Okay, Mr. Marshall, you have a quorum of the board. Amoris Media is with us. Um, we're recording and the attendees are joining us. I think you're good to go. >> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome.
>> Welcome to the Ammeris Planning Board meeting of June 3rd, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Ammeris Planning Board, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. This meeting meeting is being recorded and is available live stream 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 to continue the public hearing for zoning bylaw article 18 clean energy infrastructure which is
continued from May 20th 2026 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 and further extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 5. This meeting will be conducted via remote means using
the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda hosted 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 this 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 post 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 >> Thank you, Bruce. Red Hartwell. >> Hartwell is here. >> Thank you. Jesse Major, >> present. >> Uh, I Doug Marshall, present. Angus Mloud, >> present. >> Johanna Newman,
>> present. >> And Jara Smith, >> present. >> Thank you all. Board members, 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. Let's see. Do we have general public comments tonight?
Doesn't look like we do. So, I'm going to skip that preamble or the general public comment. Um, when when we do solicit public comment, uh, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise
hand button. If you've 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 start by stating your real your full name and address and put yourself back
into mute when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to three 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, time now is 6:38 and the first item on our agenda is an update from the staff. Uh Jeff Bag is here uh planning director of planning and economic development to update us on
a couple of topics. Jeff, >> great. Thanks. Hi everybody. Um to the two topics really tonight are are um a brief discussion of a staff transition plan and an update on Hampshire College.
So for the staff transition plan, you I did provide a memo to the plan board members should be available upon request by or available somehow if anyone's interested in in seeing that stated May 28th. And you know it starts off by acknowledging that um your April 22nd
meeting is when uh Nate Mallaloy announced that he was um leaving the town of Ammeris for the opportunity as the town administrator in Hadley. Um it's exciting opportunity for him and you know we're very happy. You know in the leadup to that you know
we had some discussions about workload and capacity within the planning department and just acknowledging that Nate's last day was April 30th. Um it's a major loss to the town in terms of his skills, institutional knowledge, and his ability. He he had a lot of uh projects
that he was responsible for um including staffing your your board. Um the position is posted. We have several applications. Uh you know, it should be anticipated that this gap could exist for a little while. And so that that was really my my need to kind
of express that to this board is this could be and I didn't write this in the memo. It could be four months or so to to get somebody. It could be longer. It could be 6 months. Could be eight months really depending on how this all unfolds. So it's really important to me to come to you and just make sure that
you un like you're aware of that because it's we're all people working on the working on the common goals to move Ammeris forward, but there's some real constraints that this this presents. um you know in response to the loss of Nate you know we really can't sustain
the same level of activity without that position and I just I know there's a temptation to feel like we can but we really have to acknowledge that it's it's a it's a gap in the memo I I really highlight kind of four things uh professional staff support so you know that our early discussions were that
Walker Powell who sat with your with you in the last meeting at least um is going to be the professional staff support. Uh Walker has, you know, experience working with planning boards and other communities and so it's a really good fit. Um but it really has to be kind of
the statutoily required elements. Um because, you know, Walker was a full-time planner with a full-time workload and is taking on the planning board extra to fill in to to provide the professional staff support. New Walker maintains our CDBG program which has at
least four different fiscal years of grants. It's millions of dollars. It's very intensely intense coordination of that. Um, Walker is also staffing the historical commission and the local historic district amongst like other projects that Walker was was working on too. So, this is extra work. It's
important and and and Walker's agreed and and we have it in place. Um, the administrative support. So, Pam um Field Sadler has is offering a tremendous amount of uh support to the board and is really a great asset to the community.
um does the preparing of schedule, agendas, legal ads, minutes um and also does a lot of kind of the behind-the-scenes scheduling of of meetings and such. So, you know, Walker and Pam will act as a team to kind of support you guys with the statutoily required elements.
um the subcommittee that you had the housing and zoning subcommittee. I think this got discussed at your other meeting and you know I think for the time being the request was to potentially consolidate those discussions into a regularly scheduled plan board meeting. I think there was some questions about the
minutes and keeping keeping up with the minutes of a subcommittee. So this is a way we can be a little bit more efficient um but also allow the plan board to continue those discussions. Um, and I think here I am sort of
requesting that the board think about the details, the de the amount of details that are in the minutes. Um, I know that there's a tendency and a desire to have really detailed minutes like almost playbyplay and I think we want to maintain that for
some of the public hearing items. So something that's statuto record, I think that's fine. But something that's, you know, an hourong discussion about a couple different topics, I think we have to allow for a little more flexibility and summary type minutes that capture the essence of the discussion rather
than a a real detailed breakdown. Um, and then the the fourth item is really about zoning amendments, and that's is really more of the core topic. But I know the plan board has a lot of items on their priority list and none of no part of this is to say you shouldn't be talking about zoning amendments or
shouldn't be planning. It's just being a little more cognizant of how you fit into the bigger context within the town. Um you know we have there there's a staff person who staffs the town council and and and walks through those
processes. So as soon as the planning board votes to recommend something, you know, it transfers to other people in town hall. And we want to just have a little more focus on coordinating that. So, the the memo tries to say that if
and when you feel like an amendment is fully developed, and I I do have an asterct here to talk about, but then we just want to make sure that the other staff people and including town council members and and the CRC understand that it's going to pop into their workload,
too. Um the asterct is, you know, we want to make sure that certain people, staff, other staff people see amendments before they're recommended out. Um an example is the mixeduse building standards, you know, by the way that unfolded is by the time it was
recommended, the building commissioner had then looked at it and saw some things that would be potentially problematic and you guys were willing to send it back. So, we just want to make sure we have a clearer feedback loop for the zoning amendments that you guys are talking about. Um, because there, you
know, it it it shoots them into another process and we just want to make sure that we're all aware of that. I think I covered that. Then the memo concludes with just really highlighting that there's a lot of work going on and I realize that the land board may not may
not be critical to every single project, but we we as a team, you know, are are working on the clean energy bylaw, the downtown design standards, the East Ammerson zoning study, the Hampshire College, you know, process that we'll talk a little bit about in a few minutes, the South Campus School, and
then we have the Wildwood School. And those are just the, you know, the town projects that are churning about. Um, and we, you know, for East Ammerson study in particular, we want the planning board to be like really highly involved. And we're we're just about to, the RFP went out for that. So, we'll be
selecting consultants soon. And we want the planning board to be the body who works through that process. Um, the clean energy bio, as you know, is underway, but there's a couple more steps after you're done. And then the downtown design standards is something where we're still hoping that you will
review it and provide comments and then have another opportunity for some discussions in maybe late fall that would actually be zoning amendments. So we have a really full plate. And so that's really what was causing me to come to you and just make sure that my airing that out a little bit of the dirty laundry, but really important for
for you guys to know that context. So I'm happy to answer a couple questions. I know you have a really full agenda with the clean energy bylaw. Um, and I do want to give you an update on Hampshire, too. >> All right. Thanks, Jeff. I know that your memo was posted in the packet this
afternoon and >> perfect. >> I I know I was able to go look at it and I think we'd seen it before. Jesse, >> thanks. And I'll try and be brief. Thank you, Jeeoff. Um, I completely appreciate everything you said.
Very much value staff and what they do. Obviously, I guess I have a little bit concern about your request for us to not put anything forward that's not the complete memo after review by multiple
staff and after you come into the meeting to discuss with us because we are not the experts, right? The panelists here are not the right ones to finalize that memo. It needs to go through staff review, right? And you're trying to accomplish that. I see that.
But the other piece, the way at least many times we've operated is that means we have to put in a huge amount of work before it moves on to then maybe just get a very quick no from the next step whether that's from staff
or you or the council. And so in the recent year, year and a half, we've taken a slightly different approach largely at Nate's urging, which was no, let's put things forward at a little quicker pace to see what the appetite is for that
particular thing. And so it's really, you know, it's going to make that effort a lot more on our side. And I I understand maybe that's needed in this moment. So I guess I'm wondering is there any way the town can add temp staff to help staff you know
millilarate what they can so that there's a little more support for planning board. Uh because to be I'll just be perfectly honest to get the message of yeah you might need to wait 8 to 10 months before you're able to do anything other than respond is a little
frustrating. >> Yep. And I don't want to blabber. I don't think we're saying you can't do anything in 8 to 10 months. I just think it has to be a little more thoughtful, a little more thorough. You know, I think we can get certain staff, especially the building commissioner who is also the zoning enforcement officer would be good to roll in earlier. Um, so that is an
option. Um, temp staff, you know, I think, you know, I don't want you to take it for granted is that we've we're we have Walker and Pam together with you. It's just a matter of, you know, all it's going to take is a couple land use permits and, you know, in addition to those other projects, you you have a
full plate. so we can keep going and and have discussions. I just wanted to put this out there um you know to temper it a little bit. And one thing occurs to me, you know, you might be asking why I'm why I can't just come in and just sit and do all this. You know, I do think that it maybe and hard to know
what was articulated in the leadup to, you know, me being hired, but the position of director of planning and economic development was is new. So it was crafted to to be able to represent the town, you know, in a regional level at the state level with UMass and with
the colleges and to to promote economic development and to, you know, really interact kind of as an overarching umbrella representation. And so I'm just really sensitive to not losing that. And so we do have to at least just triage for a little while. So we can have more
discussion. Um, you know, just one example would be having the plan board draft the report. So, what I saw with the building, the mixed use building standards is the board voted on the language, which was great, but Nate spent three or four weeks drafting a
report, which the plan board didn't have any involvement involvement with. And so, even just that exercise of keeping that with the plane board would really help for this time being if you really feel compelled that there's an amendment that has to go forward. just asking you guys to frame it out with the discussions that you've had and that
would be that would be one way to really make sure that it's not six to eight months before there's another action from the plan board. But this could be worthy of another discussion. I just wanted to preview it today. >> Thanks. >> Great. Thanks, Jeff. Johanna, >> I was going to suggest that because
we're at a transition point on the planning board and our, you know, may have like I'm this is probably my last meeting serving and we'll have some new members. Um, having this discussion or at least encouraging new members to watch the five minute presentation that you gave so that they understand the you
know the constraints of the board that they're entering could be really valuable too. >> Right. >> Right. And then it's just not it's not permanent but it is temporary. It's realistic for me to be here to express this, but it's not permanent. That's the That's the message I'd like to send is a
not permanent situation. >> All right. Uh Jeff, why don't you go ahead and talk about your second topic? >> Okay, great. And I Pam, I should have asked in advance. Do you think it would be possible for you to share that presentation? Um I can do it, but I'm
afraid I have the one with my notes in it. >> I think so. Hang on. Okay. >> I practiced. Apologies for not asking about that in advance. >> While she's bringing that up, Jeff, on um if we do develop a zoning proposal,
is it reasonable for us to expect Walker to be able to circulate it to Rob Moira and see what his thoughts are. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that's reasonable. And I I think that would be great if if we can build in that loop, you know, and potenti I don't want to volunteer Rob.
Potentially he could come to a meeting to talk it through. But I think at as an intermediate step is to make sure it gets to especially the building commissioner earlier. Um would really be beneficial I think for everybody including your goals to to initiate things. >> Um
>> great. So um Pam, you can go to the next slide. Great. Thank you so much. Um, you know, we're really pleased. We're we're pleased to announce that we have a collaboration with Mass Development and the way we're describing it is an
extensive but focused initiative to prepare for the future potential uses of the of the campus. Um, we did I did a really similar presentation to town council on Monday night. So, you're you're two days behind them. I apologize to the counselors who are here to hear
this again. Um we are looking to start immediately. That's why the town put out a press release on on Monday. We did the update to town council on Monday as well. Um and here we are tonight. Um um
what what we are doing is getting access to a skilled team. So from mass development's perspective, these these groups are called house doctors. um where they mass development has a team and they can just select them and
and work behind the scenes on a contract and then bring them to the town. So this is this is different than how like a grant gets applied for which takes many many months. Uh we don't need to do an RFP. Uh mass development has all this under their umbrella. And so what we're
really doing is um um it's that third third big bullet is create a process to collect information and community input and create a vision for the developable portions of the campus. And ultimately we want to enact zoning that would implement the vision
over time. And so actually if you scroll down just a little bit more, we're looking to enable the property to generate as much tax revenue as possible. Um, sorry Pam, you're going a little too fast for me. >> I'm so sorry.
