Okay, we're recording. Please go ahead. >> Good afternoon. It is April 23, 2026. This is a regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council. 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'm going to call the meeting to order.
It is it is 102. We'll go around and see who can be heard. Um, Andy, >> yes. >> Mandy >> present. >> And Pam can hear herself. That's always a good thing. There are no There are no
um public hearings today. And I am looking at the attendees. There are no attendees. So, we will offer the opportunity should anyone choose to speak at this time.
I'm not going to read the preamble. So, um, we'll start in with item four, action items. And I want to share ahead of time that I'd like to have a hard stop at 2:30
um on any clean energy bylaw discussion so that we can move to uh the wrapup of a couple other items. And if you would all help me. I set my alarm, but anyway, that that should be loud enough. Okay,
so clean energy bylaw version 9. And um I actually did find it helpful to look at the document with the only comments that we have received, non CRC comments that we have received. uh it was helpful
to me at least to see them in context of the text of our bylaw and so I think it would be easiest to use that document um as we go through the discussion. Hi Nate, can you hear
us? >> I can. >> I can hear you too. Stephanie, can you hear us? >> I can. >> Wonderful. Okay. And I look forward to both of you weighing in. So, this is
going to be u walk through the the our draft bylaw. Um anyway, that's that's it for now until 2:30, then we'll switch gears. Okay. And if someone notices when Alicia
Walker uh joins us, that would be helpful to just alert us all. Oh, again I'll look for anyone who um has comments. I I would say keep your keep your microphones open because it
takes a lot of time to look for hands as we go through this text and it's I think pretty straightforward. I'll try to if you go like this I'll be able to see your hand moving. So let's start from the beginning. There are obviously some
suggestions and comments made that are wording and then there are some that that elicit a discussion and we'll try to move through the the easy stuff um and decide on those more difficult or
more complex topics if we want to table them for now or um save them for public hearing processing. any and if anybody has a another thought, Mandy.
>> Yeah, I I just want to say I've got the one with the comments up, but I was hoping to be able to just put any changes into the clean version that doesn't have these comments cuz I think I saw a lot of wonky um sort of formatting in the one that
you did. And so I think if I put any particular changes, track them into a clean version since we have to get this out to Athena as soon as possible. That will save me time after the meeting. So you guys wouldn't see that as we're going through, but is that okay if I do
it that way >> and then we can then scroll through afterwards and I can show you those changes because they'll be check tracked if people want to just see them quickly depending on what we do. Is that okay people?
I it occurred to me that that these these comments that were added um changed the formatting but that if perhaps they are accepted and they disappear that the formatting will re revert to normal is my thinking because
the the the formatting came with the comment. Does that make sense? >> I mean I can try but if it's not it's going to be easier to just put them in separately on a new document. >> Okay. You want to just try with the very first one the purpose?
>> I I can when we go through I'll do first couple as we go through. >> Okay. Okay. Um does anyone have an issue with the recommendation um SPI and best installations shall be
permitted by means of site plan review, special permit or administrative procedures as described in table 3 and article 5.11 of this bylaw. Approval by other authorities such as conservation commission and fire department will be required as applicable.
Is that acceptable, Mandy? >> Uh, two questions. It doesn't seem like that's part of a purpose statement at all. Um, so I I don't know why it was put in this. I I mean, I know why you put it in, so I'm not questioning why
you it's it's what what Doug suggested, but it's not a purpose statement at all. And I I actually don't understand and and maybe Nate can can help explain what this statement's doing and how it affects the rest of article 18 at all
because it doesn't reference article 18 at all. It just sort of seems to be restating what table 3 and 5.11 specifically say. My my sense is that um Doug was trying
to add context up front to to let people know, make it easier for people to understand what they're going to be asked to do. And so I think this is that that kind of thing. Just sort of giving a um you know a heads up that this is
an introduc. It's an introductory thing. So whether it's purpose or introduction, I mean I think it I think that was his purpose. That's at least how I understood it. >> Yeah. I mean, >> agreed, uh, Andy, but I also think it could go under applicability. I think he was trying to just put, you know, I
don't want to say like, um, kind of simple language, but, you know, just have something clear so that an applicant knows, okay, how how does how would this how does this bylaw get implemented in terms of zoning, but I don't think it's in purpose. I don't think I don't think it go under purpose either. I don't know if it's just it
reference the wrong section, but I think it to me it's applicability. Um, >> yes, >> I would agree with I would agree with that. >> I agree as well. >> It's almost like 1802. >> Yeah, >> that's like the intro sentence and then you get into the specific sections of um
>> Yep. >> Right. So, Mandy, how do we want to do this? Um, we'll we'll we'll we'll watch you move it. deal with that later. So that's moved there. Mhm.
>> That feels better to me. Yeah. Um so that was that was the suggestion to add to our existing wording. Um then there was a recommendation of rewarding
what's actually highlighted in pink and that is tier one groundmounted SPI as defined in article 6 table 3 and tier one accessory SPI best uses as defined in article 5.11 shall be permanent administratively and comply with
sections uh 1801 etc etc um as a rewarding for the text that we had in there originally. Any comments? >> Um, a a couple from my end.
Um, I I don't understand the difference. It seems like it's just preference and wording, but but we had Nate more of a question for Nate. Um, we the comment we still had here was we need to look at those sections completely. So, um,
you know, this one is which way should it be stated, right? X don't apply or X do apply. Um, it's missing canopy SPI and it doesn't deal with the building mounted installations that we were trying to figure out last time. So, I
think I think part of it is old draft. Um, but I'd rather leave this as written and wait for staff to come in with their response to comments. >> Yeah, I agree.
>> Yep. Yeah. >> I mean, even just that intro paragraph that was added is is clarifying. And then I think >> um yeah, I between the what's highlighted in pink and the other stuff to me it says the same thing. I don't
>> the other one the like as Manny said the one in pink actually covers more so I think it's fine to leave in for now and >> Yep. Yep. Right. >> So Mandy, how are you feeling about this text? And it's and it's clean. >> So far it's working. We'll see as it
goes along. >> I'm I'm doing I'm mirroring it in both just in case. So, >> there was one quest, one sort of general question there about reorganizing. I don't know if that's something that we're that we've lost or that we don't agree with, but
it was a it was a suggestion to reorganize to have the bylaw to have the initial section of requirements that all projects comply with and then a second section that only applies to the higher tier projects. Um,
>> so I would say eventually yes, but right now >> that's too much, right? Once we get the list of what everything should, >> I think we might be able to reorganize so it's an easier listing. But until we
know exactly what it is, I I wouldn't So we could just add that to this comment here. >> Yeah, that'd be fine. We'll keep We'd like to keep that comment. Yeah, I think it's harder to do in
reality than just um write a bylaw based on say like the tiered permitting because you know you want to have definitions and certain things and so you know do you want to break up the submitt requirements if you know submitts you know the submitt
requirements apply to some and then the other some to the other you know I think there's right there's probably you could do that way. Um, or you can kind of do it the way the paragraph suggested and then you have, you know, like inclusive of these sections but not these. And then I mean
it gets the same, it says the same thing. It might just, you know, you just want to make sure it's not confusing. I think, you know, Doug had emailed me and we talked and he said he was just trying to make it so that an applicant or even staff, you know, someone who just picks this up can read it and not be confused.
Um, y I appreciate that what he's trying to do there, but Yep. Great. So, moving on, the next comment that we received is 18.0312. Um, the difference between discharge or
hazardous waste discharge and disposal, you know, six of one, half dozen the other. I'm I'm happy to keep them both in right now. Any comments, Mandy? Um, >> I'm curious if Concom regulations define
the two. Um, and so do we need them here? Um, or can we just refer to that? And I will say the difference is disposal is sort of in in in when Pat and I were talking about this and added these sections in months ago,
right? last term. >> What we saw as the difference is disposal is for active use, active storage of actual hazardous waste on the site. And how are you when you're doing that and you're done with using it? What's your plan to dispose of it?
Versus the discharge which is say accidental or intentional is is is if say there's a fire and there's a lot of hazardous waste going out to put it out. that's the discharge of, you know,
like like to me there's a that was sort of the difference of if you plan on storing hazardous materials on site for use for whatever um herbicides or whatever, what's your plan to dispose of
them? Um versus that that discharge when there's not a plan in place, right? Yeah. Can I point out uh problemat problematically for me is that the disposal definition starts with the discharge. >> Yeah.
