to order. Uh I will start by reading our remote meeting script. Um so in accordance with open meeting law regulation 940 CMR29.10, please be advised that all FINCOM members are attending this meeting
remotely. In addition, because FINCOM members are attending remotely, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote. Lastly, if any FINCOM members are not clearly audible to his or her fellow members or to any members of the public, please notify the chair
immediately. Uh, and we will do our best to remedy the problem and we'll inform the public whether the meeting will continue. Um, and as a preliminary matter, I am Jillian. I am the chair of the finance committee. Um, please permit me to confirm that all members and
persons anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Fin members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Um, Nathan, >> yep. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Peter,
>> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> All right. Um, Linda is out tonight. Um, and I'm not sure if Male is able to attend, but we will find out. Um, and we also have our special guest tonight. Oh.
Um, Bill, Bill, you can hear us. Okay. >> Yes, you bet. >> Thank you. Um, all right. And Male, I see Male, one of our FinCom members, has also joined. Can you hear us tonight? Okay. >> Yes, I can. Thank you.
>> Excellent. Thank you. Um, so I'll finish up the script here. So, good evening. This is an open meeting of the finance committee. It is being conducted via Zoom. Speakers on the agenda will be participating remotely and the chair may allow for the public to provide comment. Um, please note that an option for
remote attendance is being provided as a courtesy to the republic to the public. This meeting um will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast to individual attendees unless required by law. Accordingly, please be aware that
other folks may be able to see you uh and also hear you. So, please take care not to screen share or otherwise share anything from your computer you do not want captured by this recording. Um, anything that you broadcast may be captured by the recording. Um, and you
can also find this me later posted to the WAVM YouTube channel. Thank you WAVM for your support. Um, for all of our meeting materials, you can find them on board docs. Um and we recommend that you follow along on the agenda as posted
there uh and the materials there unless I note otherwise. Um and then now we will be turning to our agenda. Um so our first uh agenda topic for the night are
discussion of the articles for the special town meeting. Um and in particular we would also like to talk about um the planning board articles. So that is where our lovely guest Bill comes in. So thank you for coming tonight to answer all our questions for
all articles uh related to such. We much appreciate it. We had a lot of questions. >> I think we had a lot of them also answered by email. Um but I do think that talking about them live would be really helpful. >> Sure. Happy to be here. Thank you.
Uh, if you'd like, I can pull up the articles um if we would like to have something to look at while we're talking. >> Sure. And for the record, I'm Bill Namar. I'm the planning director. >> Yes. Introductions are important. Thank you for that.
>> I'm not just I'm not zoom bombing. [Music] >> All right. So, you should be able to see. >> Sure. I can see it. >> Yeah. here. So, yeah. Excellent. So, and
I did also get um Peter kindly wrote the uh comments we have for these. We have not uh we have not yet voted to recommend or not recommend the articles uh yet. So, we will also have to take a vote to do that tonight. But I think our main goal
is to sort of talk to you about these, learn a little bit more about the districtricting for articles uh I think it's eight and 10 for the the PM OD which is the powder mill area. >> Okay. Well, Madam Chair, if you like um
I have a little presentation that I gave when we presented the original articles to the planning board which kind of they wrote uh so I could do that if you prefer for the PMOD. I think it'll answer a lot of your questions. Um, but whatever is the board's pleasure or the
committee's pleasure. >> Yep. I think um the main questions we had was sort of just around the districtricting. So um a little bit of background might be helpful. Um I don't want to take too much of your time tonight because we also have to vote on a couple other articles, >> right?
>> So I can stop sharing. >> Okay. Um, >> can you share the sharing? >> Yeah. You want me to give you I think you can share, but if not, >> I think so. Let's see here. Let's try >> give you some ability.
>> Um, well, let's see. Oh, that's the wrong one. That's best. I I if we want to talk about best, we'll talk about that, too. But, um, here is just a sneak. Okay, I'm going to share now.
Now it hopefully you all get it. And let's see. Boom. Can you see it? >> I can see it. >> Um, >> we can see it. It's not on full screen mode, but I can see it.
>> Oh, well, let's see if I can figure out full I don't know. It's on Google because I we can't access our stuff remote anywhere, so I had to kind of do it from home here. Um, well, maybe I can make it bigger. No, I can't make it bigger. Um,
>> there's a magnifying glass at the bottom. >> Oh, there. Okay. I'm terrible. Sorry. All right. This is um on first of all the this is not um there. Okay.
This is the uh the second iteration of the powder mill road uh corridor districts. Um, originally, just to give you a little background on this, we had an idea that
was about a two-year project, and you see this area um that the Powdermill Overlay District could be could receive an overlay district that would benefit the entire area. And the goals of that overlay district were that
it would uh create a consistency between overlay districts and what was built there in the future as opposed to the underlying districts and what could be built there in the future. Now, I don't want to get too esoteric,
but in general, overlay districts, just think of it as there's a base map, there's a district, a zoning district overlaid on top of it. And sometimes there's a reason to put a third district that further defines it on top of
everything. So, originally we thought we could get away with two layers, just the um the original and an overlay district. And then we realized that each of these communities
and business um districts had their own identity somewhat. Now, this was not like an overnight decision. This started in I think 2018. So, we've been working at this for a while. So originally there was going to be just
the powder mill overlay district which is all of this. Okay. Then as we went on we got everything we could gather. We had public input. We had outside consultants. We had private investors.
We had the current stakeholders of uh either land or um buildings in that area. We really tried to drill down and what we found out was that these areas as best as we could define them here as
you see between the six uh overlays had their own identity that while we wanted to establish a level of consistency and I'll explain why in a minute. We also wanted to establish a
predictability to the districts. So, for example, you'll notice B, sub area B are these are existing single family neighborhoods. They have problems in terms of zoning in that they're smaller
lots and they don't necessarily they may need further adjustment to allow the property owners to benefit entirely. But on the whole there was not a lot we thought you know made sense to
really adjust or propose adjustment. uh you'll see that E uh D and C are adjacent to the river which had their own um benefits and restrictions primarily
which were centered around the river and the proximity to the river and most importantly how to improve the proximity of the river and make the environmental changes we want to make to the river in terms of of of taking care of it but
also building responsibly on it. You'll see that's most of the area here. F is a kind of a strange one because it's an existing storage facility which doesn't really fit. It doesn't not fit
but doesn't totally fit. So, we just made it its own thing. Now, A is very important to start this discussion. And the reason A is so important and I saw there were some questions going back and forth on it. A has already been voted on
by town meeting. It is zoning district. Why was that done and what were the restrictions with it? What were the benefits of it? And what are the economic future um opportunities there?
is, stop me if I if I if I go too far with this or if I if you need have a question, but is everybody familiar with the MBTA communities legislation? It's also called the 3A legislation. Everybody pretty much >> Yeah, I believe we were all when that
article was present. So, yeah, we were assuming that A is that um >> was that zone. Is that correct? >> That's right. That's right. And the reason we put A first was we want well we wanted to make sure we're compliant with state statute.
Now what can go there was very flexible as you remember and it's a perfect location for it. I mean what do you want right? Um but the idea of the other subd districts we
wanted to be very careful and although we did we being the planning board and my my office with um we had MAPC metropolitan area planning council assist us for about three years with some of the outreach there and the
studies and the analysis. Um, we wanted to do the others incrementally and what we determined as best we could reflected the needs of stakeholders, the future
needs of the community and the current um uh situation that could arise from the existing zoning. In other words, the underlying zoning. Now, you heard me keep talking about underlying zoning.
And why is that important? That means that if none of this was enacted, there's a zoning over all this and it would be um kind of a really catches catch can. Uh because
there's industrial, let's say this is industrial area. This is single family, one districts. Maybe this is a business district. Uh this may be a general residence district. The point is there's no level of compatibility.
The reason we care about compatibility um is for future planning of uh infrastructure investments from everything from potential I say this with hoping that it happens but potential public transportation or
at least shuttle where there's there's density pockets that make sense. They develop in one area. We say okay this is where we need to allocate resources for that area and so on. Or there may be an
area that is environmental concerns are primarily the issue. So for example D here you'll see and and E along the river and and and C new development we would want to adhere to our current uh
environmental standards and uh make sure we don't we don't in any way deteriorate river but also improve it whenever there's new development. So there's different objectives of all of these. Now, why
would anybody go into an overlay district and not just if you were a property owner in any of these parcels, why would you want why would you be interested in this? And the way I would explain it is that this is an optional overlay district.
That means you're not you don't have to do any of this and you can develop under your current zoning. you don't lose anything. The town and the planning department would certainly prefer that you don't in most
cases. So, if you have uh a a use here that is a multifamily that may work, we we really wouldn't want you to do a single family here, but you would have the right to if that's what's there. Now, you're not going to lose any of that. So, there's no threat to existing
property. What it is is an opportunity to develop under um the development districts in a a fashion that we believe reflects the best interest of the long-term
interest of the community but also um provides an incentive for uh owners, builders, developers and so on to develop in a way that meets town goal and objectives. ives is defined either in
the master plan in the housing production plan in the sustainability goals and so on. So, uh, in a nutshell, uh, for this particular round of, uh, changes, um, the only one that's been designated is
A, and this one we're doing E, D, which are both, um, uh, riverfront, and F, which is kind of a, um, it's we pulled it out because we
felt it was just different. It was it's an existing and successful storage area that we really didn't see a point in lumping them in with everybody else because it doesn't necessarily reflect it. Yet, it can be compatible with both
the uses we proposed in A, the existing uses in B, and the surrounding district at C. Um, and so that's basically what this particular uh proposal is. Uh, I guess I kind of
should have been going along as I told you this, but I I think I already told you all this, but um uh okay, this is just the the uh use table, meaning what is allowed under the
overlay district. One question somebody will ask probably is um well if I have a parcel can I use both zoning
districts and kind of double dip and the answer is no not on the same parcel you cannot and the reason is we're trying to develop in a cohesive uh fashion uh affordable housing requirements um I don't know um and forgive because I
I know you a lot you approved this original article in uh uh recommended approval in 2020, but we do have an inclusionary zoning bylaw and basically that establishes a ground
level requirement for all developments to provide a minimum level of affordable units in any new uh projects. The reason 10% is the minimum is because we're required by the state to maintain a
minimum affordable housing uh level of 10%. If we don't, we open ourselves up to different penalties that we don't want. So, this idea of the inclusionary zoning is to sure we never
fall below 10%. Right now, we're about 9.98%. As soon as um well, I'll tell you this flat out, the firehouse, the old firehouse is finished, we'll be at 10%. And that's what we have there. Um so the
rest gets digs in the weeds. So I won't bother you with this. I guess it's a good place to stop for questions if there's any questions about this. I hope I didn't go too long or too geeky, but >> I think that background was really helpful. it uh it answered a bunch of my
questions. I actually had a lot of questions about the use table and I I see that a lot of them were answered on that slide that you showed us. Um so that was helpful too and I think the background is really was good to really set it.
