Jennifer's here. >> Good afternoon. Uh, this is the community resource committee of the town council. It is November 13, 2025, and this is a nor a regular 3pm meeting for this committee. Pursuant to chapter two
of the acts of 2025, which extends through June 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. We have a quorum.
I'm going to go around and see if everyone can be heard. Um Kathy Shane, >> yes, I can. >> Jennifer Tub. >> Oops. issues. >> Pam Rooney can hear and and one of the two counselor Hannaki is
>> pres That's That's cool. Okay. Uh we have we have no uh public hearings today. We will have one next week. Um and I am looking to see if we have any participants. I just
I just accidentally closed it out. Nope. Didn't see any Pam. It's still at zero. >> Okay, hold on. I have just lost my visual. Sorry. There we go. Okay, there are no public attending. Um, we can come back
to that at the end if we see folks that have joined us. Uh, the the action item for today is the solar bylaw. Councelor Heni and councelor Shane have been working on this as a way to uh aggregate and
compare and contrast with the state model bylaw. And so that is the focus of today's meeting as best possible and um just looking for a way to make
the comparisons and carve out a path for proceeding. Council Hani. So what I what I suggest is that Mandy takes the lead, but she may have had to disappear. Jennifer, the the challenge
right now is Mandy is also testifying at a hearing and she when her name is called, she'll have to disappear for five minutes while she testifies. It's on on the rank choice voting legislation, >> the ultimate um multitasking.
>> Okay, I think I've got it worked so that you can't hear the hearing. >> Is that correct? ertise in taking care of >> you can hear it but it's not dominating your voice at the same >> okay because I I joined this the zoom on the phone and the hearing's going on
here and I'm working on lowering it so that you can hear me here um but can you hear me fine >> yes fine >> okay >> hopefully I'll get called soon so I cannot do this double >> um so there are a couple of documents in
this packet um The one that's labeled in progress draft solar blah blah blah is sort of a a print out of the working copy Kathy and I are going to be throwing different sections into and we're still working on it and I know Kathy's got some some concerns um about
combining BES and solar um into one bylaw. We had originally started doing that. So you'll see some sections in there that I did that have applicable to solar only and then applicable to BES. Um, if it's okay, I'd like to sort of go through that first. Um, because I think
that gives you an idea of what we're working on and how we're pulling in the model bylaw into our um into this document and how we're pulling what we did in the committee into this document, too. Um, does that does that work for you, Pam?
>> That does. And I'm and I'm just making sure I thought I had it up, but I will >> call. So you're look you're you're going to be pulling from the Emmeris draft solar bylaw annotated. >> Uh no the in progress draft solar and best by
>> it's the one she sent she the one she sent when you asked us to send something. So it's the first page says Kathy and Mandy to do plan. That's the plan and then she's got some sections drafted dropped in >> members of the joint committee on election law >> in in progress.
>> Yes, that one. >> Thank you. Massachusetts state >> of that the only >> okay >> more equitable and democratic commonwealth >> so I I can't really well I I got off so I can't share my screen with this like I
said hopefully the legislative hearing will end soon >> let me let me see if >> yeah let's let's see if I can share >> at the local level uh cities and towns across Massachusetts have been doing just that
>> just as a quick background Pam is looking for it. We I had I had Pam, Jennifer, I had Pam add the two model bylaws, draft model dry laws, the best one and the solar.
>> So, as I'll as Mandy will talk, our effort was to take a look at what we've done >> and pull in language from those where it's exactly the same or where it's a little bit different to get to a clean version. And the original intent was to
combine >> and best. Now just my my note to her two hours ago is each of the draft bylaws that the state did is 18 pages long. >> So we potentially get an amazingly long.
>> Yeah. Combo. and and the reason for doing those two and then Mandel is if you look at the two drafts from the state there's a huge amount of dip duplication >> so it was an effort not to define the same thing twice not to define you know
over and over again the same definition >> I'm turning now that we've stall I've stalled for you there you go >> can you see the document >> yes we If you go to page three where it starts
with the article. Um so the first two pages the first one is >> sort of what we assigned ourselves and some initial questions. The second one is as I was drafting um my sections >> and doing it things that I came across that would need to be dealt with um
potentially by Kathy who's might be doing definitions or other questions for the committee and all. We'll get to that um later. But but here's some of the language that I've come up with. Um, >> the first two the first four sections actually aren't really in the bylaw we
were working on before the models came out. They're they're in the model bylaw though and they are nearly identical in both um sorry they were called new people. Um they're nearly identical in both the um
best and the model solar bylaw and those are compliance with laws, ordinances, regulations. >> Hi, good afternoon very much. I'm actually on a panel with Dave Burn. >> Um the building permit and building inspectors, inspections, and fees. Um so
those are ones we thought should be added into whatever we have because they put it in the model bylaw. Um the language here is nearly identical to what was in the model bylaw except for the fee section um which you'll see a
couple of comments on um that section of >> how does our site plan review and our special permit relate to this and then a question on the fees in this section are really for like building permits but how does our actual which I'm not sure are
in the regulations of >> the planning board or ZBA but we have fees for applications and they weren't dealt with in this section. So, it's it's not totally fully ready to go and we have some questions to ask Stephanie or Rob on how do we do this or whether
is it even necessary. Um but but they're pulled from that model bylaw. They're the same in each of the two. So, that would be one where if we combine our bylaws, solar and best, we would be cutting down on the repetition. >> Um if you go to the next page, Mandy, I
just want to do a little bit of annotation on this because one of the things I saw in that paragraph um >> particularly for best was it references our noise bylaws, >> you know, bringing in the fact that
these do emit noise, you know, so it's allowing states. So it was, you know, building things, but also so I thought it was a a good thing to bring in the noise bylaws. what the two do is to >> yeah and and we can talk about whether
we need to bring in other bylaws there or not. Um there are other sections of the model bylaw that talk about other general bylaws. Um so we might be able to just add to that one and remove other sections. If you go to the dimensional standards and this is one that was a
little bit difficult to draft um and where we'll probably need some conversation. You'll notice there's a solar vaic section and a best section. Um, and the best only includes standalone and colllocated. And this will make a little more sense. Actually,
some of this will make more sense if we um let me see. Yeah, if we if we actually page down to the use table, start with the use table actually before we go to the dimensional regulations. >> That one cannot show up. So on the use
table you'll I I noted which ones I added. Um our our draft had large scale, small scale and a bet only. The model bylaws split solar into about four categories.
A large, a small, a medium, and then what they called accessory use and canopy solar. Um but their canopy solar is our agravalttaic solar. Um and they allowed canopy by right yeses across the
board no matter the size. Um is what their the draft the model bylaw did. And then they had >> question hold on just a second. Um question the canopy would that not also apply to parking lot canopy. >> Yes. Canopy was in in the model bylaw
canopy included parking lot canopies and agravalttaic canopies. Um, and so trying to translate that >> into what we should do in our use table. Theirs was in the model bylaw because they didn't have use table. So we pull
it out of the model bylaw and put it into a use table. Um, and then BES also had three sizes of BES plus a colllocated BES. Um, and so what I tried to do is the large scale ground mount is
the same as it was in our our what we talked about before. We had a small scale. I actually moved most of that small scale into the mediumcale ground mount um because to to try and differentiate and we'll have to talk
about whether we want that differentiation but to try and follow the model by law and also what we did what our use table said for small scale is is basically copied in medium scale now um and then the small scale I copied
much of the model by law use That doesn't mean like I said we have to talk about it but that's what I did to create the three but then I also kept and created a new category called agrivoltaic solo solo canopy um which is
different than non-aggravaic um and and we'll get to this when we go back to the bylaw itself because given our conversations and where our bylaw was before these models um it it made me think we wanted to regulate
Agravalttaic like largecale ground mount solar not like parking lot canopy solar. Um so to differentiate Agravalttaic canopy from other canopy I created a separate use table and as you will see
mirrored exactly I think it's exactly um the large scale ground mount solar on the agrovalttaic canopies >> that's why there's four there for best they they had sizes which I did not do um and then they they cut out
colllocated versus standalone which given and how we were trying to figure out how to >> um reference the the associated best as it were. The new terminology I'm using is colllocated located with solar. Um peptum is different use tables,
different use lines to to better decide how to do it. So the standalone is just that standalone any size and then the colllocated is something that's associated with solar um or some other yeah with solar photovoltaic. You'll notice that there aren't much difference
in the uses. The difference is um in comm from from standalone vests in comm in light industrial and in PRP and that was to mimic the large scale ground mount and the medium scale ground mount
on the colllocated >> same >> in those uses. So again something we'll have to talk about but that was the reasoning behind that. And so now when you've got like six now uses then we can go back and talk about we can talk about questions here but
talk about then how we differentiate from them in the draft bylaw u which is starting to do um but but if we start here you understand where things are coming from >> and oh to answer one to to pre-answer a
question the the difference between large medium and small if you go go to page two of this document has for Kathy to do the definitions of where those splits would be. Um that definitions need to be written, but Kathy was on the
definition side. So this is this is my vision of what those definitions for those would be. Um so large scale 250 to where the state takes over permitting. Um and so that matches basically what
our LGPI was in the prior one. Small scale 25 under 25 and medium that 25 to the 250. Um and I think I noted somewhere >> questions for us >> that 25 >> I have question
>> kilowatt hours is about 80 panels total or something like that. 60 to 80 panels I guess depending on how efficient they are to give you an idea of >> of that. Um, and then the three definitions of best we would need to add to the definition section that we didn't
have too. >> Any questions so far? >> So, I just wanted to what Mandy didn't show you is these three levels of batteries of besses. So they have three levels and in their youth table the uh
the smallest level is by right >> and then as you get bigger starts to be special permit or site plan review and then they distinguish with their preference is that a bass would be colllocated with a solar installation
but if it's not collo you know and they call it also accessory use it's it's kind It's confusing the way they do it, but it's basically it's either with something called or not. And then it depends on if it's an accessory,
>> it's more permitted. Well, no, actually their table if it's a primary use or accessory use. And it depends on the size of it. So when they get to a very big one, it's special permit everywhere. And when they're the small one, it's by right. So, >> I'm sorry. You're when you're talking
about small or large, are you talking about the best installation itself? >> Yes. The best installation itself. And they >> My gut my gut feeling is that best is best. And it it contains all of the same
issues whether it's, you know, one block of of 100 or three blocks of 100. It doesn't seem to be >> Well, and I don't know because I'm not techy enough. So the smallest is 250 kilowatt. The next is 250 to 10 megaww.
