Okay, Mr. Marshall, you should be good to go. >> All right. Thank you, Pam. >> You're welcome. >> Welcome to this joint Amorest Planning Board and Community Resource Committee of the Town Council meeting of May 20th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as
chair of the Amoris Planning Board, I'm calling the planning board meeting to order at 6:34 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and is available livereamed via Ammerst Media. Minutes are being taken 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. This meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted
on the town website's calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be
made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite our best efforts, we will 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 Colen,
>> I'm here. >> Welcome back, Bruce. Fred Hartwell. >> Fred Hartwell is here. >> Thank you. Jesse Major. Jesse Major has told us he's unlikely to attend tonight. I Doug Marshall and present.
Angus Mloud has told us he will be a few minutes late and I don't see him at this point. Johanna Newman >> here. >> And Jar Smith. Oh, here's Angus. Wangus, welcome.
>> Present. Thank you. And I don't see Jara yet. So Jara is not in attendance yet. Board and CRC 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 remute yourself. to the general public. When solicited, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button. If you have joined the Zoom
meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star9 on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and your street address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can
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. So, welcome CRC. And Pam,
I'll turn it over to you for a moment. >> Great. Thank you, uh, Pam Rooney, chair of the CRC. And I, too, will open our meeting. Um, it is now 6:37 and we'll take a roll call to confirm
you can be you can hear and be heard. Andy Churchill, >> yes. >> Um, Pam Rooney is a yes. and Mandy Johann >> present. >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh Jennifer Tab
will not be here tonight and I do not see our uh fifth member who is Alicia Walker yet. So we have called our meeting to order. >> Dr. >> All right. So the one item on our agenda for this evening is the joint public
hearing with the planning board and community resource committee regarding a zoning amendment advertised for 6:35 p.m. It's now 6:38. So we're past that time. a 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. Uh section 5.11 renewable energy accessory solar photovoltaic
installations/ battery energy storage system uses and 6.2 to fences and article 12 definitions. So, take it away, Pam. >> Thank you. I'm going to share a very
short um overview of this project as it was presented to uh the the council on the 27th of April. Can you all see this or does it need to be larger? Uh it's it's visible.
>> Great. Okay. Um this is the clean energy bylaw development and it was initiated in 2022 with a following charge to draft a solar zoning bylaw including standards and
guidelines that will guide and encourage responsible development of solar installations including battery storage. It has been quite a process. That was four years ago. The solar bylaw working
group began to develop uh the bylaw and develop the regulatory process for largecale groundmounted solar photovoltaic PV installations. There were seven members. Planning board representative Janet McGowan. Energy and
climate action committee Dwayne Bger. Conservation Commission, Laura Paggle Ruo, Water Supply Protection Committee, Jack Gems, and three atlarge members, Martha Hannah Hannannah, Robert Brooks, and Daniel Corkin. I want to say a
public thank you to them, and especially a thank you to town staff who shephered this group and has continued with this project to the current day. and that is Stephanie Chikarelloo and uh with some help from Christine Restra.
So two years ago the CRC began its deliberation and consultation or construction of this bylaw and one year ago there was a a ground shift where the mass department of energy um resources
promulgated draft regulations for clean energy infrastructure. The solar bylaw therefore became clean energy infrastructure bylaw and Ammerst the CRC worked to adopt the state
template and organization. So July 2026 coming up, the state as of that date will manage all large projects that are greater than 25 megawws and or 100 megawatts of battery energy storage
systems or best regulations will take effect uh on July 1. Municipalities may begin to offer a single, I'll call it a single stream, consolidated 12-month maximum permit process.
As of October 1, municipalities must offer a single consolidated 12-month permit pathway or the state will say, "Thank you very much. We'll oversee the project." That said, there is an extensive
pre-planning that occurs prior to submitting any application that will be very extensive and will cover many of the bases that our bylaw actually describes. Next steps are um the the joint hearings
that we're doing tonight and and multiple evenings if we need them. Uh the document will go to legal counsel for KP law review. The go uh committee for the uh council will
also review it for actionability and then the town council will hold two readings. There is typically a vote at the second reading of it. and we hope that the clean energy bylaw goes into effect before October 1,
at which point we must accept applications for consolidated permits. Thank you. That was not so much for your all benefits, but for those who are listening who have not been following this process or had any introduction to
it for some time. So, thank you for your patience with that. I I need to confirm that Mandy Joe Haneki will be our scribe. She has done outstanding job. >> I can do that.
>> Excellent. Thank you. And we will um I guess we will dive in. So the the way it was envisioned that we handle this meeting is that we'll go section by section. you all have had the opportunity to read
the document, think about it a little bit, and if there are comments on each section, that would be an appro appropriate time to um to weigh in with your comments. After a couple of sections, I will pause and or Doug will
pause and we will uh allow folks from the uh the community to provide their public comments on those several sections. Doug. Yeah, Pam, I guess before you get into the details of the
sections, um I guess uh I'd like to ask how the decision was made to follow the state template. And I and the reason I ask is uh the charge that the committee
had was to encourage solar development with this bylaw. And uh the template seems it partly because of its length I suppose but um I it's it doesn't feel like the what we've got to discuss
tonight is a really encouraging document. Uh it feels like it's ownorous and uh duplicative in some ways and and not really following the spirit of where I thought we started. And so I guess I was
wondering if someone could talk about that. >> I think I'm going to ask Mandy Johanni if she um would address some of that in part because she and Kathy Shane were the two members of our committee who
actually did the sidebyside comparison of our document and the state template. Mandy. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I will try to answer that question, Doug. Um,
the we didn't necessarily decide affirmatively to follow the state template, as you would say, and I'm not sure we truly do follow the state template a little bit. We took an attempt when the regulations came out to see what they were and what what we as
CRC had in our latest draft at that time and where there were similarities where there were differences um potential conflicts what maybe the state dealt with that wasn't in our bylaw um our draft bylaw and what we had in our draft
bylaw that wasn't in the state bylaw and then we tried to mesh them I would today. Um, and what what I think Kathy and I found in that big comparison was that our draft at that time in about November of last year was
um very similar in scope to the guidelines of the standard conditions that the state was proposing it would impose if towns did not do a comprehensive permit on their own. Uh there were a few differences uh but most
of what was in our draft in November was in those guidelines um and vice versa. There were a couple things that were missing from our draft because at the time the draft was started. We hadn't envisioned a comprehensive permit I
would say. So there was a lot missing regarding what a comprehensive permit is. um what who the person who will deal with the comprehensive permit, the responsible party would be a lot of those things that the state law created
in a sense. Um and so we tried to put that in and then we tried to craft a clean it it changed from solar bylaw to clean energy at that time because one of the things we found and we had struggled with as a CRC over 2
years was what was put in front of us by the solar bylaw working group did not really deal with battery energy storage systems and the clean energy infrastructure and new law gave us a great opportunity to bring
battery energy storage regulation into this bylaw, which is something CRC had had struggled with on how to do that, a separate bylaw, a singular bylaw. Did we have the authority to all of that? And so we brought that into this and then renamed it for that purpose because it
was no longer addressing just solar. Um, one of the considerations that we did, Kathy and I did take into consideration when we were doing this was to try to limit the conflict with any state regulations because since they they um
they trump local regulations and local laws. And so we didn't want to try and redo something that then the attorney might say, "Oh, you can't do that because the state law trumps or something." So we were trying to limit conflict between that. Um I hope that
kind of answers your question as best I can. >> All right. Um I guess we'll get we may come back to that that topic, but uh Bruce, go ahead. Um, I think that Pam and Mandy Joe have got
some structure in mind, but I actually do want to follow your concern, Doug. And so I think Mandy Joe, this is kind of more um because I shared the same feeling when I first read this when it first came to us. I think I my comments
were my comment was it looks like somebody went to the regulatory supermarket and loaded up the cart. uh and it does seem to be um disjointed and so forth. I noted that there are
references to uh noise in four or five different places and I wouldn't have thought noise was a big deal. Um but there it is. It's spread all over the place. But um as I was listening to your answer, I was
wondering and this is a question um or my my my wonder was if uh this uh bylaw that we're considering tonight um proposed bylaw, complicated and perhaps fragmented and
duplicative as it certainly seems to me to be. But if this is what most towns in the state are going to be producing, something that looks very like this, then perhaps the industry will
um be more comfortable with one big long whatever document than if we all start to try and um reddraft it. So is it your opinion that uh this uh whether it's complicated and
duplicative or not is is best uh that we maintain the structure and and and uh accept this format this length this um in the interests of it being similar to what otheru
other other communities across the state are going to produce. Is that the basic reason why we should not um push back on this uh uh on this structure that we're looking at tonight? >> Uh
Pam, shall I call on Mandy? Go ahead, Mandy. >> Okay. Yeah, I had my I was gonna I was gonna respond also. >> Pam can go first. I just can't raise my hand if I'm sharing a screen. There's the one limitation of Zoom. So, I can only do this. So Pam had her hand raised first.
Um I would I appreciate Bruce's analogy to shopping and I think as we went through our document um one of the one of the topics that kept coming up is are we going to just make
general reference to other bylaw sections or is it from a developer standpoint easier and more focused to come to one bylaw, one bylaw section, and say this is pretty inclusive. It's
one-stop shopping. You don't have to go to look at five other um bylaws within the town of Ammeris to find the information that you're looking for. We recognize that uh some of the submittal
requirements may be duplicative, redundant with perhaps what the planning board asks for or the ZBA asks for. But again, having um having them in one spot to me is a is
a is a real easy checklist. Did we cover all the bases? And as Mandy said earlier, there were a number of requirements even within the state suggestions that were more extensive and more um farreaching actually than what
we had listed as submittals. Thank you, >> Mandy Joe. Um to to further answer the two-year process that CRC undertook um actually in some sense what you see here is a
simpl it sounds strange but is a simplification and consolidation of what we received from the solar bylaw working group. Um that sounds kind of strange but it is. Um, at the same time, uh, Bruce, I personally agree that I think
we could, um, consolidate this slightly even further because what we received from the solar bylaw working group had a lot of duplicative sections and we spent a lot of time trying to identify them and then find a way to combine them. And we are not perfect, right? So, we
probably didn't identify all of them. Um the one of the later changes we actually made to this is is a section here that you see sort of with a comment the highlighted in pink that has sort of these sections that won't that certain
types of solar installations and best installations will not need to comply with certain parts of the bylaw. That was actually a late addition um based on some of the readings we did from the state guidance
um to try and simplify for smaller projects what they have to comply with. And I will admit that as you can see there's some blanks there. It could be written better. Um, we we are trying to get information from and we've asked the
planning department and the building commissioner to really think about what parts of this bylaw a small ground mount canopy um or ground mount system or a canopy or an accessory system should have to comply with and what is kind of
as you would say overreach. Um and and that was in order to make sure we could comply with and have a bylaw in in place by October 1. We did not have that settled yet before we sent this to hearing because we have a timeline and
we knew it would take a while on hearing. So that could probably potentially be look it should probably be looked at in careful detail to see what these smaller systems need to
comply with of this bylaw. Um and what maybe they don't in order to simplify their permitting pathway. And then also once we figure that out, maybe reordering the bylaw so it's not in in this one like five different references.
It's just an inclusive to make it even easier, right? Um, this is sort of a a leftover from when the bylaw was just written and then we went back and said, "Wait, but do we really need accessory use solar photovoltaics to comply with this part of the of the application
section or this that and so we just listed those sections without at that point trying to reorder it to make it a little more uh usable. All right, Bruce. >> Just uh looking at this one, uh another
classification of u of observations I've made is that there seem to be terms that are not defined and one of tier one and tier two. Uh I couldn't find maybe they're defined in some other um place.
I'm sure they are. But in the interest of, as you say, Pam, consolidating and so forth, I there are a few uh terms that I picked up, uh minimization is another term that look like I think they should be defined within the uh
definition section, but I wonder how you feel about that. >> Uh Mandy Joe, you had your hand up. >> Yes. So tier 1, tier 2, and tier three ground mount are proposed to be defined in article 12, which is why you don't see them in the new clean energy bylaw
section. There's an entire set of pages towards the end of this that are article 12 definitions. And those definitions are proposed for article 12 because the use table and the accessory use table, so in article 3 and article 5,
use those words. um and therefore you cannot keep those definitions within the clean energy bylaw. So, so unfortunately definitions are in two spots and the bigger major ones are within artic proposed to be within article 12 or um
for best I I'm not sure we put in the definitions the the tier one tier 2 because we don't do much with it but within the use classification table minimization I believe Pam you might be able to address that one we struggled with whether to define that and what it
actually meant and I think the feedback back we got from Stephanie and the planning department was that it would be up to the permit granting authorities to determine what that needs to be based on
the findings of the pre-development whatever it's called. Um but still for for my reading it was the concept that needed defining uh beyond the uh
the specifics of the concept. Um and and maybe there should be a note in the definition section within um this article 18 that's that says that further definitions or more general definitions
are contained in uh in um article 12 or or two or whatever it is. >> All right. Thank you, Bruce. >> Yeah. Um, Pam, I don't know how quickly you want to dive into the weeds here because I could ask a couple more questions that
we've touched on. >> Why don't we why don't we take some general questions then and then just to make sure people are sort of comfortable with proceeding and then we can jump into the details. >> Okay.
uh board members. Um and and Pam, should should we should should I assume that you and Mandy, Joe, and Andy are all fully up to speed on this and that none of the questions tonight are going to come from your your group.
>> I'm guessing that not many questions are going to come from our group. Andy hasn't been involved for four years, so bless his heart. Uh so he may in fact have some questions. Um >> but you're but you're basically here to
answer board member questions a planning board >> and to and to hear the public comments about this document. >> All right. All right. >> And to share and to share time with you all. >> Thank you. Thank you Pam. Um, so board
members, are there other sort of broad general questions about this document that you might want to ask at this point or should we wait until we get to some instance that might prompt that
question? Johanna, >> I guess I have two big broad questions. The first is, have we gotten any feedback from the solar industry as to whether this bylaw,
you know, like whether they perceive it as encouraging solar development in town as the directive was or whether, you know, 22 pages of regulations could be considered burdensome. I'd be really interested in hearing that feedback. And
then my second um question is like I recognize that we have put a lot of energy into this at the town level but with the emergence of the state model bill. What is the rationale for continuing to kind of pursue
our Ammerst specific um you know unique snowflake bylaw as opposed to just adopting the model state bylaw. Those are my big brush questions. >> All right, Pam. >> Um, I thank you. Those are those are
really good points. Um, there has not been specific solar industry feedback on this particular bylaw and but there but there certainly has been at the state level as they developed
their uh their the 225 CMR 29. There was a great deal of input there. Uh the solar bylaw working group had a representative from the industry also happened to be the concom member uh Laura um Peglia Rolo Ruo um who works in
the solar industry. So she was helping to um direct people you know I can't speak for her but anyway she was a an active participant in the in the working group. Um, one of the one of the elements aspects
that we did not see in the state's uh work was a reference to um private wells and drinking water supplies. And because we have a um we have a strong drinking water protection
committee, one of your former planning board members sat on that. um that probably of of any of the issues that might that people might um bring up about a solar installation is probably
just protection of of drinking water supply. So, we made an extra effort to uh work with town staff and and different committees to develop those
amorous specific elements. All right. Uh Johanna, I know you've turned off your camera so that you can eat, but um did did Pam answer both of your questions? Are you all set? Uh you're muted, by the way.
