Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, Mr. Marshall, you should be good to go.

All right. Thank you, Pam. You're welcome. Welcome to this joint Amherst Planning Board and Community Resource Committee of the Town Council meeting of May 20th, 2026. My name is Doug Marshall and as chair of the Amherst Planning Board, I'm calling the planning board meeting to order at 634pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media. Minutes are being taken. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023, and further extended by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote means using the Zoom platform. The Zoom meeting link is available on the meeting agenda posted on the Town website's calendar listing for this meeting. or go to the planning board webpage and click on the most recent agenda where the Zoom link is listed at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event public access is disrupted for reasons of economic hardship or despite our best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town's website. Board members, I will take a roll call. When I call your name, unmute yourself, answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colden.

I'm here.

Welcome back, Bruce. Fred Hartwell.

Fred Hartwell is here.

Thank you. Jesse Major. Jesse Major has told us he's unlikely to attend tonight. Hi, Doug Marshall, I'm present. Angus McLeod has told us he will be a few minutes late, and I don't see him at this point. Johanna Newman.

Here.

And Jarrah Smith. Oh, here's Angus. Angus, welcome. Present. Thank you. And I don't see Jarrah yet, so Jarrah is not in attendance yet. Board and CRC members, if technical issues arise and the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment and I will call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to re-mute yourself. To the general public, when solicited, please indicate you wish to make a public comment by clicking the raise hand button. If you have joined the Zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and your street address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. So welcome, CRC. And Pam, I'll turn it over to you for a moment.

Great. Thank you, Pam Rooney, chair of the CRC. And I, too, will open our meeting. It is now 637, and we'll take a roll call to confirm you can hear and be heard. Andy Churchill. Yes. Pam Rooney is a yes. Mandy Johaniki. Couldn't hear you. Present. Wonderful. Thank you. Jennifer Taub will not be here tonight. And I do not see our fifth member who is Alicia Walker yet. So we have called our meeting to order.

All right. So the one item on our agenda for this evening is the joint public hearing with the Planning Board and Community Resource Committee regarding a zoning amendment. Advertised for 6.35 p.m. It's now 6.38, so we're past that time. A zoning bylaw, Article 18, clean energy infrastructure. to consider amending the zoning bylaw by adopting article 18 clean energy infrastructure and associated amendments to zoning table three dimensional regulations. Section 5.11 renewable energy accessory solar photovoltaic installations slash battery energy storage system uses. And 6.2 fences and article 12 definitions. So take it away, Pam.

Thank you. I'm going to share a very short overview of this project as it was presented to the council on the 27th of April. Can you all see this or does it need to be larger?

It's visible.

Great. Okay. This is the Clean Energy By-law development, and it was initiated in 2022 with the following charge to draft a solar zoning by-law, including standards and guidelines that will guide and encourage responsible development of solar installations, including battery storage. It has been quite a process. That was four years ago, the Solar By-law Working Group, began to develop the bylaw and develop the regulatory process for large-scale ground-mounted solar photovoltaic PV installations. There were seven members, Planning Board Representative Janet Gowan, Energy and Climate Action Committee Dwayne Breger, Conservation Commission Laura Pagliarulo, Water Supply Protection Committee, JEMSIC, and three at-large members, Martha Hanner, Robert Brooks, and Daniel Corcoran. I want to say a public thank you to them, and especially a thank you to town staff who shepherded this group and has continued with this project to the current day, and that is Stephanie Ciccarello, and with some help from Christine Restrup. So two years ago, the CRC began its deliberation and consultation or construction of this bylaw. And one year ago, there was a ground shift where the Mass Department of Energy Resources promulgated draft regulations for clean energy infrastructure. The solar bylaw therefore became clean energy infrastructure bylaw and Amherst, the CRC worked to adopt the state template and organization. So July, 2026, coming up the state as of that date will manage all large projects that are greater than 25 megawatts and or 100 megawatts. megawatts of battery energy storage systems for BESS. Regulations will take effect on July 1. Municipalities may begin to offer a single, I'll call it a single stream, consolidated 12-month maximum permit process. As of October 1, municipalities must offer a single consolidated 12-month permit pathway. or the state will say, thank you very much, we'll oversee the project. That said, there is an extensive pre-planning that occurs prior to submitting any application. That will be very extensive and will cover many of the bases that our bylaw actually describes. Next steps are... the joint hearings that we're doing tonight and multiple evenings if we need them. The document will go to legal counsel for KP law review. The GOL committee for the council will also review it for actionability. And then the town council will hold two readings. There's typically a vote at the second reading of it. And we hope that the clean energy bylaw goes into effect before October 1, at which point we must accept applications for consolidated permits. Thank you. That was not so much for your all benefits, but for those who are listening who have not been following this process or had any introduction to it for some time. So thank you for your patience with that. I need to confirm that Mandy Jo Haneke will be our scribe. She has done an outstanding job. I can do that. Excellent. Thank you. And we will, I guess we will dive in. So the way it was envisioned that we handle this meeting is that we'll go section by section. You all have had the opportunity to read the document, think about it a little bit. And if there are comments on each section, that would be an appropriate time to weigh in with your comments. After a couple of sections, I will pause and or Doug will pause and we will allow folks from the community to provide their public comments. comments on those several sections. Doug.

Yeah, Pam, I guess before you get into the details of the sections, I guess I'd like to ask how the decision was made to follow the state template. And the reason I ask is the charge that the committee had was to encourage solar development with this bylaw and the template seems partly because of its length, I suppose, but it doesn't feel like what we've got to discuss tonight is a really encouraging document. It feels like it's onerous and duplicative in some ways and not really following the spirit of where I thought we started. And so I guess I was wondering if someone could talk about that.

I think I'm going to ask Mandy Johanicki if she would address some of that in part because she and Kathy Shane were the two members of our committee who actually did the side-by-side comparison of our document and the state template. Mandy. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you. I will try to answer that question, Doug. We didn't necessarily decide affirmatively to follow the state template, as you would say, and I'm not sure we truly do follow the state template a little bit. We took an attempt when the regulations came out to see what they were. And what we as CRC had in our latest draft at that time and where there were similarities, where there were differences, potential conflicts, what maybe the state dealt with that wasn't in our bylaw, our draft bylaw, and what we had in our draft bylaw that wasn't in the state bylaw. And then we tried to mesh them, I would say. And what I think Kathy and I found in that big comparison was that our draft at that time in about November of last year was very similar in scope to the guidelines of the standard conditions that the state was proposing it would impose if towns did not do a comprehensive permit on their own. There were a few differences, but most of what was in our draft in November was in those guidelines and vice versa. There were a couple things that were missing from our draft because at the time the draft was started, we hadn't envisioned a comprehensive permit, I would say. So there was a lot missing regarding... what a comprehensive permit is, what, who the person who will deal with the comprehensive permit, the responsible party, would be. A lot of those things that the state law created, in a sense. And so we tried to put that in. And then we tried to craft a clean, it changed from solar bylaw to clean energy at that time, because one of the things we found and we had struggled with as a CRC over two years was what was put in front of us by the solar bylaw working group did not really deal with battery energy storage systems. And the clean energy infrastructure and new law gave us a great opportunity to bring battery energy storage regulation into this bylaw, which is something CRC had struggled with on how to do that. A separate bylaw, a singular bylaw. Did we have the authority to all of that? And so we brought that into this and then renamed it for that purpose because it was no longer addressing just solar bylaws. One of the considerations that we did, Kathy and I did take into consideration when we were doing this was to try to limit the conflict with any state regulations, because since they they They trump local regulations and local laws. And so we didn't want to try and redo something that then the attorney might say, oh, you can't do that because the state law trumps or something. So we were trying to limit conflict between that. I hope that kind of answers your question as best I can.

All right. I guess we'll get, we may come back to that topic, but Bruce, go ahead.

I think that Pam and Joe have got some structure in mind, but I actually do want to follow your concern, Doug. And so I think Mandy, this is kind of more, because I shared the same feeling when I first read this, when it first came to us, I think my comment was, it looks like somebody went to the regulatory supermarket and loaded up the cart. and it does seem to be disjointed and so forth. I noted that there are references to noise in four or five different places. And I wouldn't have thought noise was a big deal, but there it is. It's spread all over the place. But as I was listening to your answer, I was wondering, and this is a question, or my wonder was, If this bylaw that we're considering tonight, proposed bylaw, complicated and perhaps fragmented and duplicative as it certainly seems to me to be, but if this is what most towns in the state are going to be producing, something that looks very like this, then perhaps the industry will be more comfortable with one big, long, whatever document than if we all start to try and redraft it. So is it your opinion that this, whether it's complicated and duplicative or not, is best that we maintain the structure and accept this format, this length, in the interests of it being similar to what other communities across the state are going to produce. Is that the basic reason why we should not push back on this structure that we're looking at tonight?

Pam, shall I call on Mandy? Go ahead, Mandy. Oh, okay.

Yeah, I was going to respond also.

Pam can go first. I just can't raise my hand if I'm sharing a screen. There's no one limitation of Zoom, so I can only do this. So Pam had her hand raised first.

I appreciate Bruce's analogy to shopping. And I think as we went through our document today, One of the topics that kept coming up is, are we going to just make general reference to other bylaw sections, or is it... from a developer's standpoint, easier and more focused to come to one bylaw, one bylaw section and say, this is pretty inclusive. It's one-stop shopping. You don't have to go to look at five other bylaws within the town of Amherst to find the information that you're looking for. We recognize that some of the submittal requirements may be duplicative, redundant with perhaps what the planning board asks for or the ZBA asks for. But again, having them in one spot to me is a real easy checklist. Did we cover all the bases? And as Vandy said earlier, There were a number of requirements, even within the state, suggestions that were more extensive and more far-reaching, actually, than what we had listed as submittals. Thank you.

To further answer, the two-year process that CRC undertook, actually, in some sense, what you see here is a simple, it sounds strange, but is a simplification and consolidation of what we received from the Solar Bylaw Working Group. That sounds kind of strange, but it is. At the same time, Bruce, I personally agree that I think we could consolidate this slightly even further because what we received from the solar bylaw working group had a lot of duplicative sections and we spent a lot of time trying to identify them and then find a way to combine them, and we are not perfect, right? So we probably didn't identify all of them. So one of the later changes we actually made to this is a section here that you see sort of with a comment, the highlighted in pink, that has sort of these sections that won't, that certain types of solar installations and BESS installations will not need to comply with certain parts of the bylaw. That was actually a late addition based on some of the readings we did from the state guidance to try and simplify for smaller projects. what they have to comply with. And I will admit that, as you can see, there's some blanks there. It could be written better. We are trying to get information from, and we've asked the planning department and the building commissioner to really think about what parts of this bylaw a small ground mount canopy or ground mount system or a canopy or an accessory system should have to comply with and what is kind of, as you would say, overreach. And and that was in order to make sure we could comply with and have a bylaw in in place by October 1. We did not have that settled yet before we sent this to hearing because we have a timeline and we knew it would take a while on hearing. So that could probably happen. Potentially, it should probably be looked at in careful detail to see what these smaller systems need to comply with of this bylaw and what maybe they don't in order to simplify their permitting pathway. And then also, once we figure that out, maybe reordering the bylaw so it's not in this one like five different references. is that it's just an inclusive to make it even easier, right? This is sort of a leftover from when the bylaw was just written and then we went back and said, wait, but do we really need accessory use solar photovoltaics to comply with this part of the application section or this, that? And so we just listed those sections without at that point trying to reorder it to make it a little more usable, right?

All right, Bruce.

Just looking at this one, another classification of observations I've made is that there seem to be terms that are not defined And one of tier one and tier two, I couldn't find. Maybe they're defined in some other place. I'm sure they are. But in the interest of, as you say, Pam, consolidating and so forth, there are a few terms that I picked up. Minimization is another term that looked like I think they should be defined within the definition section. But I wonder how you feel about that.

Mandy Jo, you had your hand up.

Yes. So Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 ground mount are proposed to be defined in Article 12, which is why you don't see them in the new Clean Energy By-law section. There's an entire set of pages towards the end of this that are Article 12 definitions. And those definitions are proposed for Article 12 because... the use table and the accessory use table, so in Article 3 and Article 5, use those words. And therefore, you cannot keep those definitions within the Clean Energy By-law. So unfortunately, definitions are in two spots, and the bigger, major ones are proposed to be within Article 12 or For BESS, I'm not sure we put in the definitions, the tier one, tier two, because we don't do much with it, but within the use classification table. Minimization, I believe, Pam, you might be able to address that one. We struggled with... whether to define that and what it actually meant and i think the feedback we got from stephanie and the planning department was that it would be up to the permit granting authorities to determine what that needs to be based on the findings of the pre-development whatever it's called um

But still, for my reading, it was the concept that needed defining beyond the specifics of the concept. And maybe there should be a note in the definition section within this Article 18 that says that further definitions or more general definitions are contained in Article 12 or 2 or whatever it is.

All right. Thank you, Bruce. Pam, I don't know how quickly you want to dive into the weeds here because I could ask a couple more questions that we've touched on.

Why don't we take some general questions then and then just to make sure people are sort of comfortable with proceeding and then we can jump into the details.

Okay. board members. And Pam, should I assume that you and Mandy Jo and Andy are all fully up to speed on this and that none of the questions tonight are going to come from your group?

I'm guessing that not many questions are going to come from our group. Andy hasn't been involved for four years. Bless his heart. So he may, in fact, have some questions.