The next is bigger than 10 megaww. So when we see the super large bet, you know, how big how big is that? You know, that's the one that starts to need special permits. >> And the smaller ones might be what a
home a home gets a battery operated backup system. So what I didn't do that's what the model bylaw does um is separates it into them and changes the use based on that at this point given our conversations I
didn't split the uses based on size >> I split it based on whether it's colllocated or not um there there may be um >> Allen held that same position for some of >> there um >> due to our dedicated
>> we should talk about >> the whether we want to split those permitting uses by size um and and all. And then I also asked for definition because we might want to treat the um what they call it building integrated
best which is what Kathy was just talking about of of BES in a home >> that's inside and all um whether we want to deal with that separately but for now because we hadn't had a lot of conversations on BES I kept it to colllocated or standalone and just one
use category no matter the size >> and Pam maneuvers you know >> I'm not sure what leeway we have on this. So I think at a minimum we want the medium. We might want medium and large clumped together. That's just best >> and the way we said if you're putting
solar on the roof of your house and you're adding a B, you know that that we're not getting into that and that that was kind of their distinction. So small was more single. My my my sense as I said I don't know what 250 kilowatts.
My sense was this is the small backup system for homeowner as opposed to next to a large solar field. Um so >> so I have a so I have a question. In our in our attempt to draft this bylaw over
the last five years um we have been focusing on large ground mounted panel systems. Um, is it is it am I correct in thinking that the state actually wants to see bylaws for the whole range of
things, not just the large the large? >> So, yes, their best bylaw and their solar bylaw includes regulations for all sizes of solar v photo photovalttaic and all sizes of BES. And so, we obviously
hadn't talked about BES at all. Um, and so I kept to the ones that we sort of talked about and then added a use table for the rest essentially. Um, >> and Pam, what I don't know, you know, in terms of what are we going to be required to clue, so your question says
what do we have to have in our bylaw if we're silent on small and small tends to be by right, you can just do it. You know, the electrical inspector comes out and make sure you're you're doing code. Then if we're if it's missing from our draft, that may not be a problem. And
the same you know and that's a question we could ask >> you know of someone techie who's talking with the state you know can the the local blo doesn't have to get into this distinction because we're going to treat all best of
>> or we re or we're able to refer our our system or something for the very small >> to meet state standards >> you know so the the medium tier 2 best 250 kilow up to 10 megawatt sounds to me like it's getting very big,
>> you know. So, it may be tier two and tier three. We just lump them together. That's what we're >> reg. And so, what Mandy has done either with a solar installation or without um for now I think makes sense. I'm just saying that the state law, one of the reasons the best version of the model
state law gets so long is because it's got to deal with with and without an accessory use and how big um >> y multiplies by five whatever the >> right. Yeah. >> Right.
>> Those who are never >> Now if we go to page I I know I'm going all around. If you go to page five, >> substrate, I suggest >> we're going to go to transfer of ownership and financiality decommissioning. These are nearly identical
>> to what we had in our our draft before the models came out. Um, changed to better match the model bylaw wording >> um, >> for instance, >> but not changing the meaning at all. If that makes sense. um except in the
financial shity, the model bylaw had a percentage listed of what the shity would be and a way to update that shity. So I went with that over what our language was. Um but in general the same concept, the same independent
uh estimator for financial charities and all of that. So I think that language there was some of the we we sort of just imported in and basically had very similar and just >> reformatted it sort of and and updated
it to match our our names, our our stuff like that. Um, >> do that. So, that was the easiest one. >> Yeah. >> So, we could check off a few that seem to be pretty much complete and in alignment with the state.
>> Yes. So, so that's where those are. Um and then we get into the the setbacks um the dimensional standards. Um >> you know I would say everything but the dimensional standards is fairly complete and and meets what we were doing
>> except the use table which we probably have to talk about again and that question regarding fees and then there's conventional standards. >> We anticipate Massachusetts. >> We'll start with the solar volta photovoltaic installation standards. So
I started with our basic >> um our bylaw and then compared that to the model bylaw for solar and also the model sort of the standard >> um >> thank you appreciate >> guidelines that would be issued if
>> done. Thank you for >> if we didn't act within a year. >> Next is Wendy Rebelli. >> Okay remotely >> and so there were some differences there but we can change those differences. which is where some of these comments
come in, the model bylaw um had for stepbacks. If you look at section B, they started at um 20 ft and 25 and then allowed you to go 25 >> higher to no larger than 100.
>> Um our draft started at 50 feet for all three of them with an allowance of up to 100. So, and and applied to any type. Our draft applied to large, medium, small, agravalttaics, you name it, it
applied to it all. Um, and so since ours applied to it all, and this new one seems to separate small from medium to large a little bit, remember, our draft didn't even deal with small at all. >> Um, wouldn't have dealt with small. I
kept it at 20 ft and 25 ft so that we could have a conversation as to whether we wanted to maybe set differences based on small, medium, or large or whether we wanted to set it at 20 and 25 with the up to 100 and allow the permit granting
authority to to maybe make it bigger for a larger one. But that's a conversation we need to have. Um, hence the comment. Um, one thing the model bylaws did do >> and the guidance did do is section A,
>> which is something we did not have in our bylaw, which allows the model bylaw specifically allowed us to prohibit solar photovoltaic institute installations in zone one areas. Um, and then
>> in in zone one areas for solo solar. Um, and so I took that language and put it into this bylaw. The so, so that section A is pulled directly from I think it's either the guidance or the model bylaw. >> Um, which prohibits zone one areas,
which is a water protection thing. Zone one for aquafers and stuff. And then for zone 2 or zone A had to follow the requirements of the state rights. It's it's something that's a little more restrictive than our bylaw had, but given our conversations, I thought would
be receptive in this committee. Um, and then the minimum disturbances CD and E are basically pulled from our um >> more voter greater. I thought we could do it.
>> So that's solar. >> So So right right in hold on just a sec. So, right in there in CD and E, we've got letter E. I'm really having a hard time hearing. I'm having to shout. >> Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Uh, letter E, a minimum of 20 of 200 feet, no disturbance within zone A and B. And yet up above in C or uh D, all primary installations constructed outside a 400 foot buffer
zone from public surface water supply. So, we need to be consistent in our own within our own numbers >> because we're we're not consistent. So, so yeah, it's a question we need to have. Um, I believe, you know, we had
the difference. I don't think um I did this a while ago, but I don't think the models dealt with private wells at all. I think they dealt dealt with and so I might have pulled the 400s from the model bylaw and left the hundred where
we had it for private. Um, there's also a 200, right? um zone A and B of surface water is different than um you know and so so no disturbance versus construction there's a difference there right so the no disturbance is a 200 zone that's you
can't disturb anything but but you can't then put an installation like like the actual panel can't be 400 so it makes some sense to potentially be different depending on what you're trying to to to do with that but we can have that
convers conversation. Um but yeah, there there might need to be some better um consistency. >> Um >> any other questions on the solar side >> of dimension. Um so we it's something we
need to look at. We don't need to discuss it right now. I was looking up what the different zones mean and and that's where I discovered that there were some inconsistencies. Jennifer, >> ballot access. >> Yeah, you would before asked the
question, I was um that came to mind. I just want to make sure I heard this correctly. So, we need to include small, medium, and large >> ground mounted or not ground mounted or even
>> um you know, roof installations that are we going to do that because that's what was in their model bylaw or is that now what we're kind of required to do? >> So, their model bylaw separated small, medium, and large whereas our bylaw was only separating small and large.