>> Um I think you addressed them. I guess I feel like the second point of the comment almost implies that somehow the state model bylaw is not protective of drinking water and that somehow we need to do more and I would be I see Mandy
Joe raising her hand so maybe she has an answer to this. >> Go ahead Mandy Joe. >> Yeah. Um that's actually one of one of the reasons one of the big um criticisms of the state's so so there's there's
sort of lots of documents with the state. There were the regulations there were the guidelines that would be used if the state permits the project or if a town does not permit a project does not decide a permitting application within
12 months. And then there was a model bylaw they put out. But I think they may I have not looked they were thinking about putting out a different model bylaw than the one Kathy and I looked at. Um the regulations and the guidelines uh that would go would apply
if say Ammerst did not issue or deny a comprehensive permit within 12 months were very weak on water protection. In fact, um not just for solar but for BES. Uh and it was one of the biggest
concerns CRC heard um and had in and of itself of its own members was protecting our local water supply for obvious reasons. and putting in some guidelines for minimum distances and everything is something that some of the things we
took most seriously as we looked through all of this to make sure that they were um what our water supply protection committee and our conservation um agent believed were protective including a lot of best protections regarding how to
build a best structure. Um the model bylaw that was put out by the state was actually very basic. Um and when I spoke with at a Mass Municipal Association conference with um a KP law attorney
that deals with solar and land use permitting particularly with solar and had done a presentation on solar. Um she did not speak highly of that model bylaw. It was very much a basic bylaw that basically reiterated the regulations
um and did not offer any potential additional protections that towns may want to add for specific concerns like water protection. Um, so that was one reason to not just
flip and say, "Let's just adopt the state model bylaw or propose that for adoption because that bylaw really only dealt with how to issue a comprehensive permit." It did not deal with any of the sort of um
standards and conditions that might get issued with a comprehensive permit or how anyone would any permitting granting body would actually evaluate sighting of a best structure or a solar structure.
So if if we do not our my understanding is if we do not do address solar or best within a bylaw it defaults to sort of some of the dimensional requirements and setbacks and distances from water supply
that we have been defaulting to for a while um as a town but that many people in town uh have been concerned with are not protective enough of our water. All right, Johanna, that that's your answer. >> Thank you.
>> Yes. Um, so I see Angus and then Bruce. >> Yeah, I thank you all for um doing all of this work um and for for sharing it with us and answering our our challenging and sometimes thorny questions. I think the uh I don't so
much have a question as just want to voice a concern that's come up at a lot of our planning board meetings as we've talked about the solar bylaw which is that there's a number of provisions in this bylaw that I think many of us as members are concerned about whether we
have the expertise to weigh um and I know that large portions of this uh bylaw would be handled by town staff as part of the um approval process. um as documentation is brought, but um at some
point the ZBA or the planning board is going to potentially have to weigh in. And so I just want to flag that as we go through this document. That's one of the concerns that's been raised um by planning board members. And I don't if if someone wants to respond to that, they can, but it's just I wanted to
voice that that concern before we get into the details. Thank you. >> Thanks, Angus. Uh, I will say that that was I was going to couch it differently in that throughout this there's reference to the PGA, the permit
granting authority. And in many cases, I hope it's not the planning board. Um, you know, because we don't know that much about the water uh the freshwater uh aquifer zones and and well setbacks
and uh the grade and next to wetlands and whether we're within the type of slope that's going to be easily eroded and that kind of thing. Um, you know, I mean, this is this feels like a a m a highly
a highly different animal from the rest of the zoning bylaw. And um you know I think it would certainly help the planning board to get an annotated version of this that indicates who the
PGA is for each of these requirements because um you know right now if we do a site plan review we get input from the town engineer and the fire department and concom
uh does its own uh hearings and and decisions, but but we don't have to go look at NFPA 650 in order to know and certify essentially that that's been met when we issue a a
site plan review. We just rely on the fire department uh to say it looks okay. So this feels different for us and I think a lot of the apprehension or anxiety that we're feeling is is related
to that. So with that um unless Pam or Mandy Joe want to respond to that I can go to Bruce. Go ahead Pam. >> Yeah I'd like to respond really quickly. I think part of part of the concern the angst is that it is a big document and
and as we said earlier we're we're trying to put it in one spot. So a developer can make their way through essentially a checklist and not have to go seeking a lot of information from
from other parts of the bylaw. Just as with any site plan review or special permit, town staff is ex exceedingly helpful and they would of course there are a number of of
references in here that uh this document this submitt will be developed in in coordination with the fire department for instance. Um so we we will all be relying on the
expertise of the staff which which many towns do not have. Um so spelling it out a little more clearly um I think will help you not to not put more of a burden on you. Well, Pam, kind of in resp
there there would be some sort of town coordinator for this for these kinds of consolidated permits. And and I I hope that's still the case. Um, and and if it is, that person is going
to need to know, you know, kind of have a traffic control document that says, "Okay, I've got my consolidated permit materials. Here are the parts that need to go to the planning board for site plan review or whatever, and here are
the parts that need to go to concomment and whoever else." And that document is what I'm kind of talking about is what's what portion of it is is our responsibility. And >> that's a really good question. And
>> yeah, I'm going to I'm going to give one one uh analogy that that the process um I I'm pretty sure the process is going to look a lot like a 40B residential permit process where you have a certain period of time you have to get that that
40B um project reviewed and and approved with conditions, you know, within a 12-month period. Stephanie, >> go ahead, Steph. >> Thank you. Um, just to sort of maybe help alleviate your concerns,
um, this I feel like the state sort of made what could be a straightforward process way more complicated because similar to other projects. Now each programming authority will have um review of the docu of the of the plans
in the document but your processes are going to be the same as they are. So conservation commission will still do do their review. Um it will just be that there's one set of plans and you will comment on the things that you standard
as a standard would already comment on. So, for instance, I know Bruce brought up the comment about noise earlier. Yes, there really is a provision about noise in there. Um, so those are the types of things that you will review. Just the standard things that you normally review as a planning board. Any of the safety
features will be going to the fire department because they do have already their set of criteria with which they look at that. So it is complicated in that the permits from each body now will just be attached to one main document.
So when the final one permit is is issued, you will all issue permits as you normally do, right? It'll be the same basic process as you normally have. the coordinator will be collecting all of those permits and
there will be one cover permit a document that the state is developing that will be the order and all of the other permits will be attached to that. So I just wanted to help alleviate some concerns because this isn't all on the planning board. This isn't all on all of
you to have to do everything. Um, and I know that that is why it's confusing because there's so much in the bylaw and in the guidance. Everything had to be in one place because of this new permitting format. Um, but really I think it would
be helpful for you all to maybe just think of it as how you normally review projects in terms of what is your oversight of those projects. So typically things like screening and noise and setbacks, those kinds of
standard items are still the things that you would look at. And the coordinator, the 90day pre-filing process and period is really where sta and staff there will be sort of one primary coordinator, but staff will be working with that person.
and that person will be reaching out to staff representative for all the other boards and committees to sort of coordinate getting the documentation ahead of time. The idea is that by the time the application comes to you, all of those sort of outstanding issues
might have been identified as they currently do now when you have larger scale projects. I know there's typically staff review prior to submissions. It's going to be the same kind of process. Now it's just formalized. So, a lot will happen in those 90 days
prior to coming to you that should help clarify what is what it is you'll be looking at when it comes to you. I just wanted to alleviate the concerns because I know there's been a lot of concern from really from everybody. Um, but I I just think think of it as you normally
do. You're basically doing what you normally do. It's just that your permit's going to get consolidated with everybody else's. >> All right, Steph. Thank you very much. That that's helpful, Spruce. Uh yes, Doug, I remember when you first
raised that uh concern uh when we first saw this some months ago and I think my response at the time was that I can imagine that there could be a particular specialty kind of like a project manager specialty
but focused particularly in this something like home energy rators for example that class that that that's that uh service sprang up after we did certain things at the state level um about 20 years ago now. Um so it's quite
possible, Stephanie, that there could even be uh um hired guns that float around that are uniquely uh experienced in just the what you're talking about. So maybe that's something to look forward to. But I had a I was a wanted
to ask a particular question about the uh separations between private wells and ground mounted PVs. But should I wait uh on that and let you um begin the process that you wanted to begin about um 45
minutes ago? >> Go ahead, Pam. >> Sure. This is the and I would please encourage anyone who has the question as as we're getting to a topic let's talk about that
question. I think that was very helpful for many of us to sort of understand the the starting point for for for many of you. Um this is the you know the very dry process of
working through sections and I I do not want to read each section but I will say does anyone have a question or a concern about section 1801 the purpose of this document? Why are we doing this?
>> I don't know the best way to to garner I guess if someone has >> I don't I don't see any Pam. I guess I'll say we can go ahead to next. >> All right. And I'll I'll count on you, Doug, to sort of keep your eye also on hands. >> Watching for hands raised. >> Okay. Section 1802, the applicability of
this. As we said earlier, uh highlighted in pink, we brought in the different categories from those use charts that Mandy showed us at the at the very end of the document. uh recognizing that not every project
needs every submitt or every um lead blade of grass turned over. What are the primary components that every project will need to go through? What are the ones that are required for larger
projects? Um, Pam, I guess I will ask about the first sentence. And is that first sentence to indicate that you don't have to go through the consolidated process if you don't want to?
>> That is correct. If you're willing to see how long it takes otherwise. >> Correct. If you want it to be a two-year process, you're welcome to do that. If you wanted to force it through a 12-month um window, you'd be well served
to ask for consolidated permit. >> Okay, great. >> And I will note that up to um probably halfway through the document, we did we did uh discuss and incorporate as appropriate comments that we had received from the planning board by that
by that time. So Doug, you will see a number of changes. Yeah, I went through I mean I was glad to see this version 10 because I I hadn't seen that until a couple of days ago >> and until that point I didn't think you'd that most of my comments had been
looked at at least. Uh okay. So great. Um, I mean, I mean, Bruce had the comment about the the tears and that this shows up so qu so early in this document that uh that was one other comment that might apply in this area.
Um, I will also note you've got tiers for for SPI and you've got tiers for best and they're different. You know, it might be more
uh comfortable or or more intuitive if there were tiers for SPI and there were categories for best or you know you had tiers one, two, and three for SPI and tiers ABC for batteries. But having two
sets of tier one, two, and three and having them actually mean different things just kind of contributes to what could be confusing. Thank you. Yep. >> Agreed. >> Andy, I see your your hand. You can
unmute. >> Yeah. I just wanted to uh again point to the the comments that that Mandy is is showing here that um that that it may be rather than saying which one shall comply with what sections, it might be
the smaller ones only need to comply with these or they don't need to comply with other ones. So it's like should we frame it in the negative um to make it easier to understand and then uh she also mentioned earlier that the the potential for reorganizing
the the bylaw so that smaller projects wouldn't have to read the whole thing I guess. So um I think that's in the in the that's under consideration. >> Great. I mean that is another sort of thought that I'd had in the back of my
head was would but I I've been reluctant to suggest any reorganization just given how much time you guys have spent on this so far. >> Are there are there general feelings about about that approach
that Andy just talked about? Well, in concept, it feels to me like it would be more user friendly or not even user friendly, but friendly to people who want to do smaller projects
to upfront, you know, do do the things that apply throughout, but then say, you know, here's the things that a small project needs to do and then everything else is things that a larger
project needs to do. That just feels a little more friendly to me and maybe I'm the only one. Uh board members, uh I can't see everybody's face at all the time. Johanna's got her thumbs up. Mandy Joe, your your your
hand is up. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um I I think that makes a lot of sense. What I was going to ask is actually of Stephanie. Um, do we have an estimated time where we're going to get the staff recommendations for what parts
of this bylaw, the smaller projects should have to comply with, including the agrovoltaics, because I know that was one of the outstanding things when we sent this to hearing was what what are the parts that the staff believe
are important to require basically all projects to comply with and what are the parts that only large projects are are relevant more to just large projects. Do we know when we'll get that information? >> Um I don't have an exact timeline, but I
would envision that it will be um probably at some point during this current review process um prior to it being finalized for the next
phase of going to legal counsel. I think so. Uh, we can certainly, um, I can certainly share that with staff again and we can try to expedate the response on that. I I I just ask because if we are thinking of
reorganizing, it would be good to be able to start doing that sooner rather than later so that we can really see what it would look like that way. >> Yeah. And I realize we're had it we're under a deadline, you know, to have this done by October. So,
I think if it could be done, it would be good. >> Okay, let's move move on. The 1802 >> 03 the provisions take precedent over other articles of zoning bylaw that may be in conflict. >> Um,
and that it's in intended to align with consolidated sighting and permitting process. So again, Doug asked does does one have to go through the consolidated process? No, but all the components are here um actually whether they want to go
through it or not. Okay. Section 1803 definitions. Did anyone have any definitions they thought needed to be added? We could consider those. Bruce.
>> Yes. I I repeat that when we get to minimumization, could you scroll down? It's actually 1803, I think. 1804, so it's it's quite close. Um uh uh oh, I thought it was There we go. 1806.
Um so, these are three short uh um uh sentences, all of which hinge on the word minimization. um some shall not require minimization may require minimization
uh and so forth but the the I don't know what that word means I don't mean in a quantitative sense I mean what conceptually is minimization I think it should be made clear maybe
the industry knows what it means but uh uh but somebody reading this who's who's you know an architect tech with 50 years experience doesn't know what it means. I think it would help to know what minimization means conceptually
or am I just am I just being thick here? I mean does everybody else if everybody else knows what it means then? >> No I I I I share your concern Bruce. Um >> I'm looking at either Mandy had her hand up. >> Okay, go ahead Mandy. I'm sorry.
