so we are recording thank you and I'll turn it over to you Pam it is still May 28th 2024 this is a regular meeting of the Community Resources committee opening the meeting at 6:31 p.m. pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extends by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 23 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting May do so via Zoom or by telephone no in-person attendance of members of the public is possible but every group every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means I am going to go through the call to order and I'll start with uh counselor hanaki can you hear us thank you councelor present Pat d'angelus present Jennifer to present cam roon is present and can hear you all uh there are no public hearing tonight but we will open to public comment we have at least three attendees in the audience and I'm going to to announce at the beginning of this meeting that we're going to have a public comment period right now but then I would like to reopen it to conversation or another another round of public comment at the end of our conversation about solar bylaw and if there is anybody interested in nuisance bylaw I can do the same thing at the end of the nuisance conversation so for right now we will start with the the um public hearing at right now anyone who would like to speak please raise your hand and kindly limit your comments to matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC I don't see any hands I suspect people may want to comment after they have heard the discussion so we'll give it another minute and then move on to our first action item okay I still don't see any hands so we're going to move to item number four which is the action items and start with the solar bylaw I was expecting uh that Stephanie who compiled for us would um be here to walk us through but I do not see her and I'm going to I'm going to look to uh counselor hanii if that works to if if you were prepared to help do that otherwise Christine breast uh to oh there's there's Stephanie excellent Stephanie were you prepared to uh actually uh pull this up on your screen and go through it with us or can any of the rest of us do that for you any of you can do it but I have it set up and I'd be happy to do it for you whatever you prefer that would be great if you're all set up to do it sure absolutely so uh could I say first I want to thank you and Chris for the work you've done and Mandy for the helping but I particularly want to thank you Stephanie and Chris for doing this work thank you Stephanie did the heavy lifting this time I've been sort of double thanks for you absent absentminded because of our Not absent minded but our um change in staffing has really hit us like a truck so Steph over and um thank you Stephanie yes you're welcome and and I will also Express appreciation for having assistance from staff because we certainly didn't do that with the well we did have staff but not writing rental registration so thank you um as suggested by Stephanie with her compilation she took all of the comments from each and every one of us who wrote in and simply said does it look like a bylaw element and dumped into one bucket called possible bylaw elements and if we were to go through I think we could in Fairly short order uh well confirm that we think that these are bylaw elements if and I don't want to do too much more talking um the the other options as we structure this bylaw are that we identify some components that was put get that were put together by the solar bylaw working group who amassed a lot of information for us um are some of those components things that we would recommend becoming just um sort of uh stand Standalone boilerplate conditions that the zba or the permit granting Authority should refer to and try to accommodate um or should they be in fact elements of um the bylaw cell and recognize and so one of the conversation pieces is if it's in a bylaw it is it is a requirement a condition if chosen if adopted by the permit granting Authority becomes part of the permit so that condition is in fact um part of the resolution it's just that it's not necessarily a hard and fast requirement so with that Pat you have your hand up yeah I'm looking at uh Chris team's uh memo dated May F 10th and it talks about this issue and um her recommendation and the one that I can support is to retain section 17.04 submittal requirements um um and in within within the bylaw since there are specific to solar installations uh and this is um anyway this is different than the recommendation she and Stephanie gave before but I would like to see us retain those things okay so we'll get to 1704 and hopefully just a couple minutes Stephanie do you want to bring this up on the screen and we'll start from the top sure can I um I just wanted to give a very quick overview of how I came to this version of the draft um and just very quickly so I had comments from um at least four members and so I looked at those comments and in some cases there were recommendations to just take little bits and pieces from certain sections and then take everything else out um but if one member recommended that every stay in I kept it in so there's probably more here than some would have expected but that's only because somebody else suggested it stay in and for instance I know there was a big discussion about the storm water regulations at the last meeting and ultimately it sounded like everyone was in agreement that it should come out but just based on the feedback that I had from people's documents and I think some of the comments were even prior to the last meeting things got retained so you know there may be things that you just decide to just all we've discussed this this will take out that should should move it along a little more quickly um so otherwise that's what we have now is just what was left if anybody if there was a section that everybody sort of agreed didn't need to be there or language that there was agreement that could come out it came out so that's the draft before you so I will share my screen now with you okay I do want to pose a question to the rest of the committee is as we go through there have been um I have received comments on different sections and the question would be do we want to take time tonight to add in comments or do we want to move through at a pace but make it perhaps make a note that that comment needs to be added as we come to those Pat you you still have your hand up do you want to yeah I still have my hand up I mean I'm I'm try I don't if we only are going through it tonight which might be valuable I don't know as Stephanie has created it as long as we're not voting on on keeping things I can go along with that to understand her thinking and stuff but I feel like there are things I want added back and and stuff like that that I want to be able to discuss if not to very soon okay councelor hanaki I'm still trying to figure out exactly what we're doing when we go through it are we commenting substantively about things are we trying to deal with wording are we trying to say you know I still don't like XYZ in here like like how substantive are we getting into it is question number one and then question number two regarding comments we've seen from non-committee Members um they're valuable but I don't necessarily want to favor any one person over some other public member of the Public's Thoughts by automatically putting one person in because they sent us something ahead of time versus somewhere else and so I think we have to be consistent about whose comments are at this point are going in um to whatever document we're doing and how we're discussing stuff because I'm still I I I guess I still don't know I I need help understanding when we start talking about section 1700 intent and purpose what are we talking about um and and whose comments are we putting in or what type of comments are we putting in or not um so I guess I need help yep thank you and I think that's exactly why we wanted to talk about this before we started um Chris prup please so what Stephanie and I decided last week when Stephanie was working on this document was that we thought it made most sense to evaluate the document per um section and just say yes this section belongs in here that's what we think it should be and then move on to the next section rather than getting involved and I know there are a lot of questions and comments that people have about the details but we thought it would be better just to evaluate this um as in does this intent and purpose you know is that supposed to be part of the bylaw or should that be somewhere else so then we would have a whole document that we could then begin to kind of go through minutely and pick apart the words and add things Etc um but for right now we thought it made most sense to just say yes this should be in the bylaw or no it shouldn't be that's my opinion and I think that was Stephanie's opinion but of course you're able to have your your opinion um yeah I'm sort of skipping back to one of um the questions that coun hanii asked about you know how different members of the public weigh in and I guess I do draw a distinction between I mean I think that if we're getting some feedback from members of the solar bylaw working group that they were that group was put together because they really have an expertise in this area so which is why at the last meeting you know I kind of threw out was there a way for us to actually have a conversations with me a conversation with members of the solar Bilo working group I just you know they have so much more expertise than I have that you know I would really appreciate the chance to have a conversation so I I know that um you know we want to give all the public equal opportunity but I think if we have a body they sent us this bylaw and I think for us just to pick it up when it's a subject matter that's very new to some of us it would be helpful if we could still you know have a conversation or somehow liaz with with that group so I just that was my comment yeah I'm sorry I don't I don't um have my rais my hand feature because I'm sharing the document I can't find it so I you don't you can call on me I just want you to know that my hand is raised thank you thank you do you want to say something right now because actually you were behind my below my screen um I I do want to respond actually to um conselor to's comment in that um yes I agree that there are members of the solar bylaw working group who have definitely spent time on this document but as a body they came to a decision and the document that you received is what they agreed to and I I I as much as I can appreciate there are definitely some comments that should be brought in I think they shouldn't come in before the rest of other public comment I think that you have the document that they all concurred and came to agreement