did Athena already make you host oh Athena you're you're host Good So I just wanted to make sure someone pressed record All right Have a great meeting Thank you Thank you Angela Thanks Do you want to make one of us host as well
i will do that Okay Okay I see I see Stephanie Um we are still missing I'm going to text Jennifer I can text Chris as well Chris Brit Okay Okay So it looks like we have a quorum
anyway so we can start Um it is April 10 Are we open to the public uh I think recording was started Okay If I'm not mistaken
right now there are no attendees Okay thank you for checking Um it is uh April 10 This is a regular meeting of the community resources committee and um 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 I see a quorum but let's go around and see if people can be heard Pat D'Angelus present Pam is present Uh councelor Mandy Johann present And I see Christine Breaststrom can you
hear us yes I can hear you Thank you Great And Stephanie Chorelloo can you hear us yes I can hear you as well Perfect Um there are no public hearings today And how many people do we have in the audience
for public for public comment zero I'm having trouble opening mine up So if somebody could keep an eye on that that would be great I can keep an eye on it Okay thanks Yeah for some reason it's not opening up for
me Um so we have a couple We'll start with our action items then and solar bylaw basis of the zoning bylaw version 12 as a result of the 2025 March 27
discussion And Jennifer can you hear us i can Sorry my So Jenn Jennifer's here We have we have more than a quorum and we don't know if our fifth member will join us or not Um Mandy what did what did you just what
just flashed on my screen i tried to share and it said sharing was not open and you're the host So you have to somehow change the toggles to allow sharing of screens Okay hold on Let's uh again I don't Okay it's now allowed Okay
if you did something it worked We didn't I think I said accept I accepted Okay good Okay So um we have two imminent uh topics right now And I did tell Pat that last week we would try to focus on
hazmat section that she proposed some time ago And I want to note that many of the topics that we will be discussing from water protection are also in that same category of hazmat um
and use of chemicals So Pat if you would like to um talk a little bit about your section your hazardous waste section and if you are feeling having seen what Chris sent us are you feeling
like I I wanted to clarify and make sure because I I was I saw a lot of the same material in the water protection and I so I'd love to hear from Chris and Stephanie whether they think that's enough
Um and this the section the hazardous waste section that I'm that I originally propo thank you originally proposed came from the Cape Cod um model bylaw Okay So um so I'd love to get feedback
from Chris and Stephanie before we go further Chris I just wanted to say that um the things that I worked on over the last couple of weeks focused on um water
supply and and drinking water Um perhaps although I haven't read it closely in the last few days perhaps the hazardous waste section is more broad than that and if so then maybe we keep it as a
separate item but if it is only focusing on um water supply then you know we can make a decision to not have but I think it's more broad than that Yeah it there there's thing um reference to containment areas u particularly for
best that would be building sites and and different things like that um and u materials released from transformers or transformer fluid etc So um
so I guess hearing that that's helpful Chris I I would like to keep it in then So I just um had a chance to skim it on now And it does talk about impervious containment areas which are important It
came up at um the bees bes facility on Sunderland Road and that is not covered by what um what I wrote
and so perhaps it's you know worthy of either standing by itself or being incorporated into the water supply But it seems to me again that it isn't broad than that because you know if you don't have a water supply nearby but you have
animals or plants or you know other things that you don't want to be um have negatively impacted It seems like Pat's wording is useful Thank you Thank you Uh Mandy Councelor
Hani Yeah I had a a number of questions about the meaning of a lot of this wording not and and I want to be won't be able to clarify it but and and and and that's that's why I want to be clear that I understand the intention of it
and I don't oppose the intention of it but my questions come from exactly a question about what does this wording actually prohibit and what is the consequence of that for example um one
of my concerns is we don't define hazardous waste or hazardous material So should we be defining those terms um yes they are clear right Um and then um very small quantity generate generator
of hazardous waste um as defined by that mass DP Um I I would love to know exactly what that quantity is because what um that sentence says depending on what that quantity is right hazardous materials
stored used or generated on site shall not exceed that amount Well when you've got a large solar array right that is multiple acres large if each solar panel has something of a hazardous material in
it by the time you've multiplied that by the thousands you are potentially very likely to be above the very small quantity generator of hazardous waste depending on what that quantity is Um
and it's not really generating hazardous waste even if it's within the component So I was concerned about that sentence and what it would actually mean Would it essentially prohibit all large scale ground mount because where are those
lines and I'm really like where are those lines what yeah And I can't answer that right now And I'll look it up I apologize Yeah No I completely It's not answerable right now It's not trying to stop on large scale Yeah
So so so that's one that that was one where I think we have to it might just need a rewarding to and and just be looking at the second one was um I I had one for each each paragraph basically and the second one in the second paragraph was about the impervious
containment um um was you know there's there's a lot of use of hazardous materials versus hazardous waste versus hazardous you know and and materials including but not limited to lithium ion storage batteries within
And then the phrase that got me was solar electric equipment Again I don't know how the panels are built but if there's a hazardous material within that how do you then put that in a imperous container and so I I'm not sure that's
what you were going for I was going that's how I read it Yeah I was going much more there for the solar electric equipment in battery energy storage facilities Yeah So I think we just have to be more specific Yeah Um and I
thought that's what you were going for but solar electric equipment is the panels is right like is everything and how do you do that so I think it just needs a little bit of tweaking of wording there Um and then the question I had was about transformers was are there
regularly transformers on solar arrays or are they on the public utility poles number one And then my next question was um are there non-toxic biodedegradable fluids
available to actually be used or you know and I just don't know the answer because this was taken from Cape Cod I'm pretty sure that there are those fluids Um you know and when we were looking at PAS I went and I looked up that there are actually new solar panels that don't
have PAS and the surface material that you're using has better reflectivity and all kinds of stuff Um so um I guess I'm looking again maybe to Stephanie um about whether or not
um Well never mind Never mind Well let's let's let's let's let's tweak the let's go and tweak the language so that you feel comfortable with it Mandy And I apologize for my lack of I I don't have any real suggested changes at this time
in terms of prepared language Um I could work on it maybe in the next week or two to come up with something because I wanted to more understand exactly what you were going for before I came up with potential changes Yeah What I'd like to do then is can we set up a meeting and
do it together sure Yeah Okay That would be great Um I I do want to I am looking at Stephanie's picture and wondering if Stephanie if you do have any comments one way or the other on on this any of
the components She may have stepped away Um my my only comment um in thinking about this is that there certainly are going to be instances I think that Chris just said that you may not have a water
supply aspect to a given project and therefore you know someone might not think to go to the the water supply protection section to think about hazardous materials So it does feel to me that it would be appropriate to have
a a generic um cover the base section on on hazardous materials Okay Any anybody else chris you you've raised your hand Sorry I just wanted to point out that there
were two issues that came up on the Sunderland Road project one was you know direct um spill of a hazardous material from the batteries or some other component Um but then the other one was
um what if you have a very heavy rainstorm and the rain storm water mixes with whatever was spilled and then you know do you have a way of containing that or directing the uh runoff so that it doesn't then become a problem for uh
water shed downstream So that's worthy of consideration as well Yeah The other piece of that Chris is you know the looking at the water protection and aquafer material We're we're talking about I think that we need to make reference to wells in this too because
if the uh runoff can affect a a lake or or the reservoir it's also going to be affecting that runoff is going to be affecting wells And so uh I think that there might need to be some
way of setting you know some kind of parameter around because not every area in town has wells and they depend on the public water supply But and I hate bringing up Shootsberry Road project because I'm not
trying to stop the project I am trying going to try to stop best there because of this the runoff can of hazardous materials would be going into private wells in that whole section Um not just
on Shootsbury Road itself but probably Flat Hills etc Uh and so how are we protecting the individual water supply in that situation well can we think can we think about
that as we look at Chris's suggestions for water protection and the ability to um broaden it slightly to include private wells because I think you're right we there's not a lot of notice or
or acknowledgement of private wells Yeah Okay So this is um um Pat and and Mandy you're going to take a look at this Um yes you're we do a good job together There are there are other resources We can fight Well
okay Now we're going to I'm stepping away briefly I have to let my dog out and I'll be right back when I le So one thing I did you'll see as I page down I put Pat's wording of hazardous waste in
behind protection of drinking water supplies and just made a note that um the language is going to be modified to be tighter on applicability just tighten it up and make it a little more specific and all but but that's where it seemed like it was the most
logical place to put it So it's now in the main draft we're working on Um great Thank you That's good Um Chris would you like to walk us through um you you gave us a really good
memo and the associated maps and the text and I wonder if you just want to line that up for us as we um start to go through your your suggestions Sure And I wonder if Stephanie can help
with screen sharing if she's there or if someone else can I'm going to work on putting it into the main document as you talk So you're your thing's going to start showing up soon All