>> Um, we could probably choose to do two instead of three. Um, it's an option. um their model by law dealt with all types of solar photo photovalttaic whereas ours did not. Ours sort of passed off
the small scale to be dealt with later. They hadn't really dealt with the small scale. Um but their model bylaw deals with it all. So I I I personally recommend that as we're drafting this we just deal with it all.
you know, and and this is one where a these aren't final yet. And so the the other one I'm taking notes on, Mandy, is they are asking for comments. So the failure to address private wells would be one all rural areas should talk about
as in just address it, you know, don't don't pretend there are none. Um but Jennifer, what I think we don't know is if we didn't put small in, would it matter? you know, um, right? You know, that that since we weren't in the whole purpose of what the state is trying to
do is get us not to regulate things, to let them just happen, you know, and so if we're thinking that you put solar on your roof and as long as the, you know, >> building commissioner says it's safe, >> you know, it's it we're they're not trying to say that we want you to, you
know, make everybody go through hoops. So that's, you know, so we can see if we get it narrow enough. And similarly with the really small besses, I think the same thing that we could just go to the medium and large and they're not that different in them. And I just see she
turned herself off. So we may be at break time. Um >> we still we still have a quorum if we want to. >> Yeah. So I just let me do on the best uh standalone and collate. Number C is exactly the state wording and as Mandy
said that's the only thing the model bylaw says on that they shall comply with the larger of all setbacks for the don zoning districts and what they are where they located or the following. So so she's added the or the following. She
they don't have anything like A or B. So, that's us adding it that we we care about. Um, the best setbacks. >> What page are you on? Because I'm trying to follow it. I'm >> If if you're looking exactly at the screen that Pam has in front of you.
>> No, I'm not. I guess it's too small. So, I'm trying to go to what was in our folder. >> Okay. So, it's Is it bigger enough now? >> Oh, I see. I see where C is. I have it on my screen. I see it. >> Okay. you know, so above in the large we
have bigger setbacks than would normally be in the zoning in the zone potentially or specifics. So what Andy has added under stand alone is that the best has to be or collated have to be apply with
the ones we just did for a large scale solar and that last thing C is the only thing the state says on dimensions literally. um has to be the same as whatever was underlying. So we've added
more than what the state had there on best. That's that's the only comment I made. And Mandy Mandy pulled the the A and the B in and then the C is the same wording. And what I can't I just have to
go to the further you know that further it says uh where does it say after dimensions these these both these laws go on forever. Okay I'm in I'm in the solar I got to get back in the the battery one
the battery. >> Well thank you for doing this. >> Well the only thing I've done so far is stall. you know, we divided up these sections and Mandy did that side by side which tried to show where there were
differences and she's gone to the extra effort of actually whiting words. And when we looked at it um uh both for Pam and Jennifer's benefit, we were toying with do we work with our version which
still had markups everywhere or do we start a fresh and put the wording in and wherever our wording is same or similar just pull it in. Yeah. >> Um because we hadn't so on purpose. For example, the se second paragraph of our
draft purchase is exactly what the state uses on solar, you know. So I was just going to use the second paragraph of our draft rather than the first one. And then they do a what the purpose is on best as well, you know. So purpose if we combine them. I was just going to pull
in the purposes and we don't have to use their exact wording but in a few places they had the same section with almost the same language and then in some what you're seeing is the added complexity of defining more levels of solar and Pam
you had asked me on the phone this morning on submitt but I can't remember what Mandy gave us on submitt there's a really long list in both the best and in the um and in the solar of what you have
to submit when you're applying. So I haven't gone through side by side. >> I have I have started that >> on bet on best since we didn't have a draft best. I was going to also look at the draft submitt for best and the draft submitt for solar and do they basically
ask for the same? So that's where Mandy was trying to get rid of a long list that's exactly the same for the two. um where one might have some tweaks. But yeah, so that was that was the attempt um since there is huge amount of
repetition in their two um their two side by side drafts. So I'm I'm going to ask Jennifer has her hand up and then I'm going to come back and ask >> a question. >> You can go first because mine's a little Go first. >> Okay. I was just going to I was going to
say, is there anything is there any reason that we should not do our our intended combination of Bess and and Solar with with just a couple key paragraphs
that are that specifically address Bess. The only the only thing I ran into this morning on thinking of my role here is how much longer am I going to make it if we mush them together? You know, am I going to make it or are we going to make
it? And what I've seen is that Mandy's has very um artfully done in the same sentence a this applies to both. that will help make it much shorter you know with um so you know they went through
fire hazard and police and the various model laws and it was the same in both. So if we can do that, it may not mean that 2 * 18 in terms of the length of it. And some of theirs is it goes on with this really long uh installation
tiers and collocated not per you know and so you know so in in any case so it may work to mush them together and and the nice thing about the best side of it is we didn't start drafting detail best. So
we can look at anything that's specific to Bess that we were hoping would be. So it looks like Did you testify, Mandy? And you >> I did just finish. So all my audio WILL BE SO MUCH better now and I don't have to go two different ways. So thank you for your patience.
>> I just I went back to say what the attempt is here with with the pull in language that would be brand new and other because we just didn't address it. keep our language as much as we can and tweak it to the extent um it would make
it and then try to avoid if we can do both solar and best you've done a really nice job I see what you've done in yours that one sentence links the two rather than first say it for one and then say it for another so Pam it may be that we
can do one um you know the purpose the purpose for solar says facilitate solar the purpose for best says facilitate So you know the you know we could say the purpose of this bylaw is to >> yeah and throughout throughout we have
included and associated best as just part of the the thing. So that was my my gut feeling is that >> I don't want two different bylaws I don't think unless there's something really outstanding that needs to be called to attention
that would require a separate bylaw. So the main thing that I would just say on what you is associated best they're also regulating freestanding best. >> Yes. >> So it's just it would have to be and best you know whether colllocated or not.
>> Yeah. Jennifer you had your hand up. So my question was just um in looking through all the the state the model bylaw and their requirements or the regulations do is it going to have us do anything we
didn't want to do? I mean I know we have no choice. I'm just wondering were you surprised by anything or >> uh talk about consolidated permit. that uh >> yeah um so I I think there's a couple of differences and then and then I want to
get back to the standalone and colloid located best um dimensional standards just because that's the last thing that we started drafting and and is in here and and and then go back to this. So, so the the purpose of the state bylaw is to
sort of standardize um across the state uh clean energy um system permitting. And so this this regulation the regulations we're only talking about solar and BES here. the state law
applies to um clean energy not just best but other infrastructure. So power poles and stuff that do with stuff like this but it also applies to um you know like bio gas in
generation facilities and also wind you know um um windmills and and wind power and and and stuff like that. So, so we obviously haven't put and aren't dealing with some of them at all. Right. They're not we're not drafting a bylaw for for
wind generation. We're not seeing a lot here. We probably won't it if it if something gets gets proposed, Rob will just have to figure out how to how to apply our bylaw to it, right? But we're not expecting those. So, we're drafting
the ones that that relate to us. So, so they're trying to standardize it. And one of the big things that that will definitely affect Ammerst and all the towns is in the past and and how our prior draft of the bylaw would have
worked is if it was within an aquifer recharge protection district or within a conservation wetland area, the first place it would have gone would be the conservation commission and they would issue a permit or not before even the planning board or the ZBA has a hearing.
um and they could take five, six months to do theirs and then it might go to the planning board and ZBA after that or not or maybe it would be withdrawn and and that and this law says all of that happens within a 12-month period. So
basically, you can do it consecutively, but you have to finish from day of application to day of issuing either the permit or the denial for every single one of those permits 12 months. And so it will change that permitting process
from what was sort of a consecutive in our town consecutive one place here and then get that all the conditions from there before you even go to the planning board. get all those conditions and maybe then you're at the ZBA because there was a special permit or something
there and then and then back to that >> with three different permits essentially to one permit that includes all of those conditions from all of those bodies that needed to hear it. If it was within if the solar
installation again any solar installation which is why the bylaw is including smallcale why it includes canopy. If that canopy was within our downtown design standards that canopy might have to go to design standards and then somewhere else and then somewhere else and and then somewhere else and and
it all has to be in one permit now. So there that's the biggest change and you have 12 months. That's one of the biggest change. And if you don't act in 12 months, it's granted with the standard guideline with the standard guidance that is out there. Well, it's
it's in draft form now. So, so I would say that's the biggest change. Um, the other big thing to keep in mind is basically the state law has said that if you comply with those regulations and the model bylaw,
um, you are not going to be deemed out of compliance with chapter 48 section 3, which was the section that all the towns were getting dinged at for regulating beyond health, safety, and welfare because you're not allowed to regulate
solar minimally regulate. You know, all the Waltham cases, all the why why Shootsberry and Pelum's bylaws and all were kind of kicked was because they were deemed to be in violation of that section three provision. Um, if you
comply with these regulations and the model bylaw, in some sense, the state law says you are deemed in compliance with section three. So it kind of gives you that basic we complied without having to
necessarily litigate that. That's my understanding. So that's another reason why we would want to take what we've been doing and try and get it as close to the model bylaw. And as Kathy has said, the model bylaws do put in there things like, oh, that 25 can be changed,
right? If we're talking about setbacks, it doesn't have to be 25 to still be in compliance. That's a number you can talk about and you can change. These things you can change. So that's what Kathy and I are trying to do is to get this sort of in there to give us what some people
would call is the safe harbor of non of of compliance with that other section of the law. Um the other big change that we will see um that we didn't do really at all in Ammerst is the pre-filing requirements.
