but I very much like adding private wells. So I was just I'm fine
with it. So um I like you know we we actually have them and >> Stephanie definitely >> no I agree you absolutely because this is something that is not covered in the state guidelines. So absolutely
you know because this is very a very important issue especially to Ammeris then I would absolutely encourage you to do so. >> So let's the staff review is you know the the distance the setbacks whatever
is here should also be reflected in um the design guidelines I think. >> Yeah I I was curious about the 400 ft where did that number come from? Yeah, I don't remember. I It was It was It was It was from design guidelines, but it
may have been from um public public water supply. >> I I seem to recall I have a vague recollection that it came from their white paper. >> Yes, that could be >> white paper comments. So,
>> yeah. and and you know we none of us except hydro hydro engineers really understand how water moves through the soil. So it's it's it's important. This came from the state,
>> right? I think the issue here is conflicting or inconsistency of naming titles. >> Yes. >> If I read the bylaw, if I read this comment >> because I don't think we ever use estimated or priority or, you know, I
think it's it's always land designated as core and critical on this um or priority. >> Yep. So if staff could confirm that that if there is standard language that would be great.
And I'm I'm not even sure I I think this is is right. So okay so that was the site >> y >> that was the existing >> that was existing >> right existing conditions >> so the Stephanie comment on this next
one >> have we already fixed that we're not duplicative duplicative >> oh the site plans >> see it says this is dup this is duplicative of requirements of other boards only identify those that are
unique to solar projects. >> So I didn't know whether everything that follows is duplicative. So >> um we've had I mean we've been working on over this for a while and I think if I am not mistaken Stephanie we've we've
come to the conclusion that in this consolidated process it's really important to show all your requirements in one spot. And we understand that the wording I mean and and I I went through these looking
pretty carefully. It's pretty specific to to solar even though it may say you know give dimensions from other loca other buildings or something. Yeah. But it's pretty specific.
And Kathy just to be clear those came from this was a a group staff review of the document. So my comments reflect basically all of the staff comments. >> Okay. >> Not just hers. >> They're not just mine. I just want to be clear that just my comments. >> No, it you know I just on some of these
Stephanie I think we tried to fix it to address it. So this sounds like one where we overrode. We deliberately have some that duplicate to have it all in one place. Yeah. >> Yep. That's fine. He Yeah. >> I'll leave the question in there for
staff review. Clearly this one's not in it. So it just got included into the comment. >> That's right. So that was it's in red. It came from the state. >> Yeah. >> I'm okay with number two. All com all
components not limited to panels. Total limit of disturbance I think is an appropriate one that came from the state. So I guess my question here is we had an existing conditions that had
20 20-in DBH and then we have which ones are you taking out? Do we need the existing conditions or do we just want the ones you're taking out? >> The ones that you'd take out which would be covered here. Proposed
changes to the property. >> Yeah. I don't Stephanie, what do you think? >> Well, I mean, I sort of feel like some of the folks that are working with the regulations, I think it's better for staff question than for me to say
because >> I have an opinion, but I think others might want to weigh in on that. So Mandy, >> Mandy, because because they had added it to existing conditions, it made sense to me to repeat that here with, you know,
what show what you're disturbing. So that and that's really where it plays out. It's like I don't care if there are 10 other trees, you know, on the property line, but the ones that are being removed are the ones that we should be concerned about.
>> Yeah. So I I my question is that does it need to be in the existing conditions or does it only do we only need to only only show up here? Would they know to even go measure them if they you know if it's if it's not in the
existing conditions plan. It'd be a lot less work if they they already knew which areas they were going to disturb. They could focus their survey attention on a smaller area. Maybe that's what we say in terms of
existing conditions. I'm basically okay with it being in two places. And then you know I was shocked at how long the state one is. So I'm no longer worried about how many >> I was too. I was one like why are there so many
>> I'm no longer worried about how long ours is. >> Okay. So I don't have a problem with identifying the ones that are being removed. I was curious about is are do we need to identify more than just the ones being removed? So >> I I I could live with it if they said
no. The two foot in uh contour interval is something the state had meaning you can't do 10-ft intervals but you don't have to do one foot. So that's fine. >> So I don't think we need the parenthetical.
Uh, we don't. >> Can we all agree that comes out? >> Yes. >> Um, okay. I like that blue ad. >> Yeah. So, snow storage.
>> I'm curious. >> I I don't think it apply. I don't think it's relevant out here if you're talking about a large area. Um, you know, it could be for small in town parcels where they really need to conser
concern themselves. I could easily get rid of it. >> Yeah, I'm I' I'd delete it. Well, I like that addition too. The location of noise producing equipment >> and then we're on to more documents. >> Yeah.