>> So that's confusing because you're you've got discharge identified in the previous definition and then you're using discharge to define disposal. So I think either reward the disposal definition somehow find a
different word than discharge if you're going to keep them both in. Yeah, >> maybe the release or I don't know another word than discharge. I like the word release to replace the word discharge. That
works. I understand the concern that they're awfully similar. Um, but I'm okay keeping them both. Do we just get rid of spilling and leaking? >> Cuz they're covered under discharge.
>> Yeah. Yep. Great. >> Yeah. I mean, so yeah. So I was going to say like I mean the disposal doesn't mean it's going to discharge, right? It says it may. And so the idea is that you when you dispose of something, it may end up having a you might have, you
know, the discharge of hazardous waste, but it doesn't necessarily mean that. So, um, yeah, that's where I'm kind of getting the the when we're saying the release, deposit, injection, dumping, incineration or placing. To me, disposal
would be the like placing of the hazardous waste onto land or water that may be released. And then if it is, then it becomes the discharge of hazardous waste dischar, right? It so it's like the disposal isn't isn't hazardous in and of itself. It's just you're
disposing of something. And so then it could become the discharge or hazardous waste discharge. So I um I think that's where what it would mean. But reading these I do feel like they're very similar. >> They're so similar. But disposal also to me is very much more intentional. And I
know that the definition in discharge says accidental or intentional, >> right? >> Disposal to me is always intentional. Yeah. >> Getting rid of something. You're intentionally getting rid of it. Are we more worried about spilling or
are we more worried about disposing? >> So, I think the difference in use in this bylaw is um when we get down to hazardous waste, there needs to be a plan for disposal if you're storing on site, but the um the emergency response
plan has to deal with the discharge that that emergency issue. So, I think there's a difference as to whether you're using in construction hazardous materials such that you need a plan for after construction or whatever. What
plan applies I think is what it is. We can look further on and come back to this. >> Yeah. >> So disposal is getting rid of is trying to get rid of it. And discharge is what happens if you don't do it right. >> I like that. Yes. I think that's the
goal. So you're trying to not have them discharge and have them dispose responsibly. But I don't know about this. >> So it's confusing because it it does have a lot of discharge type language in the disposal, >> but I think it makes it more clear later
on when we use the actual terms. >> So we'll let's let we'll keep both both discharge and disposal for now. We'll we'll say thank you very much for the comment. Okay, down to 14. So, um, emergency
response plan. Um, my thinking is that we don't actually need to describe an emergency response plan. I would rather that it show up in uh 180 18 what is it? 04 as a submitt.
And um and we can describe there that it it is uh plan to address you know procedures taken in response to emergencies. >> You mean 1808 cuz
>> 1808 >> 1808 >> Yeah. Oh four is like compliant >> 1808. 1808. So, we have it in here and it said where appropriate. I think it was an maybe M or J
right here. J. Yeah. >> And the definition is just to describe what the emergency response plan is. >> But couldn't we just do it here? An emergency an emergency response plan that addresses
procedures and responses to accidental discharge. like that. Yeah. And and then I think our the the um the definition also said uh in
consultation with um fire, police and emergency management departments. That make sense? >> Like that? >> Yeah. Except we would say instead of local government, it would be with the
town of Ammerst. We don't have an emergency management department. Fire and police. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. And then we can accept or get rid of the the blue.
>> Um, which blue? The blue here. >> Yeah. And >> what are we doing here in definitions? >> I don't think we need it anymore. >> Yeah, I don't see it elsewhere in the zoning bylaw. And to me, um, it's kind
of like a common language definition. I think if you hear it, you understand what it means. Um what I was going to say is 1814 of the bylaw we say for all ground mounted SPI agrovoltaics standalone best and colllocated best the applicant shall
submit an emergency response plan. So you know um there's only you know there's only a few instances when they don't need to um but it comes after the submitt requirements. It's just an odd um
you know sequence of when you when you first know about it. Um so you know if you're reading down through the submitts you don't know if it's applicable. You have to actually read to which might be okay. Um, but
>> Oh, sorry, Mandy. All the Can we deal with that when we get down there? >> Yeah. >> All right. Yeah. >> Yeah. Remind us. Okay. Okay. Anything in the 18 1804?
No, no recommendations or changes there. 1805. Nothing. 1806. The question asked under 1806 sites um what kind of mitigation measures are contemplated and who will decide which are required?
This was something from the state guidelines and they also did not actually describe mitigation measures. It seems to me that the mitigation is going to be
something that the permit granting authority would consider in their deliberation. So, and again, this might be one of those things that's going to happen in the pre-application process. >> Yeah. that's going to be reviewed and discussed. So, I I don't think you need
I understand the questions there, but I don't think you need to address it. >> I agree with Stephanie. >> Me, too. Delete. >> Okay. Uh 1807 there was a request that all fees should be listed. I felt not
strongly about that because we might forget one or you know this would be written into a bylaw. Mandy, >> I would say absolutely not to the amounts because then to change them you have to go through a bylaw amendment process which is they'll never get
changed. Right. And and I agree with you on fees unless we know the comprehensive nature of what they're called. You miss one then you can't charge for it then. So I think all applicable fees is fine. >> It's appropriate and also because fees
may change depending on the body that is going to review the application and not like the conservation commission may not always be a reviewing body might not be jurisdictional for the project. So I would strike that comment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We would never put the fees in. My
only thought would we could say that all applicable fees apply and must be submitted in order for an application to be complete. Um it's kind of like like we've been using that language. So it's like you know because sometimes people will submit an application and um we're
really trying to say the fee is part of that application, right? So it's not >> um >> Mandy Joe just add the word deemed before complete. >> Yeah. That's kind of a funny thing. Yeah, usually I mean sometimes I mean in the bylaw we don't really reference
fees. I'd have to go look, but >> yeah, >> part of the it's usually part of rules and rags with the understanding that there are application fees. So I think just a generic statement is fine. >> Yeah. >> And again, I think this was from the state guidelines, >> right? >> And they're likely to change. >> You need a space between deemed and
complete. >> Thank you. >> Deemed complete. >> It happens really fast. So that's why there's no space. Very nice. >> We're cooking here. >> Okay. 1808. This is the the the
extensive list of permit submittal requirements. Uh the comment is the bylaw is not clear when a consolidated permit is required or permitted to be used. 225 CMR 2904 clearly allows applicants to seek
approval outside of the consolidated permit process permitting process suggest editing to read. If the applicant rees to seek approval under the consolidated permit process, the application shall be submitted to the
town manager or their design. Anybody feel strongly about Mandy? Um, I'm just trying to think about all sorts of things here. So, is 18 meant to apply to a project whether or not it's submitted under the consolidated permit
application process or not or non? Um, and if so, then section 1808 probably needs retitled just application submittal requirements. It's not consolidated permit. So, as I think about Doug's comment here, um if if this
is intended for all SPI and best whether or not they're pursuing, um we should retitle the section and and then I agree with um the comment that um that 1801 should be um rewritten to be something
like um you know, if if seeking approval Well, through the consolidated permit process, the consolidated permit application shall be submitted to the town man manager, their designate, something like
that. But um but I defer to Stephanie and Nate on if they don't do the consolidated permit application, what what's going to apply? >> So, well, so it would be sort of business as usual, I would think. um except in terms of
submitting an application to the various boards and committees, but and Nate, I saw you nod um shaking your head, but I was going to say that there would still have to be these new tiered classifications. So, how you would
address that, Nate? I would ask how you would differentiate between the two because I would think you would still do the normal routine of going before each board and committee if you're not doing the consolidated permit. >> Oh yeah, I I maybe I misunderstood what
you're saying, Stephanie. Yeah. So to me this uh this bylaw and then what we're proposing to change in the use chart in accessory you know section three and six and five applies to all um solar best installations. So someone could come in
now like right now if someone came in and they want to do a rooftop solar we'd say okay here's how it's permitted. Someone wants to do 10 acres of solar, here's how. We say it's permitted. After this bylaw is uh if it's effective, someone comes in and they say they want to do 10 acres of solar. We say, "Okay, here's the permitting route. You could
do site plan review through the planning board and follow all these things in this in the article 18 or you could apply for a consolidated permit." And it's their choice. And so the way I've been understanding this, I was just trying to skim have it up on my other monitor. The way I understand it is we want the submittal requirements and all these
requirements to apply to any solar or best whether or not they're going through a consolidated permit. Um so that you know um that's why we're we're writing it in a way and that's kind of why we came up with the changes to the use chart and everything else is that this applies to any and all solar
whether or not. So um it is an opt-in it's optional to go to the consolidated permit route. to me the rest of this bylaw is not optional unless under applicability we say it's waved right where we're saying like inclusive of these sections then those other sections don't apply. Um
so I was just trying to figure out like how we when you were talking Mandy about yeah the um 1808 we call it the consolidated permit application submitt requirements and um Pam I heard you and I was thinking just trying to look through those I
thought we would want those requirements for any um >> I just deleted it to so it would read submitt requirements in general >> right >> I think that's appropriate because
>> it's going to it is going to apply to all projects >> so just I think that's a simple solution >> y it makes it yeah >> then 180801 If
all right, I think that change looks good. Yep. >> Yep. Great. Thank you, Doug, for bringing this subject up. Super. Okay, moving down. Uh 180804. As we did that 18083
this all applicants shall comply with the requirements of 225 CMR29 should probably say if applicable >> or could we just say all applicants for consolidated permit? >> No, we want all applicants to comply
with PGA and zoning bylaw and all. Oh yeah, if applicable. >> Why do we have both 29 and 28? >> One's the presubmittal and sight suitability assessment and the other one
is the um No, I think I think clean energy is just 29, not 28. What's 22528? Did we just like >> Sorry, that's the that's the smart program. >> Oh, okay. So 28 is is So this one needs
to be 29. Yeah, >> but if they're not doing consolidated permit, they don't have to comply with 29, >> right? I mean, yeah, to me it's kind of interesting. It's almost like again at
the beginning of that 18083, it's almost like 229 uh 225 CMR 29 and 28 if applicable, right? Because >> so put if applicable to a after 28. Well, 29 is specifically small clean
energy infrastructure facility sighting and permitting. So, yeah. >> So, that's >> and I think that establishes the consolidated permitting process.
