Okay. Oh, I see Angus. Okay, Mr. Marshall, you have a quorum of the board. you are a co-host of this meeting. Let's see. We are recording. Um I do think we are good to go.
>> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to the Ammerst Planning Board meeting of June 17, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I am calling this meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. This
meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed via Ammerst Media. Minutes are being taken. The planning board will be joined by the community resource committee of the town council for agenda item two in order to continue the public hearing for zoning bylaw
article 18 clean energy infrastructure pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025. This meeting will be conducted via remote
means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page.
No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite our best efforts, we
will put an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively, and
return to mute. Bruce Cen, >> I'm here. Uh, Fred Hartwell. Do we have Fred? Yes, Fred. Fred, we can't hear you. I can see your you and you are unmuted.
I think you're having a audio problem, but for right now, I will confirm that you are present. Jesse Major, >> I am present. Thank you. >> Thank you. I Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus Mloud,
>> present. >> Uh Johanna Newman told us last meeting that she would not attend this evening's meeting. And Jar Smith, >> present. >> Thank you all. During the meeting, if technical issues
arise and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remmute yourself. To the general public, when solicited,
please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and street
address in and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to 3 minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their
participation may be disconnected from the meeting. Okay. The first item is old business. Uh it's a legacy of uh SPR 2024-04. The applicant is the town of Ammerst and the properties at 70 East Street. In
accordance with conditions number 17 and 16 and 17, we will review plans for signage, bike racks, and benches. All right. So Pam, do we have a representative from the school project
present? >> You do. Tim Cooper should There he is. He has arrived. >> Great. Welcome, Tim. >> Thank you. >> Uh, we're prepared to have you present the material that you're here to show.
>> Sure. Um, >> before you start, Fred, you have your hand raised. Do you want to just check your audio? >> Uh, it's I'm sorry it's it's not working. You are unmute. You are unmuted on our
end, but we do not hear you. No. Okay, Tim, why don't you go ahead and Sure. I am going to share what I have for you. Um, uh, here is, uh, the site plan of the school project.
that was last uh before you uh over two years ago um before construction documents were complete. It was then the Fort River School. It is now the Amethyst Brook School. And just a few of the items that uh you requested updates on the time I'm going to share with you.
One was site signage. Uh there is one site sign at the north entrance uh that grants access to all of the parking on site. Uh the south entrance is for bus and van and service drop off only. So there is not a sign that would direct
traffic there. Um the sign will be located between um the service drive the the main drive and the sidewalk uh on the parcel about 30 40 ft back from the rightway. Um and behind the first stop
line for cars uh behind the first car at the stop line so that uh visibility is not obstructed. Um so I'm going to go this is the sign. Um uh it's been discussed in several meetings with the school building committee meeting with
the school school building committee. Um it's um within zoning regulations for Amherst in terms of area and height of size which I believe is 30 square ft and 10 ft high. Um this is a simple sign which is what uh the building committee settled on. They didn't want any
architectural statements, anything flashy. Certainly not anything illuminated or changing uh in terms of information. So it's the school color with a white type face. Um a little over 8t wide and just under six feet tall. um
uh to mark the entrance of the school. Um granite posts and a composite aluminum panel between them that will be painted. Um this will be installed as part of phase 2 uh which will be in the fall of 2026 uh when the existing school
was demolished and the site work north of the building that will then be open proceeds. M um will there be a sign at the bus and
drop whatever the bus entrance that says something about not you that the public shouldn't be using that. >> So there is no specific prohibition of um public driving there. Um and there there
is even talk with Mike Gallow Okonnell, the director of facilities about possibly adjusting. Um but during school pickup and drop off, uh it will be directed by staff. So I there should not be any confusion.
>> Okay. All right. Uh board members, um any comments on the signage here, the site sign? I assume this is really the only sign. >> This is really the only sign that is uh we have for your review. The rest of the
signs are traffic directionals, stop signs, um stuff like that, which I assume is less of your purview and and not on the public way. >> Okay. >> Um and and then there was also conditions in the original findings of um I'm just going to quickly show you
the the benches and bike racks because that was requested. Um here's a photo uh from last week actually that shows the progress. So a lot has happened in the past 2 years. Um you can see the playground and the area north of the building. All of these um
uh isolated concrete slab will eventually be paved around, but that is where the benches are going. Um you can see one of the square ones. The rest are obscured by trees and planting. Uh that's where the backless benches will go. And then the other areas uh next to
the um playground will have the benches with backs. So this is just the manufacturer's data that shows you what this stuff looks like. It's folded metal benches with perforations for thermal comfort and so that they drain. And then there are recycling and waste
receptacles. Every this is uh shown in two colors. Everything is the brown color to go with the brick that is selected for the exterior of the building. Uh so this is what the site furniture will look like and this is
what the bicycle rack will look like. Uh there are 22 of them on site um in groups of 10 and 12. Uh just going back to the photo to show you where they are. Each one
will support easily two bikes or two bikes can easily be locked to it. Half of them will be underneath this PV canopy drop off so they'll be protected from the rain and the other half will be close to the main entrance. So 44 total bicycles can uh you know without any
sort of clumping beed up. So those are the items that were requested uh when I was last before you. >> Mhm. And what's the finish on the bike racks? The finish on the bike racks is the same as the benches. It is a
powdercoated um the color is I have chips that I could show you. Uh rust, but it's it's very close to the brick that is the darker part of the building and it's a powder coating which is uh pretty durable. >> So, it's not a quart steel which comes
to mind when I see the renderings. Uh no it is not a Corten steel and Cortan steel if you sit on it it will leave a a mark on you which is not ideal for benches >> right okay good okay um board members
any any comments um well I see two hands at the moment Fred uh Fred Hartwell uh I am not hearing you Fred All right. Well, I'm going to I'm going to lower your hand and you can bring it
up when you Okay. And um Pam Rooney, your hand is up. Pam Rooney, 42 Cottage Street. The sign looks lovely, but it has only one face. So you are you going to repeat the
wording uh with the name of the school so people coming from the from the north and south will know that that is the entrance. >> Um I so understood the the plan was conceived as being um facing the street so that it
could be visible from further away but it can easily be turned 90° so that uh to maximize visibility. And then in terms of printing, it's a both-sided printing process. So the text could be repeated. And I think that makes sense. I mean, the fabrication um has not been
completed and the and shop drawing. So uh turning it 90° to increase the visibility is certainly a possibility and easily enough to accomplish. >> All right, sounds like something to consider. Uh Bruce Bruce called him. Um,
Tim, you said it wasn't an illuminated sign, and I think that that may have meant that it wasn't a neon type sign. Uh, I can't remember. I should know, but I can't remember whether the sign itself
is illuminated independently from a st from a a ground light or so. Um, so that it can be seen during the the evening hours. Is it >> uh you are you are absolutely correct. It is uh I was less than perfectly clear. It is not a luminous sign in
sense of neon or or a TV screen or anything like that but there are ground lights uh that will illuminate the sign itself. Um, so it is visible at night >> and uh Doug, I could say that this building committee felt that the sign
facing the street was sufficient, I think, but that that was that particular group and uh um so it's it's uh it's being reviewed as as you see it by the school building committee of of who of
which I'm a member. >> All right. Well, I guess I'll invite other members if they're they have an opinion about the orientation of the sign and whether it's perpendicular to the street or
parallel and or whether we just leave it as a comment for the building committee to consider if they want to think about this anymore. Fred, uh, see your hand again. Nope. >> Nope. Still no audio. Fred,
you might consider uh leaving the meeting and coming back in. All right. I don't see any other hands. Angus, go ahead. >> Sorry. I was just going to say I think it could make a lot of sense just to to defer to the building committee on what they think is best for the sign
orientation. >> All right. Thank you. That's my inclination too. Anyone else have any comments? Looks like. All right. So, in that case, I think um Tim, we'll just thank you for coming to
show us the signs and the site furniture. I think you've met the uh requirements of the permit that we asked you to come back and good luck with the project. >> Thank you. Uh it's a pleasure to be working on. [clears throat and snorts]
>> Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, time is 6:50. We'll go to the second item on the agenda, which is the joint public hearing with the community resource
committee, the zoning bylaw amendment for article 18, clean energy by clean energy infrastructure. This hearing of the planning board is continued from May 20th, 2026 and June 3rd of 2026
to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to to zoning table 3 dimensional regulations. uh section 5.11 renewable energy
accessory solar photovoltaic installations/ battery energy storage systems uses and section 6.2 fences and article 12 definitions. So, this meeting, this hearing of the planning board is now
open. And I'd like to invite Pam Rooney to call the meeting of the community resource committee uh to order. >> Hi. I see uh not everyone here. I see
Jennifer Ta, Pam Rooney, and we need at least one more person. Um, I'm looking for Andy Churchill or Alicia Walker to join us. Mandy Johanni will not be here tonight.
>> Okay. Um, in that case, um, should we do a couple of other relatively short Yeah. >> things on our agenda while we wait for >> for someone else to show up? Okay. Um, in that case, we'll skip to item
three on our agenda, the meeting approval of planning board meeting minutes. Um, we have minutes from March 18th available for approval. Um, board members, were there any comments on those minutes as drafted by
our staff? Okay, I don't see any hands. Uh, in that case, does anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes as drafted? Bruce, >> moved. >> Thank you. And Jesse, >> I'll second that.
>> All right. Any any any comments and discussion by the board? Fred, I see your hand. Fred, I'm still not getting any audio. I'm so sorry.
Okay, in that case, uh we'll go ahead and do a vote. Um Fred, I'll ask you when why why don't we start with you and you can just indicate uh thumbs up or thumbs down uh for the the approval of the minutes.
Thumbs up. I see as a as approval. Thank you, Fred. Uh Bruce, >> uh I'm an I. Yes. >> Thank you, Angus. >> Hi. >> Uh Jesse,
>> hi. >> And Jara, >> hi. >> I'm an I as well. That's six in favor, one member absent. The motion carries. The minutes from March 18th are approved. Great.
Uh Pam, I have not seen anyone else arrive yet, so I'll go to another item. [clears throat] Um Pam, I'm gonna ask you some Pam. Pamfield Saddler, >> I'm gonna ask you some uh and and
Walker, I'm gonna ask you some questions. Uh first of all, do we have other than the old business that we just uh conducted, do we have any other old business topics that we did not
reasonably anticipate 48 hours in advance? >> I did want to just bring one topic up, which is the downtown design standards. Um just a reminder that we're looking for feedback on those before the end of the month or by the end of the month.
>> Okay. All right. >> Okay. So, great. Then I'll ask a similar question about new business. Um, which is topic six on our agenda. Did we have any unanticipated new business?
>> Not that I'm aware of. >> No. All right. >> So, >> all right. Um, Pam, do we have any uh ANRS? >> We do have an ANR.
>> All right. Well, I just saw Andy show up. Actually, >> I just noticed Andy's arrival. Pam, uh, why don't why don't we come back to the ANR and we'll let uh we'll go ahead and and start the uh or or let
uh let CRC start the hearing. >> Thank you. I'm going to call the meeting for the community resource committee together and I'm looking around. Uh Jennifer Ta, are you here? >> Yes, I'm here. >> Andy Churchill. >> Yes, finally got my computer to go. And
Pam Rooney is a yes. I don't see Alicia Walker, but we will add her in when she shows up. But we do have a quorum and we are able to open our meeting to join you again. >> Thank you. Welcome. >> And Fred looks like he has a comment.