It's it's a lot of thought went into it and all things considered, it's the best I could come up with and I think it's a pragmatic approach that allows us to use the best of both worlds. We
have we have a million other issues, but I'm concerned about disrupting the surrounding neighborhoods. I don't think this does that. Uh we're concerned about the the health of the river. Very concerned about that. And I don't think
um I think this is a a practical approach to it. And we we would like to ensure that whatever goes there is sustainable and an improvement over what is there? And is it fair to say that these articles are basically sort of modifying
that 2014 Pottermill overlay district? So it'll create these subd districts to let more specific rules be instated for these various parts. >> Yes, it it will add to this map. This we again A is going already. So this will
out E, D, and F. E, if you think about this when you're driving down Pill Road, right? Right about here is um where the uh uh uh Walther Street is roughly there. A little little there's a little
bit there that's in our downtown overlay or our central business district. Then right here you have kind of a weird mix of business, residential, um it's it's it's a a lot of stuff. And
when you get up here to the co-op. So the co-op is a really good example because that was our first project we did under this even though the overlay district wasn't in. And we worked with the co-op to
develop in in our vision for this to be consistent with the powder mill improvement was the little patio on the back. So instead of blocking off this beautiful river and making it kind of a
receptacle for whatever falls back there, this made it an asset and it really I am really happy when I go out there and I have a cup of coffee or something I see, you know, it's a beautiful view that wasn't there before. Well, we could do that on along the
river. People have asked, well, can there be a riverw walk along here? And that's something in all fairness, it probably wouldn't happen like that. I can't see that because you have so many property owners, you have environmental restrictions, you have so on. But what
we can do is any development that comes in de uh we can work to make it the most beneficial uh for the town and for the health of
the river and frankly the aesthetics of the town. Um, I think it really is a cool thing to have a river that, you know, is something you can look at, something you can utilize, and something that is an
asset to be on rather than something I always go back to when I first came to Maynard, and we had um the I think it was a Blue Coyote or River Rock or whatever the the restaurant was, but it had the river
blocked off by a dog ear fence and that's terrible. This is a this is a something that should be people should want to look at and not think oh well there's people doing you know refugees
or whatever the heck they're doing don't do it and and uh so I am very confident that this is a good long-term approach um and one that makes sense for the
community and protects the the surrounding communities It kind of gives us a new economic engine as these these what we see in here are like mixeduse type projects. smallcale mixeduse projects maybe you
know these I could see uh commercial on the bottom residential on top that really capitalizes on the location and powder mill one day and I've said this before and I don't mean to lame the point but I would
like to see at least a shuttle to move people around. We have a senior facility here or a senior uh living here and and this type of thing. It it would be nice yet a concentrated mass of people, not kooky, not 35 stories, but you know, a
mass of people that we could say, let's bring in a shuttle. Okay, shuttle makes sense. We'll go to co-op. We'll go to whatever services are needed. That all those all that represents is fewer cars on the road. and hopefully a better
standard of living for, you know, our residents. >> Thank you. Thank you for sharing the information on articles uh 8 and 10. Um we appreciate that. We appreciate hearing your vision too. Um, so does uh
the committee have any questions or comments on articles uh eight and nine which have to do with this overlay district or sorry 8 and 10? >> Um, would it be possible to have um this uh 21page slide deck that we were just looking at? Would it be possible to have
that uh sent to all of the committee members? >> Of course. I I think maybe I could do it now. I don't Let's see. Yeah, you could also just send it directly um to me at the town email um and I can also say >> All right. Now, I see I see the planning
board chair Chris Arsenal is on. So, he can attest to my inability to do something like that. Just send it. Chris, how do I send this to the >> No. >> Good. Good evening, everyone. Um yeah, give Bill a minute. Maybe he'll take care of it tomorrow.
>> No, no, I got it. I think >> Yeah, no worries. Oh, I I'll do it tomorrow, Jill, if I can't do it tonight. But uh yeah. >> No, that's okay. Don't worry. I don't think we needed to be able to vote and write our comments tonight on those articles, but it's good information. We
can make sure we also post on board docs because we did talk about it tonight. >> All right. Are there any other questions on that that I could be of help with? >> And the chair is here and I think I Mr. Chair, I don't know how long you've been on. Have you had a chance to hear most
of this? Um, I've been on for about 15 minutes. >> You're awake. I didn't think you would be on that long. Um, with my stuff, my droning. Um,
did I miss anything? >> I don't think so. >> So, I'm curious about like what specifically um the new dis how how they differ from what's there right now. like the districts it looks like are currently
commercial zones and then F is currently zoned industrial. What does the overlay district if um if a lot owner wants to like opt into the overlay district one once you opt in are you then is that lot then governed by the overlay district going
forward or can like a can it be like you know developed in terms of like the original um zoning at a future point? It's a great question. Nobody loses anything. Um if they want to rever if they want to
utilize the underlying district, go go to it. The the what we won't do and what we discussed is on a single parcel. You cannot utilize you know you can't utilize both districts just to kind of you know say I want this but I don't
want that and so on. So there are responsibilities, there are obligations that come with utilizing the uh overlay district. Why would you do the the overlay district? Um if you were a developer would be
because of the uses that are afforded to you such as mixed use, smaller unit residential, some large unit residential, some commercial uses uh that might not be available in the underlying district. And in the case of
residential um you know we're not the board the when I say the board the planning board was not looking to create necessarily single family neighborhoods. They weren't looking to restrict what was there but they that was not the
model that they felt was the ideal. So we implemented things like these carrots which when I say density bonus let's say you could normally build four units maybe here you can use 12 you can put 12 in and so as a developer you say hey
that's that much more and I think I think you could see that um for example we've done this in a downtown overlay district which goes more or less on Main Street and Mer Street to about
um 62 and more or less a town hall. You've seen an influx of mixeduse development, smallcale mixed use development. People like that. We when we have those on the market when when they go in, I
mean, it's like boom, they're gone. And it brings in uh I think an element that people want and residents want. Well, we'd like to replicate that on on the powder mill corridor and we think that it's a a
practical, sustainable, and a desirable element, you know, to to build on for the community. Uh do we have challenges still? Of course we do. But, you know, you got to put one foot in front of the other and make sure that you're on the
um, you know, have a plan. And this board, the planning board is um that we is very they're very varied and they have
different backgrounds. Um but nobody nobody mails it in and and and they really I think have been uh working with them you know to develop this have tried to
do the best they can do as a a pragmatic and a a beneficial approach forward. >> Yeah. I I I just it's confusing to try to understand what D E and F are doing. Um seeing them kind of like alone without comparing them to like what's in
the current like commercial industrial zoning. >> Sure. Sure. I can understand that. What I would what I could do and I I I can do it now if you wish. But if here's what I would recommend um in the use table. Can I share again? Let's see if I can share
again here. Chris, how do I share again? Oh, wrong one. Okay. >> If you press the share button, >> um, so when we go to use table, something like this,
okay, where you see that basically this table mirrors what's in the zoning bylaws currently. Okay. Now, in the zoning bylaws
currently, which which we have online, I can send you the link, but it's online. Um, and if you looked under each current district, maybe it would help if I showed you the current districts. Let's try this. Um,
you it gives you a good idea. It would it would um the board would probably never allow me back again if I showed you went through everything. But can you see the zoning bylaws now? >> Yep. >> Okay. So, this is these are what we call straight districts. Okay. Meaning that
there's no overlay. Okay. So, what the areas that we're looking at right now, you've got S1, you've got general residential, you've got business, you've got central business, you've got industrial, and oh, you have garden apartment. So, all
those are straight districts. So, if you own the parcel next to the co-op, all right, let's just say that next to co-op, everybody knows pretty much where that is, a John Deere property, right? You're an S1 zoning district. Okay, right now you're going to build
something on there. Here's what you could do. You couldn't build a garden apartment. You couldn't a board of appeals would have to prove um elderly housing, no manufactured homes, no multif family, no. Uh single family dwelling, yes. Two family
dwelling, no. Well, that's kind of telling me that all they want out of that John Deere parcel is a a single family home. And that may be cool if that's what you want and you're not losing that right to but the town is not going to go say all right this is our
highest and best use and the best interest of the town. Likewise you go down you look under the uses here cemeter everybody wants a good cemetery. Uh board of bills child care center those kids. Okay. um uh essential
services which is they're essential uh municipal facilities and so on. No public market. No public transportation. Funny that it could be sitting on Powder Mill Road and not have public transportation. Uh you can use it for uh a nonprofit
educational and so on. So it goes all the way down. So S1 and you'll see a heck of a lot of nos here. See the N? See these? No. No. No. No. No. A lot of no. So, going back
to S1, what does that mean? Well, let's see if I can find it again. And S1. Uh oh. Do it now. Bear with me one second. All right. So,
okay, I'll try to share again here S1 which we were talking about for the last couple minutes. All right. Can you see that? Yes. Okay. So in this case, this is D is from here over to C is all S1. So the
here's this is the um uh housing authority senior area. This is the co-op here. These are the two houses I was just talking about. You're going up to here about to here and it changes. So is a single family house the best use here?
Does it make the you know in the planning um parodyium is that that what where you want it? So that's kind of a a good example of how an an underlying zone
district can vary from the overlay. So, in all practical purposes, you've got like a gazillion more uses you can have if you choose to participate in the overlay store. Does that help?
>> Yeah, but I mean for that specific location, C has not been created yet, right? And this article isn't going to create C is just D, E, and F. It >> Yeah. Right. So, D has part of it. So what we and this was a this is a good argument here because I the planning
board and I discussed this these we thought d the uh the uh eastern part of the for the co-op which are if you picture from the co-op these are single family homes here and we thought would it be better in C or in D but for this
one these are single family homes right here these we didn't have we didn't see any urgency to redoing the senior living here. Uh, this part we may find there is in the next round, but you can, you know,
how do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. And that's what we're trying to do with it. But those are good questions. All right. Miss Sinc have any additional questions on article 8 and 10 having to do with the overlay district?
>> And I promise I will mail you the PowerPoint as soon as I figure out how from this. >> No worries. I we won't need it to to make our vote, but uh it would be helpful to have for reference so we can post it as well. >> Yeah, it's online, but I it's better
it's easier probably at this point if I just send it to you. >> All right. Uh would we I do have draft comments for these um articles from Peter. Thanks for sending that. Would we like, we did not yet vote um on the
article 8 or 10 uh about these uh districts. Would we like to vote on those now or we like to vote on them at the end? Does the committee have a feeling on the matter? We can bring up the comments. No, I'm hearing crickets.
Um >> maybe in the interest of uh our guests time, we vote at the end when they don't need to necessarily be here. >> Yeah, I'm just not sure if we want any feedback on the comments that we're drafting to check double check for
accuracy. >> Um I'd love to get comments. um a little bit just a general thought and and we fight this battle every year with you know all the town meetings um and I don't quite know all the process but I
mean I think part of our concern was uh Fincom kind of started looking at this last Monday and we're like oh wow this is a big change and um I don't know how we work it out that we
get some heads up ahead of whenever, you know, the town administrator sent us the approved thing from >> the select board. But it would have been helpful to at least and you know yes we could watch your meetings and you know
we certainly in some ways could be better at you know finding this stuff out but also um you know any way we could get heads up on this stuff you know more in end of July or August it would just give us a
ch a better chance to digest it. So, you know, as I was sitting down to look at the comments over the weekend, I think these actually make sense. You know, two of them are pretty straightforward minor changes. Um, and one of them, you know, is a bigger deal,
but not like I'm really going to second guess planning board on, you know, creating this stuff. Um, so I think they all kind of make sense. Um, I would be interested to get feedback on if I've mischaracterized anything in the draft comments.