right Um Okay So I think with regard to prevention of pollution of uh storm water and protection of drinking water supplies there are actually two issues that we worry about and there may be others as well but these are the two
issues that I see One is pollution prevention and the other one is encouragement of recharge So we don't want to create a situation where water isn't going directly into the ground and being absorbed that it's running off So those are two things to be aware of
Um there I I had offered to take the two sections of the zoning bylaw one of which relates to aquifer recharge protection district and the other one relates to the watershed protection district And um I was hoping that
Stephanie could show the maps but I don't know if Stephanie's here right now Oh I can pull the maps up I'm here Chris But yeah Mandy I feel like Mandy Joe's sharing So okay So if you could pull up either either one of those maps or both
of them Um watershed protection and ARP aquifer recharge protection These guys those Yeah that's right So this one here shows the watershed protection district which is right on the edge of the town of Ammerst and it
protects the Atkins reservoir and Atkins reservoir as we know is a surface water supply And so this aquifer recharge protection district um is concerned about runoff from that little area that
is just to the west of the Atkins reservoir um you know and concerned that um both it doesn't um make so much impervious area in that spot so that you don't have sufficient recharge of the water and also that um you don't get
pollution of Atkins reservoir as a result of runoff So again it's protecting the surface water So then if you um switch to the other map which is aquafer recharge protection ARP
district Yeah And Chris you can see on the Atkins the map how close that the people in that area have wells So yes do have wells Yeah But that that um particular district is
not talking about wells It's talking about I know I know surface water supply So here this is in souththeast Ammerst and this is the ARP or Aquafor recharge protection district and it is an area that um protects the Lawrence swamp And
the Lawrence swamp um is an area that has wells in it from which the town of Ammeris draws um groundwater Um it's not concerned with surface water it's concerned with groundwater So I just wanted to make that clear because the
requirements and regulations related to WSP or the Atkins reservoir surface water supply and the regulations related to ARP aquifer recharge protection are similar but they're not always the same
Um so that's point number one And it looks like um councelor has her hand up Yes she I just saw that No I just have it's almost more for my own just interest Is there only one ARP in Amorest
yes Okay There is APR which you know gets confused with ARP but agriculture So y um so that's good So let's now look at the text of the watershed protection
district if we could do that and I had um looked through the text to see what portions of it might be relevant to what we're doing So let's see This would be your your uh appendix right appendix
A Um it's not labeled as appendix A but it's labeled as uh section 3.24 watershed Sorry you wanted that one Um and it has some things Let me open that one You're going to be accessing all the
documents in this folder today Well I just thought it would be helpful to look at this from the Yeah ground up so to speak so you'd know where that these regulations are coming from So yeah there we go The water supply protection district I made a note here
that um there are some references to Lawrence Swamp in this section of the zoning bylaw and those shouldn't be there That was in the state when this was written So this is really specific to the watershed protection district Um so you found you found something that
you need to go back and correct anyway department will take care of that But um you don't have to worry about that right now Anyway if we scroll down I don't know if you have had a chance to read this and have picked up things that you think are very important but the
things that I thought related to what we're doing were this uh um 3.230 release upon or within any land or water in the and then I called it what did I call it um something like drinking
water supply district of any hazardous material is prohibited So I took that sentence and modified it and suggested that we add that to the text of our solar bylaw I think that may be the only
one from this um Oh no it isn't the only one I'm sorry No there's another section H2 not this 3.2436 Yeah So the first one 3.2436 um that says industrial or commercial
uses which some people consider solar arrays to be an industrial commercial use um which involve the storage use um or presence of any prochemical oil pesticide herbicide fertilizer or other hazardous leechable materials on any
site within and then I said you know water supply protection area shall require a special permit from the zoning board of appeals In other words if you um want to apply this to solar the solar b solar bylaw or a
solar array then you would require a permit from the um zoning board of appeals to allow the presence of these materials within the area of the um of the solar
array and the uh zoning board would have to make a finding that the hazardous material will be transported stored used and disposed of in a manner that will not constitute a threat to in this case it would be the water
supply protection area Um Chris a quick excuse me a quick question So you're saying that it in this case that the use and presence uh requires a a special permit Um it doesn't say the it doesn't
say the use or presence is prohibited So it acknowledges that there are fuels there are materials etc etc Um and in the case that there are materials then it's automatically a
special permit I mean this would this would seem to apply to every single project I think that's probably true And so you'll have to decide whether you think that's reasonable or not But I did include this paragraph in the revised um
section on water supply protection Um and then this the next one down pesticides herbicides fertilizers and other leechable lawn and garden chemicals shall be used in accordance with and then it references um a Massachusetts regulation here So I
included um that one as well Then there's one down below which I decided not to include 3.2439 Um which scroll back up I didn't highlight that here but um that one relates to some pretty nasty uses that
are described in 310 CMR 22.20 I didn't think any of those applied so I didn't I didn't recommend that we include that in our zoning bylaw And I think that's it for um
references from the watershed w waterershed protection water water supply protection district Can I ask a question yep So it looks like anything in yellow you wanted included in the bylaw but when I looked at the proposed
section 1710 it didn't have them in there Right So are we looking at Yeah So I'm I'm happy to move these into it just as they're worded I just wanted to make sure I was not
missing a document I did not um Yeah Uh Mandy I want to correct that because it's it's actually on the third page of her uh draft her
excerpt and it's it's under a whole lot of bullets and it's included as a bullet with her notes um in italics So maybe I should explain that I did not
edit the um document that we've been using as our base document No we we had a water supply protection section 1710 draft Yes And and I don't see any of those paragraphs in there on page three
It should There isn't a page three Um I have I have a page three Uh it's it's from her it's from Chris's um excerpt Let's see if I can help you My downloaded document only had a page one
and two Um it um interesting It's the water supply protection- section 1710 draft Yeah that's what I'm looking at And it
only had two pages on it I I think I have page three if you want me to share Oh that's good because I have a page three too I have a page three when I printed it Yeah I'm looking
at it online and I you know from the and it's printed I literally only have a page one and two on that one Well I gave you um the original version of it that doesn't have anything added to it No it it had some changes to
things but it doesn't have a page three Let me try and download it again Okay You can I was just really confused Yep I I I open it up again too And it's different than what I printed
I didn't print it but I have a page three on on what I'm looking at Did you go to our packet i went to the public packet is what I use There is a possibility that I deleted page three
unintentionally because if it's because I was working from the document in the packet and some of it disappeared but I did I assumed it would be I have no idea I have page class modified an hour ago by Pat D'Angelus and it was not
intentionally modified So you need to get rid of me This is why I'm not running again Effing old No no but if you go to the public packet it's there Yeah And it Yeah And it was there because I have No I've done that before I I don't realize I'm making
permanent changes on what when I open the I never thought I was either I Yeah And then somebody says like "What did you just do?" I honestly don't know what happened I wasn't changing language or because you don't do that That's so funny Um would you like to share the Yes
please Yes please Yes So um Mandy Joe if I start sharing will I not sharing would be great but I'm the one that's modifying the document using so I'm trying to be able to cut and paste into it Um
oh Um yeah I got it from the public packet online I'll I'll I'll download the public the the that one This might take me some time So a as continue talking now that we've figured out what I feel like I should make confession and say a good act of contrition
That's that's very funny though It's like I thought I I printed it It looks right Um in terms of what I was talking about we finished the um excerpts from the water supply protection section of the zoning boiler that I thought might be relevant
go and look at the uh excerpts from the um aquifer recharge protection district which which is which is your appendix B Yep material Just just give me a second and I will change that You guys are going to want this
here Yeah So from the aquafer recharge protection district bylaw I thought there was really only one thing that was um you know relevant and that we might consider including and that is um
paragraph 3.2534 It's on page two Yeah there it is The outdoor storage of salt deicing materials pesticides herbicides fertilizers and other hazardous lawn and garden chemicals for home use is also prohibited Obviously we wouldn't have
for home use in there but that was um that I thought might be useful in the water supply protection in the water supply protection section of the bylaw Yeah thank you So that's and what I'm seeing actually between exactly those
paragraphs about pesticides and herbicides is that in in the water supply protection it 3.24 37 it says pesticides herbicides fertilizers other leechable lawn and
garden chemicals shall be used in accordance with lawn care regulations And so that's that's an allowance that is different than um outdoor storage Oh this is outdoor storage Okay So that's the actual
storage not the utilization of Okay got it Two different aspects I hope that makes sense now Yep Yep Anyway so those things in yellow were the things that I thought were potentially useful to
our solar bylaw And so if we can go to the text of the solar bylaw which is it's got a little note at the top It's an