>> So I would say CRC had that same exact question. Um these terms came from the site suitability assessment guidelines that the state put out um that anyone going through the consolidated permitting process must comply with and
they themselves did not identify or define even minimization or mitigation despite using those terms. So I think one of our concerns was since since um the that that the site
suitability assessments depending on how they come back and and the highly suitable suitable, moderately suitable, not very suitable, those terms are used in that regulation um about site suitability.
And we were uh we were hesitant to try and define terms that were used there in case we would conflict with whatever the state had in mind and the state did not define them themselves. We can go back
and see if the final regulations in anywhere or guidelines did a better job of discussing what minimization or mitigation are. Um, but they most of this language is essentially paraphrased but referencing those guidelines. So we
we had the same issues, Bruce, but we didn't know how to deal with it. >> My guess is then that minimization means smallerizing and mitigation means making less impactful. Um but if it means making smaller then just smallerization or or you know a word that means that uh
would be may smaller uh reduce size um something like that uh rather than inventing a word. Anyway, that's that's a that's a definition term and I think I may have had a couple of others but I'll I'll
may be in in the Whoa, dear me. Look, I'm all over the place here. Um, since we're talking definitions, uh, >> so, so Mandy, not to cut you off, but Mandy is adding that she's adding the, uh,
>> Yep. >> I I have my hand up and I'm not sure if you can see it. So, I just I just wanted to jump on in before you go on further to comment on minimization and mitigation. Um, speaking with my former role as the
wetlands administrator for the town, those are very standard terminology that's used by the state, certainly in terms of um the wetland regulations. Um, and they and they do have to do with, as you said, Bruce um reducing the size of
impacts and then um mitigating would be so sort of compensating for the impacts. So for instance um in mitigation I that to me means more like if you impact a wetland
then and you're you'd have to recreate more wetland area um at a rate of 2 to one. So you'd have to be sort of compensate for the impacts that you've had. Minimization means as you said just sort of reducing the footprint or the
size of what you're doing but those are standard state regulatory terms. Um, and this might be a case where these might not necessarily be relevant to your review, but they might be very relevant to the Conservation Commission's review.
>> Okay. Well, I I think I can let go and uh and imagine that as this uh bylaw becomes promulgated, it'll become part of our lexican and and we don't have to define it for the reasons that Mandy Joe mentioned. So, I'm I'm going to I'm
going to drop my concern. So will will there be a site suitability analysis of every project done by staff or someone or does the state do it even if a project is under
Ammerst by law? So if it's a comprehensive permit that they're following, they have to do site suitability and it will the state is creating a web page that will basically you'll put in address, you'll put in a parcel and they will produce the site
suitability assessment automatically um based on publicly available data on GIS systems um wetland availability you know primary habitats um prime farmland things like that. Um, so it's it's going to be something that is generated
basically automatically through a state portal. >> Okay. >> Oh. >> Um, Bruce, uh, are you done for the moment? >> No, I have a followup to that one. Um, I think when you said uh all of the public
sources and you listed them, I can see that there could be all sorts of conflicts where people think that this this repository reposed data is unreliable and that they might want to contest it. And I I I'm thinking perhaps we should have a somewhere in here the
mechanism or at least the acknowledgement that uh somebody may want to contest that analysis and we should give them the uh opportunity to do so. Does that seem reasonable, >> Mandy? J. >> So the regulations provide um how the
analysis that is automatically generated can be contested and it is set forth within the regulations. So we could not require or do anything that supersedes the regulations and who and how that could be contested. >> That's fine. So long as there's there's
a mechanism and you've said there is. >> All right. Thanks, Bruce. We'll go to to Angus. Yeah, I was just going to say quickly I think the minimization and mitigation issues are now that I understand more about how the site suitability score is generated and what what would be going be considered as
part of sight suitability, I think it would be clearer what would need to be minimized or mitigated. It's hard to know what those terms mean without specifics of sight suitability. So, I think that's that's really helpful to hear. >> Great. any other any other uh comments
or missing definitions that occurred to you as you went through the the document? >> I don't see any any hands from board members. Can we scroll down a little bit further and we'll see if we can Oh, Mandy,
>> I just wanted to point out to Bruce when when he asked about earlier whether we should refer to article 12 definitions somewhere up here because I'd made that note that every definition that is defined in article 12 actually is listed here. I'll just highlight a couple that
says here's the def and then go to article 12 to read what it is. Um Bess is the same way. So we have applicant we've referenced um the 225 CMR um and
and um so we've tried to do that referencing within the specific definitions does that >> the the t so scroll all the way down to the bottom and where it's t and we'll see whether there's t is >> the tiers are defined within the
definition of best and within the definition of solar vot IC in installation. They are sub definitions of SPI and standalone Bess. >> Okay, we'll get again I think we'll get used to that.
>> I'll um I'll let that >> look like we'll need to Bruce. >> It's it's much clearer in the tables at the end of this document. >> Yeah. >> And hard to and hard to remember which is which.
>> Okay. Uh, Angus. >> Yeah, I guess seeing all the references to article 12. So, it it's meant as as uh Pam was pointing out, it's it this is meant to be all-encompassing.
Um, and so mostly yall are repeating things from other parts of the bylaw where necessary, but for article 12, you're trying to avoid that. Is that is that correct, >> Mandy Joe? So definitions that are used in other parts of the bylaw must be defined in
article 12 because if they're only defined in article 18 they are not defined for purposes of if that term is used in say article 3. Uh so so if they were used in another article, particularly if they were used in the
use table, um or the accessory uses section of article 5, we needed to define it in article 12 instead of article 18 as this one is proposed. Um and then I I wanted to address one more thing while I'm while I'm speaking. Doug
had asked about potentially why there are different tier definitions for say BES and you were going more towards terminology but I wanted to address that best is and SPI can't be the same tiers themselves because SPI is measured
differently than BES so they measure things differently so I want to make sure that was clear but but we can look at >> they are different animals >> and maybe we should have different category terms terms so that we don't always have to say I'm talking about a
best tier one and not a solar tier one. Anyway, >> yeah, good point. Um, I'm going to take the opportunity since we've pretty much talked through definitions to go to the audience and ask Steve Roof if he would
like to make a public comment. Steve, can someone bring him in? Pam Field Sadler, can you do that? >> Yes. Hello, this is Steve Roof. Um, thank you. Thank you for all your work. Um, I'm a resident on Southeast Street
in Deep South Ammerst, a professor of environmental science at Hampshire College. Couple of comments, um, particularly of what you're just describing. Um, I found that this bylaw reads primarily as a standalone bylaw with occasional references to the 225
CMR29, but it's not clear when CMR29 is relevant or takes precedence. There are some submitt requirements in the bylaw that sound similar to requirements that are spelled out in CMR29, but it's hard
to tell in this version of the bylaw if they are different or redundant. um in particular the section 1806 that Bruce was just uh asking about that is inconsistent with 225 CMR29 there is no
single site suitability determination. There are five different scores. Those are um related to carbon sequestration and um biohabitat and a few other different aspects. There are five different scores not a single score. Um,
more recently, DOER has released a detailed site suitability guidance document that probably should be referenced in the town bylaw. They've also issued guidance on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation that probably also should be referenced in
the town bylaw. The problem it seems is that the draft um solar and um best bylaws from deer, they were issued back in October of 2025, well before the 225 CMR 29 was finalized, which was just a
couple of months ago, March of 2026. So, um I think the model bylaws don't integrate well with the newer 225 CMR29 regulations. And I'm wondering if anybody knows whether deer DOER will
release a final model bylaw that does better integrate with 225 CMR29 and will the town's bylaw need to be updated when they do release updated guidance? That's my main comment um so
far that's relevant to what you all have been discussing. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Steve. I hope you'll stay tuned for the whole conversation. >> All right, Pam, >> I'm looking I'm looking to um Stephanie
if there is any any further update on that particular topic with the state guidance being upgrading as it goes. We've already dealt with upgrading as it goes a couple different times, but
>> um Thank you, Pim. I I'm not aware of a newer um draft model being released. Um but I I think as what happens with other regulations, I think if the state revises regulations in a way that
impacts how we're doing things, we have to respond accordingly. Um and this is where the difference between a bylaw and regulations come in. um you know where it's easier to uh update regulations
than it is to the process for updating the bylaw is a much more ownorous process. So if we have accompanying regulations with this bylaw and we incorporate things into the regulations then I think that would be easier to amend. So for
instance like the wetlands we have a wetlands bylaw but we also have wetlands regulations. Um, so I I at this point my my my long that's a long answer to say I don't really know at this point. I'm not sure.
Thank you. Let's go back to 1804 compliance with laws, ordinances, and regulations. This addresses in some part um read it carefully and send any comments to us. Well, Pam, as you know that my main
comment on this was it basically says you have to apply you have to comply with everything that we need you to comply with, which felt like a pretty succinct overview
that would obiate the need to later list everything that's going to be required. So, I get I get the rationale. you want to stay at all in this in this in this film, but you know, it just it just
seemed like got to say it twice >> or four times. >> Yeah, Angus, maybe this is a dense question, but um do do we need to state that that projects must be consistent with state
and federal requirements when presumably those requirements are always in effect? I think it's just reminding people that they exist. >> Okay. >> You know, it's just four more words. Angus,
>> how about 1805 pre? Okay. So, this is the pre-filing requirements. Local government representative. We have designated the town manager or designate as the as the coordinating point of contact for the town of Ammerst.
And that's one of the goheads. >> I mean, um I don't know if CRC or Stephanie or or has anybody kind of got in mind who that might be
like under our current structure? Stephanie, >> sorry. Thank you, Doug. Um no, that um I mean essentially it's the town manager's decision as to who that will be. And I think um we're working through that with
staff. Um I think because we've had some recent staff changes, we're just trying to sort of work that out. >> Okay. So it'll depend on workload and that kind of thing. >> Correct. And as I stated earlier, there may be a person, but that person will
sort of be the one that will gather everything together, but the idea is that they're not working in a silo by themselves. They're going to be working closely with other staff and with the other boards and committees. So, um I don't, you know, it will be a person, but again, we're trying to determine how
that's going to to play out based, as you said, on workload. >> Um I'll just note that um there is a reference here to obtaining a site suitability score. Um, in light of Steve's comments,
I wonder whether that should be adjusted to be, you know, obtaining all five scores or whatever. I think when you go to that when you go to that process, it will be clear at
there. I mean, rather than spelling it all out here, it would be clear there that you've got to go through the steps to um to have an an acceptable um pre-filing document.
>> Andy, >> was that Mandy or Andy? >> Andy. I think it's me. I just put my hand up. Anyway, um I'm wondering if this it says a site suitability score and criteria specific suitability scores. And I wonder if those are the five that Steve was talking about. I
don't know. But >> if I may, >> yes, >> the criteria specific ones are the five are the subcores that that Steve was talking about. Um, and at least when we did I I haven't looked at the most recent, you know, the finalized
regulations. When we drafted this, there was going to be one large suitability score and subriteria specific suitability score. So there were going to be six scores, one overall score and
a score for each separate criteria. Um maybe they have changed that and we might need to look in to see if they have changed that. Um and maybe in the suitability assessments um sites you you
know I I took to to Steve's question I took 1806 that sites deemed highly suitable um assessments would include um this criteria specific suitability scores. So if a criteria specific one
was deemed if one criteria was deemed unsuitable and four criteria were deemed highly suitable, it's the one specific criteria that has to do the significant minimization. The other four do not have to it it's specific to
whatever that one criteria were. And I I took 1806 to sort of make that um differentiation, but maybe wording could be a little bit better to be clear about that. Um >> so these site suitability scores and
criteria scores are obtained from the state. >> Yeah. >> They're not by staff. They're not by >> correct >> the applicants consultants. Okay.
And then the the minimization and mitigation requirements if they're related to wetlands it would come from comiccom. If if it's from criteria that planning board reviews it
would come those those conditions would come from planning board. Is that right? That's the intent that that so if it's a site plan review, the planning board would issue its permit and presumably it will know in advance whether say the
wetland score was moderately suitable and before it issued it permit it would make sure that concom required minimization or mitigation measures for the moderately suitable concomide. I wouldn't expect planning board to figure
those out, but it would sort of be a separate separate check on did concom require them to their you know their >> right >> criteria
>> or it could be the coordinator because if we're all trying to expedite our review process, we may not be want to wait for on com. Okay, ma'am. >> So, let's move on to uh 1806. The site
suit, we've talked about minimization. It is very much driven by what the site suitability uh index ends up being. I think we can go on to 1807 >> fees. You had a question about fees, I
believe. Um, all >> Yeah, I just thought maybe we should list the fees, not necessarily the amounts because that could change over the life of the bylaw. Um but but you know maybe that the staff would brief the applicant
during the pre-proposal process and you don't need to say that >> in a way it it doesn't feel too necessary to even list fees here but just for the record is like oh by the way there will be some fees associated
with this. I think staff will certainly be enumerating those as part of the pre pre-application process. >> Mandy Joe. >> Yeah. And the minute you go into more detail, if you add a fee, you have to change the bylaw or else you can't
charge it. So, so one of the reasons for leaving it this sort of non-specific is to allow more flexibility in case a new fee comes in that we don't have now. >> All right. Okay.
>> So, I'm um actually looking at the time and I think planning board often takes a break around 8:00. >> Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Section 1808 is fairly extensive. I'm expecting that there may be some
feedback on this section. Do you want to plow ahead with this and take a break after 1808? I think we should give it a try >> to plow ahead. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Does anyone have
>> Does anyone have concerns um about the extensive list of submittal requirements? Um they mirror they mirror much of what is required by the state. In fact, the state was more
extensive than I expected personally. But it also addresses uh normal submitts that you as a site plan review entity would be looking at.
