be leaving um go go ahead after the first public hearing I'll be leaving the meeting I just you know that thank you thank you all set Steve all right the chair notes the time is 6:05 I call this meeting of the ammer zoning board of appeals to order my name is Steve judge as zba chair I want to welcome everyone to this meeting we'll begin with the Roll Call of the zba members Steve judge is present Mr Craig Meadows present Mr ever Henry present Philip White present Mr David sler present the Quorum is present also attending the public hearing tonight is Chris brep planning director for the town and Mr Rob waill a planner for the town pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to observe the meeting May do so via Zoom or by telephone no inperson attendance of the me members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means the zoning board of appeals is a quasi judicial body that operates under the authority of chapter 48 of the general laws of the Commonwealth for the purpose of promoting the health safety convenience and general welfare of the inhabitant of the town of amest in accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts general laws chapter 48 in article 10 special permit granting authority of the amoris zoning bylaw this public meeting has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest all hearings and meetings are open to the public and are recorded by Town staff and may be viewed on Via the town of Amherst YouTube channel and the zba web page the procedure is as follows the petitioner presents the application to the board during the hearing after which the board will ask questions for clarification or or to gather additional information after the board has completed its questions the board will seek public input the public speaks with the permission of the chair if a member of the public wishes to speak they should so indicate by using the raised hand function on their screen or by pressing star n on their phone the chair with the assistance of the staff will call upon people wishing to speak when you are recognized provide your name and address to the board for the record all questions and comments must be addressed to the board the board will normally hold public hearings where the information about the project and input from the public is gathered followed by public meetings for each the public meeting portion is when the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment if the board feels it has enough information and time it will decide upon the applications tonight each petition heard by the board is distinct and evaluated on its own merits and the board is not ruled by precedent statutorily for a special permit the board has 90 days from the close of the hearing to file the decision for a variance the board has 100 days from the date of filing for the variance to file its decision no decision is final until the written decision is signed by the sitting board members and is filed in the town clerk's office once the decision is filed with the town clerk there's a 20-day appeal period for an aggrieved party to contest the decision with the relevant judicial body in Superior Court after the appeal period the permit must be recorded at the registry of deeds to take effect tonight's agenda is appro on minutes approval of meeting minutes or consideration of approval of meeting minutes for March 28th 2024 a public hearing on zba FY 223-8398 5 megawatt DC 4.4 megawatt AC ground mounted solar photov volaric array spanning 41 Acres on 102 Acre Site with accompanying battery energy storage systems at three Parcels of land owned by WD C cow's Inc identified as map 9B Parcels 11 and 12 and map 9d parcel 27 on shuberry road Ro outlying resident zoning District Frontage and access to subject Parcels of land are located between 187 and 2011 shutesbury Road this is continued from um February 22nd 2024 zba FY 2024-25 one of the zoning B to allow for the construction of a single family home on a flag lot with requested waivers from building uh from building um plans at 386 sha street map 20D parcel 78 RN neighborhood residence zoning District this is continued from February 22nd 2024 following that there's general public comment period on matters um not before the board tonight and other business not anticipated within the last 48 hours before we begin consideration of our two agenda items I want to make clear that we are not going to complete consideration of the shs berry solar special project permit Tonight Tonight is opportunity for the petitioner to inform the board of modifications to the project to permit the board to raise questions and understand the project to hear public comment and to consider whether to direct the staff to engage peer reviewers there will undoubtedly be additional public hearings on the solar project and there could be further modifications to that project perhaps from other the town boards or as a result of peer review so I want everyone to know that this is not the last opportunity for public comment we also have another application that has been continued from February on the agenda and I want to make sure that we get to that application as well tonight so my suggestion is that we spend the first hour and a half on the petitioners presentation and questions from the board at about 7:30 we will break for 5 minutes and we'll have time for public comment I anticipate that that will be about a half hour of public comment then we will move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open to consider peer review the peer review motions we have before us tonight after we've completed these matters we will move to special project application for or special permit application for sha Street and I anticipate that'll be about 8:15 to 8:30 does that work for members of the board as in terms of a schedule without any objection all right so the first matter is there are any disclosures from me members of the board and before we go to the first um order of business Rob I see you have your hand up yeah Mr chair I just wanted to uh call out a typo for the second petition um it's actually 368a sha Street and not 386 uh when creating the agenda I uh put in a typo there so I just want to acknowledge that publicly so the address is 368a sha street thank you all right I'll try to remember that we get it right in the motions all right thank you rob um the first order of business is a consideration of meeting minutes from March 28th 20124 I've reviewed those um minutes I think they accurately reflect the meetings does anybody have any comments changes or suggestions if not I'd entertain a motion that we approve the minutes from uh of the meeting of Thursday March 28th 2024 do I have such a motion move move second I we got it's been moved and seconded any discussion if not the vote occurs on the motion to approve the minutes from March 28th the chair votes I Mr White I Mr sler I Mr Meadows I I don't believe that I was on that board so I'll abstain all right and Mr Henry um also abstain the votes are three to Zer to two three is what's required provides a majority and what's required for approval of the minutes the minutes are approved the next order of business is a public hearing on zba FY 20238 ASD shutesbury ma solar LLC on this panel Mr White is not included um you're more than welcome to stay and listen or you can um do whatever else you have to do for the next hour and a half um but um the panel is myself Mr sloviter Mr Henry and Mr Meadows um so um first off there's not been a site visit conducted since the last hearing on this matter and I want to run through the submissions that have been provided to to the town and to town staff since our last meeting so those are identified in the project the draft project application report dated April 19th and they're in Red so there's a new battery energy storage system narrative there's an CH a new application change log dated April 17th there's a new order of resource area delineation dated um an update is pending we don't have that yet the storm water management report um updated April 17th there's a storm water pollution prevention plan updated April 17th there is a um there are zba there's an updated plans and um prepared by a firm named veran Tera dated April 17th and there's there's a new construction phasing narrative dated April 17 2024 I think those are all the the the submissions from the applicant and the town um we do have Ive noted two um public comments that I noted in the on the in the record one is from Robert bucha and Jenny cik dated April 24th with a attachment and another is um a email from Michael Linsky forwarded by Robert buka from with responses from Miss breast dated February 23rd are there any other public comments that we know of or other submissions that I'd have to note Miss BR um I'm sorry I blinked out for a minute did you list the letter from me about the planning board comments um from October 4th and also um planning board minutes from October 4th from their October 4th meeting you didn't zone out I did not do that I thought that was part of this whole package but that's yes we have um a letter from you uh dated April 18th which has the uh planning board summary of the planning board meeting on this we have and I don't know if this is a separate piece from that we have a pure Sky energy historical project outline uh there's no date on that we have a Department of Environmental Protection um Wetlands policy program um 17-1 fot V photov voltaic system solar array review um the effective date of that is is back in 2017 but I think that's a stated policy there's also a white paper from the amoris water Supply protection committee uh which was approved that statement was approved or white paper was approved on 20 November 10th 2022 those are the ones I the submissions I have that accompanied the planning board documents that you sent me did you mention the uh minutes of the planning board meeting of October 4th 2023 I did not do I have those I have oh that's what you have the um I see that you have said that there is a there was a meeting on the 24th of 4th of October and I I think those are not those are not specific minutes but it's your representation of those I don't see minutes we did subit minutes and maybe they didn't get into the packet so the minutes of October 4th of 2023 should be part of the record and and along with the letter that uh I wrote summarizing that meeting thank you very much Mr chair uh there's a few other documents that were submitt after that project application report was created as well that I could mention to you uh just so they're on the record as well these are documents that were sent to us from a Butters um so the first one is a peer review membo from a uh Environmental Specialist company called Fleetwood that was submitted from in a butter um we also have a draft and rad that was submitted by anab butter as well um draft order I'm sorry oad findings um that were submitted as well and then we have a document submitted from Jenny KCK on April 24th 2024 which is uh emails that were requested through a public records request um the ones that we have involve peer review discussions for this project between myself Miss brup and Aaron Jack our uh conserv sorry Wetlands specialist so um those are the documents that were forwarded to us from Butters to include in the packet and I know it's a lot of documents that we have um but that's all we to to my knowledge that's all that we've received prior to this meeting thank you all right could we make could we make sure that all of those documents are are in the uh website because they are not and open up the comments and put the comments into the comment section please definitely do that we should have those available and then we and let's also do um Rob let's have that in the next those that you mentioned that we are now putting in the the um online form that mentioned have that sent in the next packet then when we have another hearing on this matter so that we have copies of them in the next um board packet cool all right good are there any other submissions that um we should make note of nope all right so um Now we move to cons to uh the public hearing on that matter and who's repres who's representing the petitioner so in attendance we have uh Corey McCandless from Pure sky and then we have Tom Rey who is the um attorney for piure sky so let me go ahead and promote them the panelists right they should be joining us shortly also Mr chair I want to make note that in attendance right now we have uh 26 um members of the public y all right we've got the panelist so um Mr REI or Miss Corey what's your your last name uh it's it's pronounced mandas it's a bit of a mouthful um oh sorry name your name an address for the record uh Cory mandas um uh my my address is um 1460 bar Point Road in Colorado Springs Colorado recently moved from Maine um and yes I can send my my contact information um Rob has it so if he needs to share it with the with the rest of the board members we can make that happen good for the record and Mr Rey sure maybe before I start the whole thing with the um address and everything if we could get Chris maybe Steve loss as well uh he's the engineer for the site so I have a feeling he's goingon to be doing some talking this evening that'd be great I will send him a panelist invite right now thank you very much uh and so for the record Tom Rey I'm going to attorne you with bacon Wilson out of ammer um six Southeast Street uh corner of Southeast and Northeast street right next to the Fort River School um I am here on behalf of ASD shoots Bri Mass solar uh who I think we're just going to call Pier Sky because it's quite a bit easier um with me Corey McCandless from Pure sky and also Steve loss who will join us and Chris Connelly both from bird and Tera and they are the site designers uh for this project and I think you know that Mr chairman did a good job with the introduction um you know we don't expect to be closed this evening we don't expect to be close for I mean frankly a few months like there's quite a bit that needs to be done and quite frankly I think what we think one of the most important things is is to get a peer reviewer um I know that we had this discussion back in October about a peer reviewer and the scope of the peer reviewer or peer reviewers plural um and what they were going to do and hopefully this evening you're able to authorize the staff to contract with at least one of the peer reviewers for better energy storage in the glare and then to uh issue requests and hopefully contract with another peer reviewer or peer reviewers for the balance of the information and so you know tonight we we'll go over the the plans we can talk high level about some of the changes um that we've been working on I'm going to give you an update of kind of where we've been and and where we expect to go but I would hesitate to get into the nitty-gritty of all of the site plans the construction Logistics plans Etc until that peer-reviewer really has the time to dig in and it's without any disrespect to the board but there's a lot of detail here and to have an engineer who's used to seeing this or to have professionals who are used to seeing this type of material I think is going to help everybody and so I think in our mind it would be you know highlevel discussions today obviously receive all the public comment that that the public that you're okay with having the public make and then to continue this hearing to I think your June 13th hearing which I think is the your first one in June uh as either a check-in or potentially the peer reviewer will be done by then which frankly we doubt but just as a check-in and then maybe a real substantive meeting starting let's say in July where in July we can start to compartmentalize the different areas that the board really wants to dive into whether it's you know construction Logistics or battery energy storage or storm water um Etc and so just because it it's a a it has a lot of there's a lot of facets to this project and we don't want to skimp on any of the details because I think P Sky's done a really nice job of assembling those details and they're only going to get better more refined and justified through the peerreview process and there there may be some comments in the peerreview process that cause the plans to change and as was mentioned there may be um some comments uh in the noi process which I'll talk about in a minute that may cause the plan to change so this is more of a here's what we've been doing here's where we are here's where we see that we're going conversation if at any point you want to get into the details we're ready to get into the details um and I don't want to I just don't know that it's going to be the most valuable expenditure of everybody's time and so I you know I appreciate that I think it makes sense to do a high level review open up if board members have questions and details they're free to ask those you know absolutely Mr right so I think I think a good high level review makes sense uh the things that have changed in the new submissions and I agree with with you that this um there's going to be further hearings on this I don't I'm not quite sure on the dates um but um there'll be further hearings on this and we can get into probably subject by subject matter hearings um in the days to come but I want to do want to see what the changes are I think that's important and I want to provide public comment absolutely um excellent so uh where we've been we've last time we were here was in February you know we we got some feedback we've been working on the plans I'll have Corey talk about the battery energy store update and then Steve talk about the The Plan update um we've also been in front of the Conservation Commission in that uh a anrad abbreviated notice of resource area delation oad which is what's issued once you receive that once they approve the anrad you get the order of resource area delineation uh we're just about there so we were in front of the Conservation Commission last evening there are what