excerpt and it says CMBB April 4th 2025 And I apologize for not having you know taken the risk to edit the original but I just thought I'd get it completely screwed up if I tried to do that No
that's fun That's fun The original out of that So Mandy do you have do you want to go back to um section 17.05 and there it is Okay So the
recommendation was to take out everything in 17.05 And it looks like that has been done It's been um Yeah I did it today Okay And then now we'll go to 1710
And so let's give me a second to page up and insert the definition you wanted us to insert And this may not be the correct definition or it may need to be elaborated upon because we just received um an email from Amy Roski of the DPW
and she's kind of the water supply expert down there We didn't have her um her document her email um before this or other people had it like at one o'clock in the afternoon but I left the office at 1 So I come
Um okay So we're looking at protection of drinking water supplies with the with the uh thought in the back of our mind that we want to make sure that it does apply to um private wells as well Yep
So in the first introductory paragraph I think we decided that we were going to leave out reference to the water supply protection committee because that's not a normal thing to put in a zoning bylaw Um I added the word operations It says "With regard to protection of drinking
water resources the following construction operations and post construction storm water management requirements shall be met." And the reason I put in operations is because um you know during the operating of this thing we want to make sure that they um
comply with these regulations Now you may argue and I could argue that in my head that operations and post construction is the same So maybe we don't need that word Maybe we could just delete operations which I had put in So just
take it out It looks like I think it should be there Councelor Hani has her hand up Yeah I I don't necessarily have a problem with that in I I'm wondering why it's storm water management requirements Um because that was what was in the original document
Um so you're asking why is it only storm water management well well none most of these are not storm water management compliants Mhm If you think about what storm water management in most of this has nothing to do with much of this has nothing to
do with managing storm water Building from surface water supplies or private wells has nothing to do with storm water management So I think taking out the words storm water management would be reasonable I don't remember why we put
that in there Yeah I that that struck me as strange I'm gonna I'm gonna interject here Everything that happens on the site the way the site is constructed the way they create retention basins all of that is essentially storm water management It's
it's how they manage runoff um or recharge So what occurs to me is that if there are I mean it's so interrelated with protection of drinking water Um maybe there are some of these bullets
that belong in section 1709 which was storm water management erosion and sedimentation control which is now simply a statement rather than anything of substance Um maybe we should look at these two sections to see if there are
some that are highly particular to 1709 instead of generally protection of drinking water supplies Does that make sense i guess so But we have an entire storm
waters management bylaw which is which is what 179 points us to That's correct Yeah Chris I was going to say the same thing I take it back is reasonable Good So do you want to discuss your your
suggestions within this yes Okay Um and again since I received um Amy Roski's notes this afternoon some of this wording may need to change it The first statement here is all solar panels used
in LGPIs in surface water supply protection areas shall be PASF free Now I spoke with um Andrew Vardkus of WSP that's an engineering firm that is currently doing the um third-party
review of the Shootsbury road project and um he told me that many of the new solar panels are PAS-free and that you can actually require that and that um you can get a certification um from the manufacturer
that the materials are pestfree So he said that was a reasonable requirement Can we add the word certified PASF free shall be certified PE pas free if you think that would be nice to do
sure I would I mean this some things that are PAS free may not be c there could be a difference if they're not certified I I agree with Jennifer certification implies like you can be
practically organic without an organic certification because the certification costs so much but that doesn't mean just because you don't have it you're using pesticides So do we want to say certified or not i mean that it's I'm not going to die over that but I was actually agreeing that it
would say certified because I think there's some materials that are said to be PASF free and that some people would disagree with that and I would object to adding certified Okay So let's let's not let's not do it It
this Stephanie does that make a dramatic difference is there more um power if you're saying certified i just turned my sound off because my phone is ringing I'm sorry Yeah No Yeah I'm trying to
sort of think this through a little bit Um Okay I think it's um stopped All right So either way is fine with me Yep I'm not gonna I'm not going to push it And I yeah I don't I don't know that it would make a big difference huge
difference really Okay Okay Then I think the next sentence all LGPI shall be constructed outside of a 400 foot buffer zone from a public surface water supply I think that's in line with what Amy Roski sent today but perhaps we need to
check that And councelor Hani has her hand up a question on actually all of these that just reference LGPIs
Um many of them have associated best Yep Without referencing the associated bests wouldn't you technically be able to put the associated bests within that buffer yes So we should reference Shouldn't we
reference associated best yes Yes Thank you Mandy Uh and I think I think that's for the first three at a minimum right yep No the solar panels are just specifically solar panels
So the number two and three should have that reference Yeah And then um and this is I'm really struggling with there only being a 100 foot buffer We have the public um we're saying there
has to be a 400 foot buffer and it feels to me that a well is much more um vulnerable to what's going on with the surface water supply Well I think that Amy's um
notes talk about a 100 foot buffer from a private well but again that's something that um yes it's uh you probably don't have access to this right now but she says setback of solar installations from
public water supplies and private wells um that we recommend 100 ft from a private well I So this is similar this is similar to septic system Septic you know um leech fields are supposed to be 100 ft from a
well Um that's that's what it sounds comparable to Mandy Yeah And I don't have a question Well I do have a question about the 400 foot for public surface supply if only private wells are 100 feet of why is the public surface
water supply four times as large for the buffer zone um and then my other question is more of a philosophical question I completely understand why we would want best with these large buffer zones
Um I'm struggling to understand why the LGPI needs to have a large buffer zone Well that was what was recommended by the water supply protection committee and that seems to be what was
recommended by um Amy Rzeki's latest email from this afternoon Uh what's the concern about LGPIs and water supply is it simply I I guess that that's that I
get the concern with best 100% I'm it may struggling to understand the concern with LGPIs It may have something to do with just the fact that it's a construction zone and you have to disturb soil in order to install these
things or put down you know whatever kind of uh base material you need And it could be that um I agree with you that solar panels are not in and of themselves um dangerous for water supplies because they're pretty much
inert But there may be something about the construction of them that would cause people to be I'm I'm going to build on that because I think in our second bullet it does we are we are discussing public surface water supplies So that is
groundwater rain etc So it is what is washing something down the hill into our water supply and water supplies are always the low point because that's where the water collects Um so I think Chris you're you're on target with it
being a a matter of the erosion the um construction materials that kind of thing that the 400 ft is is that filter and buffer It's one thing to have you know 100 foot buffer for a wetland but this is this is our drinking supply So
it it means greater attention to um controlling that I guess And that sounds like it's sort of a standard Is that um presumably also something that comes from the sort of the generic
um bylaw that that we've seen Is that correct our generic bylaw doesn't talk about drinking water supply to my Oh okay knowledge but um I went back and looked at some state regulations that have to do
with water supply both surface and groundwater and they do also reference these numbers Um so I have actually reasonings Council
Manny go ahead I just want to say thank you for the explanation and reasoning behind it I I get it a little better now I I actually had a question So when we talk about LGPIs and BES um are we talking about the
physical stansions the posts and the panels and the and the transformer or the the battery or are we talking about the edge of clearing are we talking about the the outside edge of the
30-foot buffer that that was being proposed or are we literally talking about the edge of the structures so if I think of a ZBA sitting there going well anyway Chris you have your hand up Yeah I think we're
literally talking about the edge of the structures not the buffer zone or the setback or anything like that Okay I had a little Yes thank you I had a little diagram that I drew with a question mark Anybody want to see my diagram um do you want to show your diagram no
No I don't Um the next one is um a SWIP or a storm water pollution prevention plan including a storm water management plan that meets the Massachusetts storm water management standards shall be required for all solar projects
exceeding 1 acre in size I think that's actually required by our um new storm water management um bylaw That's part of the general bylaw but we might as well put it in here too I think it's worthy of uh being
repetitive Um the I actually wanted a change in language for this one It's minor This bylaw the portion of the bylaw we're working on only applies to LGPIs and we're basically defined LGPIs as
exceeding an acre in size Um so could we just say shall be required for all LGPIs yes And BESS right the ESS has some structure to it They're usually like you know shipping
containers filled with equipment right so y would say LGPIs and bees Okay Um slopes on which solar arrays are placed shall not be greater than
15% That's what we have before in our bylaw Mhm Mhm So it's currently in the bylaw under design standards So why do we need it here too seems repetitive You can take it out Uh oh I agree
Okay The project shall be phased to limit land disturbance to an area of less than or equal to 10 acres of disturbance at any given time That seems reasonable I had a question Go ahead Go ahead Manny Sorry My
question was is this more of a something for a bylaw or is it more of a standard and condition on the permit itself i think it's reasonable to have it in the bylaw And in fact when we had um a
recent project reviewed by a third party reviewer they agreed that 10 acres of disturbance was reasonable And I think you know Stephanie and I I must confess I I shouldn't bring