Um, is it? >> Yeah, that I'll be happy to look at send them over and I apologize if we this was >> I think we need to settle them tonight. So I Jillian, can you push them up or I could push them up? >> Sure. >> Yeah, I got them. So um,
so currently we're talking about eight and uh 10. We haven't actually voted on these yet. We did vote on nine last week >> um but we didn't finish or finalize the comment yet. So um so our understanding of eight is that it is sort of updating
the section 2.2 list of the overlay districts which wasn't done when that originally was adopted. >> Yeah, that's exactly right. That that is just literally just adding powder mill um overlay district to the list of overlay districts.
Nothing more than that. >> Okay. And our understanding of 10 was looking at this sort of additional subdistricting. Um, right. As opposed to having like one set of rules for the entire district. >> Exactly.
>> Um, I'm sorry to to be a little pedantic if I Jillian, may I >> please? >> Um, article 10 does does not necessarily update and clarify what it does. It adds it simply adds subd district
>> oh >> D E and F itself. So it's not necessarily updating clarifying what was there before. We're simply adding in those subd districts
to to the zoning bylaw itself. >> Yeah. So, uh, you know, since we're being pedantic, um, I I'm wondering, does the Powder Mill, uh, overlay district exist in its entirety right now, and you're kind of filling in the details, or does the Powder Mill Overlay
District exist, and it's only as large as subdist A, and then we're going to add like another Do you know what I'm saying? Like, does it already cover that whole area or we are we filling it in or are we creating it peacemeal?
Well, do you want me to ask a question or do you want to answer? >> You should keep it brief. >> The the answer is uh the answer is that legally the only powder mill district that exists is A currently.
If the committee and the town meeting approves this, then it will be A and then the additional districts. But does a district exist in terms of uh an a it's not an adopted plan, but a a a
plan that exists? They all exist, but could it be like the districts that are not that are upcoming, they still may be tweaked from what you see now? So, but yeah, that's a good point. A exists now
the others don't legally but to add the whole concept is there. So it's just being done peace meal. So we're think of it as taking the we have the concept and then we have what's legal and what's passed and we're slowly adding them in over
time. Um, can I try restating that as really more for my own understanding, but maybe they'll come out in the comments? So, we did kind of a larger powder mill overlay
district with the, you know, with the map showing the various sections. We added the additional uses allowed for district A and now we're adding uses for D, E, and F.
Correct. Optional uses. >> Yeah. >> I think that's important because it it takes away the idea that people are being this is what you have to do. >> Okay.
>> So I'm I'm also another uh specific question. And I'm looking at the dimensional requirements in POD D um and comparing it to the business district which I think is what most of what's going to be in POD D is currently business district. It looks like uh
decreasing the frontage requirements a little bit. Decreasing the amount of open space that's required but conversely it looks like there are requirements uh to allow accessibility or easements to the Asabet River. Is that is that correct?
>> Yeah. The idea is the the to create uh and capitalize on the public's ability to access the river with new development. Now, that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all back there. It
may be mean that there's simply a viewing area or maybe that there's a natural area that's left undisturbed or it may be that there's an active area that where maybe you could launch a kayak or something like that. But the idea is that it's addressed and it's um
spelled out in the um in the bylaw. The reason the uh when you talk about frontage requirements um one when I was talking about cohesiveness between the districts
uh one of the things that we have written a grant for this year we won't know until the next well hopefully this week whether we got it or not but we were hoping to get uh um a grant that would finance entire uh engineered plan
of non-motorized vehicular um transport and through um the entire district. And having the ability to work within the
existing frontage of anybody that participates in a district may allow us to uh uh utilize some of the opportunities are there for creating these sort of um paths or these connections. So, in a perfect world, if
we could wave a magic wand, I think the planning board would say that we want pedestrians and cyclists or anybody not in a motorized vehicle to be able to to transverse the entire district without
well, I don't say without danger, but but certainly in a comfortable manner. And so um having um when you have when you reduce like also front setbacks which is a question a lot of people ask the idea is that you don't want to see a parking lot
necessarily right in the front. On the other hand with D um with CD and E the you don't always want to see a parking lot between the river and the building. So you you've got to be creative with how you do it. We're thinking in terms
of like adjacent uh parking or under perhaps underground parking, whatever the case may be. But what we want to do is make sure that that's factored in. All right. Uh doing a time check here. I think this
uh for the the overlay districts here, it sounds like we're we've updated our I've sort of updated live the article 10 comments to be more accurate hopefully um by talking about adding in these new subdists
um and that it sounds like they're optional. So I put that word by creating optional subdists to allow for more specific guidance and for various parts of this overlay district. Um, but if that sounds grossly incorrect, please correct me.
>> Sounds fine to me. What do you think, Chris? >> Um, it it it's definitely the fincom's comments, but I my only comment from before was just to make sure that there wasn't any inaccurate information. I don't think there's anything inaccurate here, but I I don't want to get involved
in how they comment, Bill. Yep. Nope. That's totally fair. I just want to make sure we're not commenting inaccuracies. >> Thanks for that. Um for me, for article 9 for the overlay um for the DoD, um I we voted on this last time. We haven't
yet finalized our comments, but I think the email exchange we had was very helpful. So, thanks to that and thanks also to Zoe um for those responses, too. So, that was pretty clear to us. Um uh but I'll open the floor to the the rest of the members if there's any further
questions or comments there for the parking requirements or changes. All right. Uh so I'm not hearing any I can actually stop sharing too. Um and I think the main questions we'll have for you now is
on article um 11 with the um the battery. >> Oh yeah. I think we open questions or confusion on that. >> Um >> so I think the main from my understanding the main question that the
committee has is the the stoages. Uh we understand that the definition of the residential use for storage is 15 kilowatts or less. Uh, I think the main concern that some of our members had was, you know, what if someone has more than one of those battery units, like say they have more than one car.
Technically, that would be over the 15 because there would be two or more batteries on their property. Um, I think that's something we were hoping to maybe learn more about where the the cut offs for your article came in into play.
I can pull that up, too. That's >> Sure. Yeah. Well, to be clear, um I'm no expert on this, but in general, I have some stuff I can share here. If I um if you're okay with it, I will show you what I have ready
here for this. Um we felt the planning board and um staff agreed that um in the case of what we call I'm going to
call them best battery um energy storage systems um we wanted to come up with a bylaw that that was there's models out there, but we really felt that we needed
to work with um some assistance on developing the bylaw. Um, and we have an extensive bylaw in draft form, early draft form that's going to be uh we're planning on
presenting it at this uh spring annual town meeting. However, in the meantime, what a lot of people don't know and what happened was that um we were approached by a a best
uh developer um who wanted to go ahead and uh start the preliminary work about installing a facility. Now the wise and and and the hows the wise
and the where's the facility you know people have different opinions on them but in general there's certain things that require a level of consideration for example uh uh the potential of contaminants
uh fire um I met with the fire chief I met with uh the health department and so on to discuss this preliminary I wouldn't call it a proposal it was an approach about would you guys and thankfully the developer was not trying
to ram it down our throat they were saying is this something you would look at and um we researched it we realized we we need to do more on this because a lot of communities have done models that are
out there but in the meantime where this proposal was was right here. Can I if I can share um show you where it was. Um zoomer.
Okay. Okay. We have the town has a water supply protection district which are basically represented by all the green here. Um, right now we're in a pretty sticky situation with our water
supply. As most of you probably know, we felt in the meantime, we wanted to ensure that there was no best cited in any of our water supply protection districts, the green
districts here. And the proposal was in fact in the middle of that. And the last thing the board or staff wanted to have was that well we're not sure about this and we're
working on a bylaw but in the meantime go ahead and plop it in the middle of the water supply protection district. Didn't make any sense. So this is strictly a stop gap, but if if this is in fact where it stopped, it wouldn't be the worst thing,
I don't think, for the town. But it basically prohibits best developments in the water supply district over uh 15 um the 15 was kilowatts or whatever the
measurement was. Now what I didn't know about this and again I'm still learning and we're we're going to factor this one of the planning board is somewhat familiar with uh these units
and uh which is again as I said it's lucky to have a diverse planning board with this sort of stuff because he was able to kind of steer us correctly but in a nutshell um a
let's see if I have a picture here. I think I do. Um a a water supply definition. See if I have a picture here. I thought I did it but I might not have figure. Oh
yeah. For one kilowatt hour. Okay. It is a like the size of a semi-trail. the facility. Um I don't I can't speak to this any
more than that and um so the idea of 30 kilowatts being needed 30 kilowatt hours would be unlikely at least for the next couple of months if it turns out to be disaster you know we're going to try to update it but my understanding
um and we had a video which I I I thought I had a graphic but you may have gotten it in the I think it's on the email that Zoe Um, matter of fact, that's where it was. And, uh, we're talking a very large facility.
Um, let's see if there's a picture on here. Oh, yeah. Here we go. All right. Here we go. Um, >> would you like me to share it? I also have it available. >> Oh, yeah. I've got it. I got Let's see.
Now I can show Chris my promise. Okay. So commercial industrial examples we have suggest that one uh megawatt hour about the size of shipping container. This is a 15 megawatt capacity down here.
And I'm thinking like well gee whiz that's significant. Is that going to be at a house? So, um, >> so, sorry, Bill, can you just clarify? I believe you're talking about megawws
here, megawatt hours. >> Yes. >> And the bylaw refers to kilowatt hours. >> That's correct. That's correct. >> So, it would be much smaller than those. >> Uh, it would um I'm going again, this
was uh I'm not as familiar with uh these projects. can really speak with confidence to the the committee. However, I I have to go on um our planning board recommendation on this
one where our our members um at least one of them has these units and is familiar with it and suggested the 15 megawatt >> bill and the the planning board decided
on the 15 kilowatt hour. Um but also please note that this definition uh requires a battery storage that's in that is required that is intended to supply electrical energy back to the power grid. So this is this is not for a
residential personal use. This is not a car, an electric car in a driveway. Um it's nothing like that. None of that applies. This just applies to energy systems that are intended to to supply electrical energy back to the grid.
And we said that residential uses storing 15 kilowatt hours or less. This also doesn't apply to just to make that abundantly clear. So if someone has a battery storage in their house of 10 kilowatt hours, a 10
kilowatt hour system in their house from any company. Um that that does not apply to this. This bylaw does not apply to them. So I actually so in the thing on wire I actually have a decent amount of experience in this area. Um and if the
intent of this is to focus on res on commercial 15 kilowatt hours no commercial company or private business isn't going to come in and put anything in less than let's say 500 kilowatt hours and even then that would be stretching it. 15 is very much a
directed at single family or maybe multif family storage systems from my personal professional experience here. Um I >> we're not we're not directing this at any
>> Oh I'm just meirect >> it applies more towards residential than it would towards commercial simply based on the scale of storage. Generally speaking, 15 kilowatt hours will get you like in a normal like I think probably the average main at home
about 12 hours of fridge and Wi-Fi, not even your whole home. Nowadays, people are putting in 30 kilowatt hours for home installations if they want to have a whole home backup system. This type of stuff would would impact private development pretty quickly. and people
who wanted to have potentially more resilient installations or home home care if they wanted it that way. I see a lot of issues with this on that level. If it's geared towards what the example of that group coming in asking to put it in the water district, the big
commercial enterprise, then it should be focused on them with the megawatt hour clarification, not banning 15 or or higher from my perspective. What would you recommend, Nathan? Nathaniel,
>> I mean, I would say the uh Sorry, I'm a little sick. Um, I would say honestly the one is a pretty solid deterrence to having any sort of commercial enterprise want to be in there. you do open up a little lower and no home really should have more over like 500, but I would
personally say a couple hundred and then at that point you do it by um committee review or special permit but banning it outright feels very aggressive to me. So, in your opinion, if if the board
considered um rather than 15 uh going to 200, >> sorry, Bill, we're we can't consider anything at this time. This is the warrant article. >> No, but the you're right, Chris, and I don't mean to imply that, but I do mean
that the board may want to, you know, if the board had second thoughts about it, we would want to factor us in. we could remove it from the forum if it's that if it's that inappropriate. I'm just uh and I don't know I mean I'm just it's conversation about this article.