>> Well, I was gonna see. Uh Fred, do you want to say anything that we and try your audio again? I do not hear anything. All right, Pam, why don't we pick up where we were? >> Okay,
>> we can definitely see Fred's hand when he puts it up. So, >> yes, >> we can give him another So to recap for everyone who has pretty much been here for the whole time, um we
have made our way through the document. There are a number of uh just small comments, editorials, and and changes that we pretty much agreed to as we made our way through the document. Um I have docu documented those on my copy and I
actually sat with Mandy Johanni this morning. we went through all of those. So, she um unless there are and there are a few items that um that we sort of left as as hanging questions and we'll try to go back to those tonight. Um we
left off um with the tables for uh table three and table 5.11. Before we get into that though, I I want to just give a quick overview of schedule. So, we've had three, this is
the third of our joint meetings. Um, the CRC is not going to close its hearing and vote until the planning board does because it is our our conclusion that triggers a 90-day count
and and uh responses to council, etc. So, we are going to essentially wait for the planning board to make its final deliberations and and vote on the document um and refer that to us.
that looks to be that July 1 is your next opportunity to either, you know, continue the hearing um and then close it and report to the CRC.
Um, the document that we end up with tonight with corrections and changes will get cleaned up tomorrow by Mandy Johanni and it will go to KP Law for its legal review. We are going to ask KP Law
to kindly get it back to us by July 10, which is after your next meeting and but before your July 15 meeting. um which is pretty much July 15 is
pretty much the last date that we can hear back from the planning board and still make the October one deadline um with two readings of the of the bylaw in um in the council and then a vote. So
that's to I can I can share the calendar at another time and send it to all the of your members, but that's sort of the gist of it. >> Pam, will the version that Mandy, Joe, and whoever
finalizes or co puts together tomorrow or in the next few days? Will that be available for the planning board to review prior Yes. >> for its July one meeting? Yes. Yes. Yes.
>> And I also want to publicly thank Walker Powell for the work that she's done the last couple of meetings. Thank you so much. Um it's invaluable because we just this this is so important to get it captured and and documented. And we're
going to ask you again tonight please to to help us with that. So tonight's document should be saved as as version version 13 with today's date and that is what we'll you'll see um
early next week or the end of this week as the document to work on or to think about. >> Okay, I see Bruce's hand. >> Yes. I I just uh Pam, you said that uh KP Laws review won't be back until July
10, thereabouts, plus or minus. Um, and to you and Doug, do is it is it is it appropriate for the planning board to deliberate on the document as version 13
or or should we wait until KP Law has gi given the deliberation before we make a decision? Uh, >> well, I think I think you will have you will have tonight's version to work from. Tonight's version is what's going
to KP Law and then so as a as a group, we're all going to be um looking for their feedback on tonight's version. >> So, we would wait until we get that feedback before we close the public make our decision and close the public hearing.
>> That's up to you, but but it makes sense to have the legal feedback. Um >> Okay. And it's and and the schedule allows for that, but only just >> barely. Yes. >> Yeah. That's why I was wondering whether it would be prudent for one of us to
move uh forward. Uh I mean basically we could move forward and uh uh I guess we can discuss that amongst ourselves. discuss that um whether we want to recommend the version, >> you know, lucky number 13.
>> Um >> and uh or and then we could come back later and, you know, recommend or not recommend number 14 if there has to be one. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> And and I'm I'm expecting that in fact
there might be some final tweaks once even once we get back KP laws. Pam, is it advantageous to you for us to re to make our recommendation on the 1 of July or is it just just the same if
we do it on the 15th? I know it's tighter, but it's >> I I think it makes sense to do it on the 15th because then you will in fact have KP Law's commentary. >> Okay. And we're and
>> so Walker, you will need to quickly get the word from KP Law into our packet. >> Uh yeah, or the 15th. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Great. >> And and and maybe sooner, but we don't we don't know.
We're asking them to expedite because so this document could have gone to them at the very beginning but in fact um I forgot first of all and and it hasn't really seemed to make much sense to do
it while while it was still in formulation. [gasps] >> So Walker we have tonight's version and I and I think you have access to that right? I seem to only have version 12. Um >> Oh, that's tonight. Yeah, if you want to
just save it as as the 13th. >> Okay, >> that would be wonderful. And we're going to go to the very end where there are two tables. Okay, >> I put in while she's getting that up, I put in a request, last minute request to
see if Rob Moira would be available to help perhaps answer some of the questions um specifically about applicability. what as building commissioner when we look at this table um which is table
three there are a number of items that are listed as yes approval by building commissioner and um just want to double check that in fact Rob Mora who would be administering that uh understands and is
comfortable with that. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you Walker. And if folks could keep an eye out and see if Alicia Walker does show up, I'll make sure she gets acknowledged. Thank you.
So last time we left we left off here and um this table was structured initially by Chris Breup and um we have to date really not made many changes to
it and I wondered if we could walk through I'm thinking row by row to sort of understand um the categories and the conditions. So on the left is the land use
classification and the very first row is the building mounted canopy solar photovoltaic installations up to a a fairly significant number of kilowatts up to 25,000 kilowatts.
That 25,000 kilowatts is where the state steps in and says anything larger than that we we manage all of the the permitting for large projects. We recognize that there would be very very few if any
projects of this size specifically that are building mounted or canopy even if they include photo excuse me agra agravaics the agricultural application of SPI
so that with that in mind we're looking at across the board in the outlying and lowdensity residential, in neighborhood residential, in village center, in general residential and even fraternity
residential. It would be a yes, it would be by building commissioner approval administratively. In the other more commercial zones, it's listed here as by permit granting
authority for the principal use. So, um, but it's unlikely that you would have projects of much size at all. And we don't necessarily want to encourage large projects in the downtown in the
limited business where it's much more uh lucrative for the town to have viable commercial or you know construction. Does anyone have any comment on that row? Well, Pam, the uh
the FPC floodprone >> conservancy >> conservancy, that's not a a downtown urban. >> Right. Right. >> Um >> what are you thinking would be an appropriate
>> It's just sort of an oddball in terms of the how you done all of this. And um okay all right um I won't make any comments about that then >> you could truth
>> it it does seem a bit odd though because when you go down to the ground mounted you've got uh 250 kow and that by the way is maybe 30 houses size, 30 house roof
sizes. Um, and and from then on down there's no no in the uh flood plane conserancy. Um, but uh a building mounted in canopy is is is that because in the flood plane you
might have houses. I can't remember whether we have whether houses would be allowed in a flood plane. Doesn't seem logical. But is that is that is that why it's uh by the permit granting uh authority as opposed
to just another no. >> I'm trying to remember if houses are allowed and I'm I'm wondering maybe if Stephanie or or Walker knows. Um, I'm thinking uh sheds, small, you know, farm sheds might be a >> you you have a you could have a small
system on a farm shed. >> Yes. But but but you can't do it on the ground. >> Well, you can have you can have agics. >> Okay. Okay. Maybe we just have to let this one
go and and figure it out with a a change in the bylaw if it because it sounds like it might be kind of complicated and letting it uh letting the permit granting authority make a determination is probably going to be a feedback mechanism that will inform us as to what
actually >> yeah it's more permissive than all of the other ground mounted. So that particular one I guess is okay. I guess then we can talk about whether
we should have a some yeses or site plan review under the lower rows for f FPC but we can come back to that. Bruce, do you have anything else or can we put down your hand? Okay.
>> Okay. Next row uh next category actually. So this is this is groundmounted solar with or without colllocated BES. So it could be very a very small uh SPI or SPI
with best. um tier one, the very smallest of under up to or or under 250 kilowatts. We have basically administrative approval across the board except in those districts
where we want to encourage uh again this is groundmounted. We want to encourage commercial uses or retail uses rather than solar uses. um they would they would still be
something that small would still be used uh appropriate as a building mounted or canopy. So um the only one that I I mean other than the FPC con discussion which I
think we probably could also have um the BG um you know the BG is not a very extensive area. Um but I could imagine in concept somebody taking I don't know 10 acres
and um and developing it with say I don't know six or eight houses and having another couple of acres devoted to solar uh and then you know selling it that hey
your power will never go out because uh you've got your own solar array to to keep your houses is powered. Um, you know, is that is that one where we might go to site plan review or at least
special permit just to say, well, that's something we we would consider, but not automatically approve. I I would suggest that in the BG in the downtown district, we probably wouldn't want to encourage 3 acres of land being
turned into solar when we could have um somebody paying taxes on a five-story building. >> Well, I mean, we don't have fivetory buildings in the BG at all. >> In the BG? Yes, we do.
>> Oh, oh, you're right. Never mind. That was a You were thinking RG. Are you thinking RG? >> I was thinking RG. So, >> do you want do you want to talk through that again with RG? >> Okay. So, in that in that case, never
mind. Never mind. Yeah. >> Okay. Did everybody follow that? >> So, uh Bruce, you've you've been our source for how much acreage is needed for 25,000 kilowatts.
Um, is 250 kW is that just 2 or 3 acres or is that >> Yes, I was just trying to redo that. I figured out that 25,000 is probably about 30 acres. >> Yeah. >> So, if you
uh divide it by 100, you've got a third of.3 of an acre. That kind of makes sense. So what we're talking about is uh because I generally speaking it's about
7 kW because the the trouble is that the efficiency of these devices has been improving since I used to do all this in my head. Uh and that was like 10 or 15 years ago. So 7 kow was a a big uh was
is a substantial array. So that's uh that's why I said there's 250 is 30 houses and 30 houses with about I don't know some 800 square ft let's say. So 30 by
800 is uh 24 >> 24,000. So that's half an acre. So it feels like you you say between a third and half an acre is let's say half an acre because you should remember is
about what we're talking about here with a T1 the tier one >> about half an acre. >> Yeah, depending on the setbacks. >> No, this is just the size of the array. >> Okay. the actual array is half an acre
by my uh semiback of the envelope calculations with um so it's it's small by in terms of what we're talking about here but it's still huge in terms of uh you know
an array that's in the RG for example if you if someone put a halfacre uh array in the RG it would certainly stand out >> Mhm. So in that in that sense um the the parcels where I live on Cottage Street,
they're a quarter of an acre. So it would take two two house lots to create something of a tier one up to a tier one um >> limit. Yes. To the to the max of tier one. >> So >> well it would take it would take more.
it would take more just because that the two house lots would be the array and then >> you'd have the setbacks and the >> fence line and all of that. So again, that while it could it could certainly fit or
be considered for the RG or the RVC or any of the residential districts, um, in in the more commercial zones, we probably wouldn't want to be designating acres of of solar panel, ground mounted
solar panels, um, over the ability to build commercial structures and tax them. Yeah, >> but if that were the case, if that were the case, it's still an administrative um approval or or simply not allowed
where we prefer other activity. >> Yes. I mean, at the moment, there's Y means by right or administrative approval. So, there's >> Yes. And and so my my sense is that an array of anything like that size would
basically not be viable. I mean, it wouldn't be the highest and best use of a of a high price lot in the middle of town unless somebody was putting a huge building right underneath it. And that would be subject to all sorts of other
regulatory constraints. So maybe the thing is right as you put it and my guess is that staff have thought about this and they've just said yes uh that's not complicated by trying to fractionate this all the way down so that we get uh uh um
so we try and get a sharper instrument and so forth. I mean I it feels okay to me even though it's when I did the math initially in my head a moment ago or the other day it seemed like it was a bit
odd to allow by right a substant such a huge potentially up to such a huge array in I'm just saying RG because it's the it's the tightest residential neighborhood u but I think I I think the
market forces and other regulatory uh constraints are going to protect us from anything that's beyond stupid. >> Thank goodness. >> Do you think that Doug? Would you agree with that?