But you're basically here to answer board member questions, planning board.

And to hear the public comments about this document.

All right.

And to share time with you all.

Thank you. Thank you, Pam. So board members, are there other sort of broad general questions about this document that you might want to ask at this point? Or should we wait until we get to some instance that might prompt that question? Johanna?

I guess I have... Two big broad questions, the first is have we gotten any feedback from the solar industry as to whether this bylaw. You know, like whether they perceive it as encouraging solar development in town, as the directive was or whether. you know, 22 pages of regulations could be considered burdensome. I'd be really interested in hearing that feedback. And then my second question is like, I recognize that we have put a lot of energy into this at the town level, but with the emergence of the state model bill, what is the rationale for continuing to kind of pursue our Amherst specific you know, unique snowflake bylaw as opposed to just adopting the model state bylaw. Those are my big brush questions.

All right, Pam. Thank you. Those are really good points. There has not been specific solar industry feedback on this particular bylaw, but there certainly has been at the state level. As they developed the 225 CMR 29, there was a great deal of input there. The solar bylaw working group had a representative from the industry, also happened to be the CONCOM member, Laura Paglia-Vargas. Rulo, who works in the solar industry. So she was helping to direct people. I can't speak for her, but anyway, she was an active participant in the working group. One of the elements, aspects that we did not see in the state's work was a reference to private wells. and drinking water supplies. And because we have a strong drinking water protection committee, one of your former planning board members sat on that, that probably of any of the issues that people might bring up about a solar installation is probably just protection of drinking water supply. So we made an extra effort to work with town staff and different committees to develop those AMRA-specific elements.

All right. Johanna, I know you've turned off your camera so that you can eat. But did Pam answer both of your questions? Are you all set? You're muted, by the way.

I think you addressed them. I guess I feel like the second point of the comment almost implies that somehow the state model bylaw is not protective of drinking water and that somehow we need to do more. And I see Mandy Jo raising her hand, so maybe she has an answer to this.

Go ahead, Mandy Jo.

Yeah, that's actually one of the reasons, one of the big criticisms of the states. So there's sort of lots of documents with the state. There were the regulations. There were the guidelines that would be used if the state permits the project, or if a town does not permit a project, does not decide a permitting application within 12 months. And then there was a model bylaw they put out. I think they may, I have not looked, they were thinking about putting out a different model bylaw than the one Kathy and I looked at. The regulations and the guidelines that would go would apply if, say, Amherst did not issue or deny a comprehensive permit within 12 months were very weak on water protection, in fact, not just for solar, but for BESS. And it was one of the biggest concerns CRC heard and had in and of itself of its own members was protecting our local water supply for obvious reasons. And putting in some guidelines for minimum distances and everything is something that some of the things we took most seriously as we looked through all of this to make sure that they were safe. uh what our water supply protection committee and our conservation um agent believed were protective including a lot of best protections regarding how to build a best structure the model bylaw that was put out by the state was actually very basic and when i spoke with at a mass municipal association conference with a KP law attorney that deals with solar and land use permitting, particularly with solar and had done a presentation on solar. She did not speak highly of that model bylaw. It was very much a basic bylaw that basically reiterated the regulations and did not offer any potential additional protections that towns may want to add for specific concerns like water protection um so that was one reason to not just flip and say let's just adopt the state model bylaw or propose that for adoption because that bylaw really only dealt with how to issue a comprehensive permit it did not deal with any of the sort of um standards and conditions that might get issued with a comprehensive permit or how anyone would any permitting grant and body would actually evaluate citing of a best structure or a solar structure. So if we do not, my understanding is if we do not do address solar or BESS within a bylaw, it defaults to sort of some of the dimensional requirements and setbacks and distances from water supply that we have been defaulting to for a while as a town, but that many people in town have been concerned with are not protective enough of our water.

All right, I know that. Thank you. Yes. So I see Angus and then Bruce.

Yeah, thank you all for doing all this work and for sharing it with us and answering our questions. challenging and sometimes thorny questions. I think that I don't so much have a question as just want to voice a concern that's come up at a lot of our planning board meetings, as we've talked about the solar bylaw, which is that there's a number of provisions in this bylaw that I think many of us as members are concerned about whether we have the expertise to weigh. And I know that large portions of this bylaw would be handled by town staff as part of the approval process as documentation is brought. But at some point, the ZBA or the planning board is going to potentially have to weigh in. And so I just want to flag that as we go through this document, that's one of the concerns that's been raised by planning board members. And I don't, if someone wants to respond to that, they can, but it's just I don't want to voice that that concerns before we get into the details. Thank you.

Thanks Angus I will say that that was I was going to couch it differently in that throughout this there's reference to the PGA permit granting authority and in many cases I hope it's not the planning board. You know because we don't know that much about the water the fresh water aquifer zones and well setbacks and the grade next to wetlands and whether we're within the type of slope that's going to be easily eroded and that kind of thing. You know, I mean, this feels like a a highly a highly different animal from the rest of the zoning bylaw. And you know, I think it would certainly help the planning board to get an annotated version of this that indicates who the PGA is for each of these requirements. Because, you know, right now, if we do a site plan review, we get input from the town engineer and the fire department, and CONCOM does its own does its own hearings and decisions. But we don't have to go look at NFPA 650 in order to know and certify essentially that That's been met when we issue a site plan review. We just rely on the fire department to say it looks okay. So this feels different for us. And I think a lot of the apprehension or anxiety that we're feeling is related to that. So with that, unless Pam or Mandy Jo want to respond to that, I can go to Bruce. Go ahead, Pam.

Yeah, I'd like to respond really quickly. I think part of the concern, the angst, is that it is a big document. And as we said earlier, we're trying to put it in one spot so a developer can make their way through essentially a checklist and not have to go seeking... a lot of information from other parts of the bylaw. Just as with any site plan review or special permit, town staff is exceedingly helpful. And they would, of course, there are a number of references in here that this document, the submittal will be developed in coordination with the fire department, for instance. So, We will all be relying on the expertise of the staff, which many towns do not have. So spelling it out a little more clearly, I think will help you. not to not put more of a burden on you.

Well, Pam, kind of one other thing is early in the in our discussion about this or in the earlier drafts. I think it was Nate who had said that there would be some sort of town coordinator for this for these kinds of consolidated permits. And And I hope that's still the case. And if it is, that person is going to need to know, you know, kind of have a traffic control document that says, okay, I've got my consolidated permit materials. Here are the parts that need to go to the planning board for site plan review or whatever. And here are the parts that need to go to CONCOM and fire department and whoever else. And that document

is what I'm kind of talking about is what's what portion of it is is our responsibility that's a really good question yeah I'm gonna I'm gonna give one one uh analogy that that the process um I I'm pretty sure the process is going to look a lot like a 40B residential permit process where you have a certain period of time you have to get that that 40B um project reviewed and approved with conditions within a 12 month period. Stephanie.

Go ahead, Steph.

Thank you. Just to sort of maybe help alleviate your concerns. I feel like the state sort of made what could be a straightforward process way more complicated because similar to other projects now, each programming authority will have review of the plans in the document, but your processes are going to be the same as they are. So Conservation Commission will still do their review. It will just be that there's one set of plans and you will comment on the things that you standardize as a standard would already comment on. So for instance, I know Bruce brought up the comment about noise earlier. Yes, there really is a provision about noise in there. So those are the types of things that you will review. Just the standard things that you normally review as a planning board. Any of the safety features will be going to the fire department because they do have already their set of criteria with which they look at that. So It is complicated in that the permits from each body now will just be attached to one main document. So when the final one permit is issued, you will all issue permits as you normally do, right? It'll be the same basic process as you normally have. the coordinator will be collecting all of those permits and there will be one cover permit, a document that the state is developing that will be the order and all of the other permits will be attached to that. So I just wanted to help alleviate some concerns because this isn't all on the planning board. This isn't all on all of you to have to do everything. And I know that that is why it's confusing because there's so much in the bylaw and In the guidance, everything had to be in one place because of this new permitting format. But really, I think it would be helpful for you all to maybe just think of it as how you normally review projects in terms of what is your oversight of those projects. So typically things like screening and noise and setbacks, those kinds of standard things. items are still the things that you would look at. And the coordinator, the 90-day pre-filing process and period is really where staff and staff, there will be sort of one primary coordinator, but staff will be working with that person. That person will be reaching out to staff representative for all the other boards and committees to sort of coordinate getting the documentation ahead of time. The idea is that by the time the application comes to you, All of those sort of outstanding issues might have been identified as they currently do now when you have larger scale projects. I know there's typically staff review prior to submissions. It's going to be the same kind of process. Now it's just formalized. So a lot will happen in those 90 days prior to coming to you that should help clarify what it is you'll be looking at when it comes to you. I just wanted to alleviate the concerns because I know there's been a lot of concern from really from everybody. But I just think of it as you normally do. You're basically doing what you normally do. It's just that your permit's going to get consolidated with everybody else's.

All right. Thank you very much. That's helpful. Spruce?

Yes, Doug, I remember when you first raised that concern when we first saw this some months ago. And I think my response at the time was that I can imagine that there could be a particular specialty, kind of like an owner's project manager specialty, but focused particularly on this, something like home energy rates, for example, that could. That service sprang up after we did certain things at the state level about 20 years ago now. So it's quite possible, Stephanie, that there could even be hired guns that float around that are uniquely experienced in just what you're talking about. So maybe that's something to look forward to. But I wanted to ask a particular question about the separations between private wells and ground-mounted PVs. But should I wait on that and let you begin the process that you wanted to begin about 45 minutes ago?

Go ahead, Pam.

Sure. Sure. This is the, and I would please encourage anyone who has the question as we're getting to a topic, let's talk about that question. I think that was very helpful for many of us to sort of understand the starting point for many of you. This is the, you know, the very dry process of working through sections. And I do not want to read each section, but I will say, does anyone have a question or concern about Section 1801, the purpose of this document? Why are we doing this? I don't know the best way to garner. I guess if someone has it.

I don't see any, Pam. I guess I'll say we can go ahead. Okay.

All right. I'll count on you, Doug, to sort of keep your eye also on hands going. I'll try to keep watching for hands raised. Okay. Section 1802, the applicability of this. As we said earlier, highlighted in pink. We brought in the different categories from those use charts that Mandy showed us at the very end of the document, recognizing that not every project needs every submittal or every blade of grass turned over. What are the primary components that every project will need to go through? What are the ones that are required for larger projects?

Yeah. Pam, I guess I will ask about the first sentence. And is that first sentence to indicate that you don't have to go through the consolidated process if you don't want to?

That is correct.

If you want to see how long it takes otherwise.

Correct. If you want it to be a two-year process, you're welcome to do that. If you want to force it through a 12-month window, it'd be well served to ask for a consolidated permit.

Okay, great.

And I will note that up to probably halfway through the document, we did discuss and incorporate as appropriate comments that we had received from the planning board by that time. So Doug, you will see a number of changes.

Yeah, I went through, I mean, I was glad to see this version 10 because I hadn't seen that until a couple of days ago. Until that point, I didn't think you'd, most of my comments had been looked at at least uh okay so great um i mean i mean bruce had the comment about the the tears and that this shows up so quick so early in this document that uh that was one other comment that might apply in this area i will also note you've got tears for for spi and you've got tears for best and they're different You know, it might be more comfortable or more intuitive if there were tiers for SPI and there were categories for BESS. Or, you know, you had tiers 1, 2, and 3 for SPI and tiers ABC for batteries. But having two sets of tier 1, 2, and 3 and having them actually mean different things just kind of contributes to what could be confusing.

Thank you. Yep.

Agreed.

Andy, I see your hand. You can unmute.

Yeah, I just wanted to, again, point to the comments that Mandy is showing here that it may be rather than saying which one shall comply with what sections it might be, the smaller ones only need comply with these or they don't need to comply with other ones. So it's like, should we frame it in the negative to make it easier to understand? And then she also mentioned earlier that the potential for reorganizing the bylaws so that smaller projects wouldn't have to read the whole thing, I guess. So I think that's under consideration.

Great. I mean, that is another sort of thought that I had in the back of my head was, but I've been reluctant to suggest any reorganization, just given how much time you guys have spent on this so far.

Are there general feelings about that approach that Andy just talked about?

Well, in concept, it feels to me like it would be more user-friendly or not even user-friendly, but friendly to people who want to do smaller projects to upfront, you know, do the things that apply throughout, but then say, you know, here's the things that a small project needs to do. And then everything else is things that a larger project needs to do. That just feels a little more friendly to me, and maybe I'm the only one. Board members, I can't see everybody's face at all the time. Johanna's got her thumbs up. Mandy, Jo, your hand is up. Go ahead.

Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. What I was going to ask is actually of Stephanie. Do we have an estimated time where we're going to get the staff recommendations for what parts of this bylaw, the smaller projects should be? have to comply with, including the agrivoltaics, because I know that was one of the outstanding things when we sent this to hearing was what what are the parts that the staff believe are important to require basically all projects to comply with? And what are the parts that only large projects are relevant more to just large projects? Do we know when we'll get that information?

I don't have an exact timeline, but I would envision that it will be probably at some point during this current review process prior to it being finalized for the next of going to legal counsel, I think. So we can certainly, I can certainly share that with staff again, and we can try to expedite the response on that.

