##VIDEO ID:4u5E2ILIelU## thank you it is August 13 2024 this is a regular meeting of the Community Resources Committee of the Town Council it is 6:30 calling the meeting to order I'm going to go around and see if every everyone can be heard um and call the meeting to order uh councelor hanaki present Pat d'angelus present Jennifer tab present pamon is present and we have with us Christine brep and Dave zc uh there is no public hearing tonight um but we will have opportunity for General I mean for um hold on I'm trying to open my attendees list okay um the public comment period uh because we're talking about pretty specific items on the agenda I'm also going to have an opportunity for people to speak after we talk about the solar bylaw after we talk about battery storage in terms of the agenda tonight um most of you probably already know the uh nuisance bylaw did not get discussed at go because go did not meet and so we've popped that you know even further down the road and I think they're going to be discussing the the nuisance bylaw on August 22nd and hopefully that at that point they will refer it to the council for first reading um so let's open this up I see two people in the in the audience and if anyone would like to make General Comm comments it will be on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC residents are welcome to express your views for up to three minutes the CRC uh does not typically engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment it doesn't mean we don't it just is not typical um would anyone from the audience like to make a public comment this is your your first opportunity I don't see any hands going up um perhaps they're just listening or waiting to talk later about solar bout or battery storage um so we'll move right into the action items I we we do not have counselor ET with us maybe he'll join us and we'll try to make a note if he did does at what time he joins up at what time he joins us and counselor ET is joining us at 6:33 thank you so um solar bylaw we have spent a fair amount of time on the solar bylaw it was given to us um referred to us by the council back in I don't know December or January and we have done some sorting to establish what what we as a committee felt the cogent items in the in the material presented to us were that that should constitute a bylaw and we have gone through the list of items that we felt should be bylaw items and have made some basic comments on it uh three weeks ago I guess it was um I did say if there were questions or if people had specific comments that they wanted to make to send them to me and I did receive a list of comments or questions from counselor hanii and I think that is that is all that I've actually received from anybody on the committee Chris breast and and Stephanie chiarello uh offered to take a look at those questions and if there were opportunities to respond to some of the items that perhaps tonight would be an opportunity to do that I also want to spend enough time on next steps to make some decisions on on how we move forward with this because it has been in our lap for quite some time so I do not have the list of questions available to me and I'm I'm wondering if somebody does who would like to share their screen councelor hanii sent them to me on July 29th in embedded in another email I think she first sent them on Monday July 29th at 1054 I don't have my um email up and I'm terrible at sharing my screen so if councelor hanii could find that email that would be good and I think I sent it to miss to uh counselor Rooney yesterday isn't aren't the questions in the meeting packet no I'm not sure they got in um I had asked must I thought I had asked to have them put in the packet back um after we got them and before I went on vacation but I don't think they made it in councelor hanak you have your hand up so yeah um I'd like some clarification about what our conversation today is about I guess um I was frankly surprised that the questions got forwarded before they went in a packet to the whole committee because that might have been a violation of open meeting law since it clearly is part of my thinking um and could be considered deliberations that's why I only sent them to you but um and since you had asked to compile them um but I was under the impression we were sending questions that might be included with potentially or as a discussion to go to other committees um I must say I found it hard to separate out questions I have and changes I would like to discuss about the bylaw um versus those that might be useful for other committees to think about as reviewing this and so I I'd like to know what our discussion today is about and what its scope is um Jennifer why don't you respond before I do but but the other thing I want to just say in terms of if we can put the questions on the screen now then then then it be visible to everybody so in terms of concern that it's just shared with a Comm I have not seen them okay so so we're in a little bit of a quandry um I understand the concern about sharing something with the whole committee but I was I had offered to compile and and give them to people to to to cogitate um and so if that didn't happen that's my fault because I think I was not clear in asking Athena to get them into the packet um you're you're concerned that it was a violation of open meeting law um I didn't I didn't see it that way um if we have the questions and I think I'm I'm looking at Christine brep um if we have the questions and there has been some time and energy put into responding or thinking about responses to those questions by staff I think that would be appropriate if we went through them as much as responses have been discussed even even if it's not in writing um I seems that that would be reasonable feedback um for this committee before we um before we send the document as we have it um off for other input and your document of questions certainly seems appropriate to accompany it these are my concerns about the following topics and let that committee um discuss it as they might Christine my impression when I received these questions wasn't that um councelor heni Wanted responses from staff it was that she wanted respon responses from um other staff such as the Building Commissioner the DPW head the fire chief whomever else might be reviewing the bylaw document that she was interested in sending these questions along with the bylaw document to these other entities there was some confusion um on the part of Stephanie chello and myself about what we were supposed to do with these questions and so at first Stephanie and I started to answer them and then we realized no they're really directed to other boards and committees and staff so Stephanie and I spent um an hour last week going over the actual bylaw text and um discussing the comments that we had received on July 9th and figuring out what to do with those comments um so that's kind of where I am but I did spend time today um reading the comments and questions sent by counselor hanii and I can uh make an attempt to answer some of them if that would be useful to you and as I said before I'm not fasil at sharing my screen so I believe I sent them to um councelor Rooney I believe Dave zic has a copy of them and I believe that Jennifer tab also has a copy of them sent yesterday yesterday I think it was yesterday right anyway um so I'm sort of at a okay so the the um I was looking at the I think the document that I saw looked a lot like um a lot like our version two from July 9 and that there were CRC comments um that as as Stephanie had sort of made notes as we went through that document and I actually didn't see um I didn't see anything specific Christine to your and st's uh responses to things so I think I may not have the the latest and greatest version myself just um I'm sorry for just blurting this out but I we didn't write any comments um I sent the email to you yesterday just to bring it to your attention that is this something we want to talk about and do we want to put it into the packet but I think it's still not in the packet so um if i s it to Dave zic can he share it um and I'm so sorry that I'm not good at sharing but I I will do that now that would be that would be helpful thank you Mandy and I see I see Mandy has her hand up perhaps if Mandy it's Mandy's list if Mandy wouldn't mind sharing that' be fine okay yeah that would be better so I might be able to pull it up in my email um the right now the only copy I have on my screen is in my own private notes and I hesitate to share that because my own private notes are my own private notes the minute I share them all that but I actually raised my hand to say one of the things that I said when I sent these off to the chair was that this is just the start of all my questions and I stopped at this point um and I will tell you it's over I don't know how many it is it's got to be close to 30 um 30 and and I stopped because I wanted to know whether given what we were asked to do I was on the right page of creating questions and the questions I was asking or whether this was a set of questions that would be asked or should be asked not of other committies and their review but of us as we discuss the substance of this bylaw again I think I've been asking when are we going to discuss the substance of the bylaw and I've been told later later later and the the range of questions that these these represent are not the entire set of questions I have or things I'd want to discuss it was just a first pass of am I on the right page for what we might send to other committees and I just want to make sure people know that and that this is not all of it before we pull this up if people are thinking oh that's all the questions Mandy has because it's not okay Jennifer you have your hand up um yes I was just going to apologize what I have is in an email and the questions are single spaced I don't think they're formatted where it would really be helpful to put them on the screen but I have so I mean there are a lot of questions which is fine if there are a lot more I mean I just don't see how this moves forward we could spend a year going through all these questions so I say this mindful that um and with sadness that Chris is retiring I can't imagine having CRC meetings without Chris here I'm sure Chris can't can well imagine in it and can't wait but um no you're taking so much expertise with you but