I would consider ministerial additions to the plan and literally to put on the dates that the plan had been revised and submitted to the Conservation Commission uh nothing substantive nothing about where the the wetlands are but just really more ministerial uh the commission felt it wisest to wait until that was updated so when they approve the plan that is included with it so we expect that fingers crossed in the next two weeks at their next meeting um and so that's where the oad will be I mentioned noi so notice of intent we are going to require a notice of intent because we are going to be within jurisdictional areas um and so we're going to have to submit a notice of intent to the Conservation Commission to get approval to do work within those jurisdictional areas so there's going to be a parallel track with the Conservation Commission uh along with obviously the the zoning board of appeals process we're going through um before we go any further Mr Rey we just need Mr loss to identify himself and give us address for the record and then he can speak when needed okay can everyone hear me yep okay uh Steve loss 240 Hunters Chase ERS Pennsylvania 17319 thank you all right Mr Rey go ahead okay uh and I'm almost done anyways I and that's really that's really where we are uh kcom was last night we anticipate noi we already talked about what we hope to get out of this meeting as far as authorizations for the peer review and then really let the peer reviewers dig into the substantive aspects of this project um and with that I'll turn it over to Corey to talk about the battery energy storage and then to Steve to talk about the updates to the plans great thank you so much Tom um yes good evening everybody um so since we have last uh met with you folks back in February um we have switched our battery and energy storage uh provider that was uh powan um we are since then we have made a business decision to switch to Canadian Solar um they have a so Bank um energy unit that will be installed on this site um as as you may or may not know energy storage you know for any projects above 500 kilowatts they do require per Massachusetts day law energy storage systems to be included in the scope of the project so that's why we are including um energy storage at this project and um in our discussions with powan previously they had indicated to us that they were only interested in working with um solar Developers for portfolio size orders of 100 megawatt hours or more um these systems are incredibly expensive we do not have that sort of need so we started exploring other Main manufacturers and we landed on Canadian Solar so I have since then provided Rob with several documents about the energy storage systems I'm happy to go into detail on any of those materials with the board and um that's that's really and and nothing else has changed since then the pad has shrunk because it is a smaller system so the equipment pad is a little bit smaller so if there are no other questions I'll go ahead and turn it over to Steve to talk about the changes to the site plan may I may I ask question are there any questions on the solar let's focus on the the um change of the battery storage Mr I do have one I do have one question yep um what is the big difference between these two companies in terms of what they offer yeah so they offer different so every battery manufacturer has proprietary information that they include in their uh batteries um so the actual component of the battery is different I cannot tell you off the top of my head the difference between powen and Canadian Solar batteries um it is included in the spec sheets that have been provided to the board um if you'd like I can do a you know I can bring our battery and energy storage Specialists to the table and maybe give a more thorough presentation on the technical differences between the two um but otherwise it's it's it's essentially I mean it's very similar to the pound product um they some come with suppression systems some um models you know have the option to not include those um we opted to not include the fire suppression system because of the concern with um those being deployed and getting into the ground um they also some sometimes they include um material that um or you know in chemicals that may get into the ground um they do have containment systems installed that are designed to um to contain all of that runoff um but with this one we did not we opted to not include it so that's probably the biggest change so one of the concerns that I had um was that the company prior to this one had batteries and reports of batteries um with fire issues and so that's a hard that is a heart of my question in terms of the technical differences so um are there different safeguards um different components make up of this battery that minimizes reduce um those C fire yeah so with fires and lithium ion batteries um the the main reason for those fires is water contamination um with the Canadian Solar Products they are designed to um not have any sort of leakage or any sort of water contamination they have a proven track record to show that that hasn't happened um and we're very confident that they are safe um systems and you know we're working with the fire department to make sure that they are installed properly and function correctly they're also monitored as well um so I mean they they're very safe system they're similar to the um to other you know Standalone energy storage project projects that have been permitted throughout Massachusetts um and have a good track record of safety so thank you Mr Henry I'd like to just follow up on your question if I could um and there is there's been reports of Po fires are there you said that they have a good track record are you telling me that we're not going to they don't have they have no fires or is it um but what is a good track record in your opinion so I was uh speaking to the Canadian Solar product um not not power I know you're screening to the new one you're what's the track record they have it's I mean in Massachusetts I myself do not know of any issues with Canadian Solar Products within Massachusetts I that's not to say that there hasn't been in the past um but they it's they're they're very reliable and they have been on the market for a long period of time um so if that's something that I can uh provide to the board um you know before the next time we appear in front of you folks um I can certainly do do so Mr Henry would you find that valuable I would um I I would yes track record if you can give us a you know the incidents if there are incidents of fires within the you know with this model or similar models would be very valuable yeah we can certainly provide that coincidence I don't know if fires is the right word but you know what you know what we're getting at is the um fires or discharge or problems with that be any sort of incident y certainly and would that be I I then we'll get to Mr L here in a second would that be something that the peer review folks are looking at either Robert or Miss bre that's something they'd be looking at right yes they are they're going to be looking at the specifications they're going to see if it's appropriate for this project and they're going to see um track record pre track record and previous history of where else it was use and and safety and all that stuff all right are there any other questions on the battery storage system before we move on to the changes in the site plan okay Mr L okay uh yeah changes to the site plan uh obviously there's been some uh more peerreview Wetland work going on with uh Goddard and the concom we've imported those revised boundaries um and a couple small additional internal Wetlands into our site plan uh We've revised our uh storm water and erosion control measures accordingly moved all the panels out of any buffer zones for any of those features and uh you know we've Shrunk the equipment PAD as Corey just discussed revised our storm water according to that a as well um and uh you know just updated storm water in ens based off of off of those changes um one other thing we have implemented is uh the screw type um rack for screw type post for the racking so but um can you elaborate on that um I remember that was a discussion is that the way in which it's a fix to the ground and is yeah yep yep just a a couple couple inch diameter post that screws into the ground for uh minimal minimal disturbance or what could possibly be called impervious and are those you know I was trying to understand the the site plan um that was contained in the the packet we got is that are those changes reflected in this April 17th and do they do you show what it was what the change has been made or how how do I read that how do I know that what change um oh how well the changes are on the on this the plan you can see the smaller pad um it changes in green um no no we don't have the changes in green the the uh see here so the wetlands or you know the areas that weren't included in the um concom uh or the anrad determination of the wetlands they're in that hatch hatching shown on the outside the the green areas are the wetlands okay uh excuse me Mr chair um would it be helpful if we screen shared the plans so we can see just I think that would be good idea let's just screen share the plans okay if somebody from the applicant team could do that if they're able to that'll be really helpful um to to the board let me I'm just trying to get a feel for the the size of the changes I know I you described them as small but I think it's probably valuable for the board just to see the extent of the changes and the degree to which the changes are made oh there we go thank you sure okay so yeah you see this hatching these hatched areas on the outside here um they've been identified we got this from from Gard um they've been identified this area not included in the anrad determination um so you'll see those out there all the Bel buffers around the perimeter that have changed you know been ever so slight on the perimeter um but The Bu The buffer areas have been adjusted according to any of those changes there's a few internal uh wetlands in here um and then here is your your smaller pad area the equipment pad is this this Square here it's 90 by 80 on this on this rendition so the principal changes are up in the upper right hand corner as I'm looking along that the the buffer of the Wetland is that right uh there were some changes on this this Northern side um there were some changes in and along here um so we did actually move this turnaround down I think this kind of bumped out up here where we originally had to turn around and we just slid that down a little bit to the South so that is would us would stay outside of the of any buffer disturbance and Steve um Steve made that change in response to the fire department transmittal comment um they asked for a turnaround at least 100 feet away from the equipment pad so we were able to incorporate that um request for the change great Mr Meadows I see your hands up and then miss bre uh I'm curious I if I recall correctly you originally had a uh tracking system and now it appears as though it's a stationary system system can you tell me what why you made that change and what the uh if I'm correct and no and what the sizing is now of the entire system um the the system is still a Tracker system so we have not we have not moved to fixed tilt um the size I guess at this point I would defer that I think to Pure Sky we we've uh you know we've lost a few handels here here and there so I don't know the exact output at this point if that's just is that the sizing the the megawatt output you're looking for or the number of panels the megawatt output yeah yes Steve let me let me check the name play rting on the on the title block one moment please okay okay I'm pretty sure it was listed in um one of the documents that was received by the board Mr CH I think it was in the the battery storage systems narrative I think it went down to like 9.37 megawatt or something like that oh I have a 9.26 7 megawatt yes that sounds about right is that the correct number that's yeah that would be the DC size yeah okay and 4 point no and 4.4 AC is that correct yes that that also sounds correct y all right so that's and the battery storage system is what size it was um it was uh four hours I believe it's dropped down to two hours two megawatt hours so let me also just confirm that for you folks as well yeah that's what I read here I believe I was also brought up at previous meeting Mr chair back in January um I think they talked about cutting back because the I guess the system didn't need the original four megawatt hours I'm just this is just me recollecting information that was discussed at previous meetings of course the applicant can correct me if I'm wrong but that's that's to my knowledge what I remember yeah we did downsize it because um we we didn't need to export um that much power to the grid we using the battery um so I I just I I want to give you guys the right numbers though and they have changed since we um we did drop the panel count so um while I'm looking for that I'm happy to answer other questions let's um why you look for that let's go to miss bre she has her hand up oh I just noticed one another thing and I think Erin jacqu brought it up when she was talking to me and Mr waill and that is that the um the roadway the access road has changed um its course not the gravel road but the road that is I guess it's hardpacked Earth so that um the route of that road has changed since you submitted something to us earlier in this project that's all I don't have a question about it I just wanted to point that out to okay yeah that was that was as a a reaction to the two new uh Wetlands that were uh popped up through the continual process uh so we had to move that through uh to try and offset those two Wetlands the best best way possible to just to have a pathway through there to to construct the project yeah well just to elaborate on what Steve was saying um the in front of you the um 5 s-106 um that 5S Sweatland Steve if you don't mind um putting your cursor over on top of that one yeah so that was and Tom please correct me if I'm wrong but that's the state regulated Wetland um those are we we really didn't want to encroach on that at all so we decided to move um because as you'll previously recall the access road was wrapping around the buffer zone for that and then connecting to the turnaround um just past the equipment pad so we we decided to move shift that to the West um to kind of straddle the two buffer zones of those two new wetlands in the center of the of the array of the array um and it is 40t from um the from the actual to the edge of the road and it's really an you know an earn packed uh access road so we just really didn't want to encroach on that state regulated Wetland and we we thought you know this would be the widest path where it would do you know the most minimal amount of impact um just on the buffer for those two um Amorous regulated Wetlands anything else Mr bre put your hands up just all right um Mr L so yes you you is that pretty much what you were should present or you have more to tell us about the changes yeah no I that that's pretty good overview of what uh what has changed here I I'll pick questions but I don't yeah I don't really have anything else more to to offer till we you know we look forward to going through the peer review process and and uh you know getting into the details at that point all right Mr Rey do you have anything else to present no that's it Mr chair thanks members of the board have questions it seems a lot of this for us the peer review will have um will identify issues and questions more and there may be further changes so I mean are any questions right now really sort of Topline questions um and if there are none there are no further Topline questions we can move on to public comment if that's what um unless there are other board members questions makes sense thank you whoops somehow I just lost I lost my screen for a second can you guys still hear me yes hold on yes we can oh well there we go now I'm I'm back for whatever reason that's good all right that that was yeah which is gone for a bit was probably I needed battery storage to keep that from happening all right um if there are no other comments from board members this is an opportunity for public comment um Mr waill I note that we have what do you sense we have 24 people yes in attendance that's correct 24 24 people in attendance um so we got a large number of people here um if you wish to speak please so indicate by using the raised hand function on your Zoom application or by pressing star n on your phone the chair with the assistance of the staff will recognize people who wish to speak when recognized please state your name and address for the record all comments should be addressed to the board please limit your comments to about three minutes the chair will start a timer to assist you in keeping that time keeping to that time limit if your comment is similar to a previous comment please consider just stating your name and address and state that your position is similar to a prior commentor by doing so the board will be cognizant of the fact that there are several people who hold a similar position and has the same effect as repeating the earlier stated position so we'll note that we'll know that you share a position with somebody else and that the added benefit of giving more people a chance to speak on this matter as I stated before the board is going to hold a lot of public hearings on this or several public hearings on this matter and we'll be taking public comment at all public hearings so I guess what I'd like to do is start off going through with the your done identify the the person who first raised their hand Rob and when you do please give your name when you're recognized please give your name and address for the record and make your comments to the board so Mr chair it looks like the first person that raised her hand um Fleetwood