##VIDEO ID:HwADCqFriFQ## good evening it is November 12 2024 and this is a regular meeting of the Community Resources committee this is a virtual meeting pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 2023 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting May do so via Zoom or by telephone no in-person attendance of members of the public is possible but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means we will start with the uh let's let's see who's here uh Jennifer here Mandy johanik present par present Pam roone is also here Pat de is not here tonight so we definitely have a quorum there is no public hearing tonight for those listening the public hearing on University Drive overlay will open on November 26 but we are continuing it immediately if the motion passes to December 3 so the real discussion starts on December 3 for University Drive overl way so we are we're back to our favorite topic which is solar bylaw and um I just want to thank Mandy for keeping the notes public comments um you're right I missed right over public comments general public comments thank you uh general public comments on matters within the jurisdiction of the CRC residents are welcome to express your views for up to 3 minutes we will not engage in a dialogue or comment on matters raised during public comment when called upon please identify Yourself by stating your full name and your District or address so I look to the attendees and see if there is anyone in the attendees in the audience there are four people including the amest Indie and if anyone wants to raise your hand and talk about matters in in front of the CRC you are very welcome look for raised hands I'm not seeing any raised hands so we're going to move into item number four which is action items the solar bylaw the basis for which is our version seven that we discussed on October 22 this this version looks very different than the one I'm looking at which is full of green green high lighting and purple comments from Stephanie from previous meetings I had it in simplified markup instead of all markup your color will be different than my color oh okay okay so we tonight is the focus is primarily on number 17.04 and that will be um submitt requirements but we have some catchup to do or U backtrack to do um in this article 17 and we're looking for feedback on the purpose of this bylaw it was pointed out to us by staff that purpose of a bylaw is actually to regulate so um I took the opportunity to use some of that wording and then also to um create some sub subheadings uh that had to do with material from 17.02 which is carbon sequestration climate resilience uh economy and access to local food and Community Values um last session councelor hanii captured that in general um and tonight I think we just if we could and bring some of this material into section 170 I'd like to hear feedback though before we spend a lot of time you know typing and editing does it make sense to do what I'm proposing which is to um Mandy if you want to scroll down to 17.02 it's the Nexus statements that the that the solar bylaw working group felt were important this is why we want a bylaw this is this is why it's important um and so I basically took these headings and the material and brought them up into section 17.00 as part of the purpose of the bylaw does anybody feel strongly that that is not appropriate Mandy so I'm going to say I I've said this multiple times but um I'm going to keep saying it I I don't know what I think about these specific ones but I it's what is the health safety and general public welfare right because when you click when you do these bullet points I guess you're saying that carbon sequestration relates to one of them or climate resilience relates to one of them um the economy and access to local food I find it hard and a large stretch to say that the economy in general is public health safety or general welfare and Community Values is a stretch to say that relates directly to General Health public General safe the public health safety and general welfare and then when you're talking about um carbon sequestration is quote an key component of Massachusetts climate goals well you know what so is solar so is large scale solar um and so I feel like if you're going to put carbon sequestration in there you have to put large scale solar is a key component of massachusetts's climate goals we cannot ignore more that building large scale solar is a key component and I feel like when we put these bullet points out there we're ignoring that fact um and so I would like to keep it to just what chapter 4A Section 3 says which is protecting the health safety and general public welfare and not trying to enumerate some comp components of that because we could be be in Endless disputes as to what comprises the health safety and general public welfare of the community um I'm going to if there's anyone else that wants to reply to that before I do go ahead Jennifer no I just isn't fully thought out but this is a bylaw to support large scale ground mounted solar installations so the fact that we have this bylaw I think is a recognition that we see as part of what you know the town will have or large or could have as large scale ground mounted solar installations and I think that this community does have values around climate action I mean we have um that's an integral part of our town manager goals and and we have a you know sustainability director so I think that enumerating General um Community Values is appropriate in the Nexus statement that's just my opinion I'm gonna I'm G to I'm going to pick on oh um am I Frozen or is is counselor ET no I think you were just Frozen okay councelor sorry oh yeah it says my connection's unstable I think um at this point it the next statement in one form or the other is going to be in the BW but I remember mentioning this I think the first time that it is true we have values on the other hand there hasn't been a way to tease out what those values are especially because there's a possibility that could be competing within the community so in a sense I do agree or at least coincide with what um counselor haniki had mentioned once we put the next statements we are putting our TS on the scale with regard to what we're emphasizing but it's not at all clear that that is reflective of the values um with the community thank you I think my response is that when we think of large scale industrial uh construction which which a large ground mounted solar array are um I think what the working group is looking at in particular was the fact that there are um there are some pretty specific issues related to solar implementation and that the um property that is that is some property is fine some property is fairly level it it converts fairly easily but there are other properties that are a they're not developed because probably there was some reason for them to not to be developed including they're Rocky they're steep Etc but now they are being viewed as opportunities for for large solar um arrays that the that the town uh attorney suggested that there be Nexus commentary for the the purpose of explaining to um somebody um maybe state legislators that in fact this is the reason that we have um as Jennifer said we have a bylaw we're looking to put a bylaw in place but we're also looking to make sure that in the process of that we are keeping an eye out for potential disadvantages and um and and the state and the State climate goals and our own town climate goals stress these highly and these are the two factors that are most um probably most susceptible or most vulnerable in the production of large solar arrays Jennifer I you know I you know realize it's a balance I guess my concern is to not include some of this is also tipping the scales it it seems um noticeably absent not to acknowledge the roles the role also that forests play in sustainability so I guess that's my concern that there be a balance but the absence of any of these I don't know if they're values or just you know what we're trying to balance with the solar installations that also feels like tipping the scales so I'm going to suggest since we um we could move on with Section 1704 the the material that I was suggesting which is the replacement for the general paragraph that that Mandy Joe typed in last time is in our document and I would ask that people read it and maybe that will help form your opinion on whether these are appropriate topics to include in the bylaw so I'm going to I'm going to bypass this we're not going to spend any more time on 170 but um the material is there and um we'll talk about it another time okay unless Chris bre wants to add anything as part of the formulation of that material to begin with I'm um I wanted to say two things one is I am now um a part-time Town staff member 20 hours the week and one of my assignments is to work on this um solar bylaw I'm a little confused about what Miss Rooney just said and I don't know where that material is in the packet and is the essence of what Miss R is suggesting that she's um provided language that would um replace the language in the purpose here yes and and what how is that labeled that um it is in it is in the SharePoint and I thought it was also in the documents that I shared oh Mandy has your you have your hand up so um Pam could have answered that question but it's in it's labeled section 1700 with bullets PR um is the document um to Jennifer's Point councelor Rooney's pamaron rewrite does not include balancing at all but the original one that I wrote did I agree we need to balance but what Pam is suggesting has