>> Just a slide before this. >> Okay, well done. >> Yes, thank you. Um, we want to try to open up an opportunity to allow various kinds of housing again to be implemented over time and then really balance
redevelopment with preservation of important resource areas. We want to embrace the cultural institutions that exist. So, you know, we have this theme that we're we're talking about and we felt like there was this urgency to to send out a message that the town wants to be, you know, looking at the the
property and examining zoning options. As many of you know, it's all one zoning district fairly limited in terms of what the uses would be allowed and we really want to embark on this um with a team. Um so, here well um Pam, you can go to the next slide. Thank you. Um as I said,
we're trying to launch this immediately. It's going to start with really some some background information, some existing conditions. Um, we've never looked at this parcel. It's never really been part of exercises or examination. So, we really need to start with some of
the basics, the basic characteristics of the site. Looking at what the zoning does now, what it doesn't do, understanding where there are wetlands, uh, is critical. uh because if you know it's 690 acres but not all of it is
developable and so really to quickly kind of get a lay of the land so to speak is really critical. This will allow us to look at the market. So the real estate market will be kind of considered. Um we really need to understand what's happening with infrastructure and utilities. So we know
that there's water and sewer connected to some of the buildings but we really don't know what kind of capacity there is. Um and that's going to be really important to any future discussion to to understand that understanding a little bit about the building conditions. Ownership is pretty complex. There are
easements and there are some areas that don't have access. You know it's one large parcel. So we want to begin with that leading to educational materials. So we're want to stand up a web page with the consultant team like story map very interactive where we can uh put up
that information. We want to start to understand some of the basic development potential. So lot area divided by a certain number of housing units equals X um and really start that and then kind of cut sheets or information that's a little bit more digestible and that's
going to lead us to July where we want to host a community listening session. Um it'll present some of the baseline data so that we're have a framework to operate within. um talk about the resource areas, the real estate market, review existing community goals. So, think back to the master plan, the
village center plans, the comprehensive housing policy and the housing production plan. You know, how do all those fit into this discussion and collect community questions and concerns? So, that is a really big kind of lift for the next two months. And then Pam, you can go to the next slide.
That will lead us into what we're calling phase two. Um and we think that by July, late July or August, we'll be having stakeholder meetings and interviews and that would be where the consultants would come to the planning board and talk to the planning board. I
think the consultants would come to the CRC and talk to the CRC and then there are other stakeholders that they'd be talking to in a leadup to coming back to the community. This is a three meeting process where meeting number two would be a sharet. Um, Dodson and Flinker is one of the consulting teams that was
brought in. They have a really great familiarity with Ammeris and they have a great way to lay out maps and have foam building blocks and really help people visualize what's possible on the site. And we're kind of looking at um I guess
we did have some discussions that is more than likely going to end up being a community meeting in September to allow the summer to clean up, have Labor Day, and then have people like back in town. um talks about a walking tour in a Saturday morning kind of session. From
there is when you know we really get into more of the nitty-gritty and and the team will really be able to look at the overall size of the development areas, the density, the extent of new development, the types of potential development opportunities. So really the focus on housing this is like mixed use villages this is you know some notion of
if this is an educational institution um and then housing and really understanding what types of housing would be viable and fit on the property and this would come with illustrative plans diagrams cross-sections and other supporting materials and then we really are looking at a fiscal analysis to
support you know rationalizing this a little bit to understand there would be some potential services that would be impacted but there would be potential tax revenue under these scenario iOS and those are all really critical things for us to have sort of it everyone seeing and really assessing followed lastly by
the third sharet public meeting probably in October um and then from there you know the goal is to have a draft zoning amendment of some sort that would look at a vision plan where there's consensus and agreement and then what is the zoning
that would allow that to occur and the target is November and December so that we can be acting thoroughly with the community but also fast enough to respond to what kind of this outside the outside forces that are out there. Um so the plan board would be
maybe not involved in the leadup to July. We would love to have representation at the July meeting and then really right after that is when there'll be enough information to really get the planning board's concise and specific input on on what you're seeing
and and engage in July or August sometime on that and then hopefully everyone can kind of come to the to the meetings and then of course it'll all come back. So with a draft zoning amendment and a memo and a report, it'll go to town council and it'll go back
through the process with the CRC and planning board and you'll be well verssed and aware of what's going on by that point. So this is a really kind of quick whirlwind update for you. Just to recap, we gave the really similar presentation to the town council only on Monday. You're getting in on Wednesday.
Um we have a lot of meetings, a lot of coordination that is kind of happening just to set up the process. Um, and we will have a contract signed hopefully tomorrow and a scope that um, hopefully is sharable pretty soon in a week or two and the website will be established
soon. And then finally, we're got some feedback which is we hope to identify the date and location for the July meeting as quickly as we can so that people can put it on their calendar. So I think with that I'll I'll happily answer a few questions. Uh Bruce
>> um Jeff um just want to say that I think this is a terrific and laudable uh um response initiative reaction from the town. Congratulations to you and and everybody else. I think this when I read
this today I was hugely relieved. I had had a sense of my that whether I should try and get something like this together as a as a as a volunteer, you know, consent thing from various people in town who like me have retired but used
to do this sort of thing. But this is way way better. Uh I think the fact that you put this together so quickly seems to me as though it's got a a reasonable opportunity of influencing positively influencing the uh the parties that may
be interested in this uh u huge tract of land uh influence influencing them positively from the town's point of view. And that's I think the the the the hope and the that I recognize is the possibility that this thing brings to the table. And I think that's why I'm so
uh appreciative of what the town has done here. I think you're to be congratulated. Thank you very much. >> Thanks, Bruce. And and I I I definitely understand the the the feeling of, you know, what what are we doing was was
really uh driving a lot of this. And I just wanted to actually Pam, would you mind stop stopping the share? um you know it this is a tremendous team so and we have a lot of resources that are available to us and so that is something that I'm I'm really happy
about and kind of short quick it was happening it happened quick and it has a lot of robust um consultants if I didn't mention it Whitten Group um is a really great planning firm and they're kind of like the prime the the lead and then Dodson and Flinker who has a really
great way to do sharets and public information gathering and then U3 advisers who has experience in Ammeris working both Ammeris College. We have them doing a little economic development data now with the town and they have some familiarity with UMass. So we really, you know, I thank Mass
Development because they had the ability to look at teams who would be the best fit for this project. >> All right, Shar, >> I just want to echo actually what Bruce was saying. I'm I'm really just so thrilled to see how quickly all this
came together. Um, I feel really encouraged by the team of consultants that's behind this. Um, and so I just want to say thank you Jeff for putting putting all this get together because uh, you know, this is a what no matter
how much influence we ended up uh, or we end up having over this project, it's going to have a tremendous influence over this town. And so I'm really glad to see um that we're taking some real steps to to take the steering wheel here. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you. I appreciate that.
>> Thank you, Jeff. Um, Andy Churchill. >> Yeah. I I if it's appropriate, I I I thought I'd share at the same meeting, the town council voted unanimously a set of priorities for the land which were in sync with this this proposal, but I can
share the if I if I could share the document. Um, >> I think that document was shared with us in our packet this afternoon. >> Okay. So, you have it. So, but basically buildable land should be prioritized for housing, small business development, other appropriate tax revenue generating
uses. Sensitive habitat, farming or resource areas should be prioritized for preservation, creating a balance. Housing development should prioritize a wide range of housing types as reflected in the various plans. And if components of the property can support identified town space or needs, those needs to be
considered. So that messaging is, I think, consistent with what uh Jeff is talking about and and it it it was unanimous from the town council, which is quite a statement. >> All right. Thank you, Andy. And uh Jeff,
anything else before we turn to Walker? >> No, just that yes. Yes, that um you know, the website will go live. I would like the plan board to be aware of that. And then as soon as we can find the date, time and location of the July meeting, I want the planning board members to know that. And we we got a
request from the town, one of the town council town counselors to just make sure that we can get as much in uh outreach about that meeting as possible. Um because it is like a listening session. This there will be a some
framework but also listening as the first shot out the gate. And then after that, you know, I just want to reiterate that we will be coming back to the plane board for your detailed knowledge and and your thoughts. It's just that this needs a little bit of that background data. It really needs some kind of
information to frame the discussion. And so that was the team wanted to do first and then and then we'll engage with, you know, other invol. So like the affordable housing trust, the CRC playing board and maybe a couple others. But then anyone else who wants to come who has knowledge like we have a lot of hidden gems in town, a lot of people who
who who have expertise and we want to get those types of people too at the meeting as well. So um looking forward to it. It's been a little bit of a non-stop sort of adventure over the past few weeks, but this is this is really exciting for me as well and it's exciting for me to be able to share with
you guys. >> All right. Thank you. I just want to remark we have a lot on our agenda tonight. We it's now 5 after 7. So, if you can keep your remarks brief, uh we I want to make sure we have enough time for clean energy this evening. Bruce,
brief. Jeff, is there any possibility that this meeting could be conducted or these meetings could be conducted in the red barn on the Hampshire College campus? I'll just put that out there. >> Yeah, it's a it's it's on the list. There's some it may or may not be
possible, but yeah, it's come up. Great. and I am going to leave the meeting. You're in great hands with Walker and Pam and Stephanie is here and then obviously all the CRC members who are really involved in the clean energy bio. So I really appreciate you know carving off the now 35 minutes for me but I
appreciate it. >> All right, thank you Jeff Walker. Uh I wondered if you could uh give us just a quick update on implementation of ADU the ADU bylaw in town. And I I I've
heard some concern about how things are unfolding. >> Yeah. Um I'm not going to go into much detail. I talked to Rob Mora and um as I'm sure most of you are aware, there's been some um controversy over the size
of some of the ADUs that are going into town and how they're being the size is being assessed by the building commissioner. Um, and I'm not going to go into a lot of detail because there is in fact an appeal that's going to be going before the zoning board of appeals um I think in July regarding one of
these ADUs. So a really in-depth discussion is going to happen at that point about what's what the building commissioner was thinking and you know where what we can do and what people can do and what's going to change moving forward. So rather than having that
discussion now before we get all the information, um I would recommend keeping an eye on that appeal, if you're interested to see where that's going to go and then if there's any changes to the bylaw that are going to need to happen or anything like that afterwards, I'm sure it'll come back around. But is there any questions off the top of
anyone's head about that? >> Uh Jesse, >> thanks. Thanks, Walker. Uh just quickly, what's happening to applications in the meantime? Or there are no applications, right? What what's what's happening? >> They're continuing to process the applications as they've been doing um using the same criteria for approval as
they've been using. And um when you learn what the date of that appeal hearing is, can you mention that at our next meeting or or you know any meeting between now and the hearing that
happens so that we are all aware of it. >> I will keep everybody updated. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Time is 7:09. I think it's time for us to welcome CRC
And uh Pam Rooney, let's see. Um actually Pam, I'm going to go ahead and open our hearing and then I will invite you to open yours. >> All right. So this is a joint public
hearing uh advertised for 635 on zoning bylaw article 18 clean energy infrastructure to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning table 3
dimensional regulations 5.11 renewable energy accessible solar photovoltaic installations slash battery energy storage systems uses 6.2 fences and article 12 definitions. So this planning board
hearing is hereby opened or continued. This is a continuation from was it May 20th I think when we opened this hearing as a joint hearing. Pam, I invite you to open the CRC hearing.
>> I see a quorum of CRC members and we'll go around to see if everyone can be heard. Uh, let's see. We've got um Jennifer Ta. >> Yes, I'm here. I can hear you. >> Andy Churchill. >> Yes.