Um there's now sort of a formal process before you file your application if you want to do any of this to engage the public um and go through various different things. And I'm not going to get into it because it's complicated and I don't understand it all and it's all
set forth in the regs as to what you have to do. But it's something that doesn't exist as far as I know formally in our zoning bylaw um for anything including I believe the comprehensive per permits for affordable housing 40b.
Um and so that's something that's new but we don't uh you saw the draft I literally said comply with the pre-filing requirements in the ranks. They just do that. um something new that we will see being done um that hasn't
really existed before. So hopefully that answers your question, Jennifer, a little bit. >> Yeah, it does. It does. Thank you. >> Um I want to talk a little bit about the best installations for setbacks. Uh because there's one big change that I
wanted to highlight when I did this. >> Do you do you need do you need the uh text again? >> Um I could share it if you want me to share it. Um, >> that's fine. >> It might be useful to to just see it. Um, let me >> Did Best was as near to silent as you
could be in their draft and you've you've added what I thought was good wording on yours. Um, >> yeah. So, so best in the draft model by I don't think had a lot, but the draft guidance the the guidance documents for
default permits um did have some. and and that's where the section A section B A and B are sort of the ones that are are I wanted to highlight the the A and B A says and this is only standalone and colllocated so this would not be
building integrated um >> if we define that but this would basically at this point given our definitions be every other best installation out there um set back from structures tree lines and combustible materials as recommended by the NFPA855 I don't even know what that
recommendation is, but that's the language that was used in these documents. So, I copied it over. Um, >> and NFPA is National Fire, >> Fire Protection, >> Fire Pro, NFPA. Yep. >> Yeah. So, so copied that over. So, so in
some sense the setbacks are more related to how far away from combustible material do you need to be, not necessarily a potentially specific length, maybe distance, cuz it might be based on what that building material is.
I don't know cuz I haven't read NFPA 855. Um but the second one you'll notice this this section B is very similar to the above for solar section A the standalone and colllocated best are prohibited in zone one areas these these
zones are zones related to waterheds for water supply things um Dave Zomac if he were here would be able to describe them in detail but it allowed us to prohibit it in zone one and the difference between BES and
solar is Those models and those guidance said towns can prohibit standalone and colllocated BES in zone 2's too. We cannot prohibit solar photo solar arrays in zone 2, but we can prohibit BES in
solar in zone 2. I don't know what zone 2 is, but I wrote it in based on the conversations we've had in this committee and our concerns about protecting our water supply. I thought if we're allowed to, let's start by doing it and then we can have the
conversation as to how much of our town is zone 2 and whether it makes sense. But but that's one of the things I wanted to highlight. Um, which would be a difference between solar and best. Solar could go in zone 2. Bess could
not. I don't know and I haven't looked at a GIS map to see where zone 2 in our town is. Um, but it was one area where we didn't have to prohibit, but we could. So, I wrote prohibition into this draft. Um, you'll see for the rest of
it, basically everything else is the same as above. Um, and so we could probably find a way to shorten these two together by these apply to both. These apply to solar, these apply to best. But at this point, I thought it was clearer if we say this is the solar section,
this is the best section. Even if >> for now I think that for now it's probably really good to keep it apart, clean it up and then we can we can always merge it like we did with local ADUs and state >> Yeah. protected and and
>> I really like this because um the silence in the draft best bylaw the draft example Mandy's brought in things in the rag that it's silent on um on the the these dimensions
and then she's had it linked to the above. I think it makes it clear that we're that um best is a specific kind of concern. And Mandy, when you're saying zone one and zone two, I just paid a note. I think we should have some
generic definition of what those are in our definitions so people understand what we're zone one is watershed or zone you know some simple-minded definition that whatever they are because I I agree with you that
>> so I'll I I'll share what zone one is the it's the distance between the water and the top of the bank for one thing and it I think it may also include uh the immediate um recharge area um for a for a body of
water for surface water. >> And do you know what zone two is? >> Uh zone two is a little bit bigger and it it could be it could almost be whole watersheds but I I I I printed it out and I can't find it. So
>> that's that's okay. Bas basically, you know, we could do, you know, see whatever, you know, as a cross reference, but that people understand >> I, you know, I'm thinking some of this I realize we don't do in our bylaws necessarily, but there's a larger public out there and we're seeing and having
them understand what we're trying to protect. So, there could be a cover memo on this that explains that we're protecting the watersheds here. Um, >> yeah. And so that was one of the things that Pat asked during when Dave Zom said that the installation down at um
Hitchcock was going to have a best and she asked what about all the water, you know, isn't that a concern? You know, >> did anyone look at it? So >> So if if I I I pulled up my comparison table. So the interesting thing with
solar bylaw setbacks is that solar dictated these 20 and 25 feet in the model bylaw and best literally had as their setback must comply with setbacks for the zoning district in which they are located. >> Very
it was it was it was as near to silent of anything that you needed to worry >> in terms of setbacks. So, so where I got a lot of this was within the wellhead protection sections of the guidelines on uniform sets of baseline health, safety, environmental, and other standards for
BES or solar ground mount solar. So, that's where I pulled those in from here. And I feel like if if the state's default permit for not act for a town not acting would include these these these guidelines these conditions
standards and conditions then our bylaw should be able to do so without violating state law. >> So I feel comfortable pulling them in if they're in the state guidelines on standards and conditions.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, do does both Solar and Bess have pre-filing? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, I would I'd like to talk about pre-filing. So, in in thinking about that 12-month period, I appreciate that
there are some guidelines for getting all those documents ready and in order so that you're not docked. Um, when when you know when a review body says, "Hey, you didn't supply the this, this, and
this information that we require." and somehow it's it's um held against the town for not being quick enough in their review process. So having a a really solid pre-filing um process I think is something that we
could look at. >> Yeah. So, so pre-filing in the regs is fairly well set out. Um, which is what our bylaw just refers to. And and those those deadlines change.
>> Can you enlarge Can you enlarge this just a little bit? >> Oh. Oh, was Oh, yeah. I didn't want that one up. Sorry. Um, that's got my notes in it. Let me find a clean version. I forget what I'm sharing. Hold on. Cuz that you're not gonna
Let me find the clean version. Um, here we go. So, pre-filing um requires things like um this site suitability stuff.
>> Yes. is is sort of in the pre-filing part which is determined and I didn't get into this at all and our bylaw won't get into this. This is fully state regulated um in terms of how it's done and in how the matrix is figured out and filled out
and all but it's all done during pre-filing. And basically one thing that I haven't figured out how we can put into a bylaw um the state has determined they will rank a site for proposed say
solar um um infrastructure. So so you can see transmission distribution clean behind the meter. They've got all sorts of different things. Um, but they will have you rank a site where one of these is going on based on various
levels of suitability. Um, including is it forested or not? And you get a number ranking. Um, you know, is it what what zone is it in? There there's all sorts of things and I can't remember exactly
what all of them are now. Um, but they will have you rank them and then you know 40. So, so and you have to submit those scores 45 days prior to the permit application being submitted at a minimum
at least 45 days. Um, hold on. >> And and and then you get a score. So, this is part of the pre-filing. You get a score and then that score follows this project around. What the state has said is that you might want to
regulate and we might be able to regulate in our bylaw various permit requirements based on those suitability scores. They basically said the higher the less suitable the
state believes the site maybe the more um um what's the word >> more stringent more stringent or more >> well more more um they start with Rs
>> restrictive >> not restrictions the the more we can require um the more we can require um why am I blanking minimiz it's not ours M's minimization and mitigation
why I was thinking ours you know and so the essentially what the state has said and this is where we have questions to answer does that go in a bylaw or is that just something that the planning board or EBA deals with right but if the site suitability if the state deems the site
suitability really bad. In theory, we could require a whole lot of minimization and mitigation in order to get that permit. If the state deems it really good, they they have basically said you can't require much mitigation or minimization at all, if any. Um, how
you fit that into a bylaw, I don't know yet. But that's how that works into that. And my >> Thank you. So that was that was kind of my question because I had noted that we have nothing relative to site selection criteria and and I was curious, thank
you for half answering that question. I was curious if we somehow um simply refer to a state process, but we would I guess we would have to assign
to some person the oversight of um that >> it is done at the state. It's done at the state. >> It's the state, Pam. Th this is the 20page draft guidance on doing those assessments.
>> Um we're we're obviously not going to read it, but you will see um they define stuff and then they they do the score determination. Um here's here's the thing on the suitability a scoring framework evaluating certain things. um
things might modify that score and then um you add it all together for a total site suit suitability score and then you do something with it. But the town doesn't have really any say at all in how to grade that score. If I go down
you will see why. So for example, carbon storage and sequestration um if the land is already developed, it gets a score of zero. The lower is more suitable. If it's undeveloped
and has an ecosystem carbon of under this number, 20 meg mega grams carbon dioxide per acre, emissions per acre, it gets a one. And anything above
that, it gets proportional to some number and that's your score once they've figured it out. So, so and and each of these six things do that and they tell you where you calculate what website you go to to calculate your score and all of that. >> Yeah.