Environmental Solutions that was the company I referenced um the report sent to us earlier so they should be able to unmute themselves and speak to the board can you folks hear me MH yeah thank you um my name is David Cameron I'm with Fleetwood Environmental Solutions LLC 84 Russell Street in Hadley and I'm attending this meeting on behalf of Jenny cck and Robert Booka who are downgrading abutters to the project um I believe that the board was provided with a peer or a third-party review report that I submitted to to the Conservation Commission several weeks ago and um I went into a lot of detail about projects like this in that letter um I would open up by um adding on to attorney re's comments attorney Rey was talking about the the anrad and orad process and I don't know how familiar the board is with how that works but that is kind of the preliminary planning phase for a project like this it's established P ing the Wetland boundaries the legal Wetland boundaries just so that everybody agrees on where those boundaries are and the next step if any work is proposed within um the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission whether it's under the wetlands protection act or the town of ammer wetlands bylaw that's a notice of intent process so that that will still have to play out um in that report that I submitted to the commission several weeks ago I noted that constructing projects like this on land forms like this can be very challenging they're not insurmountable but they have inherent challenges when you're clearing forested hillsides significant acreage management of storm water during the construction phase is absolutely critical um and um unfortunately I I have a lot of experience with this because I been in an enforcement I've I've worked on projects like this in an enforcement C capacity and arguably have more experience dealing with water qu quality violations associated with projects like this than perhaps anybody else in the Commonwealth so I know how these projects can go off the rails if they're not designed and more importantly constructed properly so um getting a a very competent peer-review civil and environmental engineer with demonstrated stormw water design experience and specifically experience dealing with these types of projects in a remedial fashion is probably very important for the board to consider um I do note that according to the latest plans it looks like the applicant has pulled almost everything out of the 100 foot buffer zone uh for the project and I I have to say I really commend the project proponent for doing that that's um uh that's very admirable and it's a it's a great show of good faith on behalf of the project component that means they took they've taken our comments very seriously and they they they seem to understand what the inherent risks are in a project like this so I commend them for that um my clients have encouraged me to offer my technical experience to the board since I've dealt with a lot of projects like this and so I would offer that up if at any point the board wants to contact me directly to get input on how these projects tend to go you can feel free to do that and I think that's all I have great thank you who's the next person we have Mr wiill um and forgive me if I mispronounced your last name Eric bachra thank you so much can you hear me yes coming through loud and clear thank you so much I just want to point out first that give us before you start just give us your address Mr Buck of course it's Eric backrack uh 277 shutesbury Road at ammer and I want you to uh first mention that I did send a letter to be incl and ask to be included in the uh members of the zba's packets on April 19th and received a letter back from a breast drop indicating that the she will uh um uh um uh included in the U zba packet and I did not and I'm concerned because I did not hear that it was included um because it did come from uh myself regarding this project um uh I just want let me read the statement that I've I've written for uh to just to be concise here if per by the zba the shutesbury road solar project will be the single largest project of its kind and likely the only project ever of this magnitude to be seen in ammer this is a huge and environmentally very challenging project and is being undertaken by a company that has been sloppy throughout the application process and throughout the nearly five years it has been active just look the V just look at the voluminous project application and if you follow it through you'll see countless Redline areas crossed out dates more crossed out passages references to Amp Energy in many places that is to say that if pure sky can submit a clean and coherent application what will the project look like this project project has enormous and irreparable environmental damage implications by clear cutting 42 Acres of Forest land we have eliminated any potential natural water absorption provided by the forest and soil what likelihood is there of water runoff control after 42 Acres 31 football fields worth have been stripped to the ground the project is on a to topographically downward sloping terrain what will happen to the Adams Brook the Fort River Watershed and ammer public and private drinking water supply we just don't know in 2019 Dr Raymond Bradley of um's Northeast climate Science Center said quote that our storms have more energy and frequency and this will only increase much of the precipitation will be in the W in Winter and early spring groundwater is at the surface which means additional water from storms will be more likely to flood Downstream given the high water table the zba is taking on a project the likes of which has never been seen before in ammer but we can point to other similar projects elsewhere that have had disastrous outcomes I'm asking the zba to study this project carefully employ objective nonbiased peer reviewers and experts in the field to test the veracity of pure Sky's application assump and to please please look at this project from a 360 degree perspective and will require comprehensive environmental impact studies and examine thoroughly the inherent risks of the project it will be too late for future reg regrets after the damage is done and the forests and wetlands are destroyed please take the time that a project of this magnitude demands before permanent it thank you very much thank you Mr back you're welcome thank you and we'll um I'm I'm sure that your um comment will be we've asked that your comment will be included in the next actually Mr chair was included in your packet I forgot to mention that to you but there was a letter from April 19th 2024 sent from Eric backrack so it might have been missed when you were announcing it earlier on but it is in the digital packet that the board has access to yep um so the next public comment is going to be from Judy eisan of the pelum planning board yes hello this is Judith Eisman I live at 88 Arnold Road in pelum and I'm offering these comments on behalf of the pelum planning board uh and others in pelum who are strongly opposed to this project I will email lengthier comments following this hearing as I did uh in December 2023 when I fored information about current science and reports from private public and governmental studies you did not mention that uh those public comments but I will resend them if you have misplaced or don't have them um sadly I have firsthand knowledge of the dangers of a poorly designed and monitored solar project my son and his wife were the victims of a poor stormwater management plan in Williamsburg on their property adjacent to the Mill River and Devil's Den several tons of Earth washed down onto about 10 acres of their property and damaged Forest Wetlands the river ecosystem and their peace of mind for several years while a variety of attempts to restore the area made some things even worse ultimately after those responsible failed to comply with assorted violations rep reparations and a DN enforcement order a federal court consent degree filed by then attorney general morah hey was settled for $1.14 million the latest scientific studies and evidence scream for denial of a project of this magnitude in an area zoned outlying residential and which includes a large area of wetland Forest of high quality vital to the interests of ammer pelum and shutesbury as well as the region certainly industrial scale solar has a place as we Face a long delayed response to climate change however that does not mean that solar or other energy production types should be located where they will in fact do damage clinging to outdated assumptions scientific find findings and opinions is no help here not only is this area inappropriate for such an industrial use but the main question actually is whether the cutting of trees for industrial solar panels is in furtherance of State policy clearly it is not the changes in the do smart that's solar Massachusetts renewable Target program their the guidelines of smart make it clear that make that clear that cutting trees is not a good idea and climate Chief Melissa Hofer often repeats uh a state makes a statement to the effect that net zero equals increases in electricity infrastructure plus more carbon sequestration cutting down trees does not further carbon sequestration further nature-based Solutions are being promoted by the state's Municipal vulnerability program and remember that solar panels are fossil fuel based with all the attendant problems having to do with eventual pollution and and uh other kinds of uh replacement needs that require again fossil fuels building solar is a stop Gap not a solution to climate change and surely surely someone can locate a better site ammer has already permitted large solar projects elsewhere and this one is a disaster in the making why would the amist zoning board of appeals go along with something that neither benefits the town nor the state's well-being and May in fact cause irreversible damage to soils water in the area's capacity to sequester carbon to sequester carbon I'm sorry while demanding while damaging Wildlife cores and habitat in ammer pelum and shutesbury to the extent that the town of ammer thinks it must do its part to assist with combating climate change and cleaner energy use I implore you to approve another project not this one don't be fooled by questionable science or ignore the motivations involved M Eisman can you kind of wrap up your four minutes one more sense two too often environmental costs are not adequately described in the rush to get things built we are running out of environmental resources to balance against housing needs various desires and corporate greed nature is not just an amenity separate from humanity and it's time we take that fact seriously thank you all right so next we have uh Michael Linsky hi I'm Mikael Linsky 167 shb Road in the ammer but before I begin my public comments I just want to mention that there was a serious Omission on that map that was shown earlier it does not show a newly identified Wetland at the entrance to the project with a 100 foot buffer around it I don't know if they dropped that off the map on purpose or if it's an accident but that is part of the new uh anrad map and they didn't even show the entrance on the screen and I think that's a serious Omission that I'd like someone to address before I begin my comments Mr Linsky um will those things can be addressed after the comment period okay that would be just as good just as well just make a note of it because it was pretty blatant it's that's the option of the presenter if they want to address that okay thank you proceed okay so uh La last October members of the planning board asked pure Sky to provide them with examples of previously completed solar projects that were similar to the proposed shutesbury Road facility they did not do that on April 17th Corey from Pure Sky submitted a document to the zba titled pure Sky energy historical outline this document features a single example from a fairly recent solar project on 179 Adams Road in East Brookfield Massachusetts unfortunately it is not at all comparable to The shutesbury Road Site under consideration it's not clear if Pier Sky really believes that the Adams Road site is comparable or more likely just hoping that no one on the zba panel will question in their example why are these two sites not compatible well let's start with shutesbury Road 41 Acres of disturbance that's 41 Acres of trees brought to the ground grubbed you know the routine by now the Adams Road Site 21 Acres of disturbance half the size the sh bear road site 100% Forest the Adams Road Site approximately 50% of that site was Open Fields the other 50% was trees shury Road has over a dozen well-cared for homes directly abing the project there's people who live there who take pride in their homes and their natural setting many of these homes still house the original occupants so in many ways it's a mature neighborhood but over the years we've had some new families arrive many of them with children Adams Road pure Sky laugh oblique said that the neighbors do not seem to have any complaints about the project well I took a field trip there and here's what I saw let me paint a picture for you across the street from this project is a beautiful old white farmhouse with a per perfectly formed old maple tree in front of it next to that house is a large red and white sign saying coming soon American Industries aggregate asphalt excavations the entire side of the uh the site on the other side of the road is going to become an aggregate asphalt excavation site the people who lived in that house are long gone the uh the site right now is already under construction it's basically just driveways and equipment and the kind of things you'd expect to see on a on a fledge of excavation site down the road on the same side as the actual solar plant Downstream from the solar plant is an area littered with construction equipment it's an excavation site sand and gravel contains uh the Sorting equipment for uh sorting sand and gravel from for an operation you know what those big slides are and you know that the type of machines that are there the type of noise and dust that that produces and to even top it off just down from that is a cement plant those are the neighbors to this particular facility mrin you're run up on four minutes can you wrap it up I'm I'm not even close to done I'd like about two more minutes no we we everybody in other words it's everybody's about about 3 minutes you're at 4 minutes and 20 seconds so kind of wrap it up give us your points there'll be other opportunities to my main point is the comparison that they're making is not true it's not even close to true and yet they're trying to slide it in as a true statement here's my closing so I don't lose that I would urge you to require Pierce Sky to reveal the problems and complaints generated by their facilities in other towns that they did not choose for comparison especially issues that occurred during construction the the lesson to be learned here is the zba meanss to take the time to do a slow deliberate examination of every document and every aspect of this project something that is definitely not happened to date this is a complex project being proposed for an environmentally sensitive inappropriate location please treat it as such thank you Mr Linsky um and so who's their next person so next person is uh Lenor brick hi everybody um this will be under three minutes all right just start with your then start with your name and address please Lenor bricks Strong Street amorist and thank you all for your good thorough work without any disrespect to everyone involved that's just trying to do their jobs well my comments are viewing the vision and purpose for this project through a big picture lens and challenging the fundamental wisdom of these kinds of solar projects unfortunately there's not been enough understanding about how natural systems have always regulated the climate and how intact ecosystems like forests are critical to mitigate the disast effect disast effects of our current climate catastrophe even though the current Healy Administration has outlined climate goals that that highlight restoring soil health and protecting greenlands like Forest restoring soil Health um I'm sorry there REM there Still Remains archaic legislation and Regulatory processes a lack of an integrated Regional approach shortsighted policies and subsidy programs that have been funding projects like this across the state an inefficient lack of oversight all of that so that we're crippled with fragmented governance leaving our local Town boards and committees you guys to have the foresight courage and Clarity to do the right thing for our public personal and planetary Health as you know because something's legal doesn't make it's right because something's right in theory or in certain places doesn't make it right in practice or in every place there's a wealth of current resources if you need more that we at climate Action Now can offer you including academic papers lectures articles websites that clearly make the case that installing large industrial solar plants on any land that we need to protect water quality and Supply soil Integrity biodiversity to help prevent impacts of the flooding droughts increasing heat that's all only getting worse as we all know is the wrong course of action to address the mess that we find ourselves in basically because of our disconnect with nature and our Colonial traditional economies based on resource extraction we urge you to please do everything in your power and in your conscience to make the right decisions thank thank you for all your good work thank you Miss brick um Mr W Hill who's next so we have a Scott cashen thank you Scott cashen I live at 21 hot Brook Road in ammer and I'm a biologist with 17 years of professional experience evaluating the environmental impacts of industrial scale solar projects at the Conservation Commission meeting a member of the public commented that small world pagonia occurs at the project site