>> 28 or I I need to look it up. 2029 is the specifically the small clean energy infrastructure facility sighting and permitting. >> So 29 may only have to comply with if it's consolidated permit application. >> Uh establishes standard conditions
criteria requirements and procedures for the efficient appropriate sighting and permitting of small clean energy infrastructure facilities by local governments. But if they were going to skip consolidated permit, consolidated permit, they wouldn't need to comply with 29.
>> Um, >> well, this whole this whole bylaw is in response to 29, >> right? >> We can get rid of the if applicable at this point and >> leave it as it was. Right.
>> Right. Ready to move on? >> Yeah. I was just reading through 225 CMR29. It says um applies to local government local sighting and permitting. um of an applicant to submit a consolidated permit application.
>> Yep. >> Um >> so I I the way I'm reading it is um it would only apply if they elect to use the local the consolidated permit. >> Put it back in.
So using so using the words if applicable here helps differentiate between someone who is going to go the normal process or root route 29. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it's funny we were at the
pling board. I think someone talked about that and they said, "Well, when would they ever do the local?" And I said, "Well, what if it's small?" And they thought it could be faster. But then they brought up, well, what about, you know, it's all the way to building permit and other permits. And so, as a safeguard, you'd almost, even if it's a
seems like an easy project, they might still do a consolidated permit just because they have that safeguard. They have that, you know, that 12-month requirement. Otherwise, it could be like, oh, you know, the planning board kind of takes their time and then so and so takes their time. So yeah I
you know I'm curious to see how it actually works when you know >> it will be curious. >> Well it may be for things like you know smaller projects that don't require extensive review
>> but they still have some submittal requirements that are required that might not be in the jurisdiction of the conservation commission perhaps they would want to go the consolidated permit route. Okay. 180804 applicants shall provide the following
and this is our litany of requirements for submitts. Um B there was a suggestion that that the use of the word parcel versus site. We should be consistent. Uh in my mind they are different and um I didn't have any
problem with the wording that was already in here. I don't know if anybody else did, but I thought our use of the word parcel and properties works just fine for me. A site could be comprised of four or
five or six parcels. It is the work area. >> Yeah. >> So C1 is the project site. That could be, you know, >> multiple parcels. Yeah. Yeah. Agree. >> Yeah.
>> So we'll reject this. Yeah. >> Item six. >> Uh the question the comment was, "How is an applicant to find and locate features located on other personal personal property?" and the question and and if you're if
you're contacting your butters, I think they would probably let you know if there was a well needing protection. Does anybody have any um feedback on this particular comment? >> I think I've asked that question before
like and and wasn't one response. Shouldn't they be on GIS? Yeah, I was going to say if they're not on the GIS, they would be in inspections records. >> Uh so there is a way to get that, you know, at least some approximate uh
locations. >> And I don't think this is anything new. I think >> currently, especially with wetlands permitting, you know, there may be wetlands on an adjacent property that a project is occurring on a um adjacent to another property boundary and you have
to sort of determine how far you are from that without necessarily going in that property. So, I don't think that's a new distinction. >> Yeah. Great. So, we'll reject that comment. >> Moving on to
>> Why was that yellow? What was the yellow section? >> The yellow is just to check the section numbers. >> Okay. >> They're they're just easy finding the cross references. >> Yeah. Just to make sure we're directing to the right spot once it's all finished.
Uh so Jay Jay, how is an applicant to know whether an emergency response plan is required? If text of 1814 defines, if applicable, why not edit to read as required by section 1814 an emergency
response plan? We already we already actually addressed this. I mean, in some sense, I agree with Nate that it's weird, but we do actually reference the section. So, you know, unless we're rewriting the
whole bylaw in a weird way, or making this part even more cumbersome to read. I think this is the easiest way to do it. >> Yeah, I think it's f I think it's fine the way it's written. I mean, again,
it's like semantics um with the comment. Yeah, just a different way to rephrase it, but I think this um makes sense. So, we're going to we're added we've added the red lettering. That's good. Okay. M in letter M. Um adding the word
property owner has sufficient liability. Um which I inserted in there which we could probably accept. And then the the and I inserted the word owner. >> Yeah, it it's there and it'll stay there.
>> Yeah. Right. Okay. Um confirm applicant could actually obtain a cert certificate of insurance so far in advance of actually constructing the project. I don't have a feeling about that. I don't I don't know when certificate of
insuranceances are issued. >> Um could we say an ev with uh provide the building commissioner with evidence of insurance? >> So doesn't that come before the construction of the project?
I mean I'm just trying to think of I'm thinking of like a really simple example like um even like a tent structure that's going to be used for a town event. They provide a certificate of
insurance and it's prior to the event happening. So in my mind, is that something that you want to have before, not after the project is completed? Yeah, I mean I'm I'm trying to look later on. We have prior to construction an
assurityity will be provided. Um this is a submittal requirement. So, I get that it's a little early to provide that. It should it go somewhere else or is it just part of um the permit
standards and conditions that prior to the issuance of a building permit, you must submit a certificate of insurance, right? >> Or could it just be prior to construction? >> Yeah, I mean, I was just online looking. I mean we yeah we we say before starting
work or in other places we have to have that u before a permit is issued. So it really is before you even get on the site. I I think it's fine the way it's written. Um I mean we just say has sufficient liability coverage. I mean to me that's you know that's something that if the
building commissioner um needs to discuss they can figure out how you know that they feel like it's sufficient. I don't I mean maybe it is then just a letter from the insurer but we don't have to >> we don't have to specify. Yeah. >> Right.
>> Yeah. Okay. Good. We are up to number let's see >> T T6 um these are all impacts um let's see so other other impacts as
specified by the PGA as opposed to other loss losses and the co because the comment was we haven't talked about losses. We haven't documented losses. >> Yeah, I mean it makes sense. >> I mean my only thought though is this is a submitt requirement. So I don't know
how they would know about how it's specified by the PGA. Um >> you know we're already saying it needs to you know comply with the rules and rags and other submitt requirements. So I don't know if it's referring to that. To me, it almost seems like it would be
um >> maybe it's unnecessary. >> Yeah. And I'm wondering if it's like potential impacts specified by the PGA, which again doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense, >> right? >> Yeah. I don't think this would be I
mean, I think think we'd have to put this in another section if we wanted to keep something like this. Um >> well the the fact that we have a the whole preliminary process is supposed to identify those those impacts losses
mitigation requirements. So it wouldn't have to be in our bylaw itself. Great. Okay. uh 180806 is the PGA the entity that is solely responsible for whether a reason is compelling recommend replacing the word
compelling with something less stringent perhaps reasonable >> so yes the PGA would be the one responsible for that's that's their job >> um I so reasonable to me is a less
stringent standard so I think the question is I I'm fine with it. But is that reasonable reason compelling reason is like a little more harder to beat to get that waiver or
modified than reasonable in my mind. >> Yeah, I agree. And I'm and I'm comfortable with compelling. Anybody else? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um just to say that
uh you know the the planning board talked about this a little bit. um you know they you know there's some general comments about like wow these are a lot of submittal requirements and so you know what what I said is that you know staff would often work often works with applicants and so we would we try to guide them uh given the project and so
we could say sure you know you can try to ask for a waiver for all these requirements but given your kind of scope of work or size of project we're not sure it'll be well received by the permiting authority. Um, and so what this, you know, this section really is just a a waiver from the submittal requirements. It's not a waiver from any
of the other things. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And so I think for compelling reason is fine. It's similar language we have in the rest of the zoning bylaw. Um, and it really is the permit grating authority that has that. So often staff um, you know, we even now the way the
bylaw is written um, for site plan review or others, we often have have it go to the board. Um, it's their decision as the permit grading authority to determine if they want to wave a an application requirement. >> Yep. Yep. Right. And I like the fact that it reminds us it's it's a waiver of
submittals. >> Right. >> Okay. Great. Um 1809 0101 there's a comment. Uh it says move this section elsewhere as it is not a
dimensional standard. Um, so let's just deal with that first. It is actually, if I look forward, it's identical to 1809202. It looks to me to be just about the same paragraph.