on and they gave you the language that they agreed on and at this point they weren't always their opinions and their comments weren't always um unanimous and they didn't always agree and they had a lot of discussion so that I think taking in one person's comments at this time would not necessarily reflect the view of the entire body and I would just save those comments for public comment and that's my opinion and I think Chris could weigh in on that as well okay thank you uh councelor thank you Stephanie that was the um point I wanted to make which is that um even as much as we would have we would want to have a conversation with the by the working group that's not what we would have right now because we do not have all the members instead we are getting one member or two or three providing inputs in that case it would be preferable to have that as some part of um the public comment just so that it doesn't tilt um the skills unlike what would have happened within the group itself where they would have had a conversation before bringing the actual um document thank you thanks so I'm getting a sense that that perhaps well first of all there is I think all of us agree that there is some redundancy within the document there's a lot of verbage that isn't necessarily um pointed specific and and cogent um as as a tight tightly written bylaw wants to be but I think I would agree with the approach that Stephanie and Christine are suggesting at this point that we in fact go through at a fairly high level and say in general is section 1700 in these words um or these paragraphs appropriate for bylaw and then and if and if we are missing some and someone says well I actually wanted um the third paragraph of that let's add it in I think that's that's fine I think it's still getting a just a really basic starting point that we're going to winnow down as we go so that's that's the approach that we'll we'll try that if it doesn't work we'll try another approach so we'll we'll start with article 17 section 1700 intent and purpose does anyone feel the need to uh coun hanii um I think a purpose statement is consistent with how the zoning bylaw operates now um and how some of our general bylaws operate but the second provision the second paragraph is not a purpose statement second paragraph is something else that I believe needs to be its own section I don't know what it would be called but it's a statement or some sort of attempt although I would change some language um of determining if there are conflicts or restatements and and sections of the zoning bylaw if there are multiple sections of the zoning bylaw that would apply to a particular thing being decided it's a statement that determines which thing applies um which is not an intent or purpose in my mind it's a completely different type of thing and to bury it in intent and purpose I think is wrong so I would bring out the second paragraph As a at at this point as a potentially separate section but I don't know what I'd name that enforcement conflicts chice applicability I don't know what I'd call it but I think for now or that we make or that we make note that if can we do track changes so that we can make a note of what Mandy just shared thank you I'm G to see if that we could just add a we could just add a comment yep actually that's Mandy who said it yeah oh Stephanie are you doing the chain that's fine then I'm sorry yeah it's Stephanie doing it yeah I'm sorry that's fine I can I'll put initials after who made the comment if that thank you so much sure no problem there's quite in the in the original copy that we got there's quite a lot under this first uh section 17.0 Z which it seems that [Music] nobody suggested including in the bylaw except for this this um last sentence this last paragraph that they take precedent over other less restrictive sections so we I think we can move on to section 17.01 and I want to clarify again we're only dealing with what we're seeing here we're not adding comments right now exactly okay going as much as I would love to we're not uh councilor hanii I guess this this this goes to what are we doing similar to Pat's question because um I don't quite understand the need for an applicability SE on its own um although it seems to this is where I don't know how how in- depth we're getting I most of our bylaw if you think about zoning bylaw consistency the the sign regulations doesn't have an applicability per se or you know it it it defines something and you know and and then I go on and say but this one then then gets rid of stuff but I look at the use table that just says large scale ground mounted solar special permits across and I've heard Chris say well some things are not special permits some things are just and that this doesn't apply to certain large scale ground Mount and so then I'm curious I'm getting to a point here about other sections I'm curious well if if there's a large scale ground Mount uh system that's greater given the definition later on of 250 k DC that is mounted on a parking lot what regulations do apply and do we actually need a section in the bylaw for that type of system because it seems like this is trying to carve out a certain type of LG Pi that the use table is not and so I don't know the consistency with applicability in general in various zoning bylaws as to whether this is necessary at all um or whether it can be deleted with better definitions of lgpi in the definition section I'm looking at Chris breast I think Mandy has many good points in what she just said but I think an applicability section is useful here and there are probably a lot of things that could be added to this such as whether this section applies to solar mounts in uh parking lots um but I think it's really important to you know distinguish this large scale ground mounted solar arrays from other things that might be you know roof mounted or um actually this what it's says at the end of the first paragraph is the spla is not intended to regulate systems of less than 250 Kow um or roof mounted systems or solar parking canopies so it's really meant to just focus on the ground mounted um installations so it probably needs more work but I think it's important to have it here applicability a section on applicability and that is typical of many bylaws that I've read in fact I'm I think that most of the solar Bas that I read had an applicability section thank you P yeah I just wanted to say that I was going to say basically what Chris said and I want to support that as the decision uh and we might want to think about adding something but that would be at another time in terms of parking lots and things like that or panels solar panels on building yeah and parking lot y there is a little bit about yeah yeah um anybody I I'm comfortable with it with it uh describing essentially the extent of what this bylaw covers and maybe it ends up in the intent and purpose section rather than than here um but that's step two so for now some of the um okay okay section 1702 oh Jennifer you have your hand up sorry it's not important I was just going to agree that I think it should be there someplace if somebody a member of the public is just I mean somebody might say you know what do I need to do if I just want a solar panel on my roof and this tells you you don't this bylaw doesn't apply to you uh NEX the Nexus statements regarding special requirements for LGB pis on farmland and Forest land so this was specifically farmland and Forest land and so far we have it uh hanaki in my coun is hard to get out to me this is something that is far outside what a zoning bylaw normally talks about um outside of a purpose statement um and a lot of it is somewhat self-serving in my mind um that we could fight over and argue over and disagree with on a lot of the assumptions that are within it I would delete the whole section [Music] um I guess I'll be Co and rather ask what is the purpose of the Nexus statements because my view I think in what I had sent as well is that I didn't see the need for it in the Bible I'm going to Chris because I know she was part of those conversations yeah I would say that we developed these Nexus statements somewhere in the middle of working on the bylaw and we weren't sure if we would have um strong limitations on placing solar in Forest land or on farmland and so these statements are meant to support limitations that we might have on placing Forest uh solar on forests or Farmland now I think in the end we came up with not limitation on solar on Forest lenss and so this particular section this Nexus statement that would tie those limitations to some reason you know why in ammer do you want to limit these things on forestlands that's what this is about maybe we don't need it since we're not really limiting solar installations on Forest land in terms of farmlands we are limiting solar installations on farmlands to the extent that if there are certain kinds of Farmland then we are we would require that they be treated as Agro voltaic installations not just regular installations of course there is an out if you can um you know hire a consultant who's who says it's either technically or financially unfeasible to do do agrial takes on your Farmland then you're not required to do that but in any event this um Nexus statement is meant to support or backup limitations that we put in our bylaw that um would limit solar installations on farmland and we were it was suggested to us that we should do this by Jonathan Murray who's the um attorney from KP law who helped us with this bylaw helped us to formulate our ideas he didn't review the bylaw but he helped us to formulate our ideas and he said it's important if if you are going to limit you know put limitations on these installations that you make it clear as to why you're doing that so that's what these two sections are about and I agree that perhaps the farest one could be deleted but we might want to keep the farm one in because we are placing limitations on solar on Farmland I'm just going to com comment if I could on that I mean we haven't decided we don't need it for Forest land yet um Pat and then councelor and then I want to Mandy Joe to make sure she just to hear her feedback I think that the Nexus statements are important particularly since the state has said hey you can't limit solar um and they're we're trying to un to defend the position that we're talking about the health and safety of our town so that the U language is very important the forest Land one is also important and should not be deleted um you know the state is moving forward with they're they're just going to be doing a whole bunch of stuff to take power away from municipalities this is not about power this is addressing the arguments that we why I think Chris said it so much better than I did but why we need the some of the regulations that we have and I think it's critical to the bylaw