>> Pam is tell me again. Blue is blue is what? >> Blue. blue came from um another part either another part of our document or something that we've discussed and then I brought in this is where I wanted to get my head
around. Okay. Uh Stephanie, I'll call in you a second. Um get my head around mitigation plans. I mean, if we if we're asking them to um to show how they're addressing the loss of something, uh it
made sense for me to have a mitigation plan. Stephanie, >> I'm just going to go back to snow storage because I was going to say that that has implications for wetlands.
>> Um so there may be You know, I'm just thinking about Erin might be I would be interested in her feedback on including snow storage or removing it. >> So, you would leave it in for now with a
staff question. >> Yes. Exactly. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, it goes back in, Mandy. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And ma magically all of those will re number. I love that. So Pam, I'm I'm fine with that blue as
long as it's reasonably well defined by somebody. >> So they replace wildlife habitat poll or >> Yeah, >> I've got concerns for it. um wildlife habitat is not the only mitigation
potentially or not the main mitigation that might be needed. Um and frankly given what we said in one of the earlier ones no mitigation might be able to be required. So if no mitigation is required, you know, I I would put some
you know if site is deemed whatever if site suitability score is whatever mitigation proposed mitigation plans and then I would just leave it at that mitigation or minimization plans because it could be minimization not mitigation. >> Yep. Yeah.
>> Um, so I would I I'm okay with putting something in, but I would qualify it with um for what was our site suitability for all sites deemed for sites that are not deemed highly suitable or something.
>> So you'd make it more >> so so actually but let's let's talk about this. So the the examples given and I and again I think I don't know exactly where I got this from. Um but any project you know probably wants its
fences up the six ines so that small critters can go back and forth. Every every project if possible would probably re request you know pollinator species instead of stone is is the example
given. So, um, even if it's highly suitable, you'd still want those accommodations, >> but we already require the 6 in fence. That's not something that is that's
>> some of that's already required. And according to the draft guidelines for site suitability assessments, highly suitable can't require minimization or mitigation measures. >> Okay. which is why we put it in there.
>> I think I think making it more general, Pam, um, whatever the proposed is because there's a big range of water runoff that what are they going to do about water runoff? What are they going to do about um well
I so it's it's in addition to wildlife there are things that they might have to do on the site to make it work. That might be storm management. Storm water management. >> Storm water management. >> That's covered that's covered somewhere else also. >> So I just so it's more saying if if it
if you're for sites not the way she's written it now proposed minimization just tell us what you're planning to do so we'll know what the problem is at the point it's not highly suitable. >> Sure. And can we just add here staff? Is
this is this needed? >> Okay. The next couple are the red is um state added. I'm fine with that because presumably the manufacturer on the model will tell you some of the things that are flawed.
I mean, I think that's a good ad. Great. Better English. Thank you. Do we accept those changes? Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, I am accept for the ones we're doing live. I will go and give you a clean version with them accepted after this.
But then this has a track of what we changed during the meeting if I don't accept them now. >> I'll accept the ones that >> were originally tracked in the in the document, but I've got a reason why I'm leaving some of them tracked. They will be
>> That's fine. You got your system. Um, >> so I changed here I changed SPI to project because it might be best not SPI. >> Sure. >> Um, you know, ju just for
clean of showing. Um, I think we probably have to get rid of re reformat this to just >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, >> right. It could all be just a runon. And those were listed those were listed
as part of um you know documentation of of actual access and control meaning you know do you own it? Do you do you can you access >> I think these are good. And I guess one
one of my questions was um Pam, this is in red. So that means the model bylaw actually had these >> Yeah. >> descriptions in the >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> No, they had they had Yes, you're right. They were actually each one was a
paragraph. >> Okay. I just thought it weird to to give some options in a bylaw, but if the model bylaw sort of did that. >> It was in a note. I think it was in a note. So, I brought the the the
highlights of the note over. >> So, we just should look at the >> So, we could we could, you know, maybe that's superfluous. Well, I mean the not what the note is saying is when we want documentation, we need the legal legal documents that show all the following, you know. So that's
>> um being specific here rather than putting a footnote in the bylaw makes sense. >> Or we could just say legal documentation. >> Yeah. >> And skip the descriptions. >> I would be okay with that. >> Okay.
Thanks. Okay. And so for so I think I called it I I just redid this was a change I made Pam. Um which is just rewriting the the sentence. >> Yep. That's
>> all I did. Yep. Yep, that's good. >> I didn't change what it was requiring. I just rewrote it. >> It's so >> And then I referenced the in Oh, sorry. And then in J I said if applicable and
then just said I referenced the section that details what the emergency response plan needs to include. which I think includes training down below, but we can check. >> Yeah, we need to check that. >> Let me go check that now.