Stephanie into my sins but I have not been keeping very close track of what things are we taking out of this bylaw that we should then add to a list of proposed conditions I think Yeah Yeah
Maybe that's a that that would be a good task sort of in general That's good Thank you for bringing that up I have a minor question and maybe I'm wasting people's time Um I don't have a problem with this and I but I remember
with the 132 Northampton Road project there was a it wasn't fa it wasn't phased in this way but um they talked about limiting hours of construction and stuff like that in the
ZB so that it wouldn't irritate the butters and is that I I have no idea whether I don't think that's a good thing because it causes uh more expense etc if you have limited hours but I'm
just sort the standard condition for both the ZBA and the planning board Okay So that they can do it if they want Yes And they usually do almost always for larger projects Yeah Okay
Thanks Exposed soils and slopes shall be stabilized with erosion controls during and after construction until vegetation is established Is that reasonable it sounds reasonable Mike I don't want to scroll since you guys are all seeing
my scrolling I'd be scrolling up to our erosion section earlier and soils and all earlier Did we cover this earlier i don't remember that it was the that the um I don't think so but that's a
good point I will I will be happy to go through these and double check once we're all through it but double check to see if we have covered it already in um another section Stephanie yes This is one of those cases where I
wonder if this is going before the conservation commission they are going to require erosion control That's one of the primary things that they look for So I I just always wonder like are we do we need to have it here too if
they're doing review and it's something that they would specifically be requesting Chris a good question are not always built near a wetland So you know if there's no wetland nearby wetland resources that probably is very
unlikely Um I think Stephanie's right If it did go to the concom they would require this But maybe it doesn't go to the concom So maybe it's a good idea to keep it in here Okay But I will I will take the time to
go double check these these um bullets Okay the next one I think might be able to be put next to item number three in our list Um which refers to 100 foot
buffer zone from a private well Um this says a minimum no disturbance area of 100 ft from a private well shall be maintained for the installation of or land clearing related to LGPIs
Um maybe it's duplicative Maybe we should eliminate the first one where we say all LGPIs shall be constructed outside of 100 foot buffer zone This one may be um may may take that into consideration They feel a little
different to me They're different but if you can't disturb an area of 100 foot if there's a 100 foot buffer of disturbance meaning within that 100 foot you cannot disturb anything then by default you can't put
something there Right Right you know so almost that third bullet point is automatically included in the first one Um I think they could be combined I'm I'm going to suggest I'm going to
suggest that this lower bullet is actually more appropriate because that goes to my question of are we measuring to the beginning of a structure or are we measuring to the um the edge of the disturbance and I and I like the I like the larger disturbance This says there's
no disturbance between from a 100 ft from a private well And to me that's very different than 100 ft to the first um the first structure I like I like this um higher
hurdle And the first one would then fall away because it's redundant seems fine to me the way you're saying Yeah me too You would delete this the third bullet and keep this one that
we're talking about now Is that correct right Yes All right Um then here this is this is interesting because it relates to a public water supply well A
minimum disturbance area of 400 feet shall be maintained from a public water supply well which is different than the surface water which is just a buffer zone of 400 ft not a no disturbance zone Yeah Oh
should those two things be put together the aren't we then wait a second Aren't we then in three that we just took out talking still about surface water affecting a well no Wells are typically
groundwater They're not surface Okay But we have we have two bullets that are very similar and the minimum of no disturbance of 400 The next bullet is a minimum of 200 feet no disturbance within the surface water drinking source
It a it actually to me depending on your topography um it feels like we should have a a larger distance away from a surface body of water than a than a
well but it's the opposite here So are there surface water drinking water sources that are not public surface water supplies no I don't think so Nobody would ever drink out of a pond They would they would have because we're using different language in those two
That's why I asked Yeah Um could could we ask Chris and Stephanie to go back to Amy and just double check this i think there's a little bit of uh it it it's a little confusing and
it's not clear to me which is more stringent and which should be more stringent in terms of talking about in particular Yeah The public water supply well and the and the zones A and B of a
surface water drinking water source Those two bullets that are Yeah Yeah Thank you So is the confusion the 400 foot distance versus the 200 foot distance
yes And why the surface water one is lower than the well water yep I think she mentions that in her email Was this um was this general feedback um
solicited for specifically for um solar yes this was the comments that you had asked us to get from her And Pam I did send it to you You should have Oh you did Okay I I'm very sorry I don't remember seeing it Yeah it only came to
me today so I that's why I just sent it Yeah Okay I have I've not I've not seen it yet but we should get clarity from um Amy Yeah Yeah Yeah Yeah I'll I'll ask her Okay
Mandy you had those highlighted for a second Can we just highlight them in yellow or something so we can come back to them that's these Yeah What the comment is Yep It's just a comment on top of a comment It'll look more highlighted when I clean the document up
Oh okay All right And then a minimum of 200 f feet no disturbance area shall be required within zones A and B of a surface water drinking water source which I just changed to public surface
water supply because that's the language we used above Yeah that makes sense They're not different are they okay And then next one is there shall be no oil hazardous materials cleansers or other potential contaminants stored in
no disturbance areas nor within wetlands or other sensitive natural communities nor within 150 ft of wetlands or other sensitive natural communities Nor shall the there be any refueling or equipment maintenance activities in these areas If
these materials are stored elsewhere on site they shall be properly labeled covered and contained in watertight containers Secondary with secondary containment Stephanie had a question from staff I guess related to that And
councelor H Stephanie go ahead Stephanie So yeah this was something that was flagged by staff um who would be responsible for um regulating this and their comment was that there's no you know what is a
sensitive natural community is not defined specifically So how would they enforce it how would they identify it how would they enforce it so I just wanted to make that noted Do you have do you have an alternative
um suggestion for that well I don't you know again I don't know what the language is referring to sensitive natural communities I mean you know that could be a myriad of things So I'm
not you know I would just say that the the sensitive areas that should be regulated are regulated So I don't think this is like if this is some additional you know potentially regulated area I don't
understand where that would be It would already be regulated I guess is the point I think that's the point they were trying to make So should we keep this bullet point but leave out those those references to sensitive natural communities yes I would just I would strike or other
sensitive natural communities Yes Okay In two places Yeah Okay So I had a couple of questions related to this Yep I don't like the there shall be no
for wording I would reward it as no oil blah blah blah shall be stored in no disturbance areas or wetlands Yeah You know I would just reward it from this like passiveness thing to an active And I was curious whether since it's talking about hazardous materials and other
things like that whether it's more appropriate for the new hazardous materials section below instead of this protection of water supply section Maybe so Yeah maybe So let's uh leave it here and
then we can see how to integrate it Mandy Okay Are we ready to go on i want to apologize I have no idea I seem to have lost power and then been able to get back in once I So I disappeared for a
while The next one has to do with um e just saying is she um almost finished editing here I'm wondering if we can put the refueling up above oil hazardous materials cleanings Uh the other ones were storage Maybe it's a we had this we had this
earlier We had storage versus use Oh Where did her sentence go it's right here Got it They'll be properly covered labeled etc Good Okay So that has I moved it right after the materials
because the refueling in between it made it didn't make sense So I did not delete it Yep Okay On to emergency response procedures So someone had made the comment that
um this section might be better placed elsewhere um because it wasn't specific to water supply only Um maybe I think I I think Mandy said something Should these should these some of these be in
design standards we already have something that I objected to in design that related to emergency stuff right or was that part of that one section of emergency you objected to something about training requiring training for
annual training for the firefighters Yeah Where was that though i have dimensional standards I think you thought it was an extra expense for the Oh no It was part of a submitt requirement and I I didn't like it but I think it was within a submitt
requirement Well most of these most of these lower bullets from 1705 are not are not submittal requirements They are more design standards right yeah No I I think the training thing was like submitting a training plan and I really objected to
some of that Um I think that this needs to be here because we it's very specific to these materials being spilled in the in um and that there does need to be some kind of
uh plan that's been approved by the fire chief particularly for any kind of cleanup So I put in the red lettering here In other words this bullet used to read emergency response procedures shall
be developed by the project owner blah blah blah And then someone said well shouldn't this be in an emergency response section and I thought well here if you have any of these materials these hazardous things oil hazardous materials
cleansers or other things you know in an area where there's a drinking water supply then you need to have an emergency response procedure So it seemed like it fit well here If you then go and reference a spill an actual
problem that occurs and then you have the emergency response already worked out and you just go do it And I think that's a really good idea It seems like though taking apart whether I object to frankly the um owner and