Jennifer and then I want yeah I was just going to say I agree with what uh Pat just said I mean I think this is you know just like our master plan I mean we do have some just basic I guess statements of value and I think I would think that this is shared by most of the community that in amorist you know we do value our forest and far farmland and it's kind I just think this is sort of the basis for why we're developing a bylaw so I I think and particularly now that I know that our attorney um encouraged us to have this kind of an Nexus statement um I I think it should stay there I certainly don't think it hurts I don't think it's particularly controversial which I know you know that's could be controversial but I it just seems I would think that this is based on our master plan and every that the Way Amherst has said up its zoning and bylaws and how we do development that this is it seems to me it reflects it states a community value uh councelor hanaki the master plan States a community value but we don't rehash the master plan when we're writing a bylaw in zoning that talks about um uh inclusionary zoning we didn't rehash that with an entire page of purpose statement ments that that set forth the Community Values the regulation itself is supposed to set forth the Community Values by what we regulate and what we don't I don't see you know I I understand the attorney may have recommended this but I read a lot of this and I'm trying not to get into my problems with actually some of the language um and don't see a difference between this and a purpose statement I don't see why we need a completely different section for it versus potentially if people want expanding a purpose statement a little bit you know I think some of my first and that's that's where I trouble with what are we doing here with substance or not you know I I had recommended a lot of deletion of the purpose statement and a lot of deletions of the Nexus because I think there were like six different PL not six but those two in particular but also some other sections repeated stuff um I if we're going to have an the Nexus is essentially the purpose um I don't see why we need two different ones and I would argue also it may not be controversial that we need solar um but some people are saying it's controversial because they say that we can't have it on Forest or we can't really have it on farmland and so we need these Nexus statements for reasons why we need to severely limit it on X Y and Z yet there's no Nexus statement as to the absolute need for converting and getting rid of fossil fuel generation at all um and so I feel like this Nexus statement is one-sided it is not a Nexus statement that supports solar per se it is a Nexus statement that supports not putting solar or severely regulating solar it is a statement that supports in some sense severely regulating solar and not building solar in certain areas without any similar statements at least in the same to the same extent of why it is so important to build a ton of solar to get us off fossil fuels um there are some statements in there and I don't need people to say well we have some well we don't have three pages of statements as to why we need to get off fossil fuels we have two sentences versus two pages of Nexus statements that this started with so if for now we need something I would put it in purpose and get rid of a Nexus statement or at least move this right up after purpose instead of putting applicability in the middle of it um but if we're not going to talk about substance and and a desire to rewrite this at this point I would say move it all to purpose and when we deal with the substance of the purpose section then we can talk about the substance of this too but not have two separate sections thank you I was actually had my hand up but go ahead Council um I think the Nexus statement has the potential to be controversial um and I also I'm not persuaded by how much force it carries by its presence in the bylaw but does that mean you don't want it or do you think it's in the it should not be part of the bylaw um I I still don't find it necessary yeah okay Pat and then Pam go ahead um I can go after you I don't mind okay I was I was going to say I actually am thinking that um as I was reading it that it it does seem to be part of the purpose for having a bylaw and that if we can if we can take some of the key elements of why we want it um I think it's been explained actually in the cover letter we make a really good uh there's a good explanation of why we need solar and if we are going to um we're not limiting solar necessarily but we're more heavily managing solar arrays in forest and farmlands is the way I'm looking at it P yeah I'm gonna uh uh count I'm not comfortable with uh Mandy with you're talking about us severely and extremely limiting um one of the things that's true is I think that this whole community ammer supports um addressing uh the climate crisis use creating as much solar energy as we can what this is about the large scale ground mounted is finding a balance between the need for those ground mounted large ground mounted solar systems and the need to maintain uh forests and as lungs and and if you look at other stuff from the state it it now addresses that more directly and we can't so we are trying to regulate how much of a forest can be taken apart how it can be taken apart when it is taken apart which I support but how we balance that with the need to sequester carbon so it it's really I think uh I think the two Nexus statements are really critical I would not necessarily be uncomfortable moving them to purpose I can see that point Mandy but I think that um eliminating them would be foolish thank you um and I I was going to note well two things one is that I'm planning to keep this discussion going until about quarter of eight so good a good hour on this topic before we switch topic um but just noting that Amis is pretty consistently and purposefully uh acquired Farmland farm and Forest land um for conservation and that's sort of our our lungs and and breathing space for the town and so I think um I certainly support um keeping some of the concepts of these Nexus statements Within Reach In This bylaw so when we talk about it again some of these other some of these other sections have been um there's a paragraph or two that's brought into the bylaw and the rest we're saying may not apply Frank I don't really want to stop and go through the Nexus you know the seven or eight paragraphs of Nexus statement to to do that um and would suggest that getting getting through and hearing feedback from the group tonight is a really good first step I don't mind offering to help compile those thoughts and and start a process of maybe consolidating and moving things to where we talked about placing them in which case in which case we might look at these fairly expensive NEX of statements and say which of these are the Salient elements that we need to maintain does that feel comfortable Pat yeah does anyone want to say anything else about section 1702 I don't see any hands okay Stephanie can you yes proceed us along here I'm checking I'm checking three different versions to see if I missed anything from one version to the other um well we're just going through Stephanie's tonight so maybe yeah well I know but but I'm comparing it to my mine so um did anyone have any any concerns about the definitions being part of the bylaw looks like it looks like the entire uh definition uh hanaki counselor I just want to be clear I don't have problems with definitions in the zoning bylaw I'm my question at this point is are we making note of things where since the com the committee hasn't decided whether it kind of wants to deal with this Standalone or insert certain things into different parts of the zoning bylaw other articles and article uh 12 I think is our definition section of thing should we be making note within this document of potential sections that once we've decided on potential language that we then have to make a decision on does it stay in article 17 or does it go to an X different article and so if we're making those notes now I would say that note goes with this section of a decision needs to be made as to whether to keep it in section 17 or put stuff into section article 12 I think it is yeah any other comments on that while Stephanie is noting that I I would agree than need to go live down thank you thanks Stephanie um section 1704 submitt requirements so the the initial conversation was uh at first to perhaps put submittal requirements into rules and regulations um it looks like at least one of us or all of us maybe have suggested that they do need to stay in the bylaw itself are there any comments about that and we have 31 at at the moment there are 31 uh elements for consideration for submitt requirements which is pretty extensive Andy um my comment goes back to in some sense the initial comment I had on article or section zero that splitting out that last sentence um I at some point I think we need to make a decision as to whether these are the only submitt requirements or whether the regulations submitt the submitt requirements that are included in the regulations of the Z VA or planning board or building inspector also apply and then be very clear in the bylaw what that is because at this point I've got concerns about conflicting requests Christine yeah I think we make a statement in the beginning here that both the planning board and the zoning board of appeals have rules and regulations that include submitt requirements and then we also say that in addition to those submitt requirements these the following things are required for large scale solar installation so I think it um it makes sense to me to have this list in the bylaw and then to refer back to the zoning bylaw and planning or excuse me the zoning board and planning board rules and rs I think there may be some minor things in this list that are also contained in those rules and rs lists but um I didn't think it was worth my time to go through and you know parse those things out but for the most part these things listed these 35 things really are specific to the solar baa um and if you want to get specific I well I don't want to get specific now but we can have that conversation later so I think most of this is related to the solar installations and not to the general not to a general project and whether it stays in here or goes into rules and Rags I think you could put it in rules and Rags but then the zoning board and the planning board would need to adopt those as changes to their rules and rs anyone else have a comment and thank you thank you Mandy for that I I would I would agree that that um keeping submittal requirements for this um for this topic for this type of development um is appropriate to keep in a bylaw um the the sections in the Z zoning in zoning bylaw that