##VIDEO ID:bl-DyGhUqls## okay you are ready to do your thing Pam thank you it is October 22nd 2024 this is a regular meeting of the Community Resources committee and um we have what appears to be a quorum so I'm going to go around and see if everyone can be heard and hear us uh let's see Mandy Johan present Jenifer tab uh here F ET here here good and Pat the Angelus present and P roone is here so we are good to go uh the agenda tonight uh there is no public hearing uh but there is general public comment uh I see one person in the audience I think everyone else went to The District 5 meeting tonight that must be where they're all they're all congre ating um I'm going to open up the floor for general public comment within the uh on matters strictly within the jurisdiction of the CRC residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes I will recognize you and when we call on you uh please identify Yourself by stating your name and District or address we typically do not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment would anyone in the audience like to speak I don't see anyone raising a hand and welcome Stephanie so we are going to jump into the action items and um that would be the solar bylaw so we are working on the version V6 dated 2024 for uh 10-8 or 10-8 and these are with added staff comments so it is uh the document in the folder I think was put in there around the 15th and I'm and I've asked Mandy if she would kindly subcribe for us again thank you perfect so as we left it uh let's see we did start working on the staff review comments and those have been Incorporated incorporated as we went along um I did put as an agenda item um for that last time but this time for sure to just touch B touch base on sections uh 17.01 and 17.02 and then keep going to where we were previously uh the reason that we were going to talk about that is staff had suggested that the section 17.0 might in fact be well served to um sort of incorporate many of the of the items from 1702 the the Nexus statements why are we doing this so I actually had a document that um I obviously hadn't haven't shared before tonight but I was going to suggest that we could insert it uh at the bottom of the current 17.0 and then come back to it next round so that you all have a chance to read it does anybody have an issue with doing that sorry I can't raise my hand with the raise hand button um I have a question um are you suggesting to delete 1702 and add whatever you've got written into 1700 and then discuss it next meeting uh essentially yes but I didn't want to lose anything and I certainly don't want to delete the numbers um before we before we get to discuss it Pat I I have problem with the fact that I haven't seen it I do not want the Nexus statements removed in work that I've done I've moved the basic NE Nexus statements about farmland and for Forest slimmed them down dramatically and integrated them into the Farmland section and forested section so I don't I don't totally don't feel comfortable with having something plopped in there that's my words not and then we haven't even seen it okay so we because I could give I could plot my stuff in and I wasn't allowed to so um I I'm not doing okay with this decision okay it's not a decision we're just talking about it um so you had some material that you wanted to share with us and in fact we did get to see it uh at the start of a meeting and we're able to talk through it a little bit I don't know of any other way to introduce uh material without you know walking through it ly by line which is not the way to introduce no I I hear that and I understand that Pam and you we did not go through my material around on the Nexus statements Etc uh we did not go through the redline version that I offered and I think that it's not that your idea in and of itself is a bad one if it's a different font or something so we can see in a different color and I can get my stuff to you and you could do the same thing but to do it now without having seen it feels like a waste I don't want to do that well I'm going to look at Mandy and just s uh look at her for recommendation because well she's only one person on the committee so I'd like to hear what she says but that's not a decision I I know but I would whoops I'd like to where' I go oh there it is uh I would like to hear from a a um a procedural perspective because she tends to be better at procedural than I am I am okay that's okay okay and so I'm I'm looking at Mandy johanik uh she her and wonder what she her says um so it's tedious but it needs done in an open meeting so if Pam if you have things you'd like to add to the purpose you should talk about them we can put it on the screen I can try and type as you say it um and then we can discuss it if Pat has things she'd like to add to other sections when we get to those sections we discuss it um if they're duplicate duplicative of what people are trying to do in the purpose section or in the Nexus statement you should talk about it when we're at those sections and say well I would put it XYZ and that it is very tedious the the only other option in a sense is to have everyone talk about it and then someone go back after a meeting and incorporate everything that was talked about into a completely new draft but we've been doing the drafting here because no one's been we haven't been doing it that way um we've been doing it at the meeting which is slow and tedious but what open meeting Law requires okay so so um and I appre apprciate Pat did have a lot of material that she had worked on and I I was thinking that we had gone through some of that though to to incorporate the wording um as we went so I I stand corrected uh this is Pat you got your hand up well I just I just wantan to um it seems to me I I hear what Mandy Joe is saying about procedure and it is what we are doing and it is what is required by open meeting law my objection to adding it now is you had it ready and it could have been in the packet and we could have seen it and I don't you know I no I was told very specifically that I can't put it in the packet ahead of time I cannot put it in the packet ahead of time it has to be like last night when Mandy brought her new Char Arc charge none of us had seen it and that makes it really hard to discuss because you're seeing it for the first time you're having to you know think it through um what I had hoped was that we could put a box around it and say Here's Pam's ideas for Section 1700 which incorporates uh as much as possible the 1702 Nexus items the staff had suggested that we try something like that and describe what it was that were trying to protect like carbon sequestration climate resilience uh the economy and Community Values those were the bullet items that they suggested we might want to incorporate into 1700 um if it were me I would say the only way I can start processing is to actually get a chance to read it I can tell you I I don't want to spend a lot of time on that that's what I was trying to avoid um but I could tell you roughly what I've proposed go for it okay all right that's a green light sorry no it's not it's a yellow a yellow all right uh so I took the the very first thing and and what staff had said is sorry folks but but bylaws are for regulating that's why we have that's why we have bylaws um so I just wrote it a little differently and maybe Mandy you could blow this up so you can see what's currently here so my suggestion was is to say the purpose of this article is to regulate the production of necessary solar energy by providing St standards for the placement design construction operation monitoring modification and decommissioning of large scale ground mounted photovoltaic installations lgpi and battery battery energy storage systems best comma that protect the health safety and general welfare of the community elements to be protected include uh and I'll just list the the headings again carbon sequestration and I just basically took everything from below oh she's actually typing wow uh carbon sequestration climate resilience economy and access to local food and Community Values with a with a followon sentence that says therefore the town of amorist which I think we have no we don't therefore the town of amoris has established the requirements regarding the installation of lgpi and best on Prime farmland farmland of Statewide importance and Prime Forest lands and that's that's the gist of it Mandy you're good you're really good there's a whole dot I didn't catch your entire list of stuff um I it was the same as yours I mean it's just right up from above it's the exact same wording did I catch it all yeah it looks like it well there's nothing in here anymore about health and S safety or public welfare it's the second line down path from the top trying to find it it's the second line down from the top in the first paragraph was saying is are is this paragraph still kept in your proposal or is this paragraph gone right it it is mostly there with the addition of uh just a few words and those were uh the the purpose of this article is to new wording regulate the production of necessary solar energy by providing standards for and and the in the list da d d da after best it says that protect the health safety and general welfare of the community elements to be protected include and then our bullets below what do you mean by Community Values Community Values there was a survey done by GZA and the master plan itself says what do you value people value open Farmland working farmlands uh they appreciate forest for walking um and okay those are the those are the Community Values and I think that's what the original committee uh was trying to capture as well so I have concerns about the reference to Community Values that aren't defined um in the bylaw in general but you you said you wanted us to be able to think about this but yeah yeah but um yeah I that that's one of my initially one of my big problems with this but if if we want to talk about it later yes I'd like talk l not now essentially it is the material from 17.02 so what I can do is now that we've talked about it I will I will place that in the packet for next time and you would then accompany this purpose statement would be deleting 1702 in its entirety I think so pretty much