>> So let me let me give the context of this. Um obviously everyone's familiar with Maynard's water supply challenges. uh we wanted to make sure that this was being protective of the water districts
and to ensure that fact uh this is a stop gap measure so that we can simply get to the the goal is to simply get to the next town meeting in May and have something that's a more robust um bylaw regarding the the the bees
systems themselves. So this is just to make sure that we are being very protective of the groundwater supply and mayard. Um now that's this is the warrant article as it is. The planning board has two options with your
feedback. One is to remove the warrant article based on your recommendation. Um or two it's to keep it and allow I mean just to allow the procedure to to be as it is. Go to town meeting and and receive a vote. Um, but those are the only options.
>> Is there a way to amend it potentially to say planning board special permit for example? >> No. No, there's no possibility to amend this. This is this is the warrant article that the planning board voted on that's getting sent to town meeting. So there's no opportunity to amend it
procedurally. >> Okay. Well, from my from one member's perspective, this would be warranted of being pulled back then from from how I see it. it it I understand the intent is stop gap but if you guys wait another 6 months there's a lot of questions that I
still have about I mean 15 kwatt hours is not a lot it really just isn't nowadays technology is advancing faster and faster the uh hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper I would wouldn't be surprised if we have multiple people homes that have more than two Tesla
packs in their garages I don't think that there's a process that you necessarily have to I don't know the process of getting approval in the town for that right now, but I just wouldn't be surprised. >> Well, I could check I could check up. I think the chair is right, but I'm not. But we could check on that. I guess the
question or the omission that I made in discussing this with the committee is that currently as it stands, they go anywhere. There is no restriction. whatever
any best can go anywhere at this point in Mayor and the reason is because we don't have designated districts for them. So I want to be perfectly clear that I again
uh I get it but that this is a a protected uh industry and use. So without having something designated it could just plop up anywhere and that was kind of the fear of the water
manager district. So I just want to make that clear. >> All right. Uh is there any further questions or discussions for article number 11? All right. Uh so it sounds like we'll be able to consider the article uh as it's
currently written. Um we can have a discussion whether or not the it seems like the amount of electricity defined in the article might have be a concern u for some members of the committee. Um but that is uh what the article currently is written. So
all right if there's no further questions or discussions uh that is the last planning board article. Okay. I'm not hearing any further questions or discussions from the fincom. Um, so I think we will we'll take the rest of tonight to talk about all the articles. We're going to vote on
as many as we can and try to finalize our comments since they are due to town hall tomorrow. Um, so I'll definitely keep you in the loop of um any comments or votes uh that we come out for these these four articles. Uh, we really appreciate you taking your time to come
and talk to us on these articles. Um, and hopefully in the future we can get them a little bit sooner than than two weeks when our comments are due. >> I understand. >> But, uh, we know that >> Yeah. And and I will do my This board has been the planning board has been
very good about trying to work with other boards. We do have other boards and and there are different concerns, but I will try. Um, it's great to have Katie. Actually, Katie, are you still here? But >> I am. Yeah. >> Oh, there. Okay. So, it's great to have Katie and and I can keep her in the loop
uh going forward and uh the board is very sincere in their desire to work with other boards and get input um and we're trying to work together and we will do our best and I will make sure that we uh try to uh t keep you involved
in a timely fashion. We I honestly thought you were with us. So, this is on me and um >> I'm finally getting all the emails now as of like this month. Um which is great. So, the the communication is flowing. >> All right. Well, it goes it goes if you
get like if you get to the level of Chris, Chris puts me on spam automatically. So, >> thanks guys. Thank you so much for the questions and the research. Thank you for all you're done.
>> All right. Okay. We didn't get we didn't hang up on the meeting, so that's great. Um All right. Okay. So, I think we got um the questions answered that we could get answered for those articles. I can um
I can pull up uh our current votes and comments right now. So, I don't know since we have the planning board articles fresh in our brain if we'd like to focus on those first. Uh or I can just go through the um comments starting on article three because we've already we've completed
articles one and two. So, >> maybe planning board first. >> All right. So let's see. So as we talked about we have articles 8 9 10 and 11.
So we haven't yet voted on 8 and 10 which was the the amendments the overlay districts the powdermill areas. Um, I sort of updated article 10 as we were discussing uh the comments,
but it seems like these are districts that will add this optional additional zoning um to these layers. >> Um, should we just start with article 8? That seems >> pretty easy. >> Would we like to make a motion for
article 8? I'd move to recommend article 8 >> and I will second article 8. >> And Katie, are you taking notes for us? >> I am. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. So, we have a motion. We have
a second for article number eight to recommend. Um I will take a roll call vote to recommend. Uh Nathan, >> yes. >> Uh Nail, >> yes. Katie,
>> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> All right. And I am also a yes. Um so we
recommends um and then the comment that we have right now is just talking about how this is um including an overlay district in the section of the bylaws which wasn't done
when the overlay district was originally adopted. You like that one? You have any feedback there? >> Yeah, I think it sounds good. All right, I don't hear any additional feedback. So, uh, moving on to article nine. We
did vote on this last time, so we don't have to vote. We voted to recommend um the thing we did not finalize was the comment. >> I think it's stupendous. >> I I agree with you as well.
Um so if we don't have any further uh feedback there, we will adopt that. Um so article 10 was the amendments. So this was the one that was a little bit meteor that had you
know uh talking about the different housing requirements there. the the zoning dimensions, the permitted uses, updating those tables of these overlay districts. Um oops, wrong document. Um
>> um so I'd make a motion to recommend article 10. >> Second. >> All right, we got a second by Nathaniel. I think that was >> Yes. Uh, all right. So, we have to recommend.
Do we have any further discussion, comments on article 10? I'll take a roll call vote to recommend. Uh, Nathan, >> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Katie,
>> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> Right. I am also a yes. Um so this is recommend and I updated this so the comment is
accurate um according to the planning board but they will not approve or deny our comments because they are ours. So but right now what it says is accurate. Would we like to update the language any further? Should it say two after F? Add subjects as D, E, and F to the powder
mill overlay district. >> Yeah. >> Or within or something. I don't know. I always appreciate when people double check my English. So, I think two
is probably good. And by creating optional subdists in the overlay district allows more to >> I was going to say you could probably get rid of in the overlay district just by creating optional subd districts
disallows mayor to something like that Okay. >> All right. I like it. Concise. >> Um, sorry. Shouldn't this allows be a separate sentence? >> Yeah. Period. After May 2024,
>> I like run on sentences. So, thank you for the good idea. You can do comma which >> was that what four pages down to two sentences. >> Yeah. Okay. Sounds like we're satisfied with
this comment. Um all right. Now we have article 11 which um seems like we have some concerns over the kilowatt hours that they chose for this article but we don't have
necessarily a my understanding is that there's not necessarily a disagreement that considering if these things are in this area or not. Uh it's more about the size >> and are they I should have asked this while they were on here though. Are they
making it a smaller kilowatt? Is it to not incentivize these things, the buses to um be in these specific areas? So, is it low for a for a reason?
>> If that makes sense. >> Specify. I mean, they said they wanted it low to avoid having these systems in the water district area, but they specified that they were aiming at industrial or private development
option, >> not residential. And that was my big that is my big issue with that is 15 kilowatt hours is residential, not the other way around. So >> they're saying one thing but on paper which would then go into law based on a
pinky promise that they'll fix it later. >> It would be the other way around. >> Yeah. >> So it's almost like they don't want res or industrial in those areas. >> Well, they shouldn't. And I mean it's it's the here is really really good. It's fine. That's what I was saying. Like the number is what matters. The
intent is perfectly reasonable. It's just >> the way that they're enacting it really seems to be >> I think they I I still think that they got the scale wrong and they just mistyped it personally. Um either 1.5 megawatt hours is what they meant to do
or so. I I don't know. But um yeah, I also still don't it it wasn't clear to me that how they would know if we the town has more than people that have 115 and is it grandfathered? what happens if they find someone with it in
that district? Like I didn't really get clear answers from the email threads. >> Um, generally all zoning stuff would be grandfathered. So they they, you know, can't come in and say you can't, you know, have a
single family house or whatever it is. So if the existing >> it's a piece of equipment. It's a lot harder to >> like I get how homes are garages and things like that, but this is a piece of equipment in garage like you really can actually remove in a day.
It's not easy. It's electrical work, but >> it just it hits more of a gray zone for me on on the specific grandfathering issues. Um, >> I mean, is anybody saying they don't want to vote on this tonight?
>> I'd love to vote on this tonight. happy to move to do it the other way though. Um but people would rather have more information or push it down the line. I'd also be fine with that choice. >> Well, if we if we don't approve it or recommend it, would then would that give
the opportunity let's say it doesn't pass? Could like these these systems they could get developed in these spots then? Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yes. I mean, is there anything really preventing somebody from making a motion
from the floor at town meeting to like change it from 15 kilowatt hours to 150 kilwatt hours? >> I know the planning board. Can anybody do that? >> I I don't know if this is what the chair
was saying or that just that the planning board doesn't have the ability to change it at this point. Um there are some specific things with zoning bylaws that they have to go through a public hearing at the planning board and that
yeah so I think there may be some legal thing that you can't amend this on the floor. I don't know. But >> um >> Chris had mentioned that he would that the two choices were they withdraw it or
we put it to vote, but they didn't really say which way they were going to go. I I guess it would have been nice to know. >> I mean, I don't know if you can speak for the whole committee, so that's probably why. >> Yeah. >> I mean,
>> right. Um, I actually want to speak in support of this then before we get too far down this road. Um, I get people's concerns with it, but to me, you know, maybe the 15 kilowatt hour is
too low. Um, the idea of somebody putting in the battery thing in one of the water areas, I think, is a bigger concern. Um, you know, he's they were talking about or Bill was talking about whatever developer wasn't trying to cram it down
our throat, but there, you know, clearly could be a developer who is trying to cram it down our throat. Um, and we don't have a mechanism to prevent it at this point. Um, so
you know, I I I would be well, I'm I'm waiting to see what other people want to do, but I'd be wanting to support this and recommend it as is knowing it may have some issues. Um, but that the
protection of the water stuff is that important. >> Yeah, I kind of feel the same, Peter. And it sounds like they might make adjustments to it anyway at the next town meeting prevent in the meantime for these being
built by the water supply. So I yeah I feel the same. >> Um I thought I would ask for just kind of a brief clarification on the grandfathering discussion that we were sort of touching upon briefly. So, if I have like a 16 kilowatt uh BES in my
garage like right now and this article gets passed, do I have to get rid of it or do I not have to get rid of it? >> I don't think any of us can answer that definitively or, you know, I'm certainly no lawyer. Um, I would say
you know the Maynard Motors in front of Green Meadow School, that car dealership that is zoned as single family that, you know, Steve can continue to
run that for as long as he wants because it existed before the zoning and that. So the you know typically zoning allows grandfathering of prior uses. Now you know I I don't know the details of this
in specifically and um you know am not qualified to really answer it but I do know that generally zoning stuff is grandfathered. >> Thank you Peter. Yeah, I mean on the one hand I can't imagine um the town or anybody really
wanting to go after somebody who has multip Well, if you are hiring an electrician to like install a uh you know one of these um home battery units, does that have to go before like does the contractor have to like present that to the town in some way to get approve?
approved or does the town >> approve? >> Yeah, it's the permits. >> They do need to get permits for it. >> It should. >> Well, then I mean it then the bylaw should be the right thing. But currently this these properties are
not zoned for residential, right? >> Currently there's no zoning for buses. >> It would just be >> they can put them wherever they want. >> Go anywhere. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And all this does is stop it in the green, which is I'd say about maybe a third of the developable town area.