>> So, so the response So, Jennifer and then I've got a followup. >> Wait. So, this happens outside of that year time frame. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay, >> that and and the other thing that
happens outside of that year time frame is an initial conversation with stakeholders. So, resident abutters and stuff like that happens outside there's obviously some that go on beforehand, but pre-filing is also a stakeholder
engagement list outside of the 12-month timeline. So if you know we we can um send this lengthy document which I just saved to my drive. Um but when you read it the notion that they
were trying to simplify regulations flies out the window completely. you know it really this is all before they file for a permit but including is site footprint aerial photographs a
draft emergency response plan >> so many of the things that we've required >> so it all has to happen before which is what and then and then you get scored if you don't like your score you can appeal your score you know so there this is all
it's all it's like and so the neurosite when I first read this. I said, "This is the rag." And then I realize, "Oh, no." Then there's the rag. You know, this is this is the pre. It's It's like um when you file for what your um energy rating,
you know, when you're getting a gold or you know, a lead score, you know that you're filling out these documents and then you're scored on how well you did on lead and it's extreme and you're not doing the scoring. you're doing your best to get someone to score you really
high if you have points. So if you it what's not clear is if you scored really poorly can you know Mandy I didn't read all if you scored really poorly does it block you from even going in for a permit or can you
>> fix something that pulled your >> This is where you'll notice that some of the parts of this in progress working draft of the bylaw are the easiest ones right because it gets harder from here on out what what the regs say and it's
about 200 pages of regs just to come up with and understand it to get to what is pre-iling and all to be able to talk and and I've only read them like one and a half times so I'm not >> but you've read the 200 pages one and a half times >> I've breezed through most of it one and a half times or so. Um
>> this is why some people go to law school. I was going to say literally >> but it's also why for example mitigation was not one of the ones I came up with here because I don't know how to at this point haven't figured out like
this is where I think Kathy Stephanie and I might get together to talk about just filing and and who does what what needs to be in a bylaw um and mitigation and all because the regs do imply
>> that if there's the site suitability above a certain number. Pick a number um and you know above that number that a town might be able to
just say no and not violate state law. Um, but how we put that in a bylaw or can we put it in a bylaw or is that just part of the review process when talking about mitigation, right? How what what
do we put in the bylaw regarding mitigation and minimization? Uh, how specific does a bylaw get versus what what does the planning board and ZVA actually do? Right? Those are questions I haven't even begun to really try and get my head around because I thought
we'd start with some of the easier ones and then add them into the question page on on the second page. Basically, what do we have to deal with? Um, yeah. So, we might be able to say, but and the state also implies that if the score is low enough, zero, um, that we can't
require any minimization or mitigation at all. And it implies that if the score is zero for one of the six ranges, no m minimization or mitigation for that criteria can be required. Zero something else. >> Mary Mandy, zero is a good score.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Zero means the state believes it's a highly suitable site. >> Okay. >> You know, so that it would be >> points then are really points against you. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. You know, so then it would be does someone already at the state level say
anything above 14 or above whatever is really bad? You know, you've you've flunked or or are they still working through um how how how many negative points and and are some of the categories I think some of the categories are more important
than others and I don't know whether they're weighted. Um >> they are not weighted. Um but they have said um here here's let let me share this one. This is what their guidance their current draft guidance says
um on on that issue. So so here's here's the total well here's they they score one to five and so for each of the specific criteria so and there's six of them I think. Um, so I I had looked at
carbon sequestration, right? Um, it's if it's already developed, if you're literally trying and you have to do this for canopies for any any solar, so this is except for those that are exempted. So a canopy that's all trying to go on a parking lot that's already developed would receive a score of zero on the
criter on that particular criteria. And so the state says that's highly suitable, minimal impact, no minimization or mitigation required. But if it's on say a completely forested ground that has huge carbon
sequestration potential and is already you know se sequestering all that carbon it might get greater than a four and what the state says is that's potentially unsuitable. It's got high impact if it's permitted. It will require extensive minimization or
mitigation. Um, what I don't know is how to put that into a bylaw because this is the guidelines. You're going to have to follow this. What What do we put in? Do we have to put anything in? So, it it occurs to me that one of the criteria
would be slope. And in our bylaw, we at this point have something like you really can't build over 50 on a 15% slope. And if that is then the the the
guard rail that Ammerst feels is important in the evaluation of the criteria. Maybe that's the kind of thing that says well you know slope is an important consideration. It gets more points because it's really stupid to
build on steep slopes. >> So slope is not part of this site suitability. But the model bylaws do have a wait. The model bylaws do have a suggested slope where you can't build above a certain slope. Um, so and I think it matched our our draft. So So
let me let me see if I can find the six things. It's it's a it's actually a fairly interesting read. So pardon me for going put a table in when you said you know how we put it in a bylaw. Well, so,
so we wouldn't want to put the table in if the guidance might change because then we have to change our bylaw whenever the state changes its rags. Right? Again, why were so so here are the six six criteria
um development potential. >> Yeah. >> Um which is the climate resilience. So, so that's that's one which gets a couple carbon sequestration which we we showed
biodiversity. This is where the priority habitats we talked about in our our draft come into suitability. Um, so you'll see in the model bylaw they don't really talk a lot about building or not building in priority biomap cores and
all of that which our draft did because I think it's all I I think the reason they don't talk a lot about that is because it's built into the site suitability score and once you've got a score if you've got a score of four and a half they deem it a highly unsuitable site that requires a lot of m mitigation
or minimization and therefore something happens. Again, I can't talk about what because I haven't figured out who does what once the score is there and how you bring it in, but they brought it into the suitability with a standard scoring
method. Um, you read this, you put our GIS up and you'll notice that much of where our solar might get built would fall above two easily. We have a lot of biomap core and priority habitat. um
right >> and connectivity and core all of that. Um agricultural resources is another one that they look at for site suitability. Um and this is we we also had this in our draft bylaw. The farmlands of
statewide importance and unique and and all of that um prime farmlands and soils as we were talking about agricult. So their draft model bylaws don't include any of this because it's in the regs as something already that then
depending on your score requires or allows for mitigation and minimization. We have a lot of prime and I don't know what unique importance is. We talk about prime farmland soils and statewide importance. We have a lot of that. So
many of the site scores on this one aren't going to be below one. They might even be two or three or four. um or even five. >> And Mandy, are these finalized? What we're looking at right now? >> These are draft. >> These are still draft. Also, >> these are draft and in in comment
period. >> Okay. >> Um from a different from a different state department than the comment period that the guidelines and regs are in because they can't make it easy. And then there's another criteria is the
social and environmental burdens where they get a this mass envirro screen tool that talks about scoring for census blocks. >> Oh jeez. So, as I as I said, when you
scan these, you think and this is making it simpler, you know? I mean, they they did this is all pre um >> I don't know where Ammerst is or any of our census blocks are on that one. Um and then there's the social environmental benefits where you get up
to points. This is um you know you can have points subtracted from your score for meeting some of these environmental benefits and then that just comes off your total score. So this is like reducing your 25 or your 12 to five pot
well to seven at most five points off. So those are the criteria. I don't know how we integrate it. I mean it's mandatory right? What I don't know is how we integrate the scores that show up here that are done and we don't have to
talk about at all in terms of how to score. I don't know how to integrate h what mitigation minimization looks like based on the scores in our bylaw or if we need to. It's a question for
Stephanie and Rob frankly and our planning department. But but you're starting to get an idea of it's not easy to craft it all together. So it's why Kathy and I are taking our time. I did the easy
ones. >> Yeah. So I was just thinking about mitigation or or whatever the other word was. >> Minimization. So if as our bylaw stands now it it tries to define some of the
things that we want people to avoid to me that's sort of the cue to the planning board or ZBA that these are the things that are important. If if we end up removing those pieces of information
because they're too restrictive or uh too descriptive maybe is the better word. What what gives the planning board or ZBA the the cue that that's what you're looking for?