you're really taking this the staff expertise in the Solar bylaw so it is that is going to be a real loss to us because I don't you know it's not like that's um in you know expertise that is shared among departments because it's so new and Chris worked for 18 months with the solar BW working group so I'm just concerned about how much at Chris you could you know this is kind of directed at you what we can do to help get this into other committees or at least into other departments while you're still with us to help Shepherd it through and also be a resource to those other departments so I'm concerned if we have to wait till we go through till we as a committee work through all these questions and even more questions the councelor hanii may have and you know that will probably bring us to past your retirement date so you know how can I it could we move this forward at least so that again you can be a resource to the other departments as they're reviewing the bylaw as it is now with some of our comments Chris I think that um the bylaw can go to staff and what I mean is um it should go to Aaron jacqu Rob MOA perhaps Guilford um moring um maybe Dave would like to read it um and so send it to staff and see what the result of that um review is I think that would be more productive than sending it to you know the Conservation Commission the planning board etc etc because those people are not um you know they're not involved in like enforcing this or reading it every day and it will get confused confusing it will be a confusing conversation for them um I think it needs this bylaw needs to be Whitted down and refined before it goes to boards and committees so I would recommend in its raw state currently sending it to um those people that I just mentioned Rob Mora Aaron jock the wetlands admin administrator Dave zck Stephanie chorell and if there are other staff members you think it should go to and then I can have a conversation with them about this there may be some uh changes that we want to make before we send it out and I could go over those changes with you tonight if you're so inclined um but that would be my recommendation thank you Pat sorry uh I would love to include interim fire chief um um and I'm blanking on his name I have his first name but not his last name Lindsay Lindsay Lindsay thank you um I would like him included in this as well and I like the idea of sending it to the Departments as opposed to uh committees and things first um and Mandy while I appreciate your 30 questions which I haven't seen so I don't know if I appreciate them but the work you've put into them and the work that will come up um I agree that holding it here is not going to be in the best inance of utilizing Chris's knowledge um so I would like to move it forward to those department heads I think this is a a very interesting and very different kind of bylaw and um because there's so much that needs to be attached to it uh that is factual that is uh protecting health and safety and there's also emotional impacts on and people's decisions about whether you know for different things I believe if it came back with feedback from department heads we'd have an easier time of going through it and streamlining it and it does need to be streamlined um but it also needs to be effective uh we put it off last time because the state was going to do something and of course that didn't happen it failed so that decision was a poor one for because you know we were urging that it moved forward so this time I think this is a different way of doing it but this we need Aaron jacques's input we need really specific departmental and I would rather have them um have the body of it looking at it you know with their sections highlighted and giving them real time to review it and think about it instead of having them in a zoom meeting and you know um because that could come as we go to those sections and I just feel like it would actually facilitate this um and not uh hinder it the other thing Chris and I'm sorry I'm taking a long time uh Jinta that's one um Chris ahead Jinta um I believe she and I'm blanking on her last name I'm old um is is uh has done work on solar bylaws and so I and I don't know whether you've been sharing any of this with her and that's your prerogative but it might be valuable for her to be included in it as well um if that's possible certainly yep Dave yeah thanks um I I agree with most of Pat's comments um I am a little bit concerned that folks have not seen some folks on this call have not seen councelor hani's um question so I really favor I think the idea that is kind of jelling here is is putting it out to other staff getting comments on the draft and then maybe compiling those with councelor hani's questions and any others that if other members of this committee had not have time to uh to to look at this and look at councelor hen's uh questions um Chris could pull all of that together with with Stephanie Stephanie will be back from vacation on Monday um to um councelor to's question and and I think we're all concerned and we're happy for Chris that she is retiring but also concerned with wow what happens next and again I I have complete confidence in Stephanie um I think Stephanie will will pick up this uh pick up this this uh work and and work effectively with the CRC so um I I kind of see that jelling a little bit in this way I did also want to mention I I threw out my back a little recently so if I turn my camera off it's not that I'm not interested I just need to stand up and and have a different position so you have my sympathy sir I'm sorry to hear that thank you for that thank you for that feedback Council hanii I support sending this off to staff for comments before it goes to committees so basically everything Pat said I support um I do want to correct one thing Pat said it's formal sessions at the legislature are done but that bill is still in conference committee and there's conversation that they might come back we have no idea but in that sense I think we have to assume that it's not going to happen this session whereas it looked like it would right ag even though it's not totally clear whether you just have to have the last word I love you for it but to give you an idea of questions I asked or subject matters I asked and those are 30 bullet points many of which had about five questions a bullet point um but they ranged from things like um this bylaw purports or aims to regulate solar based on the amount of kilowatts it generates of a project generates is that the way we should be regulating solar large scale solar or should we do it by acreage acreage size to account for things like solar panels getting more efficient that's a qu that that sort of question was in there questions there were a lot of questions about the application requirements that included at the end of those questions um things like um how would you define certain things but beyond that um how would you use this type of application requirement is it something you would use to actually make a land use decision and how would you use it to make a land use decision things there's some things in those application requirements that talk about migration patterns things like of what animal is that migration you know Chris they're all in here so you don't have to you know like which animals do you want when you require a migration um what was it a a map the occurrence of rare plants and animals within five miles of a project site how do you do that when you don't own the land on the Beyond in within that the whole five mile radius right how do you map that how much do we think that would cost are we creating unreasonable application requirements um other things were basic such as what is the Aven power line interconnection committee that is referenced in this bylaw uh because I don't think the town has one so where is that committee you know um as as we get to that other things were definitional um what is a heavy rain event to you where do you measure it for the purposes of this bylaw who is in charge of measuring it for the purposes of this bylaw others were what would you use all of the reports that are asked in this bylaw for would you actually use them and how um trying to get at things about are we creating a system or a bylaw that is too unmanageable to even get applications under because it's too costly to actually fill out an application and can we streamline that down to the absolute necessaries that would actually be used to make a land use decision in a way that can be used to make a land use decision so I support sending this on to staff but I wonder if we as a committee having heard some of how I was thinking about about trying to ask these questions do we H as a committee have questions we would like staff to come back with as a whole you know questions about you know similar to those that I asked how would you use these reports there's I don't know how many reports are asked for in here which ones would you actually use which ones do you think are necessary do we have any specific types of questions like that that we as a committee would like to include and ask the various staff members as they review that this bylaw to keep that in mind oh another set was do we ask this for this information or for this XY or Z or do we require this XY or Z for any other type of development in town under the zoning bylaw um things like the migration patterns do we require that for other large scale developments in town or not and if we don't why is this bylaw different why is this development different that it needs it that others don't those were some of my other questions so I think the the from the sounds of it and and I um I think that it the questions the questions are very good in terms of getting the staff people to be thinking about it from that perspective I also had a list of I don't know 10 or 15 little statements or things that I would like staff and departments and whoever gets to review it also in a similar vein to say you know are we are we asking for the kind of information that you need from making decisions I mean or um are we missing some some elements in my mind we're missing a section on hazardous materials because it's not in our bylaw um and I think having that accompany the the document to the different department heads that we've just listed that that Christine listed um is a really good way to sort of get their prime the pump start asking