>> I guess I'm I'm I'm okay with with this the way it's structured, you know. I mean, we do have a yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And yes for the for the comm, the OP, the LI, and the PRP. And those are a little more outlying. And again, I think
economics will limit the amount of instances we end up with in those areas. So tier 2, which is 250 kilowatts up to a,000 kilowatts, is now looking at site
plan approval in the um the outlying and and low low density and neighborhood residential areas. Not allowed in the more dense residential areas. And yes, allowed by
site plan approval in um commercial light industry and PRP. Um we could we could talk about the uh office park. Office Park again says no,
we don't want, you know, we don't want we just don't want it in office park. Um, and that's possibly a a conversation that could be had. We have, I think, uh, and maybe Walker could confirm this, we
have only one office park location in in town, and that is, um, University Drive. And we've already we've already given that an overlay saying we really want highdensity housing there. We're not too excited about groundmounted
solar. >> Pam, I see. Angus's hand and I'm glad Angus has got his hand up because I think he's been thinking about this area, this zone along with PRP recently. >> Yeah, I'll just briefly say uh Pam in
total agreement that you know the the OP is already has the overlay on it. Um we've been talking about trying to make changes to the PRP um to possibly allow some forms of housing. Um, and in the conversations with town staff around that, they've they actually would
recommend shifting what is currently the three or four parcels in OP to BL. Um, it's already got the overlay. Um, and then it might make sense to actually just eliminate the office park designation as a separate designation from PRP, but that's that's a different conversation. But yeah, I don't think
that there needs to be any kind of exception for OP with solar arrays. >> Great. >> All right. So, it sounds like people are generally okay with the tier 2 designations.
>> Tier three gets up from 10 from a th00and kilowatts to our locally um locally authorized 25,000 kilowatts. And that would be by special permit in any
district where it's allowed. The rest being not allowed. Yeah, I guess this is this is the one that jumped out at me. I think in the spirit of trying to encourage um uh installations uh that I was going to
suggest that the special permits be be made site plan review and we can let I we can come back to that. Angus, I see your hand. Yeah, I was also going to suggest um
moving the commercial to special permit um or or similar to the others. Um uh so I guess separate from the from what Doug just said, if it was special permit, we could uh there's not a ton of commercial zones, so I don't think that there would this would necessarily
happen. Um but we could make a designation. We could make a determination on the the project brought before us. Um and we may end up zoning suggesting more commercial zones in the future and more options for what can happen in commercial zones as we think
about the East Ammerst um commercial corridor and the study that's being done there. So I would vote special permit for that. That might be a different thing if we're talking about moving to site plan review. >> Well, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Could could
Angus state that he would support what? moving the commercial the tier three commercial from no to special permit. >> Uh Walker, could you put your cursor on that so we can sort of keep our eye on Yes. Thank you. Thank you.
>> Changing that to SP. >> Bruce, >> that was the proposal. um >> only to say that we are talking when we're talking 1,000 kW up to 25 we're talking uh a raise of 2 acres to 30
acres and it seems that the commercial and I put my hand down a moment ago and that was because the angles were saying we might want to biggerize the commercial zone so maybe but still uh we have to logically the end is not
[snorts] no you can't it's not allowed. N is for no, it's not possible because there isn't enough commercial space to uh to allow a thing a tier three to exist on it. It's it's just the commercial zone is not big enough. >> Yeah.
Uh something else that occurred to me is that this category, the tier one, two, and three is um SPI with or without colllocated best. So there's when you get up to the the 25,000 level um I
would guess that there's pretty like pretty high chance of having some bests associated with that. And again that may be part of the driver for the N and the SPS in this case. Angus,
>> sorry. Um, I I mean, I definitely don't think we're going to take the entire commercial and turn it into 30 acres of a of a solar farm, but two acres, I think, in different parts of the commercial zone. Could actually make sense, especially there's a commercial
zone just south of Ammerst College that's currently, I think, a lumber yard and other things. if in the future that changed hands, I could I think I make total sense for a larger solar array. Um, so I guess my my inclination would be give people the option to bring
something to us and then we can shoot it down if we feel like it's inconsistent with how these zones are are trending because a special permit does not mean any kind of guarantee and most developers see it as a hurdle that is not worth clearing. Um, so that that would be my inclination.
Anyone anyone um opposed to inserting an SP in that box? I don't I don't see any hands. Let's give that a a try and just highlight it so that we recognize that as a change.
Great. Thank you. Then we move to standalone best. >> Hold hold on. Hold on. I'm I'm going to put in one last pitch here. I think uh you know for us to say that we won't allow any largecale solar arrays
in town without a special permit and all the uncertainty that comes with that is really throwing a lot of cold water on the whole thing. um for us to you know shoulder our burden of powering the future we need to be allowing some
substantial energy to be produced in town in order to just feed our own p energy use. So I I think this is uh this is really going to discourage any any large arrays in town and maybe that's
what uh you know the majority wants to do but I I think that this is a negative uh structure for us to promulgate. >> Bruce. >> All right. So Doug, to be clear, are you suggesting
therefore that in the RLD RO and or in the RLD at least that the SP should be SPR? Is that >> Well, I'm I'm I'm just saying, you know, to put together the full consolidated permit and do it under having to get a
special permit as part of that. It feels like it's a huge amount of >> I'm I'm supporting. I just want to make sure because you're you're saying >> you're at least at least the RO rld and RN I guess you know I
>> you would you would make it SPR. >> Yeah, I would go to SPR. Um >> okay that's what I wanted to figure out. >> Okay. I mean, you know, to me, more is more SPRS would be more supportive, but I think that just looking at the
geography of town and how the zones lay out, you know, uh, at least at least RO, RLD, and RN is kind of what I would at least argue for. >> Angus,
>> yeah, I was I I would agree. I I think one of the hard things is tier three is just such a a a large category, which would make sense, but there's there seems to me a pretty big difference between a twoacre development of solar arrays and a 30 acre development. So, it
it does seem like but I don't know where that line should be that you know, in developing this, you all clearly thought about that a lot. So, um I'd be inclined to move those first two categories RO and LD and RN to SPR as well. Um, but I
also I guess want to express some I have very little hesitation around that for a two to five acre or even 10acre project and maybe more hesitation around a 20 to 30 acre project. Well, you know, Angus, that's something that I I it also occurred to me our our
our tier 2 could get larger and, you know, not make tier three such so wide in in its uh in its size. But anyway,
um Pam, can I call on Bruce? >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Um, >> that's what I was going to suggest. Well, my my suggestion was that maybe we need a a tier tier three becomes 1,000
to um 5,000 and then tier 4 becomes 5,000 to 25. Um, but it another way of doing it would be to have a 250 to five. Um uh because the the uh once you get to
a 2 acre array size which is we figure is the the thousand kow um in the RRO and you know outlying RLD and so forth you might want to do a 3 acre one but you couldn't without well you you'd have
to get a special permit which is Doug's point. So, I do think it's it's um it's not as it's it's it's it's not as supportive uh it's it's not it's not as clearly supportive of a a clean energy policy that we think the town has or
should have to put an SP in there except when it gets truly large. And I would say that 5,000 kW would be truly large because then you've got uh what would we say? Um 10 acres. So that's a now we're
getting a big that's a big array. And I think that I would I would think that having a special permit requirement for a 10 acre array in town is not unreasonable. Um but I agree with you, Doug. They
think that up to five and I'm just picking the number in my head just somewhere somewhere less than 10 but more than one um and then uh put and put
some put put adjust the table so that um arrays up to 5,000 kilow are by special by site plan review and either by putting in another line or by adjusting tier food, >> right? Jesse,
>> thanks. >> And then Andy, >> I guess I'd ask what was the rationale for making tier 2 up to 10,00 what was the line there that was considered like not that we need to relitigate the whole conversation, but was, you know,
was there a clear logic to that size versus something bigger? And just >> Stephanie, I'm gonna go to Stephanie who has her hand up to answer that. >> Another comment I'll just add is It's been a while since I thought very deeply about this, but I thought there were studies saying, you know, we have enough
built structures already to put solar on top of rather than taking new land for bigger arrays. But is there a way we can incentivize that over some of these larger arrays? >> Stephanie. Um, thanks Pam. Um so the
size classifications were all um recommended in the state's draft bylaw model bylaw. So that's where the um the range of classifications came from. I just wanted to make that clear that
that's where they >> and so the so the 1,00 kilowatts is a couple of acres up to maybe maybe up to four acres. And that seemed reasonable with
local authorization. Andy? Yeah. I guess I just wanted to check the math because I I heard earlier that 25 kilowatts is 30 acres. So 5,000 kilowatts would be six acres and a th00and would be about a little
over an acre. I don't know if that's I I don't know if I'm doing the math right, but I just, you know, I think we ought to have a sense of that. >> Uh I thought I heard that 250 kilowatts
was somewhere between 1 half to a third. Stephanie has >> I think it's a half acre. I think we I depending on the efficiency of the devices used um then uh because you can there's very
and it's going to get more efficient uh I put it at half an acre uh the 250 which would mean that the uh the the thousand would be two acres.
>> So that's twice as large as I had done my math with. So, um, yeah, >> when you had 25,000 kilowatts equaling 30 acres, right? >> That was my calculation, Andy. Yes. >> So, then if you divide by 30 by 25, you're down to
almost an acre. A little over an acre per thousand. >> Yes. So, that's I'm saying depending on assumptions made on efficiencies and things like that. >> Okay. >> I'm uh I'm just Yeah,
I think the range is is dependent on assumptions based uh efficiencies and I said my my knowledge of this is a little old but but but nonetheless not all panels are the same and and I
suppose the more expensive ones the more efficient ones are the ones they're going to put on buildings where the premium is higher when you've just covering farmland just covering farmland when you're covering land probably you're going to use less efficient uh
devices maybe. I don't know. So maybe you're right, it gets bigger as you go into these ground mounted things. But we it's we're getting a little fussy here. I I think that safely we could say that rule
broadly speaking 25,000 is about 30 acres and broadly speaking about a thousand which is probably about half an acre because they're probably going to get more more effect more effective as they get smaller
>> in more like two acres. >> Sorry, did I say yes? Sorry, I two acres. So tier one, if we were to recap this and and what I've heard is a couple suggestions. One is to perhaps tweak that upper limit. So we might have
something like tier 2 is greater than 250 kilowatts and up to maybe 2500 kilowatts. And that gives us [clears throat] a range that's a little larger, a little more supportive, but it
doesn't throw us into the range of tens tens of acres. >> Yeah. Oops. I should have my muted. >> Does anybody have any thoughts about the Angus? >> I think that's a that's a good that's a
good plan. I I don't know where would make the most sense to draw the line. um none of us are are solar power experts, but I think a slightly larger amount makes sense um for these outlying areas. >> So, let's let's make that change and
maybe KP law is going to come back and say, you know, you're not following the state the state guidelines and in order to be fair across the the Commonwealth, you must change your table. And we'll maybe we wait for that kind of feedback. All right. So, for tier two that the
higher end, I've heard 5,000, 10,000, and 2500. >> Yeah. Where are we putting it, >> Bruce? 2500. I like Pam's suggestion. And uh and then if KP law does what she says
then Doug it's not the town of Amist that is um [laughter] being disincentives it's the state policy and we can we can say oh we did our best >> yeah I'm just looking at the model zoning bylaw from the state and and ours
would be more relaxed than their their requirements. So, um I I can't imagine that the law firm would find us at fault if we're giving more options for solar installations than what the state bylaw itself does.