>> Yeah, I mean because emergency response plan is pretty extensive. So, yeah. >> Yeah. So, the emergency shall include the following information. Um >> I mean that's very extensive. >> Yes.
>> And that came from the model. And here's >> Yes. Well, it came from this one probably either came from the model best. I'd have to go back and look or it came from the guidelines for um standards and conditions for grant for
when for the default grant if the municipality doesn't rule in 12 months. >> So, it was one or the other. I'm not sure which, but it does include >> training. >> Training. So, I think we can get the get rid of the training up here.
>> Good. >> No. >> Um, again, the project that's fine. That looks good. >> Yeah. I changed that. >> Yep. >> As I said, because it might not just be an SPI. >> Yep. >> I made minimal changes.
>> Yeah. No, it looks good. Looks good. Looks great. Looks great. Okay, keep going. >> Oh, wait. I wanted to highlight this because that probably going to change number-wise. >> Okay. Right. Right. >> Um,
>> okay. Now we get to S this the hazardous materials plan management plan. Um I want to just make sure right is it redundant um with emergency response plan itself. So there's emergency response plan hazardous
materials management plan. Um I would love to have staff review that for what what's the most consolidated um system of asking for documentation.
So um we have treatment of hazardous materials and herbicides and an emergency >> Mhm. response procedures. So, >> so when when we get to that, the emergency response procedures to me seem
like a submitt that would be required. You're going to submit ahead of time what your responses are going to be. >> Yeah. >> Well, we require that they're developed with the fire chief. >> Yep. >> Yep. This all happens at the beginning.
I mean, it's at the permit part. So the question here is is does this also want should that vet be submittal. So if you go back I mean I'm working on it.
Yeah. >> So again this section is is submitts. >> Yes, this is the submitt sections. Um so I I guess the question is do we need the plan
at all when We have requirements for managing. >> That's a really good That's a really good staff question. And I'd um whatever is most diligent or most efficient for
someone's review, what do they need for materials to review? Uh just want to jump in real quick because when we had this initial conversation um we had Chris Baskam from the fire
department reviewing with us and his point was that they have their own specifications of what's required and so you know I'll pose it to him but it sort of seemed like he sort of felt like their review was separate but I don't I I
still haven't sort fully understood how this is all going to work with all of the different boards and committees submitting under one permit. And I don't know if I can't imagine that fire is part of that like that because that is such a you know that's all about the
safety piece. So um I would just pose that yeah I would pose that to staff as to whether this will be covered under fire or will fire be part of this consolidated permit. See? Yeah. Yep.
Yep. Great. So, while we're in this, I would hope fire would be part of that. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Good. Um, letter T I think I also highlighted and just said
should letter T which is a plan for the provision of water including that may be what that which may be needed for fire protection and suppression. Should letter T be included in the emergency response plan
to include the water supply? >> It is. Sorry for all the scrolling. And again, the question I think for staff is do you lay out do you lay out pretty carefully a pretty complete list
of submitts? this is the information that you need for the basis of you know whatever you whatever decisions are going to be made. So is it okay to have it in a submittal section even if you touch on
the um like the conditions in it somewhere else. So, it doesn't Well, this set doesn't specifically say water, but it says extinguish the fire
in several places. Mandy, I'm just scrolling and the water the word water is not there. >> Yeah, there is a one that says a firefighting plan. >> Yeah, firefighting plan. And then up
above it says methods for extinguishing. You know, it just never says like water on the site as opposed, >> right? Because you might not use water. >> You might not use water, right? >> So here's so in this emergency response plan shall include the following
information. Um to me this is this is really this should be part of a a submitt. They need to know that they are going to have to produce an emergency response plan. It's almost >> included it as part of the submitt.
>> It's it's up in the submitt and then it cross references. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Good. Thank you. >> Yeah. I don't mind. >> That's this. Where was it? We had it somewhere.
Soil management hazardous materials. >> Oh, right here. >> Yes. Okay. >> It's a submit requirement. >> Is detailed in. Perfect. Good. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> I can I can die happy. >> So, we don't know about that one, but
yeah. So, the question is >> I'm not sure tea is needed. And tea came from where, Pam? >> It came from another. It was like one of the notes in the state bylaw stuff. >> But then I would take it out because as
you know, we've got the words extinguishing and so it's not just water. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Because I think there's there's a realization that it might not be water that's used, >> right? >> Okay. Do we did we deal with this
redundancy one up here? I think so because of the question of can we just say this? So I'm going to delete this comment. Okay, this was a note from wow a year and a
half ago. >> There we go. >> Yeah. >> So, it's not I don't think that this is um a is it needed? I think in this case it's is is there anything that we've missed? This is actually from the state.