contractor developing it Um shouldn't it be in the hazardous material section because shouldn't it apply to all like as Stephanie said all LGBTI LGPI not just those in certain areas
That sounds like a good idea Yeah that does sound like a good idea but Mandy a project owner they're going to have an understanding of this kind of situation So it becomes operators and or lees and
you're doing this before you have the permit So you might not even know who your operator or lei is That's right So it's number one And why do we want the owner developing the emergency
response procedure just approving by the fire chief instead of working with our I I don't know in collaboration in conjunction with how about shall be developed in collaboration with the project owner
building inspector and fire chief that would I think would be better let me move this down into this section I did have a comment in my notes that could this just be for all projects It
is it is very much a I mean it's it's super important for water supply section but it's also applies to there are probably state laws that regulate this too and Stephanie would know more about that than I do Um D has
very strict requirements That what you said Pat yeah Yeah Yeah Okay Because Yeah I mean they hopefully we hopefully we kept the they need an emergency plan I think we did because we definitely did particularly with Bess
Yeah exactly With the submitt Yeah Okay So now we are going backwards Now we're going back to the writing in red after the fire chief
and starting with vegetation cover These things were taken Okay Just just just hold on just one second I just um I want to take a pulse here We're making good progress Um I'm hoping that it feels
like we need at least a half an hour to talk about zoning board selection criteria interview questions meeting dates if possible And I just want to make sure that we have a at least a half an hour for that
So if we can if we can move along that that's fine I was actually hoping to kind of cut off at 4 4:15 but I think I'm I'm excited about moving through this So let's go Sorry I sorry I interrupted This was taken from the
original 17.05 um section of the bylaw which were also related to water supply protection So vegetation cover under solar panels shall have at least 90% shall have a 90% or better uniform coverage at the
conclusion of construction That seems reasonable to me Chris I have a question on I have a question on this To me that seems very it's important again for water protection but it seems like a very standard um design standard
that should be in that section design standard section Yeah seems like it I mean we want we want coverage you know as soon as practicable and that it's not necessarily specific to water
supply areas Okay Is that And I had a different question Go for it which was 90% seems a lot when you might have to grow stuff number one and number
two in some of these areas it's going to be aggra solar which you don't want at least I'm not sure uniform is what you would have for agravalics and you wouldn't necessarily have 90% if you're trying to grow crops
at the end of construction I think I think we need to recognize that the agrotic section is very very different but this is like a standard erosion control condition Do we say that this is for non
aggravaic developments if you think that's necessary sure And then yeah I agree with Pam on the moving it out of water supply protection It seems much more of a standard thing
But it isn't I guess one of my questions is is this water supply protection section really only applicable to what we've defined as the water supply protection area or whatever that that was surface water
supply protection area or is the water supply protection area applicable to all developments it's probably applicable to all development except for the one for the some se some things that only reference the
protection area Are you are you specifically talking about this vegetation cover i I'm talking about this entire section 1710 because we have this surface water protection supply protection area definition where those have to be POS
free and there's some other things that there might be mention of that area somewhere else in some of these things um but we don't tend to reference that area and so are these conditions for just this protection area or are these
conditions for all areas all all LGBT LGPIs no matter where they're located in town Um but they relate to water supply protection instead of
other issues that we might put them into a to traditional design standard I'm not sure I understand that question It sounds like it might be a good question but I I I guess part one does
section 1710 apply to LGPI anywhere in town or just in the surface water supply protection area it seems to me that it's only in the water supply because if you're if you're
building something out on in a flat field it's not going to be farmed It's whatever Um then you're not having to worry so much about the angle of water runoff and things like that I think um
so it seems to me that this would pardon me No matter where you build you need to worry about the slope But yeah so then I'm wrong about that and that's fine Well could we make a note to say that
we'll come back to that at a future date to that question of whether these things should be more generally applicable yes Okay So then
if if that restriction is there then my my thoughts go back to Pam of something like vegetation cover probably should be moved out to a different section and you had mentioned design standards which is reason
so let's go through these because I think there may be actually more than just one right I'll highlight them in yellow for now right that we think should be moved The next one is probably one of those Yeah And I'm also wondering whether the meadow condition one is
something that is um not necessary and it could be seen as um an aesthetic choice more than because a meadow a meadow or grass is going to be doing this similar kind of work isn't
it well there's a definition of meadow here A meadow is an open field vegetated by grasses grasses herbs and other non-wy plants So the idea is that you keep trees and shrubs out of there and you just have something that is easily moan
should right which means it really seems like it should be grass because if you have herbs and I don't know it just seems I don't care Should the definition of meadow be in the definition section could be
Yep Uh Stephanie sorry I didn't see you I just wonder if that if if restricting it to me conditions um impacts the potential for agricult Mhm It does because that's where you
want to be growing vegetables or grazing sheep on grass or so I just growing Okay So let's let's be clear here though that it says a metal condition is preferable for slopes between five and 10% So we're really
talking how do you vegetate and maintain erosion control on on slopes So I think I don't I'm not guessing that we would have aggravates on slopes of five and 10% I'm just guessing I just think
though that that I mean but there are folks that do creative things and I feel like why restrict them you know that just seems unnecessary I agree Deleted take out this meadow condition
section And this next one bothers me the height shorter than 4 in because who's going to be measuring it and you're certainly going to have it maintain if there's grass growing under it and everything You are going to be mowing it to make
sure it doesn't grow above the panel So I don't see why it's there And even meadow conditions get mowed multiple times a year to keep out the woody plants But you only want to mow them after they get to certain heights right
but you're still mowing them so they'd be technically mowing areas I think this is a pretty standard condition that they don't want them mowing you know down to the earth They want to maintain a healthy vegetation
layer if you will Um and it's so it's really um but when you mow your lawn you you can some people mow it low and some people mow it higher but they don't ever mow to the bare ground I don't know any
mowing machine that would do that Feel like this is just a little bit too nanny state to delete it Let's put a a cross out Let's put a cross out Let's not like make it
disappear yet I will I will try to do some homework on this I think there's some real validity to just saying you can't just mow it down You need you need some vegetation But nobody's saying that I And we're here It's talking about
height You know if you're maintaining vegetation coverage then I mean your vegetation could be a creeping thyme or a moss that is always less than 4 in naturally Yeah Yeah So
then do you want to say what you what we need no That that you that you want to have some vegetation There may be a reason to have that I That's my question Is there a reason why Well there is Yeah in terms of flooding that you'd want to have some vegetation Is that the purpose
for this the bullet above does say that that we should have at least 90% or better coverage of vegetation So I think that one should come back Yeah No that
it's still there It's red standards though Yeah Let's move on Um vegetated areas shall not be subject to chemical fertilization or herbicides or pesticides except for those applications that are necessary to get
vegetation established and which follow an approved erosion and sedimentation pollution control plan This relates to the situation that they had at um Hickory Ridge where they needed to get rid of a lot of invasive species before they could plant what they really wanted
there So they had to come back to the zoning board of appeals to get approval to use herbicides and pesticides there so they could then plant what they really wanted So because we've already we've already
said in earlier bullets that we don't want the use of pesticides herbicides unless it's done in a manner that uh follows state control right yeah something like that I would
highlight this for potential move up to design standards with wherever that Y thing is And again we have to figure out if if these are specific to water protection or if they're general
requirements Okay Individual photovoltaic panels within an array shall be arranged in a fashion that allows the passage of runoff between each module thereby minimizing the creation of concentrated runoff and allowing the growth of vegetation
beneath and between the arrays I think this means you don't want them smack up against each other You want to have some space between them so the water that runs off one panel doesn't go onto the next panel but goes onto the ground and there and has an ability to um
infiltrate Again this seems like one that should be up in a different section than this water supply section That's that's potentially design Yep Yellow standards The next one the same thing a
bit Okay So we talked a little bit last time about the height of the panels Again it's so we you don't have really heavy runoff concentrated at the edge of the panels and there's huge
erosion Is this specific to water protection areas i thought we had no higher than 10 feet already Yes I think so So I don't see what this is adding Well we don't have it elsewhere as far as I know We moved
it from um that other section about water supply didn't we vertical clearance Oh we do have it Okay Y just eliminate this Delete it Is that right yeah Yep Um check
Okay Um the next one I don't think is really needed because we usually require that gravel be considered an imperous area Um so it would be naturally
calculated in storm water runoff but you can leave it there if you want to I think if if if it's a standard condition somewhere else then or standard consideration somewhere else with ZBA or planning board that's fine
