Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Because they projected declining enrollment, but they also didn't have to.

Oh, yeah.

Like anywhere. Yeah, anywhere people want to be. It's a double-edged sword.

Consolidating wealth and opportunity. Small pockets.

So do we need another chair?

I don't think he's coming.

Oh, he's not coming?

No. He said he couldn't make us one.

Hey Sunny.

Hey Ryan, how are you?

I'm well. How are you Sunny?

Good, how are you?

Good.

How's the summer going?

Good. Summer's winding down.

It went well. It went well. The leaves are turning. It went. I'm running out of water yet. How are you?

Good.

The yard is very crunchy.

Yeah. We're getting a lot of rain tomorrow morning.

Yeah, half an inch or something. Every time it's Sunday, it passes us.

I know, it was supposed to be today. It always just goes around us.

They had to mow in like three weeks, so.

Yeah, you have to mow because you're mowing the weeds. They grow well.

That's all it grows.

I can We're good to go at the time. Everything's screaming wild. Thank you.

It's dark. Yeah. It's dark. It's dark. oh nice

yeah 631 yeah you're right there all right welcome to the uh september 2nd uh 2026 regularly scheduled meeting of the town of durham planning board um

We have a quorum.

And unless somebody has a request, we'll go with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,

Do we have any amendments to tonight's agenda? I don't have any. Negative. All right.

Any comments on last month's meeting minutes or our last meeting?

Good to go. I move to accept the minutes of August 5th as presented.

I'll second.

All in favor? Informational exchange on non-agenda items.

Mr. Thabarge, would you want to roll through your report?

Yes, I did include the report in the packet that I do monthly for this planning, excuse me, town manager and the select board just to brief them on what we've been doing and also to address other work program things that I'm involved in. So I did update them on your meeting of August 5th and also included in the report an update on the Agriculture Energy District and the formation of that Interim Economic Development Committee that will be meeting on September 15th is the target date to start the first meeting. We have two representatives here. Also updated you on my use and development of AI, artificial intelligence, in terms of processing and pretty much training the system to view projects and produce documents. And it's just, as you've seen in some of the recent reports, it's just greatly enhancing and improving accuracy. It picks up on things. All those nasty typos I miss. And then also, I've dated you on the Select Board's August goal-setting process, where they pretty much went through what their goals are for this year in terms of issues, and they in the past have met with boards and committees, but I think what they're going to be doing is just sending out a report. And my sense was, having watched the meeting, that they're pretty much prepared to delegate the details to staff and the boards, including the planning board. So hopefully we can get, and at the end of this agenda, we have the potential policy issues to be addressed in the next town meeting, and we can get into the details of that at that point. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Yeah, I've got a question. The EDC, the Economic Development Committee, so that's meeting on September 15th. Correct. It's not on the agenda. So is that here? And do you know the time?

I'm looking to GPCOG, the Greater Portland Council of Governments, that's managing that project. And they just got the list of all the members. Okay. The Conservation Commission and Ag Committee just got their representatives communicated. So I anticipate they'll be sending out an email to all members of the committee. And as you point out, we should get that on the website. Okay, great.

So at some point on the 15th. Okay.

The date is confirmed or is it still? Well, it's tentative. I mean, that's what the town manager has proposed.

Okay.

And we check, obviously, competing meeting schedules. Okay. Oh, yeah.

Anything else, George?

Nope.

Any other comments on Mr. Thabarge's report? Okay, so any informational exchanges from residents?

Any informational exchanges from non-residents?

Okay. Alright, continuing business. Substantive review of the Pinkenbrook GLC solar energy system site plan application, not for lot 85. Public comment will not be taken here. George, you want to run through your staff notes?

Yes, the applicant has submitted a supplemental packet of submissions. addressing some of the additional information that was requested from the board. They did include that as a packet, which I've posted. The full application is still posted under the last ones. But what we really focused here on was the issues that were brought up at the last meeting. As you will recall, there was some focus on the issue of the 100-year floodplain. and what happens when the minimum design storm is exceeded, which is a 100-year flood. It's called a 100-year flood. And so they did have their engineers look at that, and my understanding is that they designed it to pass the 500-year flood. So they've elevated it, and they also put in hardening of the abutment supports so that if you do have one of those catastrophic storms, hopefully it'll pass it without washing up the bridge, which was kind of goal. So that as well as some of the other engineering details have been reviewed by the peer reviewer, Goro Palmer, LJB, and they have pretty much signed off on everything. They did have a few minor details of notes on the plans, but I think those can easily be handled through the draft conditions of approval. Chief Tripp has also endorsed their emergency access and management plan. including the applicants are going to be providing a specialized piece of funding for a specialized piece of equipment to guarantee that if the road is not plowed and somebody's in there, they can get in there to them to provide assistance. They have requested two waivers. One is on the requirement to do a formal stormwater plan. Pretty much other than the road and bridge crossing, It's going to be left vegetated pretty much and is well below the thresholds for having to do a full stormwater plan, which is all those about 150 pages of calculations. And again, LGB has said that they agree that granted that stormwater waiver would be appropriate in this situation. And then they also had submitted a visual impact analysis, as you will remember from the site walk. It's pretty much back in the woods. There's no visibility issue of neighbors or the public. So again, LJB has indicated that in their professional opinion, it would be appropriate to grant a waiver on hiring a landscape architect to do a report and come to that same conclusion. That's pretty obvious. So those were the, and then the last item I think that you had brought up was the issue of containment of their transformer in terms of any chemicals that are in there. They've submitted a proposal to do a specialized fluid, assuming that's kind of biodegradable or something like that, and then containment in addition to that. So I think those were the issues and what actions are required here tonight, if you're uh satisfied with their documentation which is obviously you want to have that discussion would be the stormwater and visual impact waivers and I've embedded those into the decision-making document and you can address those whether to great you should probably discuss it first but when you get to the decision-making document you don't have to take a separate action on those it'll be incorporated into the findings conclusions and draft approval conditions, which are included. And I did a short list of notes of what those are. And again, just suggestion for the review process, confirm that you are accepting those supplemental submissions. Allow the applicant to give a brief update summary, any points of clarification from what I've told you and put in the notes. Again, discuss whether the stormwater and visual impact waivers And then if you're ready, go forward with a review of the draft findings and conclusions and approval conditions. And as we've discussed in the past, rather than reading through every single one of them, if the chairman will just simply bring up the criterion or standard and then ask the board to, if you've reviewed all of the draft findings and the conclusion, And if you want to make any changes to that, additions, deletions, or modifying the wording, someone can make a motion and then you can vote on the amendment and then move on to the next one. So when you go down through all of the 24 standards, by the time you get to the end, you can then indicate an action to approve it with those modifications all incorporated. And the AI, thankfully, is going to between my notes and the transcript of the meeting is gonna keep track of all those and we'll update to incorporate all of those. So that's pretty much it. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have one point of clarification. George, you mentioned that the, I think it's the transformer pad, right? We're talking about, it's not, you're not proposing containment. You're just proposing, not just but you're proposing to grade so that if there is any unexpected spill any spill material would go away from the brook right so you said containment i just wanted to i thought in the notes contained from the watershed against you make the argument great we can maybe hold on okay yeah no i just wanted to correct just just your word that you said in the notes that you typed it doesn't say containment or just wanted to yeah those are two different things thank you