I didn't actually go through um and line by line decide if I needed to keep wanted to keep something okay I just added that into the note so yeah good so again I'll I'll provide that word Chris so I wasn't going to say anything but um this under applicability includes reference to systems of less than 250 kilow roof mounted systems and solar parking canopies so there are aspects of applicability that aren't contained in the paragraph that Pam just um added so I just wanted to bring that to people's attention I don't know that anyone is do do you feel there's a conflict or there wasn't any intention of getting rid of 1701 I see okay so you're keeping 1701 and the things that you're deleting are in 1702 that's what you're hoping or trying to trying to incorporate right I understand thank you okay um any any other comments or can we move on thank you for your patience um at the same time so we uh okay so now we can go on we can go on back to where we left off before which I believe was 1704 we have let's see we have our staff comments um starting at 1704 and one of the suggestions was that we oh let's see under number one that we include a so I I had a suggestion and that is under number one that we do bullets similar to the site plan list it's just so much easier to read than a paragraph Mandy has her hand raised oh sorry thank you yep um thank you a a couple of things are we not dealing with the comments before number one yeah Stephanie's here and then add an additional statement I'll I'll expand that one too and I also had some questions in those two paragraphs before number one are we skipping those sure sure let's do that so that's what I thought we were supposed to do thank you for reminding me uh maybe Stephanie who took the notes here um could you talk a little bit you and Chris talk a little bit about this section being in rules and regulations let me just I'm gonna um so we have comments from different dates and I just want to make sure that we're looking because some this got very this got very confusing because we had comments that Chris and I had done as staff yes then the review that was added was the one from the larger staff group those comments were I think May 28th um I'm sorry not May 28th um September 30th so I just want to make sure that um we're looking at some of the right comments um so so the first comment I think I'm sorry the May 28th those were from your meeting and I just I think Mandy Joe and I um had typed up comments I think actually those were my comments that I typed for your group for the CRC so not looking at May 28th I'm going to go down to the next comment which is September 30th which is a staff comment I just want to make sure you're following me so yeah so is that is that associated with SE section 17.04 this is 17 so I've gone back up to 1701 because I thought that's what you were just saying that you wanted to go to um we we can't see that on the screen sorry I was just realizing that I'm looking at my own screen so I apologize so uh go down to the next comment there you go uh one yes I think that one yes um let see sorry are you in you're in 1700 can you go down to 1701 because I thought we were done with 1700 17.0 okay uh right okay so this is the first comment in 1701 that staff had done collectively and this was we went back and looked at these few sections because you had made some edits that the staff hadn't seen so they were just saying um again that you know because you're regulating system of systems of a certain size you want to be um definitive of what you are regulating and not make references to the systems that you're not because you make a reference here to systems of less than 250 kilowatt direct current are you know that these are not systems that you're regulating and so the comment from staff was that why have something in that you're not regulating just focus on what you are regulating so um I don't know that Chris was there for that particular comment I can't remember so Chris I I don't know if you have uh other thoughts about that but I think sometimes it's helpful to put in um reference to things that you're not regulating because that makes it clearer to whoever's reading it what is really being regulated but that's my my opinion I would I would agree with with what I just heard I had a couple uh comments from folks in the community and they just said it's it's important to remind people that you know can solar canopies and and rooftops are outside of the jurisdiction of this bylaw and that would make people who you know are sort of unfamiliar with it um more aware Mandy has your hand up thank you um two things as we go back to this one um what happens if a solar parking canopy is larger than 250 kilowatt DC um because it's a ground mounted system under lgpi definition and then in the first sentence it says we use the word section A lot but in legislative drafting when I think section I think section is the section you are in 1701 should we be referring to this article as I think Pam did in the one above um or should we say section 17 applies to um oh and and call it and we know we know obviously now that we have uh University Drive is 17 ours this numbering is going to be different anyway but should it say this article and yeah yeah you even say that down here this article down here yes good point let's change that but I'd love to hear thoughts on what about solar Canopy Parking canopies above 250 kilowatt I'm going to look at Chris and Stephanie in my opinion I think um solar canopies and parking lots even if they're over 250 kilowatts and over an acre should be um regulated separately so I am I don't know how to um word that exactly but I think parking canopies should be separate from um ground mounted solar could we just add or solar parking canopies of any size yep um what about I guess ground Mount and roof mounted are different things yep so okay yeah par parking canopy canopy arrays because one one canopy is not going to be mhm yep yeah I like that and then we go down to let's see the provisions set forth in this article shall take precedent over all other articles so I don't think we had there was any comment on that I think the only thing that staff was interested in adding is that at the end of this sentence you have um so it reads the provisions set forth in this article should take precedence over sections of the zoning bylaw that may conflict in the regulations of lgpi and BS staff thinks you should add an Associated Bess associated with lgpi because you're not making this a standalone beess bylaw so great thank you that language great can we move to section 1702 so here were the Nexus statements um I'm not ready to um share what I have changed I don't have that material pulled up I would like us to skip section 1702 and move on and come back to it at our next meeting that'd be fine with me anyone disagree I don't see any hands and I actually I cannot see um counselor ET in my screen I only have like five people showing so please let me know if you've got comments and I can't call on you okay 1703 we did work through definitions pretty closely and we did decide to keep the definitions here as opposed to pulling them all out and putting them in what is it article 12 yeah um except for I think it was three I'm sorry what do you mean by we were going to pull out battery energy storage system large scale ground Mount and small scale ground Mount I believe um because of the article because of Table Three yes the need for since they're going to get used in table three the need for them to be in article 12 yeah thank you and this has not done that yet but but you've highlighted it says there are a couple that are you know as defined if people want I can pull them out and start putting in an article 12 change too but it seems too early to do that at this point yeah yeah and that's time consuming um we have a new definition needed and wonder if that has been made available yet for Prime forests no I'm sorry we have not been able to get that um definition yet but I will make a note okay we'll just keep checking as we go thank you so heavy rain event that we've already talked about that um was there anything else that needed attention here we made many of these corrections I had a question about the Ned rated name plate capacity and there's something that comes up in one of the um requirements sub middle requirements and my question is is that not the same thing as rated name name plate capacity so I'll try to remember to bring that up when I get to it Christine uh just on aside um we understand that rated name plate capacity is not what is generally um produced by a a panel a solar panel that it's actually something that is calculated in a factory based on a best best uh situation and you would not expect that um degree of production to occur in an installation it's actually much less and I think the number of 14% sticks in my head but in any event rated name plate capacity doesn't really mean what it sounds like it's just something that is uh generated from testing in a in a factory thank you it does say here though the the maximum rated output which which is still true uh it just may never exceed that it's kind of like gas mileage right they do really really well in the factory Manda you got your hand um thanks for bringing that up looking at that and small scale again um I think they need work um just just a couple more tweaks large scale says on the ground and a minimum name plate capacity of 250 kilowatt DC um but doesn't say or more or greater I think it needs to say or greater because under this 300 kilowatt DC wouldn't wouldn't be a large scale Gra so I think it has to say or greater doesn't the word minimum imply that yeah that's what I thought the minimum I don't know um but when you look at small scale it says has a minimum name CL P CAP capacity of under 250 it's just I guess it's a weird wording to me so let's keep your or let's keep your or Greer oh Chris it should probably say something like has a I just has a maximum name plate capacity of 250 kilowatts I think that's what it's supposed to say but we should check on small scale yeah maximum name plate capacity of 250 because anything over that is considered yeah scale and I don't want to complicate things but is that a maximum based on