for instance deal with in the rules and regs for the Zoning Board of repeals deals with chapter 40b you know um affordable housing developments and there's some specific requirements in addition to the usual things that get you know brought to the table this is pretty lengthy and and seems much easier for a developer to find if it's all in one place than having to jump back and forth between the zoning board rules and rs which are hard to find because they're not on their main website any other comments uh I saw councelor ET had hand up for a second I think i' requested that It Go in um rules and rs but haven't listened to some of what has been said I think I I'll refrain from that right now did you say consider moving consider moving these to the rules and reg I am partially persuaded by what has been said so that's that's why I dropped my hand oh okay thank you okay okay anything else any other comments on 17.04 and again and again I want to be really clear that we aren't getting into the details because there's a lot of editing that could happen in here and winnowing it down so 7 1705 1705 uh oh Jennifer sorry yeah no that's where I have a question like with the r um with the submittal requirements so how and who is going to decide what would be winnowed down I mean personally I can't weigh in on that that this submitt so who I guess that's what I'm asking who has the expertise a staff clearly does but is was so will staff decide that I don't see how this committee goes through and decides oh we need this submitt requirement but we don't really need that one so it's just sort of a question when we say we'll come back to it is you know does that happen literally as we're in a meeting like we're having now yeah or or with some or with some pre-work done so that the editing is is obvious and I was talking about editing being not necessarily that you would drop item three but it was that there's a lot of for instance under lighting or screening and planting there could be two or three sentences that say what you really need and then the rest is um material that maybe the zba should take into consideration when they're looking at a project it's it's more the the adjectives that are that are sort added to the the basic noun Chris move your hand up yeah I thought that um Miss tab was referring to the submittal requirements and wondering how this group here CRC members could winnow that list of submittal requirements not being very um maybe technically knowledgeable about um solar installation so she was going back to 1704 and I guess what I would suggest is that um we will talk to Rob Mora who's the Building Commissioner and you know he can advise us about things that are contained in here that may or may not be important or useful in my opinion I'd say most of these things are important or useful I could probably you know make arguments about deleting some of them but I think having Mora review this is going to be helpful to you in deciding which of these submittal requirements are necessary and realistic thank you and and also I would add to that that we in fact haven't had the general staff reviews yet we haven't had concom we haven't had you know those kinds of groups actually look at it from their technical perspectives to confirm or suggest Ed editing these sections so yeah it's not going to all be on the on the back of the CRC for sure Pat you have your hand up yeah I just wanted to say to Jennifer and to all of us that what Chris gave clear reasons why she supported these being the submitt requirements being in the Solar Bible she also said there were some minor things that she didn't go through and but she that's certainly something she could do and her uh refer this to Rob Mara Etc uh I think that's how and then we will hear back from Chris and Rob and and then we'll be able to make our decision but she's already said that it be that it's these are important right no I think they are that's why I'm saying who am I to say what something should come out okay gotcha thank you okay design standards mayy go um trying to stay away from actual language um fencing there's a section of the bylaw section 6.2 that talks about fencing so I think we need to decide at some point um when we're talking about fencing that at a future time whether it stays in this article or whether it goes to 6.2 or whether article 6.2 um or section 6.2 is sufficient or what might be added there so i' I'd like a comment that says that we don't lose the fact that there's zoning bylaw bylaw language regarding fencing already and we need to make sure we need to cross reference and decide make some decisions with that as well as making decisions as to what the language is um signage um the same thing I just said with fencing ass signage but it's article 8 um and all um visual impact everything after the first paragraph the such assessment is preferred to include the following and Beyond 1 two 3 and all those numbers I think is more appropriately a submittal requirement than it is a a standard if you're asking for an ass assment you're asking for something to be submitted so I would like to see much of the visual impact the assessment language at least moved organizationally to submittal requirements at some point before we discuss it because it's not a standard per se it's asking you to submit a plan in a sense and what that plan includes um the slopes and soils section um goes to something that I would talk about later which is I believe we need I don't know whether slopes and soils is is the right thing but it might be considered this that we need a section on dimensional standards um potentially modifying the dimensional standards table in the bylaw that currently is there or having a specific dimensional standards table for large scale ground Mount or any other type of ground Mount solar that deals with setbacks that deals with um screening distances I think screening in here sometimes talks about how many feet it needs to be um but I think we need to consider a separate section or table that deals with some of that and consolidates some of these dimensional type length width slopes into one section one potential table and slopes and soils is a possibility that that might be a place to put that I don't know whether it it works there but it's a possibility for that thank you yeah um and and good point it it u a lot of those visal impacts are not standards um slopes slope and soil though is um just as landscape architect uh the steeper the slope the higher the runoff rate the the the greater the erosion and I think we need to say something in here very specifically about you can't build over 15% I mean you can mow on a 3% slope but you know as it gets any any Ste ER than that um you have a hard time maintaining your vegetation that is supposed to slow down your erosion or or your runoff so I would say 15% at a maximum um so I would certainly I would certainly want to keep in slop and soil yeah in here but I but I like the idea of a dimensional table because it is kind of scattered throughout this document and it seems like it's um it contradictory in some places especially in the water protection area and the distance from Wells versus distance from property lines anything else on the um in the screening and planting as well just is you know there's a lot of stuff in here that some of which could be a nice condition for zba to to think about but in general in my mind having the section in here is is a is appropriate it just needs to be parsed out better anything else on design standard the next section special requirements it's it's it's really special requirements for farmland and Forest any comments on this section go ahead Andy so again trying not to get into the substance of stuff um some of this is what a soil plan is which is not is more of to me a submitt requirement than a a a a land use threshold or maximum or minimum or some sort of land use requirement it's more of you know one of this is um shall you know conduct a baseline soil Health analysis well that that fits to me more with a submitt requirement of submit a soil Health analysis something right um you know um reporting requirements anything with reporting should be moved to a section on reporting um so that all the reporting requirements are in the same section um you know and so I and then the title special requirements gets to me because it doesn't why are these not called Des why aren't these part of the design standard section you know or or something like that I I'm not quite understanding why it's a separate section um because it's like design requirements for Farmland well that that's a design standard potentially um you know submitting types of crops to be planted if you're talking about Farmland well that's a submitt requirement not really a design requirement so I think this is a section that potentially you know an annual report a detailed design of solar layout well isn't that part of the submitt I think this whole section needs to really be gone through and almost split up section by section into the things that are submittal requirements the things that are design requirements and then potentially as we get into talking about actual language deleting the whole section that's just titled special requirements because I think a lot of it goes into other sections more appropriately yeah uh Christine I just wanted to make the point that there are reporting requirements at different points along the way and those often are not at the same time that submittals are being made so the submitt requirements in general refer to what do you need to submit to get your application going and then um there are reporting requirements um during construction and Reporting requirements after construction both to talk about erosion control and also to talk about how is the site um maintaining itself over time so I think in my opinion they would not these things would not be submitt requirements although you could have a section on reporting which would talk about you know if you need to submit a report as part of your application and then if you have a report that's due during construction and then if you have another report due um after construction maybe you want to split it up that way way to me it makes more sense to have the reporting in with the issues that are being discussed but that's something that you can decide yourselves I just wanted to make that point that the reporting takes place at different times and has different um purposes thanks thank you always helpful to understand the background of of the structure um yeah I was going to say in my in my marked up copy this is is part of what the section looks like it's it's it's not all it's not all straightforward um any other comments and we can move to section 1707 and Stephanie again thank you for taking notes my pleasure so this this section um Andy so ecosystem Services seems