Community Resources Committee Sep 10, 2026

Oh, and Jennifer, perfect timing. Jennifer is here and your recording has started, so please go ahead. >> Hi, thank you. Uh, good afternoon everyone. It is September 10, 2026. This is a regular meeting of the community resources committee of the town council pursuant to chapter 2 of the acts of 2025, which extends through June 30, 2027, the ability of public bodies to meet in a remote or hybrid manner without a quorum of members in person. This meeting will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public is possible, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. I'm going to call the meeting to order. Um, can you hear us? Uh, Mandy Johanni >> present. Uh, Andy Churchill, >> yes. >> Jennifer Tab, >> yes. >> I'm looking for Alicia Walker. I do not see her in the attendees list yet. Uh, and Pam Rooney is here. So, we have a quorum. Um, we have no public hearings today. So, we will move into general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone in attendance to uh raise their hands. I see Lynn Griezmer in the audience and we will get to that discussion topic uh in a moment or two and I see no other attendees um eagerly trying to participate in the CRC meeting. So let's move to action items. Um topic 4A clean energy bylaw and this is consideration and there's we have Stephanie Chorella. Thank you for being with us, Stephanie. Um, we have uh commentary that was received at the um what was it? The uh August 31st meeting and um we will discuss that today for potential incorporation into the document itself. Uh to begin with, I just wanted to say I am um recommending that we just cart blanch accept all of the scrier notes that Mandy uh made in cleaning up the document. Thank you for all of those. They included, you know, semicolons and also just clarification of Massachusetts state law and those such items. So um if anyone's in disagreement with that, just yell. But otherwise, I'd like to just accept all of those. Um, let's see. Lynn, you um, if we could bring Lynn in, we'll allow her to speak. Did that work? >> I just promoted. She'll come in as a panelist. >> Great. >> Hi, Lynn. >> Hi. Thanks. >> Um, being being the sole counselor who had a substantive comments on this document, uh, makes sense to have you explain to us what you, um, your rationale, which was laid out very nicely in your memo. Um, if there's anything you want to add in addition to that, this would be a good time. Um, first of all, I just want to respect the fact that um I um I appreciate >> and you might want to speak up a little bit. >> I appreciate the opportunity to uh address CRC and thank you for all the work on this. Um the time the district 2 where I am a counselor along with Amber Cano Martin, we are both profoundly aware of the fact that um district 2 is where the largest concentration of wells exist in Ammerst. And so the kinds of comments that you've seen in some respects are in relationship to the concern for wells. It's the distance of solar and best from wells. it is whether or not um we've properly dealt with all the kinds of weather events that could impact a solar uh establishment. And then later on I address other things like insurance and so forth. I also just want to mention that since then you have received a version from Michelle Lebe who was on the um conservation commission and also she's no longer on the conservation commission but her work in general is around uh the whole issue of geology and soils and so forth. The biggest concern for the District 2 area that's on wells is not just the potential contamination of wellwater, but it's what happens when you deforest an area and a lot of the ground uh that you're deforesting is actually heavily shell and in the >> I >> and the process of uh being shell it often then leads to flooding. So the people that live up on a high point tend to have a lot of flooded basement. Now separate from that, their wells are also old and their septic systems are failing. That's a whole different issue that they have to deal with because at this point the town does not have the money to invest in bringing up public water and sewer to this area. So the general comments that I made and that uh Michelle subsequently sent to you which I did not see in the packet are really around the issues particularly as it relates to wells and deforestation. uh one of the final comments that we both were concerned about and then this came up at our district 2 meeting last night uh with Amber and that was the issue of really abandonment and the fact that you know while many of us won't be here 20 or 30 years from now when people walk away from solar they often walk away bankrupt and have we actually protected a a fund enough so that the town is not left with um areas of the town that used to be lovely forests and now it's basically broken up metal and uh um solar panels and best equipment and we haven't really we don't really have the funds to clean it up and restore it to the level that it was. I think the bylaw goes a fair distance to that, but wondered whether or not we could actually create a fund that the initial uh company has to um invest in and then it's there for the restoration. Thank you. >> Thanks. Um suggestions on approaching this. We have we have memo from Lynn which goes through basically item by item. I'm happy to follow that outline and talk about um the elements in order of it's actually in order of occurrence in the document and if if our wonderful scribe could pull up her screen. >> Yeah. >> Would do you want me to pull up the one Lind's version two? >> Yeah, why not? That's that's already marked up. And I just again for the public record um huge thanks to Mandy for this ongoing recording and editing that is really painstaking but key to our success. So it starts I think with 18.0319. But I I just want to confirm we'll go through and in blue just so people know in blue is Athena's changes which I believe are G's changes um from what we had initially um recommended. Um, in purple, here's one here are my scriber changes. Um, and having heard no objection at the end of this meeting so that we have a copy that can be marked to be put into in the council packet of changes from what was in last packet. So, the last packet had the blue changes in it. The purple are not in the last packet. So, I'm going to leave them here. I can accept the blue changes because the council's already seen those. Um, but I want to be able to submit to the council a a copy that is marked up from the last copy they saw at the first reading that has the changes that if we're recommending changes that that they can see easily that and then I can clean it up with a a accepted of potentially all of whatever we're recommending or not. Um, we can decide later on that. But so I'll go through and as we go through except the blue um yep >> purple I'll leave there but unless someone mentions it will get accepted later on. >> Yeah. Yeah. And those the purples the purples were the ones that >> Yeah. >> Um I would recommend that we just accept because they are the >> the scrier notes. >> Yeah. Um also, um just one final note on the titling. If we could title this as simply as possible, um it would be it would be um I I will retitle it. Um because this is it it will be recommended um well it'll it'll be something like clean energy bylaw G recommended um and CRC recommended after a first read or something. I'll I'll come up with something that's that's sort of more clarity as to what this version is um than this whole long thing. >> Great. Great. Okay. So, now we're coming down to Athena's uh suggestion, and this was maybe a go comment of did we need to describe tears in this section. My feeling is that the tears are fairly well described in the table. You don't get to it till you get to the table, but it is there. >> I agree. >> Okay, keep let's move along. Okay, now we are at Lynn's first comment which is >> red is Lynn. Yeah, red is Lynn. And this is this is a clarification or enhancement of what a significant storm event is. Uh adding the words andor an extreme weather event with a brief description of what extreme weather event is. Does anyone have an issue with um adding that as a qualifier for Mandy? I don't have an issue with the the new definition. Um it's very clunky for is is are we referring to both of these every time we refer to significant storm event? Do we have to add the whole thing or can we just call it significant weather event or something instead of or significant storm event? leave that the same um and add sort of um one inch of rainfall or and then figure out something. The drought one is kind of iffy I think. Uh and heat wave what what does a heat wave constitute? Is it a declared drought? um and what is those kind of go on for longer and I'm not sure those are needed but I would prefer that we clean up the definition um and leave it significant storm event um instead of extreme weather event and all and I'm not sure I want droughts and heat waves in there >> yeah I was just going to say that one of the you know pick one phrase I mean I don't have a problem with extreme weather event but it could be significant you know e one of one or the other I think extreme weather event covers it. But um and I hear what Mandy's saying about droughts and heat waves. Those are sort of it's I mean a heat wave is defined as three days of 90 degrees or above. Droughts go on and you know for for a long time. So um I would I would tend to extreme weather event would be something that would be more targeted. So, an inch of rainfall, wildfires, excessive wind, earthquakes, hurricanes, micro bursts. I don't know if earthquakes is a weather event, but certainly it should fit under the category. >> Climate event, Jennifer. >> Um, I think that drought should should be in there. Maybe not heat waves. I don't know