>> Thank you. Yeah, thanks for checking that. Um so this all makes sense. It looks, you know, we've given this some good thought. We should move down to standalone bests and these are literally the storage units. Um, we have all kinds
of of wording in here on how they must be contained, they must, etc., etc. Um, that said, they are still battery storage units. And do people have um um
I think the the tier one I think uh we were looking up the size of something like that. It's it's not a large element. It might be like a 3x4 by five cabinet. Tier two at a at a thousand. Anything
larger than that might be up to a seven or eight like an 8 by10 size cabinet. Bruce, >> what's the logic in saying that you can't have the smaller one, but you can have the larger one by special permit?
Wouldn't it Wouldn't it logically go the other way? that that uh is there a reason why uh in a in the RVC for example or or the uh well the office park we don't have to spend too much time on I agree with Angus on that let's
take the RVC um the smaller um size B you it's not allowed the larger tier 2 is allowed with a special permit >> oh interesting y >> what's the logic of that look it would seem as though it should
the other way around. And my sense is maybe that was intended to be the other way around and it just got confused >> or it or it would be or it would be an SPR. >> Yes, because that's the way it is on the
others. It's SPR and then it goes to SP. Uh except in Office Park and >> Office Park is the same situation. >> We don't really we don't really care about Office Park, I don't think. But uh it seems to me that that uh in the RBC
those designations should be flipped to the SP SP for tier one and no for tier two. I mean that's a question. I guess the question is is that is that >> yeah I would just add if if we're
thinking of doing special permit for the RBC then it would make sense in other R and B areas as well. But we're we're we're talking when we we're talking about standalone bass, we're talking about a a lot that is dedicated
entirely to a battery storage facility um and is not attached to a building or connected to um the lot is being used say uh has has a building currently on it has a roof mounted solar and then has a battery storage attached to it. We're
talking about a parcel that is exclusively a battery storage facility, right? >> Yes. Okay. >> And and in this and in this scenario, it appears that that the smaller units we do not want to allow at all in the RVC,
but but we could allow allow a much larger one by by special permit. I think somebody make a recommendation. Bruce, >> I'm thinking that as as Angus mentioned, these are small contained. Uh, and it
reminds me on Fearing Street, there's this brick building that's Verizon, which for all intents and purposes could be a best. Um, but there it sits. Uh, it doesn't look terrible. Um, maybe people have driven by it many times and not
noticed it. Um so the question is why are we loating these near load centers which is you know closer to the center of town would seem to be something that would be logically
appropriate and it's too bad Fred's not here because he could speak more technically to this but it's would seem to me that these small U stoages would be most especially ly
valuable in uh near the center of town. And so that I guess is a question. Would these not be more uh should we not value the center of town locations for these given that they are near the load centers?
>> Angus. Well, it just kind of makes me think, Bruce, that maybe part of that special permit being there for RBC is trying to say, "Yes, we we would like to incentivize battery storage, but only if it's storing an enormous amount of energy." um that there's no point in
storing small amounts of electricity on a bunch of different lots close into town. But it might make more sense duration to have larger battery storage systems, which is kind of different than how we think about zoning for a lot of other kinds of industrial uses. Um, and so
maybe the SP actually could make sense for RVC and actually could make sense for RG RF for for some of these other categories as well because if we're going to dedicate a parcel exclusively to battery storage near population centers, we should try and maximize what we're getting out of the use of that
parcel for battery storage. >> I know that Fred is still with us. Fred, have have you Uh, it looks like maybe he's frozen. All right, never mind. I guess >> I'm I'm going to respond to Angus's
comment and I'm and I'm putting a different a different hat on and that is that um the larger the best unfortunately the the greater the risk of whatever it is whether it's explosion
or fire or something like that that um I don't think we have any power hookups in the center of town except maybe the limited business down on Route 9 um near what used to be Amoris Media. Um so you
you want your best I would think you would want your best in a in a location where you can you know feed into the into the grid with it. So, in that sense, I um I still don't understand why one would
be an N and one would be SP to allow a larger, potentially more dangerous unit. Um Jennifer, you >> should we just change the two N's to SPR or SP at least
>> in tier one and >> yeah, >> call it a day. >> Jennif Jennifer Yeah, I I would agree with what Doug just said to have it. Um, and I would think like in the in a residential area, which the RG is,
you would want a special permit. You certainly would want a butter notification and not because the N I'm assuming is just that you don't allow it. Not that it would I think if it's going
to be allowed, it should be by special permit >> in the RVC or in the RG? >> In the RG or we won't allow it at all? >> No. >> Okay. though we still So the RG we haven't
really talked about yet. The RVC, are we okay with an SPR on that? >> We're talking the small the small units. Um Bruce, sorry, I'm looking at the numbers, not at the hands. >> I'm just concerned that we don't know
enough about what we're talking about to be making these. So I it seems to me that we should um just make sure that however this table was filled out, it was done by someone who knew a lot more about these
things than we do because I feel kind of hopeless trying to figure particularly as you mentioned Pam the risks and so forth. I mean I made my comment about Verizon. Well, I don't think Verizon's going to blow up but but you're right. These things are essentially high energy
dense things. they're storing energy and basically that's what a bomb is. So u someone's going to come along and say you're letting us put bombs in the center of town and there may be logic to it but there may not be. I just I don't think we know enough. So I think we have to just make sure that however this is
filled out, it's done with with a and maybe somebody can write a short statement about why it is that it should why why it is that why it should be as shown or however we however it's decided
to be shown by staff what the rationale is because I just don't know enough to really have a useful opinion anymore I don't think. Thank you, Stephanie. And then Jennifer. >> Um, so looking at the states draft
um bylaw chart, they have more allowances for site plan review and special permit, whereas we just have nos identified. Staff um the building commissioner and Nate Mallaloy were the ones who initially um looked at this
more carefully and revised this table. So, this version I believe that you're looking at is the one that um Rob Mora and Nate had recommended. >> And do they know more than us? >> Um I would say Rob certainly has a vast
amount of experience in building construction and I think they work daily with the regulations. So, I would say I would just offer that. I'm not going to say knowing saying that it's more or less. I just know that with their
experience in working with these things regularly, the these were their recommendations. So, you can change them as you see fit. I I'm just letting you know that's where they came from because there was a question about that. I'm just responding. >> Thank you. Yeah. Um Jennifer, then Andy,
and then I I had a thought. >> Yeah. I'm just um echoing Bruce. I don't know that, you know, we have the knowledge to really weigh in. So, I guess I maybe would defer to to Rob and
Nate. I just don't feel like I really have the knowledge to change what's suggest changes. That's just why I haven't weighed in a lot during the conversation. I yeah I I don't know how um
to you know I I just don't have the expertise. I don't I don't know that we do and I feel like this is really important because there's been a lot of issues with the battery storage units. So I'd hate to make changes that are not fully informed.
>> Thank you. Andy, >> right? >> Yeah. I guess um >> I'd like to at least find out the answer the question about why we why there's an N in tier one and an SP in tier 2 from the
the folks who from I guess Rob now um just have them look at that again. And then if the state is more lenient on these things, I don't know, you know, why did we decide to be more just prohibitive on on some of the things that they're saying should be special
permit or or whatever. I'm I'm not I don't know what the the rationale is, but certainly the the initial question about why do we have a stricter prohibition on tier one than tier 2 in the RBC and the OP would be worth
>> yes >> directing their attention to and then the general question of why have we got gotten more specific or more stringent than the state. >> So let's let's plan to do that. I will write that up as one of the questions.
Um, and if we could put if we could put a question mark there by the SP that was just added. Uh, oops. Or or no, that one was fine. I think um, under office park, I guess it's the same question. Why
would you have a no for a smaller unit and a and a yes for or a at least pathway for a larger unit? All right. >> Yeah. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. And I'm trying
to I'm trying to read it from the perspective of what are what are we trying with that designation? What are we trying to encourage? are we trying to encourage use of RVC for you know larger larger units and it
could be that the RVC in fact is near the power grid because it's sort of down in that area around Route 9 and uh you know maybe that was the thinking that when the planners were putting that that information together
>> yeah I'm sorry to ask this but I I'm haven't been I'm new to this uh this year. So, how do you have a standalone best? Where does the energy come from as opposed to one that's coll-located with photovoltaic installations?
It's it's constructed I mean it gets it gets a feed from the the grid the power the overhead power lines and and it is filled with power you know during cheap energy times and then they sell it they
release that power and sell it when price goes up. Um whereas if you it's not fed by a solar field. The the ones that are colllocated are you know filled and and charged with
the SPI that that they're sitting next to. The other ones are are what's it what's the trading you know the >> triage. >> It's a triage on energy rates. >> It's a demand side management. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. But it but it's it involves renewable energy somehow. I mean, this is a >> Not necessarily. >> No, it just it just it literally stores energy when it's cheap and they sell it off for a margin of a profit when it's
more expensive. >> I guess I'm just wondering why it's in a clean energy bylaw if it's not necessarily clean energy. >> Angus Angus has the answer. >> I I don't know if I have the answer. I mean it doesn't have to be related to clean energy but I think generally if
we're trying to use renewable sources that are intermittent then we need to drastically increase battery storage and so the times if you increase solar capacity enough then energies have become cheaper at times when the sun is shining and you'll fill the best with primarily renewable energy but you could do this with a coal power plant and it
would work just fine. [laughter and clears throat] >> Right. Thank you. So I feel like we have we have made our way through we've raised questions and um we have made some suggestions. How about we move to the next table
and it was suggested that in fact this is this is an addition to article 5 accessory uses. So with this frame of mind, this is any SPI or best that is secondary to a primary or principal use
on a property. Um so with that in mind we have tier one um which is the SPI that is again building mounted canopy or groundmounted under 25 kilowatts
and or best under 100 kilowatt. So these are small these are very small. We had a discussion, Johanna brought it up and she said, "I think we need to clarify what's not included, what's what's, you
know, less than 25?" Um, and and I think we had the conversation that should we specify or can Rob Mora tell us better um
what he's willing to what he's willing to to permit as right as of right. Is it We've talked about having a statement that this bylaw does not apply to plug
in um you know the small the small kinds of batteries. Bruce >> um 25 [clears throat] kilows is a is a pretty hefty hefty system. Uh, I mean,
uh, unless you have a a house that's, oh golly, I'm just guessing a bit now, but let's say somewhere in excess of 5,000 ft², maybe even 10,000 square ft, then you would you would have a roof that would maybe want to could support a
larger system than that. And for some reason uh but but this is a this is the size of a system that can render even the large home uh net zero as well as basically providing the energy for you
know a couple of vehicles. So it's that seems to be the intent here and I I think that 25 kow seems to be reasonable for that uh for for that purpose. >> Great. And it's all by Yes. Yes. Yes.