>> Alicia Walker is with us by phone. >> Yes, here. Thank you, Pam. >> Excellent. Thank you. And I'm Pam Rooney and I'm here. And we are missing Mandy Johanni tonight. Uh we also have Stephanie um Chikarella who has offered
to be available for the conversation since she's a driving force and has been involved since the beginning on this. If you want to welcome her in as a visible panelist that would be great. >> Yes, she's she can turn on her video at
any time. >> Okay, great. So, um, just a little recap, especially for the folks who weren't here last time, we have worked through the document through section 18109, uh, all the way up to section 18.11,
which is additional design requirements for specific types of installations. Uh, I wanted to note that the CRC did receive uh numerous comments, many of them from Doug Marshall. Um, that we
were able to work our way through uh essentially up to the same point and that is the point at which the CRC referred the whole document over to the council for public hearings. So because the CRC had not had a chance to discuss
those additional uh suggestions, they are not incorporated into the document beyond this point and we shall just have to deal with them one by one as we come to those sections. So that's um just a little bit of a
overview. Are there any questions um from folks that were not with us last round? Is that a is your your raised physical hand uh >> request counts? >> Yes.
>> Go ahead, Jesse. >> No, sorry. I was just saying I wasn't here before. Apologies. >> Okay. I was just wondering if you didn't if you had any questions. >> No, all good. So I think um and if if Walker is
willing and able we would like to share the document. This would be version 11 as of 26 2026727 as discussed at public hearing. And before we start, thank you Walker
for offering to do this. We'll try not to overwhelm the uh the system. So last time we went through section by section and basically are asking if there are questions or concerns or
additions that need to be made uh in each of these sections. Bruce, >> um I don't have the document open in front of me. Uh are we uh is are we uh uh beyond or have yet to see the uh the
section on setbacks for public for private wells from solar arrays because if we if that's if that's back uh above then I'd like to revisit that if that's
>> well we did we did pass that uh it's in 1809 and We we did make some comments on that at the last at the last meeting. >> Uh but I >> I did some research on that and and I
want to strenuously argue for the elimination of the 250 foot setback from private wells. Um, >> yeah, I think the comment that Mandy Joe had recorded was that
uh the authors needed to consult with Concom and some of the other staff about that, but if you have information, it'd be great to share that. >> Uh, I do and I shared it with you and with Pam, but of course because uh of the public meeting law, I didn't go
beyond that. But uh I talked to some of my uh uh green building high performance building uh uh uh consultant friends from the past those that are still active in the field and particularly Charlie Stevenson who essentially has constructed a red list review service
which is uh uh an international uhly provided service. He's he's used by everybody all over the world. and uh he confirmed the uh the the observation that I made last time that uh these high
performance uh living green buildings are collecting water from PV arrays and feeding it in directly into drinking water. Um uh so the basically the drinking water for these buildings are collected from roofs which are
substantially uh PV arrays and and Charlie's uh uh considered opinion and research tells him that there's there's no u threat to public or private water supply from from water that flows from
PV arrays and and >> excuse me I'm going to interrupt then Walker can you add can you add a note a sticky keynote and just uh essentially summarize that some experts feel that
current PV um yeah there's no risk to drinking water. >> I would change some to all without exaggeration. All all experts all experts feel this way. >> In my experience, yes.
>> All experts that have experience in collecting, you know, there's nobody that I know who's ever had a concern about the uh the discharge from solar arrays having any adverse effect
contamination of drinking water and I'm concerned. >> So that's good. So that's so so noted and um when we come back around I think I'm going to continue to move through the document with those comments and then
when we come back around I would also like staff and and the clean water um protection group to have discussed that. >> Yes. I'm less concerned about the for the public wells and not the best
because there's so few public water supplies, but the private wells could be everywhere and particularly in the outlying areas where these uh arrays these large arrays are likely to go. So I think there's a a real the legitimate and serious concern about the uh 09103.
I'm not so much concerned about the others because I think the adverse impact on on reducing developable area would be much much much smaller. But this one is really potentially significant, I believe. >> Thank you. Um, Doug, do you want me to
just go ahead and call on people? I'm gonna call on Andy. >> Oh, yeah. One of us, one of us should. You know, we've got three other hands. >> Yep. Andy. >> Yeah. Yeah, I was just I mean I guess I was wondering if if that's the case then shouldn't we just um also consider
eliminating 1809 0104 since you know it it wouldn't be needed. >> So that's another recommendation. Fred Hartwell, uh Johanna, your your hand keeps moving backwards. I'm trying
to decide whether to speak or not but in my mind um there are two things right there's the clearing of the land which has the potential to contaminate water and then there's the solar array itself which you know all the research that
I've seen suggests that there is no leeching of any kinds of chemicals that comes off of solar arrays. So um the maybe so I think we should be clear that like the solar arrays themselves don't
actually pose a threat to the drinking water but the clearing of the land if done in an irresponsible way and if the storm water isn't managed well it could create problems. So I can't quite tell which problem we're trying to solve for here in this language. Um, so that's
what I wanted to highlight. I >> think it was both. Fred Hartwell. >> Yeah. Um, I basically agree with Bruce. Uh, I I think that's uh not a major issue and uh
I would agree with that. And unfortunately I also uh I have to leave this meeting for about five minutes. I have been called out by I got a problem. I I will be right back but I will be out of the meeting for
about five minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you Fred. >> Can we go back to Johanna's question then? And is it is it a matter of in the discussion with CRC it was it was both um with the with the expectation that
there might be some contamination from the panels themselves. Um the disturbance area, the the setbacks and no disturbance areas were primarily um
concern of the land clearing and and um disturbance of natural material within a protection zone of a well. So is that something that's dealt with customarily when land is developed
through the conservation commission uh regulations around you know erosion control and managing storm water runoff and that sort isn't that sort of a matter of course regardless of what the land is going to
be used for? So, so is there anything special about clearing land for solar that's different and would cause contamination differently than some other use?
And if there's not, then you know, shouldn't shouldn't these even just be consistent with conservation commission regulations? >> We call on Stephanie. Sure,
>> Stephanie. >> Hi. Sorry. Um, I just wanted to first of all, um, just say that tonight I'm my daughter had a three-hour root canal procedure today, this afternoon. So, I'm I'm mostly off camera because I may be running around to help her. So, I just
wanted to let you all know that. Um, as far as this issue, I really think um this just needs to go back to the um drinking water protection supply committee group because that's really where this recommendation came from and
other committee um other committee review have basically just taken their guidance. So I think um I think that's really the group that needs to weigh in on this particular setback. um because I think everyone
just sort of took their expertise uh as the guidance for this particular recommendation. So I would just um and I apologize if I missed half the question, but I'm just weighing in on what I heard. >> All right. >> Thank you. Um we we will we will make
sure that something gets crafted up and and we'll send it to you and to Walker to make sure that it that it reaches those folks. Do you have any sense what their what their meeting schedule is? >> Um I I don't at the moment. I apologize.
I think I believe they meet monthly. Um so I can double check and I know um that Jason Scales, the town engineer, and Beth Wilson, the town's uh DPW environmental scientist staff that
group. So I can check with them to find out their schedule. >> Thank you. Fred's back. >> I am >> Fred, can we lower your hand? >> Yes.
>> All right, >> Bruce. um to address uh uh Johanna's uh question or or what uh there is definitely um an issue of separation distance and the second and and I think
essentially unrelated hopefully uh no disturb area. So I think that I thought we were talking about in the 1801 0901 03. Oh, it's a no disturb area. It should be
separation distance. um in my view uh because I think there's an issue with no disturb as well and I mentioned this at the last uh meeting I think but I wasn't sure of my facts but
um private wells uh have to be 100 ft from a septic system. So we've already established that uh major disturbance can be 100 ft away from a private well because you can build a leech field
there. So um clearly uh if it's we're talking no disturbance it shouldn't be more than 100 ft um and it probably could be less but uh but the the separation distance in my
view could be zero or some practical uh thing related to as we've already done with setbacks of a different nature. So I think that the setback uh or the separation distance for a private well should be the same as the setback distance. There should be no difference between
the two. >> All right. Thank you Bruce Walker. Did that think you got that? So, well, >> sound like sounded like Bruce was saying the separation distance could be zero or
>> uh I what I was saying was that it should be the same as the setback which I think we said would be 20 feet. It's further up in the we've already discussed it and we had 50 ft. a setback from a property line and not a setback from the from a well. >> That's right. Uh it could be uh I mean
if the well is on the property line then the uh the the the array should be set back from that well the same distance you know no distance from the no different from this because this
there's no there's no risk. Um okay. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay, good. So, we've noted that that that issue and that clarification will be sent to the clean water the clean
water protection group for some feedback on that. Um, and thank you both Bruce and uh Johanna for that information. Can we move can we move back then to
1811 where we left off last time? And so Pam, you're saying that um if I don't bring up the comments that I made and sent off to you guys probably six weeks ago at this
point, if I don't bring them up in this meeting, they won't be considered. Is that right? >> That that's correct. I have I have actually transposed your notes onto this version 11 for myself as a reference,
but um I may not have caught all of your comments. >> Okay. >> So, I hope you have >> I just you know, we were invited to submit comments and >> exactly >> it seemed like much easier to do it rather than dragging everybody on a
meeting through it. Uh, as I was trying to as I was trying to explain, we accepted and incorporated those that we made our way through and where we left off, we had not considered
and not discussed so they were not incorporated. >> Okay. All right. So you are you going to lead us through this or >> Sure. So section uh this is additional design requirements. Were there any uh
considerations or discussions about let's just go for the first 11 181 and its sub subsections. Fred. >> Yeah. This is where um
as long as you're inside the battery electric storage system. if as long as you're inside the building. Uh yeah, the uh state electrical code has some applicability, but the uh
you've got to also capture because these are going to involve direct utility connections. You've also got to capture the National Electrical Safety Code, which is going to be the the actual code that covers uh
those connections and not the state electrical code. And I I say that as the person who is the secretary of the writ I I know your expertise. Um can you give
us wording for that? uh >> because we're and we're talking specifically in this section the following requirements shall apply to all best. So that's battery energy storage its its buil its base its um
confines and its equipment. Um, I I I can if you uh uh I'll have uh I'll get exact wording uh in the next 10 minutes.
>> Excellent. Let's move on. Um 11:013 there was a comment there that says the blah blah blah test report for the product shall be made available to the fire department and the suggestion was made that all components or each component report for each component be
made to the fire department. Is there agreement with that? If we agree, if we agree to something, it's okay to say yes and then we can move on and incorporate it. >> Yes.
>> Yep. >> Thank you. Let's incorporate it. Um 11:0104 best safely contain fires and thermal runaway. Um there was a comment that you can't
contain that. Doug, why don't you explain your comment? Well, I was just um suggesting to replace best with best enclosing structure be just because uh
you know I guess I'm a little bit unclear about what what is it best a building with a container >> and it itself is engineered to contain any fire from the batteries inside of it.
I'm asking Pam. I'm assuming you're the expert, but may that maybe that's erroneous. Do we have any experts in the room? >> We do not. >> Okay. So, that seems problematic. Um,
>> all right. So, that that was not a particularly consequential comment from me. Yeah. Yeah. >> Doug and then Angus. >> Well, I was just gonna say the definition in in article 12 at the end of the document says battery energy
storage systems best a system containing of one or more battery modules for storing electrical energy any equipment needed and one or more physical containers providing secondary containment to any of the above. >> All right. So if the containment is part
of the best then the comment I withdraw the comment. >> Great. Uh 180105 shall be the best shall be maintained in good working order. Um that is actually repeated in 18.16
and it's I guess if if in 18.106 106 I mean excuse me 18.16 uh is facility maintenance. Uh this feels to me like 0105 should go should be deleted here and just it's it's
repeated in 18.16. Same with the next item which is the site shall be maintained including snow removal acceptable to the fire department. That's also repeated in 18.16. >> Uh
>> now we come to Fred Hartwell >> recorder. We're going to delete the next one as well. >> Doug, can I ask this is a point of order almost here at sort of point of procedure. U last time we did some editing as we went along and what Walker
is doing is making all of the comments. So I wouldn't it be prudent that if we have some simple edits that we all agree that we just edit the document rather than making notes about what other people should do? >> That would be fine. Yeah. Pam, are you all right with that?
>> Yes. >> Um >> anyone else anyone else concerned with that? It'll show up as a change. So it's it's track changes. So this document is a track change. Okay. >> Yeah. I I hope it's being done that way.