nothing about balance the need for large scale ground Mount solar with the health safety and Welfare of the Commonwealth and the residents it's missing in hearse from what I can see um it says here the purpose is to regulate production of necessary solar but not and whereas I had provided one that said is to balance the need for increasing renewable energy generation with the need to protect the health safety and general public welfare I agree it's a balancing um to Jennifer's other point adding a specific solar bylaw in my mind is actually not promoting solar production because the whole goal of adding this is to add regulation that no long that does not exist if someone were to apply for solar today which in my mind is a way to attempt to restrict further the production of solar at least the original one that the solar bylaw working group came out with I was when I read it unsure whether you could even build large scale solar based on all the regulations that were provided in that so I disagree with the statement that this bylaw actually encourages larg scale ground Mount solar because I think and that's why I've been pushing back on so many of these regulations um because I think it actually discourages the production of largescale ground Mount solar based on how many regulations are in there and how intrusive and excessive and cost large costs will go into the stuff there um as to the rest um I disagree I will just flat out say um the proposed one in the in the 1700 with bullets PR doc that talks about Community Values I disagree with them frankly lands that are privately owned do not and should not be considered as providing recreational opportunities by default or relaxation to Residents by default we're talking about privately owned Parcels here that then were saying in a purpose would provide recreational opportunities and relaxation they are privately owned we cannot force them those land owners to allow recreational development or opportunities on them yet this purpose is saying that that's what they do and that is a value it is absolutely a value that we have recreational opportunities in town it is not a value in my mind that we force land own private land owners to allow Recreation on their land for the public and so I actually disagree with some of what's actually stated in some of these bullets as as just statements um yeah thank you and these these came directly from the solar bylaw working group uh Christine and then would you be able to put up the um document with the bullets so that people can see that that's a different document from the one that we were just looking at is that correct yeah it is different thank you so Chris this is this is essentially taking the material that the working group put in section 17 .02 and at the suggestion U of staff that it just be made part of the purpose um I ended up doing it as bullets as suggested and much of the wording was the same Jennifer yeah I mean I don't this is a whole philosophical discussion but I just feel like I should respond and say I I don't think the presence of a bylaw is is limiting the development well you always have regulations for building I mean you should without any regulations I think solar installations could be built you know as they were in Williamsburg that was detrimental to the environment because there were no regulations so you know I have to push back a little on the fact that because we have a bylaw and we're regulating it we are um putting a damper on the development of solar installations large scale solar installations so I'm I'm not hearing um necessarily consensus to proceed I'm I'm actually willing to go back to my draft my proposal and do some more work on it and put it back in the packet for another discussion so I don't want to I don't want to um line by line this if if we're if we need to do some general agreement on um on the wording so again thank you and let Jennifer yeah no I it also I know we can go back to the original document it might be helpful to see this next to what was in the original bylaw that came from the working group you know for the at it could be the next meting it's it's actually in section uh in our version s and it's it's verbatim section 17.02 I just did some additional pairing down of that but the material is okay I'll check that on my own then yeah yeah okay so where we left off thank you Mandy for pulling this up so question to staff do you have access to the SharePoint folder that material goes in okay that's where everything will be put for each meeting H how does that relate to the packet so the packet has certain things in it but the resources also has things in it and how do we know which one to look at so in SharePoint should equal what's online because if it doesn't that's a problem yeah that's right yes um back at the beginning of solar I put in um a folder that contained many many of the resources that the solar bylaw group Drew on and developed and referred to and basically was carrying that packet with about 10 documents in at each time so Athena was having to post it and every public notice had this you know they just came out and Spilled Out as you know 15 documents and it became pretty cumbersome so I can I can put the resources folder in subsequent meeting files and just ask Athena not to include include them in the public notice if that helps okay so section 17.04 one of the comments from staff is that some of these are uh redundant with rules and regulations for the zba and or perhaps the planning board um it felt appropriate to go through in any case and assemble the the complete list of submitt requirements so then we could at some point decide if we were going to pair off the ones that were um redundant but I think it's very helpful for people to um to see them intact and see a complete listing okay uh Mandy is that your hand sorry yeah apparently when you share you cannot raise your hand um one of just just wave it a little bit so I see motion sorry one of the weird upgrades that Zoom workspace gives you um and you lose a feature um before we get to the submittal requirements and I'll have a comment on that the two first paragraphs seem duplicative to me um one says the rules and rs shall apply okay that seems like they apply no matter what I'm not sure we have to restate that um and the second one is in addition to that the following information shall be submitted and I I think the second paragraph is more important than the first I would delete the entire first paragraph and I would um change zba and planning board to PGA um and also get rid of the the shall also be submitted for review and approval I have a question about one of those wordings but I think it shall be submitted I don't think we need to say also um and I I rewarded the for review and approval to is as part of the application because I'm curious one of the questions I have is does the permit granting Authority formally approve all application submittal I don't think they do because some stuff are basic and not necessarily approved but I guess I need to hear more from um CHR Stephanie and Dave about whether there is an approval of every single document submitted including random soil test do you actually approve a soil test for example um things like that so I I had some rewordings of that second paragraph with a request to delete the first one great thank you Chris yes I am um usually the um board the zba or the planning board um makes reference ref to plans that are approved either a management plan or an operations and maintenance plan or drawings um and those are approved but as Miss hanii said um all the material that is submitted isn't necessarily approved it's it's for information purposes is there a is there a slightly better wording of of um than just um approved then Miss hen's suggestion of as part of the application is probably fine and Dave Zac has his hand up yeah I I think I would just mirror what Chris said on the conservation side every document as councelor haniki said every document or she asked the question on the conservation side is every document approved no uh they are required to be submitted uh in some cases in all cases staff will review them and then if the Conservation Commission says you know is the X plan or Y plan complete you know Aaron jock would say yes but they are not every document submitted there could be dozens if not I don't know there could be a hundred or more documents submitted they're not all approved the the overall plan is eventually approved and with conservation with uh an order of conditions and and and guidance on how to how to proceed so I think that kind of mirrors the zba and the planning board thank you yeah so that supports that we we take out the word of that the wording good uh staff staff noted that in item number one uh an existing conditions plan it actually needs to say groundbased survey so I would suggest that we say uh groundbased survey of existing conditions great uh and then I think we talked about this briefly last time but I I am unable to look at paragraphs of requirements separated by Common I really feel the need to make this into a bullet format and I think that should be fairly easy um if Mandy you want to take the time to um so we we can start with containing um bullet property lines and physical features or just including can we do bullets like in item number two or is it appropriate to have letters hanaki So eventually if this is ever put into a zba uh a zoning bylaw formatted document it would actually be 17.0 1.11 17.0 1.02 17.0 something like that um so I don't know how we want to do it intermittently um for the time