Well, I think that's where I'm going with I don't know how to integrate that suitability scoring into the mitigation minimization sections because we do have sort of that that suitability concept
was in our draft, right? And and so now it's outside of the bylaw as a pre-filing requirement and automatic determination. Um, but I don't know how at this point and I haven't spent much
time thinking about that because I start with some of the easier stuff and then and then as we get a a better clue move on to the larger harder stuff. Um, figure out what we're missing and see how we might integrate that or how it
could be integrated. It it's a question that is outstanding. Um but I don't think as you know Kathy's set to draft the um submitt no the design standards and the design for
farmland. So it's a question that presumably as she drafts that or if I get to it because there's still some non sections and other sections we haven't done. Um and Beth is a huge one. um >> a a question you know the additional
questions page that's two I suspect will grow as we move to draft the definitions the this that the that with how do we integrate mitigation you know how do we do x y and z um what does that look like because it's not in the model bylaw it's
not in the guidelines but it was in our bylaw let's not lose that concept how do we do it and we're not >> we're not there yet >> and the other so just as I'm scrolling through this other document. Thank I'm I'm probably slightly different one than
the one you just scrolled through, but since all of this happens 45 days before and then you've got a score on each of those dimen domains that Mandy just said, >> um so you might be okay on a couple but
uh probably really bad on prime farmland or something else. Does that it can we reject it based on that or do we have to look at specific mitigation? So I don't think we can resolve that without
talking to people because some things there might be no way to mitigate it, >> right? it, you know, it just you you can't medicate it and it's a um so it's you have to get this formal score determination and then when you apply go
ahead and apply you know we'll all no longer live in Ammerst you know 20 years later you know no I mean it is this extremely long process to then submit your scores that you're you think you're
pretty clean for going forward And then we would, you know, Mandy, the flip side of it is, can we just turn it down if the scores are terrible? The flip side is if they're clean, the burden would be on the locality to
have any reason it couldn't go forward. You know, other than >> again, it would have to meet some of the dimensional standards and everything else. But if those are clear, it should be more expedited because they've um done some of the things Concom would
have looked at. So that's the issue of, you know, how much they're looking at some things that would normally be done as part of the permitting process. And then this reviewer group, whoever is reviewing it, if they're if they're not >> Yeah. >> If they're not physically here in
Ammeris knowing what that >> land looks like, how they score it, I don't I don't know. >> They they score it based on the biomaps that we were referencing in our bylaw for some of them, right? You know, the standard maps and all. And and Kathy,
you're absolutely right. Um it's it's how I I think that that question you know if when you look at that guidance it literally says scores above four or at five if permitted would require extensive mitigation and minimization
right so it's even con it's it's it's even contemplating that you might not permit them right and so >> so I that's a section that I sort of put off in my mind and and others can delve into it, but it was it was so like
cerebrally comp complicated that I figured I'm not ready for that yet to try and figure that out of of delve into all these documents and try and figure out can can
a town actually say if any of the suitability scores are above four and a half, we can say no. we we we will deny like it's a no like it's a denial if right um or or
can a town or is it you know and on the flip side as Kathy said if all the suitability scores are below one is there are are you an automatic grant with minimum anything like is that tech you know if you're using our use table is
that a yes not that it would be on a use table because our use table doesn't deal with suitability scores right but is Is that concept similar to the yes on a use table if everything's below one? You just get it, you know. And is the concept similar on a use table to a no
if it's above X number? And it's something I just haven't delved into to get an idea of what what the state's looking for or what their minimization and mitigation they're looking for and where that shows
up in the whole permitting process. Does it show up in a bylaw? because the model bylaws don't deal with that mitigation and minimization at all. Um, so does it have a proper place in a bylaw? It's I I just haven't dealt with that yet.
>> Jennifer, >> yeah, a couple things. So, I guess I kind of assume from this that if it was above a certain score, you know, you would have to come back to the drawing board. Now, the applicant can can appeal the score. Can the town
appeal the score if the state determines? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That it's a go >> either side I think can appeal the score to a state a different state agency or something. Yeah. >> And Kathy raises a good point. Are they
going to come out? I can't believe the state wants to take all this on but >> no. >> The other big question, right? like it when you think about this this suitability scoring method applies to solar photovalttaic installations of any
size um except I think when they're on a building if they're on a building but they apply to all the canopies. I I think there's a I can look up the there was a um site site suitability had some
exemptions. The only the only things doing this scoring doesn't apply to is small clean energy infrastructure facilities with a site footprint of 1 acre or less. So if you're under an acre, you don't have to score. Um transmission and distribution
infrastructure that's not cited in newly established rights of way facilities. Um, so a solar facility, so any clean infrastructure that's under an acre or less. Um, a solar facility that
is under 25 kilowatts, which would be the small ones, 83 panels or less or something. And then behind the meter infrastructure facilities, um, which I think are are maybe best. I don't I don't know. I'd have to look up the
definitions. I don't know. So, so beyond that, you have to do it, which is a lot of solar projects. >> Yeah. >> To do this for >> I think our taxes are going up to cover the uh increased personnel.
>> No, we don't have to. >> Um, so I was thinking as of these criteria and I'm looking through it and I I don't see specifically maybe in the social environmental benefits category. I don't see anything that says um like
setbacks from from surface water supplies or wells unless maybe that's climate resilience. again some of those real thresholds or yeah triggers that we are looking at um
I just want to make sure that those are covered as if we review those criteria that we include those kinds of concerns and maybe that's the kind of feedback they need. Yeah, I mean it might be the feedback that that
needs given at the state level. I haven't given any because I it's >> I mean they they do have you know on the dimension she just wrote in on setbacks from water supply that they were missing
wells um private wells but they weren't silent on it. um behind the meter is uh the energy system I wish we'd put in, but that our house is directly being fed um by the solar, you know, rather than
we're returning it to the grid and getting a credit for it. So, we're we're uh we're there's there's no use of the utility at all. Eversource is not involved. It's just feeding right into um our own meter. Um, so we don't I
don't know how many homes in Amoris have it, but lots of them in New Mexico have it. They're running off the sun, you know. Um, they could My my brother builds them. No, and Switzerland's got a lot of them, too. You know, they're trying to get it
off the grid altogether. You know that. And then you have to have a sto something that stores or you're only going to have your lights on a certain time of the day, >> right? Yeah. So, so in terms of setbacks, there weren't a lot of
discrete setbacks in any of the guidelines or um model bylaws other than those 20 foot ones for solar. Um what the standard what the guidance on sort of uniform
standards and conditions um regarding water included were surface water quality standards that um you follow the requirements to protect public health and enhance the quality and value of water resources in the Commonwealth,
including where appropriate the prohibition of discharges. and it referred to a different state regulation than the one we're dealing with that I didn't look up, you know. Then there's the wellhead protection which is what I did pull in the zone one prohibitions
and all um for wellhead. Um I pulled in the setback for Bess um for the tree lines and all for the NFPA one. Um and and the you know restrict sighting for zone 2 for bass and then setbacks.
They only gave like strict setbacks for solar which was 25 ft you know and and stuff um unless larger is required. But really they were very, you know, nothing about the disturbance areas at all in anything that I looked
at amongst all these 12 different guidance documents, you know, nothing nothing about any of that, which I know I will say the Shootsberry um planning board chair, Kungcom chair, I I forget
what he chairs, um is is very much into the comments on those sort of lacking of in almost care about protecting water supplies um because it it is in some sense
surprisingly lacking especially as it relates to Bess uh which then doesn't give us a lot of standards um to guess on how to put it in a bylaw. What I will say is the next draft um if if we get to it, there are a
lot of guidance documents and I think even in the model best bylaw um for sort of emergency response stuff related to best fire containment. You know the
model best bylaw has containment of liquid hazardous materials. the guidelines, the uniform standards and conditions talk about hazardous waste and herbicides. Um, you know, they they talk about emergency services and emergency response plans and all sorts
of things with that. Um, and all these other things that that storage of chemicals and hazardous materials. It's just so many things that I haven't gotten to compare to what we have and and truly done that yet. But but something that you know like I said this
document is sort of the barest first easy stuff the next stuff that we'll be coming into the committee with is the harder stuff to integrate in um and figure out but they do have a lot for best emergency response for containment
of hazardous things that doesn't which goes a little bit towards towards water supply protection, but probably not as much as we'd like to see. >> Now, so Mandy, on some of this, should
we um join Shoot Sparrow or do our own you're missing you you're silent on some during this comment period. You know, flag a few of these things. That's question number one. Question number two is thank
you for what you're doing. Um yes because the level at which you're reading it is something I would expect the staff at the planning board to be doing as part of their paid job. Um it's above and beyond what I think a
counselor should have to do although we uh you in particular but many of us don't mind writing legislation you know I mean it's it's part of it but I just so my question on the second one was we have Stephanie who doesn't normally
write bylaw you know she's she's a different she's climate so in the we have a new planning director we have uh we have um Aaron over in in Concom you
know in terms of water supply and what she would be looking at. So, which of the town staff beyond Stephanie ought to be helping think through these kinds of issues? Not the, you know, how many feet back, but you know, what's missing,
you know, what uh water, it's either the state overall should have something on it or we need to be specific on it because they're missing it. um so we don't uh get have blinders on on what we might not know. Um
>> yeah, a a couple of things I would say. Um it would take probably a very long time for the committee as a committee to vote any type of comment to submit as a committee. But I I would encourage
anyone who wants to submit comments on their own to do so if you're unsure where or when or what. I don't even know if all the comment periods are still open. Um I'm happy to send that information to you. Um there's also a website that the Shootsberry uh