this plant species is not only federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened but it is one of the rarest plants in the entire Northeast EC region to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any surveys to document the presence of rare plant and animal species at the project site without survey data it is impossible for the public in zba to understand the true environmental impacts of the project and as importantly to formulate mitigation to minimize the Project's impacts on the natural environment plant surveys need to be conducted at the project site the survey should occur throughout the blooming period and they should be floristic in nature meaning every species is identified to the level necessary to determine Rarity in addition the plant survey should be conducted by an independent thirdparty botanist or if conducted by the applicant's consult Consultants the survey methods and results should be peer reviewed a couple comments with respect to Wildlife the site plans show quote unquote amphibian enhancements around Wetlands that would ENC would be encircled by project infrastructure what amphibian species would these enhancements benefit based on the applicants natural resources inventory there have not been any efforts to inventory the full Suite of amphibians or other wild life tax at the project site while amphibian enhancements might seem like a good idea they could have negative impacts depending on the species that occur at the site surveys to document the amphibians and other Wildlife taxa that occur at the project site need to be conducted the applicant's natural resources inventory identifies the possibility that the ferally and state listed long-eared bat could occur at the project site however there haven't been any surveys to determine if the species does indeed occur at the project site bat surveys are essential to understanding the Project's impacts and in formulating appropriate mitigation thank you thank you Mr cashen so so next we have uh Phil Rich okay Phil Rich can you hear me okay yep Bill Rich 187 Shoots Road am I'm the person right right next to the access road the access road comes in at my mailbox so just to be really clear uh and and a number of neighbors already spoken I'm the neighbor most neighborly however um I'm concerned already uh about flooding here my basement flooded just a year ago because of that downhill run that's just the normal run I've talked to the town for years about what gets washed down the road uh that comes across my driveway and is roaded the driveway and eroded the the and this is just the existing 50 ft from my house excuse me 50 yards from my house um we're going to have years and years of of Drive of of path rather torn up so I'm I'm concerned about and I want to be clear and I think this is true for all of the neighbors we've mentioned already kind of the downhill uh uh geology here excuse me geography here but uh I'm one of those people right in line so I have concerns as a as a as a uh a citizen of the town about property values about noise pollution about um uh flooding about drainage about erosion all of these things at least in terms of erosion and flooding are already the case for me so I think that's one thing that I want to be really clear on as a direct abut uh secondly I would be very uh concerned uh with respect to who the peer reviewer uh is going to be uh selected by and and who gets to put that th those names on the list I would formly request that it has nothing to do with and in fact isn't even revealed to uh the applicant team or anybody related to the applicant team so that it really is truly an independent reviewer uh I doubt there's that many reviewers in the state so I imagine that that they're not they're not that far removed but I would be very concerned about that because the whole point here is to ensure that commercial interests for a commercial property aren't really rationalized by all the things that we're hearing in light of all the other things that we're hearing about the potentially irreversible damage I think that's all I really want to say just speaking directly uh uh I guess from my own personal experience and my own heart about this so thank you very much and I appreciate what you're doing thank you very much thank you Mr Rich um so we have um a few more hands up Mr chair so next person we have is uh Jenny KCK thank you very much everybody for your work tonight I want to touch on just give us your name and address Miss KCK before we 147 shutesbury Road in ammer thank you I wanted to touch upon the in your packet there's material from the planning board um as Miss bestr commented we've got the minutes we've got a summary memoral we've got materials that were requested by the planning board when the planning board met uh on October 6 they didn't have peer reviewers uh but they had uh several hours of very sincere questions that they posed many of them were not answered to the degree that the planning board said we can't say to the zba we recommend this project quite the contrary we may want to see it again we we have many questions it is so complicated we would like to be kept apprised of it and after our October 6th meeting we wanted immediately our minutes the summary board and all the materials transferred and in the hands of the zba as they started to think about this project uh this material is in your packet today because as I looked for those materials I discovered n of them had been generated I asked Chris to please do the minutes the minutes were done six months after the meeting I asked for the memo it was done six months after the meeting and none of you had the opportunity to hear the in-depth presentation and discussion of your uh fellow companion board with a great deal of insight and many many questions all that material material is now in your board so the in your packet now we have a problem don't we the procedures are upside down here we're we're at the end of April there's no or ad yet um and yet the applicant is saying just sit back and wait till the peer reviewer tells you what to think about whereas the planning board said here are many many important questions we pass them to you and let's be in communication as we go forward so I think we have a major flaw in the beginning of how this project came to you what you've had available to you to think about and to study uh just as an example a couple of the comments uh tonight Mr cashion talked about concern about species all of that was brought up at the planning board um Mr Linsky talked about this example that was brought up actually in the planning board phasing which you all talked about uh back in October uh if you look at the the uh phasing document it there are some changes but uh it starts out with cutting down all the trees all at once in what's called pre- construction that was a worry to the planning board it was worry to the concom it's a in the uh minutes that you got and the document you got from Aaron jacqu and yet we're sitting here and kind of being led by the applicant to think that what's going to happen is hurry up and get a peer reviewer regarding Mr Rich's comment the peer reviewer for the who has already been hired is the firm wsp uh through a public records search I have seen the documents Mr REI all has worked with wsp through b Blue Wave uh Chris has already told us that wsp worked on Sunderland Road which also Mr REI worked on there is the appearance of a conflict of interest wsp does not seem appropriate for an application that is led by attorney REI and it they have already been selected for one part of it Miss C we're at four minutes here so thank you let's let's write the the process let's make sure that we look at things in an orderly fashion let's not have the applicant lead us through this very very important uh process of knowing what's at stake thank you very much thank you m k Mr Mr ailla who's next we've got two more I see yes Mr chair um can I offer my comment in response to to miss kx's point after our last two comments okay we we'll we'll do that after public comment okay thank you so the next person we have is Renee Moss hi good evening my name is Renee moss and I live at 277 shots Berry Road um I before I even start I have a question for you I see and maybe it's my screen I see only two people from the zba on my screen I only see Steve judge and Craig Meadows is every oh is is oh okay and is everal Henry there too I was just wondering if we still had the quum you got everybody here okay I'm sorry it's just that some reason I that's all I saw okay um yes you know um when uh Mr judge start started the meeting and talked about the charge of the zba you talked about promoting the health safety and Welfare of residents and I think that's why we're all here tonight um I want to just say and not repeat what's been said before that that I agree you know wholeheartedly passionately with everything that has been said so far and I I hope you're hearing our public comments loud and clear this is this is a group of abutters and a group of people other than abutters in the community who have have all been doing so much research spending so much time studying this and you know um wanting to to protect the health safety and Welfare of the people of ammer um one of the things that has um come up for me in seeing the new plan is that we we looking at a delineation for the 40 acres that 31 football fields worth of forest that is being taken down but this is 102 acre parcel and I'm concerned that when we create a project that is so um that has such magnitude what happens to those other 60 Acres what happens to the and if we if we haven't um if we haven't delineated them do we know if there Wetlands just beyond that border and what happens with the storm water plan how does it affect how does it affect that 60 Acres that we haven't even looked at that we don't even know what's there we don't know what the endangered species is there we don't know what the what the Wetland situation is there so um that concerns me that um that those other 60 Acres are are unknown and how how it will be affected by uh a project of this magnitude um I think I just want to urge you as everybody else has has before me please proceed proceed slowly carefully get the right peer reviewers please don't do something that creates irreparable damage um and basically that's all I have to say and I want to thank you for your work and I'm sure this is a very difficult project for the zba I appreciate that and I appreciate you taking your time in doing it thank you thank you Miss Moss uh our last public commentor is uh Stacy I think Rob yep hi I'm Stacy Mulla I live at 26 North Valley in pelum um I'm also a member of the pelum planning board I am in substantial agreement with many of the commentors who have expressed concerns about the potential damage from this project um when you consider the many acres of trees that are going to be cut the desiccation of the soil the eliminating of the habitats the um endangering of the groundwater and potentially the water supply I think to weigh against that um you have to say okay that's all related to health safety and well-being but so is uh climate change and we certainly do need to transition to solar and so the question becomes can we do that can we meet our energy goals and those are also about health safety and wellbeing without causing the kinds of damage that this project inevitably will cause and um our region has been really at the Forefront of um pushing for those energy goals we need to be Net Zero it was going to be 2050 we pushed to do it by 2045 and now that's the goal our Senators and representatives have been aligned about that and they are similar aligned now that they have done studies that doing that does not require sites like this one they've commissioned studies there have been studies at the state level by Harvard Forest by udon the experts in these areas have treated as as an open question saying can we meet our climate goals our ambitious climate result goals can we get to Net Zero by 2045 without clear cutting forest for solar the answer is resounding yes if you look at those reports there is absolutely no need to cut down sensitive areas which right now are the first on the chopping block if you make them last on the chopping block we still have plenty of places that solar can be installed and that's in the reports that I really would encourage you to track down because those reports are currently shifting State policy and subsidies and the faster that the applicant tries to push the more you need to be aware that part of the the reason is that they're um going to be no longer subsidized in the same way for places as biodiverse and as sensitive of this one so please consider the direction that policy will be going and the reports that it's based on that came out of places like aabon and Harvard forestry along with the state itself um thanks very much thank you Mr watchill I think think that's all we have for public comment I see no other hands up you're correct Mr chair we're looking at 7:31 so what I'd like to do is two things before we take a short five minute break uh I want to give the applicant the the chance to reut or to respond to any comments and I know you have a comment you want to make regarding one of the comments which may be more appropriate to make during the public meeting on on on the um peer reviewers so um let's go to the have the um applicant respond if they so choose to any of the the public comments sure Mr chair thanks um I mean I think we can let the process play out and respond in time we agree with selecting the right peer reviewer we agree with taking it slow and meticulous like that's what we're here for um maybe one comment to I think it was Mr lapinsky um with what I would characterize as maybe suggesting we were being deceptive and not including a certain um Wetland on our plan uh we're GNA we have to go through an noi I think he's referencing an offsite resource area uh at the entrance um it's not part of our oad because it can't be part of our OED because it's not on our site and so um that is uh from my my understanding the Conservation Commission through a um request for determination of applicability found a resource area southerly of the access drive and so we will have to go through a notice of intent process for work approximate to that resource area so absolutely nothing deceptive here um that's part of what we're going to be going through in the process um when last thing before we go to break are there members of the board who have additional questions of the applicant all right if not um it's 7:33 we'll take a f minute break and come back at 7:38 um and at that point we will um go to the P enter a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open for the discussion of the peer review all right um see you all in five minutes at 7:38 here great uh we're back at 7:39 um at this point we've done we've had the presentation we've had public comment we've had the ability for the um the petitioner to respond to the public comment and for board members to ask any final questions I would now entertain a motion to move to a public meeting on this matter while keeping the public hearing open do I have moved is there a second moved and second any discussion my intent is to deal with peer review some motions to deal with peer review if there's no no further discussion the vote occurs on the motion to move to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open chair votes I Mr Meadows I Mr Henry I Mr slober I vote is four to nothing we're in a public meeting the public meeting is where the board deliberates and is generally not an opportunity for public comment um tonight we have two motions before us that we really deal with peerreview the first is U and I think if we wish to do peer review what we really need to do is to authorize the staff number one to issue an RFP regarding those subject matters which we have identified in a previous meeting we wanted to have pre peer- review on and then to also authorize the staff to Once to evaluate those rfps and to engage in the contract with the peer-review of their choice um as as through the rules for the rules of the zbaa so um I think probably it' be valuable if either Miss breast or Mr waill would just give us a brief background on the the process you use for doing an RFP and how you select a a peer reviewer and I guess and also real briefly the top how the topics were chosen I think that's because we chose those topics at the last board meeting but that was a while ago and people may forget so M breast do you want to take that I think it would be appropriate if Mr watchill um took that and I will add things if I think they needed to be added okay that would be great sure um thank you Mr chair so basically How We Do peer review is that um we would draft what's called a request for proposals and basically that is a document that outlines the tasks of require from the peer reviewer um so for the first round that we submitted it was for the topics of um solar glare study and Barry storage Energy Systems um and you know we did advertise that as such uh the zoning board did authorize staff to start the peer riew process which means that you know you allowed for us to go ahead and start drafting these rfps to solicit proposals from potential peer reviewers which is what we did and we did this back in January um so we let that process stay open for about three to four weeks um usually that gives people enough time to see our solicitation they'll draft proposal and then they'll send something back to us and usually what they send back to us is uh you know a background of what they're going to do they'll give experience of what they did professionally um past experience at other towns previous project Etc and then usually they'll include staff who are going to work on those projects and their relevant experience and qualifications Etc so when we did get responses back we only got responses back from one firm wsp and as Miss kaleck mentioned they did work on a