being can we do bullets just so it's easier to review sure so first one property lines and physical features um next bullet a budding land uses topography you got it you're ahead of me roads including Farm okay now I'm adding some so I'll let you just go through and bullet first um back to topography topography and Roads need to be separate so Topography is one bullet roads including Farm roads is the next item or I'm the suggestion that I'm making anyway and I I'm actually going to look to Chris for um a little bit of background what I would like to do is pull some of the material from a much later number like number n uh 26 um and they had things like uh locations of rare flora and fauna on the property map Pur State National Heritage program I'm I'm thinking just from a review standpoint what are all the elements that would actually go on a site plan and that seems to be one of them it would be you know are there zones of of natural heritage areas do you see that councelor hanii has her hand I do not thank you sorry thank you thank you um yes I agree with Pam that anything that we want on existing conditions should be listed under the existing conditions bullet um which I don't want us to confuse with a site plan which is number two which is what is going to happen um I wanted to talk about the things that I this was the other point I wanted to make I think we should delete anything that's in the zba rules and rs now because they have to follow them anyway and it just gets confusing and then we're just duplicative so things like property lines are already required to be submitted an existing conditions plan is actually already required to be submitted it's just what else are we adding to it beyond what the zba requires they require a plan with property lines they require a plan with all locations of structures they require a plan with all topography and Roads labeled they require a plan listing all and outlining all of the wetlands and they require a plan that is prepared stamped and signed by a registered PE actually it might not be a land surveyor but um they require a PE signed plan I would like to see us get rid of the duplicative stuff now um so that we're talking about what in addition to what every project needs to submit does a solar project need to submit because part of my comments has always been why are we requiring this for this particular project instead of any large development and so putting stuff in that is already required of any large development I think muddles our conversations comments Chris then I think um someone's going to have to take a careful look at all the requirements of the zoning board of appeals and design requirements of the planning board and match them with these submitt requirements and sort them out so I'm willing to take that on but it's going to take some time yeah yeah and in the meantime I think uh sorry Mandy I I'd like to get them all on paper so that somebody can do that careful cross reference and we don't miss something Mandy so then can I start with bullet point number one sure what does physical features mean uh large rocks how large uh it's very much on physical physical features in my mind is streams um um roads fences Chris fences structures structures are listed later that is structures within 300 feet of the site not structures on the site the structures on the site are somewhere else in this listing I believe it's a site plan um or something else it's actually it's actually bullet number two which is um AB budding land uses and locations of structures on the property and within 300 feet of the site okay so we have we're missing a word there and and locations of structures and structures within 300 feet of the site yes so again go back to what are physical features and is that a widely agreed upon term that we don't have to Define it or will people interpret that differently such that we should actually Define it Chris well when an applicant when somebody wants to get a survey done they send out a scope of work to the surveyors that they want to have the work done by and they list all the things that they want to have on the plan and there's not a standard document that all um applicants or all you know develop developers use to solicit um bids from surveyor so you do see different language and pH physical features could include many of the things we've talked about or we could say physical features including rocks fences you know whatever you wanted to list which some scopes of work do list thank you the other fence I never thought about fences but yes FES would be something you'd want to pick up right um so in that in the bullet with location of structures on the property and within 300 ft I think is important to keep in there unless that's covered with covered by physical features great uh we have topography we have roads there are at least three people with hands up I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm looking at the text sorry uh Chris Dave and then Mandy I don't need to have my hand up I'm sorry okay Dave yeah we just gonna add things like stone walls would be included in that uh other features like that um I am going to jump off I have visiting family from across the country I'm hoping that I've made Pam the host I am hoping and I think I made I do not end the meeting abruptly but by jumping off but um I will catch up with Stephanie and Chris on on what happens later in the meeting thank you very much and uh enjoy your family Mandy you had your hand up yeah um I wonder what the use of structures within 300 ft of the site is what's that needed for and why would we ask for that um because wait wait wait wait another question and how would a land surveyor be able to potentially get that information on a heavily wooded site where you cannot walk on the abing land uh there's a parenthesis that says a budding land information as available from the town of amoris GIS viewer so there's a really good chance they can pick up generally what is within 300 feet of that property and it's appropriate for uh starting the process of being able to notify people for um understanding what screening might be needed it's just a good starting point who are you dealing with notification comes from who owns it not who's got a structure on it so you don't need the structures for notification purposes if you're designing something it's really nice to know what's around you Chris yeah Chris I think um especially with regard to screening and vegetation you would want to know whether there's a residence close by or whether there's a you know guest close by and you would take different precautions based on what what you're dealing with thank you Chris I mean um Mandy so then it's not General structures it's seeking their use too because you can just put a box on an existing conditions plan you don't have to identify what type of structure it is right like I guess I'm going for what what do we need it for and how can we make sure we're asking for something that we need and for the reason and getting the information we would actually use it for Chris well I think the bullet right before that says abing land uses so if you had um structures shown on an abing piece of property and the land use was you know whatever it is um you would associate those buildings that are shown with um that use we could be more specific and say you know we want to know what's a barn what's a house what's a Corral or whatever other types of structures there are I don't think we need to get that specific I feel like surveyors kind of know what people want to know about properties that are nearby and they usually put that information on the property and if they don't the um the board the PGA can ask for those that information thank you sorry can I ask another question y by adding groundbased survey as the basis and then putting location of structures within 300 ft as available from the town of amorist aren't we contradicting ourselves with that one should that be put somewhere else or something because you're not requiring it be a groundbased survey if you're saying pool um the ab budding land uses because I I think in the past question I've asked about a budding land uses and you said pull that from GIS when you're saying pull stuff from GIS you're not doing it on a groundbased survey so are we contradicting ourselves with some of these bullet points and should they be put somewhere else else or is only portions of this groundbased survey so that we would still say in existing conditions plan including the following um I guess that that comes to are the property lines groundbased survey or are they based on GIS um are the physical features groundbased survey or GIS um the location of structures are clearly GIS um what's the Topography is that groundbased survey or are we just taking the gis topography so I think we need to be a little bit more clear with where we put that groundbased survey the words groundbased survey Chris and then Stephanie because I think Stephanie was um part of the process for adding those words Chris so the groundbased survey really relates to the property itself and so I agree with Mandy that there should be a um a separation um about the accuracy of what we want for um the property where the activity is going to occur versus properties that surround it so certainly properties that surround it can be um shown based on GIS information um but property but the property itself that where where something is going to occur needs to um be a groundbased survey at least for the portion of the property where the activity is going to occur in other words if you have a 100 