I just asked because, if we are thinking of reorganizing it would be good to be able to start doing that sooner than later, so that we can really see what it would look like that way.

yeah I realized we're headed we're under a deadline, you know, to have this done by October so.

I think it could be done, it would be good.

And let's move move on the 1802. both three, the provisions take precedent over other articles of zoning bylaw that may be in conflict and that it's intended to align with consolidated siting and permitting process. So again, Doug asked, does one have to go through the consolidated process? No, but all the components are here actually whether they want to go through it or not. Okay, section 1803, definitions. Did anyone have any definitions they thought needed to be added? We could consider those. Bruce.

Yes, I repeat that when we get to minimization, could you scroll down? It's actually 1803, I think, 1804. So it's quite close. Oh, I thought it was, there we go, 1806. So these are three short definitions. sentences, all of which hinge on the word minimization. Some shall not require minimization, may require minimization, and so forth. But I don't know what that word means. I don't mean in a quantitative sense. I mean what conceptually is minimization. I think it should be made clear. Maybe the industry knows what it means, but somebody reading this who's an architect with 50 years experience doesn't know what it means. I think it would help to know what minimization means conceptually. Or am I just being thick here? I mean, if everybody else knows what it means, then...

I share your concern, Bruce.

I'm looking at either Mandy had her hand up.

Okay, go ahead, Mandy. I'm sorry.

So I would say CRC had that same exact question. These terms came from the site suitability assessment guidelines that the state put out that anyone going through the consolidated permitting process must comply with. And they themselves did not identify or define even minimization or mitigation despite using those terms. So I think one of our concerns was since since the site suitability assessments, depending on how they come back, and the highly suitable, suitable, moderately suitable, not very suitable, those terms are used in that regulation about site suitability. And we were... hesitant to try and define terms that were used there in case we would conflict with whatever the state had in mind and the state did not define them themselves. We can go back and see if the final regulations in anywhere or guidelines did a better job of discussing what minimization or mitigation are. But most of this language is essentially paraphrased but referencing those guidelines. So we had the same issues, Bruce, but we didn't know how to deal with it.

My guess is then that minimization means smallerizing and mitigation means making less impactful. But if it means making smaller, then just smallerization or a word that means that. would be may smaller, reduced size, something like that, rather than inventing a word. Anyway, that's a definition term. And I think I may have had a couple of others, but they may be in the world. They may become all over the place here. Since we're talking definitions,

So Mandy, not to cut you off, but Mandy is adding that. She's adding the...

I have my hand up and I'm not sure if you can see it. So I just wanted to jump on in before you go on further to comment on minimization and mitigation. Speaking with my former role as the wetlands administrator for the town, those are very standard terminology that's used by the state, certainly in terms of the wetland regulations. And they do have to do with, as you said, Bruce, reducing the size of impacts and then mitigating would be so sort of compensating for the impacts. So for instance, in mitigation, that to me means more like if you impact a wetland, then you'd have to recreate more wetland area at a rate of two to one. So you'd have to sort of compensate for the impacts that you've had. Minimization means, as you said, just sort of reducing the footprint or the size of what you're doing. But those are standard state regulatory terms. And this might be a case where these might not necessarily be relevant to your review, but they might be very relevant to the Conservation Commission's review.

Okay, well, I think I can let go and imagine that as this bylaw becomes promulgated, it will become part of our lexicon and we don't have to define it for the reasons that Mandy Jo mentioned. So I'm going to drop my concern.

So will there be a site suitability analysis of every project done by staff or someone or does the state do it even if a project is under Amherst's bylaw?

So if it's a comprehensive permit that they're following, they have to do site suitability. And the state is creating a web page that will basically You'll put in a dress, you'll put in a parcel, and they will produce the site suitability assessment automatically based on publicly available data on GIS systems, wetland availability, you know, primary habitats, prime farmland, things like that. So it's going to be something that is generated basically automatically through a state portal.

Okay. Okay.

Bruce, are you done for the moment?

No, I have a follow up to that one. I think when you said all of the public sources and you listed them, I can see that there could be all sorts of conflicts where people think that this repository reposed data is unreliable and that they might want to contest it. And I'm thinking perhaps we should have a somewhere in here, the mechanism or at least the acknowledgement that somebody may want to contest that analysis and we should give them the opportunity to do so. Does that seem reasonable?

Mandy, Jim?

So the regulations provide how the analysis that is automatically generated can be contested and it is set forth within the regulations. So we could not require or do anything that supersedes the regulations and who and how that could be contested.

That's fine. So long as there's a mechanism and you've said there is.

All right. Thanks, Bruce. We'll go to Angus.

Yeah, I was just going to say quickly, I think the minimization and mitigation issues are, now that I understand more about how the site suitability score is generated and what would be considered as part of site suitability, I think it would be clearer what would need to be minimized or mitigated. It's hard to know what those terms mean without specifics of site suitability. So I think that's really helpful to hear.

Great. Any other comments or missing definitions that occurred to you as you went through the document?

I don't see any hands from board members.

Can we scroll down a little bit further and we'll see if we can. Oh, Mandy?

I just wanted to point out to Bruce when he asked about earlier whether we should refer to Article 12 definition somewhere up here, because I'd made that note that every definition that is defined in Article 12 actually is listed here. I'll just highlight a couple that says here's the definition and then go to Article 12 to read what it is. um best is the same way so we have an applicant we've referenced um the 225 cmr um And so we've tried to do that referencing within the specific definitions. Does that- The T, so scroll all the way down to the bottom and where it's T and we'll see whether there's T is- So the tiers are defined within the definition of BESS and within the definition of solar voltaic installation. They are sub definitions of SPI and standalone BESS.

Okay. We'll get, again, I think we'll get used to that. I'll let that go.

We'll need to, Bruce.

It's much clearer in the tables at the end of this document. Yeah. And hard to remember which is which.

Okay. Angus.

Yeah, I guess seeing all the references to Article 12, so it's meant, as Pam was pointing out, this is meant to be all-encompassing, and so mostly y'all are repeating things from other parts of the bylaw where necessary, but for Article 12, you're trying to avoid that. Is that correct?

Mandy Jo?

So definitions that are used in other parts of the bylaw must be defined in Article 12, because if they're only defined in Article 18, they are not defined for purposes of if that term is used in, say, Article 3. Gotcha. So if they were used in another article, particularly if they were used in the use table or the accessory uses section of Article 5, we needed to define it in Article 12 instead of Article 18 as this one is proposed. And then I wanted to address one more thing while I'm speaking. Doug had asked about potentially why there are different tier definitions for, say, BESS. And you were going more towards terminology, but I wanted to address that BESS and SPI can't be the same tiers themselves because SPI is measured differently than BESS. So they measure things differently. I want to make sure that was clear. They are different animals.

And maybe we should have different category terms so that we don't always have to say I'm talking about a best tier one and not a solar tier one. Anyway.

Yeah, good point. I'm going to take the opportunity, since we've pretty much talked through definitions, to go to the audience and ask Steve Roof if he would like to make a public comment. Steve, can someone bring him in?

Pam Fields-Sadler, can you do that?

Yes, hello. This is Steve Roof. Thank you. Thank you for all your work. I'm a resident on Southeast Street in Deep South Amherst, a professor of environmental science at Hampshire College. couple of comments, particularly of what you're just describing. I found that this bylaw reads primarily as a standalone bylaw with occasional references to the 225 CMR 29, but it's not clear when CMR 29 is relevant or takes precedence. There are some submittal requirements in the bylaw that sound similar to requirements that are spelled out in CMR 29, but it's hard to tell in this version of the bylaw if they are different or redundant. In particular, the Section 1806 that Bruce was just asking about, that is inconsistent with 225 CMR 29. There is no single site suitability determination. There are five different scores. Those are related to carbon sequestration and biohabitat and a few other different aspects. There are five different scores, not a single score. More recently, DOER has released a detailed site suitability guidance document that probably should be referenced in the town bylaw. They've also issued guidance on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation that probably also should be referenced in the town bylaw. The problem, it seems, is that the draft solar and BESS bylaws from DER, they were issued back in October of 2025, well before the 225 CMR 29 was finalized, which was just a couple of months ago, March of 2026. So I think the model bylaws don't integrate well with the newer 225 CMR 29 regulations. And I'm wondering if anybody knows whether DER DOER will release a final model bylaw that does better integrate with 225 CMR 29? And will the town's bylaw need to be updated when they do release updated guidance? That's my main comment so far that's relevant to what you all have been discussing. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Steve. I hope you'll stay tuned for the whole conversation. All right, Pam.

I'm looking to Stephanie if there is any further update on that particular topic with the state guidance being upgrading as it goes. We've already dealt with upgrading as it goes a couple different times.

Thank you, Pam. I'm not aware of a newer draft model being released. But I think as what happens with other regulations, I think if the state revises regulations in a way that impacts how we're doing things, we have to respond accordingly. And this is where the difference between a bylaw and regulations come in. You know, where it's easier to update regulations than it is to the process for updating the bylaw is a much more onerous process. So if we have accompanying regulations with this bylaw and we incorporate things into the regulations, then I think that would be easier to amend. So for instance, like the wetlands, we have a wetlands bylaw, but we also have wetlands regulations. So at this point, that's a long answer to say, I don't really know. At this point, I'm not sure.

Thank you. Let's go back to 1804. Compliance with laws, ordinances, and regulations. This address is in some part. Read it carefully and send any comments to us.

Well, Pam, as you know, my main comment on this was it basically says you have to comply with everything that we need you to comply with, which felt like a pretty succinct overview that would obviate the need to later list everything that's going to be required so i get i get the rationale you want to stay at all in this in this in this file but you know it just it just seems like gotta say it twice or four times yeah angus

Maybe this is a dense question, but do we need to state that projects must be consistent with state and federal requirements when presumably those requirements are always in effect?

I think it's just reminding people that they exist.

Okay. You know, it's just four more words, Angus.

How about 1805? Okay, so this is the pre-filing requirements local government representative. We have designated the town manager or designee as the coordinating point of contact for the town of Amherst.

And that's one of the... Go ahead. I mean... I don't know if CRC or Stephanie or has anybody kind of got in mind who that might be under our current structure? Stephanie?

Sorry. Thank you, Doug. No, that, I mean, essentially it's the town manager's decision as to who that will be. And I think we're working through that with staff. I think because we've had some recent staff changes, we're just trying to sort of work that out.

Okay. So it'll depend on workload and that kind of thing.

Correct. And as I stated earlier, there may be a person, but that person will sort of be the one that will gather everything together. But the idea is that they're not working in a silo by themselves. They're going to be working closely with other staff and with the other boards and committees. So I don't, you know, it will be a person, but again, we're trying to determine how that's going to play out based, as you said, on workload.

I'll just note that there is a reference here to obtaining a site suitability score. In light of Steve's comments, I wonder whether that should be adjusted to be, you know, obtaining all five scores or whatever.

I think when you go to that process, it will be clear there. I mean, rather than spelling it all out here, it would be clear there that you've got to go through the steps to have an acceptable pre-filing document.

Candy? HAB-Juliette Boone, Was that mandy or Andy.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, Andy. HAB-Jacques Juilland, It's me. HAB-Jacques Juilland, My hand up. Anyway, I'm wondering if this it says a site suitability score and criteria specific suitability scores. And I wonder if those are the five that he was talking about. I don't know, but

If I may? Yes, Mandy. The criteria-specific ones are the five, are the sub-scores that Steve was talking about. And at least when we did, I haven't looked at the most recent, you know, the finalized regulations. When we drafted this, there was going to be one large suitability score and sub-criteria-specific suitability scores. So there were going to be six scores, one overall score and... a score for each separate criteria. Maybe they have changed that and we might need to look in to see if they have changed that. And maybe in the suitability assessments, sites, you know, I took, to Steve's question, I took 1806 that sites deemed highly suitable assessments would include this criteria-specific suitability scores. So if a criteria-specific one was deemed, if one criteria was deemed unsuitable and four criteria were deemed highly suitable, it's the one specific criteria that has to do the significant minimization. The other four do not have to. It's specific to whatever that one criteria were. And I took 1806 to sort of make that Um, differentiation, but maybe wording could be a little bit better to be clear about that.

Um, so these sites suitability scores and criteria scores are obtained from the state.

Yeah.

They're not by staff. They're not by the applicants consultants. Okay. And then the minimization and mitigation requirements if they're related to wetlands it would come from com com if if it's from criteria that planning board reviews it would come those were those in conditions would come from planning board is that right.

That's the intent. So if it's a site plan review, the planning board would issue its permit, and presumably it will know in advance whether, say, the wetland score was moderately suitable. And before it issued a permit, it would make sure that CONCOM required minimization or mitigation measures for the moderately suitable CONCOM side. I wouldn't expect planning board to figure those out, but it would sort of be a separate separate check on did CONCOM require them to their, you know, their criteria.

Or it could be the coordinator. because if we're all trying to expedite our review process, we may not want to wait for CONCOM. Okay, Pam.

So let's move on to 1806, the site suit. We've talked about minimization. It is very much driven by what the site suitability index ends up being.

I think we can go on to 1807. Fees. You had a question about fees, I believe. Yeah, I just thought maybe we should list the fees, not necessarily the amounts, because that could change over the life of the bylaw. But maybe the staff would brief the applicant during the pre-proposal process, and you don't need to say that.

Yeah. In a way, it doesn't feel too necessary to even list fees here, but just for the record, it's like, oh, by the way, there will be some fees associated with this. I think staff will certainly be enumerating those as part of the pre-application process.