the kinds of questions that you're talking about um and I think the the committee the working group put this document together over a year and a half they pulled an amazing amount of information they they did an amazing amount of of learning in the process of developing this basic document and none of us in fact are at the level that the working group was when they handed it over to us um I I I am I am anxious for the the town staff who have expertise in the particular areas to be able to weigh in and and um help sort through the wonderful Bounty of information that we have to the things as Mandy is saying that actually form the basis for a report or for a um a land use action so I'm very excited to get this into their hands with Christine's help because you know exactly how to Shepherd this through um with the with the original request for staff input that I put together was just a table and it went down item by item like 17.05 um you know could the following please look at this section in particular um one I did have Conservation Commission I had I had Wetland administrator etc etc from my perspective those are the groups and entities that have some expertise in that topic um and I would look to Chris for uh her guidance in saying okay maybe we don't take it to concom yet but we make sure that we have Ain Jack's um feedback back on those particular elements that that we're looking for does anyone have a problem hand up Chris thank you thank you Chris oh I just wanted to say um a couple of things but maybe not directly answering uh councelor Rooney's questions I wanted to say that now I'm beginning to understand councelor hani's questions as prompting thoughts on the part of Staff as opposed to asking questions that she actually wanted answers to um and if it's given in that way that here are some things that you might think about while you're reviewing this draft then I think it will be helpful if it's looked at in the way of Rob MOA please answer all of these questions while you are reviewing this draft then I don't think it's helpful so I my understanding of those questions has evolved and I wanted to say that and um now I don't remember what councelor Rooney uh just that just that in that initial request for way back at the beginning when we first got this I put a table together of each of the each of the um numbered sections of the bylaw and said these the these are the Departments or committees that feel appropriate to be weighing in on these topics and so it's it's in our packet I will certainly send it to you again and with that came again sort of similar to what Mandy was just saying you know as you review these sections you know think about why we're putting this together what what we're intending to to do um as you do it so um I feel like we should we could take a show of hands um is the do we need to have a motion that we're going to ask for staff input at this time is that a so moved thank you all in favor show your hand yeah I need a second second and aoll call vote if it's a motion okay somebody made a motion let's go around the room Pat Angeles hi uh Jennifer tab yes F freete hi councelor hanaki I Pam Ro I so we have made a motion to forward this document uh to Christine breast and Dave zc for shepherding through the the town staff as as appropriate to get input that's 0 one now can we talk a little bit about the timeline for this what is an appropriate amount of time for these busy folks to um focus on solar bylaw Pat you started to say something about uh timeline and I I jotted that down I do well my timeline was concerned with Chris being present Etc yeah um I don't know I mean I feel Chris do you have a sense or Dave of a time frame for departments U to look at this and respond GNA take them at least two weeks and maybe more um when is your next meeting um 27 is the 27th August 2 aren't we meeeting every two weeks yeah just about let's see if I can find it hang on I think G 27th two weeks from today yeah two weeks from today would be the 27th and I have in my book so I must have gotten it off of our meeting I think we ALS we also have one on the 10th of September I believe yeah but I will say that this is 10th is probably better yeah the 10th is is better I think just from a vacation standpoint it's hard to get people these are kind of I mean busy times I mean we are busy as ever but it's also some staff are taking time off late here in August before Labor Day so I think the 10th is probably real more realistic Jennifer thank you I should know this and Chris you're here through September yes that's right thank God pH so let's aim let's aim for September 7 and I will try to um put an email together and to just send the document the questions and I would direct it to Dave and to Christine as the the the 10th not the sth oh okay did I say so okay well the meeting is on the 10th but you would probably want responses before then right you'd probably Thursday or Friday of the preceding week right yes thank you um that's that's right over Labor Day weekend um week before the middle of that week the middle of the week before which would be yeah Labor Day will have been the first weekend so say by the 4th of September you could have or fifth can we say Fifth Fifth so September five comments back and we'll we'll end up spending some time at that meeting just absorbing what what has been sent back that would be that would be terrific if September 5 can be the target we would put put it on the September 10 agenda um can we talk go ahead Chris would it be possible to go over the comments and things that Stephanie and I talked about with regard to the byw tonight so that what I send to staff is like the latest and the greatest that would be great okay is that something that you that you want to do verbally or is that something that you jotted down notes to I have notes but it would help to have the um document that you put in the packet up online that would be the draft okay we have solar B version three July 9 with Chris breast Stephanie chorell comments on 86 is that the document that you're talking about yes okay so that go through things pretty quickly if you want me to okay um let's see if let's see if great I I put that one up Pam thank you I was just about to try to do it myself okay um so in the paragraph that is right below the word applicability I would take out the sentence that says requirements of this bylaw shall apply to an lgpi regardless of whether it is primary use of the property or an accessory use take that out and then um in the are you going to edit in real time Ah that's good um I was just making sure track changes were on the sentence right below that um this bylaw is not intended to regulate solar panels installed on buildings I would add to that or parking lots period um and then a new sentence um actually take out the next sentence such installations are permitted by right by a building permit that's a that's a given um a new sentence solar installations on parking lots right after yeah right after the word permit okay that's fine solar installations on parking lots shall be considered an accessory use and shall be regulated based on the permitting requirements for the principal use okay um now moving on I have some questions about these Nexus statements since when we wrote the Nexus statements we were thinking that we might be very um very strict in this bylaw with regard to what we would allow on Forest lands and what we would allow on farmlands so um I'm thinking that we're not very strict about those two things and we could consider deleting the Nexus statements but I'm not going to say to do that right now it's just something for you to consider for your um for the future but you may consider deleting the two Nexus statements for forests and farmland Chris it also we could consider streamlining them and adding them to those sections I don't yeah I don't yeah okay um moving along there is a section called ecosystem service and that um seems to give give a lot of people trouble um so if you go back up to page three sort of near the top of the page oh yeah there it is yep so um maybe we don't do this right now but I think in the future we might consider deleting that because it's kind of a big it's a big unknown in some ways Chris Chris if you could just briefly explain to us the the the generation of this I'm uh I know the the working group had some reason to put this in they were trying to to get their hands around um the the ecological system within which a solar array is placed I think that's true and the chair of the working group came up with this um idea of ecosystem service and then I looked it up on Google and I came up with this um definition but it is a kind of overwhelming in somewhat some ways amorphous type of uh concept so I would leave man the uh comment that Mandy Joe just put in there consider deleting but don't actually delete it um okay in the next section on forests the next definition forests that um instead of 5 Centimeters it should be five meters 16 feet tall is close to five meters tiny little trees yeah um okay uh next on Heavy Rain event I wanted to mention this because um councelor hanii asked where where did this come from who says you know where's it measured anyway um it is a common phrase a common term of art if you will um it's something that is well recognized by Aon Jac the wetlands administrator and um it was also found in the Watershed protection uh committee's white paper on um how to how to deal with solar installations so um I just wanted to to say that you know it's not something that I made up out of thin air it is it is an actual way of measuring Heavy Rain events so um I think we should leave that there for now and Others May comment on that um moving on down Prime fory has her hand raised y I'm sorry I can't see that go ahead I can't actually find the button to raise my hand while I'm screen sharing anymore used to be easily found but this new update doesn't allow you to um one of my questions was where is it measured I understand that it might be a common term of Art and all but when you've got particularly I think of ammer where South ammer might get deluged but North ammer gets nothing we see this sometimes with snow or north ammer is deluged and South ammer is not where would it actually be measured is one of my questions that you don't have to answer now but I want people thinking about because if it's anywhere in ammer well that