this section seems to apply if neither if the O if the section 1706 doesn't apply if start reading about what um requirements for inforest lands are and then it at one point it defined what that was um requirements for um on Farmland that talks about what Farmland is in terms of what that means and then there was an ecosystem services that applied in if I read this correctly to things that to to land that didn't qualify under either of the forest land or Farmland in section 1706 so if if that's the case it seems like this is more another subsection of that other section almost not its own section if it's really again thinking about the forest land these these special requirements for Forest land does Maxim e ecosystem Services doesn't seem to apply to that and so is it in some sense a subsection of 1706 not its own section number one number two my same comments apply um ecosystem Services plan so is that a submitt requirement is that something else the annual report should be in a report I'd really like to see a reporting section so that we know how many reports are being asked for and I love the idea of the report section being split up of construction reports post construction operational reports sort of thing but but I think there's a lot of reporting requirements in here that we don't actually realize how much reporting is being asked for and whether they are conflicting or complimentary or um overly burdensome because they are not all in one section so again I think I'd go with I'm not sure this is its own section because it only applies to subsets of the developments and so is it more part of design guidelines for X types of large scale ground mounted design guidelines for why types and I think we need to be clearer about some of this because a lot of this in the prior section seemed to only apply to a subset of large scale ground Mount and that gets confusing to someone trying to build something as to which sections if any do they have to follow so I guess I'm saying I'd put it with wherever we're putting some of the other section 17.06 stuff as well as split out the reports and any of the plans into their appropriate other subsections I would concur with that and again some so you a plan submitt [Music] um it doesn't it I mean it's got some sort of General it's got some material that that could very well just be a a general condition that that the permit granting Authority needs to consider as well okay 1708 dimensional standards so this is pretty this is a pretty short section um but it covers it's it's really I only see one actual setback requirement of 50 feet of a front yard so we know that there are other um Dimensions that have been mentioned in other places they need to be all in the same uh section um Dave I wondered if we could go back to that last section just for a minute 1707 yeah 1707 again going back to something Mandy said quite a while ago about you know are we trying to encourage these systems being built in ammer in the right location etc etc but one thing that occurred to me here and I I may be off base but you know I was just thinking of a you know let's say a 10 acre solar project um on Forest land or Farmland if I was just trying to think of the equivalent if if somebody proposed a subdivision of seven acres and I was comparing that to a s acre solar field would we require an ecosystem Services plan for that subdivision I think the answer is no but I I just kind of wonder and maybe Stephanie or or Christine because they were part of the the working group's uh efforts it just doesn't have to be answered tonight but it's just an interesting question we don't we don't require anything close to that for a subdivision of eight Acres or 10 acres um I don't think we require them at all for subdivisions not that we have a lot of subdivisions but we could um so just a question to put out there why do we have it here why are we asking these developers to do that well we ask them a lot of other things too I mean there there's a whole array of requirements for subdivision right but subdivisions have the same the same sometimes greater impact um in many ways than than a solar array would so it's just interesting to think about just a question miy well my hand up was for the next section but I agree 100% with what Dave just said and will be part of my questions as we get into the substance of particularly the submittal requirements but also any of the other things um of why is this different than something else of the same size it I think is a good question to keep asking ourselves okay comments on 1708 and so this is where I think a table is more useful than potentially wording um and I'm going to be suggesting that we put other wording or for now into this but but um it's you know this one is 50 ft front yard set back except if it's a Scenic Road and then it's 100 feet uh rear and sides are 50 feet except for uh setting along railroad tracks and then it can be reduced to zero or something with with some screening you know I think this is where we should be thinking about even if it's just for our own ability to talk about setbacks creating some sort of table instead of words that show all of the setback and anything measurable distance-wise distance measuring things whether it be setback whether it be screening buffers whether it be XYZ and and list them all somewhere in numbers and short words type thing so that we can really have a conversation about it um our our current bylaw uses a dimensional setback table based on Zone um looking at that versus use um could be interesting too comparing these setbacks to setbacks within the RO or RL you know our our current dimensional table would be helpful as we get into that discussion but I think a table at this point this this would be the section that there'd be a t i I would suggest potentially a table over words over sentences thank you anyone else Chris I just wanted to suggest that I'm not proing or anything but that we keep in mind that um in some people's minds large scale uh solar installations are more akin to Industrial uh use than they are to housing say and I think there was a concern on the part of the members of the solar bio working group that people might um have negative feelings about living next to a large-scale solar installation as opposed to living next to a housing subdivision and so they were having that in mind to the extent of well should the setbacks for one of these installations be larger than it would normally be and I think that's a legitimate thing to consider I'm not arguing in favor one side or the other but I think that's what people had in mind when they were setting these um setbacks differently from the normal setbacks that we have in our dimensional table thanks sorry one more thing um so in a normal uh bylaw use you know a use like an industrial use is not allowed in a residential district it's only confined to you know industrial sections or maybe commercial sections whereas um I think that solar installations large scale solar installations could be in all of the different um zoning distri districts and I think our uh use table does allow them in all the different zoning districts you may decide that you don't like that that you want to confine them to certain zoning districts but given the fact that they are currently proposed to be allowed everywhere in town the concern was that you know this is something that looks industrial and do you want it next your house and if it is next year house how far back should it be from your property that's all thank you that's a helpful thing to think about um 1709 and and I'm just going to start out by saying this is incredibly light because they didn't really the the working group did not address this topic and um it I think it needs it needs considerable work was going to ask if Chris you could send to the CRC members the solar um or the battery storage um bylaw that we developed if that's if that's available sure that's available um but we also developed our own solar byw but the solar byw working group wasn't in existence for long enough to review it so I can send you what bear put in place and I can send you what we have drafted okay I'll be happy to do that and I think the conversation would be is it a standalone we had this at the very beginning but none of us you know had studied it deeply enough is it a standalone thing or is it better um as part of the solar topic and and have it embedded in in this by law Mandy um similar comments to Pam um when we get to this section I think we need to have a bigger section than this um and and start with something whether it be wear whether it be pelum whether yeah pelum might not have a separate BSS but um there's a number of communities in in Massachusetts that have drafted either separately or within a solar bylaw A Bess um starting with that but then I also want to put into this a comment about as we think about all of the other sections right um what what is the purpose of the Bess section of this bylaw versus the dimensional standard section or the design standard on glare or setback you know dimensional setbacks or buffering and um um you know buffers and vegetative screening and you know does the vegetative screening section apply to Bess as we're discussing those sections are we incorporating are we Imagining the screening vegetative screening or the lighting section or the fencing section or some of these other design standard sections or even the ecosystem section um just to throw some things out there as applying to just lgpi or as applying to bess2 because as we draft and fix the language in those sections or get that language um a little more poent we need to have that consideration in mind or are we going to literally be repeating in section 1709 dimensional standards and um uh screening standards and Lighting standards and access standards um or should we be doing that and if we're if we're including all of those standards up above um that would apply to both my question is what actually goes into this section so so that that's sort of the the thinking I'm going now as we need beess standards but are they separate or are they incorporated into all of the other sections we've just gone through good Chris so I think beess is really different from the standard solar installation um it has many more potential issues um and there are two different kinds one is the kind that's relatively small and accompanies um a large-scale solar installation and one is rather large and stands alone so I think those two um things need to be considered separately if it's relatively small and it accompanies an installation of solar panels then maybe it could be treated in one way but if it's a large you know um amalgam of you know these big they're like um shipping containers sort of that's what the way they look um if it's a large installation of those and there's potential for you know