>> Just judging. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I don't know if this is going to be helpful for anyone. Um, general laws uh 48 section 6 says except as provided a zoning ordinance or bylaw uh shall not
apply to structures or uses uh lawfully in existence or lawfully begun um issued before the first publication of notice of a public hearing on such ordinance or bylaw. So that would seem to suggest that um if you have it in your garage now, you you can keep it basically
um um all right. I will make a motion to recommend article 11. >> All right. Mute it. No. Do we have >> anybody want to second it? >> I'm going to second it, Peter.
>> Thank you. >> I don't know if anyone else will agree, but I'm going to second it. >> All right. Uh, so I'm going to stop sharing so I can see. So, we have a vote. Uh and uh we have a first and a second to recommend. Do we have any further discussion?
>> I would just note I'm happy to withdraw my motion if somebody's saying I really want more time and you know we can do a recommendation at town meeting. It doesn't have to get printed in the warrant. So if if that's I I don't know
that it's really going to change. >> I agree. But if people want more information, I'm perfectly happy to wait until >> a future meeting to do this. >> But >> I think at least for for me as one member, the only piece of future
information would be like I guess like an explicit confirmation of where you can already keep it if you've got it. But I can't necessarily think of maybe any other pieces of information and we kind of already have a maybe an idea of the answer to that question. So, >> um, I wanted to just say one thing that
I know that everyone has general opinions on this so far and mine is pretty clear. Um, but, uh, I I am actually very prodevelopment as long as it's done right. And having a town with a bylaw, even short term, that
explicitly bans is just I just feel like it's bad practice. I I agree with everything said by you Peter like fully the the water supply is more important than 15 150 1.5 the numbers don't matter the
water supply is more important but I just in for me encouraging this type of behavior to just do a temporary ban until we can fix it properly versus they could have picked a number of different avenue special permit they could have done more research on the numbers
there's a lot of different choices there. Um, I just don't like the concept of an outright ban with the we will fix this in the future cuz ones if it doesn't, ones if they hit another procedural issue and then a year and a half later this ban exists. It could
easily stop people from building a single family home if they really want to have the energy resiliency portion. So, >> fair point. All right. So, I think we've had a robust discussion. Are there any
uh remaining comments? All right. So, currently the vote stands to recommend. So, I will take a roll call vote um to recommend uh article 11. Uh Nathan. >> No.
>> All right. Mail. >> No. >> All right, Katie. >> I'm torn. I don't know. Um, I think we'll be in the mind. I I'm just going to say I'm Yes. Yes.
>> All right. Um, Peter, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> no. >> All right. I am a yes. So, we're tied. So our recommend is uh
does not pass. So um yeah so I don't how Peter how does that we don't recommend he does not recommend we are at a time. >> Yep. Um someone could propose the alternative that we not recommend but I don't know that the vote would be
different. Um, I would say that you know this stands. So clearly the motion did not pass but I would say we should take it up when we had seven members present and we should take it up in a future meeting. >> That's a good idea. Yeah,
>> I would agree with that. >> Are we allowed to submit comments without a recommendation? you know, if it's something needs to be printed tomorrow, can we leave the Vincome recommend blank and have like a comment that's like the case for this would protect the town from like development
of a best which is currently allowed anywhere. The case against this could inhibit um you know uh uh single family homes, private residences from h from installing uh battery systems. >> I'm generally of the opinion we could do
anything we want. So, I would say yes, we can do that if you know if other members are comfortable with it. I don't know what Jill thinks. >> I would uh agree with that even if we weren't allowed to only because they're giving it to us this time. >> I feel like the rules might be bent at
that point a little bit as well >> in our favor for this time. Um, I can ask for guidance, I guess, from >> I Well, >> I don't know. >> We just >> I think we should just do it if we want
to do it. >> No, no. I think we should definitely submit comments. We can we can vote. We can do comments recommend and then comments not recommend. But our recommendation is like the vote didn't pass either way. Like but I don't know
how to say that in proper English words. >> I would not put in a recommendation. I would say um >> like the committens. I would just leave it as at town meeting
because I you know as long as people are comfortable saying we're going to revote it with seven members we're not going to be tied. >> Yeah. >> So um >> and people also have changed their opinions in the past which is valid um
based on new information. So, >> as long as you agree with me, but yeah. >> No, that's not what I'm saying. >> He does. >> That's not what I'm saying at all. >> You voted yes. >> So, um so if we want this to be included
in the um comments we should we should make uh in the printing, then we should do these tonight. >> Yeah. So, um, so I I was trying to write comments that
are neutral. So, um, a good question I I I probably should have thought of before we voted or went anywhere when they were there. Um, what is the process to actually get a best installed right now? Like, and not I'm not talking the small ones. If we wanted to do a 250 or 500, if the
developers said rammed it down our throat, it has to go through site plan review and all these other pieces. So, are there >> it doesn't I mean, not until we say that it has to. So, I I think the planning board would
say, and this is their issue, >> that it's allowed by right. I mean I can you know because we haven't said it's prohibited it's allowed. So >> so the permitting is simply there are no
cuz like I can install lighting or a 400 amp box in my house by right but there's still some regulations and bylaws that control that and and I guess just because there are none with best it's simply a yes or a no.
Yeah, I think there's electrical code stuff, but I don't, you know, >> like what environmental safety already exists, if any. >> Those are questions I should have thought about before. Um, not to muddy the waters there.
>> Yeah, it's kind of I you're right. I'm not sure we've prohibited nuclear reactors, but I assume I can't put one in my house. Um, yeah. I don't know. Well, I guess it would have to be in an
industrial area. So, I suppose you could construct the argument as inconsistent with single family zoning or residential zoning to, you know, put in all those trailers that Bill was showing us a
picture of. >> Yeah. Just so you it's 67 15 kilowatt hours would be for one >> megawatt. 67 of those things would not the big ones. 67 little home wall packs combined
equals one of those big boys. So that's the scaleup difference we're talking here. >> Yeah. Um, Jill, instead of saying comments recommend and not recommend,
I mean, I'd propose that we just say the vote the committee had a tie vote. um on a recommendation.
Um, you know, the committee supports restrictions to ensure our water, the safety of our water supply, but the committee was also concerned that 15
kilowatts was a very slow limit um, and will, you know, tech and could be quickly outpaced technologically. I somebody else feel free to jump in there, but >> I would argue already outpaces
>> legitimately like I mean 10 to 12 hours of fridge power is what you know we were talking about 5 10 years ago if you were doing this kind of thing. Nowadays you're talking about whole home backup. People want to have their TVs on and charge their phones and all that. Like it's just
I say technology already outpaces it. You can buy a 15 kW just the actual technology piece for 3 4 grand now. So I mean the install cost will pump that up to 10 15 depending on your site conditions but the actual hardware is
not expensive on a relative scale. I like the look of this comment. >> I think we should be spec we should be specific. Um, you know, Nathaniel, I liked your comment about um, you know, it could it
could mean that a single family house doesn't get built if uh, you know, somebody wanted to have a whole house energy storage system, what whatever you call it, >> or someone doesn't buy a home. someone doesn't buy a home. Um that that commercial
>> I would say that's high. Sorry. Um I I it was a great question that they asked me and I got put on the spot pretty heavily there. I don't actually know but I would say that you know for a temporary measure 100 is probably very reasonable. if they wanted to be
stringent 50. Um, especially if they're really like setting you onto the the short term, but I I honestly I'm not against this kind of concept for long term. I don't think that this kind of thing should be in our water district at all, aside from
residential, but then limit it to the zoning perhaps. I feel like there's other ways around that. But yeah, Nathan, that whole someone either doesn't buy or doesn't build or doesn't look at our town because of that limitation.
>> They'll see how great I felt today. Mhm. >> And also, I mean, the point of >> the point shouldn't be to prevent people from like making private investments into, you know, green energy systems. Like, I don't think we want to we want to put brakes on on that kind of usage,
right? >> Yeah. That's why I like the idea of a special permit or site plan review or some other methodology to limit versus a ban because you can do waivers, right? I believe in my when I did private development, you can apply for waiverss to towns, but that process is
significantly harder. permit is not spelled correctly. >> Looks right to me. >> Is that is that real life? >> Am I not in English? I'm in English. Um, not in German. I also think we should mention something in here about
>> how tenuous our water supply is right now because yes, it's bad to damage your water supply and contaminate it. It's worse to do that in Maynard currently like significantly worse because we we aren't we not even at the recommended backup level right now? Meaning that
>> like it's supposed to be like some over percent, you know, you have 100% demand at peak. So, you want like 125% available and we're not at that 125 right now. So, I think to definitely speak on Peter's point there,
like it is a really really big deal. Um, >> the opposite of excess um, >> shortage, >> gas. No, no, those are right. >> I also wouldn't know if I'd say it's critically important to town residents
because water is critically important to life. >> It's not very special to us. Um >> um yeah our our our water infrastructure is already strained and past capacity
something like that. So any any potential downtime or impacts I have a higher like is a higher risk factor for Maynard something like that. Someone can word
smith that concept. >> I don't know. I haven't used co-pilot. I only use the other one. uh protecting and expanding the town's limited water supply is uh the top is a top priority for the town and the
finance committee um agrees that there should be restrictions on best units. However, [Music] I don't really support. >> I always say get rid of generally unless someone feels otherwise.
Did you say you're not someone who feels that way? Sorry, I didn't hear that part. Um maybe even cut out the like the committee supports and just start protecting the town's limited water supply is a top priority and concern.
Um, and the last sentence I wouldn't I'll give you a second. You're very good at doing this quickly. Um, >> oh, sorry. >> No, no, it's good. You're doing well. Uh, a cut off. I wouldn't say a slightly cut off because it's Yeah. Um, a cut off
closer to Let's get rid of slightly. Uh and I say may may accommodate future residential green energy development um and oh while protecting our water supply
at the same time >> while protecting our water supply from commercial and industrial uses. >> Yes. Yes. I think you could cut off uh you could remove the um with a special permit uh because Nathaniel I I believe you're
saying that that that would be an alternate thing to do. We could have a higher cutoff or we could have a permitting process. >> Honestly, it could go either way. If you want to be more stringent, you make a special permit go through, which is a little bit more stringent for development. Like if if I'm a developer out there and I'm looking to do
something then you know put in let's say 15 single family homes and I want to have good energy storage systems if I have to do special permit for that versus a town that doesn't have a special permit process and just allows me to do it by right uh that's a more stringent difference however our water
supply is incredibly tenuous right now so >> um then I would say let's cut the or with a special permit because we're commenting on the article as written and not um and I think it's
it's less confusing if we just say how we would amend it rather than uh suggesting a whole separate process. >> Did we want to add a sentence about like the potential chilling effect on home building or investment that sort of thing?
