Heat. Heat. Good evening everyone. I'm calling tonight's meeting of the family planning board to order. Today is March 24th. It is 6:30 p.m. We are meeting at family town hall. My name is John Dulie. I am
the current chair of the planning board. Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone this is a public meeting is being conducted in accordance with Massachusetts open meeting law. Please take a moment to silence any mobile devices or electronics to avoid
interruptions. Anyone wishing to speak should come to the podium. wait to be recognized by the chair and state their name for the record before making remarks. We encourage respectful and constructive dialogue during public comment periods.
Thank you. We'll now proceed with our first item on the agenda, which is public comment. If anyone wishes to speak about something that is not on the agenda this evening, please come to the podium and state your name. All right. Thank you. Seeing no one
coming to the podium. Um, second item on the agenda is minutes. We have >> none. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, no minutes this week. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Third Third item on agenda is our returning member.
>> Yes. >> Thank you, John. I just wanted to tell the board how wonderful it is to be back amongst you. Takes a while to come back from surgery, but here I am. Well, we're happy to have you back for sure.
Okay. Uh what's her name? You have to look at the the tag right outside. So, uh, next we have, um, planning board decision for applicant an Hfield site
plan review application to expand and renovate the floor area of the existing restaurant from 12 seats to 45 seats located at 352 Main Street, Unit 3. And Tom, would you uh, give us the pleasure?
>> Mr. Chairman motion that the planning board votes to approve the site plan review application of Anes Hersfield for an increase in seating within the existing restaurant at 352 Main Street, Unit 3 under section
240-12.2 site plan review of the zoning bylaw with the following conditions and findings. These are the findings. The applicant is seeking site plan approval to expand the existing restaurant devour
from 12 seats to 45 seats. This increase in seating capacity results in a corresponding increase in the required number of parking spaces. No expansion of the building footprint is proposed. The project consists solely of interior
renovations to accommodate the additional seating, including the installation of a bar and reconfiguration of the dining area. The restaurant will be open during lunch and dinner hours. The surrounding businesses within the plaza primarily
operate during daytime hours. Therefore, peak dinner operations at the restaurant are not anticipated to adversely impact shared parking availability. Through testimony at the board's public meeting, the applicate indicated that
during the lunch hours, the total number of seats will be reduced to 25 to alleviate the demand on the shared parking lot. Next page. Town of Felment departments have reviewed and commented on the above mentioned application and the planning
board finds that the applicant has adequately address the comments. The board finds that the information provided by the applicant conforms to all the requirements of section 240-12.2 of the zoning bylaw. These are the
conditions. Number one, the plan shall be constructed as approved. Any changes shall be reviewed by the planning board to determine if a modification of this decision is necessary. Number two, the project shall meet all applicable
standards set forth in the building code as determined by the building commissioner. Number three, the applicant shall see the engineering division for addressed assignments assignment for the new building prior to applying for a building permit. Upon
completion of construction, the applicant shall post the address for this building per section 99-1 of the town code. Number four, pursuant to section 240-12.2
of the zoning bylaw, this site plan review decision shall lapse 3 years from the date it is granted if substantial use thereof has not sooner commenced except for good cause. The determination of good cause
shall be made by the planning board. >> Thank you, Tom. Second by Charlotte. Any discussion? >> Uh yeah. Uh condition three, uh the applicant shall see the engineering division for address assignment. Doesn't this building have an address already?
>> It technically does. Um but I don't believe the engineering division has assigned unit numbers to the building yet. Therefore, that's that's the reason for the condition. >> Okay. Any other comments? All in favor?
>> I I unanimous. >> No, I'm recusing myself because I wasn't here during >> All right. Thank you. Uh, next on the agenda is applicant George Patello.
TT definitive plan application for a two lot subdivision with associated roadway located at 500 Kerry shop road and this is a planning board decision >> for the record Mr. Chair, would you like me to just summarize?
>> Yes. >> So, at the last meeting, um just about a week ago, actually, exactly a week ago, um you authorized the or asked for the planning staff to put together a positive motion. We've done that. U contingent upon the engineering referral, which is included in your
packets, coming back with essentially no outstanding issues. Um I've reviewed the the referral. Hope all of you have as well. I didn't see any uh issues. So, I think you're um good to go with the decision. I do want to just call out two edits that we need to make. Um and this
is clerical in my opinion. It's the name of the street. So, as you know, um the definitive plan, they proposed to name the street Naomi's Way with an apostrophe. Unfortunately, the apostrophe creates problems within our
databases. And so, uh, I reached out to the applicant and just asked if they would be willing to name the street Naomi way instead of Naomi's with the apostrophe. They're fine with that. So, I think it's a clerical correction that we can make before uh I endorse the
definitive on your behalf and just make that edit in the decision. There's two places where it's called Naomi's. We'll just call it Naomi way. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> You're welcome. Other than that, we're ready to go ahead with the uh decision. >> Yes. Tom,
>> would you read that for us, please? Motion that the planning board votes to approve the application of George Patello, trustee under article 4, definitive plans, chapter 305, subdivision regulations of the town of
Felmouth for a two lot subdivision at 500 Carriage Shop Road with the following conditions and findings. The applicant filed a definitive subdivision plan application with the planning board for the creation of a two
lot subdivision off of Carriage Shop Road in East Felmouth. The new lots will have access through a newly created private roadway named Naomi Way. The new subdivision road, Naomi Way,
will be a 431 plus or minus linear foot, 22 foot wide paved hammerhead style turnaround private roadway over an existing gravel way that will be accessible from carriage shop road. The
definitive plan includes the installation of a new 8-foot water man and a fire hydrant at the terminus terminus of the roadway and a storm water collection system. Through testimony at the public hearing,
the applicant indicated that any future development of lot A and lot B would include ditrifying septic systems. The board finds the applicant adequately addressed all comments submitted by town of departments. These are the waiverss.
The planning board grants waiverss from the following requirements of the subdivision control bylaw as requested by the applicant. Next page. Number one, section 305-11.
C3, traverse tables. Number two, section 305-28, fire alarm system. Number three, section 305-30, sidewalks, grass plots, and street trees. Number four, section 305-34,
street lights. The board grants these waivers because the applicant's representative indicated at the public hearing there were no future plans for developing these two new lots. In the event that future development is contemplated, the board reserves this
right or their right to revisit these waiverss at that time. These are the conditions. Number one, prior to endorsement of the definitive plan, a government creating a covenant creating a homeowners association along with a
separate covenant or bond ensuring completion of the roadway and utilities shall be submitted to the planning board for approval. Number two, the plan shall be constructed as approved. Number three, pursuant to 240-2.1C
of the zoning bylaw, no permit for occupancy of new construction shall be issued until the planning board is satisfied that the conditions of this approval have been met. Number four, the excavations for the infiltration
pits shall be observed by the town before the installation of the leeching systems. Number five, the project shall comply with the town's soil erosion and sediment control standard conditions document.
Number six, all future telephone, cable television, and electric service lines to the proposed lots shall be placed underground. Next page number nine.
The applicant shall obtain an approved street opening permit and post any required bond with the engineering division prior to start of construction. Intend any further subdivision and/or development shall require modification of this decision by the Felmouth
Planning Board. >> Okay. Second. Uh any comments or questions? I would just like to make um uh one correction, Tom. >> Yeah. >> When you're reading the decision, you
said um you used 8 in instead of 8. >> You said 8 ft. >> 8 instead of 8 in. >> Should be 8 in. >> The water man. >> All right. Thank you. >> Whatever it was. >> And a question for you, Jed, if you don't mind. >> On um
number lost my I lost my track here. Okay. On condition number one. >> Yep. >> It says um homeworks association one with a separate covenant or bond. Um I thought we always did bonds for in unfinished roads.
>> They could do either one. the one. >> Yeah. Y >> Okay. >> So, it it's as long as we get a covenant for the roadway itself, uh they could do uh a bond for the entire uh work if they if they so choose. And then we also need
the homeowners association covenant. >> Okay. >> Or protective comments really. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. All right. All in favor? I I >> Again, I'm recusing myself. Okay. Thank you. Think >> so. Okay. Uh, next on our agenda, we have
um, uh, ASD Cape Cod Holdings LLC. And we're going to move that to the final item on our agenda if the applicant is okay with that. Okay. Thank you. Then we're going to take um
applicant Kevin Clower second on behalf of 28 Heights Road LLC special permit application to allow the parking in a front yard and within 5 ft of a coffee line for 28 Heights Road. applicant has requested that this application be
withdrawn without prejudice due to issues with meeting the regulatory timelines in MGLC 489. >> You good with that, Kevin? >> Uh the first of the two? Yes. >> Okay. Do we need to vote with that?
>> Yes, you do. Okay. >> Would you like uh the clerk to read it into the record, the letter? Sure. Thank you. Let me read this up. Dear Jed, at your request, the applicant is hereby requesting to withdraw the above referenced
application for a special permit without prejudice. The applicant will be resubmitting the application shortly. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions. very truly yours, Kevin P. Clower. Second, Esquire.