parcel might have had none you know depending on where the rain came through or if it's on there who goes out to check it and do they check it every day every other day how how does it get checked how do you know that that what's the functionality of it if it goes into a bylaw how would it actually function on the ground is you know that type of question I have thanks okay um then there was also a question about prime farmland and where does that come from and how do you measure it well Prime Farmland is mapped um the Department of Agriculture uh the natural resources conservation service of the Department of Agriculture Maps these things all over the country and so Prime Farmland is actually mapped so the the first part of this definition is just a description of what it is but the second part is directing you to a set of maps that actually map Prime Farmland so I wanted to U mention that and it perhaps might be a good idea to reward this paragraph here so that it's not such a run-on paragraph and that it would be directing people more quickly to the maps that are um available online ibody has their hand up sorry can I make a suggestion on that if it really is anything that's on that map maybe the definition should just be Farmland found under XYZ on the map found here or something um instead of trying to Define it and then saying oh and there might be a map here that talks about it like if it if you're really going to govern it by the map Define it by the map or whichever part of you know whatever P the map is whatever one on the key which which colorings you want on the map we're not going to have a map we're going to refer people to the um Massachusetts Government map massgis which is initiated by the Department of Agriculture but yeah I can I can see what we can do with that the next one is soils and farmlands of Statewide importance and that might also need to be rewarded somehow and mainly that is also found on the map and in fact um when we did our solar assessment with the solar B working group and Steph chillo and GZA um soils of and farmlands of Statewide importance was um something that we did map on on those uh solar on the solar assessment map so that is actually something that exists and it is um defined by the USDA natural resources conservation service so we'll think about how to make that U wording a little bit clearer perfect um down in submitt requirements um um under number one I think it may be um worthwhile to um delete reference to Wildlife and plant studies including mapped Wildlife corridors we do have maps that show um you know we have the biom map we have um endangered species Maps we have a lot of maps that are available to um the Conservation Commission and to developers of land that they can refer to that show where um these things are or where they might be and those are areas that um people are dissuaded from developing so I don't think that um a developer in this case needs to actually map those separately so my um suggestion would be to take that phrase out of there I know that there will be people who disagree with that um okay going down to number 19 in this list of submittal um there were questions about preconstruction photos where you going to take them from I think we should say taken from um points points of access as permitted by Property Owners um on abing properties or something to that effect because you can't go on someone's property unless they give you permission but it is useful often to have photographs from a budding properties okay I'm not sure that that actually makes complete sense let's see nearest of butter is taken from points of action it's a good it's a good start and we don't need to we don't need to don't need to make it perfect tonight one of my questions again on this particular definition was what does include tree coverage mean can you take the photos in the winter for example um think about it as you're reviewing it yeah all right um number 23 uh we we say that we should show the location and height of trees we're saying 18 in inches for Evergreen no 18 Ines for evergreens and 12 inches for deciduous trees but then we say and an inventory of diseased or Hazard trees and I don't think we really need that um seems like it's more than we need so I would take out that last phrase there Chris I just want to comment that that the the size of the trees at dbh is varies it seems like within a couple of other different items in the some somewhere I read I think 20in dbh here's here it's 18 dbh you know that's diameter bre height that should be coordinated the size should Co um number 24 a map and description of all soil types as identified on the United States natural resources conservation soil survey um which I would just put a note at the end of that to say available online so yes right before the word on available online Chris when you spoke earlier about the biomap um is is that same reference appropriate here we're talking about soil types um this has to do with the um Department of Agriculture mapping of soil types so yes we could make reference to the um what is it uh natural I'm sorry I worked all day and now I'm dealing with this and so my brain isn't working totally well but I will put a reference to the um soils Maps there okay um number 25 Pat excuse me just a second Pat yeah I'm noticing that um an attendant would like to has a question or would like to speak and I didn't know what process you wanted to use for that I think I'd like I I appreciate that I think I'd like to get through Chris and Stephanie's commentary and then and then open it up for some feedback from the public because I did say we would try to do that after the solar session so okay um number 25 um we say that we want to have locations that are shown on the natural heritage and endangered species map um estimated uh and priority habitats biomap 3 critical natural landscape and core habitat shown um you know by the applicant in their submitt and then we say down a little bit lower wildlife and plant studies including Wildlife Carters occurrence of rare plants and animals within 5 miles of the project I think we should delete um wildlife and plant studies including Wildlife cars and we should also delete the next um paragraph because I think a lot of that is covered by the preceding maps that we referenced um and there will be some things that aren't mapped but again you know going back to the kind of fairness of Doctrine if you will um we don't want to put solar installations through more of a uh a gauntlet then we put um other types of development and you know to have um someone actually have to go out and and map wildlife and plant studies including Wildlife cars I think is a bridge too far in my opinion um the paragraph below that these locations can be identified using ammer GIS viewer massgis eird natural and I naturalist and other scientific databases I wonder if Dave zc is familiar with those and are they easily accessible what number is that Chris that's at the bottom of number 25 after Mass GIS we say the eird I naturalist and other scientific databases are those things that we want um applicants to be um and you know looking at and trying to figure out how to map um those habitats Dave they are excuse me Chris they are um easily available but I I think it's a good question to put out to staff to myself and Aaron and we can respond you know with a little more thought and okay yeah um it's it does seem like a reference to resources uh just as we did sort of in the beginning of the document there are lots of resource references and this certainly seems like that as well and maybe going back to where we deleted um the last two items in number 25 we could put a note ask um the wetlands administrator about those two things could I could I just add um and and Erin and I will talk about this but eird and in naturalist um I mean the official the official references for developers of all kinds when we're talking about consistency and and fairness across all types of development is really um the other you know um the other references we have above this with the natural hair estimated and priority habitat core habitat critical natural landscape so again I'm not sure you know if we had a subdivision going in would the would the developer of the subdivision need to use eird and in naturalist I don't think so you know so we'll we'll we'll discuss that as a staff and get back to you in a couple of weeks okay um and then on to item 30 I'm not sure about the mitigation plan again that's something that we don't always ask for from other types of developers so I would put a note there um highlight all of 30 and say is this necessary speak with um Wetlands administrator yes most most things like so if we were talking about having an environmental impact statement written for a project whatever that project happens to be um these are these are probably topics that would be considered um so when we start to talk about uh an industrial application like a a large ground mounted solar array I think we are talking a little different standards than you might for a residential development um but but I would I would want the residential development to be looking at in fact some of these things as well maybe not all of them okay well it's it's worthy of discussion yep exactly um the next section 1705 I think that Stephanie and I felt that these things probably should remain here and I think that the um issue of fencing I know councelor heniki had brought this up before but this um reference to fencing here is really particular to solar installations like we never allow 8 foot high fencing except for agricultural uses which aren't even reviewed um and we don't require knuckled Salvage fencing and we don't require fencing to be the bottom to be 6 to 8 Ines off the ground here we would because we want to allow Wildlife to cross underneath it so I think in my opinion everything here is related to the solar installation so in my opinion we should leave it here and not put it in another section on fencing councelor hanaki has her hand up I have a question about that does it by being here is it obvious that it overwrites the fencing requirements in um article six that should be noted I guess that's why I'm saying shouldn't it be moved to article six so it's clear that for fencing these you know what I'm saying um I I'm concerned about contradictory items within the bylaw as a whole because we're putting