Acre property and you're only going to to be um dealing with changing 25 acres you don't need a groundbased survey of the entire property you re really just need the groundbased survey of the area where the proposal is going to occur so maybe we can think of a clever way of of describing that yes so would that mean that the groundbase Sur survey should be the site plan should be based on a grand Bas survey not the existing conditions plan no the existing conditions plan is the basis for the site plan so you have a a a survey done and and Miss Rooney knows about this because she's the landscape architect but you have the survey done and then you use that survey for adding information to it that shows what you're proposing and that becomes the site plan um the site plan doesn't necessarily include all of the information that's on the survey but would include the topography and the property lines and of trees and things like that so thinking about ground the groundbased components um we have topography we have roads we have location um we have AB budding well no we have property lines physical features um topography wetlands and um slope that's that's that's part of topography um so we should at least have those and then and then additional material or additional information including and we could do that Stephanie you have your hand up um yeah I just I was really only going to add something that's maybe evident but just that part of the reason that came up during our discussion was that in utilizing GIS things are often missed because depending on when the time of year for aerial images occur you may miss certain features so that was the point of having the groundbased information as well to make sure that you capture things that may be missed in a GIS view thank you yep Chris uh you're muted sorry um I think councelor hanii asked about whether property lines would be shown on the ground and they're really not but they're shown on a survey that may be at the registry of deeds but they're also um available to figure out based on um pins on the property or some physical feature on the property from which um you start in other words there may be a um a nail in a tree and you start from that point and then you go so many um feet in one direction in northwesterly Direction and then you go in a different direction so you sort of work your way around the property based on physical features but the information that you're using is really um some of it is on the ground but some of it is also in a deed in a deed description um so so it's a little of both if I may go ahead I guess my question with that was are you seeking to confirm the property lines with a groundbased survey or are you seeking to just have the property lines there based on GIS I would confirm I've I've been in that difficulty before I would definitely confirm if I'm building something on that site and I guess my question is the same with topography GIS has a topography a topographical map attached to it are you asking that they reproduce that on the ground or just use the gis topography Chris um you're asking them to confirm confirm it by taking spot Elations yeah and you can tell them you know how many spot elevations over a certain area um but you really do want them to confirm that the information is is correct because GIS is accurate to a certain degree but especially if there's tree cover um you can have uh anomalies and um we've run into this recently on on a certain project I won't name the project but um where it was very important to get a groundbased survey of the topography and not just have GIS survey I'd like to make a comment before before Mandy speaks again I think um these are these are conditions as we've said some of these are are may may be redundant with what the permit granting Authority already has in their regulations I don't feel the need to be so specific that we tell them they're going to do topography with spot elevations it is general practice they're going to produce a map that needs to things are going to be verified they need to put their stamp on it they're going to you know their their reputation rides on the work that they do I don't want to spell out that they have to have two Nails in each tree where they turn the corner in this bylaw so I would like to I would like to back off on some of the detail here oh councelor hanaki has her hand up oh sorry yes thank you so I agree with that with vegetation um I read this vegetation and I don't quite understand what we're going after or why we need it and what it would be used for and um vegetation has a par parenthetical of mature trees shrubs open field special habitat elements Etc special habitat elements isn't really vegetation from my just basic reading of English um maybe it's got a specific indust you know industry reference that I don't get um shrubs mature trees what trees or are we going for this area of land is trees this area of land is field this area of land is shrubs but the way this and I I just and what is its use I guess is the next thing what would a permit granting Authority use it for and then I actually had a couple of things we should add bringing in some of the later numbers into this because those later numbers were actually basically asking for additional existing conditions right I agree with that yes right uh Chris so often you see on a survey um kind of a cloudlike um image and within the cloud-like image um a surveyor might write mature trees or the surveyor might write shrubs or the surveyor might write Open Meadow um I don't think they're going to write special habitat elements and I agree with counselor hanii that that's getting into really specifics as far as things that the Conservation Commission would be interested in but certainly mature trees shrubs and open field are common in terms of parlament for surveyors to put on a plan so I wouldn't um I wouldn't object to that do we need the parenthetical or is characteristics of vegetation sufficient enough it depends on which survey are you dealing with sometimes you have to be pretty specific and sometimes you don't um on that particular bullet charact I was going to say something like from the other um items characteristics and extent of land cover types rather than just characteristics of vegetation we're talking about cover type and if work is being done within the Wetland buffer and concom comes back and says you've you've destroyed or you are impacting X number of square feet of Upland or not Upland Wetland Wetland wet Meadow or something like that you need to know what you're supposed to replicate or M yeah okay um we don't have Wetlands on here yet and that's clearly something that needs to be added as part of surveyed Wetland I think it is on there under e is it I can't read it that's why I can't see hands as cuz I'm having to squint at the screen there you go Wetlands got it uh Chris is it appropriate to add the word wetlands and vernal pools I think Wetland incorporates vernal pools okay I can confirm that um another thing to add is slopes as in a slope map that's it's an existing condition but it would be diagrammed Chris is the slope a groundbased survey thing that I would um request a slope map if someone thought that was really important but I think that um you can usually tell roughly what the slope is by looking at the topography so I don't I don't consider a slope map as part part of the existing conditions but I could I obviously Miss Rooney is a landscape architect she has made that statement that she would expect a slope map in my experience I wouldn't expect a slope map well given that we regulate when you can build on a slope or not within this bylaw is a slope map I I feel like a slope map might be important because we say 15° slope or something beyond that you can't build right right Chris I think you um people who are reviewing the plans can figure it out um you know people in say the planning department or the conservation department are able to look at a plan and determine what the slope is and if we had a particular question about an area we might ask um but if councelor Rooney thinks that's really important then um it would probably be a separate map that would um would show slope because there's going to be so much on this existing conditions map that having slopes on it too would be um kind of overwhelming uh in terms of information yeah um I agree with that and it may be that existing conditions might be actually several several plans but um since I used to have to draw slope maps and identify where where areas were you know exceeded a certain percent slope um it's one thing to ask the staff to do that it's another to say on this particular site you know some might be fely flat um I'm not going to fall on my sword over a slope map but it it seems like I I'm thinking of some of the wooded areas around here or um topography and amorist where you should not be putting um solar arrays because the slope is too steep so so it's it's not um it's not critical I'm not going to I'm not going to push for that but um one other one other um but we do say as Mandy pointed out we do say you can't build over 15% slope yeah there we go that's good so that that just excludes everything else and it just highlights those areas that aren't buildable um councelor hanii Christine can go first I've got other things to potentially add from other sections of the bylaw Chris so we're thinking of this as a list of things that are required for a Solar Development and slopes over 15% would be important for that but if you were using this list for some other purpose you wouldn't necessarily require