>> And I move that the board accept the applicant's request. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? I >> I unanimous. >> All right. Then next we'll have um applicant Kevin B. CL with a second on behalf of 28 Field Heights Road LLC site
plan review application for the renovation and redevelopment of the existing Red Horse in property at 28 Field Heights Road. The proposal includes the demolition of two existing structures, the construction of two new buildings and a swimming pool and a new
parking lot for the new layout for the property. new parking layout for the property. And um Kevin, we also have you here for a special minute. Can we do both items at the same time? >> Yeah. So I we're going to be it's it's
the same presentation. Um so you know, we can either open that separately and I'll just effectively say what I just said or we can just do them together. >> I prefer to do it all at one time. So that's again a uh applicant Kevin P. CL second on behalf of 28 Field Heights
Road LLC special permit application to allow parking within a front yard within 5 ft of a property line at 28 family Heights Road. And Tom, Mr. Chairman, public notice for this project was published on
March 6, 2026, March 13, 2026, and 43 of Butters were notified. And there's another notice as well. Public notice for this project was published on March 6, 2026 and 43 of Butters were
also notified. >> So for the record, the first notice was for the special permit. The second notice was for the site plan review. >> Did I say it backward? >> Thank you for the applicant. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members
of the board. For the record, my name is Kevin Clower. I'm an attorney here in town and I am representing before you tonight 28 Falmouth Heights Road LLC. They are the owner of the subject property which unsurprisingly is 28 Thalmouth Heights Road which is the location of the Red Horse In. I'm joined
tonight by Mark Begoian, the owner of the property as well as Will Paglia, an engineer with Longfellow Design, Devin Graham and Jeannie Fay, both of the Wateride Group. So, we're before the board tonight for two reasons. uh site plan review of the proposed expansion of
the hotel and also a special permit for parking within 5 ft of a property line and within a front yard. Um I should just note at the outset we received the staff report yesterday and uh received the substantial engineering referral late this afternoon. Have we have not had the opportunity to fully review the
engineering report referral as of yet, let alone respond. Um and it's clear from the initial review that the change that there will be some changes to the plan forthcoming. So, what I'd like to do is use this evening as an introduction, generally review the plans and proposals, see if the board has any
questions, and uh intend to come back necessary revisions to the plan, responding to comments and referrals accordingly. So, this property is 28 Fmouth Road uh at the corner of Fathites Road and Jericho Path. It contains just shy of
36,000 square feet. It's located in the residential C zoning district and it is not in a flood zone. Uh a very small portion of a corner of the lot is in a flood zone. None of the structures are within a flood zone. As I noted, this is the site of the Red Horse in which is a
26 room hotel which is located in uh two main buildings with a maintenance building as well. Uh building A having 16 units, building B having 10 units presently. There are seven spaces located on Jericho Path and the remainder of the parking is located in the gravel courtyard.
The applicants are proposing an expansion of the existing hotel use. Uh they're removing the existing maintenance building, proposing the addition of building C over here located in the southeastern corner of the lot which would include 14 additional rooms. Uh as well as conversion of an existing
office space in building A to add an additional unit there. In addition, they're requesting a new check-in building uh and pool located here. Um, in connection with all of this, they are proposing to relay out the parking area here, including uh an improvement
to the traffic flow by creating a new exit occup. So, this results in a total of 41 rooms on the site uh with an improved parking layout. The bylaw requires 1.1 parking space per room. So, there's a total of 45 parking spaces required.
However, section 24014.1F2 allows for a 20% reduction in required parking uh between when you're between 40 and 50 spaces. That would reduce the requirement down to 36 spaces and the proposed site plan has shown 37 spaces here. In addition, uh and this is where
it gets a little confusing in some of the staff referrals. The applicant owns property at 21 Fmouth Road. That will be the subject of a separate permit application. Uh however as redesigned that site will provide additional parking. What we've shown is a plan accommodating all the required parking
after the reduction on this site but there is an additional site which is in within 300 ft which will be available for additional parking. It cannot be part of our required parking numbers because it's located across Heights Road. But I think it's an important um note to make that there is additional
parking available uh just across the way. Um, this property has been a hotel since the 1950s and until uh approximately 2001. It included an outdoor pool. In 2006, a special permit was granted for the addition of a third building uh with 10
additional rooms. Unfortunately, that was never constructed, but there is some precedent for this as something very similar was approved. So, in addition to the site plan review, uh we're going to require a special permit from this board for the parking as well as relief from the zoning board.
Uh we're going to be seeking a special permit for mod modification of non-conforming structures for alternative parking services and for lot coverage in excess of 20%. This is only the beginning of the process. Having quickly reviewed the staff report earlier today, we believe that we can
provide all the requested information. Uh specifically the lighting plan and site distance plans can be done pretty easily. Uh, one item to note, the report notes that parking for business use must be 15 feet from a property line when it's budding
residential use. The parking along uh the northern side presently exists. We're not changing that. And whereas it is a pre-existing non-conforming use in that location, we believe it can be addressed through a special permit to the zoning board. So, that's another issue that would have to bring in front
of the zoning board. Regarding the engineering referral, we simply haven't had the opportunity to review it. Uh, however, we we will be doing so and we'll be responding to planning and engineering staff accordingly. This proposal is in line with the existing use and with the surrounding
area, which though this is residential is really um at a point where residential and business are are mixing at that uh at the northern end of Talachites Road. Uh the applicants are simply seeking to continue a use that has existed for almost 80 years and bring what is really needed hospitality
space to town. Uh in talking with Michael Kasparian at the Fmouth Chamber a few years ago, he told me that in 1990 there was over 2,000 hotel rooms in Fmouth and there are currently less than 900. We have had a significant loss of hotel rooms over the last uh 30 years.
We believe the project meets uh the criteria both for site plan review approval and for the special permit. uh I along with the team would be glad to address any questions that the board may have. Otherwise, we would like to request a continuation in order to address the staff report and the engineering referral.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Any questions or Jed, do you want to make any comments here? >> The two comments, well, actually just one comment. I just want to um bring your attention to uh as attorney Flower mentioned, the uh engineering division
referral is included in your packet. There's also uh an email from uh Beverly Gallagher uh indicating um some issues with the proposal. Um so that's also included in your staff or in your packet. I believe the applicant got a
copy. If not, let me know. Um but other than that, um there's there's nothing more I should add at at this point. I just pass it along and just remind you to take public comment. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh any questions from the board at this
point? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. One question. What's the coverage amount of the completed building? >> So of of structures currently it is um 17.4% and it's being proposed at 24. It's currently at 17.4%. And it's being
proposed at 24.9%. >> Thank you. >> And the allowance is 40%. >> So it's residential C zoning district. So the the allowance is 20% by right up to 25% by special permit. Uh any uh one from the audience want to
step to the podium ask any questions make any comments and your name for the record please. >> Yes. Hi I'm Paul and um I live over here. >> Okay. This is this meeting is recorded so you have to speak into the microphone.
>> Okay. Hi, I'm Paula Cahill. I live uh two houses away from the edge of the red horse in. >> All right. Thank you. >> And my concern is the redirection of the traffic. Now traffic goes in and out of Fallet
Heights Road. And this redirects the traffic to coming out onto Jericho path and directly to the I'm not good at this. East. >> You're east.
>> Okay. So, directly to the east is Young Road, the corner of Young Road, and um which is a residential road. My concern is that if the traffic is coming out onto Jericho path and they turn left, they're going to increase the traffic down Young Road
quite a bit. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Um, you know, we could address that very easily because I think we'd be perfectly fine making that a right-hand turn only out of that uh exit. So, that's something we can look at as we look at
potential revisions to the plans. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience? >> So, uh, do I need a motion for to >> What are we looking at for dates? >> April 14th and April 28th.
>> Okay, both of those. I'm available for either of those. Any issue? >> 14th would be preference. I think that gives us plenty of time to get some changes to the plans done. Uh, they need to be in by the 7th, correct? >> Uh, would be the 7th. Yes. Yep.
A motion to continue. >> Second. >> So moved. So moved. >> No. Second. >> Second. Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I unanimously. >> All right. Great. Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing you in a few weeks. >> All right. Thank you.
to save these so they don't have to print them again. >> Yeah. Bring them home. So, spread them out a little bit. >> April 15th and April. >> That's the
last meeting date. The deadline. out to the hallway, please. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, next on our agenda is applicant ASD Cape Cod Holdings LLC site plan review application to install large scale ground mounts of solar arrays at
414248 and 59 Theater Drive and 0 Boxway Hill Road maps 10301 163 1701 028B14 014
1701 028039 9 39 1 170 1 028A 015 1 0 04 007035. >> John, I have a question before we begin on this. I have to recuse myself on it
because I've not been here >> for almost all of it. Does that mean I should get up and leave the room as we normally do with recusals or can I just sit comfortably here and listen? >> What do you think? If she if if um member Kerfoot is not voting on it,
there's no reason for you to leave the room. >> You can sit comfortably in that seat. >> Thank you. >> Provided that the chair is okay with that because after all, it is up to him. >> But no comments and no faces making, no >> no clapping, none of that. Okay.
>> All right. I think she should leave the Das. >> Thank you. And for the applicant, >> um good evening members of the board. Um uh for the record, Matt Terry from the law firm of Aman Clower here in town.
This is the fifth hearing for our site plan review application. At this point in the process, uh the uh planning staff has produced a draft approval with conditions dated March 20th. And um so I think the
purpose subject to uh the chair of the board telling me otherwise is uh to discuss that draft approval um and uh and conditions. Um before we begin just from a procedural standpoint uh in speaking
with the um with Mr. Corno. Uh it's it sounded like the board um was interested in um continuing uh our hearing to April 14th. So just setting the table before discussions
begin so folks understand the stakes of the conversation this evening and that may not be that we reach an approval and vote tonight. Um, I just thought it might make sense to talk about that piece up front so that it sets the the
table for the balance of the conversation. Um, I uh spoke to my client who's amendable to holding a sixth hearing on April 14th and we would have to extend the decision deadline to
Friday, April 17th. Um if um that's the uh the board's wishes. >> Uh if if um the applicant is okay with that, that's would be my preference. We
had we at the last our last uh meeting. I asked the board members if they had any other uh conditions that they would like to add for consideration other than what is in the draft motion that we would discuss those item this
evening item or items and um and that's where I I think we should do that and and then uh vote at the next meeting >> and have um the planning department produce a further revised approval and
conditions in the interim >> if need be. >> If need be. And just a point of clarification on the process for this evening. To the extent that the board, individual board members are proposing conditions, is it the intent of the board to vote on those conditions for
inclusion in the approval? >> I would think we'd have to vote that in as part of we'd add to these conditions. I think we'd have to vote that in. >> Okay. Thanks. I appreciate that. >> Am I correct in that? we'd have to vote again. >> I I don't think you need to, but if you
feel more comfortable doing that, that's totally fine. >> If one board member had a condition and the other board members didn't agree with that condition, >> right, >> I don't think it should become a condition. >> Right. So, in that case, correct? Right. If there's a disagreement on a
condition, yes, I would >> iron it out. Maybe maybe member Clifford could could be the referee. >> So, instead of waiting to the end, get it done tonight. Exactly. Okay. Iron it all out tonight. >> Try to get an agreement this evening. >> I think it's better to get it out of the way instead of wait till the very end >> with the board members here and with the
applicant here. >> Sure. >> And then um everyone knows where we stand for the next meeting. >> Is that that work? All right. >> Works for me. >> And um so did did any of the board members come up with any additional conditions to be
considered? >> I have not. No. >> No. Tom, >> we talked about the irrigation system, but I also heard that there might have that might have some tests that might
have been take taken place already. Is that true regarding the sprinkler system? >> Testing of the sprinkler system, >> irrigation, >> the irrigation. >> Um I don't >> I know I brought up an issue about just I mean if you're you're you're always
sticking things in the ground, right? Break one of those pipes. Is that a speestous that's lead? It's something I brought up at a previous meeting once or twice. Just like that addressed. >> Yeah, it's uh I recall you bring it up and I think it there is an existing
draft condition in the draft approval um that addresses that. >> Yeah, I read it over last night. I might have missed it. Um I didn't see it. That's the only reason why I'm bringing up now. We don't have so it's not currently in the draft list. It had been mentioned in
the past. The conditions that are in the draft are simply from staff. >> Okay. >> So, anything that you want to add? It sounds like that might be one of those conditions you might want to consider adding and having a discussion with the applicant about it. >> Yeah.