>> I feel like that's speculation. I don't know that that is uh a little bit of conjecture. Yeah, I think it also is covered in the sentence above it maybe prohibited to green energy developments. I mean it's to development in general or
or interest in purchasing homes, but I think it kind of gets hit in there a little bit. We we should also say somewhere in here that like a home battery storage unit is about 10 or 13 kilowatt hours. Just just
give some frame of reference because that's I mean, that was one of the first things that you brought up, Nathaniel, and that like put everything in context for this conversation. And >> well, Peter brought it up last time, actually. I think Peter Peter brought it up. >> The Tesla power like the typical one you'd get on the wall. What was that?
>> That was about 13 kilowatt hours. Um, >> yeah, >> I did just I do a quick search on what a whole house battery would be, and you guys are whoever was saying it is right. It's more, you know, they're saying between 30 and 60 Yeah.
>> kilowatt hours >> for, you know, 3 days worth of power. >> That's why I was saying that I already think the technology has outpaced 15 as a number and 50 would be a little bit tight, but it works. And I mean, I know we're not talking about what they could
have done. Um, >> uh, how much did you say a home battery was? Sorry. A whole home battery is actually the key word there because it's supposed to cover entire energy usage. >> I mean, I did a quick Google search and
for, you know, 3 days, you know, obviously depends on the house, but someplace between 30 to 60 kilowatt hours, which everybody quickly said you should get a propane generator if that's what you want, not the battery. But
>> yeah, it's not the most right now. It's not the most economical unless you're focused on the green portion there. That is very true. A lot of people don't have this. The whole home battery is where we're at now for like, you know, the current future.
Right now, we're at the, you know, 12 to 24 hours of keeping your whole home going. 3 days power. That's a pretty big one. I would also add um the word is between power and tilda 30. a whole home battery system. You
wouldn't buy a 30 to 60 kilowatt hour single one. You would have a number of the 13s or something. Whole up up left after battery system. Thank you. Sorry. Uh
what? >> I don't know. I'm going to double check. I just want to make sure that it's small K and big W. >> Yeah, it's um small K, big W, small H. Um, I think R is not as typical at the end
and it's not it's not how it's written in the article >> and M's are actually capital I believe unless that I'm just looking at the uh response from I can Google that all time. >> The M is capital.
>> Yeah. Yes, I was correct. M would be what? Millowatts. >> Uh >> as an engineer, I really should be able to answer that off the top of my head, but this is America, so I don't need to. >> Yeah, I'm I'm I'm measuring stuff in
grams and kilograms here because I'm I'm I was a vent scientist. So, I'm I'm like this is not the the units aren't uniting to my brain. Maybe a space between 60 and kilowatt hours as well if we're doing that for the others.
Sorry. Yes. >> Oh, and then I guess if we're doing >> the R. >> Yeah. And above the proposed 15 kilowatt hour up up down, right? There you go. I would switch with advances in
technology. The proposed 15 kilowatt hour or 15 kilowatt may be prohibited right where your cursor or where the blinker already is. What is that called? >> I'm sorry to >> sorry the thing blinking I don't know what it's called but where your cursor
was. I'm just saying that I would switch with advances in tech in technology. The proposed 15 kilowatt cut off may flip the two because right now it doesn't No, it doesn't read as smoothly. >> Nice. That wasn't
good hotkey. Uh, and I would I would cut out residential I would change residential green energy developments to just residential energy usage or just residential usage. I would have removed the comma after cut
off as well. Not super important, but Okay, >> I think we should because we're mentioning a home battery system is up to 60 kilowatt hours. We should say a cut off closer to 100 to 150 kilowatt hours. >> We could just say 100.
>> I wouldn't. Yeah, sure. >> Three days is a lot. That's a big one. And you know if every home up there all of a sudden decides they want to go super green in our water system and then something happens it it is of concern. So >> and then you know we've talked a lot
about the we put a lot of comment a lot of sentences in here about why we shouldn't do it or what the problem is. I think we should go back to that sentence. Protecting the town's limited water supply is a top priority concern. And um we we should say something like if this
does not pass, the town has no mechanism to prevent a largecale Bess from being built on top of you know our watershed or our groundwater whatever it's called. >> I would assume aside from local zoning like currently existing local zoning
restrictions. So they couldn't have a commercial company come in and install a BES on a single family residential plot, I would hope, and then sell it and use it as a business. I don't I mean I guess this is
all system new. Maybe they can because it's just a hole in the entire system. I don't know, but This is the challenge. There's a new state law that there's no zoning or ordinance will
not permit this. But the statute doesn't say the thresholds. >> And Michaela, are you looking up the Mass General law? >> I had looked up the um the Dover Amendment uh a little bit earlier. I have 486 pulled up right now, but I'm
I'm in the same chapter. So, we can see um see And they also did say Zoe got back. This is the green comments are from Zoe. She wasn't on here tonight, but um she's also on the planning board and she didn't have an answer for the multiple
systems in a single residence that are less than 15. Like if they add up more to be more than 15. So, I mean, from Bill and um and um Chris tonight, it seemed like
maybe Zoe is one of the people who's maybe more in tune with this um particular specific. Maybe their intent was just to have it so that you couldn't have any one piece of equipment over 15, but that wasn't
clear from how I read it. >> That's what I think, but that's not how it was written, >> right? It's not how it's written. It is very interesting though just because the do amendment this particular section of the state law is sort of normally and ordinarily meant for like religious or like educational use and
they've sort of stuck this um solar provision in there. It's kind of unusual. >> Yeah. So, but and Zoe said that a lot of municipalities are drafting their using one 510 or more than 10 megawatt size,
not kilowatt size. That's why >> one to five by right >> pretty big deal as well. That's a really big system, >> right? Like site plan would be required. Um, and then larger ones need a special
permit like is how some other municipalities are doing it, but that's not how this article's written. >> I also I think that you know when you do something by right, just because it's by right doesn't mean it doesn't have to be reviewed. So a site plan review can still be a requirement even if it's by
right. Like if you wanted to build a home, you still have to submit a site plan for the home because you have to prove that you're doing it in accordance with everything that you're allowed to do by right. Those packages can get detailed in these these small towns fortunately. But
I think just a second or third paragraph there that just states what we talked about that if it doesn't pass there is to our knowledge no other mechanism of control for these systems we placed on in these
districts. I mean, it does read that you could put it on a single family plot. I would definitely feel like that's a probably an easy lawsuit to win, but way above me. One thing just to make maybe explicit as
well is that um BES uh do indeed qualify as um structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy under this state law. So um they they are absolutely covered by that statutory definition. Um
>> I would say large scale. That's why I was saying this might be better afterwards because we kind of explain the scale differences and everything down below. And this is this is more eater and Jill your side your votes. So if there's more
that be added to it, second paragraph or third paragraph would probably be the place to put it. But I think that's the main crux of it. Yeah. And I don't know if it's appropriate for us to put in our comments that it is envisioned to come
back to the town meeting in the annual town meeting with an article further outlining best in the town as a bylaw because we're not we're not writing the bylaws. So I kind of feel like that's not our prerogative to
include in the comments, but that's one member's opinion. I mean I have heard it said that we can sort of do whatever we want in our comments. Um so >> we can Is there any further feedback from the committee on these comments or are these
are we comfortable with these being the printed comments? We can also have like amended comments as a handout if we want. But >> uh one just change of phrase instead of um may be prohibitive to residential
usage. I would say may prohibit may inhibit may restrict something like that just but be prohibitive to um sounds strange to my ear. >> Okay. Um what were some of the other phrases? >> Restrictive of >> um
>> restrict. >> Yeah. Restrict. Uh just change it instead of be prohibitive. Say prohibit or um or restrict. I would say use instead of usage. You
Okay. >> I guess I would also >> with advances in technology, I would just put the word however in front of it just to signify that this is the counterargument. However, come lot of commas.
>> And I think that looks greatly. Okay. Okie dokie. Are we satisfied? The recommendation will be at town meeting, but we did want to get our comments out there. Okay, we're going to delete all the stuff down
here, which is just their um responses. Okay. All right. Article 11 done. 10 done. All right. So, we've done all the planning board articles. Um I motioned that we go up to All right. So, we already voted on one and two and already did those comments. So,
those are done. Did that the last meeting. Uh three and four we voted on to recommend. Um, and Nathan supplied the draft comments here. So, article three was the liquor license. Um,
I don't know if I would use the word upgrade. Did they use the word upgrade in the article? >> They used that in some of the in something I was reading. Uh, >> a minute over there >> maybe. And reading this back now, it
seems my wording is confusing. To apply the town to upgrade an existing license to serve wine and beer. It's unclear that I meant the original license. I would say change to would allow bars and restaurants with a wine and beer license to
upgrade to an all alcohol license. >> Yeah, I'll copy. I'll just uh wine and malt beverages. >> Uh since I guess you had asked you, I guess the specific language from the the article is um trade in. Um, I use that
language serve all types of alcohol. That doesn't read clearly to me that they then get a new license. It just reads that they give up their old one and now they can serve all types of alcohol.
That might be an issue with the actual warrant, but >> you could say um would allow bars and restaurants with an existing wine and malt beverages license to trade that license in for one which allows them to serve all types of alcohol and make sort of adjustments as needed there. better
or worse, I think in the second part of that, but trade in that license. Maybe trade in that license for an all alcohol license or all alcohol beverage license. Maybe
So to trade that license for an all alcohol license. [Music] I don't know if we need to. The sponsor comments defined what non-transferable means. So, I don't know if we need to say that again in our
comments. I mean, they kind of do, but it's also just kind of I I feel like we could probably explain it better than the sponsor comments do, to be perfectly frank. Um, the conf the wording there is a little confusing in in the sponsor comments.
Do you have any further suggestions for this comment? All right. Uh I am not hearing any. So I will take that that we are satisfied with this comment. Article
four is about the resending the debt. Looks great. >> Uh, comma between debts and thereby. Sorry, I know it's small edit but thanks Okay. All right. Um,
let me just before we talk about five and six, let me look at um I recommend we talk about article 7 because five and six are complicated. Um, and we did vote on article 7 last time. So, we would just be looking at the
comment here. >> Um, we can probably delete the first sentence since our recommendation to recommend will like already be in the like right above that in the actual pamphlet. So, >> that looks good to me. All right.