what the factory says it can do or is it that that lower calculation of of actual I believe it's a factory number so I I guess I'm curious because a capacity this using a minimum and maximum versus just a rated name plate capacity of 250 or greater or a rated name capacity of under 250 because you get a number you don't have a range and so a minimum you know a ma a minimum name CL capacity of 250 but the number isn't 250 the numbers and and that's not a minimum frankly you know you've got a name my system has a name plate capacity of I think 9 you know about one one kilowatt DC maybe I don't know 10 kilowatt DC probably um that its maximum it can't go above that but it's not its minimum capacity that depends on what the sun is shining right the N the rated name plate name plate capacity is a maximum that can be produced under there it's not really a minimum right it's a rated capacity of some number and so the minimum maximum seems weird to me MH yep I feel like it should say rated name c name plate capacity of something or greater or something or less than you know that this one would say something like that I'm not I'm not seeing anybody opposed to that that makes sense to me great and so that that has addressed the small scale and that will go to another article um but for now it's going to sit right here um did anyone have any concerns with the rest of those um these definitions uh Stephanie we had the inconsistency of the term term uh soils and farmland of Statewide importance those are those are described by um nrcs soil surveys right yes so I think what they were saying was just have consistency of when you reference those um to make sure that you're just consistent with the nrcs definition if that's what you're referring to great yeah could we go back to Prime farmland I don't want to change its definition but both Prime farmland and soils of farmland and farmlands of Statewide importance reference the same map and one says land designated as such by and the other one sort of defines it instead of I feel like Prime Farmland should also say land designated as such by to be consistent in those since that's when you go to that map that's that's the key color you're going to look for I guess is the best way to to say it the prime Farmland color or whatever so you should think you want to see uh under Prime Farmland you want to see as um not as defined but as described by designated by to mirror the language and solos start start language and solar soils of state and farmlands of Statewide importance yeah yep great anybody questioning solar energy done okay oh we're at 17.04 great so this this conversation May Circle back to where we were a number of months ago and that is that uh there was a discussion about the submittal requirements being in a in a collective location where somebody wanting to develop goes to the source and understands the full parameters and I think we heard we heard a couple people say this um or at least one person I think I copied it down uh and that is that um one of the questions that we may ought to keep in our heads is is the bot complete so a solar developer can find all they need to know for their application without having to search through the entire zoning code Chris I think we had said um and there was some discussion about this previously that these submittal requirements should be in the rules and regulations and I had object to that initially but I'm willing to go along with it now because I think it clears up a lot of things and it also gets this very large section out of the bylaw but what we would end up with is that um the submitt requirements would then be made into a separate section of the zoning board of appeals rules and regulations and a separate section of the planning board rules and regulations it could be that you know this zoning board doesn't have the same wording as the planning board but they are um they are the masters of their own rules and regulations so you can't tell them what to put in their rules and regulations I guess that that was my initial sort of hangup that I felt like it would be better to have all of these requirements sort of um uniform um but what we may end up with if we put them in the zoning board rules and regulations and the planning board rules and regulations they could be slightly different but probably in the end that's not too important so I'm currently agreeing with the idea of putting the submittal requirements in the rules and regulations and taking them out of the zoning bylaw I has her hand up Mandy thank you so it will be no surprise that I've agreed with that in the past and I agree with it now but um what I was going to say is whether or not we agree with it I would would say let's even if people say maybe we should keep them in here and and we need that discussion um right now given that it has been reported that the house and the Senate have reached an agreement on their on the climate bill that has solar sighting stuff in it um it might be wise to skip this section completely for now till we see if that they actually come back into session to pass a bill and the governor signs it because my understanding is that bill usurps any submittal requirements the towns may have it's it would set a standard set of submittal requirements and so I'm thinking for time efficiency purposes we should wait to see given that it was just reported they came out of conference with a bill um that maybe we should wait immedi or two before we spend a lot of time on this section to see what happens with that bill and then if it doesn't pass come back to it if it does wait to see what guidance is on what's going on with whatever passed since this seems to be a big chunk of that bill uh maybe Chris could answer this question so even if even if the House and Senate come up with with a bill and it gets passed don't they then have to turn around and develop the rules and rs and the you know it's like then the regulatory process begins and you know the different agencies start developing their stuff so it could be quite some time down the road um before they get their act together on actually implementation regulations I think that's true um but the last time I looked at what was being proposed um the numbers were that the state was taking over control of anything over um 25 megawatts was it and anything under 25 megawatts was going to stay with the municipality so um it end it may end up that the submitt requirements are in our hands anyway because we don't really have in my opinion a place that's large enough to have installation that's 25 megawatts or larger we're going to be looking at the smaller installations but I think M's probably right that we should hold off on dealing with this we know more about what the state is doing right it it was my understanding that we'd deal with the regulations but that the state would set standard submittal requirements for all not just those of over 25 megawatts again I I I don't the conference bill hasn't been seen yet I don't think um but there was a report that they have reached an agreement in conference committee but there was no language yet so um I'm just going on to report that there might be a vote soon and The Gazette reported on it and if they know that's really happening um so so given that again I'm kind of looking at Chris um there are a number of aspects of this of this bylaw proposal that that makes sense if you know even if it's um even if it's a small project so the question is um you know how much as we go through this how much is actually inappropriate for a small project we doesn't seem like we would craft an entirely different section or article for small ground mounted projects well 25 megawatts is really big the um project that's proposed for shutesbury Road I think is nine something megawatts so 25 megawatt is more than two and a half times bigger than that so I guess um what am I saying I think it's still going to be necessary for us to have submittal requirements unless the state totally preempts and you know gives us submittal requirements for different scales of um arrays so I I think I agree with Mandy Joe that we should just leave this for now and deal with it later Jennifer this is just a question um you know for my own information but if the state does provide submittal requirements do we still have to decide where we want it in our bylaw we won't know until we see what the state is proposing but is it still our decision where we put it like we were just deciding should It Go as a standalone in the planning board and the zba I guess that's where I'm a little confused do we still have to make that decision well no ma the state will will tell us what the submittal requirements are but do we still have to decide where it goes in our bylaw I don't think it would go in our bylaw or in rules and regs it would be a state I see it would just be a state it would be a state law there's and that's why I say if if it's a state law it we shouldn't spend any time on it time on it it doesn't have to go we don't put it in it just exists on its own yeah and if that doesn't then maybe we deal with it and discuss where it goes we've got so much else to cover this one seems like yeah no no I agree I just I was just confused I thought it still had to go in here someplace but it won't okay thank you thanks and Stephanie um sorry I'm actually maybe backtracking a little bit but I think the comment was made that something about an applicant comes and looks at the bylaw and has all the information they need and I don't think at all that that's true about bylaws um you know quite often there's rules and regulations that are separate I'm thinking of course what I know the wetlands um bylaw is it's very general you're talking about the sort of basic things that you're protecting and what they are and where they are but you're not defining the requirements of like what you have to do to protect them that's in the regulations andc and the reason for that is because they regulations are often changed for various reasons and it's so that you don't have to go back to a much cumbersome process to amend the bylaw itself it's much easier to amend regulations so I think when someone says that that everything should be in the bylaw then they maybe not completely understanding