if I don't know if there's an absolute definition of a heat wave, but a drought would be a significant, you know, that would be a very prolonged, it's not really a heat wave, but just prolonged period without precipitation. So, I I don't I'm good with drought being there. If we had to if we wanted to take anything out, I would say heat waves. Um if I think about the application of this, we we ask for reporting following uh significant event uh in in what we have now is following a significant storm event, there's a reporting requirement and and so we need to double check that to see if it still makes sense that you know after after a heat wave or after a drought that there's a report coming back. My guess is that a heat wave would not trigger a a site a site review. So I've just moved us to the one other area you can see in my search. It only appears in the definition in this one section here. Um it requires within 48 hours of the event an inspector to submit a report. So the question is with a drought every day when the drought ends. Same with the heat wave. Is it during the heat wave? Is it after the heat wave? Um, you know, I I think we should be looking at at defining a significant storm event or however we want to refer this to as specific things that can really be pointed to of this happened on this time at this day and now within 48 hours you need an inspection. Um, number one. And number two, is it something that is likely to damage or potentially damage something? And I just don't see a heat wave at this point or a drought having problems in in terms of damaging >> um you know, right here is evidence of erosion or sedimentation um condition of ground surface. Droughts and heat waves don't really affect what we have the report covering per se. Um whereas tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, micro bursts completely can. >> Yes. Yep. I agree, Jennifer. >> Okay. I I do think there must be a definition. There is there is some measurable point at which an area is declared a drought area. So, I would say maybe if we said I don't know how we word it here, but at the point at which something is declared a drought, it it's measurable. It's not somebody saying, "Well, it hasn't rained for two months, so it's a drought." Um now whether or not a a drought conditions would have an impact on um erosion or you know would be uh a danger in terms of the solar installation that I don't know. I mean I don't know if we do we know that. I mean maybe the conservation commission or there's someone on staff who has that expertise. So, I guess what I'm saying is I I don't personally know how a drought would impact a solar installation, but if it does, I think that a drought when something's declared a drought, there's some measurable tangible um definition of of what that is. And I think it's less so with a heat wave. So I guess that's one question I have as um councelor Hanniki had is a drought an adverse condition for a solar installation. >> Uh Dave and then and then I'm was going to raise my hand. >> Yeah, I'm curious what Stephanie if you have any input. Stephanie was our wetlands administrator for many many years and has extensive experience with wetlands and erosion. But um this is an interesting line of conversation. I I tend to agree with with Mandy about the drought. I mean we are in a drought right now. We have been for months. Uh some of the predictions from folks who do this in Massachusetts and New England indicate that we may be in kind of quasi permanent drought status for years. So, I'm not sure how that would trigger reporting or impacts to a solar field. So, I think it's I don't know. I'm curious, Steph, what what you might add to that. >> It's not a triggered event like like like a you know, a wind event or an earthquake or something like that. is just going to be the norm here and we'll we could be in droughts for years. >> Yeah, Stephanie. >> Um I I completely agree um both with Dave and with Councelor Hanniki. >> Um typically when an a storm event was referenced, it was because it could be very specific, very intense, and have a direct impact on whatever the project area is. you know, a drought and a heat wave are are not going to do the same. So, I'm really just repeating what people have already said, but I I don't think I think that would be really a very hard um measurable impact. I mean, yes, a drought can be identified as having a lack of rain for a certain amount of time, but how does that impact It's not a measurable impact on a solar installation, right? That's just the conditions of the area, but it's not going to have a direct impact. So, personally, I don't think drought or heat wave are appropriate for this particular item. >> Thank you, Mandy. Could you scroll back to the definition, please? So, if we if we um we we want to include the storm event, we want that one inch of rainfall. That's clear. um and or extreme weather events, you know, take out drought, heat waves. I think wildfires, hail, excessive wind, which is in my mind the same as micro bursts, um are valid. Can we add hail? That's actually one of the more damaging of solar panels. Tornado. Throw the book at it. Okay. Okay. So, how does this now read? Uh, Stephanie, go ahead. >> Um, I just wonder about excessive wind. What's the threshold for identifying that as being excessive? >> I don't know. I think a micro burst is something that people point to. They say, "Oh, you know, we had a micro burst here." I think that's probably >> more appropriate. And a micro burst if you have micro burst then do you need excessive wind because no mean and a micro burst is a very specific thing as well. It's not just wind. So I mean yes excessive wind could have an impact but I just don't understand that as a measurable identifying event. >> I I agree. I think we could get rid of excessive wind. So, one option is to use I think sometimes the National Weather Service and and Stephanie, you probably know the the definitions a little bit better than me, but define what not defines but but puts out high wind warnings or um you know, if you were in Boston gale force wind watches and warnings. Um, so is there a possibility to say um I I don't know what they're actually called, but something like um a a high wind or her hurricane force wind warning or or something like that when it's a warning, not a watch. Would that make more sense if we wanted to include excessive wind? Although, I'm not sure excessive wind just in general has the effect that a micro burst can. But yeah, >> if I could jump jump jump in really quick. Yeah, >> just just an anecdote really of my daughters when they were younger actually did have a day of school in May one year canled because of high winds. But again, I don't know how you would identify what that threshold is. And even and I hear you um councelor Hanniki about um referring to like some kind of weather service designation. Um so but but this one seems a little more squishy to me than the others. I'd like to eliminate excessive wind. It's it's kind of captured in the micro burst. So now we're talking a significant storm event andor extreme weather event. Weather events including but not limited to uh more can we just say more than one inch of rain in a 24. Do we need involving more than not limited to rain events of more than one inch of rainfall? >> Stephanie, >> usually the term is resulting rather than involving. So it would be resulting in. >> Got it. Good. Okay. Um, per wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, hail, and or micro burst. That's a pretty inclusive list. >> Mandy, >> I just want to go back to the the name. I want to pick something that doesn't have an and or an or with it. That's all. I like the use of weather. Um, even though earthquake isn't necessarily considered weather, um, it's not really a storm, but you know, like wildfires aren't really storms, right? So, can we call it just extreme weather event? That one works for me. >> Anyone else ready to move on? Okay. Um, that was a good discussion. Let's see. So, now we are we've we've tackled 18.13, which is the the reporting part of it. Okay. Now, we're into the conversation about um private wells, and we're taking care of all the little Okay. So, >> can you just go through that whole thing and just say except Yeah, >> I was just making sure it was an Athena change, not a Lynn change. Okay. >> Yep. Yep. This is This is the worst part of just the formatting. So glad got all of our little typos. >> Okay, here we are. This is the meat of it. Uh this is dimensional standards. We discuss setbacks in particular. So, um I'm going to ask Lynn if she wants to weigh back in. Is she still available to participate? Um and just talk about the uh the setbacks that she's recommending. I provided to her uh the water protection committee uh documents and earlier versions of our uh of our documents here. Uh Lynn, you want to explain what your thinking is? >> The issue in this case is not whether it's >> And can you and Lynn, can you kindly speak up as loudly as you can? >> Absolutely. I'm trying. >> My voice is very soft. >> Okay. Um can you hear me now? >> That's better. >> Okay. Um my goal here is to look upon not just a single well but when you have a collection of wells like we do in the northeast corner and that be treated in the same way as if it was a public well source. The one of the reasons I'm coming to this is because of a situation that did occur in Texas where um a um in this case it was a hail storm damaged um solar panels, chemicals leaked in not just PAS but other chemicals leaked into people's wells and nobody wants to claim responsibility and so I think we want to just retreat a collection of wells if you will or you know a well a personal well as if it were a public water source and give it the same object distance. So can you can you also describe your rationale