No further feedback on seven. Okay. Um All right. So, five and six are a little bit meteor of a discussion and I I'm honestly not sure um what to recommend here. So I can tell
you at the select board meeting um there and I shared a link to the WAVM YouTube channel there um Natasha was attending who was representing the school committee and talked to the select board. Um, and the challenge is that
school buildings that are in process of being built, like the new Green Meadow School, is currently under the purview of the select board until it's fully built and then it's handed off to the school committee and then it's their responsibility to like maintain the building is my understanding of how this
works. Um, so like current school properties like the Fowler School is under the control of the school committee, not the select board. Um so the nuance with this article is that as the school is the new school is being
built it is the purview of the select board and if they want to have it be a green school and have solar panels they need to start those talks and negotiation process soon. Um, so the compromise that came out of the select board meeting from I think it was the
18th was that they would strike all mention of Fowler School and its associated property like the roof, the parking lot, etc. Um, so they've updated the article to strike out Fowler School. It still does mention Green Meadow School. Um,
but it is my understanding from watching that select board meeting that the select board as the new school is being built does not need quote unquote permission from the school committee to start these talks and negotiations
because it's sort of their responsibility right now until they hand it over. But it's still not entirely clear to me that when the school is actually built, the solar panels are there. There are the solar tax credits. It's not clear to me if that goes to the town, if it goes to the school. Um, that
is a big black box for me right now. Um, so there was a lot of discussion back and forth on that topic in that meeting. Um, but my understanding from that select board meeting is if these articles don't
pass, the new Green Meadow School will not be green and they won't put solar panels on it at all. So, um, and that's sort of the email that I sent around that I can also pull up from the
we have like a solar panel consultant um to the town. Um, so and Brian Hos who is associated with the schools reached out. So, um, Brian
was asking if the school committee doesn't approve or support of these two articles, what happens? Um, and, um, how is that sort of different from things that are done in the past? So, um, we also talked about that article that
Natasha brought up where the school committee was not on board for making those solar panels. I think it was in a field somewhere. Um, so but if the school committee doesn't support it and town meeting doesn't authorize these two articles, most
likely the Green Meadow School will not have solar. Uh, that'll change the federal investment tax credit provisions that were put in place when we started the MBTA is not the right acronym. We did the building with the school committee
and people in the state. You know how we got the state to pay for half of the school or part of the school? It's an acronym and it's escaping my brain. >> MSBA. >> MSBA. Yeah, >> there we go. Thank you. I knew it had
M's and some other letters in there. So, um, my understanding from this these correspondences from the various consultants from the town is if these articles don't pass, it's most likely Green Meadow won't have the green uh won't have solar panels and you won't
get the tax credit provisions and otherwise um during the process of the building. So, the project will be less economic for the school. Um, >> was there any discussion from
uh Greg or whoever would be in charge of actually negotiating the contract on if they would only accept contracts that provided the um economic benefits back to the school itself? Because this from how I read it
and from that email there, it really does sound like this is more of a allowing the board to be able to negotiate, but it doesn't state one way or another what they would negotiate into, which might be that black box that you were talking
about, >> right? So that's it's not clear to me. So the purpose of these articles is to allow the select board to to do these negotiations. The challenge is that the school committee would like to have input because it is on school grounds or
buildings that would be school grounds in the future. Um, and that was some of the emails, the Natasha emails that we linked from last time. Um the main challenge is the school committee since the select board
meet met on the 18th and since we have last met these last two times they don't have an school committee meeting I think until like the 25th or something um or like later in this week. So they haven't actually even met as a committee to talk
about these two articles yet. So um the main challenge is that we don't really have feedback from the committee. We have feedback from one member of the committee, Natasha, um, who's giving feedback based on like historical context of
I think they were solar panels several years ago that they wanted to put in the field at Fowler maybe. So the proposal that the select board went with is they updated the article to remove all language of Fowler. Um,
and I asked Greg for clarification. Does that mean we can't do So, I'll bring up the the current article. Uh, so this was after the select board meeting. They voted to accept it into the special
the FTM. Um, but they struck all mention of Fowler from the the article itself. So now it just mentions Green Meadow. and we they talked about the Green Meadow school roof, the parking lot, all of that is currently in discussion at
the Green Meadow building committee, which does have members from our group, uh the select board, also the school committee. Um all all those people are on that um group. So those there are site plans and from my understanding um that are being discussed at that
building committee group regularly. So there's some idea of what that might look like. Um, but it also mentions all of the other town buildings, so like fire station, public works, uh, etc., town hall. Um,
so it gives them the select board the ability to talk and negotiate these. Five is the leasing and then six is the the taxation. Um and so basically they're the select
board voted to accept these in with removing Fowler which is under the perview of the school board uh school committee. Uh the only thing I would say on this is that for I I would be happy to vote to
put this forward today, but um that fear of losing those uh credits and then having the project no longer be economical is incredibly real and probably understated. Uh on uh where I work right now, we had an
initiative to upgrade our well, we had a a pilot program of like a 1.8 8 megawatt best that with I think it was I forget the kilowatts of solar powering into it as a test run up to like I think it was 15 megawatts of best and an
enormous amount of kilowatts and the whole thing is dead in the water right now despite having funding effectively secured because of the credits being uh removed. So that kind of fear is incredibly real. Yeah, that's I mean that's my number one concern with this at all that Green
Meadow can move forward without um anything that would endanger the uh the credits that we're getting for the construction. Okay. My I guess my on the other hand I I still think that the language a portion
of the new roof um it's it's not very well defined and I don't I don't think I fully understand um you know what's like school use versus municipal use and um what the what the
legality behind that is. Um, so in in some ways I I'm I'm not sure I have all the information I I need to make an informed vote on this >> and everything about town departments that that seems that seems fine and above board to me.
C can anyone articulate like a um you know a reason to vote against this? >> So if we look at the draft comments from Linda, she drafted both ways. Very considerate.
Thank you, Linda. Um, and mostly her concern um that was voiced in this would be um involving the school department um on individual project bases um for these
agreements. and sort of talking about the ambigu amb the uncertainty can't say that other word today um about the financial implications and long-term obligations of these leasing agreements since it's sort of a blanket
[Music] a blanket article so every single time they would like to do something like this they wouldn't have to come to town meeting and say this is what we want to do um it would give the town and the consultants that they use um the freedom
and trust that they would be um doing this in the best interests of the town's people. So that's sort of what Linda had as a draft and then the draft provote would be um
you know basically saying it's anticipated that impacted departments would be involved in the process. Um so we sort of call out a concern in a positive way. Um and talking about clean energy and how
it aligns with our climate goals and etc. Is anybody leaning towards voting against this? I'm not hearing a lot of yeses, so I'm assuming that it seems like there might be a general consensus, but I won't speak for everyone.
I think the the feeling that I get is that we do like green energy. We want to promote it. Just the main concern to make sure we're doing that in a thoughtful and mindful way. Um, and that comes back to this would put it
in the hands of the select board. So, so the select board would have the option um to be able to do these types of negotiations and they wouldn't have to come to town meeting every single time they would like to do a project. So, >> for those hidden costs,
>> it wouldn't be completely >> Sorry. I'm sorry. >> Uh, I was just saying for those hidden costs and concerns, I don't I don't really see a good scenario where that would even kick in because as I mean maybe the select board would
would go in on a bad deal for example but the other end of the equation let's just say Eversource wouldn't want to sign on to an agreement without talking to whomever owned the roof or the you know whoever
was actually involved. So in this the biggest concern here is clearly the school. So without having the tenant buy in whether or not the tenant is the one signing at the end of the day, I just feel like generally speaking this is a
tool for the select board to use and I I I really like the probo write up for this. So I mean without a lot of objections I would motion that we approve this as written.
or vote to recommend. Sorry, my brain fog is kicking in hard. >> Uh, sorry, was that a motion? >> Yes. Yes, it was. >> All right, I'll second it. >> All right, so we have a motion to
recommend um article too many windows. Article five, which is for the lease license of the um installation of the solar panel. Do we have any further comments or
discussion on article five? All right. So, I will take a roll call vote to recommend. Uh Nathan, >> yes. >> Uh Male, >> yes. >> Katie,
>> yes. Peter, >> yes. Uh, >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> All right. I am also a yes. So, article five is a recommend. >> I think her comment sounded really
great, too. >> Oh, one thing I saw in the comment uh was that Green Meadow School Meadow was misspelled. Um, it was missing a All right, let me pull that back up. All right, so article five, um, we
recommend authorizing the town to lease So in that second second line. >> Yeah. M E D O M A do um I don't it would be the select board. I
don't know if it would be the town. or Right. Right. I want to almost say like it's an option but not a requirement. You could say allow instead of authorize allowing it even say like allows us allows the
select board the option to base etc. Um, and Jill, this is going to be about where I'm going to drop off. Um, so Katie, I guess for >> all right, >> your notes. >> Thanks for sticking around. Hope you feel better. >> I did what I could. Thank you all. Sorry for bowing out early.
>> Have a good night. Good one. >> All right. Um, So, I think the only thing that was missing for me from the comment was sort of saying that like when you approve this article, it's a blanket approval for all of these municipal buildings and we won't have to keep coming back to
town meeting to approve each individual project. Like I think saying that somewhere in this paragraph is important as one person. So, like I don't know if that would be the first sentence. Like I could add it on to the end of the sentence by saying like
without the need for future town approvals, town meeting approvals each time. >> I I would um I would propose because uh I think that uh Linda's last sentence was very strong. Um, take that bit that
you just added in, uh, the without having to come to town meeting for approval of each individual project, uh, put it just before by approving this article, make like a new second to last sentence. So, like right after um requiring significant upfront investment period,
start a new sentence that says um this article proactively addresses future um projects and then paste in whatever whatever you just cut without having to come back to town meeting for each
individual uh proposal. I'd like to keep [Music] to approve each individual pro uh proposal. Uh would we say >> will be or >> will be this future? Okay. Sorry, Nail.
>> Oh, no worries. No, I was just going to um say would like would we say uh without having to I'm sorry. This article proactively addresses future projects without the select board having to come back to town meeting since they're the ones who would be like proposing.
>> I'm not sure if they're on the school owned buildings if the school committee would have to come back, but this is a select board article, so I guess calling the select board specifically would be good. Okay, we like that. Um
So the challenge is that five is for the solar panels and six is for the tax agreement. Sorry, I just I just thought of like one last thing for for that second to last sentence without having to come back to town meaning to approve each individual proposal. That something about that
sounds kind of funny to me to authorize each individual approval or for permission to because approval is good but like it it's like an feel like we should con convey that that's like an extra step that
>> so like I could say it in a different way. I could say like currently each solar project would need to be approved at a town meeting. Um and this proposed approval of this article would streamline the process by giving a blanket approval across municipal buildings.
>> I like the word streamline. I think the streamline should be there in there somewhere. >> Um solar project. Um, >> yeah, that's that's good. And then you can just take out that next sentence entirely. Cool.
All right. Sorry for that. >> No, no, that's good. I think it has strengthened it. So, thank you. >> All right. Um, so article six is the tax agreement.
So they're tied together. Um so any for six the selected developer um and installation of any batteries or otherwise would be required to pay property taxes for the personal property
of the installed machinery like the equipment. Um, so like the town would get a taxable income stream that would reduce tax. So it's like the companion article for article five.
And we still need a vote on it. Yeah, >> we still need to vote on it because they're two separate articles. >> Unless anybody has a any any reason not to vote for this, I would move to recommend this article six.
I can second that. >> All right. All right. We have male second it. Um, do we have any further discussion on article number six? >> No. All right. So, I will take a roll call vote to recommend article number six. Uh, Nathan,
>> yes. >> Male, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. Right. Uh I am also a yes.
Um, so I mean I would be tempted to copy pasta this and just change the um the first sentence.