Across the board for every district. Any comments about that, >> Doug? >> Well, uh I thought the conversation we had before was not about the maximum, the 25 kilowatts. It was about the minimum. And uh Johanna had cited the
plug in solar voltaic panels that you can buy and just plug into a 120 volt outlet which uh you know are only have they only have a few hundred kilowatts and would they be subject to this? And uh then there's the
kinds of there's the solar panels that feed the crosswalks that are around town. Are they subject to this? Um so I think that was more the conversation about is there some minimum below which we don't want to have to get
into a whole permit protocol. But isn't, if I may, Doug, it doesn't Yes. across the board basically avoid having to get into any permit protocols. >> Well, you've still got to apply, you
know, put in a application to the building commissioner >> uh for a building permit, >> right? So, I mean, I think that was the conversation. I I'm not sure where it
should go, but >> yes. Well, I thought One of the one of the suggestions was and and this would jump us all the way back to the very beginning, but I I'll just read it out loud, but this is a statement that would be um that I'm going to suggest that we add to the very
first section of 1802 applicability with this with the sentence that says um this does not apply to building integrated BES or consumergrade plug-in systems SPI. by and that is trying to address
that this whole bylaw does not apply to that level of equipment and that's where we really want Rob to be able to weigh in and say tell us you know tell us what you don't want to have to administer essentially Bruce
>> I think that's the way to do it and not trying to have a table for it >> I agree >> yeah good okay so this is an administrative Yes, these are all again accessory uses. Um for tier 2
which is so solar photovoltaic system build again building mounted canopy or ground mounted greater than 25 kilowatts but up to 250 kilowatts and or best at 1000 kilowatts.
There is administrative approval needed in ROLD and resident uh neighborhood residents. Then in other zones there it is not approved
uh except when you get to business village center, business neighborhood, commercial, maybe office, park, light industry, PRP and again FPC which we could we could talk about and that's by the permit
granting authority for the principal use of what's coming before those boards. any comments? >> I guess I'm I'm I've been puzzled why we have the nose across the the in those zones and why why we're not at least
allowing it um under the permit branding authority. What What are we trying to discourage here by doing this? Somebody somebody's trying to discourage um larger systems that are accessory to
the principal use. >> Yeah. >> And if you're getting if you're getting >> I'm not sure why we want to discourage that, I guess, is what I'm where I'm coming from. >> Maybe Bruce's conversation about the size of of parcel
required to meet some of those um numbers is more than we than we want in a residential district because we would rather have housing. I don't know, Bruce. >> Well, it's it's I I I agree with Doug because this is accessory to something else. You've got a a principal use and
and and then a regulatory process associated with that. So, I would think it would be quite logical to have no nos here because we're only talking accessory uses and of course this is a fairly large one. So here you might it might be for example that the what's
happening here is you've got a very large house and somebody I don't know for some reason or other they might be wanting to use very inefficient no it's now the size would be that would um I would I think that Doug's right I I
would support the amendment that's extended by permitting grounding authority for principal use uh all the way across to uh the RN which a yes. It makes sense to me. I I think we entrust the permit grounding authority and then
they can figure out whether it's a no or not. We don't tell them what it has to be. >> SPR would not be a no. There would be no no associated with SPR. >> Well, where it says by permitting grant,
it's by permit granting authority. So wouldn't we just extend that uh regulatory control to BLBG, RF and RG and RVC? >> I mean it's that seems to be logical.
>> Can I just ask what um the by permit granting this is a clarification by permit granting authority for principal use. What what does the for principal use mean? It means the the primary use. If you go to the use table, which is table three
in the bylaw, it lists hundreds of primary uses across town, things that are allowed or not allowed in every district. And um so it could be residential, it could be, you know, mechanic shop, whatever that use is.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. So it's not saying that the principal use of whatever the parcel is would be solar. This would it's still accessory. This is an accessory. This whole table, this whole table is accessory only. Correct. >> And what struck me is that for tier
three, which is even bigger, it's by permit granting authority for the principal use across the board, which seems to me um you know, more certainly more flexible than than the
nose for tier 2, which are smaller. So that confused me. I I would agree with Bruce and and extend that um in tier two. >> Great. >> Done. >> That's fine, Bruce. You can take credit
for it. Great. Thank you, Walker. Good. So, we will again we'll we will send this all to KP Law. They are also not solar experts I will say but they but they will hopefully be looking at
this from the legal perspective of you know how do we how do we stack up and and can we um can we administer this fairly and equitably you know across town.
Okay, you all did really well. That was good. Uh we have section 6.2 two, which is fences. And it just simply tells us that this section doesn't apply to fencing that encloses
SPI or BES. In in this document in the in article 18, we do cover fences and um that's where we describe what's required and what's allowed. But we'll add this wording to section
6.2. Uh definitions. We talked a little bit about we already have the comment in there that a minimum size should be specified for best um and also for SPI for definitions. So when we go to
um we may want to borrow some of that wording of this is you know a permanent permanently connected um whatever >> non-consumer >> non Yeah. Yeah.
>> Or commercial or >> commercial commercial grade. Yeah. any comments that people had on on definitions? Well, for the um groundmounted SPI, if we're going to change the upper limit
of tier 2 to 2500, we should change the thousand that's listed here. >> Good catch. However, in the spirit of only saying things once and not have to chase them all over a
document, you might consider changing this to just say something like, "The sizes are as defined in section 18 or in the table or whatever, table three or
wherever else we add it. >> Same for the standalone bass. >> Yeah. >> Of course, we didn't talk about changing those either. >> And that way if we change the table and
or the description, it will Well, this is the description, but we don't You're right. We don't have to say it twice. >> Only have to do it once. >> I love it. Pam, I think you're trying to make the same comment that you've made for 12 for
ground mounted for the standalone vests. In other words, yes. >> Yes. Great. Thank you, Walker. So, um, we got through it everybody. [snorts]
Bruce, >> um, where do we stand with the setback of arrays from private wells? I remember I was, uh, I contested that it needed to be 250 ft.
I asserted that it needed to be closer to zero. And uh and then we had the white paper that was circulated and I read that white paper and fundamentally it seemed to agree with what I was saying except that the concern seemed to be with storm
water management which is right there at 1812. And so I thought well let's deal with it in 1812 where it already is and not uh uh try and deal with it differently by putting a 250 set back.
And so that you you got ahead of me. I was going to go back through the document and just say this is this is where we >> That's okay. That's okay. We'll we'll just This jumps around a little bit, but um >> um we did in fact talk about
setbacks. Well, we had we had in our packet, we had a separate document that was June 12th staff comments. >> Yep. >> Which had some of Mandy Joe's annotations of the document of section
18 starting as 1808. And um it went through a whole bunch of or several different things that we uh had left unresolved. Correct. >> Pam, why don't you just go through it
the way you intended? I'm sorry. I just uh >> That's okay. That's okay. Um there's no Stephanie. I'll get my thoughts together while she talks. >> Thanks, Pam. I just wanted just to um
summarize for people that that staff comment sheet is in direct response to an email from Pam to staff about the outstanding issues. So all of it was basically a summary of all the comments that had been drafted
and then organized so that staff could respond to them directly. So, I just wanted to sort of reiterate that that's where that came from and why they're sort of um organized the way they are. And I apologize because nobody gave me a consistent format and how they
responded. So, I did my best to get them on one document. >> Yes. So maybe maybe it does make sense to since this was literally in started out anyway is is in the order from the document you know where where the um the
questions were being raised and uh we can we can try to um address it that way. So starting at back at the beginning on page one, um we we so first of all want to acknowledge that
the the area highlighted in pink are all of the um this and this and this section apply. This and this and this sections do not apply. And I think one of the things that once we are finished working
through the documents, all of these um all of the numbers, all of the sections will get arranged in perhaps a more orderly manner and therefore this pink
section would change. We also would like to um organize it in a way that we could say all projects that come before you know that utilize this u article
apply are apply to you know items sections 1 through 20. sections 21 through 30, let's say, only apply to the following so that it's
really clear um who does or doesn't have to look at additional sections. That was kind of >> not clear, I'm sure. >> Pam, do you think that's going to happen in the rejiggering that Mandy does
tomorrow? >> Uh, no. for KP Law? >> No, I don't think I don't think Well, I can talk with her. I'm not sure. It's That's a lot of work.
>> Well, it has to happen at some point. >> It does have to happen at some point. I can ask her if it's something. You know what what's hard is that you would see for your July 1 meeting, you would see a brand new document. It would look so
different. You wouldn't be able to say, "Well, we had questions on section 1803. Where did that go?" So, trying to keep it recognizable. Fred. >> Yes. >> Fred, I think Say something else. I
think we heard you. >> Maybe he was cursing. >> I don't know. >> All right. I don't know. So, starting at the top. Um, >> so are we going through uh Stephanie's
document or are we just going through the bylaw and referring to Stephanie's document? >> I was going to go through the bylaw. >> Okay. All right. >> If if I can if I can track it in front of me then.
>> Okay. Yeah. Um, section 18.02 applicability. This is where the the exemption statement might work. And I'm going to read it off so so um Walker could
add it in as a comment for us. And it could come right after the pink section. And that is a sentence that says does not apply. This this article does not apply to building integrated
BES or consumer grade plug-in systems. comma um modular SPI and we can work on the wording later, but that's the that's the
intent of you know if you're talking small battery pack this does not apply. Um yeah, this is it's hard to go from one document to the other. Um
sorry folks uh in in one of the comments it's the hearing for the hearing do the minimization and mitigation need to be defined and the answer is yes. minimization and mitigation do need to
be defined and Aaron Jacques provided us that information and and that definition. Great. Yeah, I think that's all we can do. I don't want to type it out here.
Great. So once we have once we have inserted something like this or resolved it is it possible to go back and and delete that question. So that we can Yes. Thank you.
Great. Okay. Um, sorry. It is it is difficult to jump back and forth. Section 180804 and I'm sure there are some that are
that we're missing here but we'll >> just >> Okay, >> sub paragraph M was the next one, right? >> Yes. Well, actually, yes. Uh yes, thank you. proof of liability insurance.
And um the building commissioner does say this makes much more sense to include in what the number is 18.21 1821. And so all we would say is the owner
operator of the project shall provide the building commissioner with certificate of insurance showing the property has sufficient liability and that that short sentence threeline sentence gets cut out of here
and put into >> I thought um I you know at the last page second to last page of Stephanie's document. Um, you know, I I thought he
he thought it made more sense as a as a in the shity section, >> right? Which is 18.21 1821. Yeah. So requiring the insurance at the time of application is unnecessary. >> Right.
>> Right. And it can get just put in right there at the last. Yep. Right there. can hear you >> great. >> Okay. >> Are we deleting that prior to to
construction bit then? >> Yes. >> In the in the where we just >> in in that in that paragraph that we just moved over. >> Yeah. Sorry, what am I deleting? >> There was a whole paragraph in in in
shity or whatever it was that >> Oh, >> it talked about prior to construction that they need to do that where you just pasted it all this, >> right? I mean, I think this
>> that's assurityity. Assurity is different than proof of liability insurance. >> Okay. So, we're just leaving that and we're just adding this. Okay. >> Yeah, we're just adding that. It doesn't have to [clears throat] be Yeah, we'll get rid of the A.
>> Right. So, back to 1808 04. Um 06 D letter D. So these are all plans that are being required. Item number five says storm water management plan. And what we heard
from staff is that they actually need a a an EPA storm water. It's a SWPP, storm water prevention and protection plan. So we would Yep.
>> So it's actually um >> warm water. I don't remember what the acronym is. >> That's That's fine. They're three Ps. >> Perfect. Storm water management plan and and soil
storm water and soil management plan. Sorry. Um yeah. And that comes that soil management practice Yeah.
>> And then erase the rest of that. >> Um, no, >> that can stay, >> but we want to bring over letter R. So, it's just a little bit farther down
the soil management portion of this. I guess it's not. Yeah. So, so we want to include item number one, two, and three. And that goes over to
the one we just did and we'll we'll do the wording. [laughter] We'll take care of the wording afterwards. So, um, yeah, I that that that the lettering just got messed up, but that's that's okay. We'll figure it out.