Okay, so are we okay with the additional submission package that in the final peer review memo that we've received?

In relation to the peer review, I was wondering, George, where the first set of comments are from LJB or the response. I see the response from flycatcher generalizing those but i don't see the comments directly from ljb in the in the packet and i don't know if i've missed it or i believe the packet the original peer review is probably in the last packet but i do believe that the current peer review should be in this packet i think is it true the first set of comments came on like August 18th, like right before the second set. And you guys worked really fast too to get that. I don't know how you did that. But so there, I don't think the first set could be in the first.

There were two sets of comments. One was on the 18th and one was on the 21st. Right. The comments on the 18th we responded to with the sawmill packet materials.

Yeah. The comments on the 21st, it was not insufficient time to provide feedback.

Right, right, right. No, I get that. No, the comments from LJB. I see the ones from August 21st. I don't see the ones from...

Okay, the first set is incorporated into their responses.

Yeah, Flycatcher.

Yeah. Okay. And then the follow-up, I think, is on page 321 of the packet. Okay. Let me just confirm that.

I think you're too far down, George.

No, I'm sorry. That's June 2nd is the page 321. But is this for, this is for Ivy Ridge?

This is Ivy Ridge. 46 is Pinkham Brook. I was looking at a very far outscaled one. Okay.

I'm still there.

Okay, so there is the August 21st peer review. It's on page 46.

Yeah, I have that one. I don't see the other one.

Again, the one that they originally responded to is in the response memo. Yep. So all of their comments are included in that response memo.

Okay. No, I see those. I read those. So that's fine. I think, I don't know, maybe I'd love to hear from the board, but maybe in the future we just make sure that all comments are included in the packet coming from the third-party reviewer.

Okay.

Like I think the applicant did a good job summarizing or not even like copying word for word, but it would be good to have the comments directly from the third-party reviewer. So is this a point in time when we can ask questions, or do we just talk to ourselves here?

No, if we have any other comments on the supplemental information, otherwise we should have the applicant come up and give their pitch.

Okay. I do have a question about, we talked about clearing windows last time, and you had responded saying that you would at a minimum, I think, avoid clearing between May something and something date. But it doesn't say the exact dates in there, and I was wondering if you could just clarify those dates.

Yeah, so part of it is... Yes, Jesse Hutchinson with Lancaster. As the agent representing... Pinko, Brooke, JLC, Solar, LLC.

Jeff Martin with Norwich Solar.

Yeah, so we tried to kind of be a little careful in our wording because technically we were trying, saying we would adhere at a minimum to the federal requirements and their dates. We won't fully know what their request is for their clearing because sometimes it's like differs between like pup season for bats versus like summer occupancy so we don't have those specific dates until we get their um the permit actually from them so like that'll be a permit condition that's why you didn't yeah so he's like whatever dates that they give us but it's generally kind of during the more um the like summer occupancy kind of period it's I think it's

Isn't it May 15th through August 15th?

That's the state. That's like IFNW's general requirements. I think it's April. Their latest one that they gave was maybe between the summer occupancy or the pumping season. I think it's like one of them is April to November. Yes. And that's what the Conservation Commission was asking. They said that you were going to try.

Yeah. But that a minimum you would you would do the later one, which is May through something.

Yeah, we would do at a minimum whatever we're kind of required to by the Army Corps and the US Fish.

And that should be May. It shouldn't change much, right?

No, I think it's not going to be like, it shouldn't be greater than that, but it would kind of generally be around those time frames. We just didn't want to give specific dates until we get it. what they request pretty much.

I understand, that makes sense. Yeah.

I was wondering. The dates are kind of getting confusing now. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, yeah. So do you want to discuss any new information that's been submitted since the last time we've met?

Yeah, I think George did a nice summary of kind of what we have submitted. I would say just kind of a little overall overview because now we're talking about the site plan application. So in the site plan application, we're kind of going into a little more detail than what we've been talking about with the conditional use. And so that's addressing directly the solar energy standards that are in the ordinance. So that's including the operations and maintenance plans submittal, emergency response plan, decommissioning plan, some of those kind of more specific things kind of technical details. And then we submitted additional supplemental information in response to the peer review questions. In our response, we also addressed some of the comments of the Conservation Commission, which we'd kind of talked about last meeting, but we just wanted to have that in writing. And then, yeah, so that kind of includes the, most of it was around kind of the engineering the kind of bridge redesigned to meet the 500 year storm rather than a 100 year. And then we also got a letter from the fire chief just to have something written for approval there. And then we also submitted a waiver request for the visual impact assessment with the supplemental information. If you have any specific kind of questions for more on that or on the overall site plan, our site plan application also addressed the standards for a shoreland zone and flood development permit as well.

Just going back to the transformer. So this is the transformer you plan to buy for this? Or are you going to wait until this contractor... Are you going to direct the contractor to buy a transformer similar to what you're proposing?

Yeah, what we're committed to is the fluid that's in the transformer, which is a biodegradable fluid rather than a petroleum-based one.

So it may not be what the spec that you've given us, but that's...

FR3 or equivalent type of thing.

Thank you for addressing that and thank you for making the effort to provide some kind of containment there. Where do you stand with the 911 addressing in the street name?

I believe that's something that's assigned when we get the building permit. It's typically how it's addressed.

Is that how that works?

Okay. Basically, they'll have a road address right there. Okay. Because that's all that's back there. Okay. If they were to do more than this development, then they'd be getting a street name and you're going through that process. Right, like a subdivision. Basically, it's just a driveway.

But in the subdivision, we typically ask for that now.