>> So >> otherwise Mandy Johan will be very upset with us. >> Yeah. >> The numbering will change. So like >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Will need to be changed. >> Yeah.
I don't see a ch I don't see a try like a strikeout. >> Maybe we could do it should just be >> what we were doing last time was highlighting stuff like that for change. Uh if it's difficult or time consuming >> Walker if you go up to where it says
simple markup beside track changes to the right and all markup. Yeah, >> there we go. >> Perfect. Thank you. That's great. >> All right. Going down to the next one. >> Okay. And this comes back to Fred again.
>> Um, facility should be designed, constructed, operated in accordance with NFPA 855. Um, so that seemed to me to be redundant with the very first item up at the top, which is best must comply with state
electrical code 527, state fire code 527 or subsequent standard. And I'm saying should we just add NFPA 855 to the very top uh item 101.01.
Does that make sense? >> It could be. It could be um deemed separate. It's separate from electrical code. This is now fire fire code. So, I'm okay keeping it. I just was asking Well, it did seem super sort of
repetitive to me to have 855 referenced in the header paragraph there and then also in a >> right sub paragraph Hey. Yeah. >> Again, wouldn't we just delete that uh
those NFPA 85 and then again not make the comment? Just delete NFPA85 in in paragraph A. >> Um >> Oh, I see. It's not uh it continues, >> right?
>> Pardon, >> right, >> Angus? Yeah, it it seems like everything in this um 07 section including AB and C are all part of 855.
So I guess it's a question of does the town feel like it's really important to restate things from other codes in this document or is it something that can just be referenced earlier with the other codes and then you could cut this entire section? I I would vote for cutting, but
I know that it more has been wanted to be included. >> Uh it actually it actually states in a that that um NFPA 855 requires an adequate adequate water supply and firewater containment strategies, which
feels like a fairly important element to take note of that isn't it isn't discussed anywhere else. Fred Uh I yeah I have a uh uh
at least of something to start with here on 1811. Um try this. The internal wiring of BSS BESS structures shall comply with the state's electrical code 527 CMR12 and
the state's fire code 527 CMR1 or subsequent standard wiring connected to electric util. This is that's pretty much what was there. Then I would add a sentence. Wiring connected
to electric utility facilities shall comply with the and first letter is capitalized. The next four the national electrical safety code
as covered in their operating policies. All right, Walker. Good. Can you go back to the beginning of the original sentence and just add the internal wiring of a bass? Yeah. Is that Fred? Does that look right?
>> Yes, it does. Thank you. And then we'll then we'll keep 855 separate and no need to change that. >> That makes sense to me. >> Uh I think the verb should be shall. >> Great.
>> All right. >> Okay. Any other comments? Um, until we get to 0109. This is the PAS conversation. Um, let's see. Can we back up to subp paragraph C of that last section?
Um, okay. Thank you. Never mind. You've incorporated that comment. Any comments? >> I had a question >> just and it's I'm sorry it's back on the ABC one the the one we just looked at.
Um are and this is just sort of a are what's the fire department going to be looking at? Um would they be looking at would they be looking to to see that
you know that facilities would be you know designed construction operating in accordance with National Fire Protection Association standards and if so do we need to specify what the fire department would already do or is this be above and beyond what they would
normally do? Just trying to if there's any extra stuff that we don't >> if that would happen anyway. You know what I mean? >> Brad, is your hand up? Did you have a comment? >> My
>> Thank you. >> Not for fire. Well, Andy, I'm not sure there's anybody here who could talk about what the fire department would do. So >> the fire the fire department is uh per
all of these um uh requirements going to review the proposals going to review the submittals and I think this this uh recommendation so the recommended use of water as the primary fire suppressant agent is
um might be redundant. I mean, the fire department certainly would know that, but where we are, I don't think it hurts to re to refer to 855. Um, it also reminds the fire department in
case Yeah. Let's let's not forget to ask for what's their water supply. the emergency operations and and emergency training is an important aspect that uh the CRC wanted to make sure was in incorporated
here. Stephanie. >> So, um staff did review um including fire uh did review the draft of the bylaw and so they have their own procedures that they have to uh
reference when they're reviewing um any projects uh that have to do with battery energy storage. So these are consistent with what they have um required and I believe they even gave us the um the
regulations to site. So the sighting comes from them actually. >> Thank you. Then I guess my question is, could we do what Pam said and just throw the NFPA 855 up into the top and get rid of this other verbiage or >> I've taken I've taken back I've taken
back my comment because the first the first section is specifically to electricity and this is all very much fire protection. >> Okay. Uh can we go back to um 09 down down
down to excuse me 1109 and this is PAS uh applicant shall certify that nonpast fire this is now fire suppression funs this does not have anything to do with panels there was a question go ahead Johanna was just to say I'm fine with this there
are still some POS firefighting foam or firefighting foams that contain POS on the market. I don't know that how much they're used for best fires um if they occur. It seems like they're different applications, but I think it would be fine to stipulate that they use nonpos firefighting foam should there be
a fire at a best facility in Ammerst. >> Great. Any other comments on to that? Angus. >> Yeah, just I I guess the question is what does certify mean? >> Give proof. Bruce, >> it means they write a letter and they
put their signature on the bottom and their uh organizational letter head on top. That's what >> and Okay. And do we do we require this of any other I guess of anything in town.
>> You could ask the fire department that I do not know. Yeah. >> Well, Pam, um, so we're asking the applicant, who is probably a for-profit entity, to write a letter saying that
the phone they want to use uh is commercially available, effective, and compliant. And so this doesn't seem to totally exclude
the use of PAS fire suppression foams. Um to the extent that they are commercially available, well all right. Um, it just seems like you could end up with
some PAS foam because you're just using them to the extent you you can. Okay, never mind. >> Johanna, >> I guess I have a question about this. Like in the unlikely event that there is
a fire at one of these facilities, is it the fire department that's in charge of putting out the fire or is it the owner of the best facility? Because this almost makes it sound like the owner of the best facility is in
charge of putting out the fire and determining what kind of fire suppression is used there. And I don't know, like if my house was on fire, I don't think I would be the person in charge of putting it out. I'd want the fire department to be in charge
of that. So I just I just I truly don't know. >> Question. >> You know, I had assumed that these best assemblies had a has had some level of internal fire suppression as part of the product.
And that that's that was the foam we were talking about. separate from whatever phone the fire department shows up with. Is that your understanding? I mean like you mean like in case of an
emergency like they have some >> you know how I mean buildings are buildings have sprinkler systems and if you have a computer uh a computer room you you may not use
water you may use some other suppression method and so just like that at a battery if there's a container around the best it may have uh an internal fire suppression system
that relies on foam. >> Yeah, it just strikes me as being contradictory to the NFPA 855 recommended use of water as the primary fire suppression agent. >> So, Pam, do you know where these this language came from?
>> I do not remember. It's it's actually a very good question. When I read it again tonight, I was thinking a similar thing like the applicant is not going to be putting out the fire, but um I think requires a
little more work. Fred. >> Yeah. um these uh facilities. There's been a number of absolutely hellacious fires
uh in these facilities and it is very important that uh the suppression action begin as quickly as possible and that means not waiting for the fire department to get there.
uh and uh there's going to be something that is it's it's going to be some suitable chemical that has been very carefully selected to uh address
the exposure in the in the best and uh yeah uh you you're not you don't want to wait for the fire department on one of these and so it's it's quite relevant to uh uh
include uh some some uh specification here as to uh whether or not PAS is uh is an issue. >> Thank you. So maybe we would edit this to say um the epicint shall certify that
non-past fire suppression foams shall be employed as a part of the best internal fire suppression system. Then does that make it clear we're not
talking about the fire department? >> I think that's I think that sounds >> all right. I guess I I don't know. I'm still a little bit I feel like we're like uh we
don't have expertise in this. Um and there have been some horrific fires. My understanding though is that the National Fire Protection Association standards would like horrible fires like the one that happened a couple of years ago in
California don't happen under you know with systems that are designed to the current standard because you don't have you know systemtosystem runaway problems. So you might have a installation with 12 containers and if there's a fire in one
container it can't spread to the others. Um so I don't know we could keep tinkering this with this language but I also think that there's a chance that we should just delete 11109
um and you know trust that the NFPA855 standards and the fire department process is good enough. So, >> Pam, what do you think about at least having Pocket Walker make a note about potential? >> I think a note should be made that Yeah.
And I think it would be it would be very helpful um to have the fire department confirm that 855 covers this issue. If we need to delete it, that would be fine. Great. Thank you. >> And that we can then that we can then delete this.
>> Well, >> yeah. >> Uh Fred, >> yeah. Uh I I'm happy to look into this also. I find as a
longtime participant in the NFPA processes, I they may they I I'm sure that they uh have provisions to
uh control runaway, but uh I I can't believe that NFPA would uh walk away from uh a uh internal suppression system as well. Uh I I'm almost certain, not
completely, but almost certainly that both are involved here. >> Thank you, Ruth. >> I I agree. I think that the the what it sounds like to me is that this is like you have over
big stoves gves to suppress oil fire uh grease fires and you have the same sort of things they're different chemicals and so forth in gas stations. So these you have these systems in special places where particular fires happen and they have to have a particular mode of
control. But I think uh the question was asked earlier. I think Johanna asked it and I think we should ask for clarification between this particular section which involves fire suppression foams and the reference about uh water being the
primary uh suppression agent. I think uh just asking for a clarification or reconciliation but between those two apparent contradictionary statements I think we should reconcile those within this bylaw um in as we as we probably do keep this
one but keeping this as we've discussed doesn't uh solve it doesn't reconcile what seems to be contradiction between what was said before and what's said here. That's great. And maybe Walker, if you could in your last sentence reconcile
this section with the section um uh Above. So it' be 11 18117 A. Thank you. Okay, we're moving on quickly. Oh, Bruce. >> Oh, nope.
>> Fred. >> Uh, one thing I know is that uh lithium, which is you lithium ion battery, lithium lithium uh in contact with water
is uh uh perfectly capable of causing a fire. Uh and uh so if that's how the uh storage system is storing electricity,
uh yeah, there's going to be lithium in there. And uh you're not going to want uh you're probably not going to want water on it. I I again, I can look into this some more, but uh I I
would be very careful here, >> Fred. Fred, if you want to talk to Chris Baskam at the fire department, he's been um one of the leads on this topic. >> Yeah, I I I actually had a chat with him
early earlier this morning about something uh related, but not quite the same. I'm happy to talk to him some more. >> And one last comment on on um the battery fires is they're still using the
products that cause fires. So, um, unless unless they, you know, get rid of or somehow dismantle all of the product that has been has been built to date, um, we're still going to deal with that issue of
runaway fires. Okay, moving on to 1812. There was a suggestion of making this a little clearer. um shall apply to agate canopy SPI SPI and best oops canopy SPI
comma SPI and best installed on prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance we would take out and soils and a bit yeah Okay. Mounting and foundation. So, these
are all just uh sort of um sort of miscellaneous items of of additional design considerations. Is there anything in this paragraph that people have any issue with?
>> Not from me. >> If not, so just kind of shout out or somehow raise your hand. Let's move to 1812, storm water management erosion control. In all of the CMR references, we're
trying to take out um specifics like 0.00's and just make them generic like CMR10s. So, you'll see some of those changes already made. Any any concerns or updates to that paragraph?
If not, we'll move to hazardous materials. Hazardous materials is covered in sort of um several sections. So, this is hazardous waste.
Any comments or considerations in this in the first couple of paragraphs in 01? Just a question, Pam. I I um what what is what is hazardous waste and waste management and so forth got to do with
this? Is it I'm not quite understanding uh why this is here. hazardous well because hazardous waste includes everything from herbicides to pesticides to gasoline to oil, you know,
cans of lubricant. Um there's there's hazardous waste on any con construction site. >> Okay. So, it's the incidental things. Okay. Okay. >> Yeah. Johanna, >> and then the the thinking of why it's
important to include this in this particular bylaw is again kind of this idea that an applicant has a one-stop shop and they don't have to go elsewhere to figure out how they need to manage. Is that accurate? And and so then
>> can we just confirm that there are similar rules like this that apply to other uses that don't have to do with clean energy? I'm seeing Pam nod, but >> yes. >> Yeah. Okay, >> Fred.