what a bylaw is and that the rules and regulations are important to accompany that um and they can be changed when I looked one of the one of the charges from the staff was to say so many of these submittal requirements may be redundant with zba and planning board and when I went to look at zba and planning board I mean a lot of their rules and rigs are you know how many people need to attend the meeting and you know all they just administrative junk um the the list of submitt like physical requirements site plans condition plans all that um is certainly valid but there still seem to be a number of items that um that are pretty much gerain only to solar bylaw because it's it's such an industrial uh it's such an industrial production that is quite different from the normal zba you know house lots and and those kinds of that kind of scale of the work so I looked at you know I was thinking we don't usually ask the zba doesn't ask about maintaining Farmland Farm roads or something like that they um they they don't really talk about looking at characteristics and an extent of land cover types for instance they that's just not something that they're looking for or typically even soil stockpile locations or um and yes they do ask for signing and fencing and storm water management plans but there's some pretty specific ones storm water management for instance that is really specific to to the runoff from panels so those are the kinds of things that felt like we still needed to cover some of those bases Chris so I think what we would have to do is have a separate section on submittal requirements for solar arrays and I'm I'm remembering now that um I think the submittal requirements for the zoning board and the planning board may actually be in their application um in their application description and not much in their rules and rs so we'll have to study that a bit but okay yeah so having a separate section on what is required over and above what we normally require for other types of um proposals that's how we would handle it thank you yeah that makes some sense that it's in their application section yeah okay well I had some great ideas for this section but if we're not going to talk about it we'll just move on to another one okay so does everybody feel comfortable moving on to the next section 1705 so this is design standards and and we can we we have um we have the staff comments access roads um and Public Access consultation are these consistent with ex existing regulations I.E zoning fire and DPW I think that was the STA that was the staff comment councelor hanii did you have your hand up I did um I I had a question about the title and then application of this section to B ESS systems go ahead basically this is titled for only lgpi although it large refers to it wrong um and it doesn't mention best at all and are we trying to in this do design like should we be including best in certain sections of this when it makes sense um or not like access roads seems like one that could apply to both lgpi and best potentially um but as written only applies to lgpi Chris I'm gonna go to you first so we could add something that says and Associated Bess because I think the intention is for Standalone beess we want to have a separate section of the bylaw but for Bess that is associated with a solar array this would apply so if we added the phrase and Associated be after the word arrays I think that might cover it you okay with that Mandy you're muted sorry yeah um yeah thank have to process how that works for each of these sections coming below yeah yeah and and or if you know Associated best where appropriate but I don't think we need to say that where in every at every turn yeah I said I I think that works for the title I'm just as we go through I'm going to have to process so Stephanie maybe you can remind us why the the staff were talking about I don't know what the word consultation means Access Road consultation are these consistent with other reg oh is this is this making sure fire and DPW get to take a look at these roads for accessibility and meeting their requirements yeah I think they were trying to make a point that they would be in compliance with you know with local um local regulation and guidance so I think that's what they were trying to get to here so yes you would be ensuring that um you'd be in compliance with their standards design so that you want to make sure that you're in compliance with the fire department's design standards yes and do we say that says they'll be planned and constructed in consultation with Town engineer we don't specifically say to their standards I think they were saying instead of consultation I think what they wanted you to say was in compliance with okay great with the 10 engineer fire department and should be planned and constructed to minimize grading storm water runoff removal walls and trees and to minimize impacts great um it doesn't make sense to me in compliance with the town engineer no no no in compliance with um local and state design standards and regulations I think instead of so in instead of saying consultation with the town engineer the fire department Department of Public Work you're saying that they're construct designed sorry planned and constructed in compliance with local and state design standards and regulations and local implies fire department DPW that makes sense so am I then deleting everything else um I believe I have a comment that says delete yes even excuse me even where it says planned and constructed to minimize grading storm water runoff and Rubble of stall and trees I think we should leave that in up to Public Works delete that and then leave the rest in in my opinion so Chris I can tell you the reason why they said that was because local regulation addresses those things but not removal of stone walls and trees or minimizing impacts of natural and cultural resources those I think all I agree they would be good to keep in so I have some questions about this um I I'm not sure we need to repeat the to minimize because it's right here um so that seemed Superfluous to me but um how is minimizing removal of I guess how is this measurable um and does anywhere else in our zoning bylaw require such um construction to minimize removal of stone walls and trees and and impacts and all or is that new to this particular use I'm going to look at Chris I have a comment I think in general the boards do look at minimizing these things um and maybe it's not exactly written down but those are things those are items that they consider when they're reviewing proposals so it would ordinarily be done whether it's stated or not so how do you measure whether it's been minimized shall be constructed to minimize how do you measure that Stephanie and then Pam I I just wanted to um Echo what councelor heni is saying is that is precisely what staff was referring to that point that when you have these um you C you don't when you have them sort of blanketly stated as you're minimizing you don't have any measurement or standard to do so and you don't have any way to measure what that is and I think that's why they were saying you should do this work in compliance with local and state design standards and regulations because as Chris PR pointed out in review those things tend to come out during review so it's not that there's no consideration of these features or aspects of a development thank you Chris so I also wanted to mention I agree with what Stephanie said and it's okay to take out what's there in the black lettering but um I wanted to mention the fact that the reason that we have um proposals go before a zoning board of appeals or a planning board is because they use their good judgment in deciding whether something is minimally graded or has a minimal impact on storm water runoff they listen to applicant they listen to a Butters they listen to expert testimony and then they decide whether something is done appropriately or not and not everything is necessarily measurable and if it were then all we would need is a list of rules and regulations and we wouldn't need these things to go to a board because there wouldn't be any need for judgment it would just all be black and white so I'm just um putting in a plug for leaving in some language that is not absolutely black and white and I would say as somebody who had to develop drawings for this kind of thing not for solar Fields but but there are there are careful grading plans and there are sloppy grading plans and there are ways to literally to minimize the the excavation of soil and the and the importation of soil so that you are doing the least change to the ground and you look at the plans and you can see if they have in fact done a a if they have minimized the grading I mean you can you you you can do it many different ways and you and you pick the one that that is the minimal impact it's it's pretty darn measurable so so how are people feeling about leaving in the the letters in black to be planned and constructed to minimize grading storm water runoff removal of stone walls and trees and to minimize impacts to Natural or cultural resources I thinken should stay I think they should stay too I don't also feel comfortable saying we'll leave it up to the wisdom of the board because then why have you know that's very subjective so I I would feel like to see it remain Mandy has her hand up thank you Mandy um i' I don't like how subjective it is I get H for particular ones I can understand how you can determine it for grading and maybe even storm water runoff but I have a real problem with minimize removal of trees because the way you do that is not construct you know like like how does some well if you take three panels out you you remove less trees well if you take a half half of your plant out you remove even less trees if it's if it's in a forest like like how do you measure the minimizing of removal of trees it it's it you know and I guess this is this is related to access roads right how do you so so think about that um instead of a whole project so I apologize on that one um but minimizing the removal of trees for an access road might require doubling the size of the access road or moving it to a spot that's actually not logical [Music] um I those those the stone walls trees and