things that are addressed in one article also in this article um and fencing was one um I did have a question you know as you think about this why are we requiring knuckled Salvage chain link fence I think because it doesn't have any points on it it's very smooth you do B fencing pretty metal vertical fencing this doesn't allow that if they wanted to pay for it I know Teck knuckle chain link is cheaper but right but I guess do you have to require a spec think about whether you have to require a specific type of fence or whether there are certain characteristics of fence that you want to require I.E no points versus it has to be chain link just a just a thought as I look through all of this it does say that the that it um could be by um Changed by the permit granting Authority so I don't I don't think see it as problematic yeah and it's also it's at the discretion of the of the applicant unless for some reason the town requires offense and I don't think we're requiring offense the applicants usually require they require it of themselves because they want to protect their investment right so I guess there are some questions there that need to be answered um does it override article six does it need to be chain link I don't know if you want to put those notes in there Mandy or just I I will have I can put the notes in on my copy um keep going Chris on the next page um eight under screening and planting I think there's a redundancy page eight under screening implanting a redundancy that um third paragraph should be taken out because it is repeated um below so tree cutting within the required setback shall not be permitted take that out because two paragraphs lower there it is okay um okay on to uh soil and slopes um I guess there wasn't anything except I wanted to add um offside soils shall not be imported unless approved by the permit granting Authority and then I would add a a sentence that said csection 1704 submitt requirements paragraph number 28 because that talks about importation of off-site soils and obviously that number might change so it would be a reference to something that we would want to maintain yeah okay um the next one that I wanted to address is under utility connections All Above Ground electrical equipment shall conform to the standards established by the Aven Powerline interaction committee now that is something I did look it up today and it is indeed um a thing uh that was suggested by Scott cashen who has a lot of experience with solar um arrays out in California so he he made that suggestion and I don't know if that's necessarily something we want to have or whether we want to delete it so um we maybe we could put a note saying consider consider whether this should be here or consider deleting it and um maybe Dave could ask Aaron about that and whether it's something that we want to keep in here or not and does do does Massachusetts already deal with above ground electrical equipment in a way that is safe for birds or not so that's a question okay um visual impact right below there was a suggestion that all of this um requirement about visual impact should go into submittal requirements so Stephanie and I agreed to that so I will move it into submitt requirements and then uh number three um where it says visualization and simulations um it's if we move it into submittal requirements that means it comes to the board or the CBA before they have a chance to review it so um by saying with input from the permit granting Authority that doesn't make any sense in item three if you're going to submit these things before it ever gets to the permit granting Authority so I would just take out that reference take out the reference that says with input from the PGA thank you um Chris can we can we pause just for a second so so you and you and Stephanie talked about visual impact being part of which section rather than being here under design guidelines um we suggested putting it into submitt requirements because it really is requiring information to be submitted right it's requiring a design narrative an inventory a visualization and simulation um so those are all things that the applicant can prod uce before um he gets to the to the board having a statement though that that a project shall avoid impacts to the greatest extent possible especially impacts to Scenic views seems like it would be appropriate to maintain here as a as as a simply as a statement see see submitt requirements for details yep that's good C submittal requirements can we put that in so I I guess I'm curious why we would put in C submitt requirements because the submitt requirements are submitting stuff not telling you what needs done what needs done is the project shall avoid visual impacts to the greatest extent feasible it's up to the PGA to determine what that whether it does based on the submittal requirements isn't it m yep so I don't understand why you would put C submitt requirements because you could put that with after every single one of these design well okay but but I'm saying you know if if someone is saying these items should go into submitt requirements my my preference would be to at least have a statement here saying you're supposed to you're supposed to avoid visual impacts to the greatest extent possible yes and then as in my own mind as an afterthought I was like okay now go see the submitt requirements it tells you exactly what but so you're right I don't think it necessarily has to say that I'm just saying in our notes to reviewers let's let's make that note okay next page special requirements for farmlands and forests um the first and second paragraphs here are redundant so take out the second paragraph please and then um there was a suggestion that this whole thing from the landowner shall demonstrate that the project meets or will meet these requirements from that on down could all go into submittal requirements so number one two three and four could go into submitt oh wait a minute no number one and two could go into submittal requirements that's more like it yes it's highlighted that way and says by Stephanie right okay yes and then the next um section is five four and five go into special design requirements yes okay that's fine I'm not reading the fine print um design and Reporting requirements for agraval taxs on Farmland um numbers one and two should go into submittals and numbers three and four should go into reporting and Stephanie had the note to that effect so that's fine um under special requirements for large scale ground mounted photo will take installations I think we can take out the sentence that says the PGA shall look favorably on solar installations that include Agra voltaics or dual use I don't think that's necessary um it's true but it's not necessary um moving down maximization of ecosystem services um the second paragraph is redundant I think it's really contained within the first paragraph so we could take that out yep I'm deleting it from the first paragraph because the second one had a comment attached to it which would be deleted if I deleted it at the second one okay all right that's fine um there someone uh we have been asked to put all the reporting requirements into a table which we haven't done yet so we will do that um either into a table or there is a section called reporting so um the last paragraph in on page 11 could be put into reporting applicants shall report annually to the PGA so move to reporting yep um the first two sentences on page 12 should be moved to design standards um under dimensional standards we've been asked to come up with a table uh on dimensional standards so we will do that and Stephanie has a note to that effect yep um moving down under storm water management and erosion and sedimentation control um what we um have decided to say is we're eliminating everything from EPA down to um the bottom of the blue writing there yeah Del uh not that no don't delete that yes there right so delete that and the sentence that um will be put in its place is let's see with respect to storm water management erosion and sedimentation control all lgpi in the in ammer shall abide by the requirements and take out contained in the following and put of the general bylaws of the town of ammer Massachusetts section 3.57 3.57 um and that's called the storm water management bylaw okay um then moving on to the next page all of that blue is going into design standards that's what Stephanie has noted here so we don't need to write anything else if everybody agrees that that is more properly located in design standards and I think someone had already said that maybe that was Stephanie um okay next page I would oh can I make a comment Christine I think some of this might be repetitive particularly I'm seeing these two so when the of just the prior before section the yes higher that so so just double check for dup duplicates as they get moved yep so that's duplicative okay which one's okay and moving on down um these next items are all taken from the water supply protection committee and their recommendations and they did make one more um recommendation which I would like to add which would be require that all solar panels used in large scale arrays in drinking water sheds shall be past free used in large scale yeah right in drinking water water sheds shall be pest free good um okay is there a definition of drinking water shed how would an applicant know whether it's in one or not I think there is but I don't have ready um attachment to it so let's see definition of there would be surface water but there would but we would not be aware of any underground you know hydrology but we certainly could could look at it from a surface standpoint so drinking water sheds for um surface water you can CLE clearly map those on a topo map drinking water sheds for well water I don't know if how you would figure that out maybe Mr zic knows I don't off the top of my head Chris but I I think this is another good one to explore with with uh with staff including our our folks at DPW who manage our water system um and you know it begs the question you know why just in drinking water areas I mean um you know there was considerable opposition to uh a turf field at the high school which is not in any drinking water um either private or public um it was a long discussion and and action taken on on a past free playground surface at Fort River which is not in any uh drinking water or private um water source that