for uh a change in the recommendation where we um let's if we go through 1808.013 which is our minimum no disturbance zones. We had a we had a setback of 100 ft from a private well that reflects the same setback as is required for um septic field a leech field. Um and so your suggestion is that we change it from 100 to 200 ft. >> Yes. Because a private well, you can move a septic system uh but if you contaminate the underground water that private wells um draw on, you aren't ever going to be able to uh replace it. And again, going back to this area, there's a lot of different sources of underground water that uh feeds our wells, but contaminating that underground water. Um, you might not even be able to move a well on a piece of property to get to a different water source. I'm hoping 200 is >> Mandy. >> Yeah. So, I I don't know what to do with this. I I have some some sort of um nonsubstantiveish comments with some of this, although Lynn may consider them substantive um just about how it's written, but I I'll get to that second. I don't know what to think about the 100 versus 200 for a private well. Um our water supply protection committee um I believe recommended 100 ft from a private well. um I think if I if I remember looking at it a couple weeks ago such that we followed their recommendations and so I'm I'm trying to figure out the rationale between following a committee of experts recommendations versus someone's feeling um you know and I'm not trying to dismiss your feeling Lynn let let let me be clear about that but we rely on our water supply protection commission committee for a whole lot of expertise on protecting water supplies. Um, and their recommendation was different setbacks for different things. And then what what Pam said about septics, the as you said, a septic system can be moved farther from a well, but it can be installed within 100 ft of a well at the 100 to 200 foot and contaminate that well just the same before it gets moved. And it could be contaminated that way, too. that um I I actually feel like septic systems are more dangerous to wells than a solar field. This is not battery energy storage. I want to be clear about this. This section is only solar panels. Um and septics are probably more dangerous than solar panels to to the potential viability of a well. Yet septics are only 100 ft. So I I'm struggling with a rationale that um is the the rationale that's been provided um when we've got various other information from experts that that contradicts that. Um and then after that I can go to just my comments on sort of the if if the change is happening or whatever what it would look like on paper. Let me just say that that's which is different. >> Yeah. >> Do you Andy? >> Yeah. I'm remembering um I think the water supply protection committee is is a pretty um convincing source for for what the distances should be. And I I guess I'm also remembering um you know when when the planning board was considering it, they were asking questions about why would we have different distances for solar panels than for any other kind of construction that they might be uh pursuing that might also have things that would run off of them. Um, and I I I guess if there's I I I'm I'm curious about whether 200 ft versus 100 ft would then given there's a number of wells there, would that effectively, you know, eliminate the possibility of solar panels in certain in certain areas um for a degree of safety that the that the um water protection committee didn't see as necessary. So I I'm I have the same questions Mandy does. I guess >> um I'm going to weigh in. I I don't think that's in a way that's not really our jurisdiction to to think if if a particular setback will uh restrict development. That's that's really not what we're um being asked to weigh in on. Um I was going to point out that we we are talking about no disturbance areas. So that means it does what it does not mean is that a solar field could be cleared up to the property line and the well that is sitting 10 ft within someone's property line um you know would be that that cannot happen. This is this is a clear no disturbance zone. So there's no vegetation grubbing. There is no uh you know tree cutting or excessive tree cutting in that zone. So the the soil and the land um characteristics are retained like pre-existing conditions. And I think that's an important factor that um that's that's very different in fact even than the septic field which you know a particular homeowner's property is often highly manipulated. The septic field and the runoff across the entire property could very well affect a well. this is a a no disturbance zone and and I think um I I have great sympathy for the need to protect our private wells because that is the biggest asset for property. Without it, you have a worthless property. Um, but I'm but I'm fairly comfortable given that this is just the solar fields with no disturbance that I am feeling comfortable with the 100 foot setback. Lynn, um, I will just say if you were to pull the neighbors on Shootsbury Road, which Stephanie and David heard plenty from over the last five years, they would go for the uh, equal treatment. That's my only comment. Mhm. >> Stephanie, do you have any comments? >> Well, I guess I defer to um as was noted the the committee that you know worked on developing the white paper with their recommendations because I think they did base them on you know they based them on science. So that's my I I I understand the concern but I I don't think It's, you know, with a public water supply, and I think Amy Rezeki did present um a comment on distances, you know, with a public water supply, you're you're looking at a much much larger area for the draw down. And so I think that's why, you know, a larger area is warranted because the draw down is so much bigger. Um, and it's less the case with a private well. And I understand that you're talking about collective wells, but you know, each well is kind of its own area, right? So they're not they're not right next to each other and that the wells are all drawing exactly from the same area. You know what I'm saying? Around each well. So I I think the the recommendation from the from the committee was the one that I would recommend. Any other comments? >> Jennifer, >> I'm sorry. Not a qu a comment, a question. So when the group that did the white paper, is that the solar bylaw working group or another entity? >> It was the wetland wetland protection wetland water supply protection committee. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um, I'm going to make a recommendation uh that Lynn will not be happy with, which is to keep it at 100 ft from a private well, and that will be for the purpose of um no disturbance zone. I I would support that recommend recommendation. I think that would mean that all of these if if the committee supports that would be rejected. Um I do want to while we've got Lynn here talk about my sort of because I suspect she will make that a motion to amend at the council meeting. So I want to talk about some of my my things with the other two. um even if that is our recommendation to sort of um you know I don't know whatever it's called reject the the changes as marked here. Um so so from a >> may I Pam? >> Yeah go ahead. >> So Lynn um this language and adding private wells here is no different. So you only you could delete all of if you're if if your motion is to change to 200 ft. In fact, your motion is probably to delete all of 013 and just add private wells into 014. It would have the exact same effect. >> Um you know, so just to and and I don't think it's an Yeah. So, I I think if you do it here, we don't even need this section at all is what I would I I believe is the case. Um, and then with this one, um, I'd love to hear from Stephanie, but I do not believe there is a zone A or B for private wells. So I I don't see >> I'm not sure this has an addition here has any practical or any effect at all because there is no definition of zone A or B related to a private well in is my understanding but I'd love Stephanie to confirm that. >> Um Stephanie apologize I cannot confirm. I know that's true for public water supply but I don't I don't know for certain about private wells. >> I saw nothing. I saw nothing in um the material about zones A or B. Zones A or B have to do with uh distances from the the edge of the um surface water p I'll call it pond and from the top of the banks and and there is no reflection of the same kinds of definitions for private wells. So, I think um I understand the intent here, but I think just eliminating and private wells puts us um back on the correct footing for 0.015. We do not need the words and private wells just because it doesn't apply. >> Yeah, I I think it's more of a it doesn't apply at all. Yeah, >> correct. Okay, where is our next? Okay, 18.08.026. A minimum distance of two 400 ft from a private well should be maintained provided that the PGA may require a larger distance due to site characteristics and conditions. And this is relative to setbacks from uh SPI and BES or with with or without with like colloccated best I believe. Um uh Lynn if you want to talk about your suggestion for 1808.026 026. Please, please do. Hold on just one second. I've lost my place. Okay. Um, again, it's the issue of um private wells and the distance from Bess. I think I'm on the same thing. You were 08. Wait, >> can you show me? >> This is the next page, I think. >> Oh, uh 18. >> Yeah, it's uh to have the distance be the same for private well for private wells, particularly around the collection of private wells. So this is this is relative to best. So, SPI and and or BES um we do have the minimum distance of 400 ft from the public wall water supply well and surface water supply. So, that's a 400 foot no disturbance. Um actually, it's I'm sorry, it's a minimum