>> It's not exactly the same, >> but it but it all but it is um not necessarily a sub um a dimensional It's and it was supposed to cover uh so
180202 is for best only. This is for um both. >> No, >> 1801. The one we're looking at now is only SPI and the other one is only BES. And the difference between them are BES are also
prohibited in zone two. Um, so looking at staff, is there is there a different location? I I I don't mind saying this upfront. Hey, just beware. This is prohibited or not prohibited. Um, is there a better location for that
statement than in dimensional requirements? hearing nothing. We'll move on. Yeah. >> No, I was just I was looking I I'm wondering if maybe applicability like in terms of where I'm just trying to think
of where it would I I don't disagree that it maybe would be better placed in another section. Um I know you're anxious to move on, Pam, but I'm just thinking I mean maybe we could make a comment that this should get moved. We don't have to do it now, but right should go elsewhere in the
bylaw. I would agree to that. Um, yeah. I I mean I don't know. Um, >> because the language is not a dimensional standard though. >> No, I agree. It's just what we're actually saying though is there's this whole area where they're prohibited and
so >> whether it's applicability or you know um yeah, I was just trying I was same thing. I was trying to think about where where to put it. Um I was just looking I don't have a great answer for that. Um, yeah.
>> I mean, it could go right up into applicability. That's probably what that's probably what I was thinking is right. Like in >> Yeah. >> Well, Nate and I both agree on that. >> Great. >> Should go >> possibly. Possibly to applicability. >> I think I put that in the comment.
>> Yep. That's great. Thank you. >> To applicability or other more relevant section. >> Yeah, there you go. There you go. Good. uh 1809012. Uh the comment was reduce setback
distances in residential districts to match the standard distances. The setbacks increase the cost. Um >> yeah I think you know so so Doug had asked this question sorry at the planning board he was I guess some of it
was also understanding what applies to what and so he had said well what if I wanted to do a little ground mount in my backyard to power my you know my car can I not do it with these setbacks and um so it's just going you know it's have
you know it's again looking at the applicability and it's like, you know, does this apply? And to me, it's like we're saying primary use solar, not accessory. >> Yeah. >> Um, so, you know, it's one of those things where it's like the way he described it, I said, "No, that's an
accessory use. You're fine." But I just, you know, to his point, I haven't, you know, you'd have to go through and see, okay, are we clear on that? Um, >> but wouldn't that be a conversation with staff in like a pre-filing meeting? I mean, we say right here, we say
primary use solar installations >> with the exception of building mounted and tier one accessory uses. So, to me, we've just it's a tier one accessory use. So, these don't um don't apply. That's the way I That's the way I'm understanding it. So, you don't
have your >> 20 feet or 20 or 25. >> Yeah. I think strike is comment. Yeah. Good. Uh 18091024 PGA may permit uh the recommendation
permit the PGA to also decrease setback requirements. We have them allowing allowing them to increase the setback. Does anyone feel strongly about decreasing the permit?
>> Isn't that a waiver of I mean, isn't that a just a PGA decision? Why would we have to specify that? >> Yeah, I think does do we even need that whole thing with the waivers section we've got now? >> Uh I was trying to find that waiver
section. We would actually unless we say it somewhere else. >> Waivers 18.18. Upon written request of the applicant, PGA may waver or modify any requirement of this section upon written finding of special circumstances and that it will
not result in SPI or vest that is less protective of public health, safety or welfare than the waiver if the waiver weren't granted. Um, but not for three and five, which is the dimensional table. Well, which is the tables, not the dimensional table. >> Right. Yeah. So, I can't wave like the
use category. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> so I'm not even sure we need this section at all. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> We don't >> we don't >> I guess the question >> the question was do we like the idea that they could reduce the minimums? Um,
>> not particularly, but but it is their jurisdiction. And I can see a time where depending on, you know, if you're if you're more of a a flag lot type lot, you might need to
reduce setback for a driveway or something. I I don't know. It's not a good example, but >> yeah. or if you know or if right there's no butters there's no there's nothing else on the property next to you you know could >> and I think it's just the point that you know projects are specific and it's not
a one sizefits-all so you have to have the ability to be able to make those decisions >> right which we do allow >> okay uh 1809013 what is the basis for the 200 foot so
this goes through several iterations um and we based that on drinking water uh protection recommendations from that committee, >> right? >> And I don't have any reason to change those. We have no other basis for which
to put an arbitrary number in there. >> Right. >> I would like to delete that comment. >> And I'm curious about his question though. What if the SPI is already there?
>> Does an abuing land owner now is is an abuing land owner now prohibited from putting a private well in? I wouldn't think so, but it's their it's their choice and their knowledge
uh 19014 minimum distance of 400 ft. What constitutes a public surface water supply? that somehow we did not include it in um in the definitions, but I think that's covered in other
documents within the Amoris bylaws, right? >> I think so. >> I'm looking at stuff. >> Oh, it absolutely should be. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh 18090105.
What is the basis for 200 foot minimum? Again, we will delete that. And now we are on standalone vests and colllocated bests. Uh question 0201. Would the requirement
to comply with NF I think it's NFPA 855 otherwise apply during the course of permitting this project perhaps as part of obtaining the electrical permit or a utility connection? If so, why include this statement? Suggest removal. Also,
this is covered by 1804. Any comments? 1804 compliance with laws, ordinances, and regulations, >> which doesn't mention NFPA, but it's only, you know,
set back as recommended in NFPA, not as right. Like, this isn't a full requirement if practicable. So, I don't think it's covered by 1804. Um, >> yeah. And I think it's I think it's appropriate. Well, so they're going to
they're going to go through the permitting process with feedback from AFD and um someone's going to say, "Hey, you got either brushing material or whatever.
You're too close to the tree line." Um that's within the I don't know the review process by by the fire department. >> Yeah. I I I don't you know I was just looking at it. I I think the statement's fine. It doesn't um
>> you too. >> You know to me it's like again it's like a guidance thing so applicants and everyone can say oh yeah here's >> how what you have to comply with. You know and then really it's right AFD or others are going to say exactly what you might need to do. >> Yeah. >> Or what they recommend. But I think it's nice to have it in there.
>> It just sort of that you need to make sure that you're dealing with them as well. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yes. I agree. Let's get rid of the comment. Uh 9090202. The first sentence is convoluted. We've
already talked about this. uh suggest replacing with a new text which is standalone and colllocated in zone one to zone A areas as defined in drinking water shall comply with that regulation.
So the regulation I don't think prohibits them in zone one or two and this document this statement does but I do have a question about can we this sentence says in all in zone 2 areas without the unless permissible
should we just add zone one and zone 2 areas unless permissible under these pre preferences cuz then it's zone zone A it's allowed but it must follow those requirements. Stephanie,
>> say that again, Mandy. >> So, this one is different than solar in that zone two here for best doesn't allow. We're saying if if it's in zone two, you can't put best, which is different than solar, but we added this
sentence here. I feel like it's zone one is the most protective and then zone two and then zone A, I think, is where it goes, right? closest to farthest. And so why are we prohibiting it completely in zone 2, but in zone one saying they're
prohibited except if they're permissible under CMR 22. Should zone two should we just move it to read? >> Yeah. >> And then delete this.
It's a question. >> Yeah, I mean that looks good and I do think that um other bodies will be reviewing this during the hearing process is my guess. So I would say if that gets flagged by relevant PGAs we'll hear about it. So I
think that change makes sense though. >> So at least in my opinion I think that works. But >> are we moving this again up to applicability? >> I'll add that comment. Give me a second. >> So, the comments's been added. Perfect.
