So we don't need to go into too much detail. Yeah, but I'm just saying because um the last last um kind of bought me in it was another development that had a change of owners and it went on with a different name owners, right? But that's not applicable to this bylaw. That's why I'm not going to mention the agenda name. Thank you. Thank you. No comment on that motion. I make a motion that the planning board approve uh town of Ashlin zoning bylaw change section 9.4.53 procedures for site plan review and design plan review as present. I'll second that. Wangai. Anna Tesmania. I Katherine and Trisha Kendall. So our bylaws are now ready for a town meeting. Okay. Um, next on our agenda, just going to thank Becca, but she's already gone. Okay. Can I just mention something quick out, um, I'm actually going to be out of town, not at the town meeting, but are you are we doing a presentation or are you Okay.
Yeah, thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Uh, moving on down to the officer section. So, on 61, there is a difference there with what's in environmental. Environmental, you could be a commissioner could be chair for three years, then vice chair for three years, and toggle back and forth. one. This has a three-year total between either either officer and then you have to be a non-officer. So, it's just different than what's there today. Yeah, thank you for highlighting that. I believe the rest of that section is identical to previously. Um I don't believe there are changes to the meeting section either. Yes, Commissioner. Um, it says that seven members constitute a quorum. Um, is that number fixed or would that be based on a percentage of the commission? If there was a period of time where let's say a number of commissioners um um resigned or somehow their term was up and they decided not to re-up and let's say there were only um 11 voting members.
And that's you presumably. Yeah. Okay. I'll be I'll be doing the presentation. There's less to Yeah. Not a lot of visuals for these. No, I just think it's helpful. if if we're allowed and that confirming that you would. Yeah. To answer questions and to present it and answer questions. Yeah.
Do you still need a quorum of seven or is it um the greater of or what would be maybe the lesser of of of No, it wouldn't be the lesser. Um the lesser of either seven votes or x%. I didn't say that right, but I think you get the gist of what I'm saying. Greater than 50%. Yeah. Greater. Yeah. X percent, right? Yeah. I mean that's the case that's the case certainly with the energy commission right now with seven seven members. Yep. My understanding is that the quorum is always uh half or greater than 50%. Um so I this seven uh likely comes from the 11 plus two youth members earlier of voting. Um so half more than half would be seven. Um but I will double check if we need to word this um so that it says the presence of a majority of voting members um in case there are instances where we have less than 13.
And also Becca, I talked to Becca, so she will be she will make herself available for any questions about the flood plane. So she also is going to be pressing there to answer any questions. Okay. So um next on our agenda is is a public hearing. Uh 240 to 260 Pleasant Street, the Metro West Facilities LLC. This is the soccer fields and they I think everyone got that they requested a continuence until until May 8th. Um do you have information on why the continuence was requested? Um so there's I think two sides to it. One of them is on Tuesday on Wednesday morning they received the report from the design review committee which I think it was also forwarded to all the boards. So they are looking at that part. Um the other piece of it is that after they received the scope of work from the peer review, they were looking at the pricing.
Thank you. Yeah. on the environmental commission now it's quorum is eight but we only have 13 seated members so and you know energy is in a worse shape so it does make a difference it would definitely make things a lot easier to deal with if it said you know greater than 50% of the seated members of the commission or something like Um, all right. This article 8, I believe, is where a lot of the differences come in. Uh, Commissioner Murky, uh, my understanding of the structure of boards and commissioners, uh, commissions is that we essentially represent the voice of residents and it is a bottom up process. So we are hopefully uh selected as being representative. That's one of the reasons also why we have youth members and that ideas should percolate um from the commission as well as people talking to commissioners and with through our networks and we bring policy recommendations to city council.