Um, scroll down a little bit farther to S. And we all agreed that we did we we did not need the following in red. Um, so
I think uh Erin had a comment that said, you know, this all of this would need specific criteria to make here um would would need specific criteria. Somebody would need to develop the criteria. And
in fact, I think this whole section T uh ends up being covered as part of the site suitability scoring process that happens before an application is even
submitted to the town. So, um this is this is this is good. We do not need to repeat it here. So, that's resolved. Perfect. Um >> um sorry Pam, can I just jump in real quick?
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um just in uh relation to tea, I think what Erin was saying, and I'm sorry if you were speaking, my dog was barking and I couldn't hear you. Um her recommended language, and I don't know if you were going to include it, was um
just say at the discretion of the PGA, the following impact assessments may be required. So instead of deleting them entirely, you want to say that the PGA may require any of those like one through six under T.
That's what she was recommending. >> Okay. I think because she had wanted I mean at first she was sort of advocating or saying that you know there'd be a reason to include these but I was in our discussion >> I was saying that was really cumbersome
and so that's why her language was saying suggesting that they may be required. >> Well so how can you have something that's that may be required when you're trying to get a consolidated permit >> and you don't have any criteria for whatever it is. I think she was saying
at the discretion of the PGA um they may require any of these things >> but then they may require them on the based on what criteria >> it's [snorts]
it's it's troublesome >> okay >> I'm just relaying what she did I >> I have advocated to remove them myself personally um >> yeah I'm unconvinced Okay, [laughter] that's fine. I just wanted to make sure
that I was clear about what she was recommending. >> Thank you. And and I think uh it's it seems and and she may not be as familiar she may not be familiar with the fact that that all of that pre-filing
in fact requires people to to do these. This is where the list came from. It was it came from the state list. Um and it will be covered in the in the pre-filing application. Does anybody feel strongly about keeping
this? Yeah, I'm not seeing I'm not seeing any heads. So maybe we just make a note and just say, you know, this is this is covered in this is covered in the site suitability scoring process
because two sections later it says any section of this may be waved or modified by the PGA for compelling reasons. >> Okay. under 180901. Um,
we did some we did some work on this, but we also wanted to um I think the discussion was that in 1901, sorry, 1809101 in the pink paragraph, we can get rid of
pursuant to 310 CMR22 and just simply start with solar photovoltaic installations are prohibited. in zone one areas unless permitted under provisions of blah blah blah. Um, and
then we add the word drinking water to 310 CMR22 so people know either probably the first reference to it, right? brain. >> It's the second reference actually.
>> Yeah, >> it should be the the first one is up two lines farther up at the end. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. >> Just within that paragraph. It shows up. >> Yeah, there. >> There it go. >> That's where it should be.
And there's an ex there's an extra word there. You don't need the butt. Okay. Um, okay. We just we just did comment three. Sorry, I'm keeping track of what we
covered here. Um, comment five. Okay, the section um again I don't have the actual section in our bylaw but this is a section on um location existence and location of private wells on adjacent
properties. So you're talking about 1809103 and the minimum disturbance area that's >> Yes. Yes. >> So the question was the question was how would we know that there is um how would we know that there's a well
there and the answer is is that the board of health department of health keeps track of that. So we can at least answer that question. And is this where we should start to talk about the distance? >> This is exactly now we're now we're at
Bruce's section here. So if I may, my argument is that the uh section on storm water management and the disturbance the concern is for how the ground might be uh eroded or
something because of uh storm water runoff. It's it's not a a contamination concern. And don't aren't we doing a belt and braces thing here with those belt and suspenders with we've already
got uh the requirement for storm water management um in spades and and and now we're asking I mean if the storm water is properly managed this this this this uh this setback uh or
this this this no disturbance area shouldn't be necessary. And and my my concern is that when you start having these very large setbacks or whatever they're called, separation
distances, uh you can sterilize. It seems that there are unintended consequences when you have these kind of blinkered notions about putting big numbers in for separation distances without really doing the math about how
much land you're sterilizing by doing that. And I think because we've got a pretty solid commitment or obligation to manage the storm water, I think we should just let the storm water management happen in the section where
it's addressed and not try and um do a double duty here. >> Okay. So, so we we just did some rearranging of storm water management and soil management section. I'm going
to read Erin Jacques's comment. Um, and this is where she said, "Yeah, we have board of health maps and records where private wells, the applicant would need to seek out this information." Yes, for new wells proposed near SPIs. The board of health should be informed of this
regulation and enforce it as they review and approve well sites. I'm not sure if they have been consulted on this document. I would agree that and then it goes to another page that private wells are more vulnerable
than public water supplies because once contaminated they have no other viable drinking water source. Um and then she also says I would argue yes solar panels can contaminate private wells. They contain heavy metals like
lead, silver, cadmium, tur turanium, copper, selenium and pas as well as chemical polymers that can be problematic if they enter surface or groundwater. This can happen anytime the panels are inadvertently damaged.
And then finally, she says from an equity standpoint, we should have the same setback for both public and private wells. This is a serious concern in environmental justice polygons in Amorest where there is no public water service and land owners or renters may
not have resources or ability to remediate private well contamination. the um if I can jump in. I noticed that the
uh water supply committee white paper also talked about ver you know some of these big setbacks and was recommending large setbacks. So that's another group that was
advocating for some of this. Um, you know, everything else we've heard, uh, is that the solar panels really are not a contamination source. And so I'm I'm puzzled why Aaron is or
why she's saying that. Um, so I I don't know that I know any better, but I I I know differently. I'll leave it at there. And Pam, I do see a couple hands. >> Yep. Dangus.
>> Yeah, I was just going to refer to the really helpful white paper as well, which indicates no issues with bleaching of materials. The only thing that they seem to think is um worrisome is disturbance. Um, hence what the issue
here. Um, I guess the the what I struggle to understand is, um, we don't, as far as I understand it, we don't have these kinds of no disturbance requirements for any other kind of building, do we? I I think for public wells, we might, but but for private
wells, we don't. Is that is that accurate? >> Right. >> Yes. >> So, I I guess I I would not want to put that in place. If someone could clear cut their land and build any number of other structures on it um within distance from private wells, it doesn't
seem to me like we should only ban solar solar um or best installations from doing that. So I I would oppose these private well distances and um potentially even reduce the the public well distances,
but I understand that that they are they are a different thing than the private wells. Bruce. >> Um, I have a lot of respect for Erin Erin Jacqu, but in this particular instance, I think she's flat out wrong.
Um, she's referring to contamination from PVs and so forth. And it's and as the white paper says, but it's it's not just the white paper, it's it's the whole industry. Uh and as I said the the the the highest performing most
ecologically attuned buildings in the country are collecting their rainwater from PV arrays. Uh so it's just nonsense. >> Um and I think uh as Angus said it it
it's uh it it it it's just nonsense. We shouldn't have this here. We should just get rid of it. >> What are you suggesting that we that we >> I think I agree with Angus. If if you
can clear cut your area and build a bunch of houses, uh, and you don't have a 250 ft setback from no disturbance from a private well, uh, a PV array is is is going to be a lighter or most likely a lighter version of that. And
the sense of contamination, which was the subject of Erin's concern with all of her things that come out of PV arrays and all this sort of stuff, is just rubbish. And uh so the basis for this um requirement
is inconsistent as Angus has pointed out and rubbish so far as contamination from uh PV arrays are concerned. So if the if the if the thing is if the thing is here has been demonstrated to be a
inconsistent and b nonsense, I can't see there's a case for keeping it. So I'm I'm seeing ground disturbance. We've talked about ground disturbance and contamination of public water supply can
be surface runoff, sedimentation. Some really horrible examples happened in the Hilltowns where, you know, with due resp all due respect to the to the project managers or whoever was doing it, they did not have safeguards in
place for um for their storm water management and their soil management. So >> that's right. And that's that's and they were violating section 18 no whatever 12. >> Right. So, one of the one of the white paper um uh comments is that in fact it
is typically the scale of of ground clearing that really sets solar installations apart from your normal, you know, build a build a house and and put some fill in the back to to put
grass in with. Um >> well Pam, we've already got the 5 acre maximum disturbance criteria elsewhere in this which I know Aaron commented that was that consistent with state and federal
regulations of some sort. Um you know we had so you know we have other provisions that are trying to prevent the kinds of events that had happened in those hilltowns.
>> Yes. Well to to back off from my strident position which I think is defensible that it should be eliminated. Why don't we just make it 50 feet instead of 250 ft? And then the principal concern of of unintended consequences of sterilizing from private
wells uh goes away because 50 ft is is not going to make a big as such a great difference that perhaps we need to go to the mat on. So keep it but make it 50 ft and not 250 ft. And that probably applies to the next
one as well. number no 0105 is talking about a no disturbance area of 200 feet from zones A and B of a public water supply. I don't feel confident in in overriding what the
drinking water protection group recommends for protection of of water public water supplies. >> Yes. Yes, was saying >> this affects this affects a whole lot of people, not just, you know, not just me.
>> Well, this just 0103 um take that 250 down to because there are many more private whales, I imagine, than there are public wells, particularly in these outlying zones where these are likely to take place at
scale. So, I would argue for 50 ft rather than 250 ft in on 090103 and and then then I'll shut up. >> Well, Bruce, the the water supply memo requested a min of 100 for private
wells. >> Okay. It's it's it's rubbish, but let's >> I know. I know. I know. I mean, we're just trying to work with everybody here. >> Yeah. Maybe we could make the note. Let's let's add a note per per drinking water
protection >> recommendation. You know, we can come back to that if we need to. And Doug, while you're in there reading, what what do they recommend for the public water supply well or public surface water supply?
So for public water supply, well, they would they would um I believe they would say 200 feet, but well, they say the mass DP would require a minimum of 200 feet.
However, that committee is recommending 400 feet. And then for a for zones A and B of a surface water drinking water source, they're recommending 200 ft.
So if we if we if we include 200 ft for both of those Yeah. So it so 05 is consistent with the drinking water committee and the way we've edited 03 is consistent with the private well
recommendation and then 200 for 04 would be either 200 or 400. You know they're recommending four but sounds like the state's okay with two. And I think we're the sense of at least the
a substantial portion if not a majority of the planning board is that we want the lower numbers. >> Um maybe Walker, could you put like the 200 in complete so it's it's easy to see
400 versus 200. Thanks. Thank you. Great. Appreciate that. and Pam Angus has >> Angus. Yep, Angus. Go ahead. >> Sorry. It's just the last thing I'll say about 03. Um, so I I understand that the
white paper notes that solar development is different from from some other forms of development. Um, but we have no requirements for any private any development happening with private wells currently. So, this is exclusively going to limit development of solar panels along private wells. And
unless the town has a plan to adopt other kinds of requirements on all other forms of development, including some development that is substantially worse for the land than solar photovoltaic installations, I would recommend not having any distance of any kind relating
to private wells. And the white paper also noted that this is a very small amount of land in Ammerst in the outlying areas which where we are most likely to see this kind of development. So that's my final comment on it. Thanks. >> Oh, let's make under under Powell Walker
per drinking water protection recommendation. We'll we'll add that. >> You want to say >> like this? This is an this is a requirement that applies only to solar development and seems
uh extreme when all other development would not have this limitation or something like that >> uniquely perverse. So it it doesn't mean that it doesn't I mean if you if you really think about
this it doesn't mean that um 100 feet from the property line there will be no disturbance because somebody's well could be 200 feet from their you know from the property line. So you would be you would be clearing up to the edge of
the solar property. you know, it's it's we really don't know how badly this affects the developability of the land. Okay, let's move to Bess. Bess is as people understand uh a little bit
different um ball of wax and we have the same essentially the same statement. If we could go to the 0202 and make the same kind of change with pursuant to 310 CMR drinking and that just gets lifted that yes that gets
lifted out and and Karen's drinking water. Thank you. Perfect. Okay, now we can talk about the numbers. This is this is setbacks from um best inst four best installations front
side and rear setbacks of 50 ft uh measured from the property line. >> What what are the comments on the sheet that you are reading from Doug from staff or >> well this memo I'm having trouble finding anything. Uh there is a section
on Banner battery energy storage systems. However, I don't see let's see. Oh yes, maybe there is here. Um so let me bear with me a moment here. >> Yeah.