Standard practice Yeah Yeah Um the same thing with the next one All impervious areas associated with roadways solar panel posts or foundations and support buildings shall follow normal protocol for post construction storm water management I
think that would also be true of that that you would consider all of those things when you're considering uh storm water management So we delete that I think we could delete that The next one is um avoid the use of
chemical soil stabilizers such as salt asphalt emulsion synthetic polymers and lignen products um those are used to you know prevent erosion but it's not what we want here because they are
um I wouldn't say they're hazardous but they're just not things that we want in a in a kind of a meadow situation or Yeah in drinking water So so it shows up three times in this bylaw Chemical soil stabilizers Yes So we
deleted it there It's in additional requirements for prime farmland Okay All right Well it's farmland The following shall not apply to installed on prime farmland and soils and farmlands of state importance And we
rewarded it this way I think that's important for farmland but it may be important in other places as well Can I ask why we took out avoid the use of no we said so it says requirement shall apply chemical So what
did we did we miss something on what it should be it's we should have maybe we forgot to say shall not be allowed The following requirement shall apply to all installed was actively farmed Oh we forgot the shall not be permitted or shall be avoided Shall not be shall be
avoided Yeah we just forgot to redo it Yeah Yeah Yeah And Chris you're saying that that should also I think it should be here as well because this is not farmland This is whatever the other types of uh
properties are So then the question becomes should it just be in design standards in design standards as a general one and instead of stated twice in two different sections yes Yes
Okay Okay And so we have we have another one that's also again the storage of presence of prochemical products etc So we have another pesticide several pesticide bullet Yeah We're thinking about integrating them under the hazardous waste and the release
hazardous material should probably be somewhere in the hazardous waste section Exactly Yeah So these So how can we move all three of those bullets i think we can Or Yeah Yeah They should go in this section and
they could Yeah they should go into the hazardous waste section Yeah And then we can And then Yeah When we're talking we'll Yeah Yep figure out something
You got one more I think coming up Yeah Outdoor use of Well that's also in hazardous waste isn't it or No I thought that was up above I'm sorry It was up above Wasn't there a salt thing somewhere up here
i don't know but I'm squinting I know I am too I totally thought we had this Hang on The outdoor storage of Well we This is specific Those aren't necessarily hazardous but it's about the storage of them The use the use So it's
salt only shows up once regarding storage in the document So I guess we were thinking of something else This came from either the WSP or the A Oh that might be We just talked about it earlier Yeah Yeah
So let's leave that here for now Yeah Okay So it's now 4:31 Chris thank you I think I think we we made our way through um Have we made our way through the materials that you
provided i believe so And yes and Stephanie and I will go back and um review with Amy Rezeki uh those that she sent today make sure
that we understand them Okay super So um I'm I want to run by schedule with everybody while you're still here And that is that it's you know the it's the middle of April
Um I'm trying to get a sense of how much time it will take to work through the remaining sections again and pick up the little red marks and um basically get this
document cleaned up enough that we send it to town council for um public hearing referrals And I am thinking and see if people agree that it it seems like we could we could
target July to have it come to council but that would be one two three Well that would be five five more meetings Does Does that not seem really
reasonable or too far out stephanie Um I was looking at notes from the last town council meeting and I thought I saw under referrals that this was to be given to CRC until June 30th
Oh there you go Good Well then July is But is that to report back or to have it done i I just saw that date So it might be I mean Yeah Well it would be nice It would be
nice to have it not just a report but a an actual I think it depends on I I I I would say I think five meetings at this point having not like reviewed everything we've done in the past I know we have a bunch of sections but I think we're getting to some that are a lot
less contentious would I say that are a little more standard and and not as debatable I I would say they might not be as debatable so they might move a little quicker um But we got to remember within those five meetings that
you counted we're going to be doing interviews right that's what Well there'll be two meetings So I think five meetings on this might be but that might end up August Um yeah let's let's let's aim for
shorter than that Um but thank you Okay so so we'll still we'll plug through this Um and each of us is sort of doing another part So Pat and Mandy are going to sit down and look at the hazardous um material
Feel free to look at any other sections that you Yeah I want to talk I think I must admit and Mandy I want to talk with you about nexus statements also and maybe removing them and just keeping the stuff in farmland and forested land because we just need
to slim this down um a lot Don't don't go hog wild No I'm not going to go hog wild but I want it to pass state review So in terms of that and then that would make Stephanie happen if I got rid of the nexus statements
I'm teasing you Steph Steph the attorney general doesn't review our zoning bylaws anymore Even though it's a solar sighting bylaw I don't because we're a city We just get sued if people think it's illegal That's right Yeah
but we should put this before I know you put it before town council for those three things that you talk about whether it's you know actionable whatever those other things that's actually go it has to go to go before it goes to the council well I'm saying talking about
the town attorney attorney we should have them review this asence oh yeah because you know I don't think go cares as much about substance they just care whether it's legal right you're absolutely I would think before we cuz what was our referral to get something
to the council not to recommend to pass but to recommend to go to hearing right but it might when when the planning board does something like that a lot of times they talk to the town attorney before they recommend the hearings right
um if the planning board thinks it's necessary and this is probably necessary So I I would recommend that we ask Paul when we're getting closer and have something because we haven't even talked about every section yet Um that that we
take some time and ask Paul to have the town attorney comment on it Right And that would facilitate its presentation to go also because they would be able to see what the attorney is saying is yeah because no they're not dealing with
substance but leg they are dealing with actionability and legality So good So let's let Chris and Stephanie Thank you go Um and and I hope that this time frame works for you I hope it's convenient for you
It's definitely well within the workday So that so we're trying to keep it easier Um thank you Appreciate your help Right Also there have been no um attendees but I think you need to make a statement
about public comment don't you before we close Uh yeah Okay So um maybe make it now but there's nobody there There hasn't been Thank you Thank you I Thank you Because I didn't bother because there were no people But um general public comments are um an opportunity uh
to have public comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes CRC does not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment When called on please identify yourself by stating
your full name and district or address Um are there any people willing and and offering to speak there is no one in attendance Thank you Then we will close the public hearing
the public general public comment session Let's swiftly move over to the conversation about um selection guidance and the same uh the same sentence is
um in each of the documents It seemed pretty much reasonable to use the same language So either the community resource um let's see you've got it right there Can you can you enlarge it just a little
bit i've got it I've got it So it just says besides the besides the um selection criteria from our policy this sentence is trying to cover what we talked about The CRC further considers applicants life experiences
related to matters typically before the board or broad understanding or subject matter knowledge or skills can contribute to full and practical considerations of a project under review Mandy So I actually would suggest that
the planning board and the ZBA statements be different Um because the ZBA does only review projects but the planning board reviews projects but also plans and talks about zoning bylaws as
proposals as amendments as planning tools a master plan and all And so for the planning board I think it should reference not just considerations of a project under review but considerations of a project under review or planning
matters in general something like that Great Great I will change that Does any do we have consensus that that would work and just for the planning board the ZBA doesn't do that So Right Right
So if these are if these are updated to reflect what Mandy just said are we in general concurrence that that it works for us yes Yes Thank you Okay Yes And we can go ahead when we're you know confirming that those that have
submitted calves within the past two years and we're responding to those who have just submitted calves Um we c I could send this to them before the next meeting because it's approved Should we vote
sure So I'll move to adopt the planning board selection guidance as amended on April 10th 2025 Second Okay Uh let's take a vote Um
Jennifer yes Yes Pat I Councelor Mandy I Pam I and we are missing one So it is four yes one absent Bella makes a motion to the ZBA Sure Um
I move to adopt the zoning board of appeals selection guidance as presented at the April 10th 2025 meeting Second Let's take a vote Councelor Mandy I Pat
D'Angelus I Jennifer Tub yes Pam Yes Great Okay Thank you for that That's very helpful Um do you Let's Jennifer you have your hand up Okay I'll let you You probably going to say what I was going
to say about meeting about So I have I have not received I don't think I should have checked double checked I don't think I have received any input from other counselors for interview questions That's actually slightly less critical
at this juncture than than this the guidance Pat Yeah I just want to bring up I got an email from Jenny Gaelic about um and I think it it went to Lynn and also Paul about having resident members on these interview committees and I'm really not in favor of that but
I feel like I should say something to the group about it So it's out there Um Jennifer and then Mandy or Mandy Jennifer I mean that would be a conversation for the council I mean we have to get we we can't just
decide that So no I know but yeah No that's I don't I haven't really thought about it but yeah it's not I mean how would we even have that conversation would it be should it be presented to the council i yeah it yeah because they would have
to approve resident members for the search committees and I feel like this needs to go forward now and I'm also feeling like that just opens us up to more tension and um disagreement uh in