that okay I understand thank you yeah and we're trying to focus if if we if we cut out redundant this might be one that stays because it's so specific to Solar Development um Mandy you want to add your note and then I've got another bullet to add too yeah [Music] um I struggle with these I'm going to put them in here because they're kind of long um and I'll go through them um just like I struggle with um a budding land uses and wetlands although Wetlands I can see um the flood plane and the natural heritage and endangered species program these came from other submitt requirements and permanently protected open space they're all part of GIS and so I wonder I I struggle with why do we need them on a existing plan or on a plan I guess guess I can understand why they need to be on some plans um but to me they would need to be more on the site plan than the existing conditions plan because the site plan is where you see what they're trying to do where not you know the existing conditions plan doesn't set forth what's being disturbed um whereas the site plan does so Wetlands flood planes um Wellhead protection areas permanently protected open space these natural heritage ones shouldn't they be on the site plan to make sure that the site isn't that the site plan isn't encroaching on any of these versus on an existing conditions plan because it's not clear to me how easy a site plan is to Overlay onto an existing conditions plan if you've got them on two separate documents but I did pull these from like other places in sub mid requirements right Chris or Stephanie I think it's reasonable to have them on an existing conditions plan and then um if it becomes an issue then you might show them on the site plan as well or the uh board PGA could ask to have them shown on the site plan um you don't want to get too much information on a site plan because it gets muddy and it's hard to read and um people who are used to looking at plans can look at an existing conditions plan and look at a site plan and kind of figure out um where things are in relation to one another but these things could be could be very important I agree with that and it and it feels good to put them all together instead of as you're saying scattered kind of through the rest of the bullets um I also wanted to add a soil type soil types because some are highly erodable some are not and that's an appropriate thing to have and that came from another bullet further along so we have a fairly complete list of um of things that we want to see on an existing plan which simply helps set the set the stage for okay what are you what what now what are you proposing to do on this site with all these character istics Mandy one last question about the prepared stamped and signed by a register land surveyor um the rules and rights all plans to be prepared and stamped by I think a registered PE um do we need that caveat or that requirement listed separate here um or is it good enough that regs and rules require those stamps Chris I think you could say either or but if it were a registered PE he would probably also um be very knowledgeable about land surveying so either one I think would be appropriate probably an engineer isn't going to want to spend his time in the field doing a l survey and he would leave that to the L surveyor but I think either one could do it well I guess my question is can just delete that bullet point here because the rules and rs require these existing conditions plan to be stamped and signed do we do we even need I guess the question is is do we need this here or can it be deleted well it is a requirement in the rules and regulations for both the zba and the planning board so you could delete it so we could delete it MH okay and so that's this is step two we start to delete some of the things that are redundant and so we can we'll just say npga okay good sorry I had one more that I missed in my sure that I I had added um uh the historic buildings again it it's it's lower down somewhere um in the the middle requirements and I will say I moved it up here I actually disagree with a number of these in here and would love to come back and have a further discussion about that but I was also looking at this from a how can we make the submitt requirements easier to read and be manageable because there were so many different things in so many spots um but so I I'm not agreeing with all of these on here but I feel like this is if we're going to have them this is the spot that they should be um and this historic building one we'll find we'll see later on that I'll be seeking to delete there would that be uh related to location of structures on the property and within 300 ft that perhaps um including historic structures I mean they're all going to be included the notation is are they historic or not yeah and I think we can do the scenic roads and byways along with roads somewhere so it would be the local or national register historic districts that would be new I guess I'm just trying to think well we have we have some outlying not in Amorous necessarily historic districts but um we have inventoried historic buildings there's this there's a uh State website macis I forget what that stands for but that has all of the inventory historic buildings um so I don't know what to say about whether to leave it here or put it up there that's fine we'll get it we'll get it on the list at least for now right good thank you and while we're still in here can we under F roads and okay I was going to say roads roads including Scenic roads and farm roads and I think one of the one of the components of farm roads is that they if you can reuse them you don't have to excavate you don't have to impact additional ground so I think we need to distinguish between roads AB budding the property and roads on the property so let's make them two separate things well I think I think we can do it within the same bullet but I think when people reference just roads presumably that was a reference to both and and are we going with a budding public ways Scenic roads and byways and property Farm I let's say let's say public roads AB buding um including a budding SE Scenic roads and byways and farm roads could be logging roads or logging roads yeah great right and we can we can deal with um formatting later we're on number two it's now 7:42 now we are on the excite Mandy sorry I just have my hand up for discuss number two so you can start do you do do you have something to say that you want to oh I got a lot but um um I have some deletions I have there's a lot of this was duplicative of zba requirements for site plans um but in the in the up in the first the the including part site plans showing proposed changes to the landscape of the site um I thought that was a weird wording changes to the property including like landscape of the site seemed strange to me is that a standard wording when we're talking about site plans Chris I think this is lifted from some other uh bylaw some other Town's bylaw so changes to the property would be perfectly site yeah great I'm glad somebody else spells property the same way I do it always always Hypes out wrong okay so we have let me just double check um I'm checking the staff list now um and the comment on staff was site plans showing um the question was are we showing on the site plan are we showing existing or proposed and and we have already captured existing grading or I mean existing topography on the existing plan this shows changes through grading plans of what they propose so I think that clarifi is clarified so site uh staff says site plans showing proposed changes to landscape including this oh this is duplicative of the requirements of their boards and committees identifi those that are unique to solar projects I actually looked through the list and and thought that many of these are um pretty specific to solar the Solar projects um so but we can we can comb through those again um as after we finish Chris I thought we were going to just go through this list and leave it as it was for now and then go back and look at the requirements of the planning board and the zoning board of appeals and match them to this list right not going to deal with that topic right now that was understanding you are correct we are not going to we're not going to delete we're just going to dump in what we think belongs here okay so we have um grading information that's the same um I'd like to add stock soil stockpile locations to this list as a bullet Mandy and I was going to delete the whole top soil another soil removal section I'm not typing I isn't there a soil plan later on um I think that's probably why I deleted some of this because one of the wasn't there a required soil plan later on soil soil types we included soil types no you just included soil types but I thought there was a uh this is why it's so there's too many here um but Chris a soil plan number 24 yeah depends on what you need it for um sometimes we have soil plant that relate to how much are you bringing into the site or how much are you taking off of the site or what's the characteristic of the type of soil that you're bringing in or taking off um and so I think it should definitely be separate from grading and I don't remember what the soil plan says later on I think the soil plan was related to not wanting to disturb the soils and have them preserved so that they could eventually be used to um for agricultural purposes and I think this is this is different this is more related to actual construction you know where are you going to put the top soil when you strip it so that you can grade the property