>> Uh, do we need a definition of hazardous? >> It is included in the definitions if I'm not if my memory serves me. >> I just wanted to make sure. Actually
we actually we do not describe hazardous but we describe disposal and discharge but it's discharge of hazardous waste and then hazardous waste I think is
included in the definitions 18317 >> 1831 and 180312 >> 180 >> is also referenced specifically >> 180317 has hazardous waste as a definition.
>> Okay, maybe I'm looking at the wrong version. >> Oh, maybe I'm looking at an old copy. >> You might be. I'm looking at draft 11. Version 11, you >> Oh, yeah. I'm on draft nine. >> Yeah, we're past that one. It's um 180315,
I'm sorry, 180315. Yes. Has a definition of hazardous waste. >> Yeah. >> Does that answer your question for Bruce? >> Oh, I I didn't ask it, but yes, I'm
sure. Well, >> sorry. Sorry, I let Doug and Pam know that I have to leave to go to a family event tonight, so I just have to hop off. >> Thank you, Angus. >> Brad, your hand is up. >> Yes. Um I
have the uh 180311 uh in front of me right now. Um, and I can't quite make sense out of this um
because it it begins with discharge or hazardous waste discharge um and then the sentence that follows it
uh only applies to hazardous waste. So I can someone uh tell me how this uh makes sense in the in the English language here. Um
I think it may be better as simply hazardous waste discharge rather than discharge or should should dis discharge or come out of that.
I think it was uh yes I I mean the the action is the discharge or the action in number 12 is the disposal. Um they're they're very similar and I would I would >> wouldn't wouldn't we want we're not
talking about treatment. So what if we just deleted the words or treatment in the first sentence and the comma after disposal so that the discharge
or disposal of hazardous waste is prohibited. I mean that at least makes sense. Whether it's right, I don't know. Because we don't we don't define treatment, do we? >> Well, and we're not doing treatment of
hazardous waste on our solar sites. Any any other I mean, does anyone disagree with that? So, it becomes the discharge or disposal and then cross out or treatment. Brad. >> Well,
>> I don't want to lose track of uh the wording of 180311, which has two extra words that I don't think should be there. >> 180311. So, we're going back
to the to the definition of >> discharge. Yeah, >> there we go. >> It I think it should simply say hazardous waste discharge. The act I don't think it should say discharge or
hazardous waste discharge. >> Any disagreement with that? Let's get rid of the >> discharge with this because I thought that discharge I thought that was a kind of a concom world term of art.
>> Well, I mean they do talk about discharge but um let me just look at the language again real quick. So I know there are sections that talk about I mean maybe it's the one we were just on that talks about discharge and
>> exactly. So I think that's why that's here. >> Yeah. >> So I you know that is here because probably of that reference. >> Yeah. So that Fred I don't think this is wrong. It may be a little
>> well I it it's not making any sense to me and the the other places where it occurs it occurs in the context of discharging of hazardous waste. So I think all you need
here is hazardous waste discharge accidental or int intentional spilling leaking etc. Well, I think I mean this seems to be defining discharge. So discharge can refer to
other things besides just hazardous waste. So I don't think it's a blanket term for just hazardous waste discharge, at least in this definition. If you're referring to the language below, then I think we can look at that
again. But discharge isn't specifically just hazardous waste discharge. It looks like it is in this paragraph though. >> Um, >> in which paragraph, Andy? >> Yeah. And this I'm reading the language of it
>> highlighted on the screen. >> Yeah, it's either >> I mean you could have either you have a separate definition for discharge because I'm I'm thinking about, you know, discharge can be anything besides something that's just hazardous material. Um, so
I I would maybe I I would agree the language in this does specifically refer to hazardous waste discharge. So maybe get rid of just discharge. But I don't know if we need to ensure that we don't have discharge defined elsewhere.
Can we make a note here in this in this 180311 and just say, you know, is is this reference um is this reference somewhere else where we need to retain the word
discharge or Because in the next one it's disposal and that's simply disposal but it but it but it addresses hazardous waste. >> M >> perhaps 180311 should just say discharge as it's used in this bylaw only.
>> It is the accidental spilling of hazardous waste. >> Fred. Well, except that uh it goes on to limit this coverage to hazardous waste. >> Right.
>> Right. The definition, >> right? As does disposal. >> Yeah. >> Which references hazardous waste. >> Let's come back to this. >> So Pam, we'll have to circle back back to this.
circle back. Yes. Um, so we're at 18 1301 and 02. Any additions or corrections to 1813 01 or 02? >> Well, let's see.
>> I actually had one up above uh in 01. The last paragraph of 01 says, "Hazardous materials and hazardous waste transported, stored, used, or generated in the site shall meet all requirements. the Department of Environmental Protection
because the the DP already promulgates its regulations. Do we need to repeat it here? Is is a question for maybe Stephanie. >> Okay. Sorry. Forgive me for my distraction tonight because I've been up and down and not just sitting here the
whole time. So, >> repeat the question. Well, the last the last paragraph of 1301, it says all these waste transported, stored, used shall meet requirements of the Department of Environmental Protection.
And I'm asking, is that paragraph necessary since the D already promulgates its own regulations? >> Yeah, I don't that seems superfluous. >> I would agree. I don't see any other hands. We Let's
>> Well, Fred has his hand up. >> Fred, >> um I think I would keep it. Um there's uh any number of places in here where uh
again, the principle of one-stop shopping. Uh, I mean, I could argue that you don't need the uh statements that uh that I edited around uh the state electrical code and the national electrical safety
code and so forth. But uh I think they add something uh in terms of one-stop shopping. And uh uh I I think this is perfectly harmless uh the way that it is.
I would keep it. >> And it sounds like it's your call. >> Yep. Not then keep. I mean, if there's if there's any call for it, I'd rather have it included than than lose it. Hazardous materials 18132.
Are there any uh Doug, you had a comment about wellhead protection area? So, the first paragraph >> in the paragraph that's at the top of what's shown here, >> I just wondered. >> Oh, maybe it was added since since that
version that I was reviewing. I I see it at the end of the section. Your point was that it the paragraph names um water supply protection area or wellhead protection area and you
suggested that we include and wellhead protection area to the first sentence. So that it's supply area and and well and or what or
Yeah. >> Does that make sense, Doug? Is that what you intended? >> Uh yeah, it could be. >> Yeah, but in light of the conversation we had about wells and separation distances, I'm I'm not sure how
significant wellhead production areas are really going to be anymore. >> Well, this has to do with this material. >> Okay, that's fine. That was my comment. >> Yep. >> Great. >> Any other comments on the the various
paragraphs? >> Um, let's see. The second has so ha the third paragraph down hazardous materials shall not be stored in a no disturbance area. Um I wasn't sure whether that term was
ever defined as it but um that was my comment about that >> because I didn't see it in the definitions. >> You didn't see no disturbance area >> right? That's because is that
>> released in version seven. >> Bruce, you're muted. In the second paragraph, um the that capitalized very small disturbance area, sorry, very small
quantity generator of hazard. That is that a term of art or everybody's comfortable with that? Because when I read that, I've just got to tell this person to go away. Just you can answer the question. >> I believe that came from state ress.
Okay. If if if uh if if if if uh being uh informed about the topic will eliminate the curiosity, then I'm comfortable. >> Um and I think so when we get through
the the 1813 section, I would like to call for a pause for uh seeing if there's any public comment. I have not opened up the floor to that at all tonight. >> All right. >> So, in the third um paragraph, I did
wonder if a wetland delineation is required uh to establish the no disturbance area or to establish the 150 ft of wetlands
because some that could be outside the boundary of the property. that >> right >> is controlled by the applicant. >> The the wetland does not does not define let's say the the area of no disturbance is not limited to wetland
setbacks. >> Yeah, I guess I'm just puzzled on how that's how that's established. So, okay. >> Could could Walker make a note about that where it just talks about the No, I mean, this isn't the first time we've
addressed no disturbance areas, but if we can put a comment here about um >> better definition and you know how it's how it's >> how it's established. >> I I'm just sorry I don't have my hand
up, but I just want to jump in real quick. I think Aaron Jacques, the conservation agent, actually may have provided this particular comment. So, um, >> yeah, >> I think it came from her. And of course, she's dealing with her language that she deals with with the wetland regulations.
So, maybe why it's phrased specifically as such. >> Yeah. >> And that in part was what drove the setbacks and the no disturbance zones. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Walker.
Um, herbicides. So, the first paragraph deals with only in the public right of way. >> It talks about >> first paragraph, the last sentence starts with the acronym CIF, which is never defined.
>> SPIS What's that? Oh, really? >> Well, the CIF is the state definition for clean energy infrastructure facility. >> Oh, okay. >> And we and I don't think we included
that in 1803 definition. >> Find it. >> It does not. It's not included. >> Okay. Johanna, >> SPI's restricts it to just solar photovoltaic installations. Would we
want to include best here as well? Yeah, if if um well ne yeah yeah if I read this neither is you know neither the SPI or the best is actually located in the in the public right of way. Um and I think this application of
herbicides is is um the preparation you know if something is built adjacent to a a public right of way we follow CMR 333.
Um I think yeah if we add both I think that's that's fine. Yeah. Fred. >> Yeah. Um, the SPI uh is plural in this.
And I don't think you it somehow seems wrong to me to write B SS in caps and then a lowercase S. But I think it somehow has to be made plural.
uh like uh bees uh facilities or something that can be made plural to match with the SPI. Maybe we just take the s off SPI. Um, and sorry, I'm I'm belatedly raising
my hand, but isn't BESS battery energy storage systems? >> Oh, you're right. >> So, it implor Yeah. So, it's it >> I'll do an Emily Latella here and go, never mind. >> Some of us know what you're referring
to. Okay. Um, the last sentence, the last paragraph on herbicides was was actually fairly convoluted. Um, I attempted to make some some sense out
of it myself. Um, I think what it's getting at is that that pesticides and herbicides, well, first of all, the first sentence, clearing of natural vegetation should be limited to what is necessary for construction, operation, maintenance of the facility. That's basically saying
don't clear any more land than you need to. Don't clear any more vegetation than you need to. >> Ma'am, >> it doesn't Yeah. >> Why do we say that? You know, if I were doing a development on any other piece of land, there would be no restriction
on what I cleared. I think this is in part a reaction to the um the the blowouts that occurred like in Williamsburg and um and other towns where the erosion that occurred
was so horrific that you know it it just it sullies the name of of >> everything. But but but wasn't that a failure of conservation commission and and and construction monitoring and a
whole lot of other things. I I don't know. It just feels like if I bought a tract of forest land and decided I wanted to turn it into pasture land and cleared all the vegetation and planted grass, as long as I had all the,
you know, the erosion controls in place that I needed to minimize runoff, nobody would be able would tell me that I needed to minimize the amount of I don't know. It just feels like it's >> I it's over it's more restrictive
because of this use >> without particular reason. >> I ag I I agree with you and I think um as as you as you read that first sentence is like just this kind of statement plop down. It doesn't really have anything to do with herbicide
application. I was going to suggest that maybe the first sentence could be deleted if no one has any issue with that. It sounds like there is not. Um the second sentence I was going to start with the word chemical fertilization or herbicide
pesticides should be applied only as necessary to get ve to get vegetation new vegetation or stabilizing vegetation established. So the sentence would start with the
word chemical. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Well, well now we have necessary twice within six words of each >> should be applied. shall be applied only only to only to establish
stabilizing vegetation. Garion Then the last sentence which is highlighted in pink which the question was how does this affect agravoltaics? My suggestion would be that um agravtaic installations
adhere to Mass Department of Agricultural Resources uh regulations That's in lie of the sentence that's highlighted in pink. >> Yes. >> All right. Fred has his hand up.