individual has been keeping up with all of the information and all of the deadlines and where it all goes. Um, you know, so I think individual comments are best. Um, since it would take a lot of committee time to come up with, we'd all
have to read it all. Very >> And I didn't mean to do it as a group. I just >> in terms of staff, I I think Kathy, if if you work on your sections, I'm going to continue to try and pluck away at the sections that we didn't assign. Um, in
in terms of and and then and then you were going to do the definitions and the purpose and and some of this other stuff. If you plug away on that and I plug away at the other, if we as we're doing that, keep that tally going of comments or questions or what's missing
and all. I think then either a meeting with Stephanie outside of this meeting between the two of us to be able to answer some of them maybe before we come with the draft to the committee or um bringing her in to this
meeting as well as I I just I Our new planning director came from, I think, a regional planning authority, which may or may not have been up up on this. I just don't know how up he is. I know Stephanie has been following this closely. Um, as as has
everyone dealing with clean energy and sustainability. Um, what's this going to look like? So, I think I think we've got an ability to help, but I think given the transitions going on as we draft,
we've been in most of these conversations as a committee. So, like I said, I was able to see where there were differences and say, "Oh, we can do that. I suspect our committee would want us to do that." Like, if if I brought the option to the committee of do we ban or don't we, I'm pretty sure I know what
the committee would suggest, so I just put it in. Right. I I think we as counselors are better poised to make those decisions in drafting than the staff is. But the staff, if we collect all those questions about how do we integrate mitigation and all or how do
we have that and then have those conversations um and even questions about what we started this meeting with of do we should we distinguish between best sizes? I actually don't know whether we want to or not in this town. There are
more I don't know whether we need to the staff is definitely more um informed about what sizes are going up in our town and what is being proposed right to to to give us that I think we just keep that running tally of questions um to be
able to let's talk about that for a second. So we have SharePoint. We could have in fact a document called uh ongoing questions about um solar and bass. And anytime we have a question, we
could go to that SharePoint document and add it just with like our initials and then the question. Um I wouldn't mind seeing because I'd like to see I'd like to see all the questions as you hit something. it would be helpful to me to know that you've hit
a you know a question. >> So the the concern is open meeting law. The minute you get a quorum dealing with something we're discussing we're violating open meeting law which is I will say the reason the working document has other than the PDF that I sent with
you only two of us have real time access to it because it won't violate open meeting law that way. Um, maybe Athena can help with that. But I'm happy to add any questions people have or we could
potentially send a working draft every, you know, in a PDF to Pam for posting in the next, you know, we have a meeting next week, so there'll be a new one Tuesday sent probably. So let's let's get you know m Mandy I'm thinking
about um if there was a document said questions you know definitions questions you know what Pam suggest >> that was the only document people were plunking things into so when we when we wrote the rules of procedure of course
when we wrote the rules for procedure as a committee we were Kathy knew nothing about open meeting law but we had a shared SharePoint point for all of us, but any one of us was only working on
one section of it and no one else was reading or commenting it until we brought it to the group, you know. So, it wasn't we weren't co-writing definitions or co-writing, you know, >> conferring in any way. >> We weren't conferring in any way. So, um
you know, Shelony wrote something, Kathy wrote something, you know, and Alicia Alissa Brewer did or didn't write something. And and so I'm just thinking that if we can steer clear of co-writing anything
other than dropping it in so there's one document. So that's or we just uh com do that Pam do that during these meetings. You know we're we're creating the running list of things so we can just double check. So I just want a a reality
check for me because I I never overpromise and fail to deliver. So I do feel I never promise and fail to deliver. So in this case I >> you don't want to over >> No, in this case I got to what Mandy is reading and going I don't have the
bandwidth to think about this. I'd rather think about chapter 70 that funds the schools and try to figure out how it works. And then I had three days of a family event. So right now then we're getting scrunched up. So we meet again next week. Finance meets again next
week. uh we have one of these ungodly long uh council meetings on Monday night. So, I have Saturday and Sunday to do the sections that I said I would do, and I think I can pull that off. And >> I'm I'm going to I'm I'm going to pause
for just a second because I am going to volunteer to look at required documents pursuant to the site plan review process. >> And I because I wanted to compare all required documents to what we already have in our lists. And I would just send
that result, you know, I'll just say yes, Ammerst includes, yes, Ammerst includes, and send that to one or the other of you for your >> So that's the submitt section. >> Yep. >> In in the 4A document labeled today,
Emer draft solar annotated to state. That's the submittal requirement section. Um >> um I read it as section 6.2 required documents. Oh. Um, if if you're looking at Hold on,
where's our submittals? So, um, 30 page documents too long. Um, so our draft bylaw had a submitt section. >> Yep. >> Section 18.04. Um,
>> in the annotated to state regs draft that is two columns. Next, the one column is our current submitt and the other column includes model solar bylaw section 6.1, model draft regulation section 29.092.
Um, as well as probably model solar bylaw section 6.2, what you were just referring to. Um, and and section 6.3, four, and five. um the the best bylaws are nearly identical,
which is why they're not repeated. Um the model best bylaws. So, you know, if if you want to I think if you want to compare those, that would take some work off of Kathy. Um you know, and then ship it to either Kathy or I and we can put
it into the draft document. That That's fine. Um I I assume Kathy that that's fine with you, too. >> Yeah. So Pam, just do a I mean the way the way we were planning on doing it before I fell down on the job was I was literally going to draft something
called purpose >> and call it a document. >> You can work on purpose. I don't I don't need to work on >> So I was going to say I was going to do purpose separate document definitions separate document then drop it into the main one. So if you were doing submitt and that's the title of it and then you
look at what mush them together on the submitt that we already had and then what are they asking for and then what in addition if anything is best. >> Yeah. >> If you do that I'll take it off my list. >> Yeah. And and I think the way to do it
is to start with the model bylaw submitt requirements because we know that complies with the state and doesn't go overboard with whatever their things are >> and look at what we had drafted and if it's in the model bylaw sort of like highlight it one way.
>> Well, we covered these, right? Well, well, the model bylaw language covers this, right? and then sort of highlight out >> which ones weren't covered by the model bylaw submitt documents and then give us a document that is just sort of the
submittal requirements A to whatever with maybe some that are highlighted that say these were not in the model bylaw but they were in ours or these are highlighted they were in the model bylaw but we hadn't included them in ours is there a reason why you know things like that
>> okay so that's great pimps because then I'm just looking at the list and I have purpose, definitions, applicability, design standards as my major ones. Um, and then I will just go and I'm going to I was always going to draft these as I said completely separate and then
>> and then dump them in. Yeah. >> And and then bring them in until I was happy with it, you know, like I felt it was sharp because I it I'm going to draft it in word on my own machine first and then I'm going to draft it into sharp point at the point I think I've got. I haven't
If I have have clear sentences and I've and and filling in as much as possible what Mandy said staying with our own definitions where we were missing something they were adding um and so trying to bring them together in a way
you know they they define everything. Um what is site plan? >> I'm not touching definitions right now. >> I'm just and I'm not I'm not going to do it the way they've done it. They went over the board like you know if they could have they said what is grass? I mean they went >> they had a little they were they went
crazy on definitions. They didn't quite say what is a tree but um in any case they >> no the the one thing I would caution is Kathy if you go from your word and you create a comment bubble in your word and then you try to drop it into the on Microsoft online word the comment
bubbles disappear and you have to recomment them. Just so you know. I won't do like I won't I won't I won't do that. >> I don't understand why a copy and a paste from one local copy of Word to online Word can't keep the comment
bubbles, but they don't. >> Um so yeah, I I think we can do that. I you know what I've still got on my list to do and I I it won't happen a little bit maybe tomorrow. Um but um probably
not till Monday or or not. Um is is sort of the section here that's the other sections whoever gets to them first and and a lot of that includes the things that we haven't assigned. So the hazmat I would like to
tackle those those sort of hazmat response plans reporting construction monitoring all of that sections are what I I would like to tackle. I don't know I if I can get them all done by say Monday night so people have time to read but um well Tuesday no one's reading Monday
night so sometime Tuesday. Um but but that's sort of where where my next sort of grouping is is the the those sections the hazmat sort of reporting response
plans things like that. um and whatever. We had a best section in our draft that is going to essentially get incorporated into all the other sections at this point if we're if we're incorporating best. It's not going to be its own section. Um so yeah,
but I think there on on that um so we haven't decided if we're going to have a separate best or incorporate it as we have been doing. Um, does it make it harder for for us later if we keep merging it?
>> I don't think so. >> I don't think so either. I think I think my concern >> that it would get overly long having seen how Mandy handled it may not be true. you know, I mean, I'm I'm happy >> and I actually think as as I drafted
those those dimensional standards because of how our working documents are sort of created and how you're reading stuff and all doing them at the same time, even if you keep them as separate sections, is really easy because you're in that zone of, okay, I'm talking about
fences and this one's a little different for best than this. Like, do we need them different or can we name name them the same? and then you're not re you're not focused on solar and then three weeks later coming back to reintegrate and yourself into that that headsp space
for best and so I think it's a little more efficient to at least draft them all even if in the end we end up separating >> bylaw that's that's why I asked the question >> and Pam what I think you'll see on submitt is this they're quite similar so then the I've already I've already
started checking >> and then the question is are we talking about um an application that's colllocating best and solar in which case do the above or separate and you can just lead lead sentence the following applied to any one of these
three >> potential things you know colllocated freestanding or whatever you have to do the following >> um and seeing that they have to do it to get this pre-filing thing they al also had to do all this area.