Yeah, and the minute you go into more detail, if you add a fee, you have to change the bylaw or else you can't charge it. So one of the reasons for leaving it this sort of non-specific is to allow more flexibility in case a new fee comes in that we don't have now.

All right.

Okay. So I'm actually looking at the time and I think planning board often takes a break around eight o'clock. Is that correct?

Yes.

Section 1808 is fairly extensive. I'm expecting that there may be some feedback on this section. Do you want to plow ahead with this and take a break after 1808?

I think we should give it a try. To plow ahead? Yes.

Okay. All right. Does anyone have concerns about the extensive list of submittal requirements They mirror much of what is required by the state. In fact, the state was more extensive than I expected personally, but it also addresses normal submittals that you as a site plan review entity would be looking at. Bruce?

I look through these fairly closely, and it seemed to me that this is helpful because it's the list that this is where the serious applicants are going to start. And they're going to want to check these off. And if they're required, and they all seem to be reasonable i mean there's one down there that about an acoustic engineer being engaged for um sound and so forth um i suppose it's appropriate to do that again it'll probably become it seems overkill now and that was my first comment about two months ago um that you know you you require all of these uh specialists to get involved and all this kind of stuff but my guess is that that firms will quickly develop a perfunctory response to this and it won't be a seven or eight hundred dollar well maybe it won't be a outrageous amount of money so it all seemed to me uh from beginning to end to be reasonable i'm sure i could think of a few more But if we really want to be thorough about things, then this is the list that we typically We typically have. So I couldn't see anything that I thought was overkill, not here, elsewhere maybe. And I couldn't think of anything that wasn't there, that should be there, or that might best be there. So I make that comment in the interest of speeding things along.

Okay. Thank you, Bruce. Angus.

Yeah, my concern is with the impact analyses, which is T. I guess I'm trying to understand what each of these impact analyses... Some of them are pretty clear to me, and then impact on carbon sequestration, I guess I'm trying to understand what that would mean for a photovoltaic or BESS installation, and... And then scenic views, I guess, are these normal impact analyses that we ask of all projects? I've only been on the planning board for a little over almost a year, so I'm just trying to understand what's normal, I guess.

I will add that these items come from the state list. And they will be addressing each of those elements, the six different elements in part of the site suitability review. And we thought it was appropriate to include them because in fact, it is a submittal. It is something they will put together as that preliminary package. We shouldn't therefore not include it here.

So are these the basis for the scores that we talked about, the suitability criteria? Yeah. If anyone else has a comment about that. I see Bruce, but I want to make sure Angus is finished.

Yeah. So these are the six components that they're filing with the state to generate this site suitability.

Mandy Jo?

um yeah so i am not sure they're exactly mirroring the site suitability site suitability um criteria i'm trying to pull up the regulation the the old regulations the non-final ones um had development potential as a criteria, climate change resilience, carbon storage and sequestration, biodiversity, agricultural resources, social and environmental burdens, social and environmental benefits are the seven criteria the benefits is sort of a subset of burdens um in terms of that of that so um of those so so they don't match specifically um carbon sequestration is there scenic views is not in an impact in the site suitability noise and vibration is not um farmland forests and environmental ecological services kind of are in terms of development potential and other things like that, but some of them are not. And to answer Angus's question, I don't believe certain of these are required for other projects or typically required for other projects, particularly the scenic views. And carbon sequestration and ecological services. Some of those came from the Solar By-law Working Group proposal, an initial proposal. Personally, I would delete the impact analysis for a number of these. I was not in the majority on CRC on that matter. Okay.

All right, thank you. Angus, were you all set?

Stephanie wanted to speak to this.

Yeah, I just wanted to say that this is one of the points where staff pushed back in the draft because some of these things are very hard to... If you were to implement this, you know, it's hard to regulate. So staff felt that, for instance, an impact on environmental and ecological services. What is that exactly? And so I think There was a lot of pushback, especially on that one. But I think to reiterate what Mandy Jo just said, I think Mandy Jo was sort of agreeing with the staff feedback on this particular section. This feels burdensome.

Thank you, Stephanie. Angus?

Yeah, I just wanted to add, we've had comments at the planning board about these, specifically about these. I would also agree that this seems excessive, especially when we have so many other checks already put in place across this proposed bylaw. I don't think that these are necessary, and I wouldn't know who would even be considering the impact on scenic views and how we would weigh something like that. But the other things that are more... clearly related to like noise we've got in other places we have a focus on wetlands um and and water so i i just i i would personally i i think the whole t section should be eliminated all right thank you angus bruce

I agree with Angus. I had noted this. I hadn't realized that impact analysis was in that submittal set because I had made separate notes that said what criteria for an adequate impact analysis, because it seems to me to be a bottomless pit. And for all the reasons given, I would also think that this is unnecessary, this is onerous, and this is confusing. And it's also duplicative because so much of this is contained in what we've already required or what is already required.

All right, thank you, Bruce. As long as we're weighing in here, I guess I would say I substantially agree with the two, with Bruce and Angus. I did have some questions. Oh, Johanna. Yes. Yes.

I guess since we're weighing in, I too will say that I think this is duplicative and to reintroduce. Yeah, I thought Bruce put it well with kind of like a bottomless pit because there aren't clear criteria on how it's being evaluated. And it completely ignores the tremendous environmental and public interest benefits that come with getting more clean energy online. So it strikes me as punitive rather than you know, encouraging solar, which is what this bylaw is really, you know, that's the charge.

Good point.

All right, Angus, and then Andy.

Yeah, I guess not to... I was going to move on to a different part of this section, which is M, which is indicative of something else that we've confronted in the planning board as we've talked with staff, so that M is just proof of liability insurance. I didn't find any other mention of liability insurance anywhere else in the bylaw. I could be wrong about that. And I... what Nate told us town staff was wanting in different ways is to put things that are required in applications to move some of that into the bylaw to make things, um, clear for applicants. So that was something that staff wanted. It's something that the planning board has not been enthusiastic about. Um, at least based on the points that I've heard. And so I guess I I'm, I'm wondering M is an example of one of these things that I would presume would be required for any kind of an, um, documentation with the town before projects move forward. And so I guess I want to get a sense of why we would put that in the in the bylaw. And if we this is something we should be doing with other parts of the bylaw.

Anyone else on M? And is your is your comment back on T? Go ahead, Andy.

Yeah, I'm back on T. Just, it seems like a number of those, they're the kinds of things, or some of them are the kinds of things that would be in the suitability assessment, right? I mean, wouldn't a lot of these be addressed? And I'm sympathetic to the arguments that people are making, but. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, In addition, I feel like those a number of these would be things that would be taken into account in this in the suitability assessment. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Right.

Thank you. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Bruce

Back on them, I think that if some measure of insurance is to be provided, it's not unreasonable to put it in here so that, as Pam was saying earlier, you've got a complete list, everything in one place. Maybe the details of it are spelled out more thoroughly, the limits and so forth. And because generally speaking, contracts and things or elsewhere, they would be stipulating the amounts of insurance that need to be covered. But the requirement for a policy to be taken out and who the beneficiary is should be here. I think it's appropriate. Angus, does that... not jive with your sense as well? I guess I don't understand what the problem is in having it listed here.

Yeah, I think what I'm trying to, I guess, get clarity on is if this is a departure from other parts of the bylaw, or if this is consistent with other parts of the bylaw, and if it's a departure, I guess I want to make sure that we're knowingly departing from other parts of the bylaw.

I think we've already knowingly departed insofar as this is a consolidation. It's been explained that this is a different approach to creating a bylaw based on the the structure that the state has imposed, which is a time limit and a consolidation, seems to be consistent with the intent that's been created by the state's intervention here.

But Bruce, actually, let's ask Stephanie, because I haven't been through a consolidated permit of any other sort. Do we typically want to proof of liability insurance as part of some other consolidated permits?

I don't know where they come in during the permitting process, and I have to apologize for that. That's not certainly something that I believe the Conservation Commission had ever required, but I do know that we often receive proof comes through to the town quite regularly. So I don't know if this is a new requirement as Sort of as spelled out rather than like prior to construction, like a requirement that's maybe prior to construction, it's being asked, which would be a condition that now it's actually incorporated right into the bylaw. So I'm not 100 percent certain.

Yeah, I know. I mean, I haven't I can't remember ever. receiving a proof of liability insurance on any of our site plan reviews or special permits. I know when I did my initial comments of the earlier version, it felt premature. Would you actually have the insurance at the point that you make the application? wouldn't that come later? So I just wasn't sure that people could have it by this point. And if there's some other, I mean, I think what Angus is getting at is, We don't require this proof for any other kind of project in town. So why do we need to do it here? You know, given the litigious world we live in, they'll probably have liability insurance in any case. Is it enough for whatever we want them to be on the hook for? I don't know, but

If I might, sorry, sorry to interrupt. If I might, I just would suggest that this just be one of the points that's run by the building commissioner again, just to double check. But I would agree that, you know, I know one of the staff's comments has been in drafting this. If we don't require certain things for other, exactly your point for other projects, why are we requiring for this? So if it seems like, I keep using the word burdensome, but if you will, it applies. If it's more burdensome to an applicant developing a solar project, why are we holding them to a higher standard than we do for other projects? So again, I think I would just ask the building commissioner to take a look at this particular item again.

Okay. Thanks, Stephanie. Pam?

Yeah, I think this the need for something like this, I believe is a little bit higher because we are in many cases talking about a fairly extensive construction project. We have seen in other communities where extensive damage was caused by erosion and wetland degradation that took a lot of money to repair. And I think given the quasi-industrial nature of these installations, especially with the size of them, the acreage involved, makes sense to have something there. And maybe with the building commissioner, we can fine-tune it and just say this is something that, you know, something is in place pre-construction, or we can... settle it in a little bit manner, but I would feel strongly about keeping this in here. It's a safeguard for the community. If we don't need it, we don't need it. That's great.

Okay. Angus.

Yeah, I was just looking through the bylaw. The only evidence that I can see for requiring insurance is related to the cost of containment and cleanup of hazardous materials spills. We currently list that there needs to be evidence of insurance bonding or other financial security adequate to cover the cost. Um, so that, that could be a way around this just to establish what we're asking the insurance to be able to cover. Um, maybe liability insurance insurance is that specific, but I think it's a little broader than that.

All right. Uh, Bruce.

Elsewhere here, we have a section requiring a performance bond. Well, it's not a performance bond. I beg your pardon. It's an amount of money that's put in escrow to cover the decommissioning of the project. Perhaps, and I don't see that as part of the submittals, because again, it's probably something that needs to be put in place at the end. rather than the beginning. And so maybe the insurance requirements could be dealt with in the same manner down here rather than as part of an initial submittal.

So perhaps Stephanie could ask the building commissioner if it makes sense to include the liability insurance in Section 1821 perhaps instead.

You could also possibly move it to S if it's related to hazardous materials plans in this current section.

Well, I think it is potentially more than hazardous materials. Even just the erosion and downstream impacts are different than hazardous.

Are there any other feedback or questions or concerns about the other submittals? And I think I should ask the public if anyone in the public has any thoughts on submittal requirements. And I will note that here and there, you'll see a number highlighted in yellow And that is a reminder for us to check and make sure that it references the correct number after the document is sorted out.

Okay. I know I had added a comment about the use of the word compelling. 1808.06 there. How would that be determined? And who would decide?

It sounds like common usage to me. The board itself, the PGA, can decide if there's a compelling reason to look further into something. All right.

Bruce?

I had the same question because in the parking bylaw section, for example, that says compelling reasons of site design, public safety, aesthetics, I think. So I wondered whether we might not want to, and further in the bylaw here, there's another section where there's discretion given to the PGA for changes related to compelling reasons or reasons, and in that section, we'll get to it, it stipulates compelling reasons of. So I think that probably would be appropriate to add to that sentence compelling reasons of whatever um but I let it I write um well Bruce you know if I'm the PGA I'd like to have it more broad and less restricted well that's true but I'm saying in the parking uh we don't uh we could have compelling reasons of safety security aesthetics and fiscal rationality for example

Do you want to be limited?

Do you want to be limited to the ones that you list? Yeah, I'm not interested in being limited if I don't have to be.

Okay, I guess that's good. I mean, the reasons for putting it in there is it gives people some ideas about how they could think as opposed to just having a big black hole that they are afraid to dip their nose into. But I think I'm happy with the way it is. I just expected to see something there, that's all.

Okay, I'm good.

I'm good.

Yeah, I was just gonna add, I think this is a question for the CRC and the town council. I mean, they, you know, it's in part up to them how we decide things. So if they would like to give us more discretion, then great. If they feel like we should have less discretion, then maybe that's up to the CRC.

I think the CRC may want to be a little broader and not have to spell everything out. Speaking for one CRC.

Okay.

I agree.

All right. I think we should take our break. So if everybody's okay with that, the time now is 8.14. Pam, we usually take a five-minute break, so see if everybody can be back at 8.20. If you can turn off your cameras now and turn your cameras on when you're back. Thank you all. All right, I'm seeing time is 821. So numbers as you return, please turn on your camera so we know you're back. And I see since Pam and Mandy Jo and Andy are back, I just wanted to say thank you for meeting us at our regular scheduled time. I know many of your meetings happen during the day, and that's been difficult for those of us that have been working. So we appreciate you doing that. Thank you for saying that. I can't imagine how many meetings you all have. or as town councilors if I'm sure we only see the tip of the iceberg. Would you like a count? I can give you a spreadsheet. It's probably better that I not know. I keep a spreadsheet.