natural and cultural resources ones don't sit as well with me as the gring storm water runoff do um from a how do you make a decision on that uh Pat and then and then Stephanie basically Mandy I would reverse what you're saying because there may be a great deal of logic in maintaining this small group of trees and it the road becomes more efficient um so I think that removing the number of trees we're not talking now about clear cutting we're talking about uh something like the merry Maple but in the you know on an access road and and and curving the access road to the left 100 feet or 50 feet or 10 feet or or something like that I think that those things should be there I think that there are natural and cultural resources that are real um and and that we need to pay some attention to them it doesn't stop um a project it does allow us to say hey if you do this you're saying no it's going to make it worse and I'm going to say no it minimizes that's again subjective and so much of this is this kind of thing but I think it belongs there thank you say something I thought I I took my hand down but and I was not gonna say something but actually I am going to say something um oh I guess the point is that when you hand this when you complete this and you hand it to staff staff is then tasked with working with boards and committees to enforce these things and I think if they're written in such a way that we can't you know it's going to make it really challenging if it's very sort of vague language you know that's why staff is saying you know there's very specific things if you again I'm I'm sorry that I keep going to the wetlands regulations but it's what I know and it's what I worked with for 14 years very specific very specific language about what you're clearing how much you're clearing and there's local guidance you know there's local and state guidance for that so I would I would just push back that this was um a very strongly felt opinion about this and the I think the you know the folks that are mostly dealing with this are the ones who sort of came up with this language um so I just I just want to offer that once again as a perspective thank you you um it it occurred to me that the two the two to um perspectives that were that were actually kind of blending in this one paragraph is that we have we have a zba who are lay people who are going to be doing setting conditions and things like that they may or may not know if the storm water or the um impacts have been have been minimized they will certainly be able to see if Stone walls have been removed and they can look at the they can look at the before and after planting plan or or Forest cover map and they'll see sort of the extent of trees that are removed um and and then you're saying though at the same time you're going to have professional review of each and every project are we going to assume that uh you know DPW or or let's say um Wetland administrator is going to actually spell out that they need to they need to work harder to minimize grading um and then that will be a condition that the that the concom or the planning board or zba then adopts it's it's putting a lot of the burden on the staff and and I think Pat's point was but we want to be able to lead the the zba members to uh refresh their memory remind them what they should be considering how about we leave it in for now with a note oh Dave hi you raised your hand yeah um I'm not arguing forer Con on this just in response to what you just said Pam I mean to some degree that's exactly what staff do right I mean so we do a review We meaning staff in conservation and development collectively or individually we do a review of every project that comes through the town so you reference say the wetlands administrator if there are natural if there are um regulated uh resource areas on a particular site yes Aaron jock would comment and so I I guess our roles as staff are to advise zba planning board gcom if we're talking just about those three for now um so I don't think there's any way to avoid that I think what Stephanie was getting at was and I was at some of those meetings where staff were commenting on the the draft bylaw is you know how can we be more specific can those things be measurable and I think that's where the struggle is in the second part of this um but we're already doing that we're we're already you know yes we have some lay people on each one of those uh boards and committees but some of them are Professionals in their field I'm thinking of the Conservation Commission right now um has two uh natural resource planners Wetlands experts on on the commission right now and they're experts in their own rights so they know all about um you know minimizing impacts and um uh uh storm water Etc so anyway I'm not arguing either way I'm just saying this is what this is what we do and and we will continue to advise those boards and committees on this once this is adopted thank you um Pat and then I'm gonna make a suggestion yeah just really quickly and this is just for my own head right now we were we took out fire department and Department of Public Works uh and we are standing with local and state design standards um but in moving into a forest or moving up an access road into the into the woods to get to a large scale something like shutesbury Road what isn't there a kind of uniqueness that the fire department the the chief or whoever is the strategist should be looking what that I guess I'm trying to figure out would would state regulations really cover an intricate new way into a forest or or onto a landfill or whatever uh so I'm wondering whether or not I I would feel better that I there was some sense that the fire dep strategists have looked at this and I and I'm not saying I'm but listening to the rest of your argument I'm trying to figure this one out for myself thank you somebody thank you pep Chris Jennifer and then I'm going to try to wrap that up okay so I think this is pretty standard language if there if the bulk of people here want to take it out that's okay with me but I don't think it's going to hurt anything and it is very standard language the second thing is the town engineer the fire department and the Department of Public Works all are asked to look at all planning board and CBA applications so they will naturally be invited to make comments so I don't think we have to have those groups enumerated thank you thank you Chris that's helpful to me yeah Jennifer yeah I'm just repeating what I said before but I would feel more comfortable keeping this in because I mean there are boards and committees that don't have kind of a diversity of perspectives we hope that they do but they don't always so I think including this is the full picture of what they should look at can't hurt and it might help thank you so I'm I'm going to suggest that we keep it in for now and we make a note and just say please revisit this we've heard some really good perspectives and there may be additional material in the rest of the document that in fact supports or or is redundant with what we're asking for here so um that was a very good conversation about it but I think I I don't want to spend more time on that particular item tonight uh it's about 20 of eight oh councel hanii I don't think you can see her hand oh I can't of me so I can see it I I just want to revisit one thing on this one I still believe the second to minimize is redundant um that it can read without changing anything um shall be planned and construction constructed to minimize grading storm water runoff removal of stone walls and trees and impacts to Natural cultural resources I agree so I'd like to delete that perfect uh and as far as the other the other two items under roads um I'm I'm very supportive of keeping in that line about existing Farm roads because if there isn't existing Farm Road it means that they don't have to excavate and plow up another section for creating a similar access point Mandy so I actually agree with Stephanie to delete both um although I was willing to keep potentially the repair to damage public roads but I'd like to hear Stephanie's thoughts on or indication as to why staff said delete both but existing Farm round roads shall be maintained in stable condition that's whether or not another access road is being built or not it doesn't say if it's being used or not or you can't if you have an existing Farm Road you can't build another Access Road I find it a very strange requirement that I don't think we require on any other zoning bylaw that if a road exists that you must continue to maintain that road in perpetuity on your own private land so I find that very strange and then I also have a question about the title of this section access roads roads and Public Access yeah we're not talking we should do we should delete everything after access roads because it's talking about in theory access roads um I don't understand what Public Access is at all in this section and I that part at most um at minimum I think needs deleted too Chris I believe that the section um existing Farm roads shall be maintained in a stable condition I think that relates to um when you use Farmland to install a large scale um ground mounted solar array that you want to maintain the Farm Road that's already there so that when the property goes back to farming later on in 20 or 40 years that road will still be there so if you wanted to keep that sentence in there you might want to make reference to for solar arrays in installed on you know farmland and that's all I'm going to say uh let's see Stephanie um first point I just want to say that these are not my comments these are the staff comments I was just typing so I don't want to take credit for all of them um but I will say again that I think the the um push back from staff for these two lines uh were also again about being measurable and also uh especially with damage to public roads that there's other um regulation that would enforce these kinds of impacts so I think again they were feeling like either it was measurable it needed to be measurable or there's already existing legislation local legislation if you will that will cover some of these things I have a question for Chris and that is um do our normal uh construction conditions require that