>> Yeah. The sentence the sentence before that uses should be applied um should is not appropriate in a regulatory document. It should be shall. >> Thank you. >> All right.
uh emergency response. The last paragraph uh providing emergency response proceed procedures following a discharge of hazardous waste shall be developed by the project owner in collaboration with the Ammeris fire department approved by the PGA. So we already we've we've stated a couple
times emergency responses are needed. Um, it's it's kind of a sentence that doesn't have a lot of weight right here, but it's reminding them that that in some cases there will be a uh emergency
response plan. Yeah, I had suggested replacing this with a sentence that read, "The emergency response plan shall include protocols for responding to a discharge of hazardous waste."
That seemed clearer to me, but I'm not going to >> think that makes more that makes more sense. >> All right. The emergency response plan shall include
protocols for responding to a discharge. You're doing great, Walker, by the way. >> I know. I'm just thanking you in my head >> to a to a discharge. And the discharge should be capitalized because it's a term we've defined or back in
definitions. Discharge of capital Hazardous Waste period. And that would replace the other sentence. >> Great. >> All right, we got through 13. You We were
>> Do you want to call for uh attendees and and input? Public public comment. >> Uh why don't we see if the public wants to make any comment? We have three members of the public here. Uh do any of you want to comment? We have a hand
raised from Steve Roof. Uh Pam, can you bring over Steve? Steve, you'll have three minutes after your introduction. >> Great. Thank you. This is Steve Roof. I live in Deep South Ammerst on Southeast
Street. And um first just want to commend you all on your very detailed and meticulous review of this. I'm I'm I'm very impressed with your attention to detail and I have I guess three particular little things that I've
noticed that I want to just raise your attention to. Um first in an earlier section 18104. It's kind of there's several paragraphs there, but towards the end it references that applicant shall avoid sighting in a manner that would require construction
or tree clearing activities. Couple other things within 100 ft of groundwater monitoring wells. And that struck me as a little bit odd or confusing. I don't know what groundwater monitoring wells might be, but I can
imagine that groundwatering monitoring wells may well be installed near or on a site just to monitor the groundwater before or after any sort of development. So, you may want to go back and just double check to see if that's something
that um you believe is still necessary. >> Okay, Steve. Uh Walker, can you scroll back and just note that that was something to check? It's 18104, I believe. >> Yes, 18104 near the end. There was several
paragraphs in that section, I believe. >> So, and your comment had to do with ground monitoring wells. >> That's right. groundwater. >> Yeah, that yep, that paragraph. >> So, at the least groundwatering wells might need to be defined, but I would
wonder if this is really necessary overall. And then two other comments. when uh you're ready. >> And then the second question. Yeah. >> Okay. The other two are definitions in section article 12. My reading of the
definition of the best the bees. >> You mean 1812? >> Um article 12 at the end the very end. >> So I don't think we've gotten to article 12 yet. >> No, you haven't. But >> but you've referred to it.
>> Okay. Um, the definition for bees does not have a minimum size on it. And if I read that strictly, it seems like maybe my cell phone battery pack would qualify as a best under this. >> Walker, you need to go all the way to the end of this document.
>> All the way through. Go all the way through 18. There we go. >> There we go. Yeah. >> Um, >> so battery energy storage systems. So there's no negim >> no minimum size there. And likewise, a
couple lines down, there's the um um SPI definition, um also no minimum sizes indicated there. So, it might include my solar powered garden walkway lights.
>> Okay. So, Walker, could you just highlight those and add a comment that we >> Let's Let's continue. He's got a third comment. That's >> those are those are my three. The first was groundwater bonding wells, then the definition for best and the definition for SPI.
>> The latter two having no minimum size that you might want to just check on. >> All right. So, since >> also for SPI, okay, good. >> Yeah, since this is um public hearing, uh I think it's appropriate to try to
respond to things that are brought up. So right there where it's blue highlighted um I I would point out to Steve Roof that on the preceding page of this volume um there is definition of
the scale and size of battery storage uh components and or um SPIs and we have tier one this is a state, sort
of the state example of how to uh create levels of scale. And tier one is uh your your walkway lights, if you will, uh or your housemounted
materials. Um it's it's essentially by building commission only. So that's where the that's where the minimums. >> Okay. >> So there is no minimum on these, right? >> I mean
>> there's not a minimum. There's not a minimum in the definition. There's there are maximums in the table 5.11. So, Steve, are you saying, "Well, in this case, I might need to go to the building
commissioner to get approval of my groundmounted sidewalk photovoltaic light." >> Um, yeah, perhaps a strict reading might might um suggest that to somebody reading it very strictly.
I I think the context in the rest of the bylaw would make it fairly clear that this bylaw does not apply to such small things. >> So Pam, I think the question is do we need a minimum? >> Yeah. >> You know, of 10 watts or something
to exclude those little accessory devices. >> Okay. Maybe maybe um Walker could put a little sticky note over there. >> I have a simple solution, >> Fred.
Uh yeah, I turn the uh less than uh arrows both less than and less than or equal uh into what they should be which is greater than or greater than or equal
which means the uh arrows need to point the opposite direction. No, but we but we don't want to like tier one is things that are smaller than 25 kilowatts. >> Okay, but >> right. >> Oh, I All right, never mind.
>> Emily Lella again. >> Okay, Johanna, >> greater greater than zero, >> right? And then I think um this might be a little bit getting ahead of ourselves, but plug-in solar systems are
increasingly a thing that consumers are interested in. Um, the current UL code for plug-in systems is well, it doesn't really allow for plug-in systems, but a handful of states have set 391 watts as
the threshold for a plug-in solar system that like doesn't need utility interconnection. So, if we want to set a minimum, I think we would want to set it at a level that would allow clarifi like make it clear that small
plug-in systems would not be regulated under this bylaw. Oh, and if I if I may add als to make sure perhaps well clarify whether a residential um like Tesla power wall battery packs that might be installed as
part of a solar a rooftop solar system if that falls under the best definition or not. >> You you might just use the word and this the electrical code does this in many places. use the phrase permanently
connected. Plug in is not permanently connected and that way you separate it >> and so add that to the definition of of say tier one. >> Yeah, >> that's that's a good thing to take into
consideration. Thank you, Mr. Roof. >> Thank you. >> All right. Do we have any other public comments? We're down to three public members. I don't see any hands.
>> Could Could we go down to uh the first thing that he mentioned? Uh because I had a solution for that. Um let me just This is where it was, right? Uh one more. No, this was the second. This was
the same sort of minimum. >> No, it was Yeah, it wasn't there. >> The first was the groundwater monitoring wells which is 18104. >> This is this is the this was raised by uh the member of the public
and we were covering it just before we got into the the table. Right. Yeah, Steve brought this up, Fred. >> Yeah. Um >> I think Fred means the definitions of
best uh which we were covering just before we got into the table. >> Yeah. >> Oh. Oh, okay. >> So, back to the bottom. >> Yeah. Um >> well it seems like between the definition here and the table we we it's
really one question about should we have a minimum def minimum wattage specified and if so we could do it in either place. I'm also wondering if it in the applicability like the first section or
two there's the applicability and it could be stated in there that it does not apply to X or essentially you know the following >> Bruce >> I was just saying that I think this is
probably where the permanently collect permanently connected ph or phrase which uh that Fred mentioned uh could be installed and that's not there. It's the well both of them perhaps. Um but the the the best systems are
probably going to be permanently connected but the uh the the the uh the canopy SPI or SPI generally those are the ones that are building mounted could be a plugin. Uh,
and so it's 12. We've got 12xx and 12xx, but they're the two the two uh uh definitions below the blue area. I think those are the ones where Fred was suggesting that permanently connected be installed somewhere in the definition.
And that >> also Yeah. also in uh battery energy store bees. The third line, physical containers. Uh I think the the better word there is
enclosures, physical enclosures or just yeah one or more enclosures providing secondary cont containment. All right. So, Pam, I was thinking maybe
we should take a break. It's been an hour and 45 or almost it's been more than two hours. So, >> Doug, I just have my hand up for one quick point that is in reference to >> um 18104 that came up, the groundwater
monitoring wells. It's a very good comment. Um, but I just wanted to say that there are established groundwater monitoring wells throughout town. Um, and so those are established. So I think this is saying that um, you can be clearing and doing other
thing that could potentially impact those established wells that are throughout town. So it's not a random thing that just happens. they um they are specifically established in town now in
our in our um inspected and checked. So, >> and and does does tree clearing activities affect them in some adverse way? Well, I mean, all I can think of about that potential is um erosion and
sedimentation somehow impacting them in some adverse way. I don't know specifically why they said tree clearing, but >> um >> was did this come from Aaron? >> I think this yeah, this may have been
another one from from Aaron or the water supply protection committee. It may have come from them as well. >> Okay. Well, it seems like we still have a number of things to check with that group to >> clear up. Yeah. Yeah. I would I would also agree that we
have a lot of folks that have been patiently waiting through this. Be good to take a quick break. >> All right. Okay. Um, uh, >> Stephanie, I assume you're finished and
and your hand is just a legacy hand. >> It is. >> Walker, I think we could, uh, take a break here. Take a five minute break. It's uh 8:43 on my clock. Come back at 8:48,
folks. Uh, turn on your um cameras when you come back and let us know that you're back. Um, Walker or Pam, you have a slide you usually bring up when we're on a break
just to let people know that we are on break. So, >> I do have that. I just want to make sure, Walker, that we won't lose your work that you >> Yeah. Why don't you do a save and then >> Yep. Make sure it's saved. It's still in
my background. Okay. Great. OMG, this is crazy. All right, it's 8:49. Please turn on your camera as you return from our break. Pam, uh, as we all come back, I wanted to ask you,
um, given the pace at which we're getting through this, do you think we're going to need a third meeting? >> Thank you. >> A joint here, you're you're muted, by the way. Those don't want me. There we go. There we go.
Um, my gut reaction is that we would need another meeting um if only to come back with some of the answers for things that have been brought up tonight. >> Okay. >> Sadly. >> Yeah. Yeah. It seems like there's a
number like we need to talk to the fire department. We need to talk to the the clean groundwater group. We >> and we have we have the 17th outlined. I
want to thank the CRC members again for you know agreeing to meet on an off night off day and night. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Should we pick it up and keep going? >> Okay. We stopped
>> at some point. Should we like say we'll go till 9:30 9:4 9:30 and just cut it off there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that sounds great. Maybe get through. >> So, Walker, bring it bring it back up.
>> Bring it on. We were at 18.14 response emergency response plan. Does anyone have any concerns or disagreements with what we're asking for in a this defines sort of the response
plan? We we asked for it in submitts back in 180 408 I think. But this is this actually describes what it is and what what it should meet. And I think
>> so this says it has to be submitted and approved prior to system commissioning. So that implies that it doesn't have to be submitted with the application. >> It's supposed to be submitted with the
application, but maybe we could add the words the final the the final copy. Um, okay. Well, I just thought that that was inconsistent and and be approved by the Amoris Fire
Department. Okay. Well, maybe then that works. Okay. So, it so it's submitted with the application and has to be approved before bit system commissioning. >> All right. Then then never mind. We'll leave it.
1815 building permit and building inspection. We don't really have too many buildings per se, but um there shall be construct, installed or modified without shall not be.
So, you know, this section is duplicated in 1804, just that 1804 says, you know, whatever you do has to get approved and get the applicable permits. So,
it's just more words. Any reason not to delete it? I don't have a Well, I I wonder if because because the building commissioner would be the the the permit granting authority for some of the
smaller things that don't come to uh to you all. Um the reminder that a building permit is something that is required. It doesn't actually say that in the 1804 section. It doesn't say go get a for 18.
>> Yeah. I mean it just says >> it needs to >> 1808. >> Sorry. It says applicable building and electrical permits. I mean, >> you know,
>> it's it's it's it's not a problem. It's just repetition, right? Is that that's your concern though? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Anybody feel strongly about keeping it? >> At least not the question as to whether
it is. The question is, is there a reason to retain this? >> Yeah, >> it appears duplicative. >> Yeah. >> Great. Construction maintenance I think will suggest >> before you do Walker. Um, is this
necessary to retain? It appears duplicatus. Dup duplicative. >> Okay, >> great. Thank you. 1816, there was a suggestion to change from construction maintenance, which doesn't really make
sense, to facility maintenance. And given that and given that everyone agreed um to get rid of some of the information back in 1811 0105 and ' 06,
this facility maintenance um paragraph makes more sense. And that included ma maintaining the access for the fire department um and and maintaining the the solar f photo the s actually this should be
changed to spi. We could change spi caught one or best just plain old in good working you know good condition. Um, great.