>> Um all right. Well, I'm not seeing they say no no no best units located within zone one for a public water supply which apparently is a 400 ft.
[sighs] >> I I think that this is much much much less concerning because a the best is a small micro fraction of the area that the arrays are taking. So you can simply
you know design your site so that the best is not where the you know is outside of this. So I really don't see the uh the the the damage. I mean the and and that's number one. Number two is as we've already confessed earlier in
the evening u we really don't know as much about battery energy storage systems or at least I don't. So, I would just leave these alone and and go with them because I don't think they're going to be uh uh discouraging or or or frustrating or or or or cause any real
problem >> because of the ability to locate best somewhere within the property to meet these expectations. >> Correct. You have far greater flexibility and you just say, "Okay, we'll we'll move it away and we'll work
here." End of story, >> Angus. >> Yeah, not to be a broken record, but I'd also recommend removing the private well requirement. Um, and I had trouble
finding in the working in the white paper their recommendation on the private wells for bass, but I think for the public sources of water, it makes sense. Yeah, I guess I'll add the no
disturbance air for for 04 the minimum no disturbance area of 600 ft. So that's uh the one that this white paper said should be at least 400 feet
and you know 600 feet that's two football fields, right? Um, so that, you know, if you're talking about an installation that's not a huge industrial, you know, 20 acres, if it's
only 5 acres, 600 feet could matter. Um, but that that's the one that I have a little trouble with. >> Andy, >> yeah, I was going to make the same point. In fact, the same two football
fields. I mean, it's it's a it's a long it's a long distance. So, even if you're trying to orient your your property, your your your parcel so that it's as far away as possible, that that might be difficult.
>> Doesn't does 04 sort of duplicate 05? I don't know enough about what constitutes a zone A and B of a public water supply. Those are surface water draws as opposed to
public wells, I think. >> Oh, well. Okay. Yeah. Okay. >> So, I'll point out that in ' 04 and and '05 we're we're talking about no disturbance areas. So that doesn't mean you could put your
best in the middle of your array because that array is obviously a cleared and and graded site. It's not a no disturbance area. Um I I would envision that if you needed 600 feet from a well
um from public well um that's that's you know that that might in fact encroach heavily in the in the SPI layout.
Well, I I guess I just want to ask for clarification. With the photovalttaic installations, we're not worried about contaminants leeching from the installations themselves. Um, we're worried about disturbance. And with BES, it seems like it's the opposite. We're less worried with disturbance. It's a small installation. It won't take up
that much land, but we are worried that in the event of an emergency, something could leech from the system because that has happened in more instances. So, I guess I'm trying to understand why we're using the same no disturbance language for BES when we should really be just
banning BAS from within certain distances of the actual uh public water supplies >> separation distance. >> Yeah, I agree with that. >> So do I.
So if we took out the word no disturbance area and said a minimum of 600 feet from a public well water supply shall be maintained. >> Yeah. Or a minimum separation distance
of 600 ft. >> Is that the same as a minimum distance? >> Yeah. It just feels more uh legal ease. And why don't we go with 400 ft which is uh the recommendation I thought from
somebody. >> Well, the white paper from the p the drinking water committee recommended 400 ft from a public water supply. And they they they their wording did not
get into no disturbance. It was just making sure the the device was that distance away. >> Um, Doug, are you okay getting rid of the word separation? >> Sure. >> And then 05 we have um
>> yeah, we do the same thing. >> The same thing. Minimum distance of Yep. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> People are people comfortable with this? Anybody? Angus, you got your hand up. >> Yeah. just for for 06 I I' if Walker
could make a similar comment to the one that I made above for the photovalttaic um that it it doesn't seem reasonable to require this of Bess when we don't require it of any other kind of development.
>> Well, it is an industrial toxic um >> bomb as somebody described it earlier. Um, I I am concerned about the health and welfare of people who live in this town who might end up with Bess next to them
and I would like to make sure that their water supply isn't damaged or the town would likely have to pay for uh water connection to those properties.
Yes, I I don't support Angus's comment here, although I usually support Angus because he's a very thoughtful and rational human, but I don't support this one. >> So, Angus, Angus seems says it seems
unreasonable. >> Okay, I think I think we hit that one. Um did we did we do minimum disturbance or or uh or distance up in the 18090103 is that
we we didn't take that approach did we? Um if people feel okay this is again this is the land clearing. >> Yes. Because the array was a big area device. I mean, I think Angus hit the nail on
the head when he said that the the best is a is a is essentially a point source whereas the uh the arrays are broad area. So, I think there's a consistency.
>> So, does that mean keep the node the no disturbance area or change it to distance? >> Well, no. We we this is the array and we reduced the the the distance from 250 down to 100. Okay, good. Good. >> And we were okay with the no disturbance.
>> Good. Just checking. Yep. Great. Okay. I think we can move on. We have um we had a under 18104. I just wanted to confirm that we had a
response back from Erin Jacques that five acres is in fact the guideline and that that that number ought to hold. So we can accept that. Great.
Um and I think we I think we came to an understanding in 18106. This is talking about materials and we used the wording with some help from Johanna I think that all solar photo photovalttaic panels installed in SPIs
shall not release PAS into the environment. Um, and my reference to fencing uh is is under 18108. It's that last paragraph. And I just wanted to point out that instead of
changing 6.2 fencing section, we're covering um fencing here under um clean energy. So this is you're referring to 18108,
right? >> Yes. >> Well, would it makes um So we're considering fencing to be screening >> section. This section does not talk like if I'm just scanning through section 18
to try to find where I've been sent from se from article six and I see the heading that says screening and planting. It doesn't say fencing. So I would pass right by this. >> And let's make a new section heading
then 18. Uh, we can either add it to the end. >> Well, after after signage, >> is there text that you wanted to add >> here or is the text that's already here? >> It's the text that's already here. I
just wanted to point out that we have the text relative to to fencing. So, >> so all we need to do is change the title to screening, fencing, and planting or something. >> Okay. Yep, that sounds good. Thank you. Okay,
>> great. >> Uh the comment in in I'm just going through the list of what was talked about. uh 1811 0103 there was a request for
the word product versus components and and it was noted from the fire department that product is fine. So we can >> write that off. >> We can write that off. Exactly. Product
is okay. Now uh 1811 0107 we now get into um again we had a staff uh the Ammeris Fire Department and they were comfortable
with uh item A which says um remember the discussion we need there's water and then there's other means of fire suppression And the comment was that
um under a NFPA855 recommended use of water etc. unless alternative fire protection strategies or a agents are proven effective. And the comment from fire department was
that that sentence says it all. That phrase says it all. It's fine. So we're okay with that section. under 181109. We now have some wording that Oh, Jesse,
>> thanks. Apologies for sidest stepping the conversation. I'm looking at the uh attendees and I suspect there's people waiting for the historic district discussion. Are we going to get to that tonight, Doug, or should we maybe postpone that? They've been waiting probably for a couple of hours.
>> Yeah, I think it's going to be just how long how late does this committee want to go? I think we've probably got another 15 or 20 minutes and whether we if we wanted to start that tonight I we could but uh we're not >> that's what I'm asking if you think we're going to postpone it and then
>> Yeah. So so members of the public if you're here for the historic district conversation uh we're probably not going to talk about that tonight. We'll postpone it to a later meeting.
Thanks. >> All right. >> My apologies. I didn't realize there was another agenda item. >> Oh, yeah. We were ambitious. Damn. >> But go ahead. >> Okay.
181. I'm sure they've had a thrilling evening. [laughter] >> 181109. Fire department comes back and adds a sentence. Um following that that highlighted
section if and it it says if PAS fire suppression foams are indicated in the system design the foam shall be supplied
by the applicant. in accordance with Ammeris Fire Department specifications. Pam, you passed over 08 and
there was a comment at least from the fire department on on 0108. >> Yeah, >> I didn't see that >> in my handout. >> Okay. Um Okay, but let's for in this case, can we um just get rid of this
now? Our our comment resolved. Thank you. Okay. Um, you think you had something? I don't have any marks at all under 0108. >> I mean, in the I guess it was Stephanie's document. Um, under 08 it's
there was red text after the text here that said NFPA70 is the electric code and we would defer this to Todd. I'm not sure who Todd is. At the same time, we appreciate the weather proofing of
electrical components in marking and labeling. So, I think if there was a I guess I don't see a comment, but I somehow somebody thought we needed to Okay. So, it looks like they were fine with it. So, >> I think they're fine with it. Yeah,
looks like they appreciate what we have in here. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. Yeah, working backwards. So, I did skip over some of the other ones. Um 181107. Oh, we are we already talked about that. >> Yeah, I don't that's the only one I
think that I that I >> Okay, good. Thank you. >> Um I'm I'm feeling like we have gotten through most of those comments. Let's see if there's anything else. Um, under 18.19.013, there was a question who decides if this
is applicable and the answer is wetland administrator. In section 18.21 21 we added >> the >> if I could just interrupt should where
you have if applicable and we asked the question um should you put in the text if if if deemedical by the wetlands administrator then it may then it's then it's clear who the applicant has to
u seek advice from. Could we put where it says if applicable or if if deemed applicable by the wetlands administrator? Is that the phrase? >> Well, if I actually if I read if I read the above though, it's it lists fire
department, building commissioner, board of health, and concom. Um >> Oh, you think they'll figure it out? >> So, it it Yeah, I think they'll figure out I got you. Yeah. Good. Good. Yeah, they're they're gonna come.
>> Well, Pam and and and Bruce, you know, it's quite possible that I made a this comment. I don't know if it's true or not, but the question is who decides if they need to submit the
reports to that to those three entities. >> It's standard practice. I think it would be a condition of their swip or their order conditions. >> Okay. All right. I'll drop it. I I think it you know my my confusion
about this kind of thing is who's making the call about whether you need to do something and that's before you've submitted the reports. It's like do you need to create the reports? So, I guess when we get one of these, we'll
see whether all the lines of authority are clear. >> Well, I think if you were to ask uh Stephanie's on here still, but it doesn't go to Stephanie anymore, but but um if you think about Hickory Ridge,
there are reports coming in. There are especially reports after after heavy rain events and um they all are making sure that that the whole application and the conditions on
the ground still meet the storm water prevention pollution plan. But I I I mean I hate to belabor this, but who decided that the reports needed to continue to be submitted?
>> Typically, it's part of the um plan that's um administered by the conservation agent. >> Yeah. >> So the conservation agent is the one who determines that reports should be sent in and for how long. >> Okay. >> So I said wetland administrator should
be conservation. Yeah. Thank you. Um, that ends the list of I think comments and feedback from town
staff. Somebody tell me that I'm wrong. Um, but I believe we hit all of those. So, do you want to have a short conversation about next steps? since it's 9:00.