>> I'd just like to add that. >> And I think testing of the irrigation. >> Yes. I believe the applicant said they're going to remove the irrigation. So, it would be removal and testing. >> Oh, no. They're removing all the irrigation. I thought
>> No. So, and I think this might maybe what I'm recalling is that it's in some of the findings. >> Um but the uh applicant's intent is to um within the area of disturbance. >> Yes. uh to the extent that components of the
irrigation system are uncovered as part of site construction that those components will be disposed of in accordance with applicable law. >> Okay. >> So if they find a particularly you know thorny component there'll be you legal
requirements around how that's removed and disposed of. >> Okay. >> Good. Thank you. Any other board members have any? Um I I typed up a few uh items that I'd like for us to discuss this evening.
Would you like to have a copy of Mr. Terry? >> Sure, that would be great. Thanks. >> We can just go through the uh list then then the board we can discuss it and and have the applicant be a part of the discussion.
So um some of the items that I had concerned were as conditions no additional utility poles added to the site. We have a 6 foot deep retention areas on
the site and if they're going to collect water I would like to have them fenced in similar to the solar array to prevent prevent future accidents of any kind. Um, want to make sure there's an alarm system to system to alert if battery stations
have a problem and signage for danger of shock or electrocution if there is a problem with any of the battery um sites. It may already be part of what you presented. We printed a lot of material.
So, that part might already be in there. What Tom just mentioned, irrigation removal before construction. uh and testing for lead. We've had multiple comments from the uh audience about lead testing. I don't know if the
pipes are lead or not. Today's world, they don't use lead for irrigation, but this is an old golf course, so it may have lead. They have lead pipes. Let me say that. uh like to have proof. Uh this uh it was
stated earlier uh that um the the installation of the solar panels has uh no concern for aircraft in the area and um I've read some documents that
Massachusetts uses stating that if you're within 5 miles of an airport um there can be a concern if you're further than than uh five nautical miles. If you're further than five nautical miles, there's no concern. And
I met with the building commissioner earlier today and certainly um the runways at Otis are within five easily within five nautical miles. And I know you stated during the KOD Commission hearings that it wasn't going to be a
concern. And I just want to uh make sure at some point that that we we know for sure from the federal government or who whoever is in charge of the Air Force base. And then um on finding number 28, Cape
Cod Commission calls for 650 new trees planted in restoration area and 232 trees planted in protected open space area. I'd like to know the types and sizes and time frame for plantings
and oversight by which town department that would be our our problem which whoever is going to help oversee that situation. That's a total of 782 trees to be planted in the future.
So, uh, in F28, it it talks about some types, but it doesn't h have a numerical. It doesn't say 102 white oak or so, we'd like to have some breakdown of that. We know what so the town knows what to expect.
And, uh, decommissioning plan, we'd like to be it completed within one year of lease agreement ending or end of its useful life or if the site has been abandoned. and site restoration and stabilization completed within one year of completion
for decommissioning and and uh during the time frame the solar owner should continue to pay rent property insurance until decommissioning restoration is 100% complete and approved by the town of Felmouth and the Cape Cod Commission.
So those are my concerns. I don't know if you'd like to discuss something this evening or you want to I think it would be helpful to walk through these. >> Yeah, I think so too. Thank you.
>> One at a time. Um there So if you could expound a little bit more on the first condition, no additional utility poles added to the site. Well, uh, you have on, uh, your site plan, I think, seven poles being added,
utility poles. I thought I thought it was four and then I I was told it was seven. >> So, yes, Lawrence Cook from Pure Sky Energy. Um, on the site, there's no additional poles. There are eight poles uh offsite that will serve as the extension for from Eversource.
Well, that's to me that's added to the site. I'd like to see no utility poles. No new additional utility poles >> beyond the eight that are already planned. >> Oh, not not even any of those. I would like to I'd like to see from the battery stations to the next telephone pole
which is I think 1,200 ft away approximately for the wires to be underground. I'll leave that to you. >> Sure. Yeah. >> Um well, and just before you go, Lawrence, the within the site perimeter, are there >> there's no poles within the site perimeter?
>> There are no poles, so nothing for connection to the Eversource. >> So we we go from our pad underground to the pole, the Eversource uh over to the Eversource equipment pad. Yep. >> They'll then go from underground from their equipment pad to their the the last of the poles that they've proposed
along Box Hill. >> I see. Got it. Thank you. So, this is basically a restatement of the condition we've been talking about at a few hearings, which is that you'd like the lines to be buried underground um >> from the from the battery station to the next pole, the existing pole,
>> right, which is currently close to the uh intersection with ashimmit road. >> Correct. >> Okay. So we'll just raise our you know reer raise our earlier uh concerns and objections to this condition. Um which
in brief because this is all area we've trod over before that site plan review is what it says which is uh review of the plan within the site and that uh by definition uh imposing a condition for
uh property that's outside of the site is outside of the scope of the review and outside of the scope of the bylaw. Um it also uh is not consistent with um previously approved uh large solar
projects in town including uh recent approvals like the fairgrounds. Um it uh imposes a significant financial and timeline hardship on the applicant uh because uh first of all it's not uh uh
cheap uh to bury lines and it um requires uh entering a restudy with Eversource which means um you know months if not uh longer than that to um redesign an interconnection uh program
with Eversource as the utility that's already been finalized. ized and and executed with Eversource. Uh finally, as we submitted to the board uh in um anticipation of this hearing um a letter that outlined some of the other uh
potentially adverse consequences of of burying these lines that we wanted to bring the board to the board's attention uh in the event that they hadn't been considered. And those chiefly two considerations are one that in order to
bury lines along Boxberry Hill Road, it would require at least an 8ft wide area of disturbance and uh as you know from um the site visit and and from driving up and down Boxberry Hill Road, the tree line there is very close to to the road.
So it would uh require the removal of a significant number of trees in order to accomplish this. uh in addition to uh potentially fatally damaging the root systems of even more trees. Um so there
could be a significant loss of roadside uh forestation uh as part of this condition and it would also therefore result in the loss of a significant amount of screening natural screening which is currently in place of uh of the
arrays um the east and west array. Um so I I if the board is inclined to and approves this as a condition to its approval, the applicant would intend to appeal the the the site plan review
approval. And if the board is weighing kind of the equities of um serving the public, one additional factor I'd like the board to take into consideration are the you know time and legal fees that the town would have to incur in order to
uh to defend that appeal, which could take uh quite a bit of time uh to work its way through the court system. Um, and it seems like a um, uh, challenging use of public funds for a condition that
staff and town council has informed the board uh, is outside the bounds of the bylaw and would almost certainly be overturned on judicial review. Um, so I think that that that's the uh, list of prior objections we've raised to this
condition. So, I don't think that's our board's intention to have the applicant appeal any of our decisions here. That's not the per purpose of it. But I would ask the question that uh as you were making your statement there, it sounded like you
already have an agreement with Eversource, maybe a contract of some sort uh for the the poles and and the wiring itself. If you do, could you present that to us before the next meeting? Uh I'll defer to the applicant on that
>> reacted. >> Yeah, you have to come up. >> So we have a an executed uh interconnection agreement with the with Eversource. Um we would have to discuss whether that's appropriate to be made. >> Yeah, if you discuss that and let us
know, I'd appreciate it. Jim, you have a comment? >> Well, I just wanted to comment. I was involved in putting together a fairly large solar array and the first thing we had to do was this interconnection agreement. It's done right up front and it's done before you even start everything. And so then everything's based on that. And I think to throw a
major component, it throws the the whole financing and the whole deal, all the math gets done over again. It's trashes the whole thing. >> Especially because it's not on part of our site plan review. I think it's grossly unfair to basically throw away
the whole math of the interconnection agreement because it's really hard to take all this power and figure out a way they can just just don't insert it into the grid. It has to be studied carefully. It has to be measured. And when we did the solar landfill, it was $100,000 to do that work. And our the we
made sure that the first payment that the bidder did was that $100,000. That's a really big obstacle. and then to just change it at the end. >> I think it's grossly unfair. >> Well, thank you. But but we're having that discussion. If >> if you had that uh situation with um the
landfill, if you had that agreement right up front >> and you came in front of this board and we asked you if we could see that agreement, would you have a problem showing it to us? >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We the time. No, it's just no. >> Okay. So if possible like to look at it before
next the next meeting. >> Um yeah we will work on that internally and um turn over what we're able to um as part of working our way through these conditions as we had discussed at the outset.
>> Um if the goal for the evening is to get as close to an approval with uh conditions that the board is uh happy with. Then my suggestion to the board would be um that as we go through each
condition and there's discussion internally on the board uh that the board take a vote on whether to add each condition to the next draft of the approval. Okay. Well, we'd like to see the
the agreement from Eversource before we vote on the first one. If you don't mind, and if you can get that for us for the next meeting, then and that's a good suggestion. That's a and we'll do that right as we're going through these.