distance of 400 ft from the public water supply. That does not say does not say no disturbance. Um 18.025 says a minimum distance of 400 ft shall be required within the zones A and B of a public. So that's the setbacks from the edge of the pond. And then finally 026 minimum distance of 300 suggesting 400 ft from a private well should be maintained. Any thoughts, >> Mandy? >> This one's harder for me. Um, because I've always recognized the concern with BES over anything else. Like, like to me, Bess is more of the concern with safety of water supplies than solar installations. Um I at the same time I do find it interesting we the 300 feet is what the um public water supply protection committee um water supply protection committee recommended. They recommended 400 ft for zone A and B. Um they recommended 600 ft for public water supply wells which we actually decreased and I don't I I don't know the history around that decrease. that might have been during conversations with the planning board about concerns about um you know I I disagree with Pam on the we can't be concerned with or we shouldn't be concerned with the feasibility of actually building these um because state law requires we have to have feasibility and they will look into um if our regulations are so strict that none are actually possible they would or bylaws we would lose the court case. Um, and I I wonder if that's part of why that 600 for public water supply wells was reduced to 400. Um, but I don't totally remember the history of of that versus the water supply protection committee um, recommendation. But, you know, I I understand it more for best than I do for solar. So, I I'm curious what other counselors are are thinking because I'm not sure what to do with this one. >> Yes, Andy, >> I'm curious why this is a minimum distance and not a min a no disturbance distance like the like the previous ones. Is that is this just a different thing? I I can tell you the the white paper did differentiated between the two two. So >> I think that's why we differentiated because they did solar was no disturbance. Best was minimum distance. >> It's a larger distance um but it does not include uh the exclusion of disturbance. Yeah. And is the measurement from the edge of the property or from the edge of the instrument or I mean the equipment. >> What would be the well to the equipment the to the installation or land clearly related to the installation? Dave, >> I was just curious if it's been a long time since that white paper was written and and discussed, but I was just curious if Stephanie might recall why if the water supply protection committee recommended 600 ft, what was the rationale to reduce it to 400 ft? Earlier in this conversation, there's been multiple references to the experts in town and if the experts in town recommended 400, what was the rationale to or excuse me, 600, what was the rationale to reduce it to four? Do you recall, Steph? >> I don't recall that specific conversation. When I when I >> when I went back through the numbers, um the protection committee um had 200 feet from public wells and 400 ft from um public wells. That was for Bess um and 200 feet for surface water supply. So I think we are we are following their recommendations. I don't I don't remember where the 600 feet actually came from. >> Is it possible that they had 600 feet in their white paper, but then when talking to the solar bylaw working group turned changed it to 400 >> because I think 400 is what came out of the working group who talked to the water supply protection committee. >> Yeah, thank you for that reminder. Yes, is exactly that is exactly what happened. So in this case we're talking about a minimum distance from a private well and this is for BES and solar. So it does not have a restriction of no disturbance. Um, we we would place a minimum of 300 ft distance from a private well. And the request is to make it a minimum distance of 400 ft from a private well to whatever extent you know gets developed on the site. Stephanie, >> I just wanted to sort of maybe add some clarification regarding the distinction between minimum distance and no disturbance is and the differentiation between solar and BES is because with solar obviously if you're installing panels you have to pretty much clear cut um whereas for BES they're relatively for the most part a smaller surface area. So I think that's why there was a distinction between minimum distance and no disturb. >> Mhm. In in thinking about uh the requirements of all the submitts that are that are required, there is a note that you have that the developer has to document all private wells within 400 ft of the property line. And so that would pretty much capture um you know any of the surrounding neighbors and their wells. That would be something that I think would be would put the um permit granting authority on high alert if they knew that there were private wells within the um within the range of a of a construction project. Mandy, >> you could finish. Pam, were you done? >> Oh, that's kind of all I had to say. Okay. You talking about that made me want to point out that that the private wells in both SPI and BES are the only parts of the minimum distance that contain this particular provision that the PGA can actually increase the number. So for for surface water supply for p you know and public supply wells that is the number 400 or 200 for SPI but for the private wells there's actually an ability for the PGA to come in and say actually that 300 or that 100 isn't isn't enough in this instance. Um and and maybe that's the important part here is that that we've left the the ability to increase that to say 200 or 400 or potentially even higher. Um right we don't put a maximum on it solely for the private wells situation. And I think and that might be because, you know, if I'm if I'm speculating here, we don't know what the private well situation, we have a much less good grasp on how many wells there are, how where they are, how close to property lines they are, right? Um that that it's harder to say um particularly because of that there's a lot in one area, but we just don't know where. We don't know which ones are active or not. Um, and that's a little bit different than our public water supply wells and surface water supply, which are fairly well defined at this point. Um, in where they are and all. Um, so with with Pam sort of talking about we're requiring that they be identified and then having this in here, I'm I'm starting to lean towards keeping it at the 300. Um, because and and part of that is because there is that ability to the PGA to specifically look at individual circumstances and increase where necessary. >> I'm I'm I'm in agreement with that, Mandy. Um, and I wanted to just double check that we have the same wording which is provided that the PGA may require is also up in 0.013. So I am I'm feeling more comfortable there as well that the PGA can require a larger setback given individual conditions um of a property that we keep that we keep the minimum distance of 300 ft from a private well. Any other comments on that? Lynn, do you wanna you wanna is does that give you a little more um uh assurance perhaps that that there's the opportunity to go to the PGA and say, "Look folks, you know, you need to you need to help us out here." I represent a group of neighbors that have spent many, many hours doing exactly that. So I will talk with them and see what happens. Thank you. Um moving to 18.13.012 and This is part of general reporting requirements. >> Yeah. >> Lynn, do you want to speak to your uh your request for uh every three years? I think I I think it makes a lot of sense. Um, thank you. Uh, again, I'm just going to say we we we require that we inspect rentals on an regular basis. Why wouldn't we inspect something that has this much impact on our environment? Uh, leaving it to the possibility that there's a severe weather event I think is actually um kind of negligent. And I also uh strongly believe that one of if you actually look at the solar industry and the extent to which solar property is built and then it's passed on to another company and whether or not they pass the conditions of the original permit and they should but they don't. And I just think that regular inspection is something that should be required in this case. Thank you. >> Thank you, Jennifer. >> I I agree. I just don't know why we wouldn't want I agree that we should air on the side of caution. If this was if these installations were going to be in my district, I would certainly be advocating for that. And again, this has implications beyond just district two for the whole town. So I I just don't it doesn't seem burdensome and you know I again I think it would be best to air on the side of caution for an annual inspection. Andy and then Mandy. >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea. I'm But the language doesn't specify who's doing the inspections. So, is it it is it they will do the inspections or a third party or is the town inspector going to do it or or what? >> Um I'm going to look to Mandy, but the the response is that they um we've we ask for a third party uh inspection, Mandy. >> So, in fact, in this section, the applicant submits the inspection reports on a weekly basis. So, if you statutoily read this, you would assume that it's the applicant submitting the general inspection every 3 years, too, because a third party is only after the weather events to to respond to that one. Um, I think I'm okay with inspections. My my I I I would if we're looking to try and keep this short, this sentence is repeated from above where they're submitted. If we move the inspection sentence to before this line, we can get rid of the inspection report thing because it's just, you know, just a simplification of stuff post during construction and then post inspection and