Bruce, >> I look through these fairly closely and it's seemed to me that this is helpful because it's the list that uh this is where the u the the serious applicant's going to
start and uh they're going to want to check these off and and if they're required and they all seem to be reasonable. I mean, there's one down there that about an acoustic engineer being engaged for
um sound and so forth. Um I suppose it's appropriate to do that again. It'll probably become it seems overkill now and that was my first comment about two months ago. Um but you know, you you require all of these specialists to get
involved and all this kind of stuff. But my guess is that that firms will quickly develop a a preuncter response to this and it won't be a a 7 or $800 well maybe it is it won't be an outrageous amount
of money. So it all seemed to me uh from beginning to end to be reasonable. I'm sure I could think of a few more. Um but uh this uh I mean if if we really want to be thorough about things uh then uh
this is the list that we typically uh um we typically have. Um so I couldn't see anything that I thought was overkill. Not here elsewhere maybe. Uh, and I couldn't think of anything that wasn't
there that should be there or that might best be there. So, I make that comment in the interest of speeding things along. >> Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Angus. >> Yeah, my my concern is with uh the
impact analyses, which is T. Um, I guess I'm I'm trying to understand what each of these impact analyses some of them make make like are pretty clear to me. And then impact on carbon sequestration. I guess I'm trying to understand what that would mean for a
photovoltaic or best um installation and and and then scenic views. I guess are these normal impact analyses that we ask of all of all projects? I' I've seen I'm not I've only been on the planning board for a little over for almost a year. So
I'm just trying to understand if what's normal I guess >> I will add that these that these items come from the state list and they will be addressing each of those elements the six different
elements uh in part of the site suitability review and we thought it was appropriate to include them because in fact it is a submitt it is something they will put together as that preliminary package. We
shouldn't therefore not include it here. >> So are these this the basis for the scores that that we talked about the the suitability criteria? >> Yeah. >> If anyone else has >> I see Bruce but I want to make sure
Angus is finished. >> Yeah. So, so these these are the six components that they're filing with the state to to generate this site suitability. >> Mandy Joe. >> Um, yeah. So, I am not sure they're
exactly mirroring the site suitability site suitability um criteria. I'm I'm trying to pull up the regul the the old regulations, the non-final ones. um
um had development potential as a criteria, climate change resilience, carbon storage and sequestration, biodiversity,
agricultural resources, social and environmental burdens, social and environmental benefits were the the seven criter criteria the benefits is sort of a a subset of
burdens um in terms of that of that. So um of those so so they don't match specifically um carbon sequestration is there scenic views is not in an impact in the site suitability noise and vibration is not
um farmland forests and environmental ecological services kind of are um in terms of development potential and other things like that but some of them are not and to answer Angus' question um I don't believe certain of these are
required for other projects or typically required for other projects. Um particularly the scenic views um and carbon sequestration and ecological services. Those those some of those came
from the solar bylaw working group um proposal and initial proposal. Um personally I I would delete the impact analysis for a number of these. I I did not I was not in the majority on CRC on
that matter. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Um Angus, were you all set or Stephanie? >> I know Stephanie wanted to speak to this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I just wanted to say that um this
is one of the points where staff pushed back in the draft because some of these things are very hard to um to if you were to implement this, you know, it's it's hard to regulate. Um so
staff felt that for instance um an impact on environmental and ecological services, what is that exactly? Um, and so I think there was a lot of push back especially on that one. Um, but I I think um to
reiterate what Mandy Joe just said, I think um Mandy Joe was sort of agreeing with the staff feedback on this particular section. This feels burdensome. >> Thank you, Stephanie. Angus. Yeah, I just wanted to add we've we've had comments at the planning board about
these specifically about these. I I would also agree that this seems excessive, especially when we have so many other checks already put in place across this proposed bylaw. I I don't think that these are necessary and I wouldn't know who would even be
considering the impact on scenic views and how we would weigh something like that. Um but but the other things that are more um clearly related to to like noise we've got in other places we have
a focus on wetlands um and and water. So I I just I I would personally I I think the whole T section should be eliminated. >> All right. Thank you Angus Bruce. >> I agree with Angus. I had noted uh this
uh I hadn't realized that impact analysis was in that uh submitt set uh because I had made separate note that said what criteria for an adequate impact analysis cuz it it seems to me to be a bottomless pit and for all the
reasons given um uh uh I would also think that this is u this is unnecessary this is ownorous and this is confusing and it's also so duplicative because um so much of this is contained in what
we've already required or what is already required. >> All right. Thank you, Bruce. >> Um as long as we're weighing in here, I guess I would say I substantially agree with the two with Bruce and Angus.
>> Um I did have some questions. Oh, >> yes. I guess since we're weighing in, I too will say that I think this is duplicative and to reintro. Yeah, I thought Bruce put it well with kind of like a bottomless pit because there
aren't clear criteria on how it's being evaluated and it completely ignores the like tremendous environmental and public interest benefits that come with getting more clean energy online. So it strikes me as punitive rather than, you know, encouraging solar, which is
what this bylaw is really, you know, that's the charge. >> Good point. >> All right, Angus and then Andy. Yeah, I guess not not to I was going to move on to a different part of this
section which is uh M um which is indicative of something else that that we've um confronted in the in the planning board as we've talked with staff. Um so that M is just proof of liability insurance. I I didn't find any other mention of liability insurance
anywhere else in any of the in the bylaw. I could be wrong about that. Um, and I what what Nate told us town staff was wanting in different ways is to put things that are required in applications
uh to to move some of that into the bylaw to make things um clearer for applicants. That was something that staff wanted. It's something that the planning board has not been enthusiastic about um at least based on on the points
that that I've heard. And so I guess I'm I'm I'm wondering M is is an example of one of these things that I would presume would be required for any kind of an um documentation with the town before projects move forward. And so I I guess I want to get a sense of of why we would
put that in the in the bylaw and if we this is something we should be doing with other parts of the bylaw. Anyone else on M? Andy, is your is your comment back on T? >> Go ahead, Andy.
>> Yeah, I'm back on T. um just it seems like a number of those um they're the kinds of things or some of them are the kinds of things that would be um you know in the
in the um suitability assessment right I mean is wouldn't a lot of these be addressed and I I I'm sympathetic to the arguments that people are making but in addition I feel like those a number of these would be things that would be
taken into account in this in the suitability um assessment. >> All right. Thank you. >> Uh Bruce, >> back on them. Uh I I think that if this
is if if a some measure of uh insurance uh is to be provided, it's not unreasonable to put it in here. So that as Pam was saying earlier, you've got the you've you you've got a complete uh list everything in one place. Uh maybe
the details of it are spelled out more thoroughly, limits and so forth and uh uh because obvious generally speaking contracts and things or elsewhere they would be u stipulating the the uh the amounts of insurance that need to be
covered but the requirement for a policy uh to be taken out uh um uh and who the beneficiary is is should be here. I think I don't I think it's uh appropriate. Angus is set. Does that uh
not drive with your sense as well? >> I guess I don't understand what the problem is in having it listed here. >> Yeah, I think what I'm trying to I guess guess I guess get clarity on is if this is a departure from other parts of the bylaw or if this is consistent with
other parts of the bylaw. if it's a departure. I I guess I want to make sure that we're we we're knowingly departing from other parts of the bylaw. >> Well, I think we've already knowingly departed in so far as this is a consolidation. It's been explained that this is a different uh approach to uh
creating a bylaw based on the the the structure that the state has imposed which is a consolidated uh a time limit and a consolidation. um seems to be consistent with the intent that's been
created by the state's intervention here. >> But Bruce um actually I let's ask Stephanie um because I haven't been through a consolidated permit of any other sort. Do we typically want to proof of
liability insurance as part of a some other consolidated permits? I don't know where they come in during the permitting process and I have to apologize for that. That's not certainly something that I believe the conservation commission had ever required, but I do
know that we often receive proof comes through to the town quite regularly. Um, so I don't know if this is a new requirement as sort of as spelled out rather than like prior to construction, like a requirement that's
maybe prior to construction. that's being asked, which would be a condition that now it's actually incorporated right into the bylaw. So, I'm not 100% certain. >> Yeah, I know. Um I mean I I haven't I I can't remember ever
receiving a li proof of liability insurance on any of our site plan reviews or special permits. Yeah, >> I know when I when I did my initial comments of the earlier version, >> it felt premature like >> would you actually have the insurance at
the point that you make the application? Um wouldn't you want, you know, wouldn't that come later? Um so I wasn't I just wasn't sure that people could have it by that by this point. Um, and
you know, if there's some other I mean, I think what Angus is getting at is we don't we don't we don't apply we don't require this proof for any other kind of project in town. So why do we need to do it here? Um, you know, given
the latigious world we we live in, they'll probably have liability insurance in any case. Is it enough for whatever we want them to be on the hook for? I don't know. But >> if I would have Sorry. Sorry to
interrupt. If I might, I just would um suggest that this just be one of the points that's run by the um building commissioner. Again, just to double check. Um, but I would agree that, you know, I know one of the staff's comments has been in drafting this, if we don't
require certain things for other Exactly. Your point for other projects, why are we requiring it for this? So, if it seems um sort of more I keep using the word burdensome, but if
you will, it's it applies. If it's more burdensome to an applicant developing a solar project, why are we holding them to a higher standard than we do for other projects? So again, I think I would just ask the building commissioner to take a look at this particular item again. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Thanks, Stephanie. Pam. Yeah, I think um this the the need for something like this I believe is a little bit higher because we are
in many cases talking about a fairly extensive uh construction project. Um we have seen in other communities where um extensive damage was caused by
erosion and and wetland degradation that took a lot of money to to repair. And it's it I think given the the quasi industrial nature of these uh installations especially with um the
size of them the acreage involved makes sense to have something there and I and maybe with the building commissioner we can we can fine-tune it and just say this is something that you know something is in place preconstruction or
we can um u settle it a little manner. But I would feel strongly about keeping this in here. It's a it's a safeguard for the community. If we don't need it, we don't need it. That's great. >> Okay.
Um Angus, >> the Yeah, I I was just looking through the bylaw. The only evidence that I can see for requiring insurance is um we for um related to the cost of containment and cleanup of hazardous materials spills. We we currently list that there
needs to be evidence of insurance bonding or other financial security adequate to cover the cost. Um so that that could be a way around this just to establish what we're asking the insurance to be able to cover. Um maybe liability insurance is that specific,
but I I think it's a little broader than that. >> All right. Uh, Bruce, >> elsewhere here we have a a section requiring a performance bond. Well, not a performance bond, I beg your pardon.
It's a it's an amount of money that's put in escrow to cover the decommissioning of the project. Um, perhaps uh and and I don't see that as part of the submittals because again, it's probably something that needs to be
put in place at the end uh rather than the beginning. And so maybe the insurance requirements could be uh dealt with um in the same uh manner down here rather than as part of an initial
submitt. >> So perhaps um Stephanie could ask the building commissioner if it makes sense to include the um insurance liabil liility insurance in section 1821 perhaps instead. You could also possibly move it to S if
it's related to hazardous materials plans. um in in this current section. >> Well, I think it is potentially more than hazardous materials. You know, just even just the erosion and
you know, downstream impacts are are different than hazardous. Are there any other any other feedback or questions or concerns about the um the other submitts? And I'm I think I should ask the public if anyone in the
public um has any thoughts on submittal requirements. And I will note that here and there you'll see a number highlighted with in yellow and that is a reminder for us to check and make sure that it references
the correct number after the document is sorted out. Okay. Um I know I had had a comment about the use of the word compelling.
Um 1808.06 there. Um how how would that be determined and who would decide? >> It sounds like common usage to me. the board itself, the PGA can decide if there's a compelling reason to
>> look further into something. >> All right, >> Bruce, >> I had the same question. Um, because in the uh uh parking bylaw section, for example, that says compelling reasons of
site design, public safety, um, aesthetics, I think. So I wondered whether we might not want to and and further in the bylaw here there's there's another section where there's discretion given to the PGA for uh changes related to uh compelling reasons
or reasons and it and it and it's and it uh in that section we'll get to it. It it uh stipulates compelling reasons of. So, I think that probably would be appropriate to add to that sentence uh compelling reasons of whatever
um what I what I write. Um >> well, Bruce, you know, if I'm the PGA, I'd like to have it more broad and less restricted. Well, that's true, but I'm saying in the parking uh we don't we could have compelling reasons of safety,
security, aesthetics, and fiscal rationality, for example. >> But, >> do you want to be limited? Do you want to be limited to the ones that you list? >> Yeah, I'm I'm not interested in being limited if I don't have to be.
>> Um, okay. I guess that's good. I mean, the reasons for putting it in there is it gives people some ideas about how they could think as opposed to just having a a big black hole that they are afraid to dip their nose into. But I'm I'm I'm uh I think I'm happy with it the
way it is. I just expected to see something there, that's all. >> Okay. >> I'm good. I'm good. >> Yeah. I was just going to add I think this is a question for the CRC and the town council. I mean they, you know, it um it's in in part up to them how how we
decide things. Um so if they would like to give us more discretion, then great. They feel like we should have less discretion, then maybe that's up to the CRC. >> I think the CRC may want to be a little broader and not have to spell everything out.
>> Speaking speaking for one CRC. Okay, >> I agree. >> All right. Um, I think we should take our break. So, uh, if everybody's okay with that, the time now is 8:14.
Uh, Pam, we usually take a five minute break. So, see if everybody can be back at >> 520 or at 8 8:20. Uh, if you can turn off your cameras now and turn your cameras on when you're back. Thank you all.
All right, I'm seeing time is 8:21. So members, as you return, please turn on your camera so we know you're back. And I see since Pam and Mandy Joe and Andy are back, I just wanted to say
thank you for meeting us at our regular scheduled time. Um I know many of your meetings happen during the day and that's been difficult for those of us that have work been working. So
uh we appreciate you doing that. >> Thank you for saying that. I can't imagine how many meetings you all have or as town counselors if I'm sure we only see the tip of the iceberg. >> Would you like a count?
>> Uh, >> I can give you a spreadsheet. >> It's probably better that I never than I not know. >> I keep a spreadsheet. >> Yeah, >> it really depends on how many committees you serve on, but >> this is our favorite one.
It is nice that staff only has to come to to to one hearing for, you know, and and and that we can hear what you're saying and all that. So, it's good. >> Okay, let's start with dimension. Do we have everybody everyone back? >> Well, let's see. I'm still not seeing
Johanna and I'm not seeing Fred. >> Oh, that's funny. I'm here. >> Okay. Okay, good. Thank you for letting us know. >> No, I think maybe your camera must be Oh, there you go. >> There's a
>> Okay, so we've got everybody but Fred. >> Great. So, we're moving on to section 1809, the dimensional standards. I think this is more in your Bailey Wick. you may feel comfortable here. >> Yeah.