uh construction vehicles you know there's protection at the entrance of the site is there some statement already that um trucks on public roads and projects will repair damage I think if we already have it we probably don't need that sentence we don't really have it but it is included in conditions a lot of times um and it's especially true in downtown locations where um trucks are going over sidewalks and things and um they are then there's a condition placed that whatever damage is done to the public right of way needs to be um repaired at the end of the project so um but this may be too broad here because repair damage to public roads how how long does that go is it like a mile worth of roadway it's not a specific location like we have for downtown locations um so I I'm not supporting or not supporting this uh being left in I always envisioned this as at the main entrance to a site that that there's care taken that the pavement isn't broken up and you know just from trucks turning and carrying heavy loads um could we say something like she'll be required to repair damage to public roads um that Mandy has her hand up hey thank you I was in the middle of a sentence done dear one what I thought you were done no I was pausing and thinking sorry Mandy go ahead um I was going to for that sentence the public road one it that one in particular but even the next one seem like conditions on a permit not an actual design standard what standard does someone propose to meet this you know um if we're this is all under Section 70 1705 design standards that's like how do you design your project on your parcel and this sentence about repairing damage to public roads has nothing to do with the design of the project at all um maybe existing f roads maintained in stable condition does a little bit but not really this you know existing Farm roads shall you know or you know um access roads or whatever or project shall be planned and constructed um to minimize impacts to existing Farm roads might be a design condition but the maintenance of them the required maintenance of it doesn't doesn't seem like a design standard it seems like a condition of some sort and the repair of Roads seems like a condition not a design standard on for how the project is designed and cited would it help if it said uh existing Farm room shall be maintained in a stable condition during the project construction that's still like a condition not a design yeah yeah well so Chris can can that be added as a condition we we didn't actually develop a a list of conditions but maybe we could note that particular item or two and and talk about um potential condition standard condition yes so let's go back to the title access roads roads and public Public Access I agree with Mandy there is no Public Access unless it's allowed by the developer um um well we're not getting rid of it we're just saying that perhaps they are I was thinking if you add it to conditions you don't keep it here sorry I will undelete the deltion yeah we don't have a place to plop conditions yet thank you um Stephanie I just wanted to remind you and I don't know if it's relevant but way back in the beginning we did actually com um create a draft conditions document so that the things that were taken out of the bylaw had somewhere to be so there were companion documents and so I just wanted turn remind you of that thank you yes we did that right we may need to resurrect it does anyone else want to keep the word roads in this little title yes no I mean it's really just dealing with access roads yes it is really dealing with access roads yeah so I think just that yeah remove thank you okay um can we move to fencing so the comment here is that the fence being knuckled Salvage um was is pretty darn specific um I understand the reasoning because you don't want people or Critters ripping their clothing or their or their underbellies if they're trying to jump over the fence or crawl under it um does anyone have a strong feeling about about Mandy go ahead I had a potential rewrite because I didn't like the spec specificity of this like it it seems to be very specific so I had a the fence material shall be approved by the PGA is how I rewrote that sentence great um and then and the next sentence I was concerned with the shall be at least 6 to 8 in above the ground yes that's a range well then let's let's make it one of the other I would say at least six the lower of them right like yes is how I had suggested getting rid of the 28 um I I I would agree at least six inches above the ground they can decide if they want it to be higher so I did check with a biologist in the family and 6 in would accommodate everything probably but coyotes and bears uh getting into this fenced area so here we have fencing shall not include barbed wire um is that something that Pat you're you're muted pat pat I'm not agreeing to the removal of knuckled Salvage I think because it says unless determined otherwise by the PGA so I don't see a problem if it it isn't necessary then the PGA can to change it how many uh PL um people on the planning board or the zba know what even know what knuckled Salvage is um I would like to keep it small disagreement but an important one so can I ask a question about that and then I've got a comment on barbed wire sure if it is worded the way it was originally worded is that technically a special permit approval to change from knuckled knuckled Salvage to something else because it's sort of a waiver of the knuckled Salvage requirement um versus a material shall be approved by the PGA being just part of the site plan review or the is I guess is it a separate special permit to change the material um I'm trying to figure out what the difference might be if you've said something and then said unless they do otherwise wise um I still think we should never get this specific we don't tell houses what type of fencing they must use um and Wildlife are in all sorts of things um so I I think it's inappropriate to get that specific but I'm curious if there's a difference in language on how a permit is approved Chris and oh then when I get an answer I'll talk about barbed wire Chris so it would be approved as part of the main special permit for the installation as a whole it's just another thing that the Border committee board planning board or zba would approve as part of its um complete review of the project so it doesn't need a special permit another a special special permit thank you um my question on barbed wire I understand the potential desire on barbed wire to say no to it because it can be damaging um but if there is associated battery storage you might want barb wire at the top to keep people from getting in and climbing the fence um if if I remember correctly the fencing around on College Street around the eversource substation has a barbed wire top and that seems entirely logical for certain types of installations and this would prevent you from doing barbed wire to in some sense keep people from climbing the fence um when you might not want people climbing the fence so I I didn't like that wording of you can never have it when we're thinking about a situation where other electrical settings have fencing that includes barbed wire thank you um let's see Chris you had your hand up what if you said unless approved by the PGA fencing shall not include barbed wire unless approved by the PGA and then in a certain instance it may be useful to have Bar M do you want to add that in did we lose our scribe there we go no I'm trying to do 12 things at once I'm looking at the fences section in the zoning byw that's yeah that's often height they've had we're not I don't think we're we do actually we do limit height to 8 feet right somewhere in here height is generally limited to six feet unless it's an agricultural installation or unless you have special permission oh yeah there it is y this one says 8 feet for fencing so that must be something that's particular to solar installations it's more of keep people out of an industrial Zone okay so how do we have it here we have the need for fencing determined by the applicant um no more than 8 ft the fence material shall be um should we go back to knuckled Sal can we just say chain link unless determined otherwise by the PGA that Dave hand Dave had his hand up Pat oh Dave had his hand up too thank you let's go let's go to Pat she put it up I'm just saying knuckled Salvage should be there let's let's put it back in and we can always come back to this Dave one I had a question for for Pat Pat could you say a little bit more about why you think it should be that type of fencing I feel strongly that we need to protect as much Wildlife as possible and I think that that would help I mean there's no way that you can have something built in the woods um or even on Farmland um where that isn't true and in terms of uh bylaws for housing or Housing Development manding perhaps maybe we should who that where you're near the woods or something like that maybe there should be knuckled Salvage there I think using that as U um a mark for removing something because we don't do it with a housing project um is not is not uh it's not evenly balanced the two things I was going to add one is I like what Chris said about fencing shall not be shall not include barbwire unless approved by the PGA I was thinking of a situation where I think normally you know unless it is well in normal situations I think we'd probably all AG agree that we we would not like to see barbwire on the top of these these fences but there might be a situation where a solar developer develops you know X solar solar field and then encounters a lot of vandalism and needs to add that and if it's added in the future and if it's prohibited from doing that this would give them the option unless approved you know in the PGA could revisit that later the other thing Randy and I don't know the answer to this but it strikes me that we have two obligations one is to help the solar developer protect their investment on the site but also protect those members of the public from getting into places where they may get hurt so I don't know on College Street well let me back up I don't know you know I don't anybody can get hurt on one of these solar sites but how how difficult is it to get into