>> Um, and what would the um >> the interconnection agreement, >> right? The interconnection agreement. And what's the um thought process behind seeing a copy of it as it relates to the site plan review? >> Well,
you the applicant keeps saying that that um it's been stated ever wouldn't want it to be underground. It's been stated that this is already designed like this. So, not to say that it's not, but uh
you've shown us hundreds of pages of documents of design and and site plan and you name it just to see the agreement can't be the most difficult thing. >> Yeah. And so part of the thinking is that you're looking for proof that the
system as we're presenting it is as designed and approved by Yes. uh and I'll defer to the applicant on this as to whether the interconnection agreement provides >> silent on that the interconnection agreement has the
>> so the questions that you were asking are actually within the impact study which is what is assessed um before they offer the interconnection agreement. The interconnection agreement is mostly a list of standard clauses uh and then the sight specific this is what you pay us
for this uh for this uh upgrades that we're planning to do. >> Would it show the design of it going on telephone polls from >> what would show that from Eversource? >> It would be the impact study. >> Okay. And then do you have that for us then? >> Again I would have to discuss outside of
this meeting whether it was uh because it it wouldn't just be presenting it to the board. It would be a public record then. So um that's that's why slightly hesitant. >> Appreciate that. >> So the request would then be for the impact study. >> Okay. >> And and
uh you know soon enough as soon as possible so we could review it. You know not the day of the meetings so to speak. H you're not interested in a seventh hearing? >> Well,
we can go as long as you like. >> No, I think six is a good round number. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So, uh the second condition on your list is the 6T deep retention areas protected with fencing similar to what
to the solar array to prevent accidents. Um I'd ask Raul >> if they're going to retain water. >> If they're going to retain water. So, I'll ask Raul to come up and speak to it because I believe he has stated at prior hearings that none of these um retention
areas are uh will retain water. >> For the record, Ra started from Cape Island Engineering where the engineers and land surveyors for the project. Um so, most of these detention basins are already within the enclosure, the fence
enclosure. Um there is one of those drainage system that is more than 4 feet of depth that's possibly retaining water that is within 350 ft of the vernal pool. The intention with that one is for it to be wildlife access if we enclose
it with another fence will be preventing that which will be >> wildlife access so the animals can drink the water or is that like >> it's a pond or something? It's between the corridor that we already agreed to open up and the west array. Um if we
enclose it, we're practically blocking of the corridor that in past meetings we agreed to open up. Um and it's just located at this location. Um all the other ones um are within the confines of the enclosure. Um so that will already
be complied with. is just that one that is closest to that burner pool um that we wanted to become natural and just becomes a natural depression >> and it's going to be six feet deep. >> Um that one was more than 4 feet. Um I don't know if it reached the six feet.
>> I want to share with you my concern. Uh Felmouth had a situation like this me many years back maybe 20 years ago over by the Felmouth Mall and they had a ret retention area and it froze over and two young boys were walking across it fell
through the ice one drowned. He was 11 or 12 years old and I just want to not have something like that happen here. There there's going to be people walking. You have trails. you have the the um slow the the
u sledding hill close by and if you think that something like that could happen here, I'd like to just have some fencing around it. If you if you don't have that concern, then >> well, I will say this. >> Yeah, I'm not trying to make you do
something just to do it. It's the the the thought process is we don't want someone to get injured here. Now, I will say this. Um, there's currently some areas on the site that do collect runoff from the golf course. >> Um, this proposed condition with a
meadow field is going to be producing less runoff than the golf course. Those low points currently on the golf course do not hold enough water to freeze over that I'm aware of. So, we presume that this is going to be the same type of scenario. These are detention basin, dry
detention basins that are not going to hold enough water for it to freeze over. Um there could be a major storm that we cannot predict or try to control and it could hold water at these locations. Um but I think the incidence of that water
from holding that much water for a prolonged period of time are a minimum for this project and given the the soil conditions. But if the board feels that they want to add a fence to that u particular drainage system, they'll have
to understand that this is taking away the wildlife corridor that we agreed to do at the request of this same um board. >> But isn't the entire site fenced anyways so that somebody couldn't get to one of these? So right um what we agreed to open up a corridor
>> just that corridor would be open to the >> that this right here was going to be fenced around >> separate from this down here so that it allowed a pass through for wildlife. >> Yeah. >> To get all the way to Kessa porn >> without any fence obstructions.
>> Okay. If we now fence the little opening between the two bigger fences where >> well maybe what you can do is you can if this gets approved and you build it if we feel like it needs a that one area needs a fence we can ask you to put a fence in there
>> if if conditions I don't think it'd be a big deal >> if the conditions merit the fence. >> Okay. >> Um with the understanding that the wildlife corridor suffers from having that fence. >> Right. But I'd rather have a couple of rabbits suffer than to have someone
drown there. But we'll make that determination at another time. Then >> Mr. Chair, just for the record, could we zoom in carefully and show that actual detention basin just for the record?
>> Should be on the second page. You'll get a better Yeah. So this is the area >> um that we're talking about. That little solid line kind of like a trapezoid shape. That would be the bottom of that basin.
>> Okay. >> Um so to fence the outside will fencing >> fit outside of it. >> It's pretty good size. >> Yeah. Where's the wildlife carter there? >> And this is the corridor that we're talking about. >> Okay.
>> The other factor to be considered with this particular uh detention basin is that that's also within the 350 foot um uh prohibited zone under the Cape Cod Commission regulations.
>> Okay. And so, you know, part of the we went through a pretty extensive um waiver request and discussion when we went through the Cape Cod Commission process, as you recall, Mr. Chair, um to minimize the project's disturbance uh
within that 350 foot area. The 350 ft area just for everyone's edification. So, the measurement starts here at the vernal pool which is outlined in bright blue. So you can see 350 runs almost up to um to the road. It's right behind
where we intend to have some of the screening. So 350 ft is a significant measurement and uh this depression is you know probably 125 ft or so from the vernal pool. Uh so
any fencing may require uh revisiting the area of disturbance with the K >> for sure. Yeah. Thank you. >> Quarter. >> Oh, go ahead. >> Hi, Brian Madden from LEC Environmental
Consultants. Also, that uh basin is within the o proposed open space and we had the uh referral from the natural resources to keep fencing outside of that corridor, the wildlife corridors. So, >> all right. Thank you.
>> Um so it sounds like with respect to this condition that there might be some modifications that um you'd be willing to entertain um that it would be uh you know fencing um if necessary
subsequent to construction and site stabilization. I just wanted to so just just as a point of clarification the the basins aren't designed to hold water uh for for a period of time in a rain event. They will uh restrict the
flow to prevent storm water runoff and then they will gradually infiltrate to be empty again at the time. I think what Ra was kind of pointing out is that there may be some time when it's water logged ground and we have a rainstorm that it may take a little longer to to to drain through, but the none of the
basins on site are detain um are designed to hold water for any length of period. They're designed to hold restrict the outflow to reduce the storm water and infiltrate. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair, if I may, just for clarification. Um, and this basin in
particular, if I heard correctly, is will include plantings. Will there be allowance for plants to grow within the basin to make it more wild? Whereas a traditional basin would not have that type of um natural cover, if I've got
that correct. Um so yes um what we are proposing to do here is seating these dry basins um and unlike um typical dry basin or detention basins that are maintained for a particular development that they're
mowed and frequently raaked out. That's not the intent for this pro this none of this basins. We're proposing them um this one in particular to just completely naturalize itself and become wild. If trees grows grow inside after years, they will be allowed to be there.
Um we're not going to be mowing it. We're not going to be maintaining a certain level of um grasses or meadows in it. It's just whatever grows in there after the initial seating and plantings will just take off. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate
this. So, what's the board's pleasure with respect to this condition? Is this something that you want to continue tweeting the language of for consideration of the next hearing or something you want to vote for inclusion within the >> I I don't think it's necessary unless anybody else
>> I don't think the fence is necessary. >> You guys good with it not not fencing it? >> Yeah. >> As a condition. >> Okay. So, we'll drop this condition. >> Scratch that one. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you for the explanation. Much appreciated. >> Sure, happy to do so. Um, Lawrence, do
you want to speak to the third condition alarm system to alert if battery stations have a problem and signage for danger of shock electrocution if there is a problem? >> Uh, yeah, the the batteries come with a an audible and a strobe alarm if there's ever an emergency. They also send out a
remote alarm to uh the remote operation center to to let us know. Um, so yes, there would no issue with that one. Um beyond signage I mean there's NEC electrical code require us to have uh danger high voltage every 50 foot around the fence. Uh there will also be um art
flash and warning signs on the uh on the equipment itself. Are you looking for something in addition to that or is it >> Well, I just want to make sure that if if um uh the fire department has to go there that they're aware, fully aware or
reminded that they could get electrocuted or you know how much danger really is there? >> Y >> they probably know that. But if there's some signs you could put on there. Yeah, I I perhaps uh uh working with the
because I think the um I think there was already one with the fire um the fire department. >> Yeah. So we could we could just amend that wording so that um signage to be um provided in accordance with the fire department and other recommendations. >> Yeah. Because if if there is a situation
shock or electrician electrocution >> doesn't absolutely fine with that. We do have the there NEC electrical code requires a certain amount of signage. If the fire department uh need needed an additional sign or something like that, I I don't see that being too much of an issue. >> Yeah. Good. Because these are huge
storage battery storage areas. So, >> and hopefully never a problem occurs. >> Mhm. >> Okay. So it sounds uh like with that condition that um everyone's uh on the same page um for
inclusion in a subsequent draft of the approval um I believe the existing condition with respect to the fire department let me see uh is an emergency action plan uh provided to the fire department prior to
a building permit being issued. Um, so maybe that condition can be augmented to include any additional signage that the beyond what's already planned that the fire department might suggest. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Condition number four is irrigation removal before construction and testing for lead. I'll let the applicant speak to this. My expectation would be that removal would happen um coincident with during construction. >> That's fine. Doesn't have to be before.
During is fine. >> Uh and that as it's encountered as as part of site development that it will be removed in accordance with law >> and if there are if there are if the pipes are made of lead then
early one earlier means it would say that you would test for it. So I'm not saying do a 21e on the whole site. I just >> Yeah. I I I I don't see uh >> and there probably aren't lead, but I don't know. >> I I I just think Matt Matt's suggestion that we removal is in accordance with
law because there's law covering damage and asbestos in bed and all that kind of stuff as well. So, um I think uh adding that part, >> let's let's leave in the part about irrigation removal. Mhm.