>> Um and it talks about two sections. One is SPI solar voltaic in uh installations and another section is best standalone and colllocated best. So let's talk
about SPI first. Any comments? So, so it felt like the the the distances that are listed there under the under the first three subsections, front yard, side, rear
yard. Um, those are those were pretty consistent with the model guideline. And is that how those came into being? I they they seemed like they would probably be inconsistent with
our setbacks for some other use in in in a in a zone. I'm not sure u whether Pam or Mandy Joe you know where that came from.
we have the I'll I'll speak to the um I'll speak to the distance from and I'm looking to see if this is actually it uh from the private wells and water sources. Um the the setbacks that we that we include
here are based specifically on the recommendation of the drinking water protection committee and the DPW staff who monitor and and maintain
obviously drinking water within town. Um those are those are pretty firm numbers. Um front and side and rear yard setbacks. Um I'm trying to remember if those are
within the RORO, those are typical setbacks within the RORO or RLD districts. U I I frankly don't remember. Someone else may remember. >> Oh, Jamandandy Joe's got her hand raised. >> Yeah, I just looked it up. So,
um, RLD set back for front is 30 ft and rear and side are 20 ft in the RLD. In the RORO, front, rear, and side are 25 ft. Um, these numbers, it's it's certainly possible to potentially combine these into one setback, right?
They're very similar if we're looking to consolidate some things. Um, you know, I'm not sure you need to have three different ones potentially. Um but they I if my memory serves me correctly,
the original proposal before we tried to match with the guidelines actually had larger setbacks um minimum setbacks and there was concern particularly from me in those discussions that that would um not encourage solar that that I think at
one point they were 100 ft um from a property line. Um, and so when we saw the guidelines from the state, we brought them basically into line, if my memory is correct, with the state guidelines that would be issued if the
permit is issued from the state. >> Um, but if if we're looking for consolidation of potential less wording, this is certainly an area where we might be able to just do one front, side, rear. Um, you know, they're basically 20
front and side are basically the same completely and rear's 5t more. We could probably pick one number and just have all setbacks the same. >> All right. So on the one hand, so couple of issues. One is
it feels discouraging let's say for this use to have greater setbacks than would be required for other uses of the land uh in those in those areas. Secondly, um
this is a setback to the fence line. And then is there a service clearance between the fence and the actual array? >> Ask them. Please ask that question again.
So, okay. So, I have, let's say it's 50 feet from property line to fence. And then inside the fence, there's probably a circumferential clear zone for service vehicles to get
to the right way, the right place of the array. So, you could end up with, you know, another 30 feet between the fence and the actual array. So you've you're really giving away a lot of real estate, I guess, is what I'm saying. >> So So the question would be why why are
you setting your fence so far back if you're allowed to do it 20 ft from >> I think the the fence the fence is the the measurement, not the actual posts in the ground. So, >> okay,
>> if I may, Doug. Yeah, >> the bylaw, to my knowledge, the bylaw does not require a minimum clearance between the fence and the actual panels. There might be an industry standard um that is not, you know, that is how
they're built, but the bylaw does not have any minimum requirements about that per se. I can imagine depending on how they're they're, you know, manufactured or installed, one one set of arrays goes
quite near a fence or two of the three sides of a fence or three of the sides of the fence and one side has a driving aisle. Um, but the bylaw itself does not have any clearances required between fence and panel installation. Yeah, I
think I'm just saying that from a in a in a practical sense as how you would need to operate an array. You you'd need access around it. And so in the end, you're going to you're going
to have a greater distance to the it it to the array itself. And which kind of begs my question about whether is the fence the the thing that you want to set back or is it the array actually that you want
farther away from from properties and maybe maybe nobody can answer that in >> I I believe it's the fence. >> Okay. There is there is um part of the part of the def or the the description here though is uh as we go
down to the 0103 but let's talk about let's talk about within these front yard sideyards it does say that however where the lot is within or abuting a residential district the sideyard setback shall not be less
than 50 ft. So I want everybody to be aware of that. I would guess that 99% of anything built in this town is going to be in a residential district. RO or RLD. Um maybe, you know, ED would be
would be different than that, but I just want to point that out. Yeah. Um, I guess I I'll say I I would support reducing that. Bruce, I see several hands. We have Bruce and then Angus and then Andy and
then Fred. Bruce, why don't you go ahead? Um, I I too would uh think that we should have setbacks here that relate that are similar to what we would have for buildings. Um, I think we read this in conjunction
with a line somewhere else that suggests that the that without per granting authority approval, they can't be higher than 10 ft above the ground, I think, at their lowest point. In other words, small
one-story buildings or one-story buildings. Uh so I don't see why we would need to have uh setbacks greater than we have for uh uh buildings especially if we're a only going to the fence and b if the array itself is never
going to be higher than 10 ft and probably is going to be lower than that. Um because the 10 ft is probably to do with the aggravaics and so forth. So, I agree. I think these setbacks are are larger than they should be and they're
giving away land because the the the you you take an acre of land and you take a 50-ft uh um border around it. Um I mean, I guess I could do the math, but not in my head. You've lost a lot of land. So, I think uh these setbacks are too great.
And I also don't think there's any reason why we wouldn't just have a similar setback because for this there's hardly relevance for front yards and sideyards and rear yards when all you're talking about is PVs. Um
I I the front yard I assume is simply that it's on a street maybe but I don't see there's any reason why we should complicate this by having three different setbacks and I don't see why they should be any greater than is already in the zone uh for a side or
rear yard setback. Um and I have a second question that relates to the uh private well but I'll I'll I'll >> come back to that. >> I'll come back to that. Yeah, Angus. >> Yeah, I'll I'll second a lot of that.
And I'll just add um I I I too think that it should be um thinking of the actual voltaic installation as as a building itself, not the fence line. I think it should be as someone who lives in the R O, I think it should be um
smaller. Um and uh I would also add that we we have requirements around screening and glare. um in the in this bylaw as well that are all meant to um mitigate the effects of of a solar installation
um for neighbors and abutters. So um for all those reasons I think it should be smaller. I also have a question of the private well but I'll wait. All right, Andy Churchill, >> ju just from my um information, what would be a typical setback for a
building as opposed to um well, what would be a typical setback? And what you're talking about a setback for an array versus the fence surrounding it. Um is that how you would treat a building with a fence around it?
Well, we I think in our bylaw fencing is typically h uh I think fencing has to be a minimum of six feet back from the property line. uh there may be a provision I can't
remember about it can be closer but it needs to be approved or agreed upon by the abuter. >> All right. Um Fred >> uh yeah um I also agree that uh the
distance can be uh uh reduced uh for some reason um I don't have my uh video but when I click on it it says the host has disabled it. So
the host All right. Now it just All right. Now it's >> there you are. We we see you now, Fred. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Uh yeah. And uh fencing uh can be generally it can can be right
on the property line. So >> Okay. M Mandy has her hand up, too. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Pam. Go ahead, Mandy. >> Thank you. Um, zoning bylaw in section 6.255
says, "Fences located within the side or rear yards and exceeding 6 ft in height shall be set back a distance equal to their height." Um, so the fence set back tends to be about the height of the fence apparently, but
maybe no less than six feet. Um, and the to answer Andy's questions, the dimensional table, table three of the bylaw, um, has building setbacks, um, that in the RO
and RLD, which is the most logical places these setbacks would these installations would be anywhere from 20 to 30 feet. Um the floodprone flood plane floodprone consery um FPC
>> reaches as high as 40 ft. Um but um RLD is a 30ft front and a 20ft rear and side and RORO is 25 ft around the property. So I am proposing in here potential
possible rewrites of this All right. Thank you, man. >> I'm going to concur with with that that u it makes sense to me that if we have a setback of X in the RORO that that would also apply to this situation rather than
a 20 foot or fairly arbitrary other number matching, you know, equal to the equal to the um district in which it is located. And I think I think although I you know
I'd love a huge setback having um not less than 50 feet within a residential district that it doesn't make sense to have a differential um because most of them will be in a
residential district. So would you be okay with using something like 25 or 30 feet consistently regardless of front, side or rear and regardless of adjacency to
residential property? >> Yes. >> Well, that I mean that seems reasonable to me. Uh I have three hands now. Bruce and then Johanna and then Angus. Um I just did the math on uh it's an
acre is 210 ft by 210 ft and if we took 50 ft all around you would almost reduce the developable area of an acre of land if you had a 50ft setback by half. So that's clearly huge. So I I I'm even more in agreement with the notion that
we should uh uh ditch the 50ft. I think a 20 foot or the uh setback on all sides seems reasonable to me. >> All right, there's a vote for 20 feet. Angus,
>> I was going to move on to the private well, but so if Pam wanted to address what Bruce was just saying. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I need I need to stay focused on this just for a second. So um I think protecting your own interests
um where there is loophole opportunity, it feels that the bylaw should be more specific. And if we want if we want if you if you think of a construction site and you in in particular in of a
solar development there is oftentimes vegetation a fence and then and then cleared ground with with ground mounted panels. Um
the the item that's being constructed the whole thing is a site. The site is bounded typically by the fence. Um it feels to me if we were to regulate anything, it is it is distance um from property line to the fence line. That's
where in essence the the activity begins. If if we just said 20 ft to the to the installation, there will be much confusion. If you mean the panels themselves, if you mean
the fence themselves, or if you need mean a cleared area around a fence. So, I think we should be as specific as we can. >> I would vote for a measurement to the fence. >> Uh-huh. Well, how do people feel about a
distance of 20 ft to the fence? Just to throw a number out there, it's greater than the equal to their just equal to their height. Angus. Yeah, I was just going to say I I continue to think that we should be
measuring to the actual structure itself as we do with other with all other structures that are put in place. Um we we don't measure the setbacks to the fence line of any other kind of project as far as I'm aware. And I I would advocate against doing that here.
Okay, Andy, >> I I just I thought we had langu or the possibility of just saying that it that should be consistent with the language uh of of the district that it's in for buildings. I don't know what I don't
know how the fences factor into that versus the versus the um you know structures, but it seems like we have fences and other >> Mhm. >> types of activity. So,
>> well, Mandy, maybe on the for the language you've got proposed at the moment, um, somehow to say the the distance from the property line to the to the to the
structured array should be in compliance. Doug, if I may, I would say just at the array because that's the uh >> to the array. Okay. >> Because I think that's the uh that's the entity that's um you know that's what's
basically there and the edge of the panel is going to be the the edge of the array is the is the site. The only difference is that we're basically doing setbacks to roofs and not walls. But, you know, there's no walls. We've only got roofs. So, it's setbacks to roofs.
But, I think we just should think of it, I agree with Angus, we should think of it as a setback to the structure because that's what setbacks typically mean. >> Okay. Uh, Andy, >> I'm I'm good. >> Okay, Fred.
>> Yeah, I'd also agree with that. And for some reason now all the only thing on my screen is me and I'm not seeing anybody else. So I I'm not sure what's going on. >> Uh is that true even when I'm talking Fred?
>> Yes. Yeah. I'm not I can I can hear you but I can't see you. >> Huh. And I I up until recently I had normal, you know, I could >> well I mean >> people
>> up in the upper uh right hand corner there's a should be a little button that says view. >> Uh not on my screen. >> Okay. Well then I'm not sure I can help you. Doug, maybe he should just uh leave the
meeting and and sign in again. Yeah. >> Yeah, you might try that, Fred. >> Okay. While Fred is working on that, um, oh, Joanna, do you want to address this specifically or can I go to >> I guess I just maybe Mandy Jo already
did this, but can we just confirm that the definition for SPI is clear that it refers to the array itself and not some arrangement of panels. Great. Yep. Okay. So, I'm I'm comfortable with that as as
drafted, >> right? >> I'm not sure what happened, but now I'm back to normal. Thank you. >> Thank you, Fred. And we're on 1809013. A couple people had comments about
setbacks from private wells. Yeah, Pam, you had uh said earlier these were these came from the folks in town who are familiar with protection of groundwater. >> Yes. >> And that that certainly seems uh that's
reassuring to know. Um, I I think my concerns were predominantly about how an applicant would know where all the wells were, whether they're private or whether they're some of the other
devices. I forget the the terminology, but um is the location of every well in town known uh and and mapped uh by our town GIS system? >> I'm looking to Stephanie for that
answer. The plot plans that I have seen always always identify by measurement uh the location of a well and a and a location of a septic field for those for those properties that have wells. >> So I I was just worried about how an
applicant would find out where the wells were on land they don't control and may not have access to. Um, Stephanie, is that a question you could address? >> Um, I don't uh know for certain,
although I'm again I'm trying to think of when we have projects, but um when we had projects with wetlands um but typically that was identified as part of the plan on the property that was being
addressed. So on adjacent properties, um I believe that our GIS might have some information at least on public wells, but on private wells, that's the part I'm not clear about. >> Yeah, >> public wells, we have the information.
We definitely have um things mapped out, but um I I don't know about private wells. >> Okay. Well, it just seemed like there's a logistical challenge there. And then uh once the once an SPI has been built,
would new private wells be required to be more than 250 ft from that array? >> No, that would be up to the the owner's discretion if they want to be within 250 ft of an array. So they would be
at risk of allowing their groundwater and every person's groundwater that's connected to it to be contaminated. Okay. Um Bruce and then Angus and then Johanna.
I guess I don't see what the source of contamination is here. Um but um I'm also Doug, maybe you can help me or someone. Uh my recollection is
that um wells um have to be 150 ft away from a a septic system. Um, in other words, when you're trying to get your plot plan approved and so forth and you want to have a septic system and you want to have your well,
there has to be 150 ft between them. And if that number I'm recollecting correctly, um, I don't see why a PV system, a PV array is a greater potential contaminant of of of drinking water than a septic
system. And so I don't see why it's uh so much further away. I just don't understand this. I mean, I'm I'm interested and perhaps uh Chase, you know, satisfied that the the drinking water folks have come up
with this number and everything, but I still don't understand uh why a PV array is a greater risk to contamination of wellwater than a septic system is. All right. Um
I don't know Pam or Mandy or Stephanie if there's any answer for that or whether we should just note the comment and the question and move on. >> Yeah, I think we should note the the question. Um I am not an expert on groundwater and groundwater movement or
contamination. Um, these are recommendations from the folks that are tasked with this responsibility in town, including the DPW, um, who obviously monitors, um, adverse effects
on on surface water and and wells. Um, uh, I think Mr. colum could read the literature and understand a little bit more what potential contamination might occur. >> Well, I do remember there's another
section that that prohibits any PAS uh containing products to be part of these systems. So, uh, it may be that that's the contamination concern, but seems like if
we've prohibited that material, then we and successfully avoided it, then maybe we the contamination risk is lower. >> Yeah, Doug, we've been we've been we've been collecting drinking water off these things for living buildings. It it really doesn't seem to me that there's a
risk. I just don't understand it. >> Okay, Angus. Yeah, I guess I I have kind of two questions. I I I'm also skeptical of this provision. Um one question is do we
have apart from the um septic regulation that Bruce mentioned? Um are there any other regulations around private wells in the current zoning bylaw around any uses? Um I saw a few I think around
public water supply. Um well, but um again I guess I want to get a sense of is this something that is continuing other things we have in the bylaw or is this a new requirement? Um, and then I guess the the other thing that I'm trying to understand, if someone put a
bunch of solar panels on a building right next to their public well, that right next to their private well, excuse me, um, there would be no distancing requirements, but if they put it on the ground, there would be distancing requirements. >> Uh, Pam, should we just note the
question? I'd like to note the question, try to get an answer. I see Walker Powell's hand up though. >> Okay, Walker. >> Hi. I just wanted to say that um the state does actually keep a map showing locations of all wells. Um well drill
well drillers are required to be certified by the state and the state one of the requirements is that they mark the location of any well they drill. So unless it's a really historic well, it's going to be on that map. >> Great. That's good. Good to hear, >> Mandy.