It really depends on how many committees you serve on.

This is our favorite one.

It is nice that staff only has to come to one hearing for, you know, and that we can hear what you're saying and all that. So it's good.

Okay, let's start with dimension. Do we have everybody, everyone back? Well, let's see. I'm still not seeing Johanna and I'm not seeing Fred.

Oh, that's funny. I'm here.

Okay. Okay, good. Thank you for letting us know. No, I think maybe your camera must be. Oh, there you go. Okay. So we've got everybody but Fred.

Great. So we're moving on to section 1809, the dimensional standards. I think this is more in your bailiwick. You may feel comfortable here. And it talks about two sections. One is SPI, solar voltaic installations. And another section is BESS, standalone and co-located BESS. So let's talk about SPI first. Any comments?

So it felt like the distances that are listed there under the first three subsections, front yard, side yard, rear yard, those were pretty consistent with the model guideline. And is that how those came into being? They seemed like they would probably be inconsistent with our setbacks for some other use in a zone. I'm not sure whether Pam or Mandy Jo, you know where that came from.

We have, I'll speak to the I'll speak to the distance from, and I'm looking to see if this is actually it, from the private wells and water sources. The setbacks that we include here are based specifically on the recommendation of the Drinking Water Protection Committee and the DPW Commission. staff who monitor and maintain obviously drinking water within town um those are those are pretty firm numbers um front and side and rear yard setbacks um i'm trying to remember if those are within the ro those are typical setbacks within the ro or rld districts I frankly don't remember. Someone else may remember.

Mandy Jo's got her hand raised.

Yeah, I just looked it up. So RLD setback for front is 30 feet and rear and side are 20 feet in the RLD and the RO. front, rear, and side are 25 feet. These numbers, it's certainly possible to potentially combine these into one setback, right? They're very similar if we're looking to consolidate some things. I'm not sure you need to have three different ones, potentially. But if my memory serves me correctly, the original proposal before we tried to match with the guidelines actually had larger setbacks, minimum setbacks. And there was concern particularly from me in those discussions that that would not encourage solar, that I think at one point they were a hundred feet from a property line. And so when we saw the guidelines from the state, we brought them closer basically into line, if my memory is correct, with the state guidelines that would be issued if the permit is issued from the state. But if we're looking for consolidation of potential less wording, this is certainly an area where we might be able to just do one front, side, rear. You know, they're basically 20 front and side are basically the same Lisa Smith- Completely and rears five feet more, we could probably pick one number and just have all setbacks the same.

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Alright, so on the one hand, so couple of issues, one is. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, It feels. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, discouraging let's say for this use to have greater setbacks than would be required for other uses of the land. in those areas. Secondly, this is a setback to the fence line. And then is there a service clearance between the fence and the actual array? Please ask that question again. Okay. So I have, let's say it's 50 feet from property line to fence. And then inside the fence, there's probably a circumferential clear zone for service vehicles to get to the right way, the right place of the array. So you could end up with, you know, another 30 feet between the fence and the actual array. So you've, you're really given away a lot of real estate, I guess is what I'm saying.

So the question would be why, why are you setting your fence so far back if you're allowed to do it 20 feet from the fence, the fence is the measurement, not the actual posts in the ground.

So if I may, Doug, the bylaw, to my knowledge, the bylaw does not require a minimum clearance between the fence and the actual panels. There might be an industry standard that is how they're built, but the bylaw does not have any minimum requirements about that per se. I can imagine, depending on how they're built, they're you know manufactured or installed one one set of arrays goes quite near a fence or two of the three sides of a fence or three of the sides of the offense and one side has a driving aisle but the bylaw itself does not have any clearances required between fence and panel installation

Yeah, I think I'm just saying that in a practical sense as how you would need to operate an array, you'd need access around it. And so... in the end, you're going to have a greater distance to the array itself, which kind of begs my question about whether is the fence the thing that you want to set back, or is it the array, actually, that you want farther away from properties? And maybe nobody can answer that.

I believe it's the fence.

OK.

There is part of the description here, though, is as we go down to the 0103. But let's talk about within these front yard, side yards. It does say... However, where the lot is within or abutting a residential district, the side yard setback shall not be less than 50 feet. So I want everybody to be aware of that. I would guess that 99% of anything built in this town is going to be in a residential district, RO or RLD. Maybe, you know, ED would be different than that. But I just want to point that out.

Yeah. I guess I'll say I would support reducing that. I see several hands. We have Bruce and then Angus and then Andy and then Fred.

Bruce, why don't you go ahead? I too would think that we should have setbacks here that are similar to what we would have for buildings. I think we read this in conjunction with a line somewhere else that suggests that without granting authority approval, they can't be higher than 10 feet above the ground. I think, at their lowest point. In other words, small one-story buildings or one-story buildings. So I don't see why we would need to have setbacks greater than we have for buildings, especially if we're A, only going to the fence, and B, if the array itself is never going to be higher than 10 feet and probably is going to be lower than that because the 10 feet is probably to do with the agrivoltaics and so forth. So I agree. I think these setbacks are larger than they should be and they're giving away land because you take an acre of land and you take a 50-foot border around it. I mean, I guess I could do the math, but not in my head. You've lost a lot of land. So I think these setbacks are too great. And I also don't think there's any reason why we wouldn't just have a similar setback because there's hardly relevance for front yards and side yards and rear yards when all you're talking about is PVs. The front yard I've seen is simply that it's... on the street, maybe. But I don't see there's any reason why we should complicate this by having three different setbacks. And I don't see why they should be any greater than is already in the zone for a side or rear yard setback. And I have a second question that relates to the private well, but I'll come back to that. I'll come back to that.

Angus.

Yeah, I'll second a lot of that. And I'll just add, I too think that it should be thinking of the actual Voltaic installation as a building itself, not the fence line. I think it should be, as someone who lives in the R, I think it should be smaller. And I would... also add that we we have requirements around screening and glare um in the in this bylaw as well that are all meant to um mitigate the effects of of a solar installation um for neighbors and abutters so um for all those reasons i think it should be smaller i also have a question of the private well but i'll wait all right uh andy churchill just from my um

David Ensign, Information what would be a typical setback for building as opposed to. David Ensign, Well, what would be a typical setback and what you're talking about a setback for an array versus the fence surrounding it. David Ensign, Is that how you would treat a building with a fence around it.

Hal Hallstein, Well, we, I think in our by law fencing is typically. I think fencing has to be a minimum of six feet back from the property line. There may be a provision, I can't remember about, it can be closer, but it needs to be approved or agreed upon by the abutter. All right. Fred.

Yeah, I also agree that the distance can be reduced. For some reason, I don't have my video, but when I click on it, it says the host has disabled it. So the host, all right, now it is, all right, now it's,

There you are. We see you now, Fred.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. And fencing can be generally, it can be right on the property line. So.

Okay. Mandy has her hand up too.

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Pam. Go ahead, Mandy.

Thank you i'm zoning bylaw and section 6.255 says fences located within the side or rear yards and exceeding six feet in height shall be set back a distance equal to their height. So. The fence setback tends to be about the height of the fence, apparently, but maybe no less than six feet. And to answer Andy's questions, the dimensional table, table three of the bylaw, has... Building setbacks that in the RO and RLD, which is the most logical places these setbacks would, these installations would be, anywhere from 20 to 30 feet. The flood prone conservancy, FPC, reaches as high as 40 feet. um but um rld is a 30 foot front and a 20 foot rear inside and ro is 25 feet around the property so i'm proposing in here potential possible rewrites of this all right

Thank you, Amanda.

I'm going to concur with that, that it makes sense to me that if we have a setback of X in the RO, that that would also apply to this situation rather than a 20-foot or fairly arbitrary other number matching equal to the district in which it is located. And I think... Although I'd love a huge setback having not less than 50 feet within a residential district that it doesn't make sense to have a differential because most of them will be in a residential district.

So would you be okay with using something like 25 or 30 feet consistently, regardless of front side or rear and regardless of adjacency to residential property? Yes. I mean, that seems reasonable to me. I have three hands now, Bruce and then Johanna and then Angus.

I just did the math on it's an acre is 210 feet by 210 feet. And if we took 50 feet all around, you would almost reduce the developable area of an acre of land if you had a 50 foot setback by half. So that's clearly huge. So I'm even more than in agreement with the notion that we should ditch the 50 foot. I think a 20 foot or the setback on all sides seems reasonable to me.

All right, there's a vote for 20 feet. Angus.

I was going to move on to the private well, but so if Pam wanted to address what Bruce was just saying.

Yeah, I need to stay focused on this just for a second. So I think protecting your own interests where there is loophole opportunity, it feels that the bylaw should be more specific. And if we want... If you think of a construction site, in particular of a solar development, there is oftentimes vegetation, a fence, and then cleared ground with ground-mounted panels. The item that's being constructed, the whole thing is a site. The site is bounded typically by the fence. It feels to me if we were to regulate anything, it is distance from property line to the fence line. That's where in essence the activity begins. If we just said 20 feet to the installation, There will be much confusion if you mean the panels themselves, if you mean the fence themselves, or if you mean a cleared area around a fence. So I think we should be as specific as we can. I would vote for a measurement to the fence.

Uh-huh. Well, how do people feel about a distance of 20 feet to the fence, just to throw a number out there? It's greater than the equal to their height. Angus?

Yeah, I was just going to say, I continue to think that we should be measuring to the actual structure itself, as we do with all other structures that are put in place. We don't measure the setbacks to the fence line of any other kind of project as far as I'm aware. And I would advocate against doing that here.

Okay, Andy.

I just, I thought we had language or the possibility of just saying that that should be consistent with the language of the district that it's in for buildings. I don't know what PB Harmon Zuckerman, I don't know how the fences factor into that versus the PB Harmon Zuckerman, Versus the PB Harmon Zuckerman, You know, structures, but PB Harmon Zuckerman, It seems like we have fences and other PB Harmon Zuckerman, Types of activity so David Ensign, Well Mandy maybe on the for the language.

You've got proposed at the moment. I'm somehow to say the distance from the property line to the structured array should be in compliance.

Doug, if I may, I would say just that the array, because that's the... To the array, okay. Because I think that's the entity. That's what's basically there. And the edge of the panel is going to be the edge of the array. The only difference is that we're basically doing setbacks to roofs and not walls. But, you know, there's no walls. We've only got roofs. So it's setbacks to roofs. But I think we just should think of it, I agree with Angus, we should think of it as a setback to the structure, because that's what setbacks typically mean.

Okay. Andy.

I'm good.

Okay, Fred.

I'd also agree with that. And for some reason, Now the only thing on my screen is me, and I'm not seeing anybody else. So I'm not sure what's going on.

Is that true even when I'm talking, Fred?

Yes. I can hear you, but I can't see you. Up until recently, I had normal, you know, I could.

Well. I mean, up in the upper right-hand corner, there should be a little button that says view.

Not on my screen.

Okay. Well, then I'm not sure I can help you.

Doug, maybe he should just leave the meeting and sign in again. Yeah.

You might try that, Fred.

Okay, well, Fred is working on that. Oh, Johanna, do you want to address this specifically? Or can I go to...

I guess I just, maybe Mandy Jo already did this, but can we just confirm that the definition for SPI is clear that it refers to the array itself and not some... Arrangement of panels. Great. Yep. Okay. So I'm comfortable with that as drafted. Right.

I'm not sure what happened, but now I'm back to normal. Thank you.

Thank you, Fred.

And we're on 1809-0103. A couple people had comments about setbacks from private wells.

Yeah, Pam, you had said earlier these came from the folks in town who are familiar with protection of groundwater. And that certainly seems reassuring to know. I think my concerns were predominantly about how an applicant would know where all the wells were, whether they're private or whether they're some of the other devices. I forget the terminology, but is the location of every well in town known and mapped by our town GIS system?

I'm looking to Stephanie for that answer. The plot plans that I have seen always identify by measurement the location of a well and a location of a septic field for those properties that have wells.

So I was just worried about how an applicant would find out where the wells were on land they don't control and may not have access to. Stephanie, is that a question you could address?

I don't know for certain, although Again, I'm trying to think of when we have projects, but when we had projects with wetlands, but typically that was identified as part of the plan on the property that was being addressed. So on adjacent properties, I believe that our GIS might have some information, at least on public wells, but on private wells, that's the part I'm not clear about. Public wells, we have the information. We definitely have things mapped out, but I don't know about private wells.

Okay. Well, it just seemed like there's a logistical challenge there. And then once an SPI has been built, would new private wells be required to be more than 250 feet from that array?

No, that would be up to the owner's discretion if they want to be within 250 feet of an array.

So they would be at risk of allowing their groundwater and every person's groundwater that's connected to it to be contaminated. Okay. Bruce, and then Angus, and then Johanna.

I guess I didn't see what the source of contamination is here. But I'm also Doug, maybe you can help me or someone. My recollection is that wells have to be 150 feet away from a septic system. In other words, when you're trying to get your plot plan approved and so forth, and you want to have a septic system and you want to have your well, there has to be 150 feet between them. And if that number I'm recollecting correctly, I don't see why a PV system, a PV array, is a greater potential contaminant of drinking water than a septic system. And so I don't see why it's so much further away. I just don't understand this. I mean, I'm interested and perhaps, Chase, satisfied that the drinking water folks have come up with this number and everything, but I still don't understand why a PV array is a greater risk to contamination of well water than a septic system is.