I mean it complies with what the state was requesting. That's why it's in black. So we we had this the state had this. The only added material from the state was including the prime forest forest
land identified disruption of any be and any best management practices that came from the model that we did not have previously. So the red is what in this in number two? >> The red the red was in addition to what
we had and the state had that we didn't have. >> Um question on the red. Yeah, because it doesn't make sense to me to identify disruption and best management practice
because it's an impact analysis. So, it's it has an impact and you're mitigating it. Is that what that's supposed to say? >> Yeah, I I was curious about the parenthetical and where did the parenthetical
>> So, that so that came from a note. So they're the impact is is um asking to identify what the disruption was and if there are any best management practices
um for the conversion of prime farmland continued use of land um okay sorry I'm now I'm now trying to remember >> delete the parenthetical Um the point in the parenthetical is
somewhere in our material we had the statement that whatever you do on this land if if it is agravtaics which we haven't really addressed directly. If it's if it's
agrovtaics, your your goal is to be able to walk away in 25 years and have that land still suitable for agriculture. And so I think that's the continued use of the land. What are you do? What are the best management practices that
you're undertaking that will allow for that continued use of the land? >> Yeah, >> go Kathy. No, it just it's different than an impact analysis. It is a um >> that's the mitigation plan.
>> It's a mitigation plan. It's it's a you know because one of the suitability they said prime farmland isn't a suitable place for this unless it's agotic. You know, I mean they had it's it was one of the non. So it's it's a if you're going to
put it there, you better figure out how to leave it as prime prime farmlands. So that's what I'm just confused about. It's everything else impact on forest impact on this. They're supposed to just tell you and then >> I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that.
Yep. >> I think we delete that. And then the staff review is is this necessary >> given site suitability scoring. Yep. Right. >> Because they'll have the suitability score and then you've got the mitigation plan. >> Yep.
>> Yep. Good. Let's keep going. >> Okay. Um I just got rid of the word foregoing here. >> Yep. Yep. >> I think this was our hardest section to go over. Okay.
Dimensional standards for SPI modeled bylaw uses the language of primary use um instead of accessory use. Our bylaw said 50 ft. Our draft had 50 ft with an allowance up to 100. Um
when I drafted this comment, this was applying to all s all solar voltaic including small scale and medium scale. um we've exempted smallcale from this and so the question is should we start
lower anyway um because some of it's not the LGPI our draft bylaw was only LGPI um but if it's going to be mediumcale maybe not small scale we've exempted
small scale from dimensional standards at this point um Do you start at the 20 ft um with not less than 50 on residentials um and still be able to go up to 100
like our draft did? >> So Manny, are you >> I just want to understand your are you asking whether the things that follow in oh my gosh 1809 >> the front side and rear >> are you asking whether 20 should be
lower? No, I'm saying I took the model bylaw 20, but it's a different from what our draft was, which was 50. So, I wanted to point out that I moved it from 50 to 20 because the model bylaw used 20 and I
think they used 20 because it applied to >> small, medium, and large various differences in scales of of solar arrays, right? Um, and so >> I Okay, I understand what you did then. So I guess my
my reaction is if it was large we might probably want the 50 and I don't know how to deal with two different scales in a simplified version >> you know so um I just think this is how do we deal with if it's really large you
want to go up the 50 if it's smaller so I just put it rather than trying to fix it right now I would just you've already got a nice piece here. Um, do we need a a another section for large, you know, on de on this? And it's mainly this 20
ft in the setbacks, right? It's the the sides and the fronts. Yeah. Well, so part part, if you look below here, it does say, however, where the lot is within or abuing a residential district. I think most everything in
Ammerst is going to be abuing a residential district. So that that does set it back to 50 ft. >> Okay. You know, so so I think I think I'm basically okay with what's written here, >> you know, >> rather than
>> Yeah. No, I I think Pam's right because nearly, you know, any large scale is going to be put in a residential district, right? >> Right. >> Right. >> It's RN or RO or RLD. So, >> right. It's the small scale. It's the
small scale in a potential commercial district that even that still might abut. So, I'm going to get rid of this comment then. >> Okay. >> Um, and the 100 ft is what the model bylaw allowed you to go up to, no larger
than. So, I would say this comment is not necessary. Now, we'd be matching the model bylaw at 100. Yep. I'm okay. >> Resolve >> here. Here's where we got the Here's we got where we got the 400 ft. >> Yeah. And this I had a question of in
article 12 400 ft. There's a definition for zone one recharge area that defines it basically as 400 feet from a public water supply. So, I guess my thought was, could we just reference the zone one recharge area?