Yeah, I think I just want to for and since we're solely talking about solar votaya PVs um and not batteries and best I think I agree with a lot of what the planning board has said regarding distancing from particularly private
wells. But I also wonder um about public water supply wells um and you know is there a way we could make all of these the same and more
in compliance with other distancing regulations from various wells. What do you mean by more in compliance with various wells? >> So if septic is a 150 foot distance
requirement, that would be something I'd be considering for PV. I I also wonder whether PV needs it at all versus um or needs a much more minimum. I can understand no disturbance because the panel itself might not need it, but during construction, you might want not
to disturb certain areas near the wells as you're setting the footings. Um, so I do understand some distancing requirements, but if septic is 150, I do struggle with why do we have a 400 and a
200 and a 250 when maybe 150 makes more sense or maybe even something smaller than 150 makes more sense for PV. I'm not talking about best. Would it make sense to go back to DPW
and maybe the town engineer to understand the the requirements around septic and and what the actual risks of contamination are >> or the or the people that were on the working group who probably originated
this. >> I think that would be a very good idea to get some expert. Um, we're just we're just, you know, talking here because we are not the experts. >> We're all speculating. >> Yes. So, I'm I do want to talk about the minimum that that Mandy mentioned, the
minimum of no disturbance area. Um if you think of the intact soils and composition of let's say a a field or a forest the minute you start disturbing
that context you change a lot in terms of the erosion the erodability and anything that may be locked up in that soil is suddenly then you know freed up to to migrate. Um,
we're talking so this is this is distance from a well maintaining a a ground structure. And I think that's that's part of the package. It's not like it's an acre of um scraped earth or
you know 250 ft of scraped earth between the well and the photovoltaic system. it's it's intact soils. And I think that's one of the key elements that the drinking water protection group really
emphasized when when their numbers came back to us to incorporate. All right. Um well, it certainly seems more critical for the public water supply than for a private well just because of
the proximity of so many private wells to new built to buildings um you know at houses. Okay. So Johanna and then Fred and then Angus. I guess I'll just share. It's my
understanding that any of the like heavy metals like cadmium, they are like locked into the matrix of the solar panel. And there are numerous studies that have shown that those like the materials that are in the matrix of the solar panel don't leech. Um and I was
just poking around on the DOER website and you know that was essentially their analysis too. And then um it seems like the biggest risks to water arise from runoff during construction.
Um the potential for like spills or equipment leaks, not from the panels themselves, but from like some of the transformers and inverters and and then you know the best systems that might be on uh on the site as well.
Um and then I need to find the direct link for this but um there is some suggestion that uh the state rules require a 200 foot buffer
like a no disturbance buffer from the drinking water well. I can't tell if that's private wells or public wells, but I think it is the public wells. So, I guess I say all that that it does seem like we need a little bit more digging
into this and an understanding of why town staff is recommending what they're recommending and make sure that, you know, they're leaning on all the relevant state research that's been done as well. >> All right. Thank you, Johanna Fred.
Yeah, I think we're talking about uh um public water supply and that I can certainly understand, but uh private supplies. I no longer own land on uh uh Lake Wyola, but I used to.
And uh there was a private well on that property for obvious reasons. And it had to be a certain distance from a septic field. And again, that's for obvious reasons.
uh the uh a septic field obviously has the capacity to potentially uh compromise a drinking water well and so there is a distance requirement that is well understood and well engineered
u and I will also say for a a battery system uh especially of uh the type type that we're talking about here which are uh systems that are uh directly in
connected to utilities. Those systems uh do present a contamination issue and I would have no problem supporting a significant setback for the battery system, but the actual
arrays uh no I don't I don't get it frankly. >> All right. Thank you, Fred. Angus. >> Yeah, I would just add I I think the comparisons to septic systems are interesting, but also to Fred's point,
like we we know that septic systems cause immense health risks to being near drinking water supplies. Um, and we don't necessarily have evidence of that with photovoltaic. Um, so I just want to echo that. And and again, I think my my
concern is if as far as I know, the town has no limits on geothermal projects. That's not part of this clean energy bylaw. Um and and I'm trying to think through what if we're placing
requirements on some forms, some uses and not not for others. If I put these photovoltaic panels on a building, there might not be the same kinds of requirements even though there's going to be the same degree of runoff. So, I guess I'm wanting us to make sure that we're not putting added
layers on for this that we wouldn't have for an equivalent project. >> All right, Stephanie. >> Thank you, Doug. Um so again I just want to reiterate that this recommendation really came from the water protection uh
water supply protection committee and I think at the time there was no um specification to ban solar panels that would have PAS um elements to it. So I think they were
thinking about PAS specifically when they actually recommended that. Um, so I would say that this is something that could come back to um because it was really DPW that kind of reinforced that recommendation and suggested that
recommendation and the rest of staff um agreed because they advocated for it. But I don't think beyond DPW that other staff felt strongly uh about this particular setback. So I would say this could come back to um staff and DPW
acknowledging that there is kind of now a prohibition on panels with PAS contaminants. >> So we'll we'll do a little followup then. Um excuse me. Uh but we've moved into the 180902
when um when Fred brought up the the best itself. So standalone and colllocated vest installations we have a similar layout of material similar discussion about setbacks and I would I
would suggest so there are some restrictions uh zone one and zone two areas which are outlined in state regs and town town rags. Um, I would suggest that we perhaps leave
this section standing and come back to it at the same time we do with the 0.01 discussion. Bruce, >> um, I I have I agree. I have very little concern about this because whereas you
might have an array that is uh two or three acres uh the actual best component if it's coll-located or whatever is going to be microscopic in uh by comparison. So the uh the setback uh
consequence uh for aess I think is u vanishingly small relative to its consequence for the uh array that we've been discussing. So Pam, I agree with you. >> All right, Angus. >> I think if I if I heard that correctly,
I might disagree. I I guess I would I would recommend consistency across the the setbacks. Um, and if we're talking about a building housing the best, I think we should be measuring the setback to that. And if that means increasing the setback, that seems fine to me. I I would agree that these battery
installations are of a different nature. Mandy Joe has her hand up. >> Sorry. Go ahead, Mandy Joe. >> Thank you. Um I Bess is where I'm more concerned than SPI, so I I have less concern with the
numbers here, but as Bruce was talking, I wondered how the minimum no disturbance area for best um relates to a minimum no disturbance area for SPI when SPI is much lower. and
you want to put best on colllocate best on the site and it's not a question for the planning board. It's more for our staff of could would that then mean the SPI is also no disturbance up to
this number because you it or is it just rel you know I'm I'm not wording this right but if you have to have 600 ft for best of no disturbance can you put SPI in the middle of that
disturbance or can you not Um, and so does the best need potentially does the wording of these need potentially modified for colllocated
bests with SPI so that you can put if the SPI is a 250 foot between 250 and 600 you can actually have an SPI installation but you can't have the best there.
Bethany. >> Yeah, I think um I think that's a really good point and I think you would want to be clear about that because no disturb is just that it's no disturb but I think as you said the idea for best is just
ensuring that it's set back far enough. Um so if you are saying that SPI can be closer then you would definitely want to amend the language to allow for that. Yeah, it seems like you you want a separation distance between
the water supply and the bass that may not necessitate no disturbance. All right. Um, Andy, >> yeah, I think I was about to make the same point that that maybe you just need
a distance for the bass to protect, you know, the any potential contamination, but you don't need the no disturbance um requirement. >> All right, Pam, I think we could
probably move on. >> We probably can. And we know we're going to come back to that. Good. Let me scroll down. So we are up to 1810 design requirements. Again, this is
strongly in the Bailey Wick of Planning Board. Um we talk about access roads, clearances. Can we just scroll down quickly through these? Um glare, land clearing, and soil erosion. That's an
extensive section. Um, are there any, let's see, lighting and materials. So, let's sort of stop these couple noise. I'll we could read them all, but um are there comments on any of these in particular starting at the top
with with there are only 10 of them with access roads and clearances. >> Yeah. Well, I know I had I had asked about um compaction because compaction is something you need for an access road.
Um, I questioned uh stone walls and trees and impacts to natural or cultural resources just because those were uh seemed like over and above what we would
require for other types of uses on on land. So, if I could if I could respond to that. Uh, what is being asked is a I'll use Bruce's word, a minimization.
It's saying if you are planning if you're planning the layout of a particular array and all of the components. Um, how do you do it in a way to minimize additional compa soil compaction other
than you know what's going to happen as you're installing the bases? The the access road itself is don't compact the the the site to death. Create the access roads that work that
are accessible by the fire department. Um the intent is to minimize the um disturbance of soil. The more you disturb the soil, the higher the erosion
uh that that can typically occur and it causes you more work as you try to repair and and uh stabilize soil. So the less you mess it up, the less work you have to do. >> Okay. All right. I don't think I don't think it's any different than any other
smart project. >> Okay. All right. Um well, >> clearances. Clearances had to do with the height of um these panels and at
what height do you start increasing um the erosion caused by runoff during rainstorms? Andy, >> and just on the on the previous one, I was curious about impacts to cultural
resources. What What does that refer to? I'm trying to remember. Um, Stone Walls is that that's already in there. Stone Walls is already in there. I don't remember. Walker. >> Walker. Yeah.
Uh yeah, cultural resources is usually like maybe an archaeological site or a significant historical site, an old cemetery, that kind of thing. It's usually It's usually in reference to historical stuff. >> Any comments on Thank you. Any comments on clearances?
>> Um let's see. At one point I'd had a comment about the word module. Oh yeah, it's in the second paragraph. Is is a module an assembly of panels that are all supported from the same
small section of structure? >> Um we don't define it in the bylaw. And you can see I just made some changes for things we used to define that we don't anymore. Um okay. Um, but I I think that's the intent if you read the the paragraph that individual panels are
arranged to allow between modules, you know. Um, so I think that's the intent that each line is far enough apart to to allow growth between and stuff. Yeah, >> my guess is anyone installing these will
understand that. So if I have if my photo photovoltaic array is made up of uh 10 10 panels side by side in each module then you're asking me to separate the
modules but the panels with those 10 panels can be immediately adjacent to each other. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. The module would be the next the next lineup of 10 panels,
>> right? Okay. Um, >> glare. >> Yep. >> Any comments of glare, land clearing and erosion. So, this goes a little bit to some of the compaction we just talked about.
Um, I know that I'd had a question about the phasing in paragraph two and um, you know, I guess although some of some of these projects maybe the tier one projects will be just
a couple of acres, they're I don't I don't remember how many acres that project up on Shootsbury Road is supposed to be, but if you have a 50 acre site and You need to phase five acres at a time. Now you need 10
different phases to make it happen. What does that mean in terms of actual schedule? Uh and does that mean you have to actually finish the first five acres to and have it connected to the utility before you can start the next five
acres? I'm just I'm not clear about that. >> Well, we're talk first of all, we're talking about land clearing. So, we're not talking about the the panel of the construction necessarily, but it is um limiting the disturbance to an area of
five acres after which you've gone in, you've you've installed your footings, you've installed your P, you've done your work, you're in there working, but then you stabilize the soil with hydro seeding or something of that nature. So, you don't have um a major
uh erosion problem. So you're dealing with erosion. You're containing erosion. So that's really what this paragraph uh is trying to address is reduction of erosion. >> All right. >> And I think I think Stephanie may have a
response because she uh reminded us that there she is. >> Go ahead, Steph. >> Thanks, Pam. Um yeah, this actually um was a suggestion from the excuse me the
conservation agent Erin Jacqu for the reason that um what happens is when when you don't have a phased project then clearing um can be far more disrup disruptive and the erosion uh that can
result is far more damaging. So this was a way to to phase the construction um at you know in in sort of portions at a time so that you can fully stabilize it before you go on to the next for all of the reasons that I thought Pam did a
great job of summarizing. So, does that mean you would have to have your your grass u uh established to go to the next phase? >> I believe it would have to be um
probably hydro seedated and contained before you would move on. I don't know that it has to be fully vegetated. that seems to be especially if you were dealing with small sort of um portions at a time of a very very large
development. >> Yeah. >> Um I think you know I think the idea was to just at least have it sort of hydro seated and contained before you moved on >> and I could double check with Erin to uh ensure that that's the case.
It just feels like when when we when somebody gets right down to actually trying to do something that this could be more problematic than is obvious at the moment. U Bruce and then Angus and then Fred.
>> Well, first of all, the this whole bylaw is only operates up to a certain size installation, right? So, is that uh larger than 5 acres? Yes. >> Yeah. It was like 25 megawws, right? Was
the Let's do some numbers here. >> Yeah. >> Or >> 25,000 kilo 25,000 kilowatts tier three. >> Okay. >> And do does anybody know how many kilowatts fit on an acre or
>> Yeah, I can figure that out. Uh, it might take me a moment. >> Okay. >> Um, but you keep going. Don't wait for me. >> All right.
All right. Um, Angus, we'll go to you and Bruce can come back, too. >> Yeah. Yeah, I just have a question about the uh the top soil paragraph and the all existing soils and the exceptions that that that uh the applicant wouldn't
have to follow things if it got a waiver from the PGA. Could that be the planning? In some circumstances, that would be the planning board would be determining to grant a waiver related to top soil
importation and the preservation of existing soils. >> What Angus, are you worried that's not in our wheelhouse of expertise? >> That's been a concern of mine for with several of these things, but but I'm just want to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly and then I
can voice my my concerns about Yes, >> if if the applicant wanted to remove existing soils from the site, um they would need approval by the
PGA, which in many cases would be the planning board to remove from the soils on to remove the soils from the site. >> Okay. I guess it could be us, Angus. Uh Fred, let's go to you. Bruce is still calculating.