serious things to happen maybe we want to treat that differently so that's something that we need to keep in mind and I think the B battery storage byla that we wrote and it's been almost a year now since I wrote it um deals with that but I I would have to go back and look at it anyway so those are just see some things to think about like setbacks obviously those would be different if you had you know an an installation like we're going to see on Route 116 um up near Annie's former Garden Center there's going to be a big installation up there that was approved by the zba last year um and you'd want to make sure that your house was pretty far away from that but if it's a smaller uh battery storage that's associated with a solar panel installation maybe you wouldn't be as worried because there's not a potential for as as much uh damage to occur if something goes ay so well that's all and we'll get a chance to see it when we see those two examples so I need I need to put a pause it is it is close to 8 o'clock and I said I'd try to wrap this at quarter of I want to take the uh the temperature of the group to either continue this and and and recognize that we we don't spend as much time on nuisance bylaw um or um pause here I mean we're making I think we're making good progress um so I'm looking for some feedback and also to to incorporate if there are some comments from the public um we might want to pause and take that as well Andy um well I would love to continue I think it's important for us to get and have enough time to do the planning board discussion um which is item two on it and and we don't know what public comments might be on this one and so it's probably wise to potentially pause at this point I lost any anybody else I'm I'm not disagreeing with that uh so if that's the case it's it's 8 o'clock we would have another half hour we do need to talk about uh we I'd like to do public comment um and then talk about zoning uh the planning board excuse me um so let's agree to table this at section 1709 and next time we'll even have some information that we can we can use maybe um and then and definitely would like to know to make sure that we have Stephanie back when we start talking about storm water management um with your recommendations that you provided us earlier thank you so we have we can we can let Stephanie and Christine go um and Stephanie could you kindly email that whole document I guess to why not email it to me and I'll send it to everybody on the committee just so we have a record of of today's accomplishments sure okay that would be lovely thank you and thank you Chris and Stephanie for hanging with us appreciate it Dave you're still with us right if you if you want to be okay Switching gears planning board we have about a month before um the terms of two current planning board members expire and we would like very much to have new members in place uh Jennifer you've been tracking some of this as well am I'm sorry to interrupt but um Steve roof who was in the audience did raise his hand and okay I forgot to do the public com part so let's open up public comment or comments strictly on solar bylaw and then switch back to um to planning board sorry about that can someone bring Steve Ruth first and then Martha Hanner second Ruth Ruth hello and good evening this is Steve roof I live on Southeast Street and deep south emmer and um thank you for all this very detailed work that you are doing going through this draft solar bylaw I wanted to First mention something you all will find very useful interesting and that's the western Mass solar Forum that's happening Tuesday of next week hope looks like some of you or many of you are aware of that that that should be a great event with a lot of really good information happening and um I think if if if folks that are listening Google Western Mass so Forum you will find the way to register and join it's a it's all almost all day Tuesday it's a online conference so you can join by Zoom um second thing I wanted to mention is I wanted to say that I agree entirely with councelor heni and the other counselors that about the Nexus statement you were discussing about an hour ago I think that needs to be removed the the the Nexus statements are very one-sided they give the impression that the Massachusetts decarbonization plan will be achieved if we just protect our forests and the soils and that's not what it say and keep Farmland as it is it does the Nexus statements do not mention the key and the core part of the decarbonization plan which is eliminating the use of fossil fuels that's 85% of the goal is is um eliminating fossil fuel so I I think those Nexus statements are are one-sided I think if if there's a court challenge the judge would see that and um they would not be helpful regarding community health and safety please keep in mind that fossil fuels are killing us the pollution from fossil fuels kills hundreds of thousands of people um in the United States and tens of thousands in Massachusetts uh in addition to causing sickness asthma and others from particulates so if you want to focus on health and safety the core thing would be to eliminate fossil fuel use um last I just want to say land preservation goals do not need to be in conflict with responsible Solar Development and those Nexus statements imply that the the land preservation goals and preserving forests and soils are in being in put in danger by Solar Development and I think that's wrong we can develop land amest already has 40% or more of its land under permanent protection um we need to develop solar about eight or nine times more than we have today in Massachusetts to meet the 2050 decarbonization goals that means increasing the rate of Solar Development by a factor of 2 to three every year so it's really really important that solar be encouraged and that's something that this bylaw as is written is Now does not do it strictly limits strictly limits and restricts Solar Development I think it really needs something needs to be put in there to find a way to encourage responsible Solar Development in town that's consistent with our long-standing land preservation goals thank you all right thank you very much Martha Hanner name and name and where you live all right I'm Martha Hanner living in South amorist and uh first of all thanks to Steve for mentioning the solar Forum which is taking place next week that's important also point out that there was the first part of the solar Forum was last fall and one of the things that was stressed and reported on with lots of data in that first Forum was that in the past 10 years the large solar arrays more than 50% has been due to cutting forests and um the state in their documents from the Environmental Protection Agency and so on are uh putting out as their goals no further net loss of forest land and no net loss of Farmland in instead they want to increase the amount of locally grown food so are you still hearing me yes yes okay my computer's going going bad a little bit and and and so we we do have to have the right balance but the most urgent need is to get solar arrays on parking lots solar arrays uh more on buildings I mean our town really needs to work hard on this we we're going to have the Valley Green energy then to to work on this um our two private colleges do have a lot of open land that could be used say in collaboration with UMass to do some experimental uh Farmland so I feel it's really important that the Town Council takes seriously that in addition to reducing the emissions from fossil fuels of and the biggest source of that is transportation not electricity use the present time uh we also need to really take seriously the role of our open lands and forests in drawing down and storing the carbon dioxide 50 years from now that's going to be the most important thing uh and um climate resilience now is also something we have to take into account and uh we have to be able to protect our residents so finally let me just say that a lot of the concern comes from the region in Northeast ammer where where uh people are on private Wells and so much of the concern there is the role of forest in helping to protect the their water supplies and so on so some of the uh things that the solar working group discussed in terms of regulations were specific for that region and so maybe the council wants to consider you know different rules for different parts of ammer or something but but that was part of the uh motivation so thanks for all your good work and uh if you want expertise on the submittal requirements I suggest that you talk to the zba they're the ones that are going to enforce it and so they're the ones that best know U what they need to see in our Solar bylaw for the solar requirements so thanks for all your good work and keep it up thank you Martha okay we're going to close that that good and now we have the we have the list of candidates or people with Community activity forms I was looking today to see if anyone uh they were sent reminders I was looking to see if anyone had submitted a new calf um and I have to admit that my inbox is up to 43 un red and I have not seen if any are CS did anybody else happen to notice um I think you copied me on your emails and I haven't received any so I think if they submitted Cals well usually in everyone on the council gets them but I haven't in response as someone copied on it I haven't seen any more calfs and I will say that of we had nine names on the Excel sheet that's available to everyone and so far three people have indicated that they're no longer interested in being considered so we have five names and we're waiting for some of those would have to resubmit caps we we actually have six names that's why I'm sorry six names but they haven't all resubmitted calves correct and I will point out that that Doug Marshall um is currently on the board he is looking for renewal of his term or for a second second and a half term he served a bit I think he served a year or so before he was uh appointed to a three-year term so we have in addition to Doug Marshall we have two other people who have indeed sent in calfs and the question before us given the time frame do we have a sufficient pool of candidates and I'm trying to get back and see our faces so sorry Andy so I guess I'm trying to clarify and going back in my own email the the Town Council policy says that only those individuals who submitted cafs after the um bulletin board notice went up are considered applicants and is that three people at this point yeah and how many openings are we we're looking to fill two prospective openings one is a rury potentially and and and one is a new plot um and in fact I think we have a I think we have a contradiction in our one of the one of the emails um and notices that go out to people state that if you if you submitted a calf you know recently you do not need to submit a second one