then post construction and then inspection reports are distributed too. um a little more simplified. But um so I' I' I'd request that we do that. But what does my bigger question right now is what is a general inspection? What are we inspecting for? Um I feel like we should have if we're going to put this in every 3 years, we should have some sort of idea of what this inspection is about. you know, after a storm a after the weather event, it's describing specific things that might have been affected by a weather event, right? Um the construction reports are detailing compliance with everything. Um so what is this inspection going for? And is there a way we can give a little more information about general inspection in this language? I'm gonna go to Lynn, but I also I'm looking for Dave Zom to uh to weigh in on what uh general inspections might entail. Lynn, >> um I was actually going to say go ahead with and see what Dave has to say about this. >> Okay, Dave. Um I'm just kind of processing that a little bit because during construction it's pretty straightforward but every 3 years I mean I I think things like you know condition of fencing is all the fencing intact has there been any erosion over time sometimes you know water courses change there you know there was a micro burst and some part of the array the the fenced in array eroded something like that. Are they up to speed on their mowing? There's there's a mowing plan under these. Have they let it go or are they mowing it too frequently? Um, you know, the building commissioner and the fire chief want to know, you know, are are any arrays broken? Are any of the, you know, has there been any vandalism that hasn't been fixed? things like that. So in the in those categories of fire building and conservation, you know, there could be a number of things that would be beneficial to have every 3 years. >> Yep, that makes sense. Lyn, >> I was I was thinking about Hickory Ridge. You know, they're not quite ready to to to button it all up yet, but they're finally getting there. They're on the one yard line or something. And then 3 years from now, what would we we like to see? Again, this won't affect them because it's permitted before then. But um >> Yep. >> So, >> yeah, that makes that makes sense. That list of that list of elements is is pretty normal and those are the kinds of things that could go, you know, that could go wrong. Lynn, >> uh the um I agree with uh you that the list that Dave has um you know suggested it basically comes on what what did you inspect as things were being developed that are still visible. Now, obviously, you're not going to go underground or anything like that, but the other piece that Michelle Lee wants to add into this is that there would be a baseline site study, and therefore, you would also be looking for whether or not you've picked up non-invasive species or even invasive plants and animals. Um, we do not have I don't think our requirement is to remove invasive species. I I might be wrong on that, Stephanie. >> I I think that would be very difficult. >> Yeah. >> To do. Um, invasive species are a problem. I I don't know how you could, >> right, >> include that in something like this. That feels like overreach to me. I think if you just uh the post construction general inspection shall be conducted by every three years um based on criteria established by the town and the inspection report shall be distributed and there can be a side set of regulations with this criteria for inspection. I mean we've done the same thing again for housing. >> Yeah. And it could it could really take the form of a checklist, you know. >> Yes, exactly. >> Has it been mowed? Is there any erosion? Are the fences in good condition? Are the the uh other elements of the array in good condition? >> Right. That that's exactly where I was coming from. I I didn't think about the other issue of u plant. >> So, do we need to do do we need to do this checklist or not? That's just a general condition. Um We could I like >> Yeah, I like the idea of the PGA, you know, developing that and it it it it applies to all of all future arrays. >> Uh whoever I guess Amanda Joe, you just put it to ensure compliance with all approvals, conditions, and management plans. Does that cover it, Dave? >> Yes. I basically copied the language above but got rid of storm water because there's more management plans after construction that need complied with. >> And to me that does cover it. >> That's excellent. >> Andy, you had your hand up. >> Yeah, I was just going to say I liked what uh had been put in there, so I thought that covered it. >> Okay, good. I just moved it so that we don't have to repeat the report location. >> Perfect. Perfect. Good. All right. Um, that's a good resolution. Um, moving on to insurance, which is section 18.15. >> I just want to confirm that that >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, I'm sorry. We just changed this to because we defined it as just extreme weather events. So we've we've >> changed that. >> Um yeah, which I think means on let me >> the and or Lynn you had added right? >> Yes. >> Deletion reject. So if I accept the delete Whoops. No, this is the part. So that's simply the change. >> Okay. >> Y. >> So now there we go. >> Great. >> I guess I didn't include my own comments for abandonment. So I have >> We're on insurance. >> Oh, right. 18.15. She'll annually provide the building commission with certificate of insurance showing the property has sufficient liability coverage. >> Yep. >> And I guess that I mean that's you get your insurance annually. That makes sense to me. It's not a it's not an undue burden. We're in general agreement. So before we move on to abandonment, I'm fine with the annually, by the way. Um Lynn, you started your comments ahead about earlier with funds and concerns about costs of decommissioning or abandonment. Um maybe you have changes down below, but I there is a decommissioning fund, right? It it's in here, this financial charity decommissioning fund. So, I think we can't ignore this section as we talk about some of the changes below because we've we've literally asked them to put um 125% of the estimate of costs associated with removal and restoration public procurement future cost escalation calculator um updated every 10 years and 5 years after that. um and they have to provide additional in the amount of all of that um you know for essentially for a fund. Mhm. I think that covers what we need to make sure is I just look forward to, you know, down the road somebody walks away from a a facility and now the town is just stuck with this ugly looking area that's degenerated and we have no no funds to tear it down and to reforest or to repurpose that land. >> Yeah. No, I just wanted to point this out because because it's not just a one-time payment either at, you know, these things last 30 years, right? So, we have even taken into account, you might need those to update it every so often and and re reput into it to make sure we do keep enough in just in case. >> Yep. >> So, we have no changes in abandonment. >> No. >> Okay. Right. >> So that was it. >> I think that I think that was it. I think that was it. >> They added Goo added a capacity range in here, >> right? >> We can certainly accept that think. Oh, and another capacity range here cuz that was a go change. Okay, I think that's it. >> Um, what about this? Hold on. Hold on. What about the yellow highlighting down there in the tables? I just >> That's I It is literally I We can unhighlight that if you want. >> It It really was just to highlight, oh, here's some other changes in other sections. We've moved on from article 18 to other sections of the bylaw is really what >> Yep. >> What these were designed to. And then there's fences. Um >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. It was just more to draw an eye to Oh, we're not in article 18 anymore, >> right? So, the headers the headers for all of this um will reflect today's date. I guess >> I I'll change it all at the end. Um >> I could I ask a question of Lynn? >> Lynn talked about changes >> a a constituent had requested. Are there any Lynn that you would like us to consider at this time? Um the main thing really um let me just quickly look at them. Um under 18.07B um you've got a couple changes that were made there. So things I don't think are um in the same order, but the issue was it really begins with what does the property look like before you started. That would be the baseline and then that would be the goal to be able to restore it to near as near to that level as possible. Um obviously, you know, if you saw down a um 50 year old tree, you're not going to plant a 50-y old tree. you're going to have to deforest and reforest in some other way that's much more feasible. But understanding what the baseline was uh and so that the um um constituent that I talked with suggested that in 18.07b 07B there's a one and then a two and suggested that this would come before what is presently to abudding land use and it would be baseline conditions baseline site conditions report of vegetation characteristics including species composition and and spatial extent of vegetation communities specifically including mature trees and shrub lines and location, proportion, and species of invasion invasive plants. Um, that's it. It's a basic it's a way to start to say, well, what did this land look like to begin with? >> So, just >> I just want to say for people to be able to see purposes. >> Yeah, >> I put it in from that document. Apparently, my copy came with some >> other things, too. But but the language is I think exactly what you just read, Lynn, just so we can discuss it and people can see it on the >> on on here. >> Y >> and then there's one other later, but uh why don't we stop with that one for the moment. >> Okay. So the the state mandates a