I'm aware of um so anyway I I think there'll be plenty of comments from staff on this and we'll reach out to DPW as well should we put a note in here yeah consult with DPW and um Wetlands administrator the other question I would have is do we know whether solar panels have posos in them or not is it standard to have them or Not by putting something like this in are we eliminating the ability to have any lgpi at all because you can't find solar panels without P I don't know the answer to that but it's something as I consider the bylaw to comply with state law that I will would be curious about we can do we can do some research on that in the next three four weeks can you put a not there to research whether solar panels have pest [Music] on on that note um it occurred to me that we're actually also talking about battery energy storage systems and I know we haven't talked about that at all tonight um but we're hoping to I would I would ask the the same question um in that conversation so I just want to make note I don't want to lose considering P free for battery storage as well go ahead oh there she's still typing okay I think that might be it that's all I have Chris thank you very very much um that's that's huge I I have to admit that I saw Stephanie's name in many of the comments and I just was thinking those were comments that had come out of the CRC when she took notes notes it was listed as her name the comment of the CRC so it didn't it didn't strike me that it was um additional material yeah I can't remember when those comments were made so my understanding from this meeting is that we will um that counselor hanii will send me this edited document and then Stephanie and I will put this into a complete format and send it to those staff members that we mentioned along with um councelor hani's questions and ask them for um feedback by the N the 10th of September right right right if we could if we could for just a moment talk about format of of Staff comment um this has been good to to have captured your your comments this evening um again we we weren't really intending to have staff edit the document fully um that just felt like a burden we were you know pushing on them but it would be helpful to understand if they wanted if they are making comments specifically if those comments could be captured um sort of in a separate way from the the text of say 17.05 can can staff comments be bulleted or something of that nature where final rendition takes advantage of their comments but it but it didn't force them to necessarily edit I don't know which is more streamlined um I think that um listing their comments separately makes more sense because if we're asking a number of people to share comments we it would be confusing to have everybody being using track changes so yes it's better to have them say on Section 1705 these are my comments yes so that's how we'll ask for them that's thank you um is there a need for a motion to take this document as as discussed and modified tonight uh and send that to is is there anyone in disagreement with taking the document as edited tonight and sending that off to Christine brep anybody disagree I'm I'm not seeing any okay okay thank you Chris that was very very helpful ful um I now want to go to public comment and I see that um our attendee our one attendee has her hand up and I would like to bring Martha Hanner in please Martha okay thank you thank you Pam I'm address that I'm your one attendee here I'll try to be worthy of that then um I really am impressed that you're all really striving to to understand this and and somehow make that work I mean what what kind of troubles me or that I'm trying to picture is you know the solar byw working group spent what 18 to 20 months on this and we didn't necessarily all agree and I'm certainly not saying that what we came up with was perfect or anything like that but my goodness we certainly learned a lot we've read huge number of documents and background material we listen to experts uh I would say that almost all of the questions that councelor hanii uh asked um are subjects that were discussed investigated debated and so on within our committee and so I think my overall question to to you CRC members is what is your goal do you feel you need to understand every point in this docu in this potential bylaw as thoroughly as our solar bylaw members did after 18 months uh is that your goal because if so you really need to do a lot of reading because much much of the what's in here reflects the requirements and the writings from our state documents I mean the last I knew amist was still part of Massachusetts and I think that we really need uh in many places therefore to to respect what's in the state documents on natural working lands the climate goals for 2030 2050 uh um you know the climate mitigation uh you know the I know the health safety and Welfare that is one of the councilor hani's questions that comes you know straight out of mgl uh 40 Section 3 you know uh the Dober Amendment and uh it's really has to be in there as the justification for anything we say really uh um which is partly why the Nexus statement was in although I certainly agree that could be revised I would be against removing it entirely uh so the that's the overall question because there are certainly a lot of the individual points that I would have been able to give a direct answer to as to why the statement written as it was based on uh the information that we read and the experts that we heard so uh in fact I think one thing that uh uh Janet McGowan and I did compile a comprehensive list of resources which I think was sent to all of you at the beginning of process but I would be if you don't have it I would be happy to to it again and I would say that if you have questions on a specific subject look down that list and uh you know consider one of the references and so on and and much of our concerns like soil types and not bringing in soil from offsite was a combination of concerns about um erosion and storm water plus the experience of other sites you know look at the disaster in Williamsburg that happened there was a case on on the cape where the uh developer came in and removed all the sand because that was valuable and could be you know sold elsewhere and as a result destroyed the town's water supply so that was that all that was in the back of our minds in putting in some of these rather specific requirements uh you know we have an example where a number of acres are going to be clear clear clearcut cleared away which is a little bit different from when you do say a residential development where you kind of do one lot at a time and so that was the origin of some of our concerns and um so that's just the question of how deep do you folks feel you need to go in uh to understand every statement that's that's in the bylaw really okay so thank you thank you Martha thank thank you Martha I think that's I think that's our tabled our discussion on on um solar tonight the other topic for B of action items is battery storage and uh wait a minute just before I go into battery storage so the list of references that Martha just referenced um was in the packet a number of times uh toward the beginning of our ten year with this bylaw and there are at least uh it's it's called resources and there are at least 10 different documents in there their fouryear use they were in our our um SharePoint site folder and rather than having them repeated it's really really bulky I just you know go back and look at those those are the references that that she just talked about um battery storage we were provided from Chris brep a draft of a um a document that that she had worked on or that she that you and staff I guess had worked on and that um as well as a an example from pineer Valley Planning Commission and um I had taken I had sort of taken it out to see how much of the material from the battery storage draft which is which is dated revision 11123 as the last the last go through um a lot of the topics are similar to what is in the Solar bylaw it is it is clearly a much shorter document I wanted to raise the question of of a standalone battery energy storage be bylaw or a combined best and solar bylaw and does it make sense to have something in hand quicker with a with a more I I'll just say a shorter best by law and I'm looking for some feedback um thoughts from people Jennifer um well I would be interested to know what staff to have staff input on this but I just want to ask so you do we never have a b or do we ever have a battery storage we could have it apart from solar installation right yeah so then it might be helpful to have a stand alone I don't know Chris do you um do you want to explain the the purpose even for having started working on one um yeah I started working on it because we did actually have a battery storage um project come before the Zone board of appeals and I think it was maybe the summer of 2023 see seems like a long time ago but in any event it was approved we didn't have any battery storage bylaw the zba did a great job of reviewing it and um you know I didn't see any problems with that but is is that the Hickory Ridge project nope it's a project out on Sunderland Road that probably not many people know about because it hasn't been built yet um but it's at the place where Annie's Garden Center used to be and it's going to be pretty big big um but we had you know good advice and good review and we took our time and to care so I think it's it's good but in any event a lot of cities and towns do have separate battery energy storage bylaws um Hadley has one I believe um AOL has one um can't name all of the cities and towns that have them but we has one um so we had uh a planner here Rob wiill who had been working in wear and he had worked with Piner Valley Planning Commission to develop a battery energy storage bylaw for wear and so um I took what he had written for wear knowing that he had worked with Piner Valley Planning Commission and I um adapted it for ammer so that's pretty much what we have here before you and my own feeling is it's worth having a separate bylaw um I think it's going to be hard to merge the two it would take a lot of editing and so um you know this this what I've got here is is written so my impulse is to work with what is written rather than try to merge the two but it's it's just me uh counselor hanii so I think my impulse is the same as