Great. So, so this covers everything. Uh, 1817 I get I see. So, solar voltaic. Um, does anyone want to know a little bit more about the eight the modifications
paragraph? Um, and I Fred, you have your hand up actually. >> Yeah. Um, in 1817, um, the, uh, just a minute here.
Oh, eight. No, I just a moment. >> While Fred's deliberating, a simple one, it seems. The fourth line uh on the left, it says battery energy storage. Shouldn't that just be best? That's
consistent. >> Yep. Yep. >> Yeah. Actually what I'm looking at is in the uh last line of 18.16 uh the comma should be deleted after
road parenthesis s because that the the unless accepted as a public way that phrase only applies to access roads and not anything else. Nothing else is going to be a public way. So we should just cut it off at that
point and delete just just delete the comma. >> Okay. >> So any access roads unless accepted as a public way. >> Thank you. Um 1818 waiverss.
There was one typo suggested and that is in the in item number one. uh its surroundings, comma, or the proposed design rather than the proposal design. We have number two. We have Yep. Thank you. She's quick.
She got it. >> Question. All in favor of moving quickly, but I wanted to go back up to 18.17 really quickly. >> Sure. Um, and this is probably just because I'm looking at an old draft, all apologies, but um, the change of use
from agravalaic canopy SPI to ground mounted SPI. I I guess I'm just trying to number one, I want to confirm that we have a definition for agotaic canopy SPI in the latest draft. And then my second
question is what I guess I'm trying to understand like a case study where this might happen. So like let's say there's a farmer, they're doing agrovoltaics and then for one reason or another they stop crop production
for you know like would that require a new permit in order for that solar system to continue to work? So, I wanted to just dig into that a little bit more. Uh, the way it's written, it certainly
would imply that um the aggravaic um acceptance process might have been quicker, easier, lighter. Um, and if you are going to let go the the the positive benefits, if you want to say that, the
positive benefits of having agriculture, then you need to come back to the PGA and say, hey, you know, we've we've changed our TAC and um we're no longer doing agriculture. There may be some
other requirements than levied on that project. But are there different like where it is is sorry and is there a is there a definition of agravtaic in the latest definitions?
>> Yep. It's 180301. It actually calls it out as agravtaic canopy solar f solar photovoltaic installation. >> Okay. >> Where the land beneath the SPI is used for agricultural purposes in accordance
with chapter 128 blah blah blah. So they follow those those requirements. They give it up and the PGA may want to you know work through some other requ you you know permitting
conditions. >> Yeah, may I address this? >> Sure. Yes, Stephanie. >> Um, sure. So, um, I'm thinking specifically, again, my background with wetlands that, um, there are exemptions for agricultural uses. And so in this
case, if you're using um agravtaics in a farm setting and then you discontinue the farming practices, then it essentially questions the exemption. I guess that's more that they
just have to then go back to ensure that there isn't sort of a change of use of in terms of the landscape because there may have been exemptions that were granted as part of the farm farming operation but if the farming operation stops
then there may be reasons why that system was allowed only because it was an agricultural operation that may no longer apply if those practices cease. to operate. >> Okay, thanks. I'm comfortable with it, I
think. >> Andy, >> so what would happen in that case? Would they conceivably be told you got to take this thing down? I mean, or, you know, you can't you don't you don't have permission unless you're growing something under it.
>> Definitely. >> Definitely. I can only um say that because it's basically a review by the permit granting authority, they would make that determination. Um so this is just giving them the opportunity to if there is I mean there
may not be there may be no reason for them to remove it at all, but it it gives the it affords the permit granting authority the opportunity to review it in case there is something that is relevant. we may not be aware of right now, but there may be something that is
relevant. >> And Andy, it might it might be as simple it may be as simple as requiring them to establish vegetation on something that had been plowed, therefore erodable. And they may say, you know, you're going to continue
your your SPI, but you're going to have a maintained ground cover. So, so that you reduce erosion. I mean, it could be as simple as that. speaking for the PTA as I am. Okay, let's move to 18/19 if everybody's
comfortable. >> Yes. >> General reporting requirements. Um there was a uh a recommendation some time ago, if Mr. Marshall remembers this
in several in several of the subpar paragraphs. Uh the the third-party inspector um is referenced and the the phrase a third party inspector selected by and acting under the direction of the
building commissioner um is a phrase that could easily go into the first sentence paragraph which is 1819011 and then that phrase would not have to be repeated. Eden,
>> that that's true. That was a comment. >> Just trying to say it once and not have to say it five more times. >> Yep. >> So, the third party inspector selected by and no, just the third party
>> Walker. Go up go up to the 18 1901 which is Yeah. at at the end of the first sentence there at just add third party construction inspectors. And those are all capitalized, by the
way, because that's a term of art, it seems. shall be selected by and act under the direction of the building commissioner. All right. And then you could put in parentheses or a comment.
Can remove text can can remove similar text in subsections below. And that way we don't have to drag everybody through that later. Pam, you want to move on? >> Yep.
>> Yes. So, we'll take both of those out of 012 and 013. We'll we'll >> tighten it up a little. Okay. >> Wait, hang on. But we'll keep the third party inspector there. So during construction of SPI and BES, the owner,
operator or thirdparty inspector shall submit inspection reports on a weekly basis. >> Yes, thank you. That's correct. >> Yeah. In the next sentence, um, credentiing appropriate inspection credentiing. Is that required for the third party
inspector only or is it required for an owner operator too? inspection credentiing. It would be for the third party inspector. Okay. Uh maybe I mean that's that's ambiguous at the moment.
So maybe after the word lensure three words over from what you just highlighted. Yeah, you could just say of the third party inspector and then my inclination would be to move that whole section of inspection
credentiing up to 19.0 01 11. Since we're not talking about the weekly reporting requirement, but actually the selection of the inspector.
Yep. >> Right. >> Good. So, so 012 now deals with reports. >> Good. 013. Again, we have photo solar f photovoltaic installations.
>> In the second line, you could delete at the cost of the applicant because that's already been specified. >> Yeah. And then do we include best there too >> for one year post construction of SPI and BES?
>> Yeah. All right. Uh, and then so on the sixth line down just after the acronym SWPP, who decides if it's applicable, >> Stephanie's department. >> Okay.
or just make a comment and move on. Yeah. State 014 the debris cleanup. Uh there was a comment about report to the town of Ammerst rather than local government.
19015 uh in in the one, two, three, like fourth line description on date. >> Yeah, it was just, you know, I was going to I wasn't going to pursue a lot of these, Pam. >> Okay.
>> You know, because Yeah, that's >> fine. They're they're really minor. Yeah, you're right. >> Is it worth everybody's time? >> No. All right. >> 1902 transfer of ownership.
Who do they contact? Written notification to the PGA, the building commissioner, and suggested emergency personnel. Great. Perfect. 1820. There's a suggestion that
um we add the words the emergency phone number that is staffed 24 hours a day and then we can take it out below. >> You can take out the whole the whole first sentence.
>> Yeah. in 1803. >> Great. Financial sur >> and decommissioning. Any comments about that? >> So, this is another instance where we're requiring something that has never we don't require if I build anything else
in town. And I'm sure we're reacting to some operator who abandoned the whole pro the whole installation at the end of their uh useful life and walked away. >> I think this is a good thing and I'm not
sure that we don't require it of the cell towers. Um, I remember and Fred was there too, 25 years ago when we first started having to do the same kind of thing we're doing now with Cell Towers and I think we thought that that this
was an appropriate uh stipulation for Cell Towers. So, I agree that it's we we should it's not unreasonable to imagine that something like this uh should happen. And we have the we
have that fish farm up in on 116 that stood there for 10 years. Um thoroughly unsightly and everything. So I I think there's a case to be made here. >> And whether it's what the amount is and
everything, I guess it's got to be enough to do the job. Stephanie, >> I was just going to agree with Bruce and say that it's fairly standard contractually when you're um contracting solar installations and certainly large
scale. Um so I I don't think there's any reason to get rid of this. I think it's important. So, moving to abandonment or decommissioning. Were there any concerns? And I had none from the outside source
who made the previous comments. I didn't Oh, actually, actually, I'm looking at >> a small one. Don't Don't worry about it. removal shall consist of do does anyone have comments they would like to make about 1822
do we really want to require recycling I guess in in section B if I may it's probably another one of those unnecessary things because uh that's what happens to construction uh
materials these days. >> Is that a given in in the field of solar voltics? Do they actually I mean is it possible to recycle a PV? Johanna's nodding. It's possible and
then you know I think there's a little bit of a question like how cost effective is it? like there might be some spots where there's a market for it and then that makes sense for someone decommissioning a system but if there isn't a market then it might make more
sense for them to dispose of it. So I don't know if that's what all possible is. Yeah. Should we say uh it says it says recycle of all possible materials. That that implies that some may not be possible.
>> Well, it's just like how do you define right like it's possible. The question is is it cost effective? >> Yeah. Does it if we force them to do things that are not necessarily cost-effective,
you know, we're not encouraging, we're discouraging. So, um, in my mind, I think the part A seems fine. Remove the stuff from the site, but I'm not sure that we >> should
dictate necessarily what happens afterwards. I think those are market market forces larger than Ammerst. Is that a little bit like a leaning toward our net zero goals where we, you know, we're we're asking that if and when something is dismantled, it
actually, you know, gets distributed as as appropriate. And Bruce says it's standard practice. That's that's great, but often you have to actually ask the contractor to recycle the materials. Bruce.
>> Um, yes. I mean what was standard practice is that these things go to places where the useful materials are extracted. Um and and I guess you're right not everything gets recycled perhaps and you know it's hard to know
but I I think that what has got there is uh is good and I would just add the note that the concern is that uh recycling may not always be effective. Uh the concern is that uh this obligation may
be uh ownorous or or may discourage uh um what we are trying to encourage. In other words, PV systems. >> Yeah. Google search uh found some EPA, US EPA
data that says it costs between $10 to $45 per panel to recycle compared to$1 to $2 to send it to a landfill. So, it's pretty significant. >> Yeah. My I think my preference would be to
strike it because we want to be encouraging like the purpose of this bylaw is to encourage and I feel like this doesn't do that. What if we just left in recycling of of
all possible materials is encouraged. >> It's not a it's not a shell. >> Well, this is a continuation of the the the header there. It's removal shall consist of recycling all possible materials
>> to the extent >> I mean you could say all >> practical >> to the extent feasible and cost effective or something but >> so after the word materials okay yep >> feasible and cost-effective
>> yep extent. >> Then are we saying disposal of remaining solid and hazardous waste? Oh, >> sorry. >> Uh, no, that's just the recycling.
>> I should move up behind materials. Yeah, >> thank you. Good catch. Okay, let's move on. uh stabilization or reveation of the site.
Um so paragraph E there, the reuse of the site, wouldn't that be a new site plan review with the PGA? Well, this this
>> isn't that the point? Well, it goes to the building commissioner, but it doesn't come to the planning board or zoning board, but the building commissioner would make a judgment as to whether there is appropriate zoning and so forth because and and this can't be written in because
it's a plan for reuse. And so the building commissioner will make a judgment about whether the plan for use uh requires Oh, I think I know where you're headed here. If if if the building commissioner decides that there is no permit
granting, if there's no um uh land use permitting agency required, um then this says that the reuse of the site uh voids u A through D above. And Doug, I think what you're saying is the
reuse of the site uh subject to uh further permit granting f subject to further land use permitting. Um yeah, I mean I mean or do we want to be do we just want to say these
requirements may be waved or modified at the discretion of the building commissioner and just leave it at that? >> Yes. I would prefer not to give examples of >> and you know it just feels like getting
into the next reuse of the site is a whole new conversation. >> Right. Right. And abandonment. Any concerns about abandonment? It's perfect. Oh, Fred has a comment. >> Fred.
>> Yeah. Um 1822 02. Um let me just a minute here. Okay. So, the uh the just the building commissioner uh waiver that only applies
to uh the removal of structures uh and so forth. It doesn't apply to anything else, right? If >> that's the intent. It's just this section 2202.