>> Sure, >> Bruce. >> I'm just wondering whether this would be a time for any public comment. I don't haven't looked at the attendees, but uh uh >> yeah, we still have one member and I think he's here for this conversation
uh member of the public. Pam, is it all right to bring over Steve? >> Oh, yeah, absolutely. It is a public hearing after all. >> Yeah. So Pam, uh, Field Sadler. Can you bring over Steve? >> Uh, here I am. I think believe. >> Yes. Welcome, Steve.
>> This is Steve Roof. I live in deep south Ammerst. Um, again, wonderful job you guys are doing. Really going over this in detail. I had on my list of concerns back in section 18104 under the clear land clearing and soil
erosion. There's a paragraph there about groundwater monitoring wells that to my reading it seems to establish a no disturbance zone of 100 ft around groundwater monitoring wells and I question whether that's needed at all.
Um you had a discussion earlier about buffer or no disturbance zones for um groundwater supply wells. I think groundwater monitoring wells are less even less needing of protection. So you
might consider if that paragraph is necessary and then the paragraph right afterwards um about top soil should not be imported. I wonder if that's a requirement for other types of development [clears throat] and whether or not second issue is
whether or not the town of Ammerst Department of Public Works has any criteria for approving uh imports of soil. So those those two I guess yeah both both of them might fall under the are these requirements of other sorts of
developments or is it specific to solar and also whether either is necessary. So >> thank you Steve. >> All right that's that's it for me. Thank you. So that first paragraph
we had noted as a comment and then it looked like Stephanie you maybe responded to that. Uh I see your hand up. >> Um I just had a um response regarding the distance from ground um
uh groundwater monitoring wells. uh only that I know that there's been concern from DPW that when there's clearing they sometimes get damaged. So maybe I don't know that you want to eliminate a distance completely, but you might want
to reduce it. >> Would would 50 ft I mean 50 feet and what you're talking about is is if you get trucks and equipment in within within 50 feet of a of a well head um
it's really likely somebody will run over it. >> They could damage it. Correct. Yeah. The idea was more to protect them from damage from equipment. Um, >> yeah. What about language like that that just says, you know, groundwatering groundwater monitoring wells shall be
protected from disturbance or damage. Uh period >> just damage period. >> Construct from construction activities. It's it's not just construction
activities. You you want to keep them when you when the thing is operating as well. >> Well, this is in the section on land clearing and soil erosion. So, >> okay. Got it. >> As as a part of design requirements. So,
I assume you'd have a civil drawing that locates, shows the ground well, ground monitoring well, and then shows some sort of protection around it for the contractor to install. >> Yeah.
>> And then as far as top soils concerned, um I I can't think of whether there's any other sections of the bylaw that talk about that. I know that it's I know that it's
required in projects within wetland resource areas. Um I think the hope is to prevent someone from bringing in fill that contains contaminants or trash or something from somewhere. Usually um in a construction project, you would
submit um a sample or a a spec sheet about what kind of top soil you are submitting and what the makeup of it is and where you're getting it from. I think that's pretty typical in construction projects. So, I don't think this is
particularly out of the ordinary. >> Not Yeah, I'm okay with leaving it. Angus. >> Yeah. Sorry, two two quick questions. One, what does imported mean? Uh does it
mean that it doesn't come from the site? >> Yeah, correct. >> So, it could come from a parcel from the next parcel over and it would still be considered imported. >> Imported. Yeah. >> Okay. Um and I guess the other question I have is do do we we currently Walker,
you're saying we currently require this of all projects? If you're going to import top soil, you're going to be supplying the town or the engineer with a spec sheet showing where this top soil is coming from and what it's made of. So, you're not importing trash or fill
that's just, you know, refu. >> Okay. And so that and the town has to give approval otherwise the project can't go forward. >> Yeah, that's uh that's one of the because you know it has you want it to be top soil things are going to grow in. You want it to be top soil. It's free of
contaminants. You don't want someone to be putting gravel or sand or something down. Um, >> yeah. No, the justification makes sense. I just want to make sure that we're not >> Yeah. >> putting additional regulations that aren't required. >> Thank you for clarifying.
>> So, I I think that actually addresses Mr. Ruth's comment then. >> Okay, good. So, um, next steps, uh, the CRC, like I said earlier, the
CRC is not going to close its hearing, um, until you folks do. Um, oh, it's nice to see everybody's please with all the with all the uh Oh, now I
can I can see. Um, so that I think maybe um planning board may want to have a short conversation about that. Uh the CRC has a meeting on Thursday the 25th and this is a topic
for discussion. Um I think if we we probably need to vote tonight for the CRC to uh continue this hearing to our next meeting which is which is June 25. Um
and at that point we actually may continue it again till July because we will all be waiting for we will all be waiting for um feedback from KP Law hopefully by the 10th of July.
Um >> yeah I I expect we'll do the same thing. We're going to continue tonight to to July 1st and then we'll continue to July 15th. >> I had on my calendar I jotted down joint
with the planning board. Is that um I I don't know that we need to do that. >> Which date, Pam? >> Uh the I'm sorry. July 15. Well, we'll be meeting and if you want
to stop in [laughter] I mean >> we have nothing else to do that night, >> right? I mean, it'll be the first time we see KP Laws >> comments and >> if you want to be together when we talk about that or apart, you know, I think
we could probably go either way. I I hope we have at least a short conversation about it on the first >> uh that sort of just among us planning board members uh just to make just to see if everybody's comfortable with
>> y >> you know going forward with what we think we're doing and then um hopefully we can recommend to to I I thought our recommendation was to council. It is.
>> It's not to CRC. Okay. [clears throat] >> It's not to CRC. >> So, I thought, you know, the 15th we ought to be able to do that. >> Okay. Okay. >> Actually, given um I think I need I need Mandy Joe here
tonight. Um, I think if the if the CRC continues this hearing to the 23rd, that would be for us really the last date that we could close public hearing abs
or, you know, absorb absorb the information from KP Law, discuss it, hopefully close the hearing and vote. Um, but but we don't really want to close our hearing until you folks do
because we're the ones that start the clock for everything else. >> Okay. Well, >> are you asking for a promise that we're going to close on the 15th of July or are you just
>> No. No. >> Yeah. >> But maybe if you took a vote to continue it to the 1st or the 15th first, I guess. Um and then the CRC might also um
take a vote to continue it to the the 23rd so that we also get a chance to see the KP law comments. >> Mhm. So, you're ready for us to close the hearing and go ahead. You're done
talking about next steps? You >> You don't have to close the hearing, but just continue. I thought you were going to continue it, >> right? Okay. Um, >> you came in say goodbye to us. >> Okay. [laughter] All right.
>> I I Yeah, I'm I'm fine with doing that. So, I I move that we continue this hearing, the planning board hearing to uh July 1st. Um Pamfield Sadler, uh is there any
reason not to do it at 6:35 p.m.? >> Yes, there is. You actually have a um an application site plan review public hearing that's at 6:35. >> All right. So, um,
6:45 p.m. And so, that's a motion. Does anybody want to second that? >> Uh, Bruce just raised his hand to second it. >> Yeah. >> Planning board members, any further
discussion? No. All right. Uh, we'll vote. Uh, Bruce, starting with you to continue. Yes. >> And and uh let's see. Is Fred still with us?
We have lost Fred. Okay. Angus. >> Hi. >> Jesse. >> I. >> Jara. >> I. >> And I'm an I as well. Five in favor, one two absent. So motion carries. Uh we are
continued to July 1st. >> Great. And I think I'll make a motion that the CRC continue its hearing to I think it's July 23. Um
I think that's I think that's legit. Okay, let's go to 23. >> Uh and there are three of us here. So uh Jennifer >> Yes. Andy, >> yes. >> And Pam is a yes. Um, I'm looking
quickly just to make sure our other member is not here. Okay. So, we also will continue our hearing till the 23rd, July 23. And um, we thank you again and again for your time and I really want to say
thanks to the CRC members who have been doing double duty. >> Yeah. >> Multiple meetings. Thank you very much for all of your service and joining us. >> Thank you. And and to Stephanie,
>> appreciate it. And and Walker, where did Walker go? So, if Walker could forward that document to me to Stephanie and we will get that uh documented as as tonight's discussion and it will go in the packet
for um it's going to get cleaned up um with all those little additions taken out or or edits I mean taken out um the remaining questions will be there and that document will be available
um for you all and it will also go to to KP Law. Thanks. Good night everybody. >> Good night CRC planning board. We have at least one
more thing we need to do tonight. >> [clears throat] >> So, Pamfield Saddler um >> Yes. >> Why don't we jump to the >> the ANR >> the A&R that we wanted to do tonight? >> Okay.
>> So, this is seven >> form ANR subdivision applications. >> Can you bring it up? and this was the properties on Pelum Road, right? >> Yes, it is. >> All right.
So, here it is. Walker, do you want to talk about this? >> Sure. Give me two seconds. Um, yeah, it's pretty straightforward. Um, the lot, what they have labeled as lot
three used to extend back behind lot one and lot two. Um, and they are just extending the lot, the side lot lines straight back so that each of the lots is fairly close to the same size. um to give lot one and two larger lots and lot
three is getting smaller. They are all uh non-conforming as far as frontage, but this is not making them less non-conforming. So, that's not an issue here. Um and as far as, you know, lot size. We're not we're not making anybody
less non-conforming as far as lot size. So, it's it's it's pretty straightforward. There should be no reason not to approve it. >> Okay. or um Pam, can you go to either the previous page or the next page that would show the
uh the original the current? Yeah, the GIS map is probably it. Yeah. So, that's the existing layout, >> correct? >> With the one large lot and the two smaller ones. And then go back to the sec the previous one
>> which is now what's proposed. Yep. >> This goes away. >> All right. Um, so are there any board members who um feel that
I should not sign this as a and you know a subdivision is not required here. A subdivision sub application. All right. I'm not seeing any hands. All right. So, we've got consensus on
that. And Pam or Walker, I can make a an appointment to stop by and sign the the plan. >> If you let me know, Doug, when you think you might be coming, I'll secure us a room. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> All right. Um I guess uh it's only 9 9:30. Does anybody appro I mean let me just run through the other sort of usual things. Uh are there any ZBA applications we need to know about Pam or Walker?
>> Nope. >> I don't have a report. Nope. Nope. >> All right. How about SPR SUB applications? Sounds like we may have a project come in on the first. >> We have 174 AMD, which I think I brought
up at the last meeting, um, as a site plan review for an affordable duplex. >> Okay. So, we'll have that at the next meeting. >> All right. >> Doug, I I should say that I'll be recusing myself from that, but I will be
in the attendees. Uh I'm well if I was licensed I would be the architect. Uh but I'm not but I'm functioning as the architect and the designer and I'm deeply involved in this project. So I will
um be in the attendees and and most interested in the outcome. >> All right. Thanks Bruce. Okay. Um, I guess this is our last meeting of this
cycle of appointments. So, Johanna Johanna will come off the board. She told us at the last meeting that was her last meeting with us. Um, and Jesse and um, Fred are renewing, I
believe. So, another couple of years with you guys. Thanks for thanks for renewing. >> Sure. [laughter] >> More fun. More fun, Jesse.
>> As long as As long as we can promise more meetings like tonight. >> Okay. [laughter] >> All right. Well, I don't have anything else to say other than I will see you in July. Walker or Pam, anything you want to say
for staff? >> No. The only thing I had was the design standards and I mentioned that earlier. So >> yeah. Okay. Time I see is 9:31 and we are adjourned. See you on July 1st.
>> Good night. >> Good night. >> Morning. Stop. >> Good night, Pam. >> Good night, Doug. We'll see you. Uh yes, send me an email when you want to come by.