Right, but like he was saying, they need a road for a subdivision.

Yeah, and the code officer cannot assign it until they locate it. In an application permit, because sometimes it's not so much in this case, because they have designed where it's going to go, but in subdivision, they have to know precisely along the 300 feet or 150 feet front where that. So the code officer typically does not assign an address until they apply for the driveway permit.

Okay. Yeah, I just don't lose sight of that. I know you've had all kinds of conversations with these guys here.

Okay.

things go sideways, we just want to make sure everybody knows where to go.

Yeah. We can make that a condition too, if we want, of the start construction, right? So get the E911 address or something.

It's a given. They can't do it without a permit. Right.

So we're focusing right now on whether the application is complete, right? That's what this round is.

Well, you already have determined completeness. What you did, you're allowed under the ordinance after you determine that it's complete to request additional information that comes up, which is what happened. So I don't think you need to redo the completeness. You just need to indicate whether they've satisfied you. with the supplemental information on the issues that were raised. Right, right, right. That's what I mean.

The peer review was what we asked for.

Peer review and then so are the waivers something we have to figure out during this?

Yeah, I think we'll get through our comment period and then we can move on to the draft findings. Okay.

Any other comments from the board members?

I have one regarding the decommissioning plan. The actual estimate was in last month's package, but you verbally state that you'll get rid of or decommission overhead and underground structures, but it's not listed in your cost estimate to be complete. So I'd like to see a number for that exercise. Additionally, I didn't see a cost for the bond, which I think should be part of the lead commissioning cost estimate as well. And lastly, I'd like to see Well, this is my opinion, but I think it would be nice to see an escalation or contingency on that value as well, because you're 25 years out. And I know it's supposed to be reviewed every five years, but it'd be good to see that number now so that in five years from now, when it's revisited, you don't lose sight of the fact that you need to plan for escalation costs or contingencies.

So you're looking for a table? that shows the next 25 years.

No, I just think it's a line item. George, do you have last month's, do you have the cost estimate?

The supplemental.

It's on a table. It would just be a line item. And I think typically it's like 10 or 20% for escalation or contingency cost on top of the bottom line.

Right now it's 37,000. That's what I remember.

What did I say for contingency? Not contingency, escalation. I'm sorry.

We don't, but I think that number should be listed in the decommissioning cost estimate. So overhead and underground utilities are not specifically listed there. The cost of the bond should be there and an escalation cost.

Typically on these types of things that they do, they tie it to the consumer price index. So what this does is there's no calculation until every five years. So I think Brian's raising his issue of wording could be included, but just saying that the amount of the bond should be tied to the consumer price index to account for inflation. Something along those lines is how they're typically done.

Yeah, I'm not sure how it's typically done, but I think it needs to be documented for sure. There's going to be a cost to that, so it should be there.

We don't know if the applicants have dealt with this on projects.

So Maine has its own decommissioning. The state has its own decommissioning requirement. And like the towns, there's a requirement to revisit the cost estimate first after the first 15 years and then every five years thereafter. I'm just not quite sure how tying it to a certain escalation rate would then interact with revisiting of the cost estimate every five years.

Sorry, I'm focused on the broken wing right now. You're right, but I guess I don't want it to be lost in the next five years. I think that it could be overlooked.

But probably not.

If it's actually revisited every five years, then those costs would be revisited.

Yeah. At least when it comes to the state's requirement, I believe that's the intention is to then revisit the cost based on factors such as inflation.

What about contingency? I don't know what could happen. Anything could happen, really. Would you consider adding a contingency dollar amount to that?

So, I mean, one of the things that's not... I believe it's actually... required to not be considered by the state is like the salvage value of the project itself. So that's not included in this cost estimate, but there's a significant amount of salvage value from all the steel that goes into the solar array. So, I mean, like in that sense, there actually kind of is a contingency built in because we're not factoring in that value to the to the cost of decommissioning. So we're not allowed to say, well, we could get $30,000 from the salvage value of this, so it's only a $7,000 decommissioning cost. So in some sense, that is a contingency that's just not factored in.

Yeah, excuse my ignorance. This is the first time we've seen this, and I just want to make sure that I'm trying to cross all the i's and dot all the t's for sure so what have you done in the past this year so that decommissioning cost estimate is what you've typically done on all projects yes yeah yeah again because it is a state requirement it's it's something that we've done on all of our our main projects i'm concerned with the town Of course, you have to meet state requirements, but from a town's perspective, I just want to make sure that we're covered as well.

I will say that it's not uncommon to have a contingency or an escalation included in a decommissioning financial plan at all. It's not. but what that number is is the question i think george you brought that up like whatever number you said we can refer to the growth number whatever that is um but i have seen somewhere they're like two percent every year or x percent every year um so that's not unheard of and i think it is important because it is gonna it's not gonna go down it's gonna go up um i think A really important part is to make sure that you and everyone else is good with what's listed in the decommissioning estimate as far as line items and costs. Because that's really where the costs are going to be born, right? Like if we're missing anything and like say, you know, you walk away or something happens and we have to decommission the site ourselves, is it really going to cost $37,000 or is it going to be more than that?

Those are the only three items that stood out to me that are costs that are going to be borne by decommissioning.

And what does our ordinance say we review every five?

I think it's five years.

So the bond will stay at $30,000 or you'll add the things Brian mentioned maybe. You'll consider that.

Yeah, so could you just clarify again what the like as I'm kind of looking at the list of line items here too, like which pieces you were wanting to see.

Overhead and underground infrastructure. In written text, you list that, I forget, it's number six. Yeah, exactly. Number six, but it's not listed in your line item.

The electrical collection system.

Yeah, right, exactly. That's it.

Actually, on that note, is CMP, do they require the removal of the poles or do they want them to stay? I know not many projects have been decommissioned yet, but like, I don't know what they want.

CMP's infrastructure, I imagine, would stay because it's, you know, their poles and equipment. Yeah. The project's infrastructure would have to come out.

Okay. So you would, of course, just figure that into your estimate that it would be your poles coming out not sampling poles. Right. Right.

Yeah. So like there is a line item for like a removal of electrical equipment, but it's just not. Yeah. How much is that one? Necessarily specific. I don't have it in front of me. 943.

Yeah, it's really low. 943? Yeah.

That's not poles and underground stuff.

So Brian, why don't we, under finding his facts, There's a couple of items. You have decommissioning plan, then you have financial assistance for decommissioning. Why don't we address it there?