terms of the community itself and it just kind of exacerbating lines of division that so I feel like we haven't you know I just don't see it as being valuable I really don't and I've said that to Jenny but I feel like I had a
respect I guess I guess I would add who who would get to select them in the first place You know and there's as much work in selecting the selectors as there is selecting the applicants and unless you make them join uh as resc as
resident members and I don't know Yeah I do feel like at some point we were elected by residents to kind of do this Yeah I think it's different on finance because it touches so many other areas So okay good You agree with me we're not
going to bring it to council Okay So um so Mandy go ahead Yeah Um I'd actually I didn't send you interview question potential changes because I'm on the committee I actually have some comments on them Um I don't know if we're
discussing them today or not Um do you want me if we're not discussing them today to actually send them to you um or like I said since I'm on the committee I tend not to just send them in I present them at the committee meeting Yeah Yes
Um let's just let's just run through uh I want to talk a little bit about next agenda previews Um other than that there are no minutes Jennifer go ahead Well no we can do the questions first I just wanted to ask
about to give you know the applicants some advance so they can put it on their calendar If we wanted to schedule the interviews we have two meetings in May during our regular CRC meetings in May We might have to change our meeting time
Uh if applicants are working during the day uh 3 to 5 might not go well for interviews So it was really challenging you know last time we did this to find you know what it was sometimes looking for 16 15 people to
find mutually convenient date and I think we came back to at least having one of the interviews during our regularly scheduled time because at least the five of us knew we could make it So maybe we can agree I'd like to give the applicants as much advanced
notice as we can It took a long time to schedule it last time among among the four of the five of us Um I certainly would be very willing to to use uh Thursday as a target just
because we've blocked out part of that already for our meetings Um Pat that affects your evening your Yeah but it would be worth it to make sure it was convenient for people to come to interviews I think I mean I could offer this time and a later time Yeah Yeah And
so should we stick to our meeting days as I remember last time we went to the same day of the week but it wasn't when we usually meet and I think Mandy you had orchestra you know you had right you had a commitment on the every other th whatever day we didn't meet
Yeah because I think I was doing the other committee that night Right Right No can't just I I feel like we can't just say Thursdays It would have to be the Thursdays we usually meet because people have commitments on the other Yeah And I have a commitment after this
starting next week but I'm willing to give it up to make these interviews happen in the evening and and I that that's not a problem for me Okay Oh no Well my problem was there's high school performances on some Tuesdays and
Thursday evenings but not the ones where we usually meet You usually have that But maybe maybe there are No it it as you get closer to the end of the year more performances show up Right Right I see That that's the thing We generally know when they are but the closer you
get towards the end of the school year the more popular evening things at the school are That was the big problem Oh okay Yeah And I go ahead I'm not going to be here on
Thursday the 24th because I'll be traveling that day So Oh okay So I will not make the meeting at 3:00 to 5 Okay I'm not going to be here either I was going to tune in from where I was So maybe it's better if we don't do that date Just we won't schedule I think it's
important we all be able to be So if you can't be here we won't schedule it that day Who who well that's our regular meeting though That's April You're talking April right yes Okay We're now we're talking May We're talking interviews in May potentially Not person
Oh Kathy Right Well show Yeah So there could be a quarum though So May I was actually thinking of the two May meetings There's a May in the evening is a problem because of a concert at the high school Okay Well that's good to know Which day
they're the uh the 8th and the 22nd Right But what time on the 27th will you do you have a conflict Mandy because we won't schedule it then 27th or 22nd the 22nd The concert begins at 7 p.m Okay Okay So if if people could make it
at our regular meeting time that would work Yeah Yeah Yeah Okay I would also be willing to give up the other or not give up but utilize the other Thursdays for flexibility should we need
that just okay so so next meeting is the 24th if there are some suggestions I mean we've got 10 minutes let's it was on the agenda let's let's talk about interview questions and then
we have Um Mandy do you have some suggestions yeah so I I just wanted to discuss they're similar for each one for both planning board and ZBA I think the numbering might be different but but my concern so I'll start with the planning
board ones Um I have not been I guess a fan of question number five the what's your opinion of waiverss exceptions and special permits in the zoning bylaw when should they be used and when they should should should when
should they not be used i I'm not sure we've been getting that It's a very effective question Um so I was I was I would wanted to propose deleting it Um I'm not against finding a different question but that one to
me has seemed not necessarily as one that gives us information that helps us make decisions Um number one
um it's fine I I wanted to change it to what experience knowledge or es expertise might you bring to the planning board that can make it successful and then probably you know instead of what might you bring which is way open-ended more of like we're we're
aiming for experience knowledges expertise like things not just you know just doing it that way like I said these are somewhat minor and then I actually wanted to add a question that was it's not really a question it's a statement asking the candidates to explain their
understanding of the planning board's role We have that question kind of in the ZBA but but I think with the ZBA we might have it as like what's the difference between the planning board and the ZBA but we don't really care if
they know the difference between the two bodies We want them to know what they think that particular body's role is Yeah maybe that's the first question And then what might bring you bring to this body See that's what I did
I agree But I think the question on waiverss was also to get to their understanding Yeah But the other thing about waiverss for me is sometimes you can see where someone is stuck and that might influence whether
or not you wanted to support them as a candidate or not I don't I don't know time It it definitely it definitely deals with the sort of the the details the the
technicality of of a zoning board or a planning board You know to know the difference between a waiver and exemption I have to sort of think about it myself I have to go back and refresh my memory Which which is the waiver which is the exemption which is the
whatever And it is um it is certainly not something I would have been able to answer had I been interviewed for that I would have said I you know I'll I'll look it up
Although I would think if you're interviewing for the ZBA you would want to know that Oh ZBA Yes Yeah But we're talking about planning board Yeah Yeah No that's so so Mandy if we go back to your question of of
um we could change the thing to what do you feel is the role of the planning board or what do you feel is the role of the CBA does that make I found it as explain your understanding of the planning board's role um yeah you know I I wonder though if we'll get the same answer from many people
versus you know sometimes we ask these questions and everyone's like what they said and I know problematic and maybe this is a question that would that that would elicit one person's answer and everyone else being I agree with them person Yeah Yeah
Um so maybe it's not a great question What are you trying question got us a lot of whatever they said because of this potential not under fully getting the difference between them and that's not we weren't really going for what's
the difference between them but more of how do you interp what's your sort of statutory interpretation thing right like but some of that gets to you know Kathy which I I like Cassie the
suggestion at the last meeting was to ask if they you know listen you know if they are in the audience or tune in to a planning board or ZBA meeting because I think there are sometimes people that interview that have not and then they
really may not have any sense of what a waiver is versus that was what I was getting to with number one Number one we have what might you bring to the planning board that can make it successful please include any experience you have appearing before or serving on the planning board or ZBA or watching one of their meetings So I'm suggesting
we delete that statement Uh I was suggesting we change the first part to what experience knowledge or expertise might you bring to the planning board that can make it successful So sort of narrowing down what we're asking them to
talk about like we want your your experiences that would and that would include watching a meeting and but they may not you could have the I'd be comfortable with that I I'd like to I I like asking them if they have zoomed I keep I was keeping
the please include any experience you have including watching the meeting I'm not asking to delete that part I was asking to revise the first part Okay Okay That's good Yeah Yeah So so if I took these questions and I
marked them up or Mandy if you wanted to mark them up here this isn't exactly um I mean I would be very happy to have them distributed and people look at
them and come back to the next meeting with responses Do these have to go political counsel or No No Okay No And the the number question number one the what might you bring um I think was
a So that was my suggested change on Yep That's great I love it Any any objections okay I see no I see no yeses And then I suggested I I would like to get rid of number five And then I would add
although I'm not sure I had a suggestion to add instead of this waiver one a explain your understanding of the planning board's role but I'm not sure it will actually elicit
anything different between the candidates Right Yeah I also still think it should be first if we're going to ask it What do you understand about this and doesn't that wouldn't that I don't know and then
that leads into so what would you add to I know I think that's a good suggest that's a good first question but like Mandy says it's a if I don't know you know it's I wrote is there a way to change that what about asking why
they want to what what in why do you want to be on it why did they apply yeah why it has nothing to do with the experience but why did you apply Why yeah I think that's a good first question or why yes Why are you
applying or what led you what prompted you what prompted you to apply what prompted you to apply yes Why questions aren't good to serve on this to serve on yeah the planning word of the planning
and then what yeah at the beginning and what experience which might duplicate it for some but might not for others So the first question should be what not why is the first Oh sorry [Music] so the the second part of number two