>> It may already be in one of your other line items, but again, there's been so much documentation, it's hard to remember every bit. >> The irrigation removal was a Cape Cod Commission um condition >> and that's in the area of disturbance as
well, just for clarification sake. >> Okay. That would be an the federal government um with the panels that would be an FAA permission and they've got no issue with that being there. >> That's condition number five. Uh written proof the federal government is okay
with the uh projects um within five nautical miles. So that's something that we can obtain. >> Yes. And I >> it's the FAA, the Federal Aviation. >> Yes. I was with the building commissioner earlier today and he has a way to go on site and five nautical
miles from the site was um all the way over to Route 130. So it covers almost the whole base. >> Yep. >> And thank you. I appreciate you. >> Uh condition number six is that the
applicant will offer two programs for Falmouth residents for discounts. Um, while that's currently the expectation, the condition seems to me to be outside the scope of the bylaw since it's a financial program for
>> it. It was something that you offered. It was in it was in your was it the LEC documents? >> LS. >> It was three letters. I I didn't bring
that paperwork with me, but It's the same language that was in the in the document you presented to us. >> Yeah. >> All right. Here LEC. >> So, currently we're speaking with Mour Vora with Pure Sky Energy. Currently, we're speaking with uh the town uh about
various agreements, the pilot, the land lease, the land donation. Um and a part of that discussion is also the program that we're going to be going to use uh through the state smart 3.0 program and there are a couple of options that are
that we have for us. There's one is public entity um which basically the energy produced by the site will go directly to uh a municipality or a government um entity in the state of
Massachusetts on the that's within Eversource East or within Eversource. Uh and then the other program which we have presented in the past is the uh community shared solar CSS and that's um it's a combination of offering a 20%
discount to there's it's it's going to sound a little bit complicated but there's a 20% discount to some of the residents and then 100% discount in energy credits to um lowincome residents. And so 15% of the project's
output will be dedicated to providing 100% energy discount credits to the lowincome residents. Um, and these are residents that we have been working together with uh the town and u various
organizations locally to make sure that thalmouth is prioritized and um and then from there we can if as necessary we can reach out to surrounding communities. Um the condition is that they are a customer of Eversource. Uh and then the
remaining 35% will go to at a 20% discount um well it's a combination of a 20% discount to um local residents and then 10% discount to local businesses. Um so that is
within the 35% of the project's power output. Um and then the remaining 50%. So we have the 15% to low income. We have the 35% to the uh you would call them mass market subscribers, so residents and small businesses. And then
we have the 50% that goes to uh anchor offtakers, which are, you know, the town of Felmouth could be an anchor offtaker. Um sometimes corporations might want to be an anchor offtaker depending on uh how they want to offset their energy and uh green footprint. But >> big nonprofits like Hooie.
>> Yeah. And big nonprofits like Hooie. What we've discussed with the town so far to date is to prioritize Falmouth and all the parties of Falmouth, the town itself as a anchor offtaker, the local residents as and small businesses as mass market subscribers and then also
the low to moderate income folks who are eligible for um SNAP um uh benefits. So that's this is something that's in discussion with the uh assistant town planner um with Stephanie Matson as the
uh sustainability specialist and um other parties with Dalmouth as well >> but something of this nature is going to happen with the town some okay >> we are trying our best to collaborate with the town so that the energy coming
from the site is the town is a direct bene benefactor of >> okay I only put it on it because It was part of the documents that you you had presented to us originally. So, yes, Charlotte, >> we did hear this before and I didn't remember it then and I can't Well, it's too many numbers for me to remember all
at once and I see I think an enterprise person here and I'm wondering if you have that in writing because I think the town would be interested in those numbers. >> Yeah, we do have them in writing. Um, I mean, like I said, we're already in discussion with uh the assistant town plan man uh the assistant town manager
and Stephanie Madson and um in discussing how we're going to kind of >> dedicate certain offtake to >> I think if Jed has them at his office they'd be easy to access. >> Yeah, you could feel free to reach out to Stephanie Madson. She has all the numbers. She can even I mean we've been
talking with her. she can discuss it and tell you how everything's broken down to uh just more thoroughly communicate how it's >> there chance it would be finalized before we make our our decision here. >> Uh I don't think it will be finalized before I make a decision here.
>> Okay. >> Um and just you know to notwithstanding uh manager's excellent explanation uh it seems to me that the condition would be outside the scope of the bylaw. Uh I I don't read any provisions in the bylaw
that speak to imposing conditions on the financial models or or output of the development um under consideration. >> The only reason I put put asked for this is because in the documentation that has been presented to us, it was in some of
those documents. I just want >> Yep. And you know, as we've gone and progressed through these hearings, the letters that we've provided after, especially after the first few hearings when there was considerable public comment, were answering questions raised by the public, some of which were
outside the scope of the bylaw review, but we wanted to provide answers to all questions and um regardless of whether they fall within the four square of the bylaw. Um so having answered the question um in previous correspondence
with the planning board doesn't then bring the subject matter into the um the bylaw itself and the ability to include it as a condition. >> Yeah, we're committed to for this being a uh a a system that will benefit the
the wider community uh as well. The only reservations about accepting it as a condition is that some of this will be out out of our hands. Like what if the DOE changes their rules and regulations between now and and when we will get subscribers. Would that mean that our our special permit is now defunct
because we can't provide or meet that condition or whether we'd have to come back. So that that that's that's our reservations is there's there's some of this will could potentially be taken out of our hands level >> by changes of programs. >> Right. I understand. But understand our position. Mhm. >> These are all documents that were
presented to us. I wrote here it's a letter >> from December 23rd. I had to find the letter, but you presented it >> someone in your group presented it to us. >> And then if it doesn't occur, >> then it sound to people that live in the town of Father. It sounds like it was a
bait and switch maybe and it wouldn't be I I fully understand that >> it wouldn't be intentional. So >> yes. No, I and I fully understand that. This is not us trying to sidestep something that we we brought up. The response to the question was what what uh what are the programs available? What we can say is as of today this is the
route that we're going down but between now and when this project gets turned on in 2028 2029 DOER rules could change and at that point uh it could change. I mean Fmouth may all of a sudden decide well you know what we we want to take all of
the electricity as part of the uh as part of those lease negotiations. So it it it as Matt Matt quite rightly said it's it's a little odd to have such a a commercial impact to be conditioned on something like this. Um I I think maybe
the uh uh the more appropriate place to put it is in the other the other agreements that we have with town or something like that. But we we'll we'll look and and review it. But that that's our hesitancy at the moment is the fact that DOE ch rule changes do can and do occur. What if they turn around and
remove the LMI if we >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you for that explanation. >> Um, and so what's the board's pleasure with respect to this condition? >> I don't see how we can condition it. >> No. >> And some things you just have to take on
trust. >> Um, I think I think that's fair. And as um Lawrence had alluded to, we we will end up having no shortage of legally binding agreements with the town um if all negotiations that are currently
underway uh conclude successfully. Uh and the agreements include those that Manure mentioned already, which is a pilot, a decommissioning agreement, a long-term ground lease, and outside town council for the town of Falmouth is also
working on a donation agreement. uh which will cover some of the subject matter areas that aren't covered by some of the other documents that I enumerated. Uh so to the extent for example that uh you know we uh might have um come to an agreement with the
town with respect to the walking paths things outside of the fence area uh you know who's going to be responsible for maintaining the sledding hill uh uh you know allowing us to relocate some of the uh bench monuments that are currently located at the uh at the golf course. So
the kind of miscellaneia will be covered by that donation agreement. Um, and we can certainly uh, you know, express um, you know, our intent to follow through with the existing programs, but as Lawrence alluded to, we can't predict the future and how state regulations
might change the applicant's ability to to offer specific discounts to specific constituencies. >> Okay. Well, part of why I put put this together is to remind all of us what has
been presented to the town and we as a board are going to vote to either support or not support this. But but uh all of these nice things were part of the reason why we might vote for it. And and I just want to remind the
applicant or if I could get it as part of the decision even even better. But if it's not possible, then that's something we'll have to decide on. But I appreciate the effort and the explanation this evening. >> Sure. And does the board want to have further discussion on whether to include
this as a condition? >> What do you guys think? >> No. >> Comfortable. They're talking with Stephanie. You okay with it, Jim? >> Yeah. >> You guys okay with it? Okay. >> All right. So, that won't be concluded as a condition,
>> right? No, >> if I may, um, we can I can try to come up with some very general language slashsp specific in a finding, um, indicating, you know, that the testimony
presented included X, however, you know, noting that >> maybe something >> programs might change in the future, >> from Stephanie, too. Maybe >> just something to indicate the benefits of the project. >> Okay. >> Within the if if you're comfortable with that in the finding >> and if they're comfortable with the language. >> Sure. Okay,
>> John. >> Yes. >> Do you want feedback tonight? Would that be helpful to >> feedback tonight on the draft that we were given to review in advance because we did have it and we have had time I've had time to review it and I wonder if you want to do that tonight. It might be
helpful to the applicants. >> We can. But let's we got a couple more items and then we'll go we get >> I thought you were done with them. >> Oh, a couple more. Um for condition number seven on the list um referencing the Cape Cod
Commission finding F-28 um where uh as we have submitted both to the Cape Cod Commission and the board here uh that we are intend to plant 650 new trees uh 232 of which will be in
open space areas and uh LEC our environmental consultant document state states the types but not sizes and numbers. Um, Brian, do you want to come up and speak to this? I think John had asked if we could provide uh further information
on um the sizes and then what number of each type. >> It's a total of 782 trees. Like I have some idea of what they're going >> I believe that the 232 I'll let Brian speak to this is a subset of the 650.