um a site suitability study or a a site index review something like I don't remember the terminology and in fact um documenting all of these elements is pretty much um a re is completely a requirement. So the characteristics and extent of vegetation is exactly I think what the what Michelle is looking for where um you know we are talking about basically what are the habitat types on this property before work begins and um it's it has to be somewhat general I think to survey a 40 acre wooded property or a 100 acre wooded property is pretty extreme um in terms of just documenting vegetation types and I personally would love to have all that information but I recognize that that would be probably excessive. Um but >> you saying that the state the state law already has a requirement like this and therefore we didn't need it and I'm not sure that Michelle had looked at the state but state law. Mandy has her hand up though. >> I I am saying the state requires it and then we we reinforce that by by number one C which is the characteristics of the an extent of vegetation. it's getting at what she's talking about, you know, what are the what are the habitat types, the communities. Um, and we do ask them to document the larger trees. And this came from um this came not from us, but I think also from the state where where they're asking where they're requiring large trees to be identified. You know, these are of value for carbon sequestration, etc., etc. All that gets tied into the site suitability index. >> I I think that again Michelle probably did not look at the state law. I didn't either. I just basically had a conversation and then turned this over to her to suggest additional edits. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Good. Yeah. But all >> so it sounds to me like it's already covered in C what is now C and uh the state law. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I think that's fine. Um >> and and we are not going to ask people to document invasive species unfortunately because all of us have it in our own properties. >> Right. >> Mandy, is your hand up? >> Yeah, my hand is up. Um I I I wanted to expand on what Pam said. Um, just so if if Michelle watches this, she sees where some of our sort of also balancing act takes place. Right. At one point, we were documenting not just on the project site than the project area of trees, but I think we had like 10 in DBH of 10 in instead of 20 in on the entire 100 acre site. And one of the things we were trying to balance is in in essence we we are we are trying to write a pro-solar bylaw. Um >> and you have to balance what's feasible and not as Pam was saying. And when you get into in some sense the level of detail that is in the language Michelle asked for, you start running into nonfeasibility of even being able to submit a site conditions report, um, an existing site conditions report without extensive costs that then open up the town to a lawsuit that basically says, "We adopted regulations that don't allow any solar despite them allowing ing solar. Um, so, so we've we've talked about this balancing act for a lot of these of how do we get the information we need for the decommissioning at a level that is um, reasonable for someone to begin the process basically. And then also um, you know, that that is enough to create recreate because we're not going to create that site condition exactly as it is 30 years later, right? Um, but we do want to know what types of species were there or was it a field? Um, because then you can help do that. So, I I think >> um that's that's why we ended up where we did and why some of us are a little hesitant to go back to something that Michelle requested because we had a lot of conversation about what level of detail is appropriate. >> Yeah. >> And thank you for putting that on the record during this conversation. >> Yep. Thank you, Andy. in 18.07. Um, God, I guess it must be it would now be five, six, seven, eight. There would be a a nine. It's at the after nine soil types, there would be another one, a 10. and Michelle put in there geology and geomorphological properties >> as existing site conditions because we're still under an existing conditions plan. >> Exactly. Exactly. And this is where she really gets into the soil types and the issue of drainage etc. And I think she felt that from what was listed that wasn't considered. >> Um I think If I think of the state requirements, um I mean there are the soil there are the NRCS soil maps that are you know cover the whole country and I don't know that we require the soil map um but we um I don't think I don't think We don't require the soil map. It would be easy enough to obtain. It would be simply a document that gets, you know, attached. Um, well, there we go. That's that is it. That is it. >> Okay. Then that takes care of that. >> And that's the that includes all the geo, right? >> That covers that. Um, >> then going on page seven, G. um >> technical specifications. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. >> She wrote it in the one you have the copy Amanda Jar. I do. Yeah. >> It's under G. She said uh and performance history of BES semicolon secondary containment structures of BES as appropriate under certain sighting conditions. and she particularly referenced this is a concom discussion. So she added I'm just going to put it up here. >> Yep. >> So that people can see it. >> Thank you. >> This is what Michelle was looking for. >> Do we know what the certain sighting conditions means? You know, again, this seemed to come uh Dave, you may know more about this or Stephanie, this seemed to come from her experience of being on Comm um when you looked at the um Hickory Ridge Fort River area. >> So, can I ask a question? >> Yeah. >> Um I guess I was unsure. I don't know whether we in this bylaw require secondary containment structures or whether that's an option. Um so I was unsure whether she's seeking to require secondary containment structures in certain instances. number one um because this is what you submit. This is this is a submit technical specifications for and so is she just asking for if a secondary containment structure is being used or required or whatever that should be included um in the technical specific specifications that are submitted. Um that's exactly what she's looking for. Can we say including any secondary containment structures of Bess? >> Sure. So this is technical of major components to be used panels, mounting systems, inverters and any best which includes the reflectivity pas. >> Yeah, that's good. >> That that takes care of that. Um then the next one's down under Q. And in that case, um she was very concerned about knowing what the chemicals are, how often they're used, and their evaluation of hazardous. So, under Q1, she uh added at the end of that phrase, including their purpose and frequency of use. >> We couldn't hear you, Lynn. >> Including, >> sorry, including their purpose and frequency of use. That made sense to me. >> So, I would recommend if we put it there, we put it >> here instead. >> Where we put it. I think it it makes sense to me. Um, >> so that we know what we're dealing with if there's a chemical leak of any kind. >> Yeah. So the the complete list is one thing and then under the plan it's management of such including storage and then that's where I put storage purpose and frequency of use per state regulations. >> Sounds good to me. >> It seems more logical there. >> Yeah. Uh okay. And then >> and again it's per again it's per state regulation. So if the state is requiring um that such a statement then it will it should happen. >> Uh >> if if I could add I think that's great. I think this is good language and these small additions really clarify just so everyone has reassurance. I mean the fire department requires that now. So, you know, we do know all the chemicals used during construction, you know, on an ongoing basis, but I think this is very makes it clearer. >> That's uh very nice to know. Thank you, David. Uh I under hazardous materials there were she actually under 18102. Did we just Sorry to interrupt. Did we ever get this list? I I don't remember seeing it. >> It was emailed to you. >> Email. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Well, I I didn't get it in time. Okay. >> She didn't >> I didn't see it in time. I shouldn't say that. >> She sent it like in the middle of the night. Um to uh not last night, but the night before. >> That's That's fine. That's fine >> because I told her she had to get it to you. Um so under 1810 to 02 in the second line she added taking out the ore and putting in after the word wellhead protected areas and private wells. Needless to say she lives in my same area of town. >> Yeah. So, so she >> So, it's >> I'm just putting it in so people can see, >> right? Thank you. >> Um, I have comments about this one and the next one. >> Yep. >> So, when you read this, the addition of private wells makes no sense. And I I I say that not to be like glib or anything because it's the storage user presence on any site. If the site is within surface water supply protection area or wellhead protection areas or but you've got the word within within private wells like it >> yeah it doesn't seem >> it doesn't make sense that that just just adding that in and beyond that I think our surface waters supply protection area up north is is quite um extensive such that I'm not even sure the addition of private wells for where you're concerned adds any land, but I I'd have to look at a map. >> Y >> um but I would recommend not putting it in >> I think I'm fine. >> I I would agree with that. >> And then later on in 18.102, um under the paragraph that starts with Yeah. right there, the outdoor storage of hazardous materials. In this case, she's putting on her conservation commission hat. So, a paragraph above says hazardous