So it is four. Tax agreement for Isn't I'm I'm just looking at this article and mentions a battery a best system. Isn't Green Meadow in the water protection zone?
>> Yep. But if you read article 11, it exempts all town buildings, which I thought was >> kind of sneaky, but it's in there. >> So, uh, all municipal buildings are exempt from article 11. I was like, okay, what is
not exempt? That's why I asked a lot of questions to Zoe about that on emails. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. Yeah, it also exempts Eversource and other um municipal uh suppliers. So
something to consider So, some of this stuff has to do with leasing, which is not what this article is about. So, I have to write some stuff on the fly. So, I would almost recommend to make it real short like this. How do we feel
about that? >> I like that. >> I know we're getting tired. >> Um, yeah, just for like the first sentence. some maybe like comma as it between article and allows. >> Yeah, looks good to me with with that correction.
um uh as it allows. Uh if you just have this then there should be a period after article period and then this would be capitalized >> like that or you want this capitalized? >> Uh not with a semicolon. It doesn't have to be capitalized. >> Okay.
Okie dokie. >> I guess I guess I would >> I guess I would say this would allow. Looks good. Okay. So, we already did seven. We did all the planning board. So, uh we did
all the planning board articles. The only one left is the citizens petition. Um which is almost 10. So, we can discuss this tonight um and vote on that
if we would like uh to wrap things up. The only other things um on the agenda tonight are discussion and planning for multi-board submit and budget subcommittee meetings which I would recommend we table since that that meeting has been pushed off until after
STM. Uh so the only other thing we would have is routine um which can also potentially be tabled as well. >> I like the sound of that. gonna be honest. Um, yes, that that sounds good to me.
>> All right. So, um, the tableabling and not voting on 12 or just tableabling everything else and finishing 12. >> Definitely happy to table, but I I'm not necessarily opposed to finishing 12. Like I could if we'd like I can also we can like vote on 12. I'd be happy to
draft the comment for 12 since I had drafted the comment for the like the the previous version of this article. I don't know, that's probably not the best phrase, but I think everyone knows what I mean. Um, so if we wanted to do that maybe, but I'm I'm not uh married to
either option certainly. >> So, for this article, um, I I'm I'm in favor of this. >> Would you like me to give you the overview? Oh, >> give you the the elevator pitch overview of this article and all the different comments and things I've gathered. Would
that be helpful? Yes, for me please. >> Yeah, please. >> Okay, sure. So, this is a citizens petition, so it will obviously be it got enough signatures, so it will be on the STM meeting. Um, basically, this is a
home rule um petition. So, this would seek to authorize the select board to seek permission from the state um for Mayor to take a future action to draft a bylaw. So basically, you have to do a home rule home rule petition before you
do a bylaw because banning these types of pesticides is technically against state law. Um so we would have to seek a um permission from the state to draft a bylaw first. So that's what this home rule petition is. So a home rule
petition is basically letting the state know like, hey, we want to write this bylaw even though it's kind of different than the state's law right now. Um, so that's the first step. The next step, if this does pass, would be um to write the actual bylaw. So that's why this is not
an article for a bylaw. Um, so it was a little different when it was on town property because that's sort of something the town can control. But if it's going to be for everyone's property, including the residents and the citizens, it would have to get state permission first with this home rule
before a bylaw. and the sponsor said that there are 19 other towns in um Massachusetts that are currently seeking this home rule petition. Um so like conquered um some of them have been passed, some of them have not passed um yet, but I guess there's 19 other towns
that are in process to do this. And um so a yes vote would basically not set the law like it wouldn't ban this or prohibit it currently because it's just a home rule petition. So they it's a long process where they'd have to get
approval from the state first and then once that's approved then a bylaw would have to be passed to like outline what this actually means. Um and I asked Greg about it. So basically once this if this does pass then the
select board would have to go to our our state delegates and it would take months to go through legislation and deliberation and approval if it gets approved at all. Um so sometimes the the state would make make like word changes. It would have to come back as a home
rule petition again to town meeting um for amendments. Um so that's sort of that's what this is. So if this passes, it would start that process, but it would not start the ban right away.
So that's sort of procedurally what this is about. Um I still like I had concerns when this the town one came up. I just there's not a lot of alternatives to these types of
rodent poisons. Uh so this would effectively been all anti-coagulants. That's um the SGAs that we talked about, the ones and the twos. So all of them would be banned. You couldn't use any type of SGS at all
is the future vision of the sponsor of this article, the citizens petition. So basically everyone would have to use these third generant um rodent things which would not kill the rodents outright but make them not able to
reproduce. Um or there would be some things I think it was like baking soda and peanut butter or some other like long like um short-term um pest control. A lot of it would just be preventing the rodents from getting into facilities
which I brought up is very expensive. Um, our family's company does building envelope needs and some of the doors that are rodent proof are like five grand. So, um, it can get quite pricey for this
exclusion of rodents from buildings. So, my main concern is that it could potentially be a burden to the town's people if if it's required for everyone's house that you can't use these types of poisons. So, as one member, that's my concern
is that I just don't feel like there's a strong alternative besides snap traps and other things that are a little more involved. So, um, as as one member, I'm I'm in
favor of this article. I don't know where I would be on an actual bylaw. Um, you know, I see some advantages towards a ban. I see disadvantages. Um, I don't know where I would land. I I I want to see that debate. And I think that there
are enough impediments in the way of getting an actual bylaw before the town meeting um by going through like the state legislature. uh I I don't see any need for me to also stand in the way of getting to that point. So I would be in favor of this
with the understanding that this is just you know like a check mark on the way towards an actual bylaw and it's not the bylaw itself. >> That's pretty much my feeling as well. Certainly you know we can we can give our give ourselves the the option to have the debate I think and then you
know move forward from there based on how people you know want to move forward. Um, the other thing I thought I would ask though, um, I I was looking at just like the highlighted paragraph um, from Greg at the bottom. So, do we want to wait until we get sort of the the
rubber stamp as it were from town council, you know, with like the language or do we do we want to roll with it sort of this evening? Um, I think we have to make a comment regardless. Um, or the charter would
like us to make a comment regardless. Um, because it is a citizens petition and they did get enough signatures. Um, but I also share the concern. I don't know if town council can say it's not in order. I think they said that for another
citizens petition that was asking for tax breaks for certain aged people before. >> Well, that that was because they were trying to do the bylaw directly and not go to home, not not petition for home rule. They're putting the cart before the horse,
>> right? >> Yeah. So, I um that's a good catch, too. I forgot to bring that up. I don't have clarification from town council um if they had any feedback on this home rule petition. So if we want to get that before we make any comments then we would just leave
this recommendations at town meeting comments at town Okay. Katie, Peter, do you do you um want to wait and see uh what the what town council has to say before we vote on this? I think that
>> kind of >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think it'd be helpful. >> Okay. Then I think we should leave this for uh leave this for next time. >> Okay.
>> Is um is the next time the 29th? I guess that's routine agenda. >> My apologies. >> That will bring us to our routine agenda. All right. Um Okay. So, we got most of them completed.
So, thanks for that. I'm going to save this. I'll clean it up. I'll circulate it. I will um send it off to Greg. So, thanks everyone for your hard work there. Much appreciated. Um,
I'm g close this for now. All right. Yeah. So, um, if we want, we can wait to approve the minutes of prior meetings until next time since we're at 10 o'clock. So, um, and we can also save um, updates. I will
just give you a heads up um that we will be changing from board docs to a new system called um, diligent community. Uh, and the planned start date for this new platform is December at the end of December. So, like January 1st is when
everything will migrate over. So, um, and we'll have access to board docs for 90 days after that. Um, and they're going to do all the data migration for us so we don't have to figure that out. So, basically, right now it's business as usual. We're going to keep using board doc, keep posting
things there. Uh, and we won't have to think about it until like late December. But I just did want to let you know that that change is coming in the future. >> Um, >> sorry Jill, just to clarify your when you say everything will migrate over all
our old postings and records and that's moving. >> That is my understanding from the correspondence with Greg. >> Okay. Thank you. because they there is some um there's some like rules about the
retention of these documents for the future. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um okay. So we'll table the minutes until next time. So the next topic is planning for our next meeting. Um
so if we look we um our public hearing will be on October 20th uh for the STM. So technically we would usually meet on the 2nd and 4th um Mondays. We can't meet on the 13th because that's um Indigenous People's
Day or Columbus Day. Um that is a holiday. So, we can either meet on October 6th or on the 29th if we want a meeting before our public hearing. >> Well, October 6th sounds good to me. We had we've had a few meetings, right? I
think we've gotten through most of the most of the articles, right? >> Yes. Yeah. So, we just have the um we just have the citizen edition. My headset battery is low. Um,
>> yeah, I agree. I think October 6 makes sense. >> Wait a minute. >> Sounds good. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Sorry, my headset decided I want to shut off for a second. Um, okay. So, uh, I
will post the next meeting for October 6th and our public hearing will be on the 20th. Um, I would propose that our topics are very similar to tonight's meeting where the main focus is the STM articles um and discussion there and planning for
um the public hearing. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. and routine agenda. So, um, all right. So, I will get that posted
for, uh, October 6th as our next meeting. And I'll also note that, uh, October 20th is our public hearing. So, I'll also get, uh, the information there. And then the town meeting will be on the 27th.
Uh, this STM is on the 27th, so I'll have to post um, a quorum notice for that, too. Okay, excellent. And then uh I would personally recommend that we don't meet the Monday after STM even though it's a
typical day we meet. Um, and instead we would meet I guess November 10th would be our next meeting unless there's a topic that's pressing but we can figure that out at our next
meeting. >> Yeah. >> Um, do we have any additional topics we need to touch on tonight? >> Uh, clarification. Did uh did you say that the budget subcommittee meeting
tomorrow was postponed or cancelled? It is still occurring. Uh, thanks for bringing that up. It was not posted as a joint finance committee meeting. So, if four of us show up, uh, that could be a potential problem. So, you could attend as a citizen, but
you couldn't comment, um, as a finance member. Does that make sense? >> Yes. Okay. I I was under the impression that we were um, going to be doing some sort of presentation at it. So I might I might
>> I think based on the Yeah, based on the agenda since I think Greg wasn't sent a deck like Ben made a PowerPoint deck. I think he assumed we're not presenting anything. So I don't see a finance committee presentation on that agenda right now, but they are um Greg is the and the select board are the I think
runners of that meeting. >> Cool. Okay. So I think it's not saying that you can't present something. Um but I think if four if four of you show up then that is a problem. >> Gotcha. >> So that's a quum.
>> So three or less of you can show up. >> I think uh Nquille and I were going to meet in um in a little bit to like hammer that out a little bit more. Uh so pushing that back to the quadboard meeting I think would be best for us.
>> Definitely agree. Okay. Yeah, that'll be helpful to have a little bit of buffer time there to make some revisions and stuff. >> Yeah, and that would be great. We can we can figure out having a meeting before then because I forget exactly what day they decided the I I sent the
availability to Greg for us for that meeting. So, we'll see when they schedule it for, but I think it's the second week of November or something. All right. Are there any other topics for tonight or would we like to adjourn?
>> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I second. >> All right. We got a motion to adjurnn. We got a second. So, we got a motion to adjurnn at 10:06 p.m. Uh, so I'll take a roll call vote to adjurnn. Nathan, >> yes. >> Male,
>> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> I am also a yes. We are ajourned. Thank