>> Okay. >> Correct. So 250 total um what is it 232 of which is within the open space. >> Okay. So 6 650 alto together >> correct. >> Okay. >> Um you know certainly we can provide a
breakdown of the amount of trees or the breakdown. Uh that's going to be somewhat dependent upon nursery availability at the time of installation. Um we could if the commission or board's minimal we could provide that prior to the start of work.
um along with uh sizes. Um I think the only sizes we provided to date were for the shrubs within the wetland restoration areas and buffer zones at two gallon containers. >> Yes, I saw that. >> Um but we could certainly if the board's
amendable provide that as a pre-work requirement. >> Well, we have an in subdivision we have street trees and caliper of certain size. So that's the kind of information that I would like to have part of the decision. U and okay,
>> some idea of the I mean it had I think four different types of trees. >> Yep. >> And but it didn't enumerate. So we'd hate hate to have 95% of them be white pine. >> Yeah. No. >> And >> the intent would be to to have a pretty
good mix. Um, in terms of sizes, um, you know, I think what we're looking at is four to sixfooters, um, which may be around like an inch caliber or so. Um, you know, there's quite a bunch that need to be installed
and, um, the intent is to keep those naturalized, uh, and and grow wild. uh it's not like a landscape setting um obviously but um that would be the general intent but we can certainly confirm that prior to the start. >> Well, the reason the reason it was put
into an agreement in the first place is you're going to clear 10 and a half acres of trees. You're going to remove a lot of trees and and you you put in here that we're going to I thought it was more than the 650, but I misunderstood it. the 650 trees,
we should have some idea of the caliper and as you said, I think caliper would be a good good thing to put into into the decision. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. We'll we'll look talk to Jet,
find out what we have in our uh in our regulations and we'll work off of that. >> Good with that. >> Yeah. >> Unless you have a special kind of tree you'd like to see or >> Well, no. You're going to get a lot of volunteers as well. I mean, come to my yard. Constantly pulling up white oaks
and white white vine. >> Um, one note is, you know, the subdivision uh requirements. It might be a little bit apples to oranges because a subdivision is very different from what we're proposing here. Um so I I don't think it would be
equitable to impose the same kind of size requirements on it will be around 16 acres that are being replanted uh as part of the mitigation for as you had mentioned the 10 and a half acres that are being cleared. Uh so
in in a subdivision where we're talking about, you know, residential beautifification and landscaping, that's a horse of a different color from what we're doing here, which is uh restoration or at least um the start of restoring natural habitats. Um
>> understandable. You're not taking 10 and a half acres of 4 in caliber trees. You're taking big trees, small trees, really big trees. So, we just might want to have that's why I bring brought it up because
when this gets restored 40 years from now, I'm not going to be here to see what kind of trees it's going to be. And I'd like to have >> So, just the idea on the restoration is that if you plant a huge tree that kind of dominates and creates the shade, then
everything else that's underneath it doesn't come in. So the whole whole idea is you you plant something that is big enough to be established without without risking it it dying. If you the bigger tree you plant the uh the more highest likelihood that it it dies on you is but it also strangles the the rest of the
stuff from coming up as well. So that's that's why we intend to put the uh the young trees there so that the whole restoration area can grow up. I I don't see an issue with with providing a schedule though. Um but uh yeah, that's that that's the reason for for it is that everything comes in together and
then grows naturally rather than planting something that's going to prevent everything from coming in underneath. >> All right, thank you. >> Okay, so it sounds like we'll provide uh additional information and that that uh will be prior to commencement of work.
um and uh that that condition will be included in the next revised draft. >> So just for the record, your decision as it's currently laid out itemizes a number of plan sets that have been
proposed. we can include um the restoration plan as a document within that decision. And then the condition would I think in my opinion anyway the first condition which is
the plan shall be constructed as approved cover all of the documents that have been submitted >> and are listed in the decision. So they would have to essentially abide by what they um have included and therefore I
don't think you need a specific condition about the number of trees right >> and all of that we can add that information into a finding make it a little bit more specific and then those conditions that I just outlined will essentially create the requirement to
build it as presented provided that is clear as mud. >> Okay. It's already a finding of the Cape Cod Commission. >> Yep. >> And but there nowhere does it say the size or it says the type. Says the
types, but it doesn't doesn't enumerate the types and doesn't say what size. >> Sure. And when this gets restored, which is going to be theoretically 40 years from now or maybe 45 years from now, if there's nothing stated, the applicant
can come in with 651in trees, say we we did the restoration. I'm only trying to clarify it because it should be clarified. >> I'm confused. I didn't think we were talking about the restoration in the future of when when
they're demolishing. I thought what they're going to do now. Now this conversation switched to 40 years at the end and I'm totally lost by that last comment. I don't know what we're talking about now. >> Yeah. So I I assume we were talking about, you know, they they they grade the site, they put in the panels, then
they do the landscaping in theory at the end. Um and then that is the condition for which I thought we were discussing, but if I've got that wrong, apologies. It's during the restoration period. Restoration period is going to be
>> decommissioning and restoring is what you're getting at. Okay. Very good. >> Part of the confusion may be that there are kind of two different periods of time in which restoration will occur. The first is upfront after uh site
construction is complete where there's going to be restoration in accordance with the restoration plan that we have submitted and that Mr. Corno referred to that's the 650 new trees in addition to thousands of shrubs. Uh the
establishment of the pollinator meadows um and natural grasses around um the disturbed areas. uh as well as um areas where we've already received conservation commission approval to go
near the vernal pool for restoration activities. So that's all up front, >> right? >> So that's kind of one category of restoration. The second is at um the end of the uh lease term which could run as long as 40 years
uh where pursuant to the terms of the ground leases that are being negotiated with the town uh the applicant or its project companies will each have uh restoration obligations with respect to removal of the arrays and that's covered
by both the ground lease and the decommissioning agreement. Uh I can let the applicant correct me if I'm wrong, but typically uh what is done on removal of the arrays and what we did for example with our sandwich project is the town was thrilled with the prospect of
having the pollinator meadows stay in place uh as a valuable ecological and public resource. And so the intent would be that the pollinator meadows which will be underneath the array footprints would remain in place.
Um so restoration at the end of the ground lease would really be removal of all of the improvements, the arrays, the racking, the fencing. Uh and you know um
and then what is left at the site is the pollinator meadows. um and everything else that has been allowed to naturalize over the lifespan of the projects. >> Okay. >> So, decommissioning is part of our purview and site plan review.
>> I know. But I I think to write specifications for replanting, decommissioning 40 years from now is beyond my scope to understand. I can't even think about it. I think they're going to give us a schedule of
these plants for the size and everything. Now, >> I don't think we can ask them for what the schedule's going to be 40 years from now when we take out the array. >> The the when we when we take everything out, as Matt was meadow, >> Matt was correct. We we remove the racking, all the stud, the conduits, the
wires, all of all of the pads, the all of the access roads and things like that. Those disturbed areas are receded and and it's left. It's not like we're going to go and >> plant trees again, >> make turn it back into a golf course and put the new fairway trees in and things like that. That is
I I we wouldn't need to remove any trees to take everything out. The restoration as part of the decommissioning is talking about any of the disturbed areas. So the uh where we've got roads and equipment pads that come out and things like that, we're not just going to leave it bare open soil and walk
away. Those areas get seated and things like that. But yeah, the the BMS and uh and everything that's been put up for the screening, that all remains there. They're they're not going to be taken out and then replanted with some addition additional street roads. That's that's not the intent intention of a decommissioning.
>> I I agree with Jim. Um besides which nature, it's very hard to maintain a meadow if they're taking out um everything that they've brought in that's unnatural. They're taking away the array, the rack, the fencing, all of that stuff, and leaving the wildflower
meadow as cleanly as they can. Within 10 years, it will have it will beginning to turn into woods. >> It's it's a condition of the Cape Cod Commission. All I'm asking, all I'm asking them to do is >> all I'm asking for is to quantify the
size of the 650 trees that they're supposed to plant. >> But I think they're original, >> but they're the original ones. That's the part I'm getting confused about. >> The original part. John, could we have a copy of the Cape Cod Commission's conditions? That would be helpful. >> Yeah. The Cape Cod Cape Cod Commission
is is not talking about those 632 trees being planted at the end of the project. They're planted as part of the project that's going in. The restoration which you keep referring to at the end of the project doesn't involve any tree planting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. This is all upfront like I had mentioned and it's actually a finding F28 of the Cake College Commission
decision. Obviously, a as we were talking uh here about including the restoration plan as one of the plans in the board's findings, the restoration plan was submitted to the Cape Cod Commission and is included in their findings and it's also one of their
conditions that we construct the projects in compliance with the plan sets that have been submitted. Um uh so um I think it's in terms of the number and the timeline
that I think is understood. The um caliper is the additional information that hasn't been provided that we'll we will provide um prior to the commencement of work. >> Okay. Um so moving on to condition number eight
on this list. Solar owner to pay rent, property insurance, etc. until decommissioning and restoration is 100% complete and approved by the town of Falmouth and the Cape Cod Commission. Um the this will be covered by the ground lease and the decommissioning agreement.
Um but um it's it's not typical to pay rent. um once the project has ceased operation. So you have a decommissioning period that follows uh the um the project um shutting down and no longer
providing power to the grid, no longer um selling power and receiving income. So typically the way that this is structured is you have a a term of 25 to 40 years. During that term of operation of actual production and sale of
electricity, rent is being paid to the landlord, which in this case would be the town of Falmouth. Uh once the projects are no longer functioning, that begins the decommissioning period, which is specified in both the ground lease and the decommissioning agreement where
each project owner um will have a set amount of time to remove the array. Um, so that's typically how the um process works and it will be covered as I said by those operative documents
>> by your agreement with the town. >> What's that? >> By during your agreement with the town. >> Sure. Yes. In the ground leases and in the decommissioning agreements. >> Okay. Um and it's a condition already condition number eight in uh the draft
decision that um the um that we have to uh come back um prior to any operation and provide a financial to the town in the form of a
decommissioning bond in the amount to be determined by the select board. Um and uh the condition goes on to provide that for a scheduled decommissioning, we'll notify the planning board of of the date of discontinued operations and
plans for removal. And then we will have no more than 150 days after discontinued operations to remove the the array. Um and the decommissioning agreement once it's fully negotiated with the town, there'll be one for each project. will
all come back to the select board along with the ground leases and if applicable the pilots for select board approval and execution. Um so given that I'm not sure if condition 8 needs to be included. >> Right. So that's already conditioned and
you also have agreements uh to take care of that issue. >> Yep. So >> we don't we don't need to add it as another Uh the >> our conditions. >> What's that? >> I was joking. Sorry. >> Our condition. My condition. >> Condition was that I was quoting a rock
and roll line. It didn't go very You're the only one that got it. >> I have the big Labowski soundtrack. I know that song. >> Kenny Rogers. >> All right. The last condition on this list is uh um references the uh the select board
letter um to the commission including the potential use of a limited portion of previously disturbed land for affordable attainable housing. So I surmise this might be the seven acres that are not part of this application. That's my suggestion. But in the letter
to the town they had 7/10 of an acre. the town's letter to the to the U Cape Cod Commission. It may have been a misprint, but it says sent 7/10en of an acre. It's a letter uh dated May 7th, 2024 to
the Cape Cod Commission in support by the board of selectmen. That's something you you can review with the other group as you're going through it >> uh with the select board. >> Yes. >> Yep. Okay. We don't have any control over that,
>> right? >> But I I wanted to put it in as a reminder. >> So reminded um Okay. So that won't be a condition either. Uh with respect to the existing conditions if uh I may there were a
couple of the conditions in the draft approval dated March 20th that we wanted to discuss with the board. Okay. and just flush out um some practical considerations. The first is specific condition number
18, landscaping chemical treatments. Uh and the condition reads, "The applicant shall not use chemical treatments to manage or destroy plants or animals with the only exception being an initial application of organic fertilizer to establish the new
pollinator friendly vegetative growth. the uh practical consideration that we wanted to bring to the board's attention that may result in some revisions to this condition uh is with respect to herbicides.