Christine's um while there's a lot of duplication the duplication seems to be a lot within the application requirements um which again I'd have all the same questions I have for the solar ones in terms of things like that um but when you get to design and sight standards and all I I think about how would you merge this you'd need sort of you'd have if you merged this into solar you would probably have application requirements that would apply to all and then you'd have like design standards for solar and then design standards for best and then you know dimensional setbacks for solar and dimensional setbacks for best so you basically have two within one because they might be different um and so it might just be cleaner to do them separately I I do Wonder as I read through some of this some of it I believe is not legal under state law given some of the municipal law unit decisions that I read about be best systems um particularly requirements for the best system owner to pay for fire training um because that is the municipal law unit has said that's just not legally allowable um I I only skimmed this quickly the other thing I noticed though was the current draft puts the the permit standard whether it's special permit or site plan review within the draft of the bylaw instead of within how we do it within a article three or whatever it is of our zoning bylaw um so I think a lot of it needs pulled out and we'd need to see an article three and then I actually had questions in looking at that um and so as we if we're going to work on this and as we go through you know it it talks about design and which section was it um General requirements um you know a b and c deal with tier three and four systems and then there's but there's talk about um collocated and bad building integrated and things that it's applicable to and so I'm curious as we pull that out into our land use chart how would we deal with tiers one two three and four four different tiers although maybe there's only three different tiers there are four different tiers of battery energy systems and how would they look in the land use chart and then also how would they look based on this other issue in applicability of building integrated best collocated best best not associated with solar you know which seems to be there's like four time three 12 different ways of having best systems based on this draft and would each one have its own line on how it gets permitted um I had some questions similar to that on solar which some of your your comments today kind of took care of maybe on what what solar requires a special permit vers something else um but here it seems like it's really confusing and I'd like to see the land use chart um on when it would be special permit and that seems to be what would need to be pulled out of this but it looks like it might be how this is written 12 different potential land use line items which could get very licated so maybe there's a way to rethink these various tiers versus where they exist whether they're collocated or within this or not and all of that and whether we can simplify that too thank you Chris yes I agree this takes another look I haven't really looked at it very carefully since last November and um I do think that um all of these battery energy storage systems if they're Standalone should be by special permit with the zoning board of appeals because they are always changing and they're you know if anything about solar is potentially dangerous it's these things so I think that the zoning board of appeals is the proper board to consider them thank you thank you and I was I was thinking through our solar and and and wondering if if there is sufficient coverage of battery storage components within a solar project um you know do we cover do we cover the safety considerations um that if the staff are looking at the so the solar BW that we talked through tonight uh could they also please make sure that there is sufficient coverage of of battery storage um if in fact that's falls under the solar bylaw um I just want to make sure that that um just because just because it's not a standalone or because we have a standalone battery storage bylaw that somehow we don't deal with adequately in the Solar bylaw Mandy I'm just curious about Chris's comment about everything should be a special permit because if my understanding is correct from reading this only tiers three and four had a special permit associated with it um tiers one and two didn't potentially seem to this is where it was confusing and I'd like to see the use chart um but then also some of this seemed to indicate that building integrated battery storage systems just need a approval from The Building Commissioner again again it was very confusing um as to where when how all of that which is why I think we need to pull some of that out into a land use chart yep agreed um I'm actually going to call on I I see we have a participant with her hand up and I'm going to call on her because I think there was probably some discussion on this topic Martha Hanner you have your your hand up so you're opening up public comment again I'm opening up public comment in the middle of our battery storage discussion yes thank you Pam yes I I did a considerable amount of of reading at the time when we were considering the battery storage and of course the problem right now is these large batteries that are based on the lithium ion technology do have this documented tendency to overheat if there might be a short circuit there might be some failure in the cooling system who knows what the overheat and that has led to some really serious fires release of toxic gases rele of toxins uh into the ground which means into the water supplies and so on and so uh first of all I think that's one good argument for having a separate battery storage requirement and and bylaw and many of those batteries are different from the uh ones you know much larger say than the ones used for solar and Battery designs I'm sure are going to change within the next decade or so I mean there's a lot of research going on to try to replace the lithium ion batteries with something more stable and so a separate bylaw will mean it's a lot more flexible and can be more easily adapted as the designs change um but also I would like to uh qu um question one thing that councelor hanii stated um their standards requiring local fire department annual training are standard feature of all these battery storage requirements and solar bylaws um Statewide Countrywide and there have the analyses of some of the serious fires and again these are in the reference lists that we uh gave to you uh the problem was that the local fire department had not been trained and did not know how to respond uh to the dangers and so it's standard procedure to have uh the developer the person who owns the battery uh give an annual training to the local fire department and I would suggest having a look at NFPA 855 uh for a discussion of that as well as you know state laws and so on uh for that but I think that for our case for the solar BW we put in a few specific requirements but the most important requirement simply is that the ammer fire department must review and approve the design before the PGA can give a permit for for building um and they are the ones who are responsible for following all of what's going on with battery design the state laws the NFPA investigations and so on so I think that is our Backup Plus uh if you look in the so bylaw the very first requirement under battery storage is one that came from Janet Macwan who is based on her legal uh experience that states that um I don't quite have the wording in my head but that the the developer is responsible for providing a battery that um will you know uh prevent you know fires and explosions and so on if it Heats I mean the responsibility is on the developer uh to make the the necessary um designed to minimize the hazards as far as possible and so I I suggest that that requirement also should be in the battery storage law um but but I think the general requirements uh will be sufficient as long as the fire department uh are the ones that has to uh analyze and approve every every um particular proposal so thank you thank you Martha closing closing public comment back to back to battery storage discussion um I'm looking at Christine breast and Dave Zac as we look at uh this parallel track it reminds me sadly of the uh rental registration bylaw from which we spun an update of the nuisance bylaw and it's you know they're they're part and parcel and these two pieces really seem that they should be in parallel Chris do you are you planning to spend any more time on battery storage it has not been specifically directed to the C RC it is something that that is um currently in just in the hands of Staff maybe the two of you could talk about that a little bit um I have a limited amount of time that I'm here I have I think six weeks or seven weeks um there may be a chance that I'll come back and work part-time after I retire but that's up to others to determine that um and so I and we currently have um one planner vacancy so I have limited time to um you know work in great detail on the battery energy storage system so I guess that's my answer that I can probably spend some time on it but I can't I can't promise that you know I'll have a finished product or even something that's that I'm very happy with by the time I leave so that's that's what we needed to hear you know what's what's the potential outcome here um pam pam if I could add you know as part of this you know when we're and Chris and Rob MOA and Stephanie and I and others get together to look at the um you know the solar bylaw draft we can have that conversation you know what what is kind of realistic again with with Stephanie away this week little hard to gauge how much time she'll have after Chris retires but let me let me work with Chris and and Stephan on that and just see where we are but but your point is well taken that hasn't been referred to CRC at this point it's really just a staff draft but a but a critical but a critical comp a critical parallel if you will um and and complimentary um part of of solar U remitting in town right uh Jennifer and then Pat um yeah I'm really just musing it's just a comment um but and I think I've said this before because I've been struggling since we started with this and I you know picking up a little on what