or it's actually it says if you submitted it within the last two years you do not need to submit a new one but that's contrary to um our policy or at least our practice of asking them to submit it after the bulletin board notice has been posted which I think is really awful Andy so we have a month terms expire they don't automatically renew um three for two spots is not necessarily sufficient um yet are our options are to go ahead with it now to try and appoint new people despite the potential insufficiency in numbers to get appointments by June 30 by the time the current terms expire or to say we're going to extend the current terms and hope we get more and I feel like the extend the current terms shouldn't be done un unless we had no applicants you know like that that seems like it we have applicants we might not be happy with the sufficiency of the numbers but trying to get these appointments done by June 30 seems of those two options the better option to me than saying we're not going to go forward and instead we're just going to renew you know extend someone's term until we try and do this over the summer which is even harder so I I I feel like it's time to say the pool it it's necessary to move on and if we have to declare the pool sufficient to do that despite our concerns we need to move on and try to get statements of interest and and interviews in so that we can get these any recommendations to the council by the end of June in fact Maybe by June 17 if I'm not mistaken at least that's what we talked about or the 24th yeah P you have your hand up yeah I know I hear Mandy and she makes sense uh my concern is and I honestly haven't looked I mean I know Doug Marshall but I don't know who the other people are so this is no reflection on anyone who has submitted a calf in the past or now but if there are two positions and we have three candidates I would like an assurance from this committee if only one of those people fits the bill then we don't fill positions with people that we have concerns about um and so my feeling is we ought to extend the present terms and then see if we can get a sufficient pull okay thank you P my question for umat then would be what if none of those who are interviewed fit the bill what happens well I guess my concern uh is that often we feel like we have to do this unanimous vote and I think that it would be valuable for us to really vote who we think would make a good planning board member or a good Housing Trust member or whatever whatever some of the other not just try to fill a slot and I and I'm very concerned with the drive to fill slots and um and I have purposely not looked because I don't want on I don't want to look until the pool is declared sufficient and you know um I I'm just concerned that we my personal opinion is that we have a very weakened planning board because of uh and and a very in I don't even know I mean I feel like we're missing a lot of people who have experience and things like that and we have a lot of opinion like I'd be a terrible person on planning board if I applied because I'm so opinionated about certain things and I think that that we've been selecting People based on our personal preferences around where they stand and I'm I'm just I would like some real choices um I will go with the you know I will go with the committee you you know I'm going to do that but I'm just concerned of I don't we shouldn't just vote people on because we don't have enough people I don't know thank you thank you not saying it's the best argument in the world but it's where I am um I agree that I would like to have a wider pool than three candidates for two places I happen to think that the current planning board is much more balanced than the first planning board um which is one reason I ran for Council so we're at very different opinions about that um but I would so I I do have a question though if we do extend it do we have to I mean would we ask the two planning board members whose terms are expiring if they would be willing to serve longer until we fill and and we would have to go to council and ask for an extension similarly uh and I don't think we're going to run into this problem um with the zba but similarly because because people are on panels for particular projects they may the project may not um come to a conclusion and so those those people whether they are going to continue on as a zbaa member or not have to be extended the length of that project so that they can they have a quorum so that they can conclude their business um I don't I don't know if that's the situation for the planning board and I should probably ask if if um if that consideration needs to be made for anything that's being continued at this point that make sense I'm looking at Mandy so we already did the zba appointments without consideration to that um but I think we had had some information about what they were expecting and when those things were the zba rules under state law are slightly different than the planning board rules the zba rules require the panel to be the same and that panelists can't miss more than I believe it's one meeting and then even if they miss that one meeting where the hearing is they have rules about having to make stuff up because it's considered quasi judicial the planting board rules are not as strict as that so the the issue we have with those concerns with zba um from my knowledge of having spoken and run this process before with planning board are not are not present with the pl planning board even if there are they are in the middle of site plan reviews say um that those those concerns are not legally present unlike with the zba thank you so we don't I don't think we have to worry about it in other words um I've been thinking about you know what what is an ideal planning board and and I would say that sometimes I'm surprised and I'm surprised because people bring with them uh different experiences which may not necessarily be you know as a professional landscape architect or architect or you know trained in some you know in engineering um but that bring um knowledge of other locations and and how things were done in other places that seemed to work or ideas that seemed to work so um I I know when I served on the planning board there were people essentially non I'll call them non-affiliated they had no background necessarily they had no particular expertise but they had interest in zoning or they had an interest in um you know Town Affairs or something like that and and they they listened they learned they did their homework and they ended up being contributing members even though um they weren't experts per se and I'm I'm thinking that again I have been pleasantly surprised at people that I wasn't sure if they would you know pull their wait and they ended up so I think I would I would probably fall on the side of um voting the pool sufficient and allowing us to interview and I think in the interview process it might become very clear that we do or do not have the capabilities that um I mean and it's very hard to say that somebody is incapable of serving on the planning board that's that's the Dilemma take a vote or do we are we at consensus that we either extend the terms or to use the The Limited tool that we have Jennifer or H so I so you just recently wrote to six people or and I saw three emails so we're still waiting we may have more than three if some three said they were withdrawing and then I think there's still three or two that would be to submit CS people that were reminded that a new calf was required um our policy and that um if at all possible it would be great to have it today because we were going to try to talk about the sufficiency of the pool tonight um unfortunately I was planning to do that well before Memorial Day weekend and it ended up not happening so I had to do it U Monday night so it it's partly my fault that I didn't send a reminder [Music] um uh Mandy yeah so we may get them we may have more than three is what I'm saying yeah yeah but we I think we can't declare the pool tidied up and and sufficient until we because that that essentially locks the candidates in right Andy shaking your head no go ahead the even though the pool is De if the if we declare the pool sufficient even if it is declared that the pool is not closed until the statements of Interest are published okay um but I was going to make a motion because we operate under motions um especially when the policy requires us to vote a sufficiency so um I I I don't know whether this will succeed or not but um I'm going to move to declare the pool of candidates for the planning board in pending vacancies um sufficient for the purposes of moving towards interviews and soliciting statements of Interest is there a second Jennifer are you raising you're raising no I had to get my mute off um I'll second that let's take a vot celor hanaki i that d'angela No councelor E no Jennifer to yes Cam roone be a yes so it's kind of a split vote um I appreciate the fact though that if we can start the process of asking for statements of interest from those who have submitted that that fresh calf and we could easily get two more or three more calves um so that that so that they are not precluded from the pool if I understand it right do that does that make Pat feel any [Laughter] better no but I don't feel bad I mean I lost a vote I you know I said what I thought and okay I'm not mad at anybody we're not we're not we're not holding Bridges here um councelor you still have your hand up yeah I um I took no on the vote because I was thinking of the chatter review which um also had a similar situation and um while waiting for the statements of intent the numbers were still low um and um like Pat I haven't looked to see who the three candidates are but I think um there is a benefit to Simply Having a bit more and maybe time can give us that opportunity to have more Mandy so I think it's up to our chair or her designate to start finding interview dates um which is always also a big question mark as to whether we can find interview dates that everyone's available for especially the closer we get to Summer um so I think that's the next step but I I do want to reiterate um I didn't iterate it the first time I guess I do want to support Pat um and her comment of if just because we interview people doesn't mean we should feel obligated to AO um you know I think it it's awkward because the interviews are public and people know we did but we've been in this situation for many different appointments now and that awkwardness has potentially um sometimes resulted in actions maybe a majority of people weren't comfortable with because we we didn't we wanted to avoid the awkwardness um without saying anything because we don't know what the interviews will do right um the the awkwardness is because we have to do all of this in public um not you know in some sense