All right. I don't know, Pam or Mandy or Stephanie, if there's any answer for that or whether we should just note the comment and the question and move on.

Yeah, I think we should note the question. I am not an expert on groundwater and groundwater movement or contamination. These are recommendations from the folks that are tasked with this responsibility in town, including the DPW, who obviously monitors adverse effects on surface water and wells. I think Mr. Colum could read the literature and understand a little bit more potential contamination might occur.

Well, I do remember there's another section that prohibits any PFAS containing products to be part of these systems. So it may be that that's the contamination concern. But it seems like if we've prohibited that material and successfully avoided it, then maybe the contamination risk is lower.

Doug, we've been collecting drinking water off these things for living buildings. It really doesn't seem to me that there's a risk. I just don't understand it.

Okay. Angus.

Yeah, I guess I have kind of two questions. I, I, I'm also skeptical of this provision. Um, one question is, do we have, apart from the, um, septic regulation that Bruce mentioned, um, are there any other regulations around private wells in the current zoning bylaw around any uses? Um, I saw a few, I think about public water supply, um, Well, but again, I guess I want to get a sense of is this something that is continuing other things we have in the bylaw or is this a new requirement? And then I guess the other thing that I'm trying to understand, if someone put a bunch of solar panels on a building right next to their public well, right next to their private well, excuse me, there would be no distancing requirements. But if they put it on the ground, there would be distancing requirements.

Pam, should we just note the question?

I'd like to note the question, try to get an answer. I see Walker Powell's hand up, though. Okay, Walker.

Hi, I just wanted to say that the state does actually keep a map showing the locations of all wells. Well drillers are required to be certified by the state. One of the requirements is that they mark the location of any well they drill. So unless it's a really historic well, it's going to be on that map.

Great. That's good to hear. Mandy.

Yeah, I think I just want to, and since we're solely talking about solar voltaics, PVs, and not batteries and BESSs, I think I agree with a lot of what the planning board has said regarding distancing from particularly private wells. But I also wonder about public water supply wells. And is there a way we could make all of these the same and more in compliance with other distancing regulations from various wells?

What do you mean by more in compliance with various wells?

So if septic is a 150 foot distance requirement, that would be something I'd be considering for PV. I also wonder whether PV needs it at all versus or needs a much more minimum. I can understand no disturbance because the panel itself might not need it. But during construction, you might want not to disturb certain areas near the wells as you're setting the footings. So I do understand some distancing requirements, but if septic is 150, I do struggle with why do we have a 400 and a 200 and a 250 when maybe 150 makes more sense, or maybe even something smaller than 150 makes more sense for PV. I'm not talking about BESS.

Would it make sense to go back to DPW and maybe the town engineer to understand the requirements around septic and what the actual risks of contamination are? Or the people that were on the working group who probably originated this?

I think that would be a very good idea to get some expert. We're just talking here because we are not the experts.

We're all speculating.

Yes. So I do want to talk about the minimum that Mandy mentioned, the minimum of no disturbance area. If you think of the intact soils and composition of, let's say, of a field or a forest that The minute you start disturbing that context, you change a lot in terms of the erosion, the erodibility, and anything that may be locked up in that soil is suddenly then freed up to migrate. So this is distance from a well maintaining a ground structure. And I think that's part of the package. It's not like it's an acre of scraped earth or 250 feet of scraped earth between the well and the photovoltaic system. It's intact soils. And I think that's one of the key elements that the Drinking Water Protection Group really emphasized when their numbers came back to us to incorporate.

All right. Well, it certainly seems more critical for the public water supply than for a private well, just because of the proximity of so many private wells to new buildings, you know, at houses. Okay, so Johanna and then Fred and then Angus.

I guess I'll just share. It's my understanding that any of the like heavy metals like cadmium, they are like locked into the matrix of the solar panel. And there are numerous studies that have shown that those like the materials that are in the matrix of the solar panel don't leach. And I was just poking around on the DOER website and that was essentially their analysis too. And then it seems like the biggest risks to water arise from runoff during construction, the potential for like spills or equipment leaks, not from the panels themselves, but from like some of the transformers and inverters. And then the best systems that might be on the site as well. And then I need to find the direct link for this, but... There is some suggestion that the state rules require a 200-foot buffer, like a no-disturbance buffer from the drinking water well. I can't tell if that's private wells or public wells, but I think it is the public wells. So I guess I say all that, that it does seem like we need a little bit more digging into this and an understanding of why town staff is recommending what they're recommending and make sure that, you know, they're leaning on all the relevant state research that's been done as well.

All right. Thank you, Johanna.

Fred. Yeah, I think we're talking about public water supply. and that I can certainly understand, but, uh, private supplies, I no longer own land on, uh, uh, Lake Viola, but I used to, and, uh, there was, uh, a, uh, private well on that property for obvious reasons. And it had to be a certain distance from a septic field. And again, that's for obvious reasons. Uh, the, uh, a septic field obviously has the capacity to potentially compromise a drinking water well. And so there is a distance requirement that is well understood and well engineered. And I will also say for a battery system, especially the type that we're talking about here, which are Fred Pozzatti, Systems that are directly connected to utilities those systems. Fred Pozzatti, Do present a contamination issue and I would have no problem supporting a significant setback for the battery system, but the actual arrays no I don't I don't get it frankly.

Mark Warren, Thank you, Fred Angus.

Yeah, I would just add, I think the comparisons to septic systems are interesting, but also to Fred's point, we know that septic systems cause immense health risks to being near drinking water supplies. And we don't necessarily have evidence of that with photovoltaic. So I just want to echo that. And again, I think my concern is, as far as I know, the town has no limits on geothermal projects. That's not part of this clean energy bylaw. And I'm trying to think through what we're placing requirements on some forms. some uses and not for others. If I put these photovoltaic panels on a building, there might not be the same kinds of requirements, even though there's going to be the same degree of runoff. So I guess I'm wanting us to make sure that we're not putting added layers on for this that we wouldn't have for an equivalent project.

All right, Stephanie.

Thank you Doug um so again, I just want to reiterate that this recommendation really came from the water protection water supply protection committee, and I think at the time there was no specification to. ban solar panels that would have PFAS elements to it. So I think they were thinking about PFAS specifically when they actually recommended that. So I would say that this is something that can come back to, because it was really DPW that kind of reinforced that recommendation and suggested that recommendation and the rest of staff agreed because they advocated for it. But I don't think beyond DPW that other staff felt strongly about this particular setback. So I would say this could come back to staff and DPW acknowledging that there is kind of now a prohibition on panels with PFAS contaminants.

So we'll do a little follow-up then. Excuse me. But we've moved into the 1809-02 when Fred brought up the BESS itself. So standalone and co-located BESS installations, we have a similar layout of material, similar discussion about setbacks. And I would suggest, so there are some restrictions, Zone 1 and Zone 2 areas, which are outlined in state regs and town regs. I would suggest that we perhaps leave this section standing and come back to it at the same time we do with the 0.01 discussion.

Bruce.

I agree. I have very little concern about this because whereas you might have an array that is two or three acres, the actual BESS component, if it's co-located or whatever, is going to be microscopic by comparison. So the setback consequence for a BESS, I think, is vanishingly small relative to its consequence for the array that we've been discussing. So, Pam, I agree with you.

All right, Angus.

I think if I heard that correctly, I might disagree. I guess I would recommend consistency across the setbacks. And if we're talking about a building housing the best, I think we should be measuring the setback to that. And if that means increasing the setback, that seems fine to me. I would agree that these battery installations are of a different nature.

Mandy Jo has her hand up. Sorry, go ahead, Mandy Jo.

Thank you. I best is where I'm more concerned than SPI. So I, I have less concern with the numbers here, but as Bruce was talking, I wondered how the minimum, no disturbance area for best relates to a minimum, no disturbance area for SPI when SPI is much lower and you want to put best on co-locate best on the site. And it's not a question for the planning board. It's more for our staff of could, Would that then mean the SPI is also no disturbance up to this number? I'm not wording this right, but if you have to have 600 feet for BESS of no disturbance, can you put SPI in the middle of that disturbance or can you not? And so does the best need potentially Does the wording of these need potentially modified for co-located BESS with SPI so that you can put, if the SPI is a 250 foot between 250 and 600, you can actually have an SPI installation, but you can't have the BESS there.

Bethany.

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. And I think you would want to be clear about that because no disturb is just that. It's no disturb. But I think, as you said, the idea for BESS is just ensuring that it's set back far enough. So if you are saying that SPI can be closer, then you would definitely want to amend the language to allow for that.

Yeah, it seems like you want a separation distance between the water supply and the BESS that may not necessitate no disturbance. All right, Andy.

Yeah, I think I was about to make the same point that maybe you just need a distance for the BESS to protect any potential contamination, but you don't need the no disturbance requirement.

All right. Pam, I think we could probably move on. We probably can, and we know we're going to come back to that.

Good. Let me scroll down. We are up to 1810 design requirements. Again, this is strongly in the bailiwick of planning board um we talk about access roads clearances can we just scroll down quickly through these glare land clearing and soil erosion that's an extensive section um are there any let's see lighting and materials so let's sort of stop these couple noise we could read them all but um Are there comments on any of these in particular, starting at the top with, there are only 10 of them, with access roads and clearances?

Yeah, well, I know I had asked about compaction because compaction is something you need for an access road. I questioned stone walls and trees and impacts to natural or cultural resources just because those were seemed like over and above what we would require for other types of uses on land.

So if I could respond to that. What is being asked is a, I'll use Bruce's word, a minimization. It's saying if you're planning the layout of a particular array and all of the components, How do you do it in a way to minimize additional soil compaction other than what's going to happen as you're installing the bases? The access road itself is, don't compact the site to death. Create the access roads that work, that are accessible by the fire department. The intent is to minimize... The disturbance of soil. The more you disturb the soil, the higher the erosion that can typically occur. And it causes you more work as you try to repair and stabilize soil. So the less you mess it up, the less work you have to do. Okay. All right. I don't think it's any different than any other smart project.

Okay. Okay. All right.

Well- Clearances had to do with the height of these panels and at what height do you start increasing the erosion caused by runoff during rainstorms? Andy.

And just on the previous one, I was curious about impacts to cultural resources. What does that refer to?

I'm trying to remember. Stone walls, that's already in there. Stone walls is already in there. I don't remember.

Walker.

Yeah, cultural resources is usually like maybe an archaeological site or a significant historical site, an old cemetery, that kind of thing. It's usually in reference to historical stuff.

Any comments on, thank you, any comments on clearances?

Let's see, at one point I'd had a comment about the word module. Oh yeah, it's in the second paragraph. Is a module an assembly of panels that are all supported from the same small section of structure?

Um, we don't define it in the bylaw and you can see, I just made some changes for things we used to define that we don't anymore. Um, but I, I think that's the intent. If you read the paragraph that individual panels are arranged to allow between modules, you know, um, so I think that's the intent that each line is far enough apart to allow growth between and stuff. Yeah. My guess is anyone installing these will understand that.

So if I have, if my photo photovoltaic array is made up of 10 10 panels side by side in each module. Then you're asking me to separate the modules. But the panels with those 10 panels can be immediately adjacent to each other. Yes. Okay. All right.

The module would be the next lineup of 10 panels.

Right.

Okay. Glare. Yep. Land clearing and erosion. So this goes a little bit to some of the compaction we just talked about.

I know that I'd had a question about the phasing in paragraph two. And You know, I guess, although some of these projects, maybe the tier one projects will be just a couple of acres. I don't remember how many acres that project up on Shrewsbury Road is supposed to be. But if you have a 50 acre site and you need to phase five acres at a time, now you need 10 different phases to make it happen. What does that mean in terms of actual schedule? Does that mean you have to actually finish the first five acres and have it connected to the utility before you can start the next five acres? I'm just not clear about that.

First of all, we're talking about land clearing, so we're not talking about the panels, the construction necessarily. But it is limiting the disturbance to an area of five acres after which You've gone in, you've installed your footings, you've installed your, you've done your work, you're in there working, but then you stabilize the soil with hydro seeding or something of that nature. So you don't have a major erosion problem. So you're dealing with erosion, you're containing erosion. So that's really what this paragraph is trying to address is reduction of erosion.

All right.

And I think I think Stephanie may have a response because she reminded us that there she is.

Go ahead, Steph.

Thanks, Pam. Yeah, this actually was a suggestion from the, excuse me, the conservation agent, Aaron Jock, for the reason that what happens is when you don't have a phased project, then clearing can be far more disruptive and the erosion that can result is far more damaging. So this was a way to phase the construction in sort of portions at a time so that you can fully stabilize it before you go on to the next for all of the reasons that I thought Pam did a great job of summarizing.

So does that mean you would have to have your your grass established to go to the next phase.

I believe it would have to be probably hydro seeded and contained before you would move on. I don't know that it has to be fully vegetated. That seems to be, especially if you were dealing with small sort of portions at a time of a very, very large development. Yeah. I think, you know, I think the idea was to just at least have it sort of hydro seeded and contained before you moved on. And I could double check with Erin to ensure that that's the case.

It just feels like when somebody gets right down to actually trying to do something, that this could be more problematic than is obvious at the moment. Bruce and then Angus and then Fred.

Well, first of all, this whole bylaw only operates up to a certain size installation, right? So is that larger than five acres?