>> Yeah. Um the uh my comments pertain to uh modules versus arrays. Um I think what you want to regulate are
arrays. Uh arrays are comprised of modules. This these are well-defined terms in the national electrical code and uh and also in the national electrical safety code.
So, um, that's I I think array is what you want to that that's what you see when you uh when a lay person looks at the structure, they're looking at an array. Um
so Fred does the word module have a meaning >> in the electric code? >> Yeah, it is a uh it is a component of of an array. >> Yeah. Well, I think we want to we want this is trying to have spacing between
the components so that you don't get a sort of accumulation of a huge amount of surface runoff without any gap between the panels >> and and what is going to comprise that
functional unit is the array u u the I'm sorry the the the Yeah, I just blanked on this. >> The >> the panel
>> Yeah, the the the Yeah, the the panel is comp in this case be pro comprised of modules. Um the the the that panel is a is a functional entity that that's what you
see when you the the fact that it it is comprised of modules that's of interest to the electrician but uh not much else. >> Okay. Mandy Joe. >> Yeah. I I think so
the SPI as we refer to it in this bylaw is the same as an array. Actually, it's probably broader than the array term. Um, at one point in a draft, we did define array separately from SPI. Um,
and we've tried to simplify down to SPI only. Um, SPI is the broad what someone looks at when they see a big installation. They're seeing that's that's that's what the SPI and our definition of the bylaw encompasses.
um this intent is the modules make up sort of in a typical SPI that you see the various lines there's many lines of panels those are the modules and the panels are separate individuals within those big lines sort
of um >> or row or rows >> rows lines yeah the rows >> would row would row be a a more meaningful word >> we could change module to row yeah >> I you know I it sounds like Fred's
understanding is that maybe a module is however many panels are all attached on the same circuit. >> And so that doesn't have a sort of obvious physical implication that a row would.
So that might be worth thinking about, >> right? And we could say at the last sentence could be rows rows of panels. Yeah. And between rows. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Bruce, how about I'm sorry. Go ahead, Pam.
>> No, I was gonna Sorry. I was going to move on, but I forgot that two people had their hand up. >> Well, there's three. >> Bruce and then Johanna and then Andy. >> Well, it's uh it's around 30 acres. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less depending on the efficiency of the
panel. So, uh, all of these 5 acre disturbance areas, uh, obviously relevant. >> Okay. >> 30, excuse me, 30 acres per how many kilowatts? >> 25 kilowatts. >> The the the the
limit of uh the the the notional limit on how big an array gets before it passes into the state's uh hands and not ours. that passes out of our hands for argument sake is around 30 acres. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks, Bruce. Um Andy, >> um I'm just not sure if it a row is usually something horizontal and I thought the lines are usually between vertical things like columns. So, I'm not is that is it are we anticipating
that there would be space between I think this is just probably a semantic thing that we can deal with later, but it just a road to me seems might not be the gap that we're talking about. I was going to suggest the same thing because sometimes you might have like
three panels arrayed one on top of the other at an angle set next to one another in a module and I'm worried that if we say rows of panels that each one of those could be perceived as a row. So
my suggestion would be to keep modules and then we could maybe add a definition for what a module is so that we're clear and I would you know suggest that basically we would say a module is a collection of interconnected panels enclosed in a single framework because
that's how the rows function or yeah that's >> and then what if the solar installation didn't want to do it in rows what if they wanted to do like a you know I don't know crop circle or something, you know. >> Well, I mean, one way to deal with this
would be just to say the array shall be configured to permit uh, you know, adequate and and adequate pass adequate runoff between panels to
minimize concentrated runoff. you know and and we believe adequate ambiguous so that the permit granting authority can think about that and the applicant can have be able to answer why they
arranged thing way they did I don't know so that's another option Pam >> could we simplify it even further and just say um panels shall be arranged in a manner to minimize concentration of runoff Yeah.
>> And therefore allow the growth of vegetation. >> Johanna, you you good? Okay. Great. >> Good. >> Um, >> okay. Blair, >> so Pam, I will note that it's 9 almost 9:30.
>> Okay. >> We've been at this for three hours. It feels like we're Are we halfway through? >> Yeah. Um, and we we have another joint meeting scheduled for June 3rd.
Uh, at which I gather we're expected to just continue. >> Um, >> that would be that would be good. >> So, I we can keep going tonight. Um, I don't have any I don't need us to stop at this moment, but um I just wanted to kind of point out that we're well into
the evening. I think I think it would be appropriate to stop while everybody is, you know, not it's we're maybe a little less than half, but it's not, you know, just not it it seems like easier topics.
>> Well, and we got through the the general conversation. >> Yeah. >> You know, that took 45 minutes at the beginning before we even >> There you go. There you go. >> Went anywhere. >> Yeah. >> Um Bruce, I see your hand. >> Yes. I'm uh two things. First of all, on
my reading through this, it got easier or at least it got more technical and benile as we got down. Uh when we get into safety and things like that, which is uh Pam's been right. We we're in an area where our our board's focus is is
is is understandably kind of this is where we our head is. uh when you get later on into the safety and so forth with the fire departments and stuff, it seems uh so I would um I would argue for
pressing on just a little bit maybe uh um but uh that's also because I come up imagining that we're going to revisit the first uh which we often do when we go through these things. Uh so if we were sure that
we weren't going to start from scratch and spend the first hour and a half or something reviewing what we've already looked at a second time, then I would say we could probably finish the the the document at the second hearing. But uh
the safety factor would be that we keep going for another half hour. >> Sure. Uh Pam, are you right with >> I'm I'm I'm going farther. >> I'm fine with that. Yes, we usually have twohour meetings. So, um 4hour meeting,
you know, that's no problem. No problem. >> We're adding your meeting to our meeting. Therefore, it's longer. >> Three and a half. >> Oh. Oh. >> So, let's So, let's work through there. >> Sorry, Pam. I didn't I didn't realize that I was um what I was doing. So, I'm
>> I was tongue and cheek. Um, Mandy, >> I was going to say I'm fine with continuing on as I'm likely not to be at the June 3rd meeting. >> Uh, oh, we're going to need a different scribe. That's That's not good.
>> Okay, let's push on a little farther. Thank you everybody. Um, land clearing and soil erosion. Let's go move on to lighting. And again, I would I would note if people have specific comments as you think about this and you have a
preferred um rewarding of some section or a sentence, then that should be sent to me and I guess to um Doug also. Um, we're going to try to keep uh one
version going so that we don't have a planning board version and a and a um CRC version throughout. >> All right, Angus. And then Bruce, we're we're talking about the lighting. >> Yeah, I'm sorry to to be difficult and
this is maybe the last time I'll I'll share this, but um speci specifying the maximum color temperature. I'm not aware of anywhere else in the bylaw where we do that. I'm sure the building commissioner has specifications around
some of this, but I guess I just want to flag that it seems like a lot of things are being put in this bylaw that are not things that we specify anywhere else in the zoning bylaw, but might be specified under administrative documents that the town staff uses, which might be fine,
but I just want to lag that that that could be happening. I'm going to call on Mandy. >> Um I I will say this is my attempt to begin specifying maximum color temperatures um
within bylaws. Uh the town council had a proposal in front of it regarding maximum color temperatures and a lot of other lighting for street lighting a while ago and just received a report and proposal from a group of um students at
UMass that was requested by the town manager who the council had asked for. um that does actually recommend a maximum color temperature of 2700 Kelvin for all lighting in town. Um unless some specific because of the dangers and um
health effects of color temperatures above 2700 Kelvin. Um as far as I know, the town itself does not have any specific color temperature maximum in any regulations or side things right
now. But um the the research is out there that above 2700 damages and is not safe is not as safe and healthy for wildlife and people. Um, so this is
something that I would argue I know it's a little outside of what is typically in and it might be able to be deleted at some point if I get my way and we rewrite a zoning bylaw to include some lighting requirements for all projects, but we're
not ready to propose a a lighting section of the zoning bylaw yet. So, this is my personal way of trying to start to have our town be a little bit healthier um on its lighting policy. >> Thank you. >> Well, we we already have the uh
requirement for dark sky compliance. And so that is where we could certainly add a line about the color temperature in the future. Um, but if you want I mean I I think this is fine for now and it sounds like eventually we'll have a
more general requirement. >> We can come back and adjust this one later. >> Great. >> Um, I'm I'm going to ask uh the question that I asked earlier in my original comments that I'm I just find it a little confusing. On the one hand,
lighting is to be um extinguished from dusk to dawn. except in case of emergency. So the only time these lights would go on are when the first responders show up
and hit the switch >> for somebody. Yeah, >> I would say that's the goal. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Um, all right. That that's that's fine. >> So, the color temperature then becomes less important.
>> Yeah. I just wanted to be sure that was the intent that basically this will never be on. So, >> and when it does come on, it will be a warm color and not >> injurious to our health.
>> Soothing for the Okay, Andy. Um, well, I guess yeah, it's what's required for safety and opera operational purposes once it's set up. There's not necessarily anybody.
I I guess I'm just thinking like winter hours when it gets dark around 4, would there be a need for maintenance to be done? That's not an emergency, but it's still um operational purpose. It to say it's required for safety and operational
purposes and kept extinguishes from dust to dawn seems contradictory. If we just simply said lighting shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes. Um, what's Mandy writing?
That's operational. That to me falls under operational. >> Yeah, I think you could shorten the sentence as you were proposing, Pam. >> Well, so my worry is safety could mean they're on all night
because a operator could say, "Well, we need it lit all night." Um, especially if you're thinking about Bess. Um, we need it lit. We need it. It's not safe to not have it lit all night. And I don't want it lit all night. I don't think it's necessary to
light all night. Um, but I get Andy's purpose, which is why I was trying to figure out when someone is actively working on site, like when I'm not sure what to put because it might not always be employees. It might be contractors, right? Um,
>> maintenance personnel or something. >> What if we what if we said lighting? Um, lighting shall be uh limited to that required for safety and operational purposes or I'm trying to trying to figure how to
get rid of half that sentence and you'll think about it later. >> What if we started with the premise of lighting shall be kept extinguished from dusk to dawn? Yes, that's right. That's where I was headed. >> In case of emergency
or when required for safety and operational purposes. >> Yes. >> So, like the default is you don't have it on. >> Mandy Joe, does that create too much of a loophole for your because I'm with you. I think like these should basically not be lit.
>> Not be lit. Right. And you said just the except in case of emergency or when maintenance personnel are on site or what was your other exception? I missed it. >> I guess I was going to keep the safe, you know, except in the case of safety and operational purposes.
>> I think the safety is the problem because people >> we just except except in case of emergency or for operational purposes. >> Yeah, that seems right. and just take safety out of it. >> Can we say maintenance instead of
operational? >> I just worry oper's always quote operating if you've got a best >> fine maintenance purposes. I can claim it either way. >> Um, ready to move on?
>> Well, I don't know. Angus, did you want to talk about lighting one more time? >> Very, very briefly. I just wanted to say I guess my though and I think you can probably get a sense of my my position on a lot of the spy law. If we wouldn't require this kind of lighting for most
for any other use in the town, I don't know why we would require it or I guess I'd want to know why we were specifically requiring it for this kind of use. >> Well, are we in the in the best section? >> No.
>> So, this applies this applies to both. So, SPI and Beths. >> Okay. >> Um and and I can answer Angus for my purposes. This is if we're going to regulate something brand new and we want to do better lighting in town, we should
start with better lighting regulation then instead of doing it all. Um we don't my opinion is we don't want lighting on overnight if it's not truly necessary. Um, but the current bylaw
doesn't limit that. So, someone can have lighting on 247. Um, that can be very disturbing. Um, and so I my opinion is we should start with a a doing better by our lighting standards in our zoning bylaw for what uses are actually
required. >> All right. M Angus, are you going to respond? >> Yeah. The only thing that I wanted to say that that makes sense to me. We we keep our house very dark. I like darkness. Um, so, you know, on the one hand, I think that's great. On the other hand, it feels like we're doing this with a lot of things. um trying to put
in best best practices which which are good but also in aggregate will make some of these building processes harder as we've seen with thinking about the the drinking water issues and distances thinking about I mean it's just a lot of
additional things on only these kinds of projects when when these kinds of projects are also doing some good things environmentally as well. So, I I just want to flag that that balancing that I'm kind of struggling with. >> I'm I'm going to comment that the
planning board regulates lighting all the time. You put conditions in everything. And this is simply saying we know you're going to have lighting. This is what you're going to do when you have it. And it's, you know, let's it's a fact. Live with it. And this is
how you It's like, you know, increasing runoff from your panels. This is what you do with lighting, Bruce. >> Um, uh, more or less the same. This is not obligating people to have lighting. It just says if you have lighting, this is what you'll do. And you're right. We do this all the time. So, Angus, I don't
think there's a problem here. And we're not obligating them to have lighting. We're just saying if you have it, this is how you'll uh this is how you regulate it, which of course is the way we do every project that comes before us. >> 18.10.6
materials. Any comments or questions on materials? >> Not. No, I don't see anyone. >> So, I actually have a I have a comment about that. If we could scroll back to that. I just noticed that it says installed in SPIs in surface water
supply protection areas. Why don't we call for PAS free in any installation? Yuana, >> I think that's fine. Most solar panels aren't made with PAS anyway. >> Noise. We had several comments about
noise. Best installations must comply with state noise regulations and Amorest noise regulations. Ruth, sorry. Um, >> this makes sense to me. Uh, I I was only
saying that noise was uh addressed in multiple places. Um, uh, I think that the last sentence is the one that's most sensible uh, in all of my studies and so forth about sound control and stuff. Um,
the first principle is to well uh, the first principle is to eliminate the noise. But if you can't putting distance between the sensitive source and the uh generator is the first rule and this is obeying the first rule. So this is good
in my view. >> Johanna, >> sorry I'm going back to my PAS comment. I there are I my understanding is that there are some POS that are used in
solar panels but they're stable. Um so I'm a little bit worried that by just cart blanch saying no solar panels can include POS that we
accidentally put ourselves in a corner. Well, it be say PAS safe instead of PAS free, >> right? Or shall not u release PAS into the environment or something like that. >> What manufacturer is going to say that
that there is does >> I have no idea. So maybe we need to come back to the like I there has I think even since the be like when we started drafting this bylaw there's been a lot of research into this field and so
I think we should add this to our like list of things to just like do a make sure we do a scientific review and you know get this right so we're not accidentally you know >> would would you like to take that on
Um, not particularly, but I suppose I could do a little bit of research. >> You seem very knowledgeable about it. >> I come across it in my work sometimes, so that's why I know a little bit. >> I know. I mean, Johanna, I I did a, you
know, a Google search, not a scientific review, but um, you know, what I came away with was that very basically no one's using Pakos anymore in panels now, but I may not, you know,
have found everything. Um it did it certainly seemed like the majority of panels manufactured have no PAS. So we're not, you know, we're not really
constricting the the avail the possible panels. We're we're not constricting it very appreciably, I guess. Yeah, I think that's I think that's probably right. I just want to make sure we you know that we like for example
there are these fuo polymers that you know are kind of a class of POS but they're highly stable. They're large. They apparently meet criteria for being like polymers of low concern. So,
again, we're like way in the weeds here. Um, I can do a more digging. >> Okay. >> So, if so, I'll come back to that. If if we end up agreeing to um if we just if we determine that there
are in fact panels that may have some PAS and I would rather cut it out entirely, but I would certainly want surface water supply protection areas included if if there's any doubt. So we'll come back to this whole this
whole number. Okay. Uh noise. Did we get past noise? I think so. >> Screaming and planting. This was my favorite topic. >> All right. So,
it does say, and I'll note in the second paragraph, screening requirements for tier 1 and tier 2 SPI may be reduced or waved at the discretion of the PGA. So these are the low the low volume you know smalls size developments.