please include any experience you've had appearing before serving on the planning board or watching one of their meetings that actually fits um we're hoping that maybe they would say that as part of number one Well I listened in and I without leading the
horse to water Um I don't mind leaving it here though I don't Well go ahead Pat No I'm I I tuned out a little bit So could you repeat yourself i'm sorry Pat Um I wasn't sure if that second part of
number two please any any experience appearing before or watching their meetings um I would hope people would bring that forward on their own without prompting them and I'm not sure
um I think it's fine Actually I think it's fine I think it's fine Yeah It feels like it opens the pool up a little bit You don't have to have this absolutely direct experience doing this
Yep Yeah I think we did it mainly for the people who have just watched meetings and Yeah But who are very that's okay Yeah Right They haven't served necessarily Those were sort of my they they were my only qu my only comments
for the planning board questions I think those are great Yeah Do you want Do you want to see if they apply to the ZBA ones some of them did Like I said they were very similar to each Um can we take a should we take a vote on on
adopting those sure Those changes Okay I move that we adopt them Second as as as typed in uh Pat Seconded Uh Jennifer Yes Mandy I Pam Yes
Okay Good So we we adopted that was planning board That was planning board Check Now ZBA Thank you very much folks for sticking with this and helping get get through it
So I had the same change for number one So I would make number one basically the same question as the planning board was Yep Um oh wait well the current number one was the what experience knowledge or
expertise so So that one Yep And I kind of like the one we just added about what prompted you to apply Yeah Yeah Yeah That's good That was the Isn't that the new first one Yep
Great Um let me look up what else I had Delete five six Okay I I was suggesting deleting what were five and six So the special permit one here and then the opinion of waiverss and
exceptions So I was I wanted to talk about deleting both of those Oh I don't have trouble deleting the uh first one but there's something about waiverss and exceptions and dimensional special permits
[Music] Um you know I've watched ZBA meetings where some of the where nothing was allowed and other ones where a great deal was This feels like the body that's going to be dealing you
know setting limits um setting guidelines And so it feels like it's a little bit more important Um so you're saying keep the new number seven and delete the new number six
Yeah I think so Jennifer I'm not sure I agree with Pat about leaving the new number seven that Yeah that's really what this body is kind of all about So you should have Well go
ahead Hopefully if you're applying you've thought about it Um so I'm just going to make a comment and that is that the number five that got struck Um that one item has been the
the differential factor that that most of us have used Yeah Um in in selecting one candidate or another I think it should be in there Well it it was I mean it was it was like
the deciding factor Does it make sense to eliminate it i'm I'm comfortable you know eliminating it because but I think it's but I think it's it's appropriate but it's always used against
somebody we don't want So so against it's also then used to support someone So it's not fair to just say it's used against because you might use it against I might use it for My thoughts My thoughts were in in suggesting this were
along those lines of it's it's been a controversial question Um but we've also had people claim we've taken their answers the wrong way Um you know and all and I
think it's a question that we have used responses to So in that sense it's been useful yet at the same time we've been questioned on whether using those responses is even
appropriate whether we've used them one way or the other right that that even if should we even be asking this question even though in some sense it has been found to be interesting to get some answers Um and then I thought about as
we ask it longer and longer and that sort of controversy comes up as we deal with these that I'm almost feeling that we're starting to get more pat answers with it instead of
no pun intended instead of no pun intended instead of sort of I don't want to say honest answers but we're we're starting to get similar answers now that are really carefully worded Yeah let's chuck it And that's one of the reasons I
was thinking it might be time to delete it I'm okay deleting it Yeah Okay This actually you're not supposed to even be putting one interest over the other but looking at the whole Yeah Yeah Um and then I had one other one
other one which was number three the old number three um which I suggest again but but I think I would delete it now Um the difference between the role of the ZBA and the role of the planning board which I was suggesting in my initial notes to change to explain your
understanding of the ZBA's role but I definitely don't think we need to ask them the difference between the planning board and the ZBA what yeah what's the role Yeah Good Did that come
before number what's now number two what prompted you to apply what uh what's your understanding of it and then what experience do you bring i agree that should go before an experience you've had collaborating with a
group I mean it seems to flow I think Pat wanted it number two not number three Yeah So Pat wanted it here right what I'm saying is the number experience you've had collaborating should come after those first three questions Okay Yeah Yeah
And so we're getting rid of number six Yes the exceptions Wait wait No sorry Sorry I suggested getting rid of it but no one seemed to agree so I left it
We got rid of it in the planning board interviews Yeah Actually should the What is should it be opinion or what is your understanding of Yeah you're not really asking Well aren't you asking the goal
originally was to sort of get judicial interpretation of sort of statutory Are you in in legal Supreme Court things are you an originalist are you a you know things like that But actually if we if we said
understanding that's that would be more likely to lead to like like she said it's like Yeah Yep That's exactly what I was thinking Yeah I think it would Yeah With that opinion At least
it's their own opinion But I understand you're leaving in an opinion You're or we're still debating I thought what Pam Pam was saying was if we put it as understanding one person will answer it and the rest will say I Oh yeah Yeah
Yeah Yeah Yeah Ah I knew I mean my thought with this I mean yeah I guess if somebody would come out and say I I my opinion of waivers is never give them you know that that would but I don't think anyone's going to say that is just do they have a general you know and
this is understanding understanding yeah and it will take some homework I mean now maybe this will force people to go you know read read the biology you see the questions before so Yep Yep And then and then the number 10 is a really good is a really good question
because that helps us Oh yeah Yeah recommendations Okay Um anybody want to make a motion to adopt i move that we adopt uh the uh ZBA question applicant interview questions
as amended Great Second Uh let's take a vote Jennifer yes Pat D'Angelus hi Councelor Mandy Johanni hi Pam Rooney chair Who put that in
there i did not label myself Yeah I just noticed that that it was just today I've never seen it before Okay Angela might have done it She's very formal She always calls counselor I know I literally was looking at it going I didn't put that there
did I think you're right Thank you everybody There's one other item and that is that is simply um uh next agenda preview uh solar bylaw interview dates and I think Jennifer will maybe come back by
next meeting and and hopefully have some feedback Well wait a minute We didn't get that far Yeah Yeah um reaching out to people who have submitted calfs saying are you interested um and just simply giving them a a
preview of should I ask people would you be avail I mean should I so this is the question then do we ask let's say ZBA would you be available on um May 8th that's the first meeting in May and give
a couple of times or is it It occurs to me that they also have to submit their statements of interest at which point then they are really legitly in the the pool at that point Maybe in the in the I think we set
up the interview dates before we get the statement of interest They can't interview until they've submitted it but we've got to give them more time to put it on their calendar Mandy you're muted for some reason Sorry
um we have to declare a pool sufficient before we can actually move to interviews and statement of interest We can't solicit the statement of interests until the pool is declared sufficient Um date so but we could potentially give
them a date but again this then the statement of interest has to be posted on a website at least 7 days before the interview date But if we haven't declared the pool sufficient we can't actually collect statements of interest Um so there's there's like a a lag in a
lot of things according to the policy So we can try to I would recommend we try to set up if we want to give people time we aim for the June dates for the interviews at least the early June dates because we just have to appoint by June
30 right that would be almost always have a really late June meeting because of budget Um so and that would give us time to start talking about whether a pool is sufficient or not Okay that's good So it's June 12th and June 26th And I think
is there a meeting that last Monday what is that last Monday i have a one on the 30th Yeah Yeah So as long as we're ready by the 30th we could appoint for the next day at that Wait no No Oh we do
have a me I have June 12th June 26 Oh council meeting on the 30th Yeah council meeting on the 30th Okay so we have some time That's good Yeah Yeah So I would I I would start pulling for those two June meetings because then they're far enough further enough far enough out that
people can probably get them on their calendar or will know in advance if there's vacation issues or something Um Oh that's a relief to me because I was Yeah that's because that's really tight and we Yeah we need a pool That's correct Um so yes that's so that's an
item um discussion with planning staff on just items that are that are bubbling up within the planning department that was mentioned the other day and I think it would be good to just have that on the agenda to to hear from them um
including but not limited to Oh that's what that meant But not limited to ADU zoning BES uh fraternity zoning counselor driven proposals Any other what's what's out there what's what's
coming so um our next meeting is May 8 at 3 p.m Is there any reason to prolong the We're meeting before May 8th aren't we um yes it's the
24th Thank you April 24 Yeah Sorry about that Yeah that's the one I won't be at Okay good to know ahead We'll plan something really good You'll do everything I don't want you to
do especially Mandy I'm going to take over that solar bylaw without you here No you're not To approve it next week the next meeting Well you never work that way kid Okay Thank you everybody I'm gonna call I sent some possible meeting times to
you by text Mandy when you get a chance Great Okay Um I move to adjourn Second Um that's an I Jennifer Yes I got I councelor Mandy I love meeting earlier I
do too but I gotta go Okay bye Stop recording Hi I got to stop recording