Yes. It was like 25 megawatts, right?

Let's do some numbers here.

Yeah. 25,000 kilowatts, tier three.

Okay.

And does anybody know how many kilowatts fit on an acre?

Yeah, I can figure that out. It might take me a moment.

Okay.

But keep going. Don't wait for me.

All right. All right, Angus, we'll go to you and Bruce can come back too.

Yeah, I just have a question about the top soil paragraph and the all existing soils and the exceptions that the applicant wouldn't have to follow things if it got a waiver from the PGA. Could that be the planning? In some circumstances, that would be the planning board would be determining to grant a waiver related to topsoil importation and the preservation of existing soils.

Angus, are you worried that's not in our wheelhouse of expertise?

That's been a concern of mine with several of these things, but I'm just wanting to make sure that I'm understanding that correctly and then I can voice my concerns about it.

Yes, if if the applicant wanted to remove existing soils from the site. They would need approval by the PGA which, in many cases, would be the planning board to remove from the soils on to remove the soils from the site.

Okay. I guess it could be us, Angus. Fred, let's go to you. Bruce is calculating.

Yeah. My comments pertain to modules versus arrays. I think what you want to regulate are arrays. Arrays are comprised of modules. These are well-defined terms in the National Electrical Code and also in the National Electrical Safety Code. So I think array is what you want. That's what you see when a layperson looks at structure. They're looking at an array.

So, Fred, does the word module have a meaning in the electric code?

Yeah, it is a component of an array.

Yeah, well, I think we want to, this is trying to have spacing between the components so that you don't get a sort of accumulation of a huge amount of surface runoff without any gap between the panel.

And what is going to comprise that functional unit is the array. I'm sorry. I just blanked on this. The panel. Yeah. Yeah, the panel is, in this case, comprised of modules. That panel is a functional entity. That's what you see when you... The fact that it is comprised of modules, that's of interest to the electrician, but not much else.

Okay. Mandy Jo?

Yeah, I think... The SPI, as we refer to it in this bylaw, is the same as an array. Actually, it's probably broader than the array term. At one point in a draft, we did define array separately from SPI, and we've tried to simplify down to SPI only. SPI is the broad, what someone looks at when they see a big installation, they're seeing, that's what the SPI and our definition of the bylaw encompasses. This intent is the modules make up sort of in a typical SPI that you see the various lines. There's many lines of panels. Those are the modules and the panels are separate individuals within those big lines, sort of.

Or rows.

Rows, lines, yeah, the rows.

Would row be a more meaningful word? Yeah.

We could change module to row.

Yeah. It sounds like Fred's understanding is that maybe a module is however many panels are all attached on the same circuit. And so that doesn't have a sort of obvious physical implication that a row would. So that might be worth thinking about.

And then we could say at the last sentence could be rows, rows of panels.

Yeah. And between rows. Yeah.

Okay. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Pam. No, I was going to, sorry. I was going to move on, but I forgot that two people had their hand up. Oh, there's three.

Bruce and then Johanna and then Andy. Andy.

Well, it's around 30 acres, maybe a little more, maybe a little less, depending on the efficiency of the panel. So all of these five-acre disturbance areas are obviously relevant.

Okay. Excuse me, 30 acres per how many kilowatts? 25 kilowatts.

The, the, the, the, the limit of the, the, the, the notional limit on how big an array gets before it passes into the state's hands and not ours. It passes out of our hands for argument's sake is around 30 acres.

Thank you. Thanks Bruce. Andy.

I'm just not sure if it, a row is usually something horizontal. And I thought the lines are usually between vertical things like columns. So I'm not, is that, is it, are we anticipating that it would be space between, I think this is probably a semantic thing that we can deal with later, but it just, a row to me seems, might not be the gap that we're talking about.

I was going to suggest the same thing because sometimes you might have like three panels arrayed one on top of the other at an angle set next to one another in a module. And I'm worried that if we say rows of panels that each one of those could be perceived as a row. So my suggestion would be to keep modules and then we could maybe add a definition for what a module is so that we're clear. And I would suggest that basically we would say a module is a collection of interconnected panels enclosed in a single framework because that's how the rows function. Or yeah, that's. And then what if the solar installation didn't want to do it in rows? What if they wanted to do like a, you know, I don't know, crop circle or something?

Well, I mean, one way to deal with this would be just to say the array shall be configured to permit you know, adequate and adequate pass, adequate runoff between panels to minimize concentrated runoff, you know, and we believe adequate ambiguous so that the permit granting authority can think about that and the applicant can be able to answer why they arranged the way they did. I don't know. So that's another option, Pam.

Could we simplify it even further and just say panels shall be arranged in a manner to minimize concentration of runoff.

Yeah.

And therefore allow the growth of vegetation.

Johanna, you get, okay. Okay. Great. Okay, Blair. So Pam, I will note that it's almost 9.30. Okay. We've been at this for three hours. It feels like we're, are we halfway through? Yeah. And we have another joint meeting scheduled for June 3rd, at which I gather we're expected to just continue. Okay. That would be good. So we can keep going tonight. I don't have any, I don't need us to stop at this moment, but I just wanted to kind of point out that we're well into the evening.

I think it would be appropriate to stop while everybody is, you know, not, we're maybe a little less than half, but it's not, you know, just not, it seems like easier topics.

Well, and we got through the general conversation. Yeah. You know, that took 45 minutes at the beginning before we went anywhere. Yeah. Bruce, I see your hand.

Yes, two things. First of all, on my reading through this, it got easier, or at least it got more technical and banal as we got down when we get into safety and things like that, which Pam has been right. We're in an area where our board's focus is understandably kind of This is where our head is. When you get later on into the safety and so forth with the fire departments and stuff, it seems. So I would argue for pressing on just a little bit, maybe. But that's also because I'm kind of imagining that we're going to revisit the first, which we often do when we go through these things. So if we were sure that we weren't going to start from scratch and spend the first hour and a half or so reviewing what we've already looked at a second time, then I would say we could probably finish the document at the second hearing. But the safety factor would be that we keep going for another half hour.

Sure. Pam, are you all right?

I'm fine with that. I'm fine with that. Yes. We usually have two hour meetings. So four hour meeting, you know, no problem. No problem. We're adding your meeting to our meeting. Therefore, it's longer. Three and a half. So let's so let's work through there.

I didn't I didn't realize that I was what I was doing.

So I was tongue in cheek.

Mandy. I was just going to say I'm fine with continuing on as I'm likely not to be at the June 3rd meeting.

Uh-oh. We're going to need a different scribe. That's not good. Okay, let's push on a little farther. Thank you, everybody. Land clearing and soil erosion. Let's go move on to lighting. And again, I would note if people have specific comments as you think about this and you have a preferred rewording of some section or a sentence, then that should be sent to me and I guess to Doug also. We're going to try to keep one version going so that we don't have a planning board version and a CRC version throughout.

All right, Angus, and then Bruce, we're talking about the lighting.

Yeah, I'm sorry to be difficult, and this is maybe the last time I'll share this, but specifying the maximum color temperature, I'm not aware of anywhere else in the bylaw where we do that. I'm sure the building commissioner has specifications around some of this. But I guess I just want to flag that it seems like a lot of things are being put in this bylaw that are not things that we specify anywhere else in the zoning bylaw, but might be specified under administrative documents that the town staff uses, which might be fine. But I just want to flag that that could be happening.

I'm going to call on Mandy.

Okay. I will say this is my attempt to begin specifying maximum color temperatures within bylaws. The town council had a proposal in front of it regarding maximum color temperatures and a lot of other lighting for street lighting a while ago and just received a report and proposal from a group of students at UMass that was requested by the town manager who the council had asked for that does actually recommend a maximum color temperature of 2700 Kelvin for all lighting in town unless some specific because of the dangers and health effects of color temperatures above 2700 Kelvin. As far as I know the town itself does not have any specific color temperature maximum in any regulations or side things right now. But the, the research is out there that above 2,700 damages and is not safe, is not as safe and healthy for wildlife and people. So this is something that I would argue. I know it's a little outside of what is typically in, and it might be able to be deleted at some point if, if, I get my way and we rewrite a zoning bylaw to include some lighting requirements for all projects, but we're not ready to propose a lighting section of the zoning bylaw yet. So this is my personal way of trying to start to have our town be a little bit healthier on its lighting policy. Thank you.

We already have the requirement for dark sky compliance. And so that is where we could certainly add a line about the color temperature in the future um but if you want I mean I'm I think this is fine for now and it sounds like eventually we'll have a more general requirement we can come back and adjust this one later I'm going to ask the question that I asked earlier in my original comments. I just find it a little confusing. On the one hand, lighting is to be extinguished from dusk to dawn, except in case of emergency. The only time these lights would go on are when the first responders show up and hit the switch?

For somebody, yeah. I would say that's the goal. Yes.

Okay. All right. All right, that's fine.

So the color temperature then becomes less important.

Yeah, I just wanted to be sure that was the intent, that basically this will never be on.

And when it does come on, it will be a warm color and not injurious to our health.

Okay. Andy. Andy.

um well i guess yeah it's what's required for safety operating operational purposes once it's set up there's not necessarily anybody i i guess i'm just thinking like winter hours when it gets dark around four would there be a need for maintenance to be done That's not an emergency, but it's still operational purpose. To say it's required for safety and operational purposes and kept extinguishes from dusk to dawn seems contradictory.

If we just simply said lighting shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes, um, What's Mandy writing? That's operational. That to me falls under operational.

Yeah, I think you could shorten the sentence as you were proposing, Pam.

Well, so my worry is safety could mean they're on all night because a operator could say, well, we need it lit all night. Um, especially if you're thinking about best, um, we need it lit. We need, it's not safe to not have it lit all night and I don't want it lit all night. I don't think it's necessary to light all night. Um, but I get Andy's purpose, which is why I was trying to figure out when someone is actively working on site. Like when I'm not sure what to put, cause it might not always be employees. It might be contractors, right?

Um, maintenance personnel or something.

What if we said lighting shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes? I'm trying to figure out how to get rid of half that sentence. Maybe I'll think about it later.

What if we started with the premise of lighting shall be kept extinguished from dusk to dawn?

Yes, that's right.

That's where I was headed. Emergency or when required for safety purposes. Yes. So like the default is you don't have it on. Mandy Jo, does that create too much of a loophole for your? Because I'm with you. Like you should basically not be lit.

Not be lit. Right. And you said just the except in case of emergency or when maintenance personnel are on site or what was your other exception? I missed it.

I guess I was going to keep the safe, you know, except in the case of safety and operational purposes.

I think the safety is the problem because people claim we just accept except in case of emergency or for operational purposes. Yeah, that seems right. And just take safety out of it.

Can we say maintenance instead of operational? I just worry if the thing's always, quote, operating, if you've got a BESS.

Fine. Maintenance proposals. I can claim it either way.

Ready to move on? Well, I don't know. Angus, did you want to talk about lighting one more time?

Very, very briefly, I just wanted to say, I guess my, and I think you can probably get a sense of my position on a lot of this bylaw. If we wouldn't require this kind of lighting for most, for any other use in the town, I don't know why we would require it. Or I guess I'd want to know why we were specifically requiring it for this kind of use.

Well, are we in the best section? No.

This applies to both SPI and BEFs. Okay. And I can answer, Angus, for my purposes. This is if we're going to regulate something brand new and we want to do better lighting in town, we should start with better lighting regulation then instead of doing it all. My opinion is we don't want lighting on overnight if it's not truly necessary. But the current bylaw doesn't limit that. So someone can have lighting on 24-7 that can be very disturbing. And so my opinion is we should start with doing better by our lighting standards in our zoning bylaw for what uses are actually required.

All right. Angus, are you going to respond?

Yeah, the only thing that I wanted to say, that makes sense to me. We keep our house very dark. I like darkness. And so, you know, on the one hand, I think that's great. On the other hand, it feels like we're doing this with a lot of things, trying to put in best practices, which are good practices. but also in aggregate will make some of these building processes harder, as we've seen with thinking about the drinking water issues and distances, thinking about, I mean, it's just a lot of additional things on only these kinds of projects when these kinds of projects are also doing some good things environmentally as well. So I just want to flag that balancing that I'm kind of struggling with.

I'm going to comment that the planning board regulates lighting all the time you put conditions in everything and this is simply saying we know you're going to have lighting this is what you're going to do when you have it and it's you know let's it's a fact live with it and this is how you it's like you know increasing runoff from your panels this is what you do with lighting bruce

More or less the same. This is not obligating people to have lighting. It just says, if you have lighting, this is what you'll do. And you're right. We do this all the time. So Angus, I don't think there's a problem here. We're not obligating them to have lighting. We're just saying, if you have it, this is how you'll, this is how you're regulated, which of course is the way we do every project that comes before us.

18.10.6. Materials. Any comments or questions on materials? No, I don't see anyone. So I actually have a comment about that. If we could scroll back to that. I just noticed that it says installed in SPIs in surface water supply protection areas. Why don't we call for PFAS free in any installation? Johanna?

I think that's fine. Most solar panels are made with PFAS anyway.

Noise. We had several comments about noise. Thus, installations must comply with state noise regulations and Amherst noise regulations. Both. Sorry.

This makes sense to me. I was only saying that noise was addressed in multiple places. I think that the last sentence is the one that's most sensible in all of my studies and so forth about sound control and stuff. The first principle is to, well, the first principle is to eliminate the noise. But if you can't, putting distance between the sensitive source and the generator is the first rule. And this is being the first rule. So this is good, in my view.