Let's move to 1809206. Um it says why is this distance larger than for SPI? It is because this contains more toxic components than solar panels.
>> Yep. >> Delete. uh design requirements 18101. The comment was add Massachusetts comprehensive fire safety code and Massachusetts electrical code after 527
CMR. Why is this reference even needed? Will these sections sections requirements not be applied during review by fire department and building commissioner? If so, remove the reference. It's also covered by 1804.
Let's start with that comment. This is this is this is access roads to me. Um >> I feel like we could just remove this including CMR. >> Yeah, I I agree. I mean, we're really
talking about roadways here. We're not talking about fire. And the fire department in reviewing is going to make sure it complies with >> their turn ratios. >> Yes. >> Um um
I Yeah. Again, it's kind of like um the previous statement where we referenced NFPA. I think this is one where you know um an access road to meet fire requirements is different than other things. So they might need, you know, like stabilized shoulders and
certain things. And so, you know, to just say including 527 CMR, you know, and what Doug is saying and then the name of it is the Massachusetts Comprehensive Fire Safety Code, blah blah blah. I I mean to me that's
you know we don't do it elsewhere but I think just having that call out including 527 CMR is helpful just so then again it's people know like it's not just you know our local you know um you know they might think like oh a farm road is okay but really it's not it's like might be an improved
surface with >> certain heights and clearances and >> and a slight I have a slight recollection that it might have been an addition by um fire personnel when we were viewing when we were doing a staff review. I think they might have asked to have that inserted.
>> The the other um somewhere in here I thought we had well maybe this is it that the roads and access are have to be approved by the fire department. Um and if that's the case then we might not have to have this reference but I think
it's good until we until we see otherwise. Okay. The second half is why are compaction removal of stone walls da listed? If a road were constructed for other purposes, would it be subject to these requirements?
I thought there was a requirement in Massachusetts to protect stone walls, but I could be wrong. >> Yeah. I mean, to me though, this is um I I like what's here only because then it's again it offers guidance. So an applicant is not going to go over steep
slopes and have a lot of grading. We're we're giving them some framework or parameters like minimize the grading, compaction, runoff. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Yep. I like it. >> I honestly think that if someone were to come in and say, "Oh, I want to build like a subdivision road." We'd say the
same things. >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Uh clearances replace shell with may at the end of the second line. And that would read, "Heights greater than 10 ft, this is vertical clearance. Heights greater than 10 ft may be approved by the PGA and shall use
best management practices to prevent erosion. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. >> Because if it shall, why is it even in there in a sense?" >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh second paragraph uh says sec second paragraph second line what is
the meaning of module. So that that says allows passage of runoff between each module thereby minimizing the creation of concentrated runoff. >> So I I think I I I can explain what it means to me but I think anyone in a
project doing these will understand what it means. So you get a lot of rows of of solar arrays and it's the passage between those, you know, like you you want to figure it out like it it I think
anyone in doing this project would understand that. >> Yeah, I would just strike that. I don't >> I agree. I agree. >> Is that >> um under glare um it says remove solar glare modeling from the third line. It's a design tool.
Um I actually have a suggestion that instead it says um shall not be limited to deliberate placement arrangement on the site and a reflective materials uh and screening based on solar glare modeling or based in part on solar
>> in response to solar or Yeah. Yeah. In response to great um okay SPI this is 18104
land clearing and soil erosion. uh SPIs and best shall not be installed on existing slopes greater than 15% as averaged over 100 foot distance unless otherwise authorized by the PGA. Remove otherwise. Okay,
great. Um next one is second paragraph. The phrasing the phasing requirement is unclear. Are is there any pause between phases envisioned? Um, and I think we got the 5 acre
requirement from Erin Jacques, who says that's standard practice for >> construction. >> I had thought it was I I had thought it was 10, but I like five. >> She said it was five. >> Yep. Great. Um,
second paragraph. The fiveacre phrase phasing requirement will be a hardship for projects. Well, that is what it is. Um, I recommend removal of this of this comment. >> I mean, he he does have a point where
someone can just clear cut the whole land first. >> Yes. Yes. Yep. Can't control everything. But I I think if it's typical of concom stuff, I'm fine leaving it in for now. It can be
waved under the waiver rules if need be for hardship. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Aaron had said that it's actually a requirement under um storm water and others. So I don't think that >> I'm not sure they can wave that. Um and
I don't I think um uh yeah it it is an interesting way to phase it. Um to me it means that you know you still can clear some things but you have to like stabilize and >> move on. So I mean there's probably ways people can figure out how to do that.
>> Yep. That's the whole >> Okay. Okay, next one is applicants shall avoid sighting in a manner that would require construction or tree clearing uh within 100 ft of groundwater monitoring wells. Those are groundwater monitoring wells are
um aren't those installed by the developer? >> I think they are known to the town. So, if they're known to the town, then >> he's again concerned with not being able to an applicant not being able to figure out where they are, but I think all of
this is based on what's known to the town. >> Yeah. >> Also, again, I think this is one of those things that comes up in the pre-filing discussions. >> Yep. Okay. Now, top soil fourth paragraph. Do
any other bylaws impose these same top soil requirements in land owners of land owners? If not, then why are they needed for SBIS and Bess? >> Nate. >> Nate. Yeah, Nate.
>> Yeah, I um have something similar. Um um I thought we had something similar in the bylaw or in the um rules and rags about importing of soil. Um I was just trying to look at it. So I think we do have something similar
>> there. Um I know the conservation commission definitely has um language about top soil and importing top soil for sure. And I think this is actually and I think
um again this I think was something that was intentionally worded by uh Amy Ruski from DPW. >> Yeah. >> So I would not change this at all. >> Yeah. I guess I was I was looking the
bio. I lost this. What section is this? It's under the uh >> uh 18104 page nish. >> Yeah. >> On this, >> right? >> Let's let's keep going. Um the next one is >> so so I guess the top soil though the
top soil piece this is for um any S spi are best. It's not just within the ground the 100t of the groundwater >> countering wells. Right. >> Yeah. >> Right. But Amy did Amy was very clear about that.
>> No, she was. Yeah. I um I feel like I've seen this language before. I was just trying to find it. So I I think it's fine. Um I mean if that's what we want, that's what we want, right? Uh >> yeah. >> Yeah. And on the next paragraph, um Doug
suggested deleting what I've highlighted this offsite because it's covered by top soil here. >> Yep. Right. It does say PG approved by public works um and approved by the PGA,
right? So that >> we can delete that. >> Yep. Good. 18050 uh 1005. If lighting is needed for safety and operations, won't that use conflict with it only being used in an emergency?
Please clarify. Lighting shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes and kept extinguished from dust to dawn except in cases of emergency. That sounds pretty clear to me. >> Yeah. I I I don't know if I read it. I
think it right means that you know under general normal you know operating you might have your lights on at this time but if there's an emergency you could keep them on all night right if you're doing something I >> I I think that I thought that makes sense and we say >> um it's clear
>> it seems very clear >> I mean basically it's saying we don't want lighting but you can have it there and use it in case of an emergency right >> but it basically can't be on other times Okay. >> Uh 101 18106
change used to installed photo panels used in SPIs or photo panels installed in SPIs. I that's like a semantic thing, but I can see why installed might seem more appropriate.
>> Fine. >> 18107. Um, the first sentence can be deleted as this is covered in 1804. And if kept, add the subject of the CMR section. Noise. Best installations must
comply with all state noise regulations. Um, and Ammeris general bylaws regulating noise. >> Yeah. I mean, Doug's been trying to add, you know, or his recommendation was to add the title of the CMR after all of our Yeah. >> Fine.
>> That's fine. No. And then the title is noise regulations. >> I mean, it's just a reminder that you have to comply with those even though it is covered in 04 of comply with everything. Um. >> Right. Right. I like the reminders.
Screening and planting 1008. First paragraph. Requirements will increase the cost of electricity. Recommend reducing the requirements. Will cost be a consideration when assessing the performance of the array? Um
designed to minimize visibility, including preserving natural vegetation. Um, I think this is pretty standard use of screening. That's the intent of screening. >> Yeah. I don't see why it's different than other projects. >> Yeah. I mean, the second paragraph says
the PGA may also wave this requirement. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. Exactly. Thank you, Doug. >> Yeah, I understand what you're saying like, oh, if it has to be 100 feet off the road, but again, that's where an applicant would make the case.
to the permit grade authority. >> Um down here, third paragraph, second sentence duplicates the second paragraph, recommend removal. One, two, third paragraph duplicates the second paragraph.
Uh this is sort of saying what screening. >> This one may be reduced or waved at the discretion of the PGA. is he's saying that duplicates this >> which he's right.