the apparatus both the batteries and any kind of other uh electrified you know the panels themselves versus your example on College Street where I think it probably is much easier to actually get potentially electrocuted on College Street but anyway it struck me that it's like protecting the investment of of the Solar Company but also protecting the public if for instance people get in there or young people get in there and are exploring a little bit either they go over or under you know we want to protect them soy so knuckled Salvage chain link is a very specific type of fence a wooden rail fence I'm not saying a developer would choose to do that would not harm Wild Life a um a metal vertical slat fence would not harm Wildlife knuckled Salvage is not the only thing you can use to protect Wildlife um from being injured and so I just don't understand I'm looking at the fence regulations here and in agricultural uses on Parcels of land 5 Acres or larger that's the only place they talk about fencing material and it used uses the phrase razor fences are prohibited um and so looking at I've sort of moved on to a different topic but looking at consistency across bylaws here we're re referencing Barbed wires um should we actually say something like razor fences are prohibited unless whatever in to keep the language similar um and then I actually had a a question about all the language unless otherwise permitted by the PGA is two paragraphs above this um this one is unless approved by the PGA um what language should we use for the unless whatever and we need to be consistent as to which language that is so that uh amongst all of this um those are my three comments does anyone have a preference on the unless permitted by the PGA I mean we say that we say that a lot throughout this and other and other documents and the PGA always has some flexibility es especially the zba no I just want to make sure we we say it the same way every time and I don't I'm trying to find one in the current bylaw maybe we should leave that for go great idea the more we do it now the easier it is to get through go I know I was just trying to lighten the move dear I want to make a note while while she's actually looking that up it is uh 806 six and I just wanted to uh I did I did alert that there might be a a approximately at 8 800m specifically on solar bylaw topics public comment period so I'm going to pause for a minute and open up this to public comment we will come back and resume the conversation um after that let's just see if I can find people we have two we have two attendees I'm opening up the comments public comments to the audience and if you would like to speak to this topic specifically um you're welcome to do so it will be for two minutes and you can give your name and address please I'm seeing no one clamoring to get in okay Public public comment period number two closed um let's see where were we we lost our we lost our text okay thank you okay so Mandy you were looking for other uh applications of or Allowed by the PGA correct yes um I found one so far it's hard to scan this quickly um and it said something like where was it um unless Allowed by the PGA so iank completely different wording in general unless allowed I I frankly like Le uh un less approved that's just a little more formal and finite I think the otherwise might be important I don't know I'm comfortable with that anybody feel strongly that that otherwise as unless otherwise permitted or approved excuse me by the PGA great good okay glare we're moving to glare and I I think there was comment by staff again that that it is um not measurable and can't be determined um yet we have Stephanie go ahead it wasn't the whole statement it was just um to the point where in that second paragraph you have from becoming a public nuisance or Hazard to adjacent buildings roadways or properties that that specific language was not measurable and can't be determined I just want to be clear okay so I'm thinking of route two as you drive east in the morning and you come to the uh you come to the reservoir and it is a sheet of glare across the water um we're really talking about reflected Brilliance and I think the the reason to have something about glare is is um to make make sure that it's properly screened Stephanie I apologize I didn't take my hand down that's okay okay so right now it just says the design of the installation shall prevent reflected solar radiation or glare um what about saying to the extent feasible or something like that Andy you have your hand up um yeah a couple of things and then I wanted sorry to go back to the highlighted language in fencing um and I apologize for that but um these three separate paragraphs seem to be saying some of the same thing in a slightly different but somewhat repetitive manner um except for this one sentence here about the applicant should submit ratings and Technical isn't that more of an application requirement and not something that should be in design standards um that's more of a technical thing so I would delete that sentence completely I would actually I think delete um the first paragraph and the third paragraph um design efforts may include well why it seems to me that the owner and applicant should be able to determine what design efforts they include and we shouldn't tell them what they have to include in their efforts um that they should be smart enough and Savvy enough to figure out what things they can do to um minimize reflectivity that we don't have to tell them um so I think glare is an issue because there's not really glare they're not producing light the panels don't produce light the panels reflect light um and so I think the first sentence isn't accurate the second sentence is a is a application thing um submitt requirement potentially the design of the installation shall prevent re reflected solar radiation or glare I think you could just say if we like the minimized language that that sentence could just read the design of the installation shall um seek to minimize um or shall minimize um the reflect reflected well well shall minimize reflectivity into residences or onto public ways or something like that use the reflectivity language um I'm not sure reflectivity is a thing yeah or but or per you know minimize reflected I I don't understand solar radiation maybe that's that would be the heat the heat not the not the light right and we're looking to minimize the reflected light not heat um buildings roadways or properties properties is very general um I think we should be more specific on when where the reflection going to needs minimized um do you have to minimize it back up do you have to minimize it into Windows which Windows um onto other properties but a property that is unoccupied without a building do you really need to minimize the reflection so I I think this this one to to say it shorter it needs a lot of work and needs more specific let's let's make a note of that oh sorry two hands up Jennifer and then Pat yeah I I feel like this is word smithing I mean I think um residents and members of the public but if you're budding a large scale solar install installation glare seems to be a major concern that can adversely impact a Butters so I think it's important that this be clear and it's this it's not that specific I mean I just don't have a problem with the first if you wanted the LG lgpi shall be positioned to minimize glare on any residence or public way now maybe that next sentence doesn't have to be in this section but then the design of the installation shall prevent reflected solar radiation or glare from becoming a I I like that um if it's an empty building then I it's not you know um a h a public nuisance I mean I you know just think it's making clear that this is this is very important to people that are adjacent to large scale ground Manet solar installations and I think that makes it very clear that the glare is something that the permit granting Authority needs to be attuned to and seek to minimize I mean it doesn't I don't think it's worded in a way that's onerous and it's important so it might be a little honorous but that's just p and then Stephanie yeah since this is an unusual event I have to agree with uh Jennifer and I put my hand down because she's basically saying what I would have said it it is a design issue to minimize on any residents or the public way if possible uh I go back to the proposal for the Eruptor lab and a Butters were very clear that they wanted the lighting U they were concerned about glare and and so they had the design um the designers chose to have certain kind of lighting and how where they aim the lighting now this is not this is there are PL and I I hate using the shsy road project but I'm going to there are houses around that and and literally the it is possible that they would be affected U by by glare or or uh so I think that we have to it is a design standard and it needs to be there I agree that uh I don't know I don't know whether the submit ratings and technical specifications is important and I would ask Stephanie or or Chris about that or Dave thank you Stephanie um so I think I will just get back to the point of the very specific language that staff objected to which was um glare becoming a public nuisance or Hazard to adjacent buildings roadways or properties again how are you how how are you measuring that like what's the thresh told where what standard are you using to determine what that is so it's not to say that you wouldn't regulate for these things but to have this language in the bylaw there's no way to specifically enforce that and I think that's what staff was pushing back on and again these were not my just my comments and there was agreement amongst several other staff members about this particular language yeah thank you um I was I was thinking that um and go ahead Jennifer I I kind of lost my train of thought no I was just wonder I want to ask Stephanie I mean is there in terms of a public Hazard I'm just you know I'm not I haven't have that much uh familiarity with large scale solar arrays but could you be D is there a standard of glare that would make it hazardous for cars driving by because it would be blinding I mean is there any you know sort of objective measurement of lir that would be a