materials not be stored um or refueling occurring within 100 ft of wetlands or any no disturbance areas. >> It seems like that takes care of it. I mean, unless we're differentiating between between lawn and garden chemical hazardous materials and other hazardous materials, if we need to reiterate that, I think >> I mean, we defined hazardous materials up above. And I I think you're right, Pam, that this takes care of what >> Yeah. >> what Michelle was concerned with. I think it does too. So I think we should continue on. Next one. Um, her next comment was under 1812. I believe that's her. Yeah, facil. She called it facilities and site maintenance. And then she provided a variety of >> changes which Mandy Joe's entering. >> I'm working on it. >> These were some of the suggestions, >> right? >> I think that's >> okay. So we So the site maintenance will include regular erosion, sediment monitoring, and the control of invasive species. We did we did have um at Lynn's request we added the at least the general review every three years. Um, I don't mind having them, you know, add site maintenance, uh, sort of reminding folks that it's, you know, keeping an eye on erosion, sediment, sediment monitoring, um, control of of invasive non-native plant species is probably not going to happen unless it is taken uh, care of by the by the regular mowing regime. So one possibility is to add sediment monitoring to this line here. >> I I would I would >> Oh, we have erosion control. >> We we already had erosion control and the maintenance shall include painting, structural repairs, erosion control. Um, so we could add sediment monitoring to that, which which negates >> anything but dealing with and talking about invasive non-native plant species, which we've already heard is tough to do anything about, and I'm not sure. >> Yeah. >> And her only point is that that's actually the biggest problem we run into with these sites. >> I think I'd have to go back and I hate when I'm sharing the screen to be the one scrolling. Um I think we already required that any replantings be native plants. Um >> we did. >> So I you know obviously you're going to get invasive species in anyway. Um but >> if we do well with the replanting that that invasive species should be minimized to at least >> not be worse than what we've currently got in town. >> The biggest problem is when you bring in outside soil. You bring in which we don't allow. Which we don't allow. Right. Exactly. >> Right. >> And we ask for any imported soil to be from an approved source, which doesn't mean that it won't bring in invasive species, but >> so I think we can eliminate her her, >> but you're still leading in >> Well, that >> I had a question about the cited property here. I I mean, it makes sense, right? Um, I just don't like how the wording is. I want to find a better wording for for this this group here. Shall maintain the SPI the site. I feel like it should be SPI best and site in good condition. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Like that. >> Yeah. Sound sounds good. Yep. >> All right. >> And this goes this goes to our previous discussion of what they would check on every three years. I I don't know where painting comes in. I don't know what's going to be painted. I think that's kind of ex excessive, but structural repairs, fencing, etc. Um, what are they going to paint? Can we can we eliminate the word painting? >> They're going to paint the sign that says no trespassing. >> I'm happy to eliminate painting. >> It's fine. Take it out. >> Um, I just want to make sure we've used the word site other places versus other ways to refer to the whole property site plan >> the site disturbance site suitability >> so we did even in property lines of parcels within of the site so it is site that we've used okay >> yeah right >> I just wanted to make sure we weren't we were consistent there Okay. Okay. I think her next one is uh 1816.02D. 18.16 >> 2 >> 02 >> no 2D right there. O2D right and Mandy you have all the changes that she requested there. >> Is there a difference between deforested and cleared? I I'm not a geologist or a forester, >> right? >> So, if I had to guess, deforested only means if there was a forest there, >> right? >> If it was a open space field, >> would it be considered >> deforested versus cleared? I think >> might know better. >> That would be cleared. >> Well, I was just going to say that cleared would be removing everything pretty much. >> Yeah. >> Right. Versus and a forested area typically will have less understory. So, you're removing the trees. >> Yep. >> So, there really is a difference between the two. Stephanie, do you think that addition is fine? >> Sorry, it's very small on my screen, so I'm having to lean into Let me read it more carefully. >> Thank you. I think that's fine. Um, >> yeah, approximating is is probably a nicer word than close to. >> I agree. >> In this one, >> yeah, in this one, she brings in the baseline site report. We've we've already dealt with that. Um, and that's, believe it or not, gang, that's the end. >> Anything else? >> No. Not that I have so far. Did we lose Andy? I'm sorry. >> There's Andy. Andy disappeared off my screen. I didn't >> I've got everybody at the this narrow band across the top. So, I'm There's Andy >> was at the end of it. What's next, Pam? >> That is uh it that's it as far as I'm aware. >> So, is this mean you're looking for sort of a renewed motion in a sense? >> I I I think we're at a point where we could do a renewed motion. Correct. >> Okay. So, I will make a motion to recommend the council adopt the clean energy bylaw and related zoning changes with the changes made after go at and after go review. second. Uh, let's go around. Andy, >> yes. >> Jennifer, >> yes. >> Mandy Johann >> I. >> And Pam is an I. Um, so I just want to get the wording. The zoning changes made at and after go >> review. Yeah, >> review. as of as of as of today's date. >> It was also after the first reading. I don't know if you want to include that. >> Right. Uh thank you everybody. >> I want to thank all of you. This extremely helpful and people in district 2 appreciate you. Thanks. >> Glad I'm glad to have gotten the input. It would have been lovely to have some of that a little earlier, but hey, you know, >> right? So long. >> Better late. >> So long. Yeah. >> You're representing your constituents. Well, >> yeah. Yes. Leave no doubt. >> I try. >> Should they ever should they ever doubt. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay, folks. So, I am going to if it makes sense and I'm going to I'm looking at Mandy. Um the report that was sent from CRC to the council for recommendation of this. Um, at the first reading, I would I would be willing to update it to say, you know, as of the September 10 meeting, we incorporated um discussion input, counselor input, and and constituent input into the final document as as recommended to council. Do I do I need to update that report? >> I don't think so. >> Okay, super. Super. Thank you everybody and a huge thanks to Stephanie for trudging through this with us. >> Um over five years um really really appreciate it and Dave, thanks for your input especially on all the Hickory Ridge history. Um I think that wraps up clean energy activity for today. We will have it go back to council forth second reading. That's this Monday the 14th. And I am going to move on in the agenda items. Um unless there's anything anyone wants to add. I see no hands. Okay. >> Can I just ask Pam? >> Yeah. >> Will the version you just approved to move on? That'll go from Mandy to to Athena. >> Yep. >> Right. >> It's going to be sent in about two seconds. >> Okay. Got it. Thanks. >> Who else wants CC on it? >> Take take your time. Take your time. >> I definitely >> don't rush the final document. I >> think she wants it out. >> Yeah. Yeah. Off her desk. And Mandy, uh, again, thanks to you for all of this work on keeping keeping the versions moving and keeping track of all of it. It is it is yman's work. >> And and thank you to Mandy and Pam. You have both steered this ship of state for 5 years. Between the two of you, it's way above my pay grade. So I glad it was in your capable hands, both of you. It's what we love. Okay, I am moving to agenda item 4B, meaning meeting minutes. I saw none in my packet. I had none in the SharePoint and so there are none in my mind. Um, next agenda review. This would be for September 24. I am feeling pretty wiped out. Um, we had tentatively clean energy bylaw. should that have come back to us downtown design standards and um I do not know the status of design standards and maybe Dave can um give us a very quick update on the status of that. >> You know my next meeting in 15 minutes is with Jeff Bags. So let me see if I can get an update on that. >> Great. in that meeting. Pam, >> again, we have we have gotten a presentation. Um, we have provided some feedback. I don't know if there is a specific uh checklist of additional committees that need to be spoken with. Um, my gut feeling is that that event has already happened. Um, what is, you know, what is the role of the CRC? Is there a particular um official format or official feedback that is expected from this committee in some shape or form? I'm I'm thinking not, but um there probably at some point needs to be some discussion about how do some of the changes get handled whether they're accepted or not. Would we be talking about um you know zoning overlays or zoning reszoning? Dave, you have your hand up still. >> Sorry, I think I inadvertently hit that, but no, I'll I'll get more information in the next hour from Jeff on design standards. Downtown design standards. Andy. >> Yeah. I'm I'm um in ter if we're moving to other to Jeff related things. I'm I'm also curious what's going on with the East Ammerst um work. I know we got a grant for to do some work over