>> Okay, then that's fine. >> Should we say the these the requirements of this section? >> Yeah, that's probably useful. Yeah.
>> All right. Great. >> Yeah. I I don't want building commissioner discretion extended any further than necessary. >> Should section be capitalized. You guys are you guys are under the
microscope here. So we have we have gotten through the text and I want to just Yes. So this is next time. It sounds like this is a good place to stop unless in the next five or six minutes we can actually talk about these. Maybe
we could talk about them generically and see if there are any um concerns that we need to actually deal with. So this table um is added to our would be added to our
table three under the category of renewable energy uses. And this is where we're trying to identify the sort of the the maximum size in in different increments of
scale. You can building mounted slashcanopy SPIs are under 25,000 kilowatts and you can see that it's generally um site plan approval with um
and I think this was this these are the accessory uses. Is that right? No, no, no. That's table 501. Sorry, sorry. Um, the second section is groundmounted
solar with or without colllocated vests. And the these are the tiers of scale again tiers of scale, levels of scale. Um, and it would be really appropriate for you all to read these
carefully and think about SPRS, SPS, uh, building commissioner approval and just see if if these meet your expectations. This is what was developed primarily by staff and reviewed by CRC
to this point. >> Well, Pam, is it correct that under the tier one for groundmounted installations. The the Y's that run AC across that
column, that means it yes, it's approved or it's it's it's allowed and it's an administrative approval by the building commissioner. >> Correct. >> It does not, you know, it's only if it says SPR or SP that it comes to probably
the planning board. >> Yeah. and and or ZBA. >> Okay. And then the nose, it's just not allowed at all. >> Correct. >> So, end of end of conversation. >> Correct.
>> Um and so that first category, the the building mounted and the canopies, that was that was also put right into the hands of um uh building commissioner So that goes to the
the little battery up in the roof. >> You want to do you want to take time to three more minutes? We can Oh, Fred. >> Uh just a question. uh the second column I take it that is the standards and
conditions column of uh the uh table three. It's the sizes. It's the sizes of the arrays or actually it's the energy
produced >> which is a I'm I'm trying to fit this into existing table three. And >> yeah, I see what you're doing, Fred. And um
I guess I mean that certainly seems to be the way it aligns. And um I guess you could say that the size are the conditions under which something is considered a
tier 1, two or three. It's a little bit a little bit of forced, but I think that's certainly seems to be the way it was proposed. just uh if you open up the zoning bylaw to the end of table three,
you're going to see and maybe ask the same question that I just did to see how this Yeah, it seems clear. So, I guess Pam, the question I'll have when I scrutinize this is probably
whether the uh all the nos that run across here, whether I would argue that we should be more permissive on allowing these around town
than the relatively small number of districts that are allowed. But maybe >> maybe that's a conversation for later. >> It could be. And so if you want to give it some thought in the next week or two,
um part of it might be if you think about the parcels that are in, you know, residential village centers. uh there may not be much opportunity beyond a small establishment
>> and it could just it could size itself, you know, out of competition, >> right? >> Okay, Red. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't put my hand down, but uh yeah, you're you're quite
right, Doug. That is something we should we should look at. that we should also >> that's in the Bailey wick of of the planning board for sure. Um Bruce and then I want to wrap up with just some thoughts for the next meeting.
>> Um maybe I'll do this for the next meeting, but we should be cognizant of how big a 250 kilowatt array is. And I think when we know how big a 250 uh because that's that's like
10 or 15 house roofs. It's big and it's quite possible that it's that that whether it's allowed or not, there wouldn't be the opportunity. So putting no is probably clear. My guess is that and and I'll I'll I'll
make a little uh um I'll send an email out just saying how big how big an area 250 kilowatt system applies and at least we can know that as we're having our conversation. >> Thank you. If you want to do it for the
different tiers, that would actually be very very helpful because I've never seen a comparison table of, you know, of how many acres per essentially perop. Um, if you look ahead, if if Walker would be so kind as to scroll down,
>> we have this is the um accessory uses table. Very similar. We're still talking about different scales of of um construction. Uh so give that table some thought.
Uh and then if you want to scroll down beyond that, we have the section on fences which simply because we refer to it in this bylaw, we refer to um section 6.2 20. And then the definitions as as we talked
about tonight, there are a number of definitions. They'll get their own numbers because they get added in alphabetically and we don't know yet where they're going to end up. Fred? Yeah, I'm going to have to look this up, but uh
there are fencing requirements in the National Electrical Safety Code that that are going to apply here. And uh I want to check and make sure that this is not inconsistent. >> Okay, good.
Thank you. So, um sounds like we're going to have a another shared meeting on the 17th of June. We've got this remaining chunk of material to go through. We should be able to do that fairly promptly. We will try to have some answers back. We may not have
answers back from the um the clean water drinking committee or protection group. Um but we'll try to do that. Uh questions from the fire department. Uh and all questions that we couldn't answer tonight.
>> All right. So, I guess we need to have motions for each of our groups to continue this hearing to June 17th at 6:35, I guess, just to be on the safe
side. Do you agree with that, Pam? >> Yeah, sounds like we need to do that. Johanna, I move to continue the hearing to June 17. This is for planning board. for planning boards.
>> Jesse, >> I'll second that. >> All right. Any discussion from members? >> All right. Uh why don't we run through a quick vote? Uh Bruce, >> yes.
>> And Fred, >> hi. >> Uh Angus has left us. Jesse, >> hi. >> Johanna, >> hi. Jera >> I and
>> I'm on I as well. Six in favor, one absent. The motion carries. The planning board's hearing on this topic is is closed or continued. Go ahead, Pam. >> Careful. Be careful what you vote for. Uh I'll make a mot similar motion for
the community resource committee that we continue this public hearing to June 17 at 6:35. Is there a second? Second, >> Andy. >> Let's go around the room. Um, I'll see
if Alicia Walker is still here. >> Alicia, can you hear us? >> She was having she was having connection problems tonight. Um, Jennifer, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes.
Pam is a yes. So that's three yes. Uh one absent, two absent actually. >> Thank you everybody. This is this is really >> the definition of tedium adnauseium, but
it's really painful really important to get through it. Jennifer, >> no. I just wanted to thank uh Walker and Stephanie and Stephanie's daughter. I'm sorry Stephanie had to had to be with us tonight, but thank you.
>> Thank you. That's very sweet. Appreciate that. >> Okay. Thank you, CRC. >> Oh. Oh, we have Sorry, we have to we have to vote to close. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Um, yeah, I move that we adjourn. We have no we have Yeah, it's
not our regular meeting. So I vote that we adjourn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Andy? >> Yes. >> Jennifer? >> Yes. >> Pam is a yes. Alicia is absent. So our
meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> See you next time, I guess. >> Bye. >> Yeah. And then planning board members, I can't make the meeting on the 17th. So, I think this is my last planning board
meeting of this tenure. It's been great working with all of you all. Thank you so much. I learned a ton and I hope we got some good stuff done. >> Well, we have a few more things to do tonight, Johanna, on our agenda. >> Oh, shucks. I thought we got to wrap up
too and watch the basketball. >> So, so do folks want to do anything else tonight or do you have you had enough? We had we had a general housing discussion about the uh the PRP zoning changes, but of course Angus has had to
leave us, so maybe that's something we should skip. Um we, you know, Walker wanted us to finalize or or have one last chance to talk about open space and recreation plan.
Um, and then, um, you know, we had the usual reports. I'd be perfectly happy to just call it a night. Um, but, uh, Walker, uh, you know, the one item, you know, on the open space and recreation
plan, are you under pressure to finish that up and publish that? I I know I sent you some comments last week. Um, but you know, can this wait for another meeting or you know, do you need to wrap it up tonight?
There's no set deadline. We're already a lot later than we hoped to finish it. Um, but it's not like it has to be done tonight. Um I if everybody's had a chance to take a look and you're okay with it, we could just do a memo saying
that you've had a chance to review um the >> Well, I I know if you in the minutes, you know, Nate had brought this to us, it could be six months, it could have been a year ago, and I thought we were done with it. So
>> yeah, it's been significantly updated in those six months, but uh since the only requirement is for you to have reviewed it, it might be that that requirement has been met and that we don't have to go any further with that. >> Yeah. >> Any comments that I did receive will be incorporated, but um you know, it's not
>> right. Well, it's really up to you. I mean, >> if you want to bring it back to another meeting, we can put it on another agenda. I only want to bring it back if people think that it's worth your time to talk about. If you're all satisfied with the level of re review you've had,
then I'm happy to uh you know, >> well, I see Jesse's hand. Maybe he wants to talk about it. >> Thanks. No, I was going to move that we approve the minutes tonight. >> Okay, >> that was on our agenda, too, and then
off the rest. But I also I don't need I'm happy if we don't talk about the space plan further. All right. >> I think I am similarly satisfied. >> All right. Well, Walker, maybe you should just check the box that we've
reviewed it. You did receive a few comments from me, which to the extent that they you can incorporate them, that would be great. >> And um we'll move on. >> Great. Sounds good. Thank you. >> All right. So, Jesse, you want to talk
about minutes? Well, it seemed like an easy thing for us to do. >> Yeah. We have what was it? The uh March 4th minutes as drafted by Pam Field Sadler. >> Yes, March 4.
>> Yeah. So, did anybody have any comments on those? >> I did have one comment. >> Yeah, Jesse. >> It's very small. uh in the general housing discussion on page two the second paragraph starts sentence
that I added helps etc etc. Can we change that one word for our discussion regarding limiting student housing and where student housing might be? I would suggest we change limiting to regulating because I'm pretty sure that's was my
intention there >> and it has a very different connotation. Thanks. >> You got it. >> Otherwise, I would move to approve the minutes. >> Approve the minutes as amended modification >> in in the meeting this evening. I'll
second that, Jesse. Does anyone have any other comments on the minutes? All right, we'll go ahead and vote on those. Jar, I'm going to start with you. >> I. and Johanna. >> Hi, >> Jesse.
>> Hi, >> uh, Fred. Oh, did we we lost Fred? >> I think he thought he was part of the CRC. >> Yeah. Uh, Bruce, how about you? >> I'm good. >> You're a yes.
>> All right. And I am, too. So, that was five in favor, two absences. All right. So in in light of that, I don't see anything specific on the rest of the agenda. So
I'm thinking maybe we should just skip it. Um I will in my report of chair I will I will do two things. One is I want to recognize Johanna who is coming off the board and thank her for I think it's
six years of service. >> Yep. my how how fast has flown by >> postcoid. >> So, thank you. >> And um I believe Fred and uh Jesse are going to have another three-year term
coming up and we have one new member to replace Johanna. And then the second thing I want to say and this is not gerine to all of you but um effective
Friday I will be retired from UMass. So, uh, I wanted to just kind of put that out there because I've taken there's been criticism during my time on the board that I'm just here doing
UMass's, you know, work to encourage housing in Ammerst that by other somebody other than UMass. Well, I I have uh not felt that was the case all the way through my time. And I guess I
just wanted to say I once I retire for the my remaining year on the board, I want anybody to just see if my opinions have changed because uh I've been behaving and and acting in consistent with my beliefs regardless of
who I work for. All right. So, um Walker, anything you want to say for staff? >> Uh, nope. I think Jeff said it all. >> Okay. Uh Pam and Walker let the uh minutes
show that we abandoned this meeting at 9:44 and and did not talk about anything else. Uh and and we will see you all at 6:30 on June 17th except for Johanna.
>> So goodbye. Goodbye Johanna. >> Bye. >> You're welcome to stop in anytime. >> Awesome. I might just do that. Make a three minute public comment only to then be heralded by Pam's music. >> We might We might give you six. >> Don't you dare.
>> That's only if you're recognized by the chair of >> Oh, good point. >> He might decide to stiff you. >> Also, Doug, congrats on your retirement. >> Congratulations, Doug. That's great. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Congratulations, Doug. >> Yep.
>> What's next? >> What's that? What's next? >> I'm figuring that out. >> Awesome. >> To be determined. >> Let's get coffee.