>> Yeah. For some for something like submitt requirements, there's a submitt for all solar photovalttaic installations and best installations in general, you know, and then maybe a section that says in addition to the above this large scale solar say if
there's a different requirement for large scale must also submit X or and then another section that says in addition best must also submit Y, you know. >> Yeah. So, so with that limit, I am so glad you took that section. I love it.
>> This is why I gave them to Kathy initially because I didn't want to touch that one. >> It's site plan stuff. It's site plan stuff. I love it. Um so we it is quarter of five and I'm just we have I'm not
changing subjects completely here but um we have no public no we do have someone in the audience >> we do we do have an attendee um I am going to uh offer the opportunity to anyone in the in the
public who would like to make a comment for up to three minutes and um the public comments would be on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes. We probably will not engage in a dialogue
or make a comment on that particular matter. That does not mean we won't think about it. Um please identify yourself and um and give your address please if you would like to speak.
I do not see a raised hand. >> Someone was admitted in. >> Um I I admitted him and and >> I admitted him first and then asked him to raise his hand. Sorry. >> Um good afternoon. Hello. This is Steve Roof. Um live in South Ammerst on
Southeast Street. Um, I'm just listening in today to try to get better understanding of the rules and I'm as confused about many of the same things as you are. Um, everything's in a draft state, so these things could change. Uh
my understanding is that they will be finalizing these rules in March of 2026 with the implementation expected by November 1st, I think, and then there'll be a one-mon transition and after December of 2026, I think the new rules
will have to be followed. So, it's a pretty tight timeline. I'm also fairly sure that all the public comment periods have closed for these new new rules and uh new draft rules. As Mandy mentioned, there were they came from a bunch of
different documents. They came from some different organizations within the state government. They all had different public hearings and they all had different deadlines, but I'm pretty sure they have all passed um at this time. One or two other things I just noted during the meeting. Um, the topic of the
behind the meter facility came up and Kathy, you were describing something that sounded more like an off-grid installation where there's no connection to the grid. Behind the meter means that the solar facility feeds the solar panels feed that house or facility. Um,
it uses the energy. If there's any excess, it will get pushed back to the grid. So, typically most residents are behind the meter. Um, at Hampshire College where I work, the two large ground mounts are also behind the meter. Uh, and probably the same for the
smallest array that's at Atkins Market. It's behind the meter. Um, not behind the meter would be those that are run by the utility or the community solar type installations that feed directly into the grid um without passing through a um
somebody that's using some of the power. What was the other thing? There was something else that seemed that came up that I thought I had an answer to some of your questions. Um but yeah, well, good luck. Um I appreciate all the work that you're doing and trying to dovetail
these things. Um, so good luck and I'll I'll keep watching you. >> Thank you. Byebye. >> Good. Thank you. >> Appreciate you showing up. So, back to back to non-public comment.
Uh, there is, as noted, a fair amount of work to be done. Um, I appreciate the idea of talking to town staff. Um, I fac physiciously said this afternoon,
you know, maybe it's time we send this whole package back to the solar bylaw working group because they uh they put so much energy into the beginning of it and pulled together such an amazing amount of material. Maybe it's time for them to work on it again to see if it
see what of their their items match up with the state um model. Anyway, I was I was being facitious, but but I kind of meant it. So, so we we're due to meet again next week. >> Yes.
>> And we'll see how far we get with this. And the original hope was to get to a full draft before the year end so we weren't carrying this over. And if nothing else gets assigned to CRC
between now and the end of December, we might get to a full draft with a a section that says we can't now figure out how the interaction between the pre-filing criteria and us doing that.
You know, we've left a a section here to be addressed or some, you know, so full as full a draft as we can get. So Mandy, I just think there may be some things we're just not in a position to >> Yeah. >> or not, but but but that was what we
were hoping to see how far we could get, right? >> Yeah. I I think that was the goal as as complete as possible with highlights of here's where we need to recheck the regs when they are finalized sort of things. Um and also then a a list of remaining
questions but but as minimal as possible so that the next council doesn't have to spend a lot of time on this draft that once the regs are given the timeline um as as the public commenter said this unlike the ADU that
sort of went into effect um well kind of like the ADU went into effect and you had to follow that we had a bylaw that didn't didn't comply with it right but But you issued when this goes into effect and every permit must be done by
December must be done under this process on the regs by December 1. It would be really good to have a bylaw in effect that sets that forward because otherwise you're operating in some sense without much guidance at all
except for the state regulations um because you have no choice. And so I think it would be and that's a quick timeline. it it so as as complete as we can get so that in March whatever CRC is is ready to send it back to the council
for hearings essentially is is my goal. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Jennifer, >> could these as the commenter also um mentioned, could the state change the requirements?
It sounds like Yeah. So if we we do our bylaw, we may still then have to make some changes by the end of the year. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's it's good to note and keep some track of, you know, the model bylaw, where where
did we have choices, you know, for something like submitt regulations, which ones were in the model bylaw, which ones weren't, how did that match the regs? because someone's going to want to go back and check the final regs and see, you know, does anything
conflict with that anymore. Um, I think I think that double check will be easier because a lot of times they put out a regulation docu final regs document that's marked up from the draft so you can see what they changed between draft and final, which makes it easier to if
you've based everything off the drafts, >> right? You can go back and see what you >> you can go back and say, "Oh, this is the section that changed. Did we base anything off of that? >> Yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to continue with uh the
agenda. We've wrapped up this conversation. We have no minutes to approve again. And so far, we um Oh, but I hold on. Um uh end of year end of term carryover items. We may or may not get to that. Uh, next agenda preview. We
actually do have another item on the agenda and that is the zoning change proposal for parcels 14B-29, 30, and 31. Um, so we I um I'm expecting
that it could be fairly straightforward. Um, I'm going to allocate roughly a half an hour. If it takes that, hopefully we can get through it. I really don't know because I haven't heard any of the uh proposal. Um and then and then switch
back to to solar. So that's that's my my goal. Um the next CRC meeting is the 20th and then I'm confirming with you all the first meeting in December I believe is
um I want to say December 4. Is that correct? 4 and 18. Because we have a Christmas holiday on the 25th. >> That's what I have 4 and 18. >> Okay. >> Why did I only have the 11th? We must have changed it without me changing my
calendar. >> I I No kidding. I um I didn't even have some of these dates on my November and December, so it was almost like we left it up in the air. Um, can we agree that
we should meet on the on the 4th and and and 18th? Does that make sense? >> That works for me actually better than the 11th, but >> it it works for me.
>> I'm now checking my own calendar. I I could do it on the 4th. I do have only the 11th uh on my calendar and I could do it on the 18th. Shall we make a note and change it for 4
and 18? >> I may have an issue next week, but you'll have a quorum without me, I think. >> Okay. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion to that effect? It's basically adding it's it's basically adding another meeting to our
December calendar. Is that appropriate and desired? >> Uh I'll move that we meet on December 4th and 18th but cancel the December 11th meeting if it was still on a calendar. >> Second. >> How's that for a lovely motion?
>> That's good. That's good. Uh Pam's a yes. Jennifer. >> Yes. Councelor to uh counselor Hanni. >> Hi. >> And Kathy Shane. >> Yes. >> I will make those notes and convey that to Athena.
Okay. Um and no unanticipated uh um events or information. So I think we're ready to adjourn. We're two minutes short. Anything we want to add?
>> I move to adjourn. >> I'll second. >> Uh Kathy, >> yes. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Councelor Heni, >> hi. >> And Pam is an I. Thank you everybody. And and especially thanks to Mandy and
Kathy for just the grueling work to just sort this stuff out. >> Really really appreciate it. >> As I said, it it's Mandy's on the heavy lift, but thank you. Yeah, one one last one last thing. If there are those documents that you want to be uh made
available more easily, can you directly put them into SharePoint? >> Uh I have so what I just cuz I'm confirming what we do have is um in the meeting packets.
Hold on. The You have the complete annotation compare contrast one that's full and like 30 pages long. >> Yeah. >> And that's at least for me that's the basis I'm doing to do any of my other drafting. >> Okay. >> And you have that in Word. So that
should be complete for anything anyone needs to do or investigate >> um the PDF. >> So that's the that's the one listed for a Ammeris draft. Okay. Okay. >> Yep. And and Pam, the the next set, what I'm
hoping to do is drop mine into what Mandy just gave, you know, rather than give you here's a freestanding purpose. Here's the freestanding. So you get something that is missing pieces, but but I'm going to write each of them separately, then bring them back
together. Um >> Okay. So we'll we'll keep building. Each time we see the document, it will be built on. >> Right. And and Pam, when you get your section ready, just send it to either Kathy or I and we'll drop it into that document. And then sometime next Tuesday, I'll create another PDF of that
document on how it exists. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Includes any questions you have, we'll we'll file them into that document. >> Okay. Um and when you do a PDF, that means that we would not be editing it during the meeting.
>> Um not that not the PDF either. Kathy or I would have the ability to edit >> like we've done in the past. >> Okay. >> In a in a different one. Um I might be I I didn't want to try and download a Word
document and see if all the comments came with the download or not, which is why I just created the PDF with comments. >> That's fine. Okay. Got it. Good. Okay. Thank you very much everybody. We have a journ. >> Yeah. Thank you. Byebye.