different project for battery storage back in July of last year for the company known as bluewave um so along with that proposal all Consultants are also required to submit a conflict of interest statement which means that they can prove or they state to us directly that they have no direct conflict of interest with the applicants so at this point wsp does not have a direct conflict of interest with pure Sky because they historically have not worked on any recent projects together and to my knowledge no projects within the past five to 10 years at all so that is why and since they were the only person that responded to the RFP we went ahead and and signed a contract with them so that was to the error staff because the zoning board is actually the authority that chooses the peer- viwer so that's one of the reasons why the first motion is to come to you as the board and mind you we have paused any work with them so we have not done anything since February I mean the only thing we did was just Mee with them one time to go over the project and that's it um so that first vote is going to authorize us staff to go ahead and to work with um wsp on the bar battery storage and the glare study aspect of the peer review the other thing that has to be done is you as board have to decide if you want us as staff to go ahead and start the second round which includes the topics of construction um phasing the site plans and water quality and we're going to group all those together into one big peer review and then do the same thing over again and hope that we get solic ations back for that so I do see two hands up for Mr Henry and Mr Ms I don't know if you had questions about what I said specifically I do just just just one did you say there was only one company that's bid for this first peer review yes that is correct okay and for the for the construction part of it do we have more than one bids so we haven't actually um so we did back in late January submit an RFP for the second peer rview that I mentioned but nobody responded to us after four weeks at all so we're going to have to resubmit that after the board authorizes us as staff to do so so when we submitted the first round which is just the solar and the battery storage one firm that was it when we as staff submitted the second round to see if anybody would actually get back to us nobody applied at all so that's kind of where we're at right now and we're hoping that since it's get to be around April and May firms may have more time for these types of peer rviews so that's kind of where we're at right now right and my other question is to prevent delays in in what we're voting for now yes could we vote to say that we will defer to you guys when you get their bids back to just choose the best option that's that would be the motion yes authorize the staff to contract with the the peer review and also I want to add to that um Mr Henry so that's a good question and usually staff works independently on hiring and vetting these peer review um Consultants that submit proposals to us we'll look for one that we think is the most qualified one that has the least amount of conflict at all uh sta sorry consulant that we believe can do a thorough and effective job on these types of reviews so that's that's essentially where given the responsibility to us to do okay thank you Mr Meadows I I guess I've got a couple of comments um you know I I put out a lot of RPS and if we only get one response we do not take that we go back out again and we go directly to recommended consultants and try to encourage them to participate so I would feel very uncomfortable if there's only one selected uh consultant for peer review because they and they were selected because they were the only ones applying secondly with wsp I I I have full faith in Mr and probably wsp but any seeming appearance of conflict is is inappropriate for us to hire a company with and while I you know as I say my confidence in Mr REI and probably what wsv I don't know them at all I one they're the only only reply secondly there's the possibility that there's an appearance of conflict and we we shouldn't go along with that secondly we had some good comments tonight about uh from Mr cashion about including a plant survey an emian survey and a bat survey and I think those comments should be taken with a great deal of interest and we should include those in either a a separate peer review for those uh or somehow included in the overall although I doubt that the you're going to get the same kind of response for someone who's looking at construction as you would getting someone who does a bad survey uh so I think all of that should be taken into consideration Mr chair can I answer Mr meow's concerns and questions yes so we did reach out to four firms before we submitted that first r P Craig regarding the battery storage and the solar glare study um reputable firms in in those fields and wsp was one of those fields actually that we reached out to as well to get an idea of how much it's G to cost for a firm like that to do that type project we aggregate all that data and we sent out the RFP and they happened to be the only firm that reply to us what makes us as staff comfortable in selecting them them is due to their qualifications of working on the Blue Wave project which is a much larger Bary storage project and they also proed to us that they've worked on other larger barrier storage projects as well so just from qualifications alone us as staff felt comfortable making the determination that they have a high level expertise in citing and developing these types of projects um I do understand the concern that only one peer reviewer submitting an RFP could be cons concerning I just think in the situation for us as staff and Chris you can jump in here if I'm kind of going off the path a little bit I mean it did not make us feel uncomfortable because we we knew they had the qualifications already um and usually if one firm replies back it could be a firm that doesn't have a lot of experience a firm that's just trying to get their foot in the door to do these types of projects to build up their resume so I I get the concern where you're coming from and to the conflict of interests um discussion that was brought up so we did speak with our talent attorney about this specifically we asked them and said Tom Rey worked with blue wave and wsp was engineering firm for that company and now he's representing pure sky for this project and Town Council did not really Express a lot of concern to us about that being a major issue to the point where we can't go forward with wsp as our peerreview Consultants he said the most important connection appearance conflict of interest outright is the conflict of interest between wsp and pure Sky directly to which there is none and Chris you can jump in here if I'm not fully covering everything that was discussed with with our attorney but that was the gist of what we got and that is the reason why we are considering moving forward with wsp if the board authorizes us to do so thank you I don't have anything to add to that um Mr SL yeah just to understand the RFP process is it normal to only get one response and is it because we're a smaller town or where we are or we're not in Boston or why why are there so few firms that we can even approach it's a good question so there's several reasons um the one that's if you submit an RFP earlier in the year that's when a lot of big firms are getting projects at their doorstep so a lot of those firms don't really have the time allocated to doing a peer riew they're trying to focus on doing the other projects that bring business to their organization there's also if you make the peer riew seem too small and specific that drives away a lot of firms as well so just to make a correction the second round of pew that we rfpd after the solar actually wasn't the big broader topic that I was talking about it was just water quality so I wanted to re-clarify that point so we had one RFP submitted for the solar and Barry storage and then we had another one submitted for just the water quality by itself and the reason for that was because conservation was going to do their own peer review for the wetlands and the storm water so the zoning board we thought it was appropriate and the applicant agreed with us to to Pur to this to go with the water quality and just the solar the aspects that wouldn't have been affected as much by the change in the site plans and the water quality came back with no responses because we as staff anticipated that wasn't a significant enough PE riew for a firm to really consider submitting a proposal for so our idea was to combine the remaining topics into a larger one so we could get the interest of firms who would be willing to solicit this type of work because there's a large project for them to work on okay thank you thank you yep that you you actually answer part of my question Rob my my question was going to be is there a scenario where we can just put everything together um for one large Peay revie to get more responses from people so I also want to add that um we we determine that because of the fact that nobody respond to the water quality peer review RFP that that was the case that you know people didn't want to waste their time applying for something that was going to take them like a week to do um dedicating the manpower to just doing like a small peer riew that didn't really generate a big income for them so the idea of combining it we thought would attract more firms to want to be our peerreview consultant for for this project and Chris do you want to add anything to that so I want to uh concur with Mr waill um the amount of money that's associated with these peer reviews is relatively small and for big engineering firms you know if they're going after projects that are $100,000 or more it's hard for them to you know focus on something that's only going to be8 8,500 which is roughly what wsp is um going to charge us so um you know I think it's it could build up their reputation or you know do something for them um publicity wise but it's not really going to do very much for them in terms of income so I think that's one of the reasons why um we didn't get the uh number of responses that we had hoped so go ahead Mr so I I I I understand the the hesitation with them being the only response but does that mean because they're the only one that respond that they're not qualified or or competent to do this um to what everyone just said that's nature of business is so small that more reputable and largic firms do not want to bid so why wouldn't we go with this company if they're the only one that bid understanding what we're facing so I kind of alluded to that earlier there's two reasons the first reason um people might be dissuaded from going with a firm that was the only firm that applied is because that firm might just be a recently created firm or a firm that doesn't have a lot of experience of doing these types of project behind it so they're trying to get their foot in the door and the other reason is because some firms maybe have more resource available to them to we doing a project that small may not impact them impact them negatively if they were to just dedicate one or two principal staff to doing it in this case we think wsp is the lad because they're specialized in doing these types of projects so they have the manpower to consider doing this project and they already know the area in anyways like they did another project in town so they have a person on staff who who might know this and might be able to fit the time to do it and just keep a good relationship with the town in the process um that's that's kind of the impression that that I'm getting from it but Mr Meadow's main concern was the first point that I made that it could be a firm that's just looking to get a project in to on their resume just to get their foot in the door somewhere and from my previous job job in a different town that's kind of the experience that we had to deal with for for peer review and for any sort of project where Municipal finances were used but but my question is based on what you've seen um very simple are they qualified to do this work I believe so yes because they have a principal who's been doing this type of work for over a decade and they have staff who are going to be supporting him on this and they've done other projects one other big project in town actually but several projects across the Commonwealth so I me me and Miss brup believe they're very qualified for this peer viiew thank you yep I got a couple of questions um one how far along are we with um wsp um given that we've already I guess we have a contract with them but kind of on hold um is that if we wish to if we would decide that we want to go for um a new RFP to try to get more uh responses could we do that or would we would it be in a situation where we breach the contract and that in that case would the town have to pay as opposed to the applicant if we went back and did a a second RFP or where are we on that so that's the that's my first question I would like to defer that one to miss brup if if she doesn't mind answering that question yeah um we've signed the contract with wsp in the past it's been common that the um staff chooses the uh peer reviewer and S and the town signs a contract um with the peer reviewer this has never come up as an issue um to the extent that it's coming up on this project and so we felt comfortable going along with wsp and then um you know people started asking questions about it so we're bringing it to you to vote on it but we did sign a contract and we would have to ask our uh Town attorney at um KP law um what we could do about getting out of this contract if we chose to do that um we wouldn't just do that on our own right okay so there's some complications there next question I have is I want to explore the I want to explore the conflict issue briefly it seems to me that the the allegation was that there's potential conflict of interest because Mr REI represented a client who had as a subcontractor wsp and that in this case he's representing another client who may have as a subcontractor wsp and that that is an appearance of conflict of interests because subcontractors of his two clients because he had the same subcontractor for two clients is that a is that the concern that was expressed and is that your concern Mr Meadows as well it's my concern was simply the appearance not not the actuality but the appearance and I you know as I say I have full confidence in Mr Rey to be objective on this stuff but I it it there is the potential to have an appearance of a conflict yeah Mr but Mr Reed doesn't decide in this case I agree it looks like you got Mr REI doesn't decide who the RF who the right peerreview person is that's not his so he had has no role in making that decision and we have to question I guess the the question for us as a board is number one we're we're already committed number two um there may not be other people that want to do this and number three that we look at that we with count to Council reviewing it and our our own view is also important here looking at this we can be concerned about a conflict of interest but we may not be able but it's not a direct conflict of interest it may be appearance of conflict of interest and we may not be able to get a peer review from somebody else and if we do um it's going to it perhaps would cost a town to pay for this rather than having the solar project paid for it so I'm trying to work work through all this I don't want to have a conflict of interest but I think we're maybe down too we're down the road a bit on this one that it's going to be hard to step back and the appearance of the conflict of interest is a concern but I don't see the direct conflict of interest and we have some opinion from a Town Council Town counselor or town attorney that there is no conflict of interest so I'm I'm kind of inclined to go with I don't like the notion of single respondent at all but we go back out with another RFP we just be we would be paying for one and the and the applicant we could be paying for one and the applicant could be paying for another uh Mr sler I am uh sensitive to Mr Meadows concerned about an appearance of a conflict of interest but if the town staff feels that there is no conflict of interest and if Mr REI clearly had no influence and doesn't control the the peer reviewers it seems almost just a coincidence that they're the same people I'm not sure that Mr Reed even knew they were coming and he doesn't look like much of a mob boss that could put his uh his own person into play there so it doesn't I'm sensitive to an appearance of something but if in fact there is no conflict if the town staff is very comfortable that there's no conflict I don't think that it's appropriate for us to give in the potential of an appearance that you know one person may be concerned I don't see anything Sinister going on here I'm a little bit conf I mean I Now understand better why only one company responded but okay so only one company but if if if Mr wiill and miss brra both feel and the rest of the people who know these people feel that they are competent and qualified and experienced I don't see a problem with this and for the record I sh just move on and and make the decision for the for the record I share David's position the second Mr matow do you want to respond I I I will I will go along with the town attorney's uh assumptions yeah so the second so that's one issue the second issue is and I think we have a third issue that came up the second issue is to is authorizing of them to advertise an RFP for four different subjects site design construction phasing impacts to water uh three impacts to water quality and that is we'd have to it start the process over again it seems to me you started with water quality and you combined you got no responses you combined it with some other things now and so you're starting to Pro the RFP process over again for number two is that correct um yes but we