Yep. I just want to bring it up now and see the applicant's response before we get there and have this conversation again. Okay. Yeah.

I mean, I will say this is, like I said earlier, this is very typical of the projects, all projects that we do in Maine. it has been reviewed by the town engineer. And then it will also then be reviewed by the state as well, because like I said, they have their own requirement. And so they've reviewed hundreds of these decommissioning plans. So there's also that sort of certainty that the town has that there will be a separate state requirement for a decommissioning plan with financial assurance as well that will also be reviewed by.

So did we know that? Do we know about that?

About the state?

Yeah.

So how does that work? So, yeah, we would kind of submit this plan. The decommissioning plan. Yeah, to the state kind of along with any other kind of state permits. And then they review and it's typically kind of like a couple months.

Okay. And they review the decommissioning plan. Yes. Mm-hmm.

Because they have a solar decommissioning law.

Yeah, okay. So I wonder... That's interesting. I didn't know that. Did you all know that?

No.

So I just wonder, we have our own standards and our ordinance, but in reality, we might want to be deferring to the state on this. So this is our first one in our town. And I don't work in Maine. So yeah, I wonder if... It's not anything we can fix right now, but something to put as a review.

I think Brian's point was we don't want to get stuck with a bill as a town. 100%. The state's not going to take care of it.

It will be a state requirement that the project come out. So it is a state obligation as well. Okay.

Are you opposed to making those changes?

I'm just, again, just trying to understand the escalation piece in relation to the then five-year requirement to read this.

What if we changed the escalation to contingency?

So adding a contingency line? Yeah. And what would that contingency be?

I heard 2%. In my old life, it was 10%. Yeah, contingency and escalation. Yeah, right. They kind of intertwine, but they mean something very different. I'm just looking at... Use your discretion. um i would like to see something there so then five years when you revisit it that that that it's not forgotten and that it's there because who knows what could happen that could change your decommissioning plan that you haven't accounted for or the town would have accounted for i don't know what that could be but well it's in the five-year review that's what you'd be looking at that that's just the part that i'm i'm sorry i'm not trying to be um

difficult but that's just the part that i just am not wrapping my head around is if we've got a cost could go down not likely but theoretically it could be so if you say they've got to build in an escalator Nope, not an escalator now. Well. Yeah, that makes sense.

And you've seen it. I've seen it. Oh, yeah.

Not in Maine again. Not in Maine, but in other states. Yeah.

And in other states, do they have a review, like a review period as well? Yeah, they have a review. Okay.

Yeah. And I think what it is, is it's like a set escalation. And if it goes above and beyond that, then it can go further up during the review period.

Okay. Yeah.

but it's assumed to be like two or 3% increase every year, but it is reviewed, but it's just a known number that folks can anticipate it going up, you know, but it is still reviewed.

So it's just guessing what the increase is going to be.

Well, that's why I said table is because sometimes like a table submitted and saying year one, it would be this year two, it would be this year three.

So I guess like, is your kind of concern more so in the first few years before it would be

like visit revisited um no it's my concern really is just it's a cover yourself cost for something that because right now you're leaving yourself no room you're like this is the number if anything goes wrong that or something else comes up that you haven't accounted for you don't have that covered right now and two percent is a small number on that Bottom line. It is. It's just a way to... And it's to cover yourself. It's not really... And the town as well. But just something to hold on to in case you don't know what's going to come up.

Actually, to clarify, this is only for the town, I think. They have to pay for it. But this is beyond that. They have to guarantee that they will pay for it. That's what we're on this for.

Mm-hmm.

for the town and for the state so that if they don't, then the town has the money to go and do it. I think that's the intent. Right.

Bond is separate from contingency.

Well, the contingency, what you were saying is put that into the amount that has to be bonded, correct? Yeah. But the bond itself should be 100% guaranteed that the developer will do what they say they're going to do, like any other performance guarantee. But yeah, you could, if the majority of the board feels it, you could have them put in a 2%, 10% contingency and address it that way. Probably be better to go in that direction than to try to figure out a formula. And again, recognize in five years, that's what you look at.

What's the new cost that you're anticipating?

Yeah. But I wonder if the bond has to include that, would it just be increased? every year um or you add that now right to cover the next five years but you have to you have to read every year anyways 15 is the state requirement with the town requirements i'm looking at the state i'm sorry i had no idea about this i'm looking at the state rules regarding decommissioning it doesn't mention anything about an increase in costs um It does talk about certain things that you have to include in your cost, but it doesn't talk about an increase, which is really surprising.

There is the requirement to revisit the cost.

Yes, it talks about that, but it's every 15, right?

It's after the first 15 years and then Every five years after that.

Right. So it's the next 15 years.

But the town requires five years.

Okay.

Yeah.

So maybe that's.

So the town's requirement is stricter than the states.

Yeah.

And we're not waiting a long time and say it gets abandoned year 14 and the cost is doubled. We don't know. That could be a bad scenario. But three or five years, it's less likely that something like that would happen, I think.

Very unlikely that a project would be abandoned.

The bond cost changes with the cost of the decommissioning estimate.

But it is up to us to review. That's why I said the decomm estimate line items to make sure everything is in there that we want in there. Because that's where the money's, you know, the potential payment for those items is going to come from. If it's not in there in five years and they walk there's nothing we can we can do but i think that's what's most important i'm thinking of this site um it's not farm land so you don't need to like re-vegetate it for that um it is fully forested and so there's you know i don't but i don't know if we're going to want to grade it near the brook you know i don't know how much impact we're going to want so i wonder if like I don't know. It's hard to say what we're going to want in X amount of years at the site to be done. Do we want everything just to be pulled into the site left alone? No grading done?

Do you want to keep the pulls in underground infrastructure for future years? Do we want to keep that so it doesn't erode? Actually, you don't own the land. You're leasing the land. Correct. You have to get to the landowner.

Yeah, it's really the landowners.

What they would want.

And in the lease, it talks about the removal of the equipment.