>> Um, this is one, Mandy, where I'm okay with being specific the way it's written now, rather than having them have to go over and find out what zone one recharge area is. >> Yeah, I agree because the next couple
down is zones A and B. And I, you know, I started to look those up and I said, "This is nuts. Let's just let's just give them distance. >> Oh, but zones zones don't have distances, I don't think.
>> Well, we give a distance. >> No, we give a distance from a zone A or B, but zone A and B is much harder to describe. >> There's a map tells you whether you're in zone A or B. >> I'm basically >> Okay, so we still have to look it up.
>> Yeah, I'm okay the way this is written. and and these numbers did come from the public water drinking committee. Okay. And then we're to best standalone and colllocated best
dimensions. >> Yep. So, this is one where I I don't think we need the the discussion anymore. I basically copied the language from above because the model bylaw actually said just comply with the zone setback
requirements. And so, the question is, do we just want to take the model bylaw language or actually specify minimums of 50 feet for? And here I I used our original I think draft bylaw language
because the model I didn't take um thoughts. >> Um I you Kathy's going to feel like she says the same thing every time. I'd just really like a a staff review of this. I am fine with the 50 feet and 100 Mandy,
not just saying whatever whatever the setbacks for the zoning district because those setbacks are all in our zoning law set with the idea that there is a house next to you, not a um a battery or a
battery storage unit, which is very different. You know, I know there was one proposed for up here and people just thought of how near it was going to be if you just use setbacks. So, I am it needs more discussion on the limit I think is fine. Um, but right now we go
beyond what the setback would be in the the zoning district. Um, >> the the limit discussion was pulled in from the bylaw language. Then we just resolved it up above because that's what the model was for solar. So I'm okay with deleting this comment.
>> Yeah. >> Is the staff review written well, Kathy? >> Is that good? >> Yep. That looks good. >> So I'm going to I'm going to make a point. Hold on. If we um go up to number three. Oh. Oh, you just passed it. Sorry.
>> No, I know. >> 01.03. Oh, one. So, solar. >> No, 19 I mean 18.0903 right there. >> So, this is solar. This is solar, not best. >> This is solar. Exactly. But I I need to
come back to this before I forget. So, this is a minimum no disturbance area. This doesn't say, you know, a minimum of 100 ft to the fence line because it always assumes that there's a lot of activity between the fence and the edge
of no disturbance. So, I think it was the no disturbance that was important in the solar array part of it that I think is equally important in the best portion of it. So,
>> are you thinking repeat? So you're thinking repeat it, Pam? >> Yeah. >> So it's repeated down here of 100 ft. It's in seven in the best section. >> It's there from a private web.
>> It's just in a different I reordered them. I guess um >> but it is here. No disturbance of Okay. >> 100 feet from a private well maintained. So, where it says 100 foot buffer outside of a 100 foot buffer,
um I think the buffers need the buffers need it's uh let's see it would be 18.09.02.03. >> No. 04 >> 04 I think. Standalone located best. >> Yes. constructed out of
>> outside of the 100 foot no disturbance zone. >> Well, one says no disturbance 400 ft and one says 400 buffer, >> right? >> And they're right next to each other >> from public water supply. >> Yep.
>> So 04 and 05. So 05 says a minimum no disturbance distance which is what I'm trying to get at. >> Yeah. So we don't have So in in solar we have SPIs are
constructed outside of a 400 ft buffer zone from a surface water supply which is different than a public water supply. Why is one surface and why is one public? Cuz this could be ground. Oh,
this is the well. >> That could also be well. That's a well. Sorry. That's a well. The public water supply well is 400 ft and a buffer zone. You have to be outside of the buffer zone. >> So, I think the disturbance
Yeah. Oh, no. I think we have to ask what the difference on some of these is, >> right? And I like the I' I'd like to make the point that that I like the no disturbance zone because you could have 400 feet
from the edge of your pond, but if 200 ft of that has been disturbed. >> Yeah. So the disturbance is for wells >> because it's got the >> disturbance is wells and water supply
surface water supply is construction. So that's why four and five are there. >> So they're different. One's talking about you can't disturb anything. You could potentially construct Well, I don't know how you'd construct without disturbing, but >> Right. >> Right. >> It's it's an interesting thing that one
is constructed and one is no disturbance. Um but one is 400 ft from a wellhead basically. Um, and the other one's 400 feet from the like the reservoir essentially. >> The edge of the reservoir. Right. Right.
>> Um, if but I'm not sure that's possible since I think we've bought up all 400 ft around our reservoirs, but um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, yeah, we use no disturbance. No disturbance. No disturbance. Should this be no disturbance?