already have most of that drafted up I mean we have it just sitting in our folders I mean we're going to review it um if the board authorizes us to go ahead and do it we can have it out by early next week yeah that started I mean it's just it's not like we start the process over it's not like it's gonna delay us any further what I mean is we haven't done anything we haven't sent out the RFP yet no we haven't we haven't because we wanted to wait for the board to to discuss it with us and authorize us to do so because in the zba rules and rs it says that the the board picks so if the board authorizes staff to pick on your behalf then on the record you have you're delegating that responsibility to us and the second thing I wanted to say is I'd like the notion of the RFP to study um it was rare rare plants and idian and something else and I don't think that's going to be the same kind of firm that you have for the um the plant the water quality construction and site design and you might find that there's a whole there's a community of peer review or of firms that specialize in this in that kind of work and I would think an RFP on those would make sense I'd leave it up to the board to decide if they agree with me on that and and to write the U to identify the subjects but I think that does make some sense uh Mr chair actually I do I do there's a few firms that actually are comprehensive enough to include biologists and environmental scientists in their staff like there's you'd be surprised how big some of these firms are that have offices all over the country that employ like 100 people a single branch that have a vast range of different qualifications so if even if it was included as a topic it could potentially it could fit in some firm's scope and purview it would have to be a larger firm yeah but here's what I'm thinking have a separate RFP on that make sure that the person that gets the firms that you that see the RFP for the existing RFP also know there's an RFP out there for the the species endangered species or where how we want to phrase that amphibians and bats and and endangered um animals they may want to combine them together and that that would be an advantage that they have but there may also be I'm trying to make sure that you have as good of a um coverage of potential uh engineering firms as possible some would be small um environmentally focused some are going to be construction focused and if there is one that is both they see they can combine the two and you can just state that in the RFP no we can explore that I mean that's that's not yeah we don't disagree with that I think you can work that out yeah Mr you got your hand up I wonder if Mr wiill would put up the list of um topics that we had talked about last October for the RFP for the peer reviewer just so we don't lose anything because I I in my memory I thought thought there were five topics but I could be wrong about that but if Mr rillo would just put up the list we'd know for sure what we're dealing with yeah let me just find it real quick so if that takes some time and that's that wouldn't affect the first motion and while Rob is looking that up let's let's do the first motion um and then we can discuss more on the second and potentially third instruction to staff so what I would like to do is move to the first motion which would be to authorize the planning staff to hire and work with wsp as a peerreview consultant on the topic of solar glare study and battery storage on the board's behalf do I have a do I have such a motion so moved do I have a second second I moved and seconded yeah M bre there's there any discussion M bre no I'm fine I I didn't need to uh add to that got it all right it's moved and seconded any further discussion if there's no further discussion the vote occurs on the motion um the chair votes I Mr Meadows I Mr Henry I Mr sler I the mo the vote is four to nothing um first motion passes now Rob is going to pull up the um earlier topics that we had and we'll see if those should be included in then e included in the second motion or if they've already or a third motion I am still looking for that Mr chair I am incredibly sorry I am going to find it as fast as I can It's Tricky when you're not on your uh work desktop or using the uh laptop that's provided to you uh it would have been in the packet for the October 12th um CBA meeting October 12th I'm GNA check there one more time let's see well I think I have those papers still here in my house October 2nd it is it's in it is in 1.6 pay-per-view documents and there's at the very first heading says perer review topics oh so it's in our current meeting pack okay yes it is my yes I was smart enough to include it in this meeting pack as well thank you everal all right let's uh cover page yeah let's screen share that there we go all right um so these are the topics so as I mentioned the ones that you just voted us to continue with and authorized us to essentially work with wsp on are just number six and number seven so these are the two that we currently have a consultant for for peer review y number eight is an optional one we put in there in case we wanted uh legal fees to be covered by the applicant and then this one we're going to go with is a third-party construction monitoring during the construction process which the board could make a possible condition but we we are exploring that idea um but that'll be for later on um but right now we're combining site design construction phasing which includes tree removal and the two construction phases I believe phase a is to um grub all the tree roots and stabilize the site and phase B is to install the actual solar panels themselves um impact to Wetlands after discussing with Conservation Commission they're going to do their own peer review on this as well so uh Miss prup I see you're pointing your finger at something are you do you want to comment on that so are we saying that we don't need number three because the Conservation Commission is uh taking care of that okay yes so number three and number four the Conservation Commission are going to do their own peer review on so we're going to kind of combine the data that they get from their peer review with our own peer review and use that as a way of um analyzing the project broadly so we don't have the applicant pay for the same topic twice essentially so yes I understand that about number three I understand how that's solely the responsibility of the Conservation Commission but as far as storm water management I think there's a lot of storm water management that's going to have to go on that is not under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission it's outside of the 100 foot buffer and I think that the zoning board of appeals should have its own peer review of storm water management for the site as a whole and we can take advantage of what the Conservation Commission finds but I really feel like it's important to look at the site as a whole and not just um have the focus be on the Wetland issues and the 100 foot buffer so that would be my opinion so I think that we need peer review on topics one through five that's what I would or excuse me uh 1 2 4 and five that would be my opinion and also um Mr chair we should if the board wants us to do storm water management as perview topic we should add that to the motion yeah you would have to make as well and we I agree with Chris she brings up a good point um I guess looking at the whole project comprehensively storm water design is very important and if we group that as well as water quality with the first two items I think that's going to be a big enough peer review that is going to attract more firms than zero yeah I I I was unaware that the Conservation Commission wouldn't do storm water management so I agree with that so one two four and five yep and we would amend the motion to include storm water management plan yep I would say storm water management and also do like a hyphen design so storm water not just the management of storm water but also how they design their storm water mitigation systems as well both very important things do we want to add the plant survey amphibian survey and bat survey here or do we want to have it as a separate motion you know Craig my suggestion would be to have it as a set motion but instruct the staff to make sure that they let the RFP knows that there's there's this if they let the respondents or the people that are reading this RFP know that there's a second one out there or a third one out there because I think that does give big firms opportunity to do both and a small firm may just we may have a good small firm that just does environmental work right no I agree with that I think doing it as a separate motion is good because that allows for us to do as a separate RFP as well um but we could also go to firms asking them about both so we can get an idea of interest and stuff like that early on yeah you're reaching out okay I sense cons I mean I don't hear any objections to that I sense a consensus that we have site design construction phasing storm water management plan and um and design storm water management plan and design is that that the terms you use Rob yep storm water management and storm water design yep all right and then we have impacts to water quality so unless we have people who wish to discuss that further uh I would entertain a motion to authorize planning staff to advertise an RFP for the and peerreview topics site design construction phasing impacts to water quality storm water management and storm water design so moved and and to authorize a planning staff to select and hire a peer review consultant on the board's behalf while adhering to the appropriate processes of the vva rules and regulations on peer review selection all right so let's have the let's have the staff do their jobs right do any discussion if not vote occurs on the motion chair votes I Mr Meadows I Mr Henry hi Mr sler hi and the last thing is I think we should do the um the threatened and endangered species and plants so that's if I heard it tonight and if you have others it's amphibians it's fast is there any other uh and then there was some some plants plss some plants and and I think we have to be more um specific than just plants um otherwise we could have a pretty big you know there's a there's a rare species that that uh public comment reference I don't remember what it was I'll have to look through the recording uh Mr cashion actually is raising his hand if you want to to tell us what that you know at we rarely have public comment during um public meetings but this is the time when we need additional information so perhaps Mr cashion can give us some language yes could you please Mr cashen tell us the plant species that you reference yeah it's um the common name is small world and it's w r l e d pagonia p g n i a and I can um provide the scientific name if that helps um there I was informed of two other rare plant species uh on the site as well um and I can get you the the names of those I think with okay go go ahead what I was thinking go ahead you finish up and then I have a suggestion yeah I mean I don't know how much you know now's the time to talk about it but I just say you know if if you need help in sort of crafting the language of the RFP I'd be glad to help with that you want a survey that is going to focus on you know it's it's got to be appropriately timed the pagonia in particular has a very narrow blooming period And so to to properly identify that species you have to be out there at the right time of year can't just um you know so doing a plant survey after the plant blooms is not going to be sufficient and so I think you need to sort of outline those criteria in your r FP um I would add that you know in addition to searching for and establishing presence and abundance and distribution of rare plants it would be helpful to have just an overall inventory of plants that's kind of typical in a rare plant survey is that the botanist will record all the plants that they see that's going to give you an idea of biodiversity um and kind of same goes through um same is true for bats and amphibians you know um bats are are very difficult to detect that require specialized equipment and so that would require you know that that's something you'd want to specify in the RFP so so one of the things I was my suggestion U and I thank you Mr Cash and for your expertise so my suggestion is that we authorize the planning staff to advertise an RFP uh on the following peer- review topics um so on the the um incidents of rare plants including or such as small world Patagonia and others right amphibians and rare threatened amphibians and bats but you know I don't know that we want to tell them that we want to have a entire um inventory of every plant on the site or every animal that walks through the SES I think we're just looking at the threatened or endangered um um plants that occur on that site um because that's what we're that's what we're really concerned about so and the STA and then authorize the staff to be specific in the we will authorize the staff to be specific in the um in the RFP but I think we give them general direction in this in the next motion and I also could um I'll I'll look up Mr cashin's information and reach out to him as well for for um his um advice on how to craft a good RFP because he he did bring up some good points there um thank you does anybody think we need to be more specific than the mention of uh rare plants uh such as the small world Patagonia um and threatened or endangered amphibians bats and other plants makes I I think it should say to include but not limited to yes I I agree with that yep to include but not limited to okay right yeah and this is still part of the motion right okay well this is this is the third this is the third motion third motion right the third peer review is to authorize the planning staff to advertise an RP for the following peer-review topics as we just discussed with include but not limited to those topics we discussed and to um to select and hire a peer review consultant on the board's behalf while adhering to the appropriate processes of the zba rules and regulations on peer review selection do we have consensus on that close enough and that's specific enough for Chris and Rob yep okay that's fine then I would entertain a motion on that so moved Second Great any further discussion if not the vote occurs I vote I Mr Meadows hi Mr Henry I sler I all right motion carries four to nothing we're done with peer reviews I think uh Miss uh Mr chair Corey has her hand up yes cor yes you're muted you're muted oh B's on the phone no okay yeah sorry about that um I'll I'll make it quick um I uh we certainly will you know go forward with these uh studies um I just wanted to make it clear that as an I will demonstrate um this is a potential for Habitat it is not not saying that it is there and you'll see with especially with the bats they're along the entire east coast of the of United States um it's really just the potential for the bats to be there as habitat but there's no known hibernacula this study and we'll do a study and you know we'll show that um and then I also wanted to make another Point um uh this will all be funded by pure Sky we'll work with the we'll work with staff and you know with the per were to make sure the funds are um sent and you know uh processed appropriately but this will not be funded by any taxpayer dollars by the town of Amis so just wanted to make that clear yep that's right thank you very much for voting tonight all right so um I think we finished the business of the solar panels and the solar project so I would entertain a motion to continue the public hearing on zba FY 2023 um shutesbury wrote so our project to a specific date and we need a specific date to do that Rob and and I'm not sure what you what we're looking at in terms of the dates for the next hearing I so actually it was um requested by the applicant um before this meeting to consider the first meeting in June and if we're sticking to the normal I believe it's the second and fourth Thursday of every is it first and third or second and fourth I'm confusing myself now my apologies um second and fourth Thursday of every month um the first meeting would be June 13th to continue this hearing date too does that work for the panelists and the applicant as a date to continue this hearing to it's not a great date for me I'm not sure that I could have some Conflict at that day okay so the next date is June June 27th is the next day after that um well then we're getting into that time when I'm gone so what about and and what about that Thursday the first Thursday of the month the 6th of June yeah um how do the other board members feel about that that's an that's an off-week meeting yeah um but if everybody's schedule is clear would that work for David Craig and everal would that replace one of the other meetings um probably not if there's a bunch of submissions that we get it's very possible that if we don't get any at all for June 13th that that meeting's just going to get canceled or become an administrative meeting but the the other good news Mr Henry is we've got a full set of of um alternate members now and True full set of full members now so you know if you are if there's a new topic that comes up for that time when you can't be there we probably can cover it but A continuing it's more difficult when we have a continuing situation like we have here I you know we can't just kind of come in and out especially with only four members I can make June 6 work y said it it was probably just a touching base anyway so yeah let's make June 6 work yeah I I can I can attend June 6 also all right great so I the motion is to continue this public hearing um on zba FY 2023-24 to nothing all right we'll see you guys all on the sixth thank you very much all right thank you you take care thank you so much very much appreciated I can I ask a quick question of Mr wiill sure or or the chair or anyone actually is is the on June 6 likely to only