hazard I would defer to Chris as to that kind of a standard I'm not personally aware but I would defer to Chris if that is even a um Chris sorry Chris and then Mandy had her hand up I think I'm not familiar with any regulations that's make a a any kind of criteria or specif specificity about glare but I think it's one of those things that you know when it's happening yeah and so um I I think that the engineers who design these projects can um do calculations and learn about whether their installation has the potential for creating glare because they obviously know what angle these things have to be where the sun's coming from Etc so I think they can make good educated um surmises about whether glare is going to be a problem or not so I think it's a good idea to have something like that in here whether or not it's you know measurable by us it would be measurable by the engineers yeah um thank you I just want to add before I call on Dave um I was going to say we should just double check that they in fact are providing uh Sun angle diagrams when they submit their proposal um it's be fairly easy to do they've they've done exactly what Chris said they have their angles all set up they know the sun angles and um they can knowing that they need to minimize Reflection from these panels into neighboring properties um uh I think is really important to keep Dave yeah no um I was just trying to get back to even the first sentence I agree with Mandy that I think I I think this section needs to be Consolidated reworked a little bit and I think there are ways to achieve everything that I'm hearing from folks um and I understand the lgpi it's a you know if if you have trackers which most of the new ones do position is the right word but I was struggling with that the use of that word a little bit and I was like should this really say the lgpi shall be designed and constructed to minimize glare and maybe I'm just getting stuck on that word positioned because that to me is the position of the tracker you know uh and oh yeah not all of these have trackers but most of the newer ones we're seeing you know have trackers and then I was saying to minimize glare on any residence why wouldn't we say building or because hypothetically it could be a building that has businesses in it or or you know and and whether it's occupied or not really doesn't matter um so I don't know I was just trying to Roden that a little bit to minimize glare on any structure any any building or public way um to see if we could capture a little bit more but you know I'm just throwing that out there Mandy's had her hand for a long time okay sorry I was actually waiting for her cursor to show up on the to add the the structure Mandy structure may be too broad by the way I mean you know if there's a if there's a um cell phone tower that's a structure and we don't I don't think we really care if there's glare on a cell phone structure um glare intense and blinding light emitted by a light source that reduces visibility and causes visual discomfort glare is light blinding light that is emitted by a light source these panels do not emit light glare is the wrong thing to be talking about reflection of light where a ray of light bounces back from a smooth surf surface what we should be talking about is reflection of light so the title should be reflection of light and the LGB lgpi should be designed and constructed to minimize reflection of light onto any residence or any building or you know a building or public way although any is kind of big versus um a budding I I don't know um but it it's not glare we're talking about here glare is under the lighting where we want lights dark sky compliant um we're talking here about reflection of light and I don't see if we revised light sentence number one I don't understand why paragraph 2 is even necessary shall one so the second sentence says says shall prevent and the other one the first one says shall minimize but glare can come from reflected light right I just Googled it I don't know about I it's only Google but it says glare is focused on brightness from light sources okay glare can come from many sources and it can come from direct light or reflected light there you go I think I would I would agree with that that's it's such a common usage of the word glare that I think I don't want to get hung up on it being a light source itself it is it's a common and and I noticed that we took it out of our out of our um our U um what do you call thems definitions definitions so let's let's come back I think I think we need to keep glare it's a it's a known thing and it is a major issue or at least a concern we don't know if it's an issue but it is certainly a concern of a budding neighbors and and uh use of public roads so where do we have it the lgpi shall be designed and constructed to minim to minimize glare reflected glare on any Resident or public way and I think it's on into into into any residence or public or on or on to onto I think it's into any residents but the public way one I struggle with um is it on to on to I would delete the full second paragraph and third paragraphs I agree that the second the second sentence the applicant should submit ratings that does definitely needs to go in subal requirements and then we have just said you're supposed to minimize so the the SEC the third sentence could in fact yes go away the last sentence the design efforts may include Chris is that more of a conditions I don't think you need the last sentence okay let's get rid of it I was reminded of um Dave's comment about are there more buildings aside from residences like a business or a hotel or and maybe it's any B any building that's occupied by people I'm not sure exactly how to describe that but could we say any occupied building into any occupied building something like that great okay folks it is 25 after 8 and uh we have gotten down to lighting so we're going to stop here we have lighting screening and planting these are these are the screening and planting is an important element um going just make a note that this is where we left off I will do the same on my document so if Chris sorry didn't see your hand oh I I think I said what I wanted to say than okay thank you great November 19th so that brings us to our um action item B which is the University Drive overlay proposal and we are holding our public hearing on the 12th the um planning board is holding its public hearing on the 30th and the question will be as we go to Future so we are having no meeting on the 5th um so the next meeting is literally the public hearing I do not expect to talk about the solar BW that night at all we'll hear the we'll hear the comments from the public and um unless I hear otherwise unless otherwise Allowed by the PGA um we will not plan to discuss the EU Drive overlay that evening we'll just because otherwise we would have to we would have to close the public hearing and I think there's a lot more information that we might want Jennifer so does that mean the meeting after the public hearing the next meeting we'll discuss that as well as work on the solar bylaw um it would be it would seem to be uh appropriate to split the conversation yes so I months ago didn't want to have a meeting on Election night but actually I think it might be a great distraction if it's not I'm serious I'd love to be thinking about the solar bylaw instead of watching the news but we're definitely not having a meeting in two weeks that's I didn't realize that that's so it's been cancelled yeah okay yeah U Mandy um to I was going to comment on Jennifer's question about discussing after the hearing on the 12th if we continue the hearing we'll have to pick a date where we continue the hearing to and we should not discuss it until the continued hearing whenever that date would be um because the hearing's in progress yeah and you don't discuss until the hearing's over um and I think Pam indicated it's likely it will probably be continued because there's going to be a lot of questions and I think there'll be a lot of questions from the public and and probably the the committee as well yeah so we'll have to be picking a date to continue it to if we continue it so then we could discuss the solar bylaw at the meeting after the 12th unless we've continued the hearing to that right you have to you have to continue a hearing to a date certain to a date certain if it's not that date we won't be discussing you drive so we'll be discussing the solar bylaw okay so let's just for my for my benefit so let's say on the 19th or whenever our next meeting is we we could start with um uh udrive because it would be continued to that date certain and at whatever an hour into it we if if we weren't finished we weren't discussing we decided to continue it we would continue it again to a date certain and then start our solar bylaw at say 8:00 at night or 7:30 or something like that because I know Mandy you had a couple of you had a couple of hearings or a hearing that was along with other topics as we tried to juggle both elements yeah so it's it's slow I mean that's the problem is you don't get to I mean look how long it takes us to get through five items um and I just feel really badly that staff has to be here as much as you're being here thank you okay so that was that was the discussion on on um udrive uh there are no minutes to approve from previous meetings um we've already talked about announcements there's no meeting on the 5th the extra meeting is the or the replacement meeting essentially is the 12th and that's the public hearing um the next agenda preview is pretty similar to that November 12 is a special meeting and uh there were no items anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance and it's pretty much time to adjourn is anybody you know anxious to keep talking I'm going to go around I guess we're supposed to we're supposed to officially close uh I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting I'll second uh Pat hi Jennifer yes uh fre yes Mandy I and Pam is an i and thank you Dave thank you Chris for showing up and being helpful I love it and thank you Stephanie and we we know you are the messenger in some cases we're we're not we're not targeting the messenger thanks very much everybody a couple of weeks bye bye bye bye