It's in the decommissioning plan. So it's not in the lease itself, I don't believe. But the lease is a 25-year term and then basically up to four years. At that point, it would be up to the project and the landowner to decide if they wanted to re-permit an array at that point or not okay so if the answer is no then it's decommissioned okay so it doesn't say anything about a termination of projects everything must be pulled out or honestly i don't i don't know yeah but i obviously it is a town and state requirement did i read you the language yeah yes the decommissioning plan identifying the party currently responsible for decommissioning timeline and process for decommissioning the system

and an engineering investment for the cost of decommissioning, including all costs for removal and disposal of solar panels, structures, cabling, electrical components, roads, fences, fencing, and any other associated facilities above ground over low grade, and site restoration to its original condition, including grading, loaming, and seating, The decommissioning plan shall include a description of any agreement, for example, a lease with all landlords regarding decommissioning and include a deadline for completion. So that should be in the decommissioning plan. I think if you want to address that in findings and then address it in the conditions of approval, that could be done. Or if you want to hold off on this until that's straightened out, that's another option.

So in that case, does that mean the cost of removing the bridge has to be factored in too? Because this road, I mean...

It says all improvements, basically.

I don't even know how you... Is that expensive? Moving a bridge?

If you had that as a line item in there, removing the bridge?

Putting it all back to its original state is not in there either. Well, they have grading, right?

Yeah, grading.

But not seeding.

Seed. We have seed listed.

Yeah.

What was the last thing you read about the lease?

That just said they're going to have the terms of the lease have to spell out who does it, when they do it, how long.

And they have to talk about the decommissioning in the lease. In the lease, yeah.

Or it says a description of any agreement with all landowners.

Oh, okay. So maybe it'd be a separate document, not the lease. There's removal of solar facility.

Yeah, in your lease. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So it does talk about decommissioning. It's basically within 180 days after the last termination that it would be.

And the decommissioning estimate and plan was reviewed or completed by an engineer?

Yeah. I mean, yeah, it was also like peer reviewed by. Right. Yeah. Yeah.

Because what if the planner says, I like that road, I walk my dog on that road, like on the bridge, I want to keep it. Do they have that option or does it have to be removed?

Well, theoretically, at that point, they could come in and request an amended site plan approval.

But it needs to be accounted for as a worst case scenario.

Yeah, it has to be covered financially for the worst case scenario.

Okay.

And this may or may not be modified within the next 25 years.

Julia, is this something you ever deal with in your professional life? Oh, yeah. Okay.

Yes. Yes. But again, this is different. I mean, the states I work in don't have a state review process like this. They don't have a... I don't know what that is, a rule, ID commissioning. And a lot of the ordinances that we work with spell it out a bit more, like as far as like escalation or whatever. So... I feel like we're not, we don't want to compete with the state, right? We definitely don't want to do that. I feel like it's a little confusing right now. So I think that maybe our next revision of the ordinance will look at this section. And then maybe I would recommend that we refer or defer to the state.

Like we did with the code. Or at least have the same rule.

Have the same rule. Yep. Yep. Maybe consider the, I'd want to look further into the escalation piece though, because prices do increase, I think. And we will be on the hook to do it. So I think that is important. So all that being said, I don't know. Whatever you all want to do here, I have no idea. This is a smallish project, right? This isn't a huge project. I think for reference, 37,000 is low, but it's not like... super low i think if if you look at the items that brian brought up and maybe consider some sort of planned escalation for x years or something then maybe that could cover it i think if it would be all right i think the contingency not rather than the escalation sorry just so that we don't have conflicting plan like we have to file with the state with a decommissioning plan with the state as well so

I just feel like that could be simpler to do a contingency rather than a built-in escalation.

Absolutely. Sorry, I keep saying that word. I say maybe propose something like you did with the tree clearing and the fence, you know? Maybe propose something back to us on that.

Well. Is it possible to agree to something here tonight so that the condition of approval is that we have to include X in the decommissioning plan?

Yeah. Unless there are any other comments, we can run through the findings and facts.

Do you want to address the two waivers?

Should we do that first, George? Just indicate that conceptually you're okay with it, and then you can deal with the specific part.

Or not.

If someone has a problem with the waiver, then we need to talk about it.

Okay. I would like to hear folks. If it's okay, Brian, if I could just start.

Go for it.

I am absolutely okay with the visual impact waiver, but we cannot see this project. Stormwater, I would love to hear what others think as far as waiving that. requirement of the stormwater plan so a couple things i'm thinking of is that the site is fully forested um it's very close to a brook um there is some terrain here um and you are very close to that five percent it's not five percent yeah that minimum whatever it had to be i think you're 4.9 you had to be at five so um That one doesn't sit as well with me, but I'd love to hear what others think about waiving the stormwater management plan. Yeah.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen the site, so I'm not that familiar.

And again, just recall that the floral farmer said they supported it.

I meant to say that. So they did say that the applicant has met the requirements that need to be met in order to waive this certain thing, but that it's up to the planning board to make that decision. Yeah. And yep, absolutely. So I kind of just wanted to hear from y'all. Are you all good, okay with it?

They did add the additional riprap around the abutments going across the bridge. So that's going to eliminate, should eliminate that or minimize any erosion there. And that was one of our original concerns and that has been added to that plan.

So I... You're okay. I'm okay with it.

I'm okay if Alan and the peer reviewer are okay.

Yeah, it does help that the peer review did not call out.

That's one of the big things that we're always pushing is having a peer review. We have a peer review and now I don't think, I don't have reason to be questioning that.

Okay. Sunny, do you have anything? You agree? Yeah.

And I think if the pair is okay with it, then I'm good with it.

Okay. Okay.

So, the consensus of the board is that we are agreeing with the wave is correct.

Yeah, do we need to vote on that George? No, just you will do it when you do the decision.

Okay.

Okay. Why don't we talk about the comments? Do we talk about those just when we get to a topic or something from?

Well, these would be findings and conclusions, so there should be some in there referring to the peer reviewers comments.

OK, there was one I would just like to bring it up the. I think he they had asked to see additional specs and measurements of regarding the bridge that proposed bridge and the applicant had responded back saying that it's going to be a later stage thing in which you do get those specs. I'm of the opinion that it would be good to see those specs ahead of building permit. I think that's what the applicant had said, that it's at building permit stage. But I would think that like, LJB brought up elevation, they brought up materials that the bridge would be made out of, the, what do you call it, the apron thing. just some things that I would think would be in the basic design of the bridge.

Would you know that before? You haven't hired a contractor to perform any of this work, have you? No. So then that would be when the contractor is hired, when they'll submit the bridge design, which will be engineered, stamped by an engineer, and LJB will review those engineered drawings.

Are they going to?

That's what I read. I thought they were.

After this, I think if we approve this.

Unless the code officer says, and typically they do for something like this, that you've got to have an engineer. They would say they have an engineer stamp on it. Well, yeah.