and then you're going to bring the top soil back on so I would I would separate grading and information about proposed soil and I wouldn't necessarily say soil removal I might say soil removal or import but they're two separate things can I ask another question about soils then just just a second I'm gonna answer your question and that was number 24 a map and description of all soil types is found in USDA natural resources lists which we brought up to the existing conditions list so that I think that was your later on oh I had some others too that maybe I moved from a different number um okay into 24 I probably created a soil plan separate from the existing conditions plan I know I did um but so a site plan changes to the property I've always thought of a site plan as this is what the property will look like when it's finished and what Pam was just talking about of storage soil storage is sort of a construction management plan in my mind what you're doing during construction not what it will look like at the end of construction and so soil removal proposed all of that seems to me to be somewhere else potentially not the site plan and or at least maybe what Chris was talking of well the this top soil your storage of soil piles I can't maybe the site would have storage piles but a lot of times that's during construction only not after and so I guess I'm maybe not quite understanding what a site plan is versus what a construction management and construction plan is as it relates to some of these things that are only temporary Chris so we usually do ask for a construction Logistics plan and that would um that would show where proposed where stock piled top soil would be located where new soil would be um stockpiled before it's used um and there may be um an opportunity to show soil removal or at least there would be a description about soil removal we usually have some statement that we require from the applicant saying that they are um bringing in this number of cubic yards of soil or where they're exporting X number of cubic yards of soil doesn't necessarily appear on a plan so um I think that Miss hanii I agree with Miss hanii that it would be somewhere else either on a construction Logistics plan or um perhaps on an erosion control plan erosion and sedimentation control um and not necessarily as part of the site plan showing what the change is going to be ultimately because I do think the site plan is like you can make an illustrative colored version of a s plan and say Here's what we're going to do and it's going to be beautiful so anyway that I I do agree with with that y I think um where we have the we have a plural it says site plans and I think we are in fact lumping all of these requirements there's there is going to be a a full plan that shows grading and Grading changes there'll be stockpiled you know top soil there'll be this is the extent of where the top soil will be taken from the site this is where it will be done this is where we're going to put in our crushed stone at the entrance for the truck wheels to be cleaned that is a that is one of many site plans and I think I think rather than trying to List the 10 different plans that these folks you know that any construction project is going to have to include I think we can I think we can lump them into the category of site plans rather than um trying to enumerate the titles of each of them if that if that passes muster with Chris I think so yep it's not all going to be on one plan you're going to is not all going to be on one I totally understand it's not going to be on one piece of paper um but I think we need more clarity then if we're lumping in temporary construction storage into this site plan number along with what the site will be permanently looking like at the end of construction then we need to be clear clear if there's something that applies to only one or the other particularly if it only applies to construction that we indicate that we want it for temporary construction too because when I hear for example Pam when I hear you say top soil stockpiling well I only think about that as at the end of construction not mid construction they'll move they'll move those piles you know couple times probably right so how do you put that on a site plan well you you would show it on an erosion and sedimentation control plan you would show it on a thank you yeah there's a storm water management plan you're going to show your storm water management right and many we've listed the storm water management plan separately though I've actually said we need to get rid of it here because it's literally a separate management plan later on and a different from bullet point it doesn't say plan it says sto says storm Water Management Systems you are illustrating on one sheet you are going to show your storm water management and then you have a document a storm water management report that describes how it's going to operate but you have to show it on a plan or multiple plans so I do agree with that so Mandy um like I said if we want to enumerate the 10 different plans that might come in as a requirement or as as meeting this requirement we can but I don't think I mean that this is sort of standard practice they did they did some of these drawings for the library I mean there were like 10 site sheets and that's a very tiny site so it it's it's pretty standard practice and we're just saying we want site plans that will illustrate the following conditions for us so that people can say oh are we getting off off track here Stephanie I think what you might want to say is storm water management features rather than Systems Great and then it would make sense to be on the plan Mandy so I had combined a number of these bullet points into one or two um and then others are frankly duplicative of further later on location of interconnection including poles and wires is literally duplicative of the um I think there's a one and three line electrical diagram detailing lgpi Associated components electrical interconnection methods uh blah blah blah um you know a lot of these are again duplicative so I had rewarded the locations of solar arrays showing rows of arrays as locations of lgpi inverters and best which allows us to eliminate location of inverters um and battery storage system location but it also but the interconnection including poles and ryers is a completely different number three number numbers later so I had deleted that one too um square footage and land cover type of each area that we'd be disturbed by the project um the land cover type was already covered in the existing coverage plan in my opinion um in the existing conditions plan with the with the vegetation reference um the conditions of vegitation or I don't know how it was worded up can we can we address each of these in order rather than than doing them all sure and then I I go back to I had actually in my comments was going to delete storm water management systems or features but now I understand that might be different than the storm water management plan although I'm still trying to understand how the plan is different from the features CU doesn't the plan include the features um but I need I need to pause just for a minute um Christine got bumped out and I don't see her in the attendees list she might need some time to reconnect re re reconnect right so we'll keep an eye out for her okay so going to your your suggestion of um consolidating I think that's great so yeah inverters inverters best and then interconnection interconnections on number number four right so I deleted it in two instead of in four you could either keep interconnection in two or and delete four or delete it in two and keep four and my preference was to delete it in two and keep four yeah yeah and we'll so we'll keep it here in four yep that makes sense okay um you had a question about and I still don't see Chris um Stephanie do you have her cell phone and that maybe you could text her to try to just log in again we already yeah we're we're already communicating so I suggested that she try to log back on as an attendee and that you all would be keeping your eye out for her so she's trying so you might want to check the participant list okay yep I've got it open thank you great um score footage and land cover type that was in in the existing plan we say you know give us the different habitat types or whatever and in this one it says I think square footage and cover type that would be disturbed by the project so where we're where we're and you've got a question I can see it go ahead I guess I guess what I asked before was why do we need to put these on existing conditions when you know what needs to be on existing conditions versus what needs to be on the site plan because how easy is it to Overlay and I was told that it's fairly easy for someone to look at one and overlay and so if we're asking for the vegetation Types on the existing conditions why then do we need them to repeat that on the site plan versus just why does it need to be twice right so I would ask the same question if we had the blood planes on both or the biomap 3 or two or whatever it's called um on both we're putting them on one the other if it's not different right um and the the vegetation itself is not different on the two plans you just have to Overlay them to see where the site plan overlays on the vegetation so I don't understand why it needs to be in both that probably makes sense so I would delete it here and keep it in existing conditions that makes sense anybody else feel otherwise um a couple more the next one down um I'm okay with the details of any sight Al