be the solar project yes because it's an off week meeting it's an off week so we're doing it specially for them so only be solar and it may not be a lengthy meeting anyway no it's just going to be this because usually we schedule public hearings or sorry new applications for a normally scheduled meeting date right yeah but it's it's fine I purely informational I'm happy if it goes till 9:30 I don't [Laughter] really and you're doing it for me you're doing it for me yeah I'm doing it for the chair so he has doing it for me yeah not we're not doing it for Pure sky doing it for me right right okay thank you the next order of business is zba FY 2024-25 one of zoning bot to allow for the construction of a single family home on a flag lot requesting waivers from building and I don't think lighting plans anymore but from building plans at 368a Shay Street M 20D parcel 78 RN neighborhood resident zoning District continued from um February 22nd 2024 um there's not been a site plan since the we've initially since we initially uh looked at this matter back in February and I just want pull up the submissions so Mr chair actually there was um oh sorry you said site plan instead of site visit Mr chair site visit I meant site Vis that's I plan I have too much in front of me at this moment and here we go um the submissions we have are in the Draft application report it's a light model submissions include light model and examples lighting specifications and lighting comparisons we received since the last um meeting um we have they're no longer requesting a waiver from lighting plants because they have a lighting plant I model in examples um and that's it for that's it for staff submissions or I I saw no public comments or public submissions as well so if there's nothing else um this is an opportunity for the applicant to make their case so uh Brian Baker is an attendance and I did uh give him a panelist invitation he has to accept it uh Mr chair I do want to note that on the site plans he did send us an updated site plan that has the details for the retaining wall that he's going to install on sites um that will in the last copy of the site plans but it was requested to be provided by the town engineer yes so he's finally the appin finally provide that to us okay so Mr Baker um please identify yourself and your address and let us make your presentation and for your for your information Mr White is joining the panel um for this matter all right hello Mr White um my name is Brian Baker uh my home address is 95 parlo Drive the property and address is 368a Shay Street I believe that uh Mr waill noted before that there was a typo so I'm just reminding you of that because you said you might forget um that's good yeah I I tried to catch it so all right yeah so last time there were uh two requests number one was for a uh wall detail which was provided in the updated civil plan um and the second part was concerns around lighting um and lighting trespass and glare on the neighbors um rather than submitting a plan uh I submitted a modeled uh image because I think it was clearer to do that to show um the intention um I'm not sure if you'd like me to share documents or if you have the documents available I think that the let's deal with the lighting plan first or the lighting um idea first yeah you know be helpful to you to share the before something that's before and after I'm just not quite sure what that is I guess that's what you originally proposed and then you changed your mind and have a difference no that's not the case uh those are just examples of of what I'm proposing so what I'm proposing is shielded dark skylighting the concern was lighting trespass on the neighbors and glare um and the suggestions at the time were you know how are you going to be able to build a fence high enough how are you going to be able to get trees in the right places um in order to prevent you know a a harsh light shining through the back window of the neighbor's place and um I think that you know those are are valid points and so what I'm proposing instead is dark sky compliant lighting um the name you know comes from the idea that it's not meant to cause light pollution um and you know limit visibility of stars and whatnot um but the light that I've specified um you know the other benefit of dark sky lighting is it also reduces lighting trespass um to adjacent properties so if you look at the shielded light and at the model and I can also share that the actual model and rotate around it um because the light is shielded horizontally the only trespass in terms of glare is in a cone out from the light if you look at the specification sheet where the light is turned to its side you can see that the LED light array is recessed up into the cylinder and so there is no direct view to the light from anywhere and the model is meant to show with the stepped Contours and whatnot that even with the the ground dropping down there is no angle at which you could directly see those lights and have the experience of glare you would have to be within you know 10 15 ft of the house in order to have the experience of glare from those lights because of how the light is recessed up into the shielded fixture and I think if you share the specification sheet um you'll be able to see a little bit of how that's constructed and why that's the case oh good you put them all together so this is these are examples of dark skylighting and how you cannot see the glare from the actual bulb you just see the glow on the surfaces that you're trying to light uh and that it doesn't project outward the ones at the bottom there on the stairs are not dark sky compliant lights those are stair lights but the ones above are this is another example where you'd have to be right up adjacent in order to be able to see glare from the light that the light is directed and doesn't trespass into adjacent properties and then those other ones are examples of more conventional lighting fixtures that aren't dark sky compliant and how that issue of glare uh is very apparent in these situations um I don't know if you can see through the fence there in that example but the point of that one is there was another one and there's a person standing in that opening of the Gate of the fence and the glare is so bad that you can't see the person because you're blinded um and then there's another example where you can easily see the person because they've shielded the light so my my proposal is to have all of the lights specified as shielded fixtures that would not allow light trespass to adjacent Pro properties all right so that's the light your lighting proposal um and the only thing I it seems to make sense I I understand what you're saying the problem the thing that that you're trying to solve is that that cone of light doesn't extend as the as the ground drops away the cone of light um goes farther down the the the uh ground towards the neighbors as the um light as the as the ground drops away if it drops flat it was flat would only go so far but drops away it has to go down a little bit farther and you're saying that it doesn't it won't that you have looked at it and said that it won't be within it won't trespass on their land because it it won't go it won't proceed down that hill far enough to trespass on their land is that what you're saying it looks like Rob wants to say something Rob yeah just want to uh clarifying Point um so usually the biggest issues from light fixtures is that you know he brings a good point about the glare so you know vehicle headlights is always the biggest thing the board is trying to condition against with screening and stuff like that because the headlight the the the the majority of the light is going towards that person's window or view shed and so what he's proposing is that the main I guess the vision ual of the light the brightness of the light is directed upwards so the residual light is being pointed down in reflecting motion that's still able to light the area around it without going into neighboring Properties or really causing a big glare on AB budding properties nearby so that's why the fixture is designed a way to where it prevents that glare from spilling out while still being able to light the area around it am I am I understand that correctly Brian I mean sort of so so prior to dark sky considerations when people started trying to control light trespass you know and a lot of what they were trying to control was light trespass up in order to keep animals from having issues in order to keep us from being able to see stars in order to keep you know just illumination from getting up and and polluting the sky in such a way that you can't see stars in the city um but the the other benefit of it is that most light fixtures that were unregulated in any way are like a bulb sitting inside of a black a glass case you can see the whole bulb light is shooting in all directions and the whole point of putting up a fence or screening trees is to put some sort of barrier around that bul well the nice thing about dark sky compliant lights is that the fixture is the barrier around the bow like you said with headlights or things like that the the light trespass that is you know harmful or annoying or you know really bad in cities is the light where you're looking around and all of these bare bulbs are exposed in all directions and so as a a screening issue what what it does is it puts the screening at the level of the fixture and light can only go down and illuminate the space directly around the house illuminate the front door illuminate the front stoop the areas where you need to see so that people don't trip on their steps or in danger can't see who's at their front door but it doesn't allow light to go sideways and can do you want me to bring up that that spec sheet or does somebody have that spec sheet to look at you know so I understand what you're saying I don't I understand I kind of understand dark sky compliant light all I care about is I don't want the neighbors who are downhill from you to be have their property washed with your lights that's and and you're and you're asking and you're not providing a lighting plan and I think you are in good faith providing a plan a not a specific you don't have a photometric plan but you have I think in good faith giving us some um what you think will not will prevent light washing on your neighbor's property so there is there is a and my concern is that if it does that if it does wash on your neighbor's property you've got to change this because we're going to condition this application of the special permit on making sure that the light doesn't wash on their property right can I can I make a clarification yep so on the specification sheet there is photometric data and that cone of light that's shown in the model is based off of the photometric data from that spec sheet it is showing the the that that spec sheet shows a distance that the light will be able to travel based on the height of the light um and and that that angle of light off of the photometric sheet is what is shown in that model that shows how far the light will be able to go Which is far far away it's you know it's dozens of feet away from the the neighbor's property in terms of where that will be able to project so that's great all I'm saying is that we are not requiring we're not requiring you to do a photometric study no well he has the data he has and you have data for lamps that that that report not to wash on a neighboring property if it doesn't work and you're wrong you're gonna have to change it all right okay that's that's my point that that's going to be a condition of the application of the special permit understood yeah okay Rob well I do want to so he he did essentially get the data they used to make those photometric plans like he had it he just instead of doing like the site plane with the numbers he just did like a 3D model version of it um so at the last meeting people were saying that they had a hard time visualizing where the light would land um and I wanted to make sure especially in terms of elevation and height and that's why I did it from the side instead of as a plan because I wasn't sure that it would be as clear where the light would follow I think you have made a good faith effort I think you're trying to do the right thing right yeah I just want to make sure that you know that absent a lighting plan that we approve because we didn't have a light a specific lighting plan if this doesn't work out and it's washing on the neighbors you're going to have to fix that understood okay um and you any other questions about lighting I don't I don't mean to dominate the uh discussion about lighting Mr sler I know you raised the issue in the last meeting about the lighting and and the sloping yeah and it was my major concern I mean the the water runoff was the other one but the lighting was because the property is so steep in a certain point that even if the light and I do recognize that there is a good faith effort and the drawing is probably fairly accurate the spec sheet has a lot of figures on it I and I don't think it's deceptive but I share the chair's concern that it it may look like it's going to work and then once it's up there because the property is as steep as it is if somebody is looking up we may you may not expect that the glare will be visible but at a certain angle it may it may just be and I support what the chair said so yes this seems like a good faith effort I can't quite read I I looked at the spec sheet it's got a table and diminishing candle power visibility and everything and it looks like yeah maybe it would work uh when it's applied to that particular property I just share the the chair's warning that uh yep it looks like it might work and if it doesn't you're going to have to do something so I I can support this as a good faith effort that answers the concern that I brought up last time but it needs to in Practical terms it needs to work yeah and then you had another you were going to raise a second point and I interrupted you on the lighting Mr Baker and I I want to give you a chance to get back to your second point oh what did I have a second point about the lighting no you were going to move on to something else that thought oh I I started with that it was about the the other uh requirement was that I come with a uh retaining wall detail which is included in the Civil plan yeah and Rob do you want to throw that up the yeah I can do that UHC one second so we can see it and then the public can see it and we can move on to any other further questions or public comments Mr chair I do want to announce that we have five people in attendance now for this hearing all right all right here are the plans so this is the overall site plan I also want to note that the shape of the house also changed as well yes thank you I forgot to mention that so I believe to be a part back here right and then you made it um right so Patricia Ted who was going to buy the property and has since withdrawn um had a particular premod or a modular pre-manufactured home that she wanted on the property this actually has a slightly smaller footprint and it's just not doesn't have all the Jigs and Jags in and out that were complicating uh it basically just smooth out the the perimeter but it's a slightly smaller footprint uh the civil engineer says it impacts the storm water considerations not at all and redrew it uh like this and so everything else the rainwater uh the rain Garden um and the retaining walls and everything else is still in place it's just taking out the jogs that were in the front and the back uh in the parameter to make it a simpler profile and that's reflected in the model and then this is the um retaining wall detail right here correct all right any questions for members of the board any comments all right um Mr chair Mr White is his hand raed oh Mr White oh you're you're muted there you go um so my question is more to the project application draft um with reviewing the updates on it um considering that Mrs tinan is no longer involved um we might just need to modify this uh but under the proposal section uh it states the flag lot was created 2016 I'm skipping ahead a little bit but it says the current owner Brian Baker is selling the land to the applicant Patricia ton who wishes to construct a single family home with an attached garage um so since that is no longer the case would that need to be modified in the application yes yes yeah she is no longer purchasing the property so um Philip could you tell me what page you found that on of the project application report so I can update it absolutely it's on page two um towards the bottom under proposal thank you not a problem thank you Mr chair good catch thank you all right um if there's no other comments um we open this up for public comment or the comments from the board we'll open up for public comment is there anybody on the board or any public any members of the public who wish to comment on this if you wish to make a comment please use the Rand function or press star n if you're calling into the meeting on telephone seems we have all right seems we have nobody who wishes to speak on this matter yep all right that being the case uh I would entertain a motion that we move to a public meeting on um this matter zba FY 2024-25 open so I have a motion so moved is there a second second motions moved and seconded any discussion if not the vote occurs on moving to a public meeting while keeping the public hearing open chair votes I Mr White I Mr Henry I Meadows and Mr slow I I saw the nod from Mr Meadows so came down as a yes even though he's muted and Mr sler I all right we got the vote is five to nothing um so this is a Time public meeting is a time where the board deliberates on on the matter before us and it's not generally a time for public comment and my first reaction is I think the applicant has answered some of the questions that we raised um in good faith and I'm inclined to approve the application of the special permit application at this point um I want if anybody else