I mean, all of the plans have stamps on it.

I mean, what they've got in your packet is the specs that whatever they do has to meet. LJB has said those specs if they meet that. But I don't think that the LJB is being hired either by the peer review escrow or by the town to review the engineering plan. Calvin could do that, but it's up to his judgment.

No, but what I'm saying is I think those are important enough that they should be in the design. But I do understand that they're expensive. It's not cheap to do that review or to design it. you know, maybe you're holding off.

So, and I believe the condition, proposed condition, one of the proposed conditions was that we submit those final stamp designs and that the town has the right to have a third party review those designs at that point. Okay. I believe that was in one of the findings.

If we could do that and just like anticipate LJB looking at them, the final set, that'd be great. Sure. Because that would include everything in there, right?

I'd be okay with that. Thank you. So if we're okay to move forward with findings. Findings, conclusions, and conditions of approval. There's a page four near the bottom. Page what?

Page four near the bottom where the findings start.

Yeah, I know. I'm not on the same page with you all.

Well, it should be item D, article 8.

That's what I'm... Oh, you're in the overall packet.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, I hear you, Alan, but I'm looking at C, which... No, we're good.

Okay, you're right. It is D. Yeah. Okay.

Article 8. Yep. Sure. Okay.

So we have five findings in fact here. Is everybody in agreement with these five? And it includes the waiver for the stormwater management. Yep.

As well as the visual impact assessment.

Yep. As well as the waiver for the vision.

Well, it says our actions on the waivers are further down. This is just saying they asked for a waiver. But then I think we grant the waiver further down.

That's correct. Yeah, it is way at the end.

I know there were a couple of additional comments from the peer reviewer, and I believe they're minor. And I think we're probably thinking of making some of those conditions possibly. I don't know if that needs to go in this or not. Mention of that. We talk about finding five talks about the two additional submissions addressing the peer review.

Oh, yeah. No, we should add that to this thing before we vote.

just that there's still a couple of outstanding items that we haven't even discussed yet today, and maybe we can down further, but that I think we should make those conditions of approval.

So the addition to Article 8, site plan review submission requirements would be?

The August 21st file period.

Yep, yep, yep, yep. Thank you, thank you. Do you want to read them? You want me to read them?

Yeah, go ahead.

Okay. In general, sorry, sorry, sorry. One of them is the proposed roadway contours still do not appear to accurately represent the passing areas. Currently a 12% cross slope is shown within the passing area. So it's update the passing area along the road. And then the next, One has to do with the vegetated ditch. We recommend that the ditch be located on the cut slope side of the section opposed to the fill slope side of the section due to runoff. So those are the two. Do you agree with those? Yes. It's not a big deal to change? Okay.

Yeah, we've already done it. We kind of notify the engineers with those comments.

So in general, we can say...

Suggestion on note five, finding five, says the August 19th and 21st. You just add a sentence there, the approval conditions will incorporate the final recommendations of the peer reviewer.

And then we don't have to spell them out again. Yeah, I like it.

Is there a motion?

Again, we can keep track of it and then just approve all of these.

Okay. All right. We all set with site plan review submission requirements.

Yes.

All right. Next is utilization of the site, and there are five findings there as well.

Any additional comments or edits to that?

No, I like number five, but that's in there.

Alan. Okay, next adequacy of the road system. Does this include the bridge? It talks about your ditch. It talks about their revised. Interesting if there's anything else.

We might want to include, I would say it does include, it should include the bridge, right? This is the road. Which is part of the road.

It doesn't binding to. Bridge cross.

All right. Okay.

All right. Number three, vehicular access into the site. Any additions or it is to that.

Sorry, back to that one that we're just talking about the road. Yes. Can should we add that once the final site plans are developed that

The peer reviewer will review ahead of building permit to this one.

For the bridge?

For the bridge, yeah. Well, it's a review of the site plan, but it includes the bridge. That's what I was interested in.

Yeah, the bridge is covered again in the vehicular access. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Excuse me.

Yeah. Does that... Are you suggesting another review of the full site plan or the bridge design?

I was just talking about the bridge.

That you were talking about earlier. But... I'm sorry I don't have it in front of me. I thought that that was one of the conditions was that...

I think we say that it's up to... It's pretty much they can have it reviewed.

Okay. Yeah. I want it kind of like... And you're suggesting it's... They will review it. Will. I guess... my um request is that it would be focused on the bridge rather than i'm okay with that take a look at the language when we get to the sure yes yes visit it yes this will be noted okay we'll do yeah good thought okay moving on to vehicular access into the site any board additions or answers to that

Go with it. Fine. Sunny?

Good. Number four, internal vehicular circulation and emergency access.

Are we all good? It's all been reviewed by the PI chief and documented, so it's good.

Number five, parking layout and design. Any comments there?

Not parking lots.

Number six, utilities. Any comments there? No, it's good. It covers our concerns in the last meetings.

The grading and the spillage of the fuel.

I think, I'm sorry, Brian. Don't apologize.

I think we had talked about asking for the IA, the interconnection. approval or the agreement from CMP? We have the interconnection agreement. Perfect. And it's in the packet. I'm sorry. I've missed that. So we have that then. Okay, good. So I don't know if we want to add that as a finding, George, that the interconnection agreement, CMP interconnection agreement has been submitted.

Executed.

That sounds a great edit.

Thank you so much.

Number seven, lighting and signage. Any comments there? No, looks good.

And you haven't decided to add any additional lighting. It's just for maintenance purposes. Nothing's there 24 seven.

No motion detectives for deer and like that.

Number eight, fire protection and public safety.

Any edits or additions to that?

You talking about the fence in here?

It is addressed in here somewhere. I'm not under this particular one.

I don't know if you want safety, public safety. That's part of it, right? The fence?

Yeah.

It's It's in Article 4, or Article 5, we're talking about the fence, so it's further down.

Okay. Okay. Number 9, general buffering. It's not an issue based on location. Exactly.

And you're going to have the required clearance on either side of the fence, correct? Or maintenance. Tree clearing, you mean?

Or clearance from the panels.

Yeah.

No, I mean on the outside of the fence, there should be a maintenance strip that's maintained.

There's a maintained area. Yes. Number 10, historic and archeological resources. Seeing issues there.

Financial capacity, we've seen the appropriate argumentation there. Number 12, technical ability.

Just FYI, the DCOM is included in 11, decommissioning plan. I don't know if there was anything we wanted to add to that.

separate financial assurance and required decommissioning.