the p on the public comment of the solar bylaw working group was steeped in this for 18 months and they really did become experts and I I'm a little just concerned if I was just a resident you know just someone who lives in town that something that had so much time and expertise and a lot of the people the solar B our working group were there because they had expertise in different parts of large scale you know solar round mounted installations that's what they had coming into it and then they got really steeped in it for the next 18 months and then it's coming to us and I'm concerned I don't want to make it we you know I don't want to hurt what's there I know it's not perfect but just the whole process by which you know experts work on something for a long time and then it comes to five counselors who you know may or may not have any familiarity with it you know I so I'm I'm just musing but I'm just concerned that we don't kind of muck things up rather than try and getting it done in the best way that we can Pat um I am wondering since this is the on the battery storage since it's a staff draft whether the draft could be sent to uh the fire department for review because they would certainly have insights to the draft that might be very helpful and when it is referred to us would be helpful for us in clarifying the structure of this yeah excellent idea so qu a question might be would it be worth and I guess Dave you you sort of hinted at this when you sit down to talk about it you might you might talk about um do you want to go the same approach for the battery storage as you are with the solar sending it to the various um staff that were listed before and uh in in essence getting their feedback early on um on both of these documents um what what I was hearing also is that it makes some sense to have the battery storage in our pocket just you know again we don't know what the state's going to do I would I would feel better if amorist had something in its in its hands uh that that it can offer to developers um anyway I would I would leave it to the two of you as you start that conversation to talk through that and and the idea of I mean if it goes to the fire department it probably should also go to the Wetland Administration administrator Etc so I think um I'd like to have two beautiful crafted products um not necessarily just the one no we'll we'll talk about that internally I I just tonight I can't make a commitment that the two will remain in parall moving forward I think clearly the solar bylaw is is somewhat ahead of of the other the other draft Y and um yeah so we'll we'll work on that internally and just see perfect you know when it's it's always great you know when we refer to staff you know whether it's the wetlands administrator um Aaron jock or you know we have Amy rusi who's our assistant superintendent who was very involved with Beth Wilson our our enal scientists on the work they did on uh on solar I don't know it had to be a year and a half ago now so we're all part of the same team you know we will pull those those staff together and and get the feedback on the the first document and then if we can you know kind of double up a little bit maybe we'll get a some comments on this this this other draft it also seems like this committee uh I know I have to take a deeper dive into the resources that have been shared with us and maybe we all need to do that somewhat I don't know I'm not no um so that we in CRC feel comfortable moving forward ourselves yeah yeah good thought I I just I would say also that you know really some staff have not really been involved in the process even the the solar bylaw working group were you know some staff were not deeply involved in that so this is the time to get their expertise and their eyes on this document yes and this is our system I mean just commenting on on counselor to I mean this is our system for bringing forth uh bylaws in in the town so if you or the council as this process unfolds feel like you need some expertise that might have been part of that working group then it's your prerogative to to uh seek that but um um you know I think we have a great group of staff and and there may be a few finer points that you want to reach out to members of of that former uh working group to to pull in but um I think we'll get through this I I have every confidence that we've got very smart people working on the staff and all of you and and the council as a whole so we'll I don't see this as being watered down I see it as is really trying to achieve what we want to achieve um which is safe um you know the safe application and the safe production of solar power in ammer in the right places at the right size um and making it safe and for all residents and and people who live near it uh or or um in the town sounds good than you Dave yep on that note we need to wrap up up um and so we'll we'll um we'll hear back uh at least on September 10 and you're going to come back to us with with comments on solar but at the same time perhaps you can brief us on how you the conversation went with the battery storage that would be that would be very helpful uh Jennifer Christine anything you want to add before we move on to minutes yeah I just wanted to clarify I have every confidence in the STA I was more and I have reached out to people in the Solar B working group but at one time you know I wonder if we had a couple of people from the group as panelists here I'm just concerned that it's a really steep learning curve for us and I'm willing to take but and I just want this bylaw to benefit from the greatest expertise and not maybe be hampered by our learning curve that's what I was trying to say thank you Chris I just wondered if um this would be on the agenda on August 27th is um solar bylaw or bees or anything having to do with solar um I that's a good very good question um I'm looking at Mandy um if we if we are if we are waiting for for feedback but um for September 7 for September 10 um we probably would not discuss the solar bylaw I wouldn't mind discussing battery storage um but it would be sort of in a similar way do we um I don't know I give me I think we need to get it referred to us by the council as well I mean the formality of that so if you could reach out and get it on the agenda okay okay that makes sense but someone has to propose something in a form adoptable and the Bess draft we have right now is not really in a form adoptable and I'm not sure staff is ready to sponsor it for formal referral at this point okay okay so let's let let's that's that's a good point it's I mean it's as adoptable as the battery storage document that we got back in January or December um it's it's no less so um if you disagree with that but you didn't get a battery storage B to you in December you just I'm saying draft of it right but I'm I I was taking councelor Han's comment to mean that she was thinking that the draft that you provided us Christine on the battery storage was not in a format adoptable it it was not presented that way when Christine gave it to us as draft that was for informational purposes only not intended to be presented for a referral okay okay it sounds like it's premature even though we would like to move it along it may be premature um let's go to minutes let's get minutes taken care of and then just talk about next a agenda items um we have meeting minutes from January 30 that was the meeting from uh Godzilla we had the meeting of um 3:26 and 402 were there any changes to these minutes that people want to make are they are they acceptable in their proposed format I move that we ex uh accept the minutes for January 30th March 26th and April 2nd as presented second all those in favor let's go around the room Pat d'angelus hi Jennifer tab yes councelor ET hi councelor hanii hi councelor Rooney I okay meeting minutes were approved no announcements next agenda preview um I'm going to ask a really dumb question do we need the meeting on August 27 if we do not have solar we do not have battery storage and we probably do not have nuisance by because hopefully go will push it along up to the council councilor heniki this question is probably mostly to Dave but maybe Chris knows is there anything coming up on the August council meeting that might have a motion to refer to CRC I know I I believe there's an agenda setting meeting tomorrow so I and just coming back from vacation I'm a little out of that Loop so I I don't know the answer to that question but I'm not aware of anything that is ready to come to you but um I will be attending agenda setting tomorrow for that meeting thanks I know Nate is working on a memo to the town manager manager with regard to um the University Drive zoning overlay so I don't know he's on vacation this week so he's not going to get something onto the agenda for next week but it'll it'll be coming soon I mean it sounds like no there might not be anything for the agenda then right that's what I'm saying would people feel badly if staff didn't have to take time to sit with us in the evening uh if we don't have anything we have we have a list of future agenda items we have but but I think we need a little preparation before we jump into another topic I think that we should admit that we're not worried about staff we just want to break for ourselves no offense Chris and Dave let's just beon going the way present to Chris would there we go would anyone like to make a motion that we do not have a meeting on August 27 ah I so move any seconds second let's go around the room Pat d'angeles H I guess I mean I if I had something really definitive I would that's fine use the time uh Jennifer yes councilor ET I councelor hanaki I Council Rooney I okay folks no meeting on August 27 for the CRC we could all go for drinks somewhere that' be great that'd be great and I sort of apologize because I you know in thinking that through I was I was assuming an ongoing discussion so um I think the way it's now been packaged up and handed to staff um I think is a good thing and they'll be there'll be a lot more to work on when it comes back from them so no no items anticipated by the chair and I would like to make a motion to adjourn I second thank you everybody and especially David and especially Christine we vote thank you all those all those in favor Pat I Jennifer Yes Council e i councelor hanaki i Pam Rooney I good night everybody thank you very thank Youk you good night