>> That's what I'm asking. Yeah, >> I didn't say it that succinctly. That's what Thank you. And I'll I'll put that same one up here too on the solar. And and so when we get these answers, one thing we might be
able to do um is possibly combine the two sections. So if it's if you're saying if if large and best are identical,
>> they're almost identical right now. The only difference is for solar it's 20 and 25 and for best it's 50 right now um with a minimum but we might be able to everything else is like the same.
Well no there's one one difference I think. So we but we might be able to not have to repeat stuff do for all clean energy systems and then for solar this for best this. >> Yeah. So we can that to me is another
set of eyes later. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Now, this is a I think there I think this is where you would have to be super careful because there is a public an accurate
public perception is the very big, you know, level two and three besses feel more dangerous than the solar array. The solar array is >> glare and other stuff. The the best is where the concern is. Um
whether it's near water or near your house. So, and I guess the question is for solar, are they also appropriate? Right? Like if it's just solar, could they be smaller? And I know that's
>> the 400, the 100. I don't know. My sense of the amount of land we have in Ammeris that can have large-scale solar is that would be highly suitable is we're not talking about a lot of
properties. Um, but I'm going to put the the same question here. Okay. Okay, now we're into design requirements. >> Yep. Oh, actually before we do that, um the
1809 0207 and 8, I had a question. Could we just combine those two um from a private well be maintained? So, it's Oh, it's the same thing. It's a It's a
Well, >> yeah. Is this necessary? >> Right. Well, that says prohibited and the one above it is a minimum disturbance of 100 ft. >> Um,
>> right. I don't understand the difference. So >> yeah, >> I like the it's clearly clearer to say prohibited rather than a no disturbance zone. But for >> right, but the no disturbance zone is
not just the place that you put the best. It's >> the stuff around it. Right. >> So it may be this is very clear. You just can't get any nearer than 100 feet. Period. >> Yeah. Okay. We're going to leave that
clearances. I just changed the question to Dave's question to a staff review. So, one thing that got added was appertenant structures is a new one.
>> So, that was that came from the state. >> Yeah. Um, I wondered about the last sentence. All such a pertinent structures including but not limited to uh shall be architecturally compatible. Who the heck cares? These are not Let's get rid of that sentence.
>> Like I said, this one came from the state. So, I mean, and this one's only those for SPR, not not um special permit, which makes no sense either.
>> Yeah. the bulk and the height. This is this is a dumb this is a dumb section. I'd like to get rid of the whole thing. >> I'm okay getting rid of the whole thing. >> It's like really if people complain about, you know, ADUs,
why the heck are they doing it for a pertinent structures and solar? So, clearances. Yeah. Okay. The the height clearances. Yeah. GL. >> Yeah. That's an old one. Glare is an old one. Um, >> can we can we look at glare though just
um uh the first sentence uh any abing or nearby I thought residences was better than properties because who cares if it's a field it doesn't matter but it's the residence that counts. >> That's fine. I'm I'm much okay with this
language is more um I think this one is the model bylaw language. So, I'm happy to I was the one that had the issues with reflection and all of that. So, I'm happy to get rid of the comments. >> Okay. This one is just is this is DPW the
right ent? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, hold on before we go. So this is um I guess most most of this looks to be from the state model. Is that right? >> Um which one are are we on? Land
clearing and soil. >> Yeah, land clearing and soil erosion. >> Um >> yes, I think most of them seemed reasonable. Um, I did have a note. I made myself a note. It says, "Add back in that soil
disturbance shall be minimized during construction, including grading, compaction, soil removal, and soil replacement." Somehow that got lost. >> I I thought I might have moved it. Maybe not.
I thought I moved it to construction and monitoring, but it might not be there. It Yeah, it wouldn't be. I think it's it's sort of a an overall statement that Yeah. Okay. I guess I didn't move it
>> and I I would I guess so Pam, it's your question whether it's a design requirement or during construction requirement and not Kathy doesn't understand what the difference is since >> Oh, I think what I did was I put it down here on standard permit conditions
maybe. No. >> Well, let's let's um >> because it seems like it's more of a permit condition than a design requirement. What was the wording? >> Uh soil disturbance shall be minimized
during construction, including grading, compaction, soil removal, and soil replacement. It's kind of an umbrella and then you know then top soil shall not be imported all existing soils kept
on site slopes stabilized blah blah blah >> those were all part of conditions. So I I think so >> it it may be fine to not have it. It was it was more a hey, you know, in your big scope of things when you're planning out
your project, we want you to really minimize disturbance if you possibly can. >> Compaction. What else? >> Um, grading, compaction, soil removal, and soil replacement.