Um there are there's already language in the Cape Cod Commission decision that says that we're not going to be using pesticides. Um which we're perfectly fine with. But with respect to herbicides, the Cape Cod Commission
decision states that um per the um operation and management plan that we've presented that and and specifically with respect to invasive species growth and management removal that if there are invasive species while we're
establishing within the three-year period of establishing the uh restorative efforts here and plantings that If invasive species are identified, the preference is for hand removal. Uh if hand removal is not practical because
of the size of the invasive species infestation, then what the Cape Cod commission provided was that we will go to Cape Cod Commission staff. We'll explain the the circumstances and the intent to use
herbicides in a limited manner for invasive species removal. the Cape Cod Commission staff will evaluate that proposal. We'll have discussions with them around uh what we intend to do and then what the actual plan will be. And as part of their
decision, we're required in the O andM plan that we submitted, we're required to use a u a licensed herbicide applicator. Yeah. Uh to to actually go and and and do the treatment. Um, so we
wanted to bring that to the board's attention because there's a possibility of using herbicides in those specific circumstances. >> Um, any discussion on that piece? >> Just to just to augment as well, it there are some invasive species which you cannot practically remove without
the use of herbicides because of the the nature of how the ryomes and things are below ground. You pulling just masks it. it comes back up almost immediately. So, they can only be dealt with by her herbicides. The other thing is with the pollinator establishment, there are going to be areas of the golf course
that aren't disturbed. Um, throwing seed down there, even if it's tilled and things like that, the the grass that's existing will always try and out compete the the seed that's going down. Um, it would not necessarily be our intention to certainly uh wide broadcast herbicides or anything like that. I'm
happy for the condition that if we do need to use them for establishment or invasives management that we can have the opportunity to come back and let you know this is what we're using or or defer to the Cape Cod who I think you said have some specialist um people on there. So we're happy with that. It's just that as written it's very limited
on a couple of other commitments that we need to make in terms of the pollinator in terms of the invasive species budget. >> So just a little loosening up at that. >> Okay. How do you guys feel about that? >> I'm okay with that. >> Good Charlotte. Um, yes. I think it's good.
>> I've recused myself, but I have an opinion on it. >> But you go don't get to say it. >> Yeah, that's right. >> So, >> got a zip. >> I forgot you were here, Paul. >> I'm good. Good, too. >> Okay. So, we're good with that.
>> The other condition that we just wanted to spend a little time discussing is >> Sure. is um specific condition number 22, construction access, which reads, "During construction, the applicant shall use Nathan Ellis Highway,
otherwise known as Route 151, and Ranch Road to access the project sites uh parenthetically east array, West array, and south array. As needed, the applicant shall be able to use the portion of Bloxberry Hill Road between Ranch Road and Ashume Road for access
during construction. However, this access shall be limited and periodic at most. So, the part of the discussion we wanted to have the practicalities of the actual construction are that uh two things with respect to Boxbury Hill Road. The first is that I think as we've
discussed at prior hearings um the uh portion of Boxbury Hill Road that um uh is where the driveways are located. So, these will be the access points here during construction. So, as you can see,
Ranch Road over here on the north and uh on a daily basis, in order to access the construction sites, we would have to come down Boxberry Hill Road to these driveways. So, the the use of Boxberry Hill Road in between Ranch Road and
Ashummit Road couldn't be limited and periodic as it's the only access points to the construction sites. The other piece is that the um uh construction personnel and equipment will also need to use Boxbury Hill Road to access the
South Array, which as you can see is also the only access point. Um the uh driveway for the south array uh being just about halfway between Ashimmit Road and Sandwich Road. Uh so the I think the
intent behind the initial um uh discussion around the condition came from public comment around uh limiting access to the site from Sandwich Road and Ashim Road. Uh
obviously we would love to limit our use of Boxbury Hill Road as much as possible, but given the driveway locations uh as the sole means of access to the sites, uh it just won't be feasible. Um so we wanted to bring that to the board's attention and discuss revisions
to this condition that will more accur accurately reflect the actual construction realities. I just a comment on this is my understanding and looking at when we're doing other uses. Sandwich Road is dedicated as a trucking road who where
we want our trucks to come through when you're doing a contractor's yard or anything like that. We've always restricted the use to only Sandwich Road. So it's are we going to say we're not going to let them come in Sandwich Road when it already is one of our thorough affairs for trucking?
on >> most of our other permits that we do in town. >> You're still on Boxbury Hill Road if you come in through Sandwich, >> right? And and and that would probably be our preference would be to come in, you know, particularly for the south array. The you know, the the least uh
area traversed within this neighborhood would be from Sandwich Road to the south array driveway when work is being done on that project. uh having to come in through Ranch Road to get all the way down to the other
side of Round Pond would would be the most amount of driving through the the area. >> The other thing that I would point out as well is that we have uh the cast house, is that what it was called? Um >> yes, cast house.
>> And this area of parking down here was also needs to be removed. um that wouldn't take particularly long to to grub it out, but that's going to require us to come down to third to drive. So, we're happy for Ranch Road and Boxrey Hill to ser to serve these two beyond that access and
come out here and have this as a kind of limited just during the uh uh the parts that we we have to demolish the cast house and remove that. Um so, so that it's not that we're just constantly moving between the arrays, which I think is the intent of why we didn't want to do it because obviously most of the houses are between the uh between the
two arrays. So we're we're having to kind of go out from that side, go out to that side, but this part is going to have limited access. >> What's going to require most of the trucking from offsite to onsite? Is it just moving equipment onto the site? You're because you're not removing soil and not taking it to another location.
>> Uh are there is there any movement between the sites in terms of the grading? >> No. So we won't be trucking any soil between the sites. It will be the physical deliveries. So we'll have the panels, the racking, inverters, um and and obviously construction staff as well. Right. Yeah. My because my only
concern if you're going to take stuff off site is would be exiting onto Sandwich Road from Box Radio because that's a pretty sharp curve there. >> Okay. >> Is the line of sight is difficult to the left. So, >> uh how do you guys feel about this? I
don't I don't see any reason to limit this. >> No, I I think they've got it under control. They they want to make it as easy as possible for uh their workers. So, sandwich for the salt array. uh 151 and uh Ranch Road for the northern
section. >> We do have a a condition for a traffic management plan. We'll we'll review that junction with Sandwich Road and there may be a case that um if we have deliveries, we may need a flag or something like that. >> Share it with Jed before the next meeting. >> Uh the traffic management plan >> well done if it's going to be
>> uh well it's usually prior to building permit because there's obviously the it's going to impact on the final design. So I'm I'm happy that um I can come back and present it at that point just so if you want some further involvement, but usually it's worked with the DPW and uh and those people. So
um yeah, I we can we can make sure that it's kind of included in that traffic management plan to minimize disruption and interference with the with the residents on the street. >> So condition number 22, you you guys want to >> I think it should rewrite it so they
have better access to it. There aren't that many roads there. >> They're going to have to use sandwich road. >> I don't think we need it >> need it >> as a condition. >> I think it's good to have it as a condition because the people who came here are so concerned about it that so I
think it's good to have it there, but I think it should be practical and feasible and this isn't at the moment. So, it ought to be rewritten, but I think it could be rewritten by them working with Jed on it. >> Jed Jed. Okay. >> Yeah. I so I started to rewrite it and
you know part of the the hesitation that I have is the way it's written now is that they would utilize 151 and Ranch Road for the east and west array and Sandwich Road and Ashummit Road for the south array. But I honestly think you
could just say 151 Ranch, Sandwich, and Ashumit for all arrays. >> Yeah. >> I mean, you just limit the construction activity to those four major roadways or four roadways, I should say. Well, you want to work with the applicant and have it ready for that? >> We can certainly do that. I I don't I
just want to get a a sense for the board. Do you really care about which roads they use for which sites? >> Okay. So, you're just you're just looking to limit the impact on just the roadways that access all of the sites, >> right? >> Okay. >> You good with that? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Besides that, and it doesn't it doesn't hamstring them later, right? that trucking coming off of a Schumit can't get to the east and west array. You know, it seems kind of silly. >> Okay.