Well, since you highlight that, um, you know, I could make a counterargument that the small ones are more likely to be shoehorned in among residential areas >> than and the larger ones may have
actually less, you know, you know what I mean? I'm I'm so I'm almost thinking should you limit it to tier one and tier two or just say screening requirements may be reduced or waved if
you know I don't know. Yeah. Um, and I'm I'm actually I'm actually wondering why we have this sentence in there because any one of these elements could be waved at the discretion of the PGA. This seems to
be one of the few where we actually say that. Well, you have had some I think it was earlier in some of the dimensional requirements that the PGA could increase some of the setbacks but
not decrease. So you were prescribing the latitude of the PGA in some other areas but >> yeah flavors. >> Okay. All right. Well then maybe that
sentence could go away. Good. See, we're we're pairing it down. This also talks this also talks about the fence. And this is the this is the small animal friendly fence that's a minimum of 8 in off the ground as
opposed to large fences that keep large animals and people out. So this is the same fence that we had in our dimensional requirements, right? >> Yep. >> Okay, >> Angus.
>> Yep. >> Yep. Uh, I guess I'm I'm wondering if we could remove the minimum height of 3 feet and trees shall have a minimum 1 inch caliper or is there a justification for specifying? I didn't I didn't see caliper mentioned
anywhere else in the bylaw except for around common areas, but maybe this is again something that we want to trend towards. I I assume you wanted this >> to be an effective screen fairly soon,
>> correct? Not 20 years, you know, after after planting the the one the one gallon pot. It's a basic it's a bare minimum of sizing for plant material. with any hope of survival.
>> With any hope of survival. Correct. >> Correct. >> Uh this this size was actually quite a bit larger and we dropped it down knowing that a smaller plant often survives better and adapts more quickly. >> So that was
the these are not huge. >> A and is cheaper. the sizes that was originally in here would have been quite expensive to >> to plant. >> Yep. >> Anything else on that? We'll move on to signage.
They need to comply with our article 8. If it's a best, it needs to be in compliance with National Standards Institute. And you know, so again, as Angus points out, there's a lot of detail in here. >> Um,
Z 535 was a new reference for us. >> Um that's in the second paragraph. >> Yeah. >> Um what what exactly does that have that is critical here?
Is it size of text or material of sign that doesn't fall apart or >> I don't know. I think this came from the guidelines at the state that the state published for their signage. >> Yeah, I think that's right.
>> All right. Well, I guess and this would be a sign mounted uh on or in the vicinity of the of the battery. Yes. >> Okay. >> And you get to permit additional signage
if you want. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Oh, >> sorry. I I'm just noticing it. So, it says the sign will have um the type of suppress suppression
system installed, emergency shut off procedures, and it'll have fire management fire suppression. I guess I'm just trying to understand what what what all this information is on this sign. >> I think the fire management is fire
management and suppression procedures maybe. >> Okay. >> Like that makes sense. >> That word could be added. Yeah. >> Good. Okay.
>> So, this sign is predominantly for first responders to quickly assess what kind of problem they're dealing with. >> Yes. >> Okay. utility connections.
Any questions? Uh I guess um planning board would be the ones to assess techn technological and economic feasibility. >> Yes.
>> Okay. So be before we start 1811, I'm going to look to the public and say, do you have any comments um that we've missed so far, please raise your hand and let us know that you'd like to speak.
I don't see any hands. Johanna, does this apply just to SPI or best as well? the util because the aes would need to be connected to the utility wires as well. I mean it was originally
>> in general >> it was originally written for just SPI um from we can add bass and then I guess also just coming back to the like economically feasible one could
argue like and I don't know anything is economically feasible but we also need to be cleareyed that it costs more to put like to do the trenching and the installations underground generally. So,
are we I just don't know how how we determine that, Mandy. Yeah, >> I mean, I think we're leaving it up to you um on essentially how much more expensive
is feasible, right? you know, if you have to trench through ledge, it might not be feasible, economically feasible. If you're trenching through, you know, top soil only then and sand or something, you know, then it's probably
a lot more logical and feasible to say yes, you got to go underground versus ledge. Um, but I think it's that's that's the goal of what the the CRC and writing that term in was. Um,
would it matter to you, Mandy, Joe, and Pam and Andy about whether the utility lines that we would be connecting to are above or below ground? They're not usually below ground, but
>> Well, yeah, that's what I'm thinking is like, you know, if we're connecting to a line that's already above ground, how how much are we really improving the environment, the visual environment by,
you know, running underground until we get to the pole? Okay. Angus and then Fred and then Bruce. Yeah, I mean to Johanna's point, I would just say we've we've had a number of conversations with different developers who
um have shared with us that they generally price out try to price out projects under the presumption that they won't get exemptions from these kinds of things. And they want to make sure that the project would work even if they they weren't able to. And there's just a
there's a number of these kinds of exemptions in throughout this uh clean energy bylaw. And I'm I guess I'm also concerned along with Johanna that a a developer would could potentially perceive all of them as
unlikely to be granted and therefore wouldn't even bring a project if they thought that it would be prohibitive to try and bury a line, for instance. Um, so that's just something that the planning board often often is thinking
about um adhering from developers. >> All right, Fred. >> Yeah, these are very large systems. They're utility sized and uh uh the feasibility of underground work
uh and the cost effectiveness, it depends on voltage to a large extent. And um when you're talking about these very large systems, uh the voltage is very
high and they're they're quickly going to end up in contact and connecting to uh electric utilities that are uh run overhead. So I'd be very careful uh with trying to
specify this So Fred, do you think the utility would actually have some concerns about running underground >> uh >> or not? >> They they I mean uh there's just you
know walk around town. I mean, there's uh there's a lot of uh 138 13,800 that's run that uh Eversource runs on the top of utility poles and they they run it up there for a reason.
>> Yeah, I'd be careful with this one. >> I'm going to ask if because it doesn't say they must they must put it underground. Um it's trying to give guidance that it would be great if it were underground, but it's obviously
um not being mandated. Do people feel comfortable leaving it as this >> expressing a preference? But yeah, I mean Angus's comment was clearly that it might discourage some >> Mhm.
>> you know, people will assume that or assume think that they have to assume that it's a would be required since it's a discretionary. Um Fred, your hand is still up. Did you want to say anything else? >> No. No. >> Okay. All right.
>> So, we're at 11:18. I mean, excuse me. I I had a comment on that one. Sorry, since I can't raise my hand. >> Um, you know, in in listening to the comments made by the planning board members, I wonder if we should just
delete this. Um, we are going to with best systems be dealing with large amounts of voltage for most for for the biggest ones, right? Um, all the poles in those areas of towns are over ground above ground anyway. Um,
and it does add cost. So, you know, I take Angus' comment about needing to get permission means it might, you know, the more we have this and if it's likely that most of them would be above ground
anyway. Um, do we even put this in at all or do we just delete it? I think I'd lean towards maybe deleting it given the comments from the planning board members. I would be comfortable with that given Fred's comment.
>> Agreed. >> So now that Fred was has spoken, this next section is Fred's. >> The following shall apply to Bess and must comply with state electrical code and the state's fire code or subsequent
standard. Well, Angus got his hand up first. >> H Angus. >> Well, sorry. I I was actually going to suggest I would I would like to go to bed. >> Um >> Oh, okay. I know. >> Bruce is fresh from vacation and ready
to ready to go and I'm I'm glad for that. I'm excited >> for that, but um I I'm kind of I'm fading. >> Okay. All right. Well, we'll try to wrap it up. Um 1811. Fred, did you have much in the way of
comments? >> Yeah, this uh uh the uh the state electrical code uh and I'm speaking now as the secretary of the committee that creates the state
electrical code. Uh the state electrical code does not apply to these. Uh the National Electrical Safety Code is the relevant safety code. Uh and uh this uh I
there there are things you know if you have a best but the uh uh the wiring inside of it uh is is probably going to be covered by the electrical code but the uh the
transmission elements of it are not. Uh and uh so there that this is that there are layers to this that you really don't want to get into.
>> Are you suggesting deleting this section about compliance? >> If you if you want to insist uh I could I could try and come up with something. the uh uh
if if um the uh it it may be okay because this is limited to the the battery storage system. The
electrical code does apply to that mistake uh 527 CMR12 does apply to that. But the uh uh the medium voltage uh transmission that leaves the best
uh is not going to uh be governed by the uh 527 CMR12. It's going to be governed by an entirely different standard. Uh so you want to be very careful. I can I can work on this
uh uh depending on exactly what you're aiming at. >> That would be very helpful to to think this through. Um since >> so man you are the electrical expert. Um
I I I mean Fred sort of highlighted what is it you're aiming at and um are these are these do you want to and come I mean are these do you want this to describe the
requirements that the building commissioner will require to permit the project? I mean, I I look at this and I go, don't they have to comply anyway to get the
building permit? Like, is it necessary to even have this in the zoning bylaw? Cuz do doesn't these codes apply to anything electrical done on on site or, you know, fire
regulatory? And so I'm wondering if if it harms the bylaw to even delete them, >> to even include them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I can uh I can tell you that uh
uh I I happen to own the uh president on this uh when I was the town electrical inspector. This is going back now quite a long time. I issued an order to uh
uh Western at the time it was Western Massachusetts Electric. I issued an order uh telling them to revise how they went down a utility pole on East Hadley Road. the wiring method that they used to go
down that pole uh and into a new subdivision. And they the next morning immediately appeared in the building commissioner's office and said that they would not pay any attention to me. They would only pay
attention to the state department of public utilities. And that afternoon I said, "Okay, if they want the state department of public utilities, I will bring them the state department of public utilities." And I filed a
petition uh with the state department of public utilities to recognize my order. And the result was a two-year battle that that went on and on. And uh at the at the end
when everything was said and done, the state department of public utilities said I absolutely had the authority to issue the order that I issued. And and at that from that point going forward,
uh the uh utility revised all of their uh uh uh operation manuals to uh re recognize what I had cited. So, I actually own this precedent and uh
>> it's it's uh there there's a lot to this uh that's not obvious. It there is there is another entire safety code. It's the National Electrical Safety Code and it governs utility work and uh it is not
the Massachusetts electrical code. So, um, if we could pause there, Fred, it would be really helpful to have you look at this section in particular. There are components in here that talk about um the best must safely contain
fires and thermal runaway runaway maintaining good working order, etc. So, it's not all just um >> electrical code. >> Yeah. And that and that is fine. I have no problem with that. It's just the uh
when you're talking about how you're going to leave uh one of these facilities and uh do engage in transmission at uh at 13,800 or higher voltages, uh uh then
you're talking about something entirely different. Uh it was for this reason that uh the the the National Electrical Code put in an article for photovoltaic at high voltages at at uh u
uh uh you know very large arrays such as what you might see here. And because of the utility connection, the Massachusetts Electrical Code deleted that article because it was beyond the scope of what the Massachusetts
Electrical Code was allowed to cover by uh the uh the statutory reference there. Uh this is this is very complicated in Massachusetts. >> All right. So, >> well, if you would if you would be happy to do some homework and come back to us.
I think this is a time to pause because it there's quite a bit in this one section that uh including agrovoltaics um and I think we don't have the energy to be dealing with all of that tonight.
>> Yeah. 10 of 10 after 10. Um we have I think two motions that we need. One from the CRC and one from you all. Uh, okay. Um, I'll make a motion that we continue the planning board's hearing on
the clean energy bylaw to June 3rd at uh 6:35 p.m. Johanna, >> second the motion. >> All right. Um, board members, we will
vote on our continuation. Bruce. >> Yep. Fred, >> hi. >> I'm an I and Johanna. >> Hi. >> Thank you all. Oh, and Angus, you're still here.
>> Hi. >> Thank you, Angus. We'll let you go in a minute. So, the motion passes and uh our hearing will be continued. Mandy Joe. >> And I'll make a motion to continue the CRC hearing on this matter until June
3rd, 2026 at 6:35 p.m. >> Second. >> All those in favor? Mandy Joe. >> I. >> Andy Churchill. >> I. >> Pam Rooney is a yes. We are We are good to go. Um, thank you everybody. This is
really productive. Tedious, but productive. Thank you. Thank you. >> We'll see you on the We'll see you in a joint meeting on the 3. And I want to say again, thank you to CRC for be willing for being willing to add another
meeting to your otherwise empty schedule. >> Are we going to formally vote to adjurnn? I don't know how the planning board does it, but CRC normally formally votes to adjurnn. >> We don't typically vote to adjurnn. >> Okay. We we end up needing to. So I'll
make a motion to adjourn the meeting. >> I'll second. >> Andy >> I. >> Mandy >> I. >> And Pam is a yes. Thank you all. We are adjourned at 1011. Thanks. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you Doug.
>> Good night Pam and Pam >> and Athena and Stephanie. >> Yeah. Thank you. I meant to say thanks to all the staff