there. I know that Jeff's been rather busy with Hampshire College and things like that, but I'm I'm curious if that East Ammerst uh investigation is is on is going on. And I don't know if that's something we need to take up now or later, but >> I think it's probably too early. I know they did a kickoff walkound with the consultants, but I I think it's just started, Andy, but I can get a little more information on that, too. >> Mandy, >> couple of things. Um, not for the next agenda, but in the nearest future. Um, it at some point the local historic district commission will be submitting a formal memo to the council with proposed zoning bylaw changes regarding I think their their vote to create a new local historic district in East Ammerst. Um, those come with zoning bylaw changes. So any referral, if the council makes a referral, would be for CRC and the planning board to hold hearings because they're zoning bylaw changes. Um, so I I just wanted to put that on your radar because I'm not sure everyone always realizes it's zoning changes that that make that happen. Um, so it it will be a CRC item if the council refers it um for hearing, but it's it's not on Monday's agenda and since it's hearings, it does take a while to to come through, you know, so it's but it's near-term. Keep keep it in mind as as chair that that that's going to have to be likely have to be on agendas at some point. Um, I was wondering if it's possible for the chair to talk to the chairs of the planning board and I think the affordable housing trust. Um, see if maybe we might have some sort of joint meeting or some coordination of we've we recently adopted a housing production plan. that has a lot of stuff for sort of implementation things um that I would love to see us coordinate who's going to work on what or what we might want to work on as a town as a priority and and which board kind of goes to Pam what board goes where and when do things come in but I think it might be I I don't know whether a joint three board meeting for that would be useful um or just three individual conversations I feel like a joint meeting might be more useful, but something to start moving and and making some sort of preliminary decisions on which parts of implementation of the housing production plan we as boards um might want to focus on first to so it's not a plan that just sits there doing nothing. >> Yep. >> Yep. Good point, Jennifer. And then we will again if it gets referred have a um zoning amendment which probably have to hold a hearing for um for bylaw you know the ADU 5.01. >> Y >> yeah. So, we may not have we may not have a lot of material for the 24th, but um coming soon. Andy, >> yeah, I I like the idea of this sort of figuring out with the other boards, but I also would would hope that the planning department would be um deeply involved in that. And uh it might be another topic Dave for you to talk to uh to Jeff about whether uh you know if if we were trying to continue this sort of crossboard collaboration around the housing production plan what would you know what's the capacity for for staff to to help with that or is that seen as a positive thing and you know what what would their role be? Yeah, I can certainly I can certainly talk to Jeff about it and Paul, I think you used the the uh the the right word there, Andy, capacity. What is our capacity right now? >> Yeah. And I got to say from a planning staff capacity, you know, we have one vacancy, we have a brand new assistant director and we have, you know, we just mentioned a couple of things and we didn't even talk about Hampshire College. Um Paul kicking off the Wildwood um reuse study, downtown design standards, East Village. So it's going to be a capacity issue. What is the right time? because of course the planning department should be if not in the lead of that discussion with with the council or or you know uh as as a as a key staff player in that discussion. Um so yeah we should talk about that. Maybe that's something to talk a little bit about Mandy in um agenda setting for future meetings and things like that is what is the right time. you know, we're we're racing to try to get >> we're racing to try to get zoning uh written developed and written for you all to >> to work on in the new year sometime after January. So, I think capacity will be the key the key word there. >> And you're you're speaking specifically of Hampshire >> uh in terms of zoning. >> Yeah. um >> that you're you're racing to get zoning done. >> Yeah, because that those that's the date we said January. >> Uh we would present something to the commission to the council in in January or review over I'm sure a number of months. So it's not going to end with Yeah, you're I'm sure you're you know the council is going to have a lot to to talk about and a lot to say about that proposal. So So let's let's talk about it more. Mandy, but housing is front and center for all of us. >> Mandy, >> one other thing to put on the potential hearing requirement stage. Um before Governor Healey announced her executive order regarding data centers, um I am aware that some counselors were working on a potential change to our bylaws regarding data centers. I don't know what form it would take. I don't know what it would look like, whether it would be initially be a moratorum or something, but it would be a zoning bylaw proposal regarding data centers. Um, again, this was before Governor Healey announced her own executive order, so I don't know whether that will still come or not. Um, but but again, a out there future radar. >> We might be holding a lot of public hearings on on various zoning amendments coming up. Um, so just just keep that one in mind. And then, um, this isn't really a next agenda. Um, Pam, I think we voted you the person that would approve last term's minutes. I'm just curious on a status update of minutes from last term. >> I have I have approved and put into the um into the into into our folder anything that we've adopted so far. And so, um, we were going pretty smoothly along, but we have not had any to adopt. >> Uh, no, I was curious about last terms. Remember, we ended last term so far behind, and as they were getting caught up, they'd just be approved and and gone. Do you you don't have to do that update now. I'm just curious >> where that committee. >> I haven't actually gotten any additional >> Okay. >> um, minutes to approve. >> Okay. So, um, I'd have to look in I'd have to look in the folder. I can do that, right? Oops, I just got blocked out. Um, anyway, I will I will give you I'll give you a status of that. >> That would be great. Thanks. I just curious if we're still behind or if we're missing any. >> Yes, we are still behind. >> Okay. >> So, status on last term's meeting minutes. >> Yes. >> And and I'll I'll include this year's as well. >> Thanks. Yeah, we're we're not in good shape. Andy, >> yeah, just going back to this idea around the collaboration between the planning board and the affordable housing trust around housing stuff and the capacity of staff. I I just think it's a really good idea to that we sort of sync our our efforts to what we can be supported on and um and so just to have a sense of what what things staff are going to be able to work on and then maybe we adjust our you know we organize our agendas and and communicate with the planning board and affordable housing trust to the degree that there's common interest around those. Um, I'm sympathetic to the capacity issues and and I don't want us to be like getting too far ahead, but at the same time, you know, we're we're meeting and if there are things that we're going to have that you're going to need our decisions on or our input on, you know, just syncing up the the planning department's, you know, uh, itinerary with ours would be helpful. >> Yeah, thank you for mentioning that. I'm gonna I want to let Dave go as quickly as we can, but but um I'm seeing a fair amount of um public hearing time coming up over the course of the fall and and early winter with the list that we just talked about. Um I appreciated the fact that CRC members were somewhat flexible in in participating um with planning board at their meeting times and maybe we'll be a maybe we should ask for a little bit of reciprocity on that as well. But I know the public certainly found it easier to follow um the the discussions on all these topics. Um thanks for all the input. I will write that up for next meeting. I'm going to I'm going to announce that the CRC's meeting on September 24th. Um I look forward to people saying that they maybe don't feel we need a meeting and it could be cancelled if we decide we do not need it. Mandy, >> I' I'd leave that up to you and if you don't think we need it, I'll support any cancellation basically. Um, I just wanted to remind the committee that my Wednesday nights during the school year are not available. Um, yeah, >> in general. Um, there are some times during the school year where there are, but but assume they are not. Um, >> yeah, >> just just as a reminder. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and actually, if I were to do yet another uh potential preview for a next agenda, it might be to have a more in-depth discussion about all of these items and sort of start to assign ourselves um some homework on on doing the homework of of what's the status of the you know, go go back and read the housing production plan. uh identify things that that CRC might um and have a short discussion about that. That would be productive conversation. Okay, folks. Um I'm going to u suggest that we adjourn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Andy. >> Uh yes. >> Sorry. Jennifer, >> yes. >> Pam is a yes and Mandy is >> hi. and Dave, thank you very much. We'll let you go to your next meeting. Um, we were four present, one absent. Thanks everybody. Thank you. >> Thank you. Bye bye.