>> Okay. I think right >> well it's a little I mean I think the word is different but it's I mean it's probably covered by that prior >> and this one is can be waved for these specific ones without having to prove
detrimental design blah blah blah so it is slightly different >> right >> I would move it up though because it makes more sense if we go like this >> maybe just delete the top Yeah, that's right. Yes. Yeah. I was looking for the other PTA. I wasn't finding it. Yeah.
Good. >> I think that makes more sense of putting those two together. >> Yeah. Um, fifth paragraph, last sentence. Who and how will it be determined if applicable? The last sentence is if applicable
fencing for all best installations shall comply with standards established by the electric utility to which the best connects. >> So my guess would be that if the best is going to connect to the utility, there are going to be requirements
regarding >> that. So I I think again it's sort of like flagging what we said in the others. I mean I don't think they'll be able to do any of that without the utility's permission, right? So they're they're going to have to have some kind
of application process with the utility. >> Yeah. My guess is we'd have that would be sorted out during the application review. >> Yeah. >> Right. So do we want to get rid of the words if applicable? Uh, I I like them. I think that's just a qualifier. >> Yeah,
>> exactly. I agree, too. I wouldn't get rid of them >> because you might not connect directly to the utility. >> Yep. >> Okay. Signs. Signs gets more coverage than just about anything here. >> Um, signs for best. Second paragraph,
replace include with describe in the second line. And that would be >> signs shall include or so he wants to >> say here. >> Yeah. Okay.
We got 10 minutes. We got we got we got some ways to go here. Um and why is ANC uh 535 reference needed? Do other town projects need this meet this requirement?
Installation shall be in compliance with ANIE Z535. >> I mean that came from the proposed model bylaw. So >> right. Yep. >> Keep it. Fourth line. Replace battery energy with best. Great.
Fifth line. Do we really want the best sign to describe other signs? Well, it's sort of I mean a sign on best should include all of all of this, I guess. >> Well, I think that's why you know sign
installation shall des you know that's why I think we used the word include instead of describe. It needs to include signs related to fire manage and fire suppression and 24-hour contact. But um >> which is, you know, like
we can just do fire management and fire suppression like that and it'll work. >> Yep. Yep. Good. Good. 181010. Utility connections. How are economically feasible and reasonable
efforts to be evaluated? Is that a comment that we need to deal with right now? >> I don't think so. >> I don't either. Section 181101 best must comply with state electrical code,
uh, state fire code, national fire protection. So in this case, we give the title first and then the number, the CMR number. Again, is this section needed or would these standards be applied in the course of project approval? >> It's just a reminder, I think. I don't
think there's any harm in having that in. >> Right. >> I agree. Yeah. So, I was going to go back up to the utility connections. I think um you know, we kind of do this with parking now. We ask the applicant to um you know provide information as to what
the demand is for off-site parking. And so with the utility connections, it's something we'd ask the applicant, you know, give us a costbenefit analysis of how, you know, underground versus utility poles and why they couldn't go underground. I mean, I Yeah, I think that to me the
>> I think Doug's question is, you know, the the planning board was asking a lot, you know, about like, oh, how will this be reviewed? And I think they, you know, again, they were getting trying to get comfortable with the bylaw. And I think in reality, staff would help some of these things, right? We'd help it along. So,
>> um, you know, but it's, I think it, it's worth keeping. And it's really then the applicant to deter, you know, tell the planning board or whoever zoning board feasible. Okay. 181103.
Replace the product with each component. This is a UL test report for the product shall be made available for each component. I I like that. That's good. >> But each component, there might not be a test report for each component
individually, >> right? >> I mean, each component is every small little thing that goes into the whole best thing. >> Let's leave product. Too many pro too many components.
Best must safely contain fires and thermal runaway. This is 04. Replace best with best enclosure enclosing structure which makes sense. >> Does it? Well, it's not the BES itself.
If BES is the >> you could say containment best containment must safely contain fires and thermal runaway. >> Well, I think it's the battery energy storage system, right? How did we define that? Right.
It's the >> it it probably includes a whole lot, right? It's not just the batteries themselves. No, I think it did. >> A system consisting of one or more battery modules for storing electrical energy and any equipment needed to support the safe and proper function and
usage of the module modules and one or more physical containers providing secondary containment to the above. >> Oh, great. >> That's the definition of BAS. >> Yeah, I mean BAS does have to contain >> a fire and thermal runway runaway.
That's what the UL9540 does. It's a testing um >> it's a it's a system to test it's a you know thing to test the systems um >> but it's the whole structure not it best
includes all of that not just an enclosing structure >> the definition of best >> so that all that so we we can ignore ignore that that's good that's a good clarification >> um it's getting very close to 2:30.
Um, we can pause it at at 2:30 and then just Okay. So, 181107 first paragraph duplicates 181101. So, one of the others should be deleted. >> We We can delete it up here.
>> Yeah. Okay, letter C. Insert covering at a minimum after staff in the first line. Okay. Uh 181109. The first sentence largely duplicates
1107A, so it could be deleted. There's my timer. No, it's like the same thing. >> Yeah, >> is >> Yeah. >> Yes, it's it's identical. Just about
identical. So, so 0107 lists adequate water supply and firewater containment strategies for both. Um, >> I just moved the extra sentence in 09 up
to 07A. >> Great. And then we get rid of 0909. >> Great. Great. Okay. Um, PAS, how is this to be assessed by the PGA? The applicant shall certify that nonpest
fire suppression foams. I I think the PGA would just get some kind of >> um either they'd have to supply some kind of product materials or some you know some kind of
documentation and I don't think that needs to be identified here. I think the PGA can determine that. >> Yes, exactly. uh emergency sur shall comply with emergency response
submission or it should be maybe the emergency response plan since we've now called that out and approval requirements of the Ammeris Fire Department. Is this section needed? Seems like that this requirement would
be imposed elsewhere in the permitting process. I mean, it seems like we're not exempting Bess at all from down here, emergency response, right? >> I mean, this is the this is the
emergency response plan. >> I mean, that's what it's saying, right? I mean, to me, it says the emergency response. >> It's capitalized, you know, submission, but I think it's the emergency response plan essentially, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. But but don't they all have to do
it down here in 14 or 15 or whatever it is? 14. >> Yeah. >> Collocated best and standalone best submit the plan and it's developed and >> right >> and also >> I'm not sure we need this section at all
then >> I would agree it's Yep. Okay, this will be our last comment here. Best include so 181104 best must safely contain fires and thermal runaway. Oops, I'm on the wrong one. Um
>> 11:021 >> 1102 following reply applies to agriculty SPI and BES installed on prime farmlands and he's suggesting and soils and farmland of statewide importance. So
prime farmland and soils can be eliminated. >> No, I think that's actually the definition. Soils and farmland of statewide importance. >> Oh, okay. I think is our definition. >> It's part of our part of the title.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. I'd forgotten that. >> Well, prime. Yeah. Soils and farmlands of statewide importance is defined. It's just it looks weird, >> but it's it's defined. >> Would you put a comma after soils then?
So, prime farmland and soils or or I guess I'm I'm also having trouble wherever the comma should be. Yeah. The so so prime farmland is the first one. Yep. >> And soils and farmland of statewide importance is the other. >> Okay. Yep. Okay.
>> I mean, you technically don't put a comma there. It's you just have to know what's defined, >> which I clearly didn't. >> Yeah, I was actually not sure myself. >> Okay, so we are we're at 11. We're at
1812 and >> 13 is the next time we have stuff. >> Yep. So we have 13 a fair amount of material in 14, 15, 16,
17, 18, 19, and 20. Lots of comments. How do folks feel they might want to continue on this? So we aren't accepting many of his comments that are just comments to me to me that are just comments that can be
dealt with during hearing. I would say we vote we make a note for ourselves. Um but we vote a clean copy with the comments in to send to the council for
hearing. um that doesn't include any any of his comments from 13 forward but includes the changes we made from 12 and we just make a note for 13 forward >> the hearing. >> Okay. So, let me see if I if I caught
that that we could we take a vote for clean copy with all changes made to date, but not to include uh comments received from section 13 on. >> Right.
>> Okay. And we >> Yeah, continue on. that and and that we would so noted we keep the comments obviously and we address them during the public hearing conversation.
So yeah, I'm suggesting we vote this one that I was doing simultaneously that doesn't have any of Doug's from past what we just dealt with. >> Okay. >> But it has everything we talked about today. Andy, any comments?