Johanna?

Sorry, I'm going back to my PFAS comment. There are, my understanding is that there are some PFAS that are used in solar panels, but they're stable. So I'm a little bit worried that by just carte blanche saying no solar panels can include PFAS that we accidentally put ourselves in a corner.

Why don't we say PFAS safe instead of PFAS free?

Right, or shall not release PFAS into the environment or something like that.

What manufacturer is going to say that theirs does? I have no idea.

So maybe we need to come back to the, like, there has, I think, even since the, like, when we started drafting this bylaw, there's been a lot of research into this field. And so I think we should add this to our, like, list of things to just, like, do, make sure we do a scientific review and, you know, get this right so we're not accidentally, you know.

Would you like to take that on?

Yeah. Not particularly, but I suppose I could do a little bit of research.

You seem very knowledgeable about it.

I come across it in my work sometimes, so that's why I know a little bit.

Johanna, I did a Google search, not a scientific review, but what I came away with was that basically no one's using PFAS anymore in panels now, but I may not have found everything. It certainly seemed like the majority of panels manufactured have no PFAS. So we're not, you know, we're not really constricting the available, the possible panels. We're not constricting it very appreciably, I guess.

Yeah, I think that's probably right. I just want to make sure we For example, there are these fluoropolymers that are kind of a class of PFAS, but they're highly stable. They're large. They apparently meet criteria for being polymers of low concern. So again, we're way in the weeds here. I can do a little more digging.

Okay. Okay.

So I'll come back to that. If we end up agreeing to, if we determine that there are in fact panels that may have some PFAS, I would rather cut it out entirely, but I would certainly want surface water supply protection areas included if there's any doubt. So we'll come back to this whole number. Okay. Noise. Did we get past noise? I think so. Screaming and planting. This was my favorite topic.

All right. So...

It does say I'll note in the second paragraph screening requirements for tier one and tier two SPI may be reduced or waived at the discretion of the PGA. So these are the low, the low volume, you know, small size developments.

Well, since you highlight that, um, you know, I could make a counter argument that the small ones are more likely to be shoehorned in among residential areas. And the larger ones may have actually less, you know, I mean, so I'm almost thinking, should you limit it to tier one and tier two, or just say screening requirements may be reduced or waived if, you know,

I don't know. I'm actually, I'm actually wondering why we have the sentence in there because any one of these elements could be waived at the discretion of the PGA. This seems to be one of the few where we actually say that.

Well, you have had some I think it was earlier in some of the dimensional requirements that the PGA could increase some of the setbacks, but not decrease. So you were prescribing the latitude of the PGA in some other areas. Yeah, waivers. Okay. All right. Well, then maybe that sentence could go away.

Good. See, we're paring it down. This also talks about the fence. And this is the small animal-friendly fence that's a minimum of eight inches off the ground as opposed to large fences that keep large animals and people out.

So this is the same fence that we had in our dimensional requirements, right? Yep.

Okay.

Angus? Yep.

Yep. I guess I'm wondering if we could remove the minimum height of three feet and trees shall have a minimum one inch caliper, or is there a justification for specifying I didn't see caliper mentioned anywhere else in the bylaw except for around common areas, but maybe this is, again, something that we want to trend towards.

I assume you wanted this to be an effective screen fairly soon.

Correct. Not 20 years after planting the one-gallon pot.

Right.

It's a basic, it's a bare minimum of sizing for plant material.

With any hope of survival.

With any hope of survival, correct. Correct. This size was actually quite a bit larger and we dropped it down knowing that a smaller plant often survives better and adapts more quickly. So that was... These are not huge.

And is cheaper. The sizes that were originally in here would have been quite expensive to plant.

Anything else on that? We'll move on to signage. They need to comply with our Article 8. If it's the best, it needs to be in compliance with National Standards Institute. And, you know, so again, as Angus points out, there's a lot of detail in here.

Z535 was a new reference for us. That's in the second paragraph. Yeah. What exactly does that have that is critical here? Is it size of text or material of sign that doesn't fall apart or?

I don't know. I think this came from the guidelines at the state that the state published for their signage.

Yeah, I think that's right.

All right. Well, I guess and this would be a sign mounted on or in the vicinity of the battery? Yes. Okay.

And you get to permit additional signage if you want.

Right. Okay.

Sorry, I'm just noticing it. So it says the sign will have the type of suppression system installed, emergency shutoff procedures, and it'll have fire management, fire suppression. I guess I'm just trying to understand what all this information is on this sign.

I think the fire management is fire management and suppression procedures, maybe.

Okay.

Like...

Yeah, that makes sense. That word could be added.

Yeah. Okay.

So this is predominantly for first responders to quickly assess what kind of problem they're dealing with.

Yes.

Yes. Okay.

Utility connections. Any questions?

I guess the planning board would be the ones to assess technological and economic feasibility.

Yes.

Okay.

So before we start 1811, I'm going to look to the public and say, do you have any comments that we've missed so far? Please raise your hand and let us know that you'd like to speak. I don't see any hands. Johanna.

Does this apply just to SPI or BESS as well? Because a BESS would need to be connected to the utility wires as well.

I mean, it was originally written for just SPI from We Can Add BESS.

And then I guess also just coming back to the economically feasible, one could argue like I don't know. Anything is economically feasible, but we also need to be clear that it costs more to do the trenching and the installations underground generally. So are we... I just don't know how we determine that. Mandy? Yeah.

I mean, I think we're leaving it up to you on essentially how much more expensive is... feasible, right? You know, if you have to trench through ledge, it might not be feasible, economically feasible. If you're trenching through, you know, topsoil only then and sand or something, you know, then it's probably a lot more logical and feasible to say, yes, you got to go underground versus ledge. But I think it's, that's the goal of what the CRC and writing that term in was.

Would it matter to you, Mandy, Joe, and Pam, and Andy about whether the utility lines that we would be connecting to are above or below ground? They're not usually below ground, but. Well, yeah, that's what I'm thinking is like, you know, if we're connecting to a line that's already above ground, How much are we really improving the environment, the visual environment by running underground until we get to the pole? Okay, Angus and then Fred and then Bruce.

Yeah, I mean, to Johanna's point, I would just say we've had a number of conversations with different developers who have shared with us that they generally try to price out projects under the presumption that they won't get exemptions from these kinds of things. And they want to make sure that the project would work even if they weren't able to. And there's a number of these kinds of exemptions throughout this clean energy bylaw. And I guess I'm also concerned, along with Johanna, that a developer would potentially perceive all of them as unlikely to be granted, and therefore wouldn't even bring a project if they thought that it would be prohibitive to try and bury a line, for instance. So that's just something that the planning board often is thinking about and hearing from developers.

All right, Fred?

Yeah, these are very large systems. They're utility-sized, and... The feasibility of underground work and the cost effectiveness, it depends on voltage to a large extent. And when you're talking about these very large systems, the voltage is very high and they're quickly going to end up in contact and connecting to electric utilities that are run overhead. So I'd be very careful with trying to specify this.

Fred, do you think the utility would actually have some concerns about running underground? Or not?

They, I mean, there's just, you know, walk around town. I mean, there's a There's a lot of 13,800 that Eversource runs on the top of utility poles, and they run it up there for a reason. I'd be careful with this one.

I'm going to ask, because it doesn't say they must put it underground, it's trying to give guidance that it would be great if it were underground but it's obviously um not being mandated do people feel comfortable leaving it as this expressing a preference but yeah I mean Angus's comment was clearly that it might discourage some

You know, people will assume or think that they have to assume that it would be required since it's a discretionary. Fred, your hand is still up. Did you want to say anything else?

No.

Okay. All right.

So we're at 1118. I mean, excuse me. I had a comment on that one. Sorry, since I can't raise my hand. You know, in listening to the comments made by the planning board members, I wonder if we should just delete this. We are going to, with best systems, be dealing with large amounts of voltage for the biggest ones, right? all the polls in those areas of towns are over above ground anyway um and it does add costs so you know i take angus's comment about needing to get permission means it might you know the more we have this and if it's likely that most of them would be above ground anyway um do we even put this in at all or did we just delete it? I think I'd lean towards maybe deleting it given the comments from the planning board members.

I would be comfortable with that given Fred's comment.

Agreed.

So now that Fred has spoken, this next section is Fred's. The following shall apply to Beth's and must comply with state electrical code and the state's fire code or subsequent standard.

Well, Angus got his hand up first.

Oh, Angus. Well, sorry. I was actually going to suggest I would like to go to bed. I know Bruce is fresh from vacation and ready to go. And I'm glad for that. I'm excited for that. But I'm kind of I'm fading.

Okay. All right. Well, we'll try to wrap it up. 1811. Fred, did you have much in the way of comments?

Yeah. The state electrical code, and I'm speaking now as the secretary of the committee that creates the state electrical code. The state electrical code does not apply to these The National Electrical Safety Code is the relevant safety code. And there are things, you know, if you have a BESP, the wiring inside of it is probably going to be covered by the electrical code, but the transmission elements of it are not. And so there are layers to this that you really don't want to get into.

Are you suggesting deleting this section about compliance?

If you want to insist, I could try and come up with something. It may be, because this is limited to the battery storage system, the electrical code does apply to that. The state 527CMR12 does apply to that. But the medium voltage transmission that leaves the best is not going to be governed by the 5.7 CMR-12. It's going to be governed by an entirely different standard. So you want to be very careful. I can work on this depending on exactly what you're aiming at.

That would be very helpful to think this through since you are the electrical expert.

I mean, Fred sort of highlighted what is it you're aiming at, and are these, do you want to, I mean, are these, Do you want this to describe the requirements that the building commissioner will require to permit the project?

I mean, I look at this and I go, don't they have to comply anyway to get the building permit?

Is it necessary to even have this in the zoning bylaw?

Because doesn't these codes apply to anything electrical done on site or fire regulatory? And so I'm wondering if it harms the bylaw to even delete them.

to even include them.

I can tell you that I happen to own the precedent on this. When I was the town electrical inspector, this is going back now quite a long time, I issued an order to At the time, it was Western Massachusetts Electric. I issued an order telling them to revise how they went down a utility pole on East Hadley Road, the wiring method that they used to go down that pole and into a new subdivision. And they, the next morning, immediately appeared in the building commissioner's office and said that they would not pay any attention to me. They would only pay attention to the State Department of Public Utilities. And that afternoon, I said, okay, if they want the State Department of Public Utilities, I will bring them the State Department of Public Utilities. And I filed a petition with the State Department of Public Utilities to recognize my order. And the result was a two-year battle that went on and on. And at the end, when everything was said and done, the State Department of Public Utilities said I absolutely had the authority to issue the order that I issued. And from that point going forward, the utility revised all of their requirements uh, operation manuals to, uh, recognize what I had cited. So I actually own this precedent and, uh, it's, it's, uh, there's a lot to this, uh, that's not obvious. Uh, it, there is, there is another entire safety code. It's the national electrical safety code and it governs utility work. And, uh, It is not the Massachusetts electrical code.

So if we could pause there, Fred, it would be really helpful to have you look at this section in particular. There are components in here that talk about the best must safely contain fires and thermal runaway, maintain in good working order, et cetera. So it's not all just electrical code.

Yeah, and that is fine. I have no problem with that. It's just when you're talking about how you're going to leave one of these facilities and engage in transmission at 13,800 or higher voltages, then you're talking about something entirely different. It was for this reason that the National Electrical Code put in an article for photovoltaic at high voltages at very large arrays, such as what you might see here. And because of the utility connection, the Massachusetts Electrical Code deleted that article because it was beyond the scope of what the Massachusetts Electrical Code was allowed to cover by the statutory reference there. This is very complicated in Massachusetts.

All right. Well, if you would be happy to do some homework and come back to us, I think this is the time to pause because there's quite a bit in this one section that, including agrivoltaics, And I think we don't have the energy to be dealing with all of that tonight. Pun intended. Ten after ten. We have, I think, two motions that we need, one from the CRC and one from you all.

Okay, I'll make a motion that we continue the Planning Board's hearing on the Clean Energy By-law to June 3rd at 6.35 p.m. Johanna?

Second the motion.

All right. Board members, we will vote on our continuation. Bruce?

Yep. Fred?

Fred? I I'm and I and Johanna I thank you all I think is you're still here. Thank you Angus we'll let you go in a minute. So the motion passes and our hearing will be continued.

Mandy Jo. And I'll make a motion to continue the CRC hearing on this matter until June 3rd, 2026 at 635 p.m. I have a second.

All those in favor, Mandy Jo. Aye. Andy Churchill.

Aye.

Pam Rooney is a yes. We are good to go. Thank you, everybody. This is really productive. Tedious, but productive. Thank you. Thank you. We'll see you in a joint meeting on the 3rd. And I want to say again, thank you to CRC for being willing to add another meeting to your otherwise empty schedule.

Are we going to formally vote to adjourn? I don't know how the planning board does it, but CRC normally formally votes to adjourn.

We don't typically vote to adjourn.

Okay, we end up meeting too. So I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting. I'll second. Andy? Aye. Mandy? Aye. And Pam is a yes. Thank you all. We are adjourned at 10.11. Thanks. Thank you all. Thank you, Doug. Good night, Pam. And Pam.

And Athena and Stephanie. Yeah, thank you. I meant to say thanks to all the staff too.