So all of those elements are are are addressed. Maybe we could just say soil disturbance shall be, you know, minimized in planning the project. Soil disturbance shall be minimized. >> So we had that whole section on I'm I'm
just I >> we had we had a whole soils >> and we have a whole thing on what happens during construction. Can we just for the time being say this has to go somewhere? Um and does it go under? So here's this avoid sighting. Top shall
not be imported. All existing soil shall be kept on site unless approved for removal. >> I wonder if that was I think what I'm thinking is there is is there a soil disturbance? No. >> No. It's just a It's just a It's It's more of a
>> an umbrella statement. >> Minimization of Yeah, minimization. >> Oh, thank you. That's fine. Let's Let's leave it at that. I don't want to belver it. >> How are we I'm just doing the time, Chip. We have 15 minutes. >> We have 15 minutes. Um there was one
item that I added to the agenda which since we don't have any attendees I'm going to address right now and that was um uh oh the new charge for the CRC. Do we have to vote on that at all?
>> No, that was approved by the council. >> Okay, then we don't need to talk about it. >> So Stephanie had a thing here about screening and planting of screened year round, public, private, but
>> and is it duplicative and redundant of this paragraph? >> Um, I said I said in that first sentence, hold on. Uh, in the first sentence, uh, adding vegetative butters butter buffers and or fencing to
provide an effective year round visual barrier. I figured that covered most of the bases. An effective year round visual barrier. Yeah. >> And then you can remove the next paragraph completely.
>> Yes. I'm going to leave the wave the requirements >> because for now because I'm not a big fan of requiring screening from roads and driveways necessarily, but I don't mind seeing them from a road versus
minimizing glare. Um, we can discuss that if I'm on CRC next spring. Um, otherwise Okay. Can we can we go back up to um you skipped over one which was the lighting?
Uhhuh. Um I think we could be simpler. Lighting shall be limited to that which is required for the safety for the safety of and operational purposes for or for the safety of
employees and visitors >> and for operational purposes. >> I don't have bylaw language. >> I I think safety Pam this is simple safety and operational and extinguished outside of normal hours
of use. >> Great. So, why don't we just leave it at that and then get rid of the rest of it >> and get rid of this? >> Yes, that's fine. >> Yeah. Yeah. Good. Thank you. >> Anything else in that?
>> Not in that one. >> Moving on to 11. >> How about signage? Somehow it feels like we should be able to combine these two these two paragraphs. >> So they're not totally identical,
right? Because the best one needs the hazards, the battery systems, suppression systems. If you read them, it's actually a lot more. The best one's requiring a whole lot more stuff than the SPI.
And I think it should because it's going to have all sorts of warnings on it, >> right? >> You know, don't >> that's fine. That's fine if they're they're they are they're different enough and and one is an emergency contact kind of a thing, which which both of them actually should have, but
I'm I'm fine with it. >> Yeah, the one it does require solar does require the 24-hour emergency number. Yeah. um you know so they both do require that part but solar doesn't need as much as best does in terms of >> signage. Let's keep going. Let's keep
going. >> So specific types of insulation. So this is where I combined the agrovalttaics best sort of design requirement. You know these these various parts of our bylaw that had various things forest design stuff. I put it into all uh
section 11. So you'll see that this first section is just BES. These require these apply to BES only. Um which is electrical code. Um these came from the best model bylaw
basically. >> Yep. >> Um you know and so it's a lot of best stuff. We could put a staff I assume I guess the question for Stephanie would be does staff need do you need to put a staff review of this? I think they'll just
read this and comment no matter what. Right. Okay. Hold on. Right. Right where you are. The 09 ending in 09. There's one there's a sentence in there. It talks about the adequate water supply and firewater firewater containment
strategies. I wanted to highlight that because I think that's really good that it's in there. Um that led to I think that's what maybe led to including um in the storm water management plan and the erosion erosion
control plan. There needs to be some >> uh way to address possible use of fire suppression water. And so I'm glad that's here. I think that's enough of a trigger to alert
somebody to that to that concern. Yeah, cuz this one says it should be primary water, but it sort of futureproofs the maybe there's other ones that are coming out that are more effective. Um,
>> okay. And then the next ones are sort of your agravalttaic one that I didn't call agravalttaics but anything put on prime farmland and soils of statewide importance.