>> Well, how will those comments get dealt with then? >> We'll deal with them during hearing. >> Is it easier to deal with them in hearing if it's annotated or not? >> We can bring in the annotated version at hearing, but that ver the annotation is
not what would get referenced for the public hearing purposes. Whatever we send to the council is what is essentially posted for public hearing. And so those comments I'm saying should not be posted for public hearing because
they're just a person's comments, but we can address them during public hearing >> as as we >> Yeah. So, I was going to say I think the um uh you know the the hearing notice as long you know this is all part of
article 18 and so it's not so specific that we have to address these comments in some any legal notice or anything and so you know Johanna from the planning board said she's hoping to have written comments um soon too and then they'll be addressed during the hearing and so to me it's not like we're going to go out
of scope if all of a sudden we change sections around. Um so I think that's fine. Um, you know, this is a a broad big enough um section. There's so much here. I was just going quickly through Doug's comments. I mean, to me, they're not um it's not like he's changing anything
or suggesting a new section of the bylaw. For instance, if he was, then I'd say, "Okay, maybe we have to do that." And I was just trying to find quickly if he was. Um, but it doesn't look like he is. So, I think we're >> we're okay. I feel like some of his comments are things like he's looking
for clarification on things. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. I mean, to me, it's like if he said, "Oh, we need to do something in section, you know, whatever." And and we hadn't yet, then I'd say, "Okay, let's look at it quickly." But I don't see that he is >> Yeah. And and some of it is grammar.
>> Um so, yeah. >> Um I'm I'm comfortable with that approach. So, I would love to hear a motion
>> um >> to this effect to recommend that council vote to send for hearings at planning board and CRC article 18 uh clean energy infrastructure as well
as associated changes to table 3, section 5.11, section 6.2, and article 12. >> Yeah. Article 12. I I'll get this. Yeah.
Uh 6.2, table 3, table 5.11. >> Section 5.11. >> Yeah. >> Second. >> Great. Yeah. >> Let's let's go around the room. Uh Andy,
>> yes. >> Mandy Johann >> I. >> Cameron is an I. Um with two absent. Three. Yes. Two absent. And um before anymore is said and done,
much thanks to Stephanie for shephering this for five years. For five years and Nate for being so helpful and we will miss you, Nate. We This is We will miss you. Just saying.
M Andy. >> Yeah, I I was I raised my hand for Nate. Um, I think you're done for today at CRC, which means this might be your last CRC meeting, Nate. So, um, >> yeah, I I've been here working with you
what, eight years now. Um, Pam Pam's the the next Pam and Jennifer are the next longest serving. um we're going to miss you, but you're only going to one town away. So hopefully we'll be able to collaborate with with Hadley um and
their planning and your planning with that on on a regional approach to to stuff. But thank you for all you've done. >> Thanks. Yeah. Know I've been telling everyone I plan to reach back out. So >> we'll we'll call you we'll call you in in emergency pinches.
>> Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Congratulations and um I'll be out of town next week, so I won't see you in person, but congratulations and we'll see you around. >> Great. Yeah, thanks everyone. >> Bye. >> I'm just going to stick around, but I'll go off camera and audio.
>> Okay, we're talking about um the memo. We're just going to quickly go through the memo. Thea, you've got your hand up. Hi, I was just I just wanted to point out that I I included motions the council motion in the motion sheet. So, um unless you disagree with the motion
that's on the motion sheet, you can just copy that into your report. >> So, I've done that. >> Where would I find that? In our SharePoint. >> Yep. Okay. Is it our um I don't see it in our SharePoint for
this meeting, today's meeting. Mandy, you're muted, but yes, it's the motion sheet for this Monday's meeting has the referral motion and you can use that in your report. >> Town council. >> So, the council packet. >> Yeah, I was looking. Yeah, sorry.
>> CTC packet. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Athena. Um, were there any comments on the draft referral request? And I can again we'll use the the wording
uh in that memo. So I can I can put in our vote moved and I'll use the the recommended language and I'll and I'll also better construct the motion. Um, I had to recommend the
town council refer proposed article 18 and amendments associated amendments to articles 12, six, tables three and five as amended at the April 23rd, 2006 CRC meeting. So, I'll use I'll use >> I'm doing minutes now, Pam, and I can
send you I'll send you a draft as soon as the meeting's over. >> Perfect. Oh, good. That's great. I jotted it down and but that's even better. Um, is there anything else that people want to
um add to that? And Stephanie did did weigh in on um on the wording of it. If not, we'll just I'll just proceed. I just wanted you to take a look at it before it went off. Okay. Uh, next item
is zoning board of appeals interview questions. Maybe I could share the screen. >> Can you all see that coming up? There it is. Are there any changes anyone would like
to make? We'll ask you all first. >> I I haven't been in been um on this obviously in the past and this is going to be a group interview. Do you feel like these questions are allow people to differentiate themselves well enough to make a distinction between them?
>> Really? Um, sometimes the waiverss one is tough because you know this one's a little tougher than planning board I would say in our questions because this one's a little more specialized and there's there's so I think we do get with a lot of these questions a lot more
I agree with the what the person before said no matter who goes before um you know like it doesn't really matter the order um but I do feel like um that each interview I've done over the
past number of years, a different question has been the one that has sort of said, "Oh, we got a lot of different answers to X question." And it's not always the same one that we got the different answers to and it's not always the same one we got the same answers to.
Um, so I think as a whole they do and I would be hardressed to pinpoint one or two that have always say been ineffective because I do think it changes based on who we're interviewing.
>> Yeah, I would agree. >> Yeah, I don't have any particular suggestions. So I guess um just curious how that's what worked. But I would say >> I was looking sorry I didn't mean to talk over you. >> No, I was just going to say let's go with it. But >> um I was going to look at number three
which is what experience, knowledge or expertise is the is the actual question and then it says please include any experience you have appearing before the planning board or ZBA or watching one of their meetings. that that part about watching one of their meetings is like
any idiot could go watch a you know a ZBA meeting and go yep I'm you know I'm good I've watched I've watched their meetings it's like leading the witness um I I wouldn't mind just you know waiting to
see if someone says yeah I'm so interested I've I've started tuning in and listening to their meetings and let them share that with us rather than us saying and by the way. Did you did you go to one of their meetings? So, I would love to eliminate that last
pass the word ZBA. >> Can we can we then say just please include any experience you have with the planning board or ZBA? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that would be fine >> with the and cross out peering before.
>> Mhm. and cross out or watching one of their meetings. >> Done. Okay. Yep. Um I like the other questions.
I really I like the uh the collaboration one or or the the one about how did you resolve a a contentious or is it a collaboration with a group especially where where um
opinions differ. Okay. Uh a motion for this. >> Uh I move to adopt the uh interview questions for the 2025 ZBA applicant 2026 ZBA interviews as amended on April 23rd,
2026. >> Second >> and I'll get the wording from get the wording from Athena. Great. Uh let's go around the room. Andy? >> Yes. Mandy. >> Hi.
>> Pam is a yes. Three. Yes. Two absent. Small committees are quick. Let me just um close that. Okay, let's close that one. Um
change in in the CRC. Did anyone have any changes in the CRC in the CRC charge? Oops. Oops. I opened the wrong one. >> So, did did you attempt to did you
propose any amendments or is it did you just post the current one and it just says as amended because that's how it was titled? That's exactly how it was titled. >> It was it was it was the addition of the
you know the ability to get um um where is it? I thought it was the ability to ask for for legal >> Yeah. >> And I'm not seeing it on here. >> It's the last bullet point.
>> Thank you. It's the last bullet point. Um any other ch I I wasn't asking for this. I was it was I was asked by go chair to uh bring it up for discussion. So I can report back that there were no
additions or corrections or changes recommended to this charge. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So done. Okay. There are no meeting minutes. Uh next agenda preview.
So this is a little bit of a of a discussion. Um we have downtown design standards, clean energy bylaw, ZBA and planning board appointment process. Just for the record, um, and Andy, correct me if I
get this wrong, but on on May 28, we are planning to have planning board interviews at our regular CRC meeting, 1:00 on the 28th. On June
11, we are planning to hold ZBA interviews at our normal meeting time at one o'clock. That was for the record. Um, let me get rid of that. Um, let's see
what else. Schedule. We've talked a couple times about the fact that that the intent is to have a joint public hearing on May 20 planning board evening 6:30
p.m. um on clean energy bylaw. I would love some feedback on after that meeting, we go our separate ways
or do we or does it make sense to simply go to the next joint meeting with planning board and CRC in order to pursue the bylaw?