has comments General comments if not I'd move to the conditions and we can start talking about those Mr sler I I have a question of Mr wiill I think yep did did any Town Engineers who know more about storm water runoff and retention than I do review the site plans and render an opinion on whether the rain garden and the general storm water runoff control is properly done yep so uh Jason skeles who was our town engineer he works in DPW he reviewed the plans he provideed feedback and actually he said the plans look good the rain Garden was a good idea um the only concern he had was that the retaining W details were included so that's why the applicant had to provide them after the fact but David to answer your question yes he did and he thinks it's a good design and and is re and is reasonably confident that yes that the new the newly created impera impermeable surface or something in English um that will increase um storm waterer runoff is not going to be a problem for the properties below no because of where the rain gard's placed so it's placed in a spot where it can catch all that runoff and it's graded down towards it in a way that funnels the water in that direction okay okay thank you I was concerned about those people and a lot of water okay thank you no problem um there are a series of conditions in the um project the draft project application report uh we can review those quickly I don't have anything to add to that I don't know if anybody else has other conditions they wish to to add to this or if they have any other concerns on this this project that they wish to um raise Mr chair I do want to note that I'll update those dates for the approved plans I I had forgotten to do that in this most recent update um I will ensure that under condition one that those plans referenced are all accurate and I'll include the lighting plans in there as well so my apology for not including that information into this part of the report all right so I the first condition is you know General you got to build to the plan that you've submitted uh the second one deals with lighting to be down Shield or downcast and this is the one um that where if Mr Baker where if it's not um tresp if it does trespass on other property and they bring it to the building commissioner's attention and he deems that it's that that's happening you're going to have to fix it okay all right Street numbers um for the dwelling un should be clearly marked his unimpeded access should be provided across either strip or the easement at 50 feet wide I'm not sure why that's there Rob I I looked at that before and is that just allowing the public to cross the the access strip the dri that's usually a a typical condition we include for flag Lots because uh we want to ensure continuous access between the street and where the building is along the flag pole portion of it it's just a way to ensure that there's no sort of um obstruction that goes in there I mean we we usually include this as a safeguard and conditions for flag Lots um but if the board wants me to take it out we could but it's just if it's include I just didn't recognize it and yeah it makes sense it makes sense it's it's actually um it's a requirement of the flag law uh section of the bylaw anyways and we usually throw in here just so we can enforce it number five deals with um having before you get a building permit the you need the uh trench permits and other things from the ammer public works the rain Gardens shall be maintained in good operational condition as detailed in the prooved storm water operation and maintenance program we looked at that and talked about that uh at the last meeting parking shall occur only on improved surfaces and it should be maintained as needed uh and the trash receptacle shall be screened from the Public's right of way or is that the public view the public rway on the streets yeah that's usually what we go with because um the bylaw says it can't be seen from the street so as long as it's not seen from the street and Screen somewhere out of site then they're in compliance okay does anybody have any other any questions about these conditions or additional conditions if they wish to add if if not I think it answers my questions regarding lights um I would move I would entertain a motion that we approve the conditions 1 through 8 and authorize the staff to make Technical and conforming changes including updating the plans that were submitted by the applicant in the correct dates do I have such a motion N I got a a yes from Mr ler and I have a second from Mr Meadows is that right okay that's correct Maiden seconded uh is there any further discussion if there's no further yes Mr I have a question y if Mr Baker sells this property after it's completed do all of these conditions automatically go to the new owner and I'm thinking mostly of maintaining the rainard Garden in proper operational condition that's a requirement that will attach to this property no matter who owns it correct yes as long as there's as long as that special per it's not attached to the it's not a it's not attached to the deed but as long as there's a special permit for this property and he needs a special permit to keep it there it will it will um attach to the that special permit this I don't know how this special permit I don't think can go away no it can't it has to remain in effect and have there without the special permit yeah and usually it's enforced if um say the rain Garden was so bad and clogged and it was spilling on people's properties that somebody complains to Inspection Services then that's when this permit would be reinforced and the new owner would have to clean it up okay um so yes to answer your question David yes it would be okay and the New Order to comply with the with the um yes the operations plan that submitted for the rain garden and I do want to bring up one thing Mr chair if that's okay um so when I was drafting these conditions with Mr Moore The Building Commissioner who couldn't be here tonight he told me that since because this is going to be a single family home on a flag lot as opposed to a more intensive residential use um say that would be Associated like a rental use or something like that um he didn't feel it was necessary to include a condition where a new owner of this property would have to meet with the building commissioner and that's what he suggested to me that's why that condition wasn't placed in here because you know for other projects we've typically included that as a condition where owner has to meet the billing commission to ensure compliance with the management plan but since this is such a low intensive use he felt it was necessary to leave that out and does the board is the board in agreement with that that that's an appropriate path for this type of development in this project well we don't typically impose that condition on owner occupied new homes okay I don't think I no we we don't his occupi new homes but but we don't typically do that and yeah I just want to make that perfectly clear to the board as to why you know if a new owner were to come in they wouldn't be required to have to meet with the Building Commissioner because it's a single family home it's going from one person to another but these conditions will always remain in effect with the land they don't expire as soon as it's enacted upon as soon as Mr Baker sells it to somebody and they construct a building on it or he constructs the building on himself the permit becomes effective right so you have you have to exercise special permit within two years after it's granted in order for it to remain current and effective still but the conditions attached to any effective yes speci permit and that special permit is yes all on this in the two-year statute that just mentioned is state law so that's not going to to nullify itself for any reason okay I have no problem with not requiring the next owner to sit down with the Building Commissioner the next owner of a single family home yes all right any comments or questions if not um I would entertain the motion I stated which is approval of the conditions authorizing the staff to U make technical conforming changes including updating correcting the dates of the most recent submissions by the applicant so moved second all right the vote occurs if there's no further discussion the vote occurs on the motion to approve the conditions um chair votes I Mr sler I Mr Meadows I Mr Henry I and Mr White I all right the vote is five to nothing the itions as um are approved next we have a couple of findings we have to make um in addition to the findings the normal findings under um 10.38 and there are a series of there's a series of findings regarding dimensional regulations and flag lots and to summarize them each of the each of the applicable requirements of the flagline lot section section 3.2 3 4 5 um 67 and 7.0 are all met by the applicant and the dimensions all work um and they're all within the the um the zoning bylaw there's one that is not um applicable and I'm just I'm not seeing that one right now I thought there was one that was not applicable oh at one point the part of 6.33 the dryway does not exceed a 45 degree angle so um I would move that we adopt the findings on Section 6.32 6.33 6.34 6.35 6.36 but that's the one that there's no like lots of to it 6.37 um and 7.70 is there a motion to do that or are people looking at these findings let's have a motion out there and we can discuss it if people have a question soov so moved all right if any discussion moved and seconded I heard two voices there's no further discussion on the findings for um the flag lot section um the vote occurs on approving making the board making these findings uh the chair votes I Mr White I Mr sler I Mr medows hi and Mr Henry I all right and now we have our our standard 10.38 um findings that are required 10.38 and 10. 381 deals with suitability that where it's located and this is a residential district and it's a residential use 10. 382 383 385 and 387 all deal with um creating a nuisance or um disrupting uh substantial inconvenience or Hazard to neighbors or visably visibly offensive structures also like trespass and I think that the in the conditions that the um uh applicant has proposed including the the downcast uh lighting and his his um attempt and I think Goodwill attempt to keep from light trespass he has met the U as well as the the rain Garden the the rain garden and the the um brick wall or the stone wall he has met the requirements of 10.38 383 385 and 387 10. 384 deals with appropriate facilities for the proper use it's got um Town Water and Sewer on site 10. 386 deals with parking sign regulations parkings in conformant with article 7 of the bylaw 10. 387 deals with providing safe and convenient vehicular traffic um nobody found that there was any I think we can find that there's no ISS issues on V vehicular and pedestrian movement on the site um 10. 388 does not apply if we're not dealing with off Street loading and of of vehicles 10. 389 deals with proposal provides adequate methods of disposal of so sewage and refuge the applicant has provide proved if they will have an appropriate facilities and they will eventually hire a trash service that's in the management plan 10.39 does not apply deals with um flood hazards 10391 protects the deals with uh unique or important natural historic features um you know I guess trees are natural features and many of them are still will be will remain on the site with minimal trees being uh cut down only for the building site um The Proposal 10. 392 The Proposal provides adequate Landscaping including screening of adjacent residential uses U we discussed this in the in the first meeting where they're dealing with where they showed the natural screening um on all sides of the property and to to reduce the amount of light trespass from cars 10.39 three uh provides um protection on um intrusion of lighting parking lot and exterior lighting um again that the the applicant has provided the plan that I think will satisfy that but if it does not um he'll have to fix it and he understands that 10394 deals with um impact on steep slope flood planes and Scenic views grad changes the slopes in the site will be won't be um won't be affected except for the um fill on the place where the the house will sit and there's U building walls of raining walls to support the structures uh 10395 deals with disharmony with respect to terrain and on the use and scale basically does it does it fit in with the neighborhood and does not I don't think it creates a disharmony within the terrain the use of scale of architecture or the kind of building in the in that area 10.3966 recepticles but or keep them in the garage 10. 398 deals with Harmony of general purpose and intent of the bylaws and the goals of the master plan this creates more housing in Amherst more residential housing in single family housing so for all those reasons I think we can find that the application meets the requirements of 10 section 10.38 um from 10.38 to 10396 is there any um I'll I'll entertain a motion we can have discussion on the on the findings um I I'd move I'd entertain a motion to approve the the findings 10.38 so moved so moved moved and seconded any discussion if not the vote occurs on the findings and chair vs I Mr Meadows I Mr Henry I Mr sler I Mr White I the next order of business is the vote to approve the special permit application um zba FY 2024-25 there's no discussion uh the vote occurs on the motion Mr Henry or chair vot's ey first Mr Henry second I kind of rushing through this I'm forgetting my own vote Mr White I Mr Meadows I and Mr sler I the vote is 5- z to approve the special permit application and to close the hearing on this special permit Mr Baker uh congratulations good luck thank you very much I hope you are happy in your home and that your neighbors are um do benefit from your Goodwill in trying to avoid the light trespass or in the water going down to their property thank you thank you and Brian before you head out I will uh touch base with you tomorrow regarding next steps um thank you just a heads up there is a 20-day appeal period process for special permits so I'll I'll discuss all that with you tomorrow okay sounds fantastic appreciate it problem congratulations Baker thank you have a wonderful night you as well thank you um the next order of business is public comment on any matter not before the board tonight so this is a place where the public can speak on any matter that they wish except for those before the board I see no hands no attendees whose hands are up the only people that are I think that are listening anymore are us the just us us two people who forgot to log out the meeting still listening to us yeah just us and our transatlantic friend over there so we get that's what's going on in ammer tonight um Rob is there any new business what's the schedule coming up uh so we have two hearing schedule for May 9th uh one of them is for a converting a single family home into a non-owner occupied dlex on uh I think it's north Whitney Street and the other one is for gosh it's escaping me um it'll come back to me but it has it's for a flag lot actually 47 Red Gate Lane um applicant trying to put a single family home on flag lot um and then on April 30th uh which is Tuesday a few of you on the call actually have a meeting for continued hearing uh 50 mlen Street in which the existing special permit is going to be modified to change the occupancy status from owner occupy conver dwelling to non-owner occupy convert dwelling with two units other than that Mr chair we have three potential hearing schedule for May 20 I think it's 27th that's the next meeting in May after the 9th um 23rd 23rd my apologies thank you 23rd and other than that nothing else in the books Mr chair that's it okay all right any other matters that um members wish to bring up the one thing I will say is that we've got some new members um on the we have Mr slober as a new full member we've got four um not all the new but we have four um alternate members and at some point in the near future we're going to try to schedule a an administrative meeting just to um especially for the new members to run through the um the duties and responsibilities of being a zba member and allow them to ask any questions and to give them the benefit of all your experience uh as zba members and we'll try to schedule that as soon as possible there's other sort of um ministerial work that we have to do once a year and we'll do we'll do that as well so um we'll have that schedule maybe we can do that one of these um main meetings but we'll see Rob we'll have a and if they have they had a chance the new the new members had a chance to meet with staff and go over the not yet not yeah I'm still trying to to do that in the process of scheduling meetings with them uh right now to my knowledge Hilda and Sarah are still continuing to serve Hilda was reappointed for another term to 2025 Sarah's going to continue the rest of her term till the end of June and then um two new members are Associates whose terms were effective immediately so we have two new Associates who can start taking over for public hearings when they're available to yep and then they understand all the papers they have to sign and the conflict of interest and all that all that stuff they were provide all that so they're good all right well um I think that's everything I have if there's nothing else I would entertain a motion to adjourn so moved there's got to be a second to that I know I think why Mr White gets the second yeah you guys have all seconded two three at a time for several motions you're making it hard for me he's even he's even into tomorrow hours it's that transatlantic delay you would have been you would have had more seconds but you got that transatlantic delay all right this is not debatable but it is you can joke about it motion is not debatable all chair says I Mr White hi Mr Meadows hi Mr Henry I Mr slaver a reluctant yes all right have a good week guys thank you all and we did it by 912 so