So they have not yet agreed to the pricing on it. So they are looking to see if they will request the board to look for a different peerreview. Um they have not made a decision yet. So that has slowed down a little bit the process of that. So before it's moving forward, we they will need to decide if they would like to move forward with the peer review that we currently use, which is GCG. um or if they make a request for a new peerre then we will have to um look for basically options of peerreview that will come to the board the board will feel comfortable with them and then they could do that process. So that's kind of a big deal since GCG has been accepted by the town forever since I've been here and I'm sure longer, which is more than 20 years.
um and city council's role of setting broad objectives and plans for staff. Um this sounds to me like it is turning that on its head and I would appreciate um either a comment tonight from staff or our council members why we're starting from staff and saying commission you should work on this. Um it's my also understanding that uh commissioners are for example not to work on draft language for ordinances and things like that. So um I'm wondering what exactly would be if you will uh dedicate uh delegated or given to the commission to work on. It could be investigate a certain type of policy. For example, we heard what the UK is doing with natural features and biodiversity. Please look into that. Um, I mean, in in a case like that, there may be a high degree of overlap, but I'm wondering why this starts out with uh a top- down process as opposed to a bottom up process.
And so we I I don't know if we can talk about it here on the agenda, but we do need to talk about a a process for vetting a backup. I mean, we don't have to until it happens, but um I I think we should make sure we have a solid process for vetting a alternate. Yeah, this is what um Alra and I have been talking about this uh since it came up obviously since Peter's not here. Um and it hasn't come up before. This is obviously a small project. Um, and so yes, uh, GCG has been our go-to and obviously I personally have been extremely happy like with their work, but we also thought there it might be good. We we're trying to get information if towns have typically, you know, a backup, you know, versus having just just one um, you know, just just one consultant in this way.
Yes. Uh, thank you for that. Um, I have not been involved uh in the creation of this, so I don't know that I am equipped to answer that question. Um, I will leave space for the council members to potentially speak up if if they feel equipped, but um, I will bring that question to the staff for sure. Oh, council member Cornell. Yeah, I think that in talking with staff about what would be the most valuable is aligning the work that we understand that where we are in terms of our climate goals. It's it's it our goals have always been incredibly aggressive and the idea that we could have a body behind our climate goals that actually would accelerate the work that the staff is doing would be at least in this regard really helpful. And so if staff could say this is something that we don't have capacity to do but we've identified as a priority.
So um but uh but obviously thinking about that process now like Elvo said finding people and vetting them is going to take some time. So it's kind of uh GCG and their price or this other potential option but it's going to take some time because we would not rush into that lightly. So so this could get sensitive a about timelines and then who who controls that? they if we have a process that that we have had for ever and the applicants asking for something different, how do we stop the shot clock, so to speak, on the time that that a decisions due. Um, that's one thing. And then secondly, I I I do have other comments that I just don't want to violate open. I'm not clear if it was said it was continuence if we can discuss things or if we have to wait to put it on the agenda.
Can you please help us with this? Bring your expertise to the table. help us get this across the finish line or inform where we're going that that would be a lot more um valuable and productive to what the city's already doing and and I'm supportive of that. I think that that's the point of what we're trying to do when we bring citizen voices and take the bottom up approach as you put it John as um Commissioner Murski if we bring that forward that that's the the purpose of these in terms of supporting what staff is trying to do the city is trying to do and really put some tailwind behind it. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Merski, if I may respond to that. Um, that's not the way I read and understand this. Um, first of all, um, uh, Commissioner um, Queen, you um, mentioned climate.
Well, I think the project is on the agenda even though it's request. Okay. Well, then I should I have some other comments than related to that? Well, I think if you have comments related to that process. Yeah. Because it's something we need to work on. So, obviously the applicant isn't here. So, we're not going to be talking about the project per se. Okay. It's sort of related and you can say we have to wave if so my understanding and I believe Peter said this before they left they were changing or potentially changing to a a non-natural turf but the stuff they submitted for the application was based on natural turf which is so we that is no longer a valid application. Now I'm not saying that everything has to go to zero but what we're asking someone to look at may not be applicable. So I I don't want us to have them when they come back later say hey by the way you owe us new data but hey by the way you owe us new data and we should tell them sooner rather than later.
Obviously, the sustainability commission will do a lot more than just climate. It's clean water, it's clean air, it's natural features, biodiversity, um, etc. So, it's much broader than climate. Um I don't think you may just using climate as an example and that's fine. What I would like to see is a catchall process um or a collaborative process but this is literally reads as a top down. So um there's staff is going to recommend a list of priority topics. It's going to be provided to city council. City council will review and approve the plan and the plan will be presented to the commission for implementation. that does not allow or at least in its strict reading does not allow for a bottomup uh uh element of of our work and I would like to see the language of this change so that uh there is room for the commission to also bubble up policies.