Mandy. >> So, I think it makes more sense to go our separate ways. Um, in the past when I've tried to do joint hearings, the CRC and planning board
tend to run them slightly differently. The planning board likes to do all of their discussion about whether they should recommend it or not in the middle of the hearing. we tend to do the hearing and then close it and then make the discussion. Um but beyond that I
think that that's a minor issue that we could deal with right but if if we are not going our separate ways after one joint meeting the question becomes if we're always doing it during planning board meetings are we also then adding
CRC meetings on every other week too to do other business potentially right and then also I'm not always available on Wednesdays depending on when we're doing it right like we're we're upending our schedule. So, I understand sort of the first one being there because I think a lot of
people might come and make their comment at the first one, but then might not remake their comments every time at the continued hearings. So, it might save the public time for the first one. But I would say after that we we if if the hearing's not done, which it probably
won't be, we continue our hearing to a CRC meeting date. >> And our next Well, interestingly, our next CRC meeting date after the May 20 would be the 28th, and we've obligated
that for planning board interviews. The week after that, the meeting after that would be June 11. That's obligated for ZBA. The next um the next date that was suggested by
um town staff was that June 17 be a joint meeting. I mean, we might have to add meetings in anyway depending on how many applicants we get for planning board and ZBA. They might not take the whole two hours.
They might. It depends on how many applicants there are, right? >> That's usually I mean it's usually our the interviews don't seem to take more than an hour, but then we have our discussion and f you know and sort of resolution at that point. Um so we even
if we um continued the hearing it would be to you know to our own meeting date would be June 25 or to or to the another joint meeting on
the 17th. Does that make sense? I'm just looking at the calendar. Yeah, it looks like uh the next two meetings, the 28th and and the 11th after the hearing are taken up with our interview. So, >> yeah, we really won't be able to do
anything about the >> So, maybe we do go to the 17th for the joint meeting. Except I thought that joint meeting was going to be potentially held not for clean energy, but for potential other zoning bylaw amendments that might be coming through
>> the subcommittee or the planning staff. >> Yeah. I mean, it could be both, right? If there's if there's >> right >> popping up on the on clean energy and then or there might be two hearings or something, I don't know. >> And in the meantime, the planning board might be holding their own hearings
anyway on clean energy. So, it would be weird to come in on clean energy if they've held one or two in the middle of it. >> I don't I don't know what their plan was. I think they were staff was trying I think staff was interested in not having to do it for two different committees if possible. But
>> yeah, the only other the only other date that the planning board would could utilize was June 3. That was also re suggested as a possible joint meeting. you know, uh, here's Stephanie. Hi, Stephanie.
>> Hi. So, um, I have notes about that, um, meeting with staff and May 20th and June 3rd were identified as the two potential dates for joint public meeting for the clean energy bylaw.
And I think the subsequent dates were for potential zoning amendments, although I think, you know, I don't know what's going to happen with that process. Um, I think Jeff wanted to keep those at least open, but um, I think with Nate leaving,
you know, I'm not sure what that process is going to be. So, I would say the two dates that at least were sort of identified for joint hearings with the planning board were May 20th and June 3rd. and >> yes and June 3rd. And I would also note
that I think their meetings typically start at 7 PM. So I don't think they >> they're 6 6:30. >> Okay. >> Planning board is always 6:30. >> Okay. >> Um Mandy has a hand up.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, Mandy, sorry. >> I'm likely not available on June 3rd, just as an FYI. >> Yep. Okay. Okay. So then maybe it does make sense to put
to continue a hearing to the 17th just because of the CRC schedule. Mandy. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I there's the CRC schedule and all but but I will also point out um I think
part of joint hearings is to hear from the public jointly but we normally try and move our hearings then if we don't have a lot of comment on the content until after planning board has finished
theirs um once we've sort of heard from the public because we want to know where they are before we finalize our hearing. Yeah, >> and joint may take care of that. But at the same time, if we're struggling with Wednesday nights, we can just post, you
know, push our next hearing date to when they've had one or two more of their public hearings. I don't know if I described that well. >> Yep. Yep. Yep. But again, the June 3rd is the only intermediate date that they
would even be meeting. >> So once they've met June I mean u May 20th and June 3rd um then do we pick it up from there or or do they we anticipate that they'll
meet more than that or what? I mean that's the the question is are we going to after the first joint one wait for our discussion until they've voted a recommendation or are we going to try and have discussions while
they're considering their recommendation and all the changes they might want to make. Um >> how much interaction do we have with them on sort of ironing out changes before they get made recommended?
What was Udrive like, Pam? I think U drive was sort of the closest we could say to what this might be. What was that like? >> It was it was a pingpong game and we would we would make some comments that would be relayed to the planning
board. They often agreed with us because they were good comments. And then and then it would come the discussion from planning board would then get relayed back to the CRC for our next meeting. And it was
literally a back and forth. Um >> so is that what the joint meetings is trying to avoid? >> Yeah. I mean, I'd be in >> in part in part because a huge complaint by somebody who's
trying to follow a topic is like, okay, who's talking about it now? Is it is it the CRC? Is it the planning board? And it's 3:00, so I want to wrap this up. Um, but it's it's it's messy. It's
really messy. Um, if we let the planning board go ahead and do their consider or additional consideration on June 3, Mandy's not available. I would like Mandy to be available for clean energy conversation. Um, we could easily we
could easily at the May 20 meeting say and the the CRC is going to continue its hearing to June 17 and we'll use that date. >> Okay. So then they will have had two shots at it. Yeah, >> they will have they will have had one
more shot at it. >> And then we come together. >> We could. Yeah, >> I I would say given the comments we've received from the planning board later is probably better for CRC. We are much more
familiar with this than they are. And so I think what we've seen is some of the first stuff that staff can really handle. you know, more of trying to understand the bylaw than what changes might they want to it that
are substantive. I think a lot of the first so even the first joint hearing day is going to be a lot of questions that are not necessarily something they need us for unless we are the explainers. But I I'm confident that Stephanie and staff could be the
explainers probably better than we can. >> Yeah. Yeah. So that sounds like a plan is that is that it gives it gives the planning board June 3 to continue its discussion.
It could also give them the opportunity to discuss whatever zoning other zoning thing is coming along. Um, and you know, without us being there
>> and then are we continuing ours to the 17th and then and they rejoin us then? Is that I don't know what the what the process is. >> Yeah, that is their normal meeting night. So that would make sense. Yes. >> Yeah. I mean, we'd have to guarantee that they would also continue to the 17th at some point because otherwise
we're trying to hold two separate meetings at the same time with the same staff, which doesn't work. And once we continue to that date, we have to hold the meeting that day. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Which is which is a nonCRC time frame, right?
>> We we then have a choice to move something to the 25th, which is our normal CRC date. Um this the next joint meeting with the planning board was suggested for July 15 and again that
might have been um you know for these other zoning items. Athena this is this is clearly going to take some collaboration between this body and the planning board and staff and so on. So, um, the meeting that we had with
Jeff and Dave, um, and you, Pam, and Andy, and Doug Marshall, I think we're going to try and keep that line of commun and Stephanie, of course, we'll try and keep that line of communication open so that before May 20, we're everyone is on the same page and we um
have uh everyone's expectations are aligned so that um we know who's doing what when and especially with reduced staff. Um, with Nate leaving, we're going to need to make sure that we're not asking the the few
staff that we have to do double duty on Wednesday and Thursday nights. >> Right. Right. >> Exactly. We lost Mandy. Where did she go? >> She's here. She her just >> Oh, you're >> I just turned my video off. I'm here.
>> Okay. All right. So, thank you. Um that was the next agenda preview. >> So announc >> one qu one question it with um Hampshire College closing down and I assume some discussions about what happens with the
future of that. Will that is that something that we may need to clear the decks for >> or is that or is that more the full council or is that planning? I I don't know who who does that but it seems to me that that could take up a bunch of everybody's time.
>> Yeah. Yes. if we had additional information. U Mandy, >> so I would say we can't answer that until after Monday's meeting when we get an update um from the manager in open session and all about everything. Um and
then we might be able to answer that or think about that a little more um as to what that might mean for our committee. Yeah, >> I'd love I'd love to talk about it, but yeah.
>> Good. Um, >> I think that's it, folks. Nothing anticipated 48 hours in advance. I'd love to adjourn this meeting. I'll make a motion to do so. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Uh, Andy, >> yes. >> Mandy,
>> I >> and Pam is an I. It is 3006. We are adjourning our meeting. Thank you everybody. That was a good work session. >> Pam, did you want to talk further or do you want to >> Yeah, let's uh um let's see if Athena I
can make >> Actually, I'm the host, so I can make you the host. >> Oh, okay. Stephanie, can you just We're >> not recording anymore.