So, I think it's somewhere, it's further down. So, we do have financial assurance, but we can address the details.

Oh, okay. Okay. I apologize there.

Any comments on technical ability? Do you wanna add that the final bridge design will be reviewed by LBJ, peer reviewed by LBJ?

This is just a measure of their technical ability. This is not about the town's peer review of that, which is covered elsewhere, I think. So you're just determining that these applicants have the ability to do this project properly.

And then it does state something number 3 that the final bridge structural design will be submitted to the town of the stamped plan.

Sorry, finding 1, the applicant identified experience, solar development, environmental permitting, civil engineering, surveying and other professional consultants. I mean, the applicant consulted with. What are we saying there? Identified?

Well, their packet includes other professionals, including crabs. Right, right, right.

We talked specifically about crabs. I was just thinking flycatcher was, you know, the lead permitting. I just wonder if that's...

Pretty much all of that is documented into the actual list of submissions. Okay. All of their professionals are listed.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, yeah.

Thank you. All right. And on to Article 5, solar energy submission and design standards, project classification and capacity. I think we're good with that.

And I just want to say that number one is really important, and I like how LJB picked it out, that we have large-scale ground-mount solar in our ordinance can be this

site plan and conditional use or you might need to go to contract zoning so it's important that we mention that so okay installer owner operator on property authorization we've seen the contracts with the building owner and cmp I'm building, or I'm sorry, property owner in C&P.

Management.

Electrical design and equipment specs. We've seen some, but I think it really is based on whoever you hire to build this to see the final specifications. Yeah, it's really dependent on what kind of approved submittals you get from the contractor.

It does call out the biodegradable fluid, though.

Setbacks, height, and layout. Everything checks there. Fencing security and emergency access. There's your fence.

Yep, there it is.

I'm just going to roll through. You guys just jump. Visual impact and screening. I think we're good with that. Vegetation management.

We've seen their O&M plan. Noise, glare, and lighting. We talked at our last meeting, we talked about any noise from the generator, which would be

insignificant when you're within the boundary.

The next one talks about that.

Utility connection. Yes. Emergency services plan. We've seen that. The fire chief was good with that. Stormwater erosion control, wetlands and water resources.

Sorry.

So based on the peer review, we're okay with the waiver for the stormwater?

Yes. Yep.

Bridge crossing and flood hazard. They've gone above and beyond what's needed there.

Thank you. plan we've seen, decommissioning plan we talked about.

Sorry, let's go back to bridge crossing. So we talked about number six, the final bridge and abutment structural design will be prepared and stamped by the selected bridge vendor or other main licensed professional and submitted to the town prior to construction. You might want to add there that ahead of that LJB will review.

Yeah, some of this is very redundant. It is redundant. George, we should talk about this.

This is the first time we're going through this like this, so that's why, like, oh, this is down here. Oh, let me talk about this again. There's a lot of redundancy.

Yeah, let me address that point. It is redundant. However, what you're doing is you're documenting that this applicant has met every criterion. So if there's duplication, they're submitting the same comments and materials, and I think that's okay.

Yeah, I'd rather that be the other way around.

I think if AF was ever challenged, you will point to that is the documentation, and that's the basis on which you made your decision. Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, like, what kids can bend? I'm sorry. I don't feel too well. I think I'm going to leave early. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Good to see you.

Good to see you.

All right.

We still have a quorum. We still have a quorum. Okay. 13 we've seen the O&M plan. Any comments there?

No.

Decommissioning plan we've discussed and so we'd like to see in the line item removal of overhead and underground structures. the cost of the bond, and a contingency line item. You're okay with that?

Mm-hmm. Great.

All right. So number 15, financial assurance for decommissioning, this is going to have to be reviewed by our town attorney. Once you've made some adjustments, we'll pass that by them.

Okay. Okay with that?

Good.

Any other comments there at this point?

Just to clarify, we're asking the lawyer to review the bond form or the decommissioning plan or the estimate. or all of the above?

It's just financial assurance. Financial assurance, which would be the bond form.

Making sure it's a legitimate bond. Right, okay, great.

Number 16, outside permits and continuing compliance. We've discussed DEP, MDOT, I love CMP, Corps of Engineers, right? Any other comments there? When do you think you're going to get your Corps permit?

So it has been submitted, but it's about like, I can't remember. It's like 45.

45 to 60 days. 60 days.

A couple months out.

Yeah.

Maybe we add. It depends on their staff. Once we get your core permit, right, that's going to show the dates for the back clearing. So I don't know. Do you submit that to us anyways?

I think I'll have to state.

We just want to see that those dates that you're going to adhere to the tree clearing. Not tree clearing. So whatever those dates are.

So probably a condition could be that they submit those permits once they're issued to the town.

Yep. Perfect. And then note about finding one, we say at the end, all required permits and approvals must be obtained before the related activity begins. I'd like to propose a revision and say all required permits and approvals must be obtained before building permit received. Right? Versus related activity begins because really you know like cmp has to do with utility stuff and sometimes that doesn't happen until later in the project and but you want you get that approval before you already have that approval with the interconnection agreement right like you'll you'll have all of this before you get building permit yeah we should have all of our state and federal permits before we get a building permit yeah

You get that George yeah okay. Article 14 shoreline zoning standards. Any comments revisions to this.

So this is where we would want to. bring out the specific comments from LJB or no, we already covered that, right? They did comment about the rip rap, right?

Yeah, it's in number 15. Yeah, number 15 covers that.

Oh, okay.

Sorry about that. I think so. Yep. 15 floodplain management standards.

Yeah, like I said before, they want to bump beyond going to 500 a year here, so. Yep. I'm good with it.

I'm good with it. Julia?

I think so. We'll talk about the final comments at the end.

Well, if you have something, I think we should bring it up pretty quick.

Well, where is the riprap comment?

It was in their design, so.

It's in Article 14.23. Then article 15, finding 5.

Remaining floodplain related plan comments to show the rip rap line and bridge cross section.

Okay, great. So that one's in there and then. The passing area contours is in here too.

I think it just called out the August 21st.

findings earlier mentioned refer to those comments, because those came in too late to submit for the meeting.

Okay, that's fine.

Sorry, delete the stormwater submission waiver. Okay, with that, and they've submitted the appropriate form.

It was actually in, it's not in this package, but it was in last month's package.