so I I don't know I I think we need to think of that as a possibility that it's not we're interviewing X number of people and we are absolutely filling X number of spots I think it's we're interviewing X number of people and we may be filling X number of slots and and just rethinking that thought process yeah oh wait one other thing with that is rethinking the one thing we haven't done before is if we only get one SOI considering whether we even want to move to interviews or something you know um a rethinking the Declaration of the sufficiency of the pool potentially at that interview stage or a meeting before the interviews when we're sitting there going now that we know our pool trying to make that consider cons you know that decision without even reading the sois is very complicated but because then you have more information and then other things get in there but but being able to say revisit the sufficiency decision on based on some of the stuff that counselor ete just said you know you can start with 10 potential we've seen this in zba before 10 potential applicants and end up with two statements of interest and then you're like but we had four slots you know what do we do um uh being able to be open and and reconsider some of those decisions as neutrally as possible um can I ask when the charter review um do are you at a point where they're going to do inter interviews yet we literally during this I think we just got a notice that they're going to be next week no no June 4th June 4th at 6:30 so there were a couple of people that said they were interested in planning board but they preferred um the Charter review so if they weren't there maybe they yeah yeah they might come back and submit a new Cal yeah okay that's that's very good to know good um I'm looking at the calendar and um I think we have to have uh our statements of interest about 10 days before the interview so that there's time to get them in get them to Athena and have them posted for a week we um it seems like the earliest that we could do an interview would be the the very end of the week of the 10th so the 14th or the 17th 18th 19th would be ideal um are any of those I have to get my calendar okay do we have a CRC meeting where we could I mean because that's the easiest we know we all have that on our calendars we have a CRC on the 11th and on the 25th but the 25th is a day after the last council meeting for the month of June so I would really like to have um you know it could perhaps be the 18th which is which is a a Tuesday even so hopefully most of us would have our Tuesday evenings this time slot available at least Target that uh that would be the best for me are there um I'm looking at Council ET and and Pat's coming back are there any mornings because sometimes we've had luck you know having a an 8:00 in the morning kind of a thing so people can do it before they go to work or lunchtime or evening on other other nights what can you refill me in on what dates you're talking about apologize um ideally it would be uh it could be on the perhaps on the 18th which is a Tuesday evening which would otherwise be our CRC meeting but we don't have a meeting that day um so we might free on the 18th in the evening um but we're looking at you know even Monday the 17th at some other time of the day than than our council meeting or the 14th and the only reason is that we we want to give a little time for the Caps to come in and we need 10 days for the um statements of interest to be submitted ahead of the interview sorry go ahead I'm gonna raise my hand I'm sorry so I think a survey is the best yeah uh option to do because it's not just us that have to be free it's the applicants themselves and they're not here um so I would again suggest a wide variety of dates and times throughout the day um Wednesday June 19th is a federal or at least a state holiday I'm not sure if it's formally a Federal holiday it's juneth and so it's a national holiday that is that is probably it it should be off limits because of Staff time for required stuff no matter what we don't tend to have meetings on on holidays on state or federal holidays um and so I just wanted to bring that up on in terms of when surveying people that June 19th should be avoided yeah yep thank you any anybody have a a specific day or time that they know they can't be available Pat yeah I can't be available I think you said the 14th 18th rather the 14th during the day I'm not available and I don't want to do anything Friday nights the 18th I'm available um and I'm not available on Wednesday the 19th or uh in the evening or um Thursday the 20th in the evening what you we have go then and I have the ammer mobile market board meeting on the 19th okay so anytime up to five five o'clock might work May on the 19th the 19th is the holiday so we're not going to have right right right I'm sorry right talking about um yeah no Thursday you said you have go so Thursday would have to be before seven I think most of us have some Daytime flexibility except for councelor et so I think y should hear from him yes I'm waiting for him he's next thank you um I'll actually be on a trip out of town um 19th 20th and 21st you are away yes okay and no access to computers except I carry a laptop to a black tie event then sure that would F we would feel included you could even have a drink yeah so I think 18th works well for me actually so we we hopefully we can focus on that day thank you not not I was gonna say the week before if it's the week of um June 10th I could only do it in the evening the whole week y okay okay well let's keep it as a possibility so could we since we all know that all of us have June 11th would we want to devote a CRC meeting to it if that if it comes to that makes sense okay so if that's the case then we would need to have them submit their s sois by the end of this week like in three days that's too ambitious I think it's it's it's it's maybe not ambitious but it's rude since it's been going on for months and then finally we go okay yeah we can't do that yeah okay so so we're the week of the 17th except that's okay but even even if it's toward the end of the week so the like the 13th or 14th did we just say that that would that would mean that we have they have maybe five or six days to get an statement of interest in while you're thinking I'm G to call on Mandy I'm going to reiterate that I really encourage us to do this with a survey and all because we're not everyone and some of us are not necessarily comfortable in the middle of an open meeting public disclosing calendars and availabilities um and but but we're missing the most important people but I I also want to iterate given the timeline we may not be able to get all five committee members present um and I say that because it might be me you know I I don't want to exclude me from that and and that's something that that we might have to make a decision ision on on again hard choices right of of what do you give up all five members um or meeting the the 24th deadline or going a week without a plan you know or aiming for I don't know when our July I think the 15th is the first council meeting two weeks you know at or suggesting because things don't quite work out in June going to the council for June 17th and saying you know or whatever and saying we need the these terms need to be extended two weeks because we're not going to have interviews till mid July you know I mean there there's potential possibilities but we won't know until we actually survey the people we need to interview we're trying to block out what we know doesn't work for most of us so that's I mean I'm not gonna even put out the dates when councel ET isn't so it's helpful knowing that I won't put that on the you know whatever Google Calendar it's not the Google Calendar but the form that we use I guess what I'm saying is if we all put our availability out there there might not be any date that all five of us are actually available in the evening okay so what we had decided for zba when it looked like you couldn't make it to the interviews is you were going to listen to the recording and then we were going to vote at another meeting so we could do that right which is why I'm saying we need to just send out the survey to everyone and actually figure out when applicants are available and who might of committee members might or might not be available on whatever dates that I don't think we can deal with it in this meeting right now because we don't even have everyone that we need to have yeah okay so we will jennif Jennifer Jennifer and I will collaborate on getting the poll put out and we will um we will give a broad array of dates in the meantime I will remind the folks again Who had who need to submit a calf before their statement of and their statement of Interest right that we need to have a calf in hand and a statement of interest I'm looking at I'm looking at Mandy yes you cannot under the council policy you a person is not considered an applicant for the purpose of getting to interviews unless both a calf and statement of Interest have sub been submitted and that calf has to have been submitted after the bulletin board notice was posted according to the policy the council adopted okay so we need to bring this up as a policy change because our wording in the letter says something different y okay good so we'll we'll take care of that and um let you all know and you can still encourage people to apply yeah yep okay so sorry that took so long uh let's get back I have no um hold on I'm looking for my agenda okay uh nuisance bylaw We Will We Will tackle I hope nuisance bylaw next time and um it was very helpful to read the comments from go um and hopefully we'll have a chance to read those before we get to the meeting itself um can I just say yeah go ahead I all of the nuisance bylaws I clicked on did I couldn't see the go comments is it are they in track changes I mean they're all the track changes there dozens of track changes on the side I it wasn't coming up on what I maybe you could send me yours thank you I just opened it from the packet um I okay yeah well even if it's a hard copy I could get you a hard copy perhaps yeah I know I'm Happ obviously having technical difficulty okay um we have had no minutes to approve for months and months and I'm believing that it's probably staff shortage and the just lack of time to do this kind of bookkeeping um but we probably haven't had meeting meeting minutes since I was chair uh no announcements surprise surprise next agenda preview solar byla nuisance bylaw planning board appointment conversation items not anticipated none I think we're ready to adjourn take a vote I move to adjourn I second it we're voting Pam I Mandy hi you don't sound happy Jennifer yes coun hi Andy write me if you had you needed to try to get something else good night everyone good night thank you all thank you bye bye