Um so in other words giving the consultant an application that's not accurate is a problem. It is not based on what we are hearing that they want to do is one thing. Can we ask the applicant to essentially amend or fix the application prior to submission to consultant? Yeah. Well, for the peer reviewer, well, the peer reviewer will make those questions usually. Um, I've honestly never seen it within the planning board, but I've been able to see it within the CBA. Um and often if there is any change from the original application that the developer is mentioning the peerreview will ask for those new calculations if it's storm water in this case or if anything is changing in terms of materiality so they can understand what will be that impact. But so GCG presumably doesn't watch our meetings though is what I'm saying. We have to communicate to them.
I mean just look at how A20 came came to pass. A20 came to pass when there was no Missy Stoultz, there was no OSI, there was one quarter headcount in uh the city that was working on energy areas. Um um Commissioner Brown may remember this. Um we had Nate Gistler who's now with U of M um spending about 25% of his time um facilitating energy commission meetings. So the whole idea of uh declaring the climate emergency and calling for a climate action plan bubbled up through the energy and environmental commissions and that led to um the creation of an A20 plan and the hiring of Missy and uh the staffing of the department. This if you read it strictly this doesn't really allow for that. So, I'm I'm just asking that the language here be reviewed to show that there's actually a give and take here and that the commission has uh let's say the latitude to be able to um develop its own recommendations and um work on on topics that are not in a work plan that is dedicated or um delegated from staff, approved by council, and then given to the commission.
I'm saying I'm offering being proactive and getting in touch with the applicant and saying if you go forward with this change, you need to update the calculations for storm water. Yes. And instead of waiting till they're in front of us again next time, potentially May 8th, I I don't think we I assume we would be professional and offer that ahead of time. Yes. Offer offer what ahead of time? offer offer um telling them that the calculations for a natural turf field, right? Yeah. Need to be redone for if you're changing it, right? That's one. And then secondly, that parcel I'm believe is in the groundwater protection overlay district. And I believe if you start looking online of a synthetic turf field, there's potential for leeching. And I am not a scientist. I'm not pretending to be a scientist, but I'm pretending to be smart enough to ask those questions.
Thank you. I appreciate that. I will uh bring that comment to the staff working on this. Um Commissioner Dale. Yeah. Uh Commissioner Murski probably said it better than than I will, but that that's the sort of where I was going to. I um I would also I would really like to know what would be most helpful and have that um direction and the priorization from staff. I think that would be wonderful. I want I want to be helpful and I agree we have some expertise and and maybe some of us have the time and capacity to help out um in that way. So absolutely and I I also agree that part of it to bring what what that expertise means and we might have additional ideas of what we're hearing from people that we're out in community and being those representatives. So yeah, if it can just be a wording change to sound more collaborative and that together um together that work plan will be developed, I think that that would be fantastic.
So, we as a board have to figure out what that means and what we're going to do for resources or wait again, we can wait till they put it in front of us, but they I I heard that from the town planner. I did not hear that from the applicant. Yeah, I I assume that's I assume that's also part of the continuence. I don't know because I know you know obviously in the design review committee notes that was cited as a very big issue right so it's not it's not um it's I assume it is I'm just saying to be fair we haven't heard it from we haven't heard it from the applicant the board right um but I I think it's kind of a big deal and I don't think any of us are scientists on the board and and nor would we probably want to cross and use our professional work in that way on the board.
Yeah, thank you. Uh Commissioner Brown. Yeah, thanks Sean. I have two comments. One is that um there's something missing from our scope of work and that is public health. The environmental commission had explicitly one of the topics it was asked to cover is public health issues, you know, like PAS and the Heron River, the um the Chromium 6 release, the Gellman plume, things like that. So, I would I would appreciate having that included in there as well. Yeah. Thank you. And then the second thing is um um in our in our current bylaws uh we've always had a clause which um in allows the commission to call a public hearing. Now I'm not sure what the definition of a public hearing is compared to a meeting. But um that the public hearing language is not in this sustainability um you know proposal the bylaws. Thank you.