>> Uh and then um I think that those are the only two out of the draft conditions that we wanted to discuss. Um, while we've been discussing these other conditions, uh, Menure was looking through the information that we've previously provided to the board as part
of our application with respect to the first condition on Chairman Julie's list. And we believe we have the information that uh, would be equivalent to what was provided in the impact study to Eversource with us this evening. So
we can uh just briefly present that to the board now to to show um uh what uh is uh has been designed and discussed with Eversource. So as a part of our application we submitted the single line diagrams and
utility interconnection plans for each of the different um sites for the east array, south array and west array. These are the plans that we submitted to um Eversource in which they then comm uh completed the distribution study group
study uh the I the ASO study and then also what is reflected in the interconnection service agreement. Um, so these are some and I think we've already kind of presented these to the board in um a past
uh past meeting, but this is uh this shows the plan associate. So I I look through our documents to see the distribution impact study that we have on file that came from Eversource as a result of the group study. Um and in it doesn't show the
plans that you're looking at right now, but these are the plans that we submitted that the group study was based on. Um within the group study itself, it says that when in regards to the upgrade of the distribution lines, it says convert 1500 feet singlephase to
three-phase service with 795 ACSR wire from pole 218-8 to pole 3-18-. Uh that's a Schumit road. Then convert 200 feet singlephase to to three-phase
service with 795 ASR wire from pole 31 A8- A to pole 3187. I'm I'm sure those numbers don't mean anything to you. Um but that's Boxberry Hill. If they did, that would be scary,
>> right? Um that's uh Boxberry Hill Road along with installation of eight new utility poles. That's 1,200 feet of three-phase extension from uh the poles at Ashimit up to the projects the east and west arrays and then also convert
1,800 ft of singlephase to three-phase and that's the Boxberry Hill Road. So um that's Boxberry Hill from Ashim Ashimit road down to the south array. So, what we have in front of us right now is this
is for the east array. Um, these, let me just zoom in a little bit. Hope that looks better to you all. But you see these poles over here are the existing poles that are going to be upgraded to the three-phase. Um, these poles, this is right in the corner is an
existing singlephase. And then one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight um up here are new poles that are going to be new utility poles extending to uh extending three-phase to the east and west array sites. Um and then for the
south array, we have it'll show a similar connection from >> south array is already existing, >> right? It exist. It's existing and but there we're proposing the upgrade from singlephase poles to three-phase poles
right over here. One 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 right at the right at the street entrance point for that array. Um, and I think what you're asking is for the for all of the poles um from this
point in a Schumit road down Boxberry Hill Road to the south array and then going north to the east and west array. You want those to be underground? >> No, no, no. Just >> So that was the original ask. The revised ask is just the the new ones
going from that corner. >> Those those eight right there. So, not including the ones from >> Ashume. Just the new poles. >> Just these >> right that section right there. >> Okay. Well, I mean I think our >> I have a question. Are there existing poles there now and you're just
replacing with new poles? >> So, the ones going north from Ashume are going to be all new poles. >> All new poles. The eight you're talking about? >> Yes. >> To the two battery storage areas. >> Uh right to the street. >> Service those two areas. What connects
to the battery storage will be underground medium medium underground voltage lines. That's for the east and west rays that we have that's within the site parameters. >> Right. Then it go to to the eight poles and travel over to Sandwich Road. >> That's right. >> And that section along the side of the
road that's uh pretty heavily wooded right now. >> That's right. Yeah. I mean, you're looking >> so the poles would be going in front of the woods. >> No, the wood will come down. >> Some of the freezer >> you have to Okay. cut 10t from the road. >> Dig a 4 to 6 foot trench. >> Okay,
>> that's for the to switch it to underground lines, you'd have to have a 4 to 6t trench around 10 ft away from the road. >> Yeah. >> Um as it is right now, they would just be isolated um pole locations. >> Some residents or some people consider
them as additional buffer to the site as well. Uh there are already existing poles along the south side of Boxberry Hill Road and then Ashuma. The upgrade from singlephase to three-phase also brings additional safety because they will be brand new uh equipment on that
on those poles. Currently, if you look at the equipment on some of these poles in a Schumit, you could see some of the boxes are rusted. So all that equipment will be upgraded and um provides another level of safety as they are uh versus what they are currently. Um, but yeah,
that's I think that's what you wanted to get from the distribution impact study. So, I was able to find that and hopefully we can just continue the conversation tonight um and then see where it goes and bring it to the next meeting as necessary.
>> Okay. >> I I think we should have a vote on whether we whether the board as a whole wants to require you to bring put this all underground. I don't I don't support it. I' And I'd like to see what the board votes and if the board does, then
we continue it. If we don't, I'd like to end this discussion. >> Well, we're going to have the vote, >> but I but they they >> I thought he was talking about continuing it. So, I'm I'm confused. >> Well, he would like to have a decision tonight. >> Yeah. I would >> they want us to
>> second that. Yeah, I would love to have a vote on this issue tonight is this is probably the fourth hearing. We've discussed it. So >> right my my concern was and I see the design if if that's what ever sources
that said they want you to do that's one thing if they have not made that final decision my question all along has been could they design it to be underground to that that pole >> this as it's as it's presented has been
approved agreed upon and memorialized in legally binding documents with Eversource. >> Okay. >> At this point, Eversource wouldn't come to us and say, "We want you to do something else." >> What if Jim Fox called them up? >> I got a lot of swing with these guys.
>> Yeah. >> Please don't do that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're we'll make some discussions right now. Then we'll go through our You Are you guys good? Well, I thought we uh if the board was so inclined, we could
vote on this condition. >> Yeah, I'd like to vote on the condition tonight. >> On this condition? >> Yeah, this condition. >> Okay. >> So, >> somebody move it. If you want it, move it. >> You're the one who wants it, right? >> Well, I I move that we uh vote on this
condition. >> Yeah. >> So, we need a second. >> Second. >> Let's hear the condition we're voting on. >> Yeah. He just read it. >> That's it. >> Eight polls. Eight polls. Yeah, I I think just to lay it lay it out, they would be >> as designed,
>> right? In replacing the eight new utility poles between Ash Road and the East and West array uh connection points with uh underground distribution line. >> I think I can make a motion that covers
it clearly. I move that we accept the inter interconnection agreement as proposed from Eversource, the one that's already agreed to. Now >> I'll second. >> Okay, second and we'll have some discussion about it.
>> You guys have any thoughts on it? Either accept it or we we ask them to have it put underground. >> Just a question why we need that vote. >> Well, we're trying. >> We're voting on all the conditions. >> Yeah, we're trying to >> on all the conditions. Yeah, we're going to discuss that specific one. >> We're going to discuss all the
conditions tonight, but they want us to vote on this one. So that because it's it's a proposed condition by me that we put it underground or no no polls. So they're they're showing us a plan
where Eversource has designed it with eight new poles and that's what we're going to vote on right now. whether whether we want to go along with that or ask for something different. You guys have any thoughts on that? Any more questions? >> No, I don't have any more questions.
>> Charlotte, >> I don't have any questions, but I I want to say what I'm thinking about it. Initially, when you proposed it, John, putting them underground, I was all in favor of it. I was glad you brought it up. I think it would look better. I think it'd be great. I read the letter that was sent by Pure Sky about this
means taking down 10 ft wide all the length of this under the eight poles that many trees and that persuaded me to not be in favor of doing the trenching. I thought they could trench the way the gas line did coming down the hill to my house where they did an underground
drilling, but you can't do that. So, no, I would vote affirmatively because it's been stated that way to accept what's proposed. >> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. You guys understand what the motion is?
Maybe the eight eight new polls to actually do >> the motion was to accept the the interconnection agreement that they proposed and already negotiated with Eversource. I wasn't >> getting down to the polls. I accepted accept the whole agreement. >> That's a good way of stating it. makes
it simpler. I can't keep track of all the other things we're talking about. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I unanimous. >> Okay. So, that condition is taken care of. >> We're going to go through them one at a
time. >> Did you have anything else? >> You really need to you want >> I hope not. >> Um, no. I I I didn't know if the um the board was going to move on to discuss the draft conditions that Mr. Corno provided. I think with respect to the list of the nine conditions that
chairman Julie provided, I think the board has gone through those and indicated sort of yay or nay or >> right conditioned them accordingly. So, um I just wasn't sure which conditions you you were moving on to that hadn't been discussed yet if they were in the draft.
>> Well, you you discussed a couple in the draft, right? Yeah. So, you have no others in the draft, >> correct? >> Okay. >> So, I'll leave it to the board if you do. Does anybody here have any in the draft? >> Yeah, there's 22 more conditions. >> I'd like to make a statement about it. >> Go ahead. >> First of all, I really appreciate
getting them in time to have time to read them and think about it because this has been a it's a big change in that area of town. Um, I don't have any problem with the conditions as they're presented and has two of them have been changed and would be glad to accept
these as the conditions. Yeah, I don't have any questions on on any of the other conditions. They u they look fine to me. >> Okay. >> Neither do I. >> You guys have any questions on them? >> I just just bring up condition 11,
the memorial benches. >> Should I wait till he goes? So So no need I after rereading it. No need to contact the families. I think that's a waste of your time. Uh I think we could eliminate that. So my goal was not to have the memorial benches destroyed
during construction. So can you just relocate them uh the memorial benches where they're visible on the walking trails? You know, they'll serve the purpose for which they were intended, a seat for visitors to rest along the walking trails. >> Okay, that's all. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. All the other conditions we're good with. >> Yeah. Okay. Next meeting, we'll vote everything in then. >> I also say, you know, it seems I feel as if I at least and maybe some other stuff have been very begrudging about this because it's a big change in the way
Boxbury Hill Road and that neighborhood would be. So, it's been >> begrudging. >> Yeah. >> But I don't doubt that this is a better use of that land. >> It's a decision. So, thank you and thank you for the respect you've shown to uh waiting for us to get ready for this. Thank you.
>> It's our pleasure. >> Okay. >> Thank you for your thorough review of the project as well. >> Okay. So, need a motion to continue till the next >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Sure. >> What was the date again, please? >> April 14th.
>> April 14th. >> So, move a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I unanimous. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Not quite.
>> Almost. You >> wish. >> Almost. We're going to do the plan planning department report now. >> Not much to report only a week ago. So, same report as last week. >> That's good. >> That's it.
>> Committees. >> Committee reports. Nothing since last week. Okay. Uh >> last meeting I mentioned that uh we have these items from the Cape Cod Commission. This is a report about the
town of Felmouth. Everybody has a copy. >> Yeah. >> And then uh this is Felmouth and other parts of of the Cape items that the Cape Commission are working on. and some really nice facts about the town of Falmouth's u population housing
uh medium single sale single family home sale price averages $825,000 76% increase in six years >> I couldn't afford to buy my own house right now
>> yeah we're all rich on paper now I'd like to comment on one fact that's presented here as a fact and it is a fact as far as the state's concerned the 1651 registered short-term rentals. I think that's a number taken right off the state registry. There's a problem with the state
registry maintenance. You get on the list, but you don't actually get taken back off. And we learned that from Scott Mcan who ran actually what sounded like a thorough effort to uh clean it up and understand really how many short-term
rentals do we have in town? and it would appear to be right around 800 operating short short-term rentals. So, um like half of what you're looking at right there, but that's because of the state registry system.
>> That's good. Good to know. Okay. Um any announcements? >> I have one. >> Yes, Paul. >> Melinda, if you're watching, we wish you a speedy recovery. >> Yes, she's got unanimous. I'm sure she's
watching. >> Poor thing. Any future agenda items? >> Got a plate fullness. >> Okay. General correspondence from March 18th to March 24th. >> Just one email for for the board from
Lilia Franton. Uh it was received on Monday the 23rd of March. Uh and it's in regards to your last hearing. um and an application that came before you, but I included it as general correspondence. We'll also include it because it's
specific to a project in your next hearing with that u developer. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Uh next meeting is scheduled April 14th. >> Yep. >> 2026 and April 28, 2026.
And a motion to adjurnn. >> Move. >> Second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Question. No opportunity for the public to comment on the solar market this evening. >> Oh, I apologize. >> That was a decision.
>> That was a decision. We're making a decision. That's >> I'll be brief. Know if it wasn't allowed or not tonight. >> Yeah, you've already closed the the meeting. I would suggest at the next meeting. >> That's the next meeting. I apologize.
Meeting a joint.