alteration the species of tree over 6 in dbh actually conflicts with the zba rules and regs right which are 8 inch I think dbh um I can't see my own comment here 8 inch dbh is CBA one um and so it's not it's not just duplicative it's conflicting um and so I would delete everything after alteration uh just a second Stephanie yep just giving you an update um Chris actually lost her internet connection I don't know how easy it will be for her to get back on I suggested she maybe try ammer public um so I'll keep you posted so she can call in and use the phone number y okay I'll suggest you do that and then we'll I guess we see her raised hand that way I hope um so on that topic about trees um actually number 23 states that they should be 12in Evergreens and 18inch deciduous in number 23 and those are pretty reasonable those are Big Trees so those that makes sense to me and to to go further site alter alation is more than just trees so I don't understand the specifying the trees here unless you're literally aiming for tree alteration but then you need to you you shouldn't conflict with zba zba rules and rs which are 8 in dbh and since it's already included I would like I said I would just delete everything after site alteration well and if you think about details of any site alteration you're already asking for the grading the grading plan and extent of excavation and things like that so um I mean we could it's gonna be it's it's going to be important to especially if there is some you know if the if the PGA decides that that this is a I don't know a very valuable stand of you know ient Oaks or something that there needs to be some sort of mitigation for that knowing where the large trees are um is important if you look back up above do we do we identify needing to document large trees over 18 12 and 18 inches no I think that as you said was somewhere else in the submittal requirements was like number 23 yeah yeah I I think that bullet point can be deleted um and frankly the last one we just moved up to a different into number one so the last two I think can be deleted I probably agree anybody else and then I had one addition which will okay just a second back to back to calculation SL so we've asked them to identify slopes that are greater than 15 %c so we don't need to show the entire site that makes sense as well okay um I had an addition of location of all security measures for the site there's probably a subtraction later on um somewhere else in the submitt requirements to bring it up into the site plans because it seemed to make more sense as a site plan identification um I actually yeah on that oh Stephanie sorry sorry is here as a as a um she phoned in and so you could allow her to speak so that she can come in and contribute to the conversation there she is there she is and thank you very much so Christine you you show up as a phone and so if you if you want to speak I mean I would just keep it open and if you want to speak to just blurred it out so that we can hear you okay I I was told to press star six do you hear me I can hear you y um okay Pam just I'm sorry I lost the last 10 minutes okay maybe I can do it we should change her phone number so that it's not can you rename her uh let's see re name yes great change there you go thank you good point gez I should have written it down while I had the chance okay so Chris what we what we went through if you can see the screen can you see the screen even no I can't see the screen because I um have lost my internet connection yeah okay so we'll we'll try to be um explanatory when we're when we're describing something um the site plan list there were bullets um and we have struck off uh the following location of inverters interconnection including poles and wires battery storage system location and those got rolled up into a u a bullet above so we've kept them but they're but they're sort of all all Consolidated um we deleted square footage of uh and land cover types of each area that would be disturbed it was noted that we should be able to see them on the existing conditions plan somebody can do the essentially the visual transl of which areas are getting impacted uh yes I agree y we we deleted details of any site alteration including number and species of trees over 6 in dbh um farther on in the document there is um something about including trees that are 12 in over 12 Ines Evergreen and 18 Ines deciduous and we'll figure out how to work those in if we if we need to include those in the existing conditions plans you know trees that are that size may make a lot of sense right okay and then and then deleted the last bullet which was calculation of slopes throughout the site as a percentage over consecutive 100 foot distances because we have asked for on the on the existing conditions plan those areas in fact that are exceeding 15% so we don't really need to ask them to calculate the site again okay and and thank you and for the list I would like to add top soil locations unless we unless we included that in the um or not not necessarily top soil locations but um but um any site Fe features including BMS is what I wanted to include on the site plans changes to or existing conditions because this is site plan showing changes to it changes to the property it would yes it it's a number two and it would it would be um we have grading so let's say grading including um any proposed BMS and what do you mean by BMS um mounded soil I've seen a couple at different um at different solar arrays and they use they use some of the soil that they excavated uh as part of the screening of adjacent properties I see so it's along the edges yeah okay thank you so I have the same question I had above with the plan this one also has that paragraph about stamped signed by pees um and sufficient resolution um do we need that paragraph in this bylaw or is that covered by the RS okay Chris I think it would be covered by the rules and rs yes excellent oh and Chris we added a location of all security measures for the site to the site plan and security measures um what do you mean by that cameras so it would be well it could be cameras it could be fencing although fencing there it could be um Gates right um for roads you know covered in fencing I don't know whether gate is covered in fencing I don't know um I think I put it in there or asked that it go in there it's been a while since I redid this I think it was somewhere else in the application requirements that I moved up is my guess um but we'll see as we go through okay all right good okay excuse me excuse me sorry before we leave number two um I just double check some of my notes and I think there was a note that I want two two things I I would like to add um vegetation clearing and planting and I and I think this is it's it's kind of two different things um planting plan I think is pretty specific so I think a planting plan really wants to be separate thank you separate bullet yep yeah exactly so stickler on wording showing proposed changes to the property including no never mind does it make sense it makes sense okay so we are on number three so number three for Chris's benefit drawings of the lpgi signed by professional engineer showing proposed layout of the system and any potential shading from nearby structures or vegetation distance between the system and all property lines existing on-site buildings and structures and the tallest finished height of the solar array that's a little bit kind of a little bit odd P um Mandy so I thought this was completely duplicative of the site plan that requires um locations of lgpi inverters in Bess yes yep agreed agreed agreed so number four is one of three line one or three line electrical diagram detailing the G lgpi Associated components electrical interconnection methods with all compliant disconnects and overcurrent devices as required by state federal laws and regulations so this is where all of those elements uh showed up that um that we had originally in um number two and we have the word used best in number we haven't gotten to number five yet sorry and so this is that is a point though um for number four detailing the lgpi and bass or is associated components good enough to cover Bass because best would have inter electrical interconnection Chris I think we should include the words best or the however you said it yes including best I actually have a hard copy of this in front of me so oh good good thank you yeah love hard copies yep good and number five also we do any storage batteries we say and any deaths it's already been highlighted great um I I had questions and prop potential changes um to that one just documentation I I I felt documentation and I would just start the paragraph with technical specifications of because documentation seemed kind of duplicative um and then to try and again um delete or keep stuff a little more compact technical specifications included including rated name plate capacity and reflectivity of the major system components which would get us to the glare issues and that name plate capacity that I think might be somewhere else down in the application requirements but is obviously stuff we've talked about before so I can type it in here to yep yep so that you can see MH okay and and I'd like to add uh and performance history of of best specified including performance history of the best specified what do you mean by that it uh meaning that if um if the caterpillar system which has caught on fire in a number of places is being proposed here they're going to provide us a technical specs they're going to say we're going to use caterpillar X or whatever the the