Um so this is where our agravalttaic sections was sort of and then that was the mounting and foundations and the 12 ft but this is where I brought those things in. So, can we just pause for a second there before we It's the best owner or
operator um shall provide a copy of the project summary. Where is that? Yeah, right there. Um again, this feels a little redundant with um submittal plans. You know, what
are you submitting? And I just wanted to highlight that for, you know, does it make sure we include it in submitts to follow in section 18.11? >> Yeah, I was going to say that's probably
an it's probably already in 18 or 14, right? >> It should be. >> Yeah, because it doesn't need to be here. Yes. So in that in that high in the
section that you just highlighted I noted probably could go could be in 18.08. >> Well I was thinking it could be in the emergency response plan. I think that's where it was. Yeah. Yes. >> Yeah. Um,
yeah. So, I think this whole section just needs to be thought of reading >> comprehensively. You know, it's because until this is signed off, it's not a go. So, >> Right. >> Stephanie said then it gets complicated
with a comprehensive permit. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Okay. Um and then and this is this is one of the newest sections, so it's a section that we'll have to read much closer later, but I'd certainly like
staff's comments on it. Then it's the agravalttaics things mounting and this which means this could be the section that Pam you were thinking of when you were talking about the soil stuff for
>> whatever that was well ahead >> where was that >> I had a note I had a note that the maintenance of land um for for future use future use of the land
for farming activity was our section 18.0603 and that that would be a good spot to uh insert it here. It's it's like one is one is all the requirements for prime forest the other is all the requirements
for continued agricultural use. >> Right. Yeah. Prime forest is this one. Right. >> Oh, and you were thinking copy something similar to this into
agricultural. >> Uh, actually I was thinking of inserting the agricultural one here as simply um use and maintenance of the land shall um >> this is prime. This section is prime
forest, >> right? This one here is prime forest. >> Correct. >> Not not Agravalttaics farmland, >> right? I'm what I'm trying to say is I think it feels to me that we need a
similar one to this, but it would be for the agravala. >> Okay. And it doesn't need to be that extensive because it's not I can see like number five number
and yes add a similar section and the gist of it is to maintain land for future use in agriculture. Okay, we'll just leave that as a comment. >> Yep. >> Okay, we got four minutes. What can we
do in >> storm water did not change from our draft? Hazardous changed a bunch. Um, >> staff. >> I think it's just a staff review. >> Yes, >> but it's a general staff review of it. I'm not sure there's any specific
questions to it um other than the Oh, the herbicides. So, this was one um Yeah, I don't know why this one's still here. If I thought I pulled most of the
herbicide application from the zoning the model bylaw and then there's that and then the emergency response plan is pulled mostly from one of the guidelines for default approval. approval of Bess.
>> Yep. >> Or a combination of stuff. Um >> the one the one thing I'd like to maybe add as a comment is do we have um or the was it was part of the emergency
response. It was it was 18.13.04. Um, are there protocols for addressing the discharge of hazardous materials? And I think I think we do. I think we do. I think it's included in in those
all the procedures and shutdowns. So, I think we're good. >> So, yeah. Um in in hazardous materials sections and the hazardous waste section there is a emergency response procedures
need need to be developed if you're storing not everyone's going to have storage of hazardous materials on site. Um, >> yeah, this was this was the topic where we said we we want to plan ahead of how
you're going to address an issue as opposed to >> and it's required if you do have hazardous materials on site. >> Great. Okay. >> I'm sorry to interrupt folks. It's Athena. Um, the charter review committee is starting at six o'clock, so I have to ask you to wrap up, please.
>> Well, heck. That's unfortunate. >> So, we have building inspection, construction, modifications. >> I didn't have I didn't have issues with that. I think if we have issues, maybe we could write them up. If you send them
to me, I could put them not today or tomorrow, but I could get them into a a final thing to send to Pam to send on to staff and maybe we don't have to meet next week because it's most most of this is the
stuff we did very recently and most of it's either the same or pulled from model. >> Yeah. So I think they are going to shut us off. Um, we have no minutes. We have no uh future
agenda items except this. And um, help me out here. So, I'm going to I'm going to draft the message for staff and I'm going to send it to both of you. You can add whatever you want. Um, take
that in the correct manner. And then we still I still was hoping to talk about that last couple of pages of all the material that kind of got dumped at the end. >> Well, well, it's six o'clock. We can't. >> Yeah.
>> And so the question is, are we cancelling the 18th or not? Um, I would just assume do this memo to staff and say we stopped doing all the review on, you know, page X, but here's
the reader guide where it's blue or where it's green or whatever here to how to do it. So, rather than come back to this next week. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because we're going to change committees soon. I I would just rather have the staff be able to start its review.
>> Where did Where did we stop? What number? We're at I'm going to mark it in here. >> 1815 the building permit and building inspection. >> Right. Okay. And I'll send out an email to you
all um just to clarify what I think we decided on. Okay. So um we are not going to have a meeting on the 18th and um we will send a message to staff
and Stephanie. Thank you for everyone else um for your help. >> I make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. >> We're all in favor. We're ajourned. I have you all. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Stephanie.