I'm okay with it. The peer reviewer's okay with it, so. And the visual impact waiver, I'm okay with that. Yep. You all? Yep. Good with that one. All right, decisions and conditions of approval.

George, will these be amended based on the comments that we've just made for?

Yes. All right, so there are 16 draft conditions of approval.

but there's more per what we just talked about, right?

So it's kind of like a... No, and I think we've been through this. You all seem to have agreed to our previous conditions, so that will all be documented in the final meeting minutes from tonight. I don't think there's anything more that we need to add to these, correct?

Can I just, sorry, can I ask just one clarifying thing on the decommissioning plan that I was just thinking about? Mm-hmm. The cost of the bond, is that something that we could provide a cost estimate that's not part of the decommissioning plan? Because it's not a decommissioning cost. And I just don't want two different decommissioning plans, one with the town, one with the state, that could get complicated. So just provide a cost estimate for the bond separate from the decommissioning plan.

I think it needs to be part of it.

Say that again? The cost of the bond is not a decommissioning cost. It's the cost that the project's paying for up front. And so rather than putting it in the decommissioning plan, provide the town with an estimate for that cost that's separate from the plan. And then because we have to submit a decommissioning plan with the state, I would prefer to keep the plans identical so we don't have two separate decommissioning plans for

Yeah, actually, can I ask, what do we, why are we asking for that cost? So we're talking about like the, it's like a 5%, 10% bond fee. Right. Right, to get the bond. Right. That's what this cost is.

I mean, realistically, that's something that we have to get. Is borne by the applicant. That we have to pay for. Right.

So why do we?

It's not a decommissioning cost.

Right. You don't want to include that in your decomm estimate.

I don't want to include that.

The state doesn't need to see that. Right. They don't want to see that. Yeah, so what are we including it for?

And ultimately, the town's attorney is going to review that financial assurance too.

Because it ends up being whatever it is, and you have to pay it to get it.

Right, exactly.

And I think it's a renewal, really, to keep the bond going.

Yeah, they're on the same lines. They're not required to bond for the road or anything else.

Right. So I don't know why we wouldn't even need to know that. But I know it's brought up.

I'm sorry.

I thought it was our requirement to include the bond and just running through it right now.

From the ordinance? Yeah. Yeah, I'm fine.

That could be it.

Well, let's take a look.

estimated decommissioning costs and how the set estimate was determined.

Decommissioned funds. Okay, you want me to read you that language again?

Yeah.

Okay, cool. Uh, engineers estimate for the cost of decommissioning, including all costs for removal and disposal of solar panels, structures, cabling, electrical components, roads, fencing, and any other associated facilities above ground or below, and sites and restoration to its original condition, including grading, welding, and seeding.

Nothing to mention on the lawn.

You changed it.

For other projects, how much have you paid for the bond?

I don't know. I don't know.

It's like 10% of, if it's going to be $37,000, it'll be like $3,000. Not even, maybe. Yeah.

$3,700, something like that. But I mean, for fine sharing of estimated costs, I just don't want it to be part of the decommissioning plan.

So, George, if you go to the next number 14. Number 14 in the findings?

No, number 14 in the land use ordinance under decommissioning or, you know, it's not under decommissioning, but it's number 250-5.2514.

This is talking about.

This is all about the letter of credit bond.

The COI.

Yeah, and it says, shall I read this? Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the owner operator shall submit a financial guarantee in the form of a performance bond, certi bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of financial assurance acceptable to the town attorney to provide assurance the facility will be properly properly removed and remediated upon abandonment or termination of production so that tells me that a bond needs to be accounted for in the commission so we in order to provide that to the town attorney we would have to pay for that insurance um so that's an

I guess what I'm saying is that's like an upfront cost to the project. It's not a decommissioning cost. It's a cost that the project has to pay for upfront for that attorney review. So it's not typically something that we include as a decommissioning cost.

It's an upfront and ongoing project cost. Yes. Agreed. the decommissioning cost is the cost to actually decommission the system, right?

Like what is that gonna cost?

All right, I'm not gonna read all of 250-5.25, but I think we need to adhere to number 14 regarding this bond and get the attorney's blessing

that what we have satisfies our manage ordinance. I think we have that already. We need to add it. Where? 250-5.25.

And then you're 14. So draft condition of approval number 13,

does mention getting the town attorney to approve the form at the moment.

Okay.

Okay.

Fantastic. Yeah. And who initiates that interaction?

Well, the code officer will be reviewing these conditions of approval before he issues the permit. So it'll be the code officer's responsibility to get that covered.

To the town attorney? Town attorney, yeah. Okay.

All right. He loves this audience. I'm sure he does.

Sounds like more work for him, more emails, he knows the track. Yeah, okay.

Are we good there with that one?

Sorry to derail.

No problem. This is good. We're learning. We're learning. We're learning. Again... Someone's going to be first, right? But I didn't renew from day one. Couldn't let that happen. It's all good.

So did we decide there that we don't need to know the costs of the bond?

Right? Yeah. As George just said, it'll be handled through the CEO and the town attorney.

All right. I think I'm looking for a final motion here.

I'll make a motion that the planning board adopt findings of fact conclusions approved submission waivers and conditions of approval as amended and approved the site plan review application of Pinkham Brook GLC solar LLC for the proposed 600 kilowatt AC ground-mounted solar energy system at 360 Pinkham Brook Road tax map 4 lot 85 second all in favor okay

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for the experience.

We welcome comments if you've done this another time.

We'll send you a service. How did we do?

You were great. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Five stars would be accepted. It's new. I just want to say the codification is awesome.

I mean, you think 250-5, like, pull it right up. It's awesome. It's right there.

Do you guys have a policy that you don't take when it's after 8.30?

Is that a real... Yeah, so I will name... Hold on. Let me just... Let me just... I will address that. I'm sorry. I'm going back to... I'll be right with you on that. I had planned for this. So our continuation policy is that our regular planning board meetings end at 9 p.m. No new agenda items will be considered after 9 p.m. unless the board determines otherwise. At 8.30, we have a check-in. At 8.30, we will review the progress on the agenda, determine whether any new items can be reasonably taken up before 9, and announce whether items scheduled later on the agenda may be heard or will be carried forward so so yeah 8 30 and a half an hour we'll do a check-in um and if we decide that we cannot look at something afterward um we will put you on first on the next agenda you have been adding a out of your planning board meeting just goes to the next month right correct

Yeah, automatically carried over to the next regular training board meeting. Oh, so just a table for the next meeting as well.