brand is and um the permit granting Authority could say hm we don't really want you to use that brand because they have had too many problems with it and too many fires and this is this is something that Pat was trying to to include in her in her wording somewhere it may not fit right here but um the performance history of the batteries I wonder if that's a better somewhere else like as a separate line because it it could be performance history or any buyers assoc I I don't know there there could be I think performance history covers it of the of the batteries specified so Chris what's What's Happening Here is on number five it now reads technical spe spe specifications including rated name plate capacity and reflectivity of the major system components to be used including F photovoltaic panels mounting system inverters and any B actually so that's technical specifications of that b yeah so I think if we worded this to photovoltaic panel mounting system inverter and best technical specifications it would read clearer yep so and did you also say including performance history of the best that was specified number five I'd like to include that somehow we this will make it work so it says including photovoltaic panels mounting system inverters and any best technical specifications including rated name plate capacity reflectivity and performance history mhm good great number six so this number six now seems a little bit redundant and maybe Chris or Stephanie can tell us what number six really is talking about so proposed wattage of the lpgi solar power generation indicated in both direct DC and alternating currents AC a notion shall be included explain the difference loss and conversion is this just a technical specification that could be uh included in the one above it I'll just jump I think what it's referring to is when um say for instance there's a an installation and it's um you know 25 megawatts or whatever number it is I think that's what it's referring to um so that's different from in my opinion the technical specifications it would be included in the technical specifications but I think the wattage is something that is probably more of a um a primary piece of information that you'd want to know about um The Proposal in general Mandy and usually they do refer to it in DC and AC yeah so I had moved the rate well I had added the rated name plate capacity to number five because I thought that would cover everything in number six such that it would make six duplicative and we could delete six yeah I was that's what I was just gonna say is I don't think you needed it good thank you don't need six because you have included it in five okay thank you yep and I didn't know if maybe name plate capacity was different than than proposed wattage but it sounds like it's pretty similar so Mandy this is so number seven is locations and details of all security measures including fencing so that really was included above that that's why I moved it to site plans yeah so if under site plan does it say fencing and any and any security measures there's fencing and there's security measures can we just add them together since they were lumped before are you suggesting deleting seven and adding that information to S plan they're in number two yes yes number two yes right okay correct so then we are at I'm just double checking there's no other staff comments so then we just go on name name address contact information oh installer so you wouldn't necessarily know that at the time of the application unless they're talking about um the the applicant itself like the installer seems to be part of the construction crew and after this thing is um approved by the CBA or the planning board and it receives a building permit then it would go out to bid presumably or maybe not but in any event you may not know who the installer is until after permitting is done maybe maybe that's not true I'm thinking of public projects um in private projects maybe you would have your installer figured out and you would not um need to bid it after your permitting so I guess that's information that we want but maybe not as part of the application how can you say that U Mandy so that was actually one of my questions for number eight was would you know because if permitting is going to take two years have you even hired an installer probably not because you don't even know whether you're going to get the permit wouldn't it be more logical to just be a condition of the permit when the permit is granted to provide the name address and contact information don't don't we have those typical conditions all the time um but I think this one's asking too much given that permits can take a long time to even be granted between application and finalization so I would delete eight um nine and 10 are duplicative of stuff Chris Chris first and then I have a quick comment Chris pardon Chris I said I agree that eight can be part of a condition of a permit and you can delete it from the um list of information that's needed to submit great okay um I'm going to point out that it's 8:23 um I think we're starting to get into some of the well maybe more proor of stuff but I I don't have much else on the agenda so um but I but I don't want to go over time um how about we just go to like another two minutes and then and then halt for the evening on this so let's get to number 10 okay number nine uh name address signature the proponent or the co co-ops that sounds fine um and then name contact information and signature of any agents representing the project so uh Mandy so first off nine and 10 I believe are duplicative of zba requirements um second off who is a project proponent or co-pro versus a property owner versus an applicant I think we need to be consistent if we're going to refer to someone consistent on how because the literal definition of proponent is anyone who supports the project in some sense and I'm pretty sure that's not who we're referring to um so but I would delete nine and 10 because they're just completely duplicative of what the zba requires be submitted with any application y right am I hearing Chris saying yes yes I'm agreeing yes okay okay then we are um okay so these are these are these are submittal requirements um we've decided now that we we've sort of stepped into into step two and that was to start deleting things that are redundant so let's leave it for this we can always return to this next time um let's pause on this I will thank Chris very much for for coming back to life and showing up at our meetings and Stephanie thank you for being here um this is we're little by little um and you are definitely free to go because we are just going to wrap up the next agenda items and look forward to um future meetings the just for Chris's uh for Chris's benefit while she's still on the phone um December three is when we actually start talking about University Drive overlay if you feel like calling into that you are obviously more than welcome to do that okay Al righty thank you very much I'm sorry I'm sorry I apologize for my lack of in internet access not your fault not your fault Stephanie thank you too um can I just ask so the next meeting will you still be discussing solar and that the date of that one is yes two weeks yes and that will be on it will be on the 26th 26th yes so Chris I'm glad you heard that too wait is the 26th the full meeting yep oh okay I will not I tried to be pretty clear about that in the note to everybody I may not have been clear I I thought it was simply to open the hearing and accept a motion to continue and then close the meeting well that would have given us only one meeting in November so I mean we're going to get sucked into talking about you drive for a while so we'll that'll really put the brakes on solar I will not be at that meeting then oh okay that's right that's right I told you I can't that's right you're going to be there for the five minutes that we need to continue if you don't need me for Quorum I won't be there for that either then okay oh okay if I hope we have Pat should said she would be back on the 26th thank you all thank you Stephanie all righty good night good night bye bye and thank you for bringing that up I forgot to mention that again um we have no minutes to approve from April and May we're still waiting on those um the next agenda preview on our from tonight's agenda is uh University Drive overlay zoning public hearing on 11:26 continued immediately to 123 and then solar by law no announcements and nothing anticipated 4 8 hours in advance is there anything we've missed this has been a stimulating evening and Mandy thank you so I get a little confused so in um on your screen it does say counselor Mandy joh hanaki and so all I can see is typically like counselor Mandy and so I end up calling you Mandy and then F say says fre and not counselor so I sit there and kind of spin my wheels looking for what I should be calling people and if I'm inappropriate tell me Mandy thank you for taking notes that is heroic and and you're thinking at the same time so and I won't be available to do it in two weeks I understand or one week or whatever it is yeah one week no two weeks yeah this whole thing got really really messed up and I I apologize not that it was my fault but anyway it wasn't your fault it's been very con it's been very confusing for people to sort of track where the ball is anyway uh let's uh do I I'm going to make a motion to adjourn do I have a second second second um let's vote uh Jennifer yes hi uh Mandy hi and Pam is an I thank you very much everybody thank you thank you good night good night good night