604. I'll call the meeting to order. My name is Jimmy Tar. I'm the alternate alternate chair. To my left is Lee Bell. To my right is Doug Finn. Um Trisha Jagger is uh our >> planning assistant.
>> Planning assistant. Okay. She's in charge. Um so public forum. Anybody got any public forum to talk about? John, are you here for agenda item? >> Okay. Hi.
>> Was a public forum. We'll look at the minutes. Approve the minutes. Uh, anybody got anything to say about the minutes? Anybody looked at them? Is there any issues? >> No issues. I'll move to accept the minutes of uh December 3rd and the minutes of January 7 as presented and
printed. >> I'll second that. >> All in favor? I >> I minutes are accepted as read. Okay. So, >> um, we got to wait till 6:15. So, if you want, we could talk about the, um, if we
approve of this letter that Mike Bartler requested. Um, this is an okay statement. >> Is there actually an ask in this? >> What? I approve of the letter. I mean, I think
it it expresses that we have want as a board to find some solutions to the housing in town and it's it's non-committal enough that we're not necessarily committing to a project that we haven't heard enough information. >> Right. Right.
>> Okay. Got a motion. >> I'm sorry. No, I'm sorry. >> It was underneath my packet. I need to read the thing first. time. >> John, am I coming through? >> Go ahead.
>> How about now? Testing. Testing. Okay. >> Sorry. Thanks. If you want to make your motion. I make a motion that we accept this letter as presented um and move it forward to the select board as intended.
>> Second that. >> All those in any discussion? All those in favor? >> I >> I motion is passed unanimously. >> Uh compliments to our chair. uh well-written non-committal
um the the request to me rubs completely the wrong way. I don't want to express any opinion on something which might come to us as a formal application that does the right dance around doing so and I appreciate but god it was written in that way. So kudos to Stephanie for you
for >> I think I think you're right about that Doug but I think it also expresses our want to kind of work with people to get housing in >> Oh absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. Generally speaking, sure, sure. Sure. >> You know, and I agree that this is really pretty much the first step of
somebody coming forward with a prop a concrete proposal to help alleviate the the housing shortage, crunch, whatever that we're having in this town right now. Um, I think that speaks volumes. Mike is a a longtime resident of the
town, clearly, probably longer than the rest of us. Um, so I I think it's a good thing. Um, we're not approving anything yet other than the intent of this letter. >> We all good with that? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Anybody want to talk about the
other one? The Benson mini storage while we got it up. >> Oh, yeah. We could probably squeeze that in in the meantime. So, um, let me see. So, at the I guess maybe two meetings ago, Alejandro and it was in the minutes actually. Alejandro um Leven came in
with um Jeff Squire of Bergkshire Design Group and they were talking about a potential um project for 18 Elm and we weren't sure where we stand in the zoning with whether or not it was a pre-existing
non-conforming use. And so, um, the planning board requested that Alejandro's lawyer write a letter, um, stating his interpretation of our zoning bylaw and why it would allow for him to do what he wants to do and that we would give it to our town council so that he could interpret it and give us his
thoughts. So, this is the letter from Alejandro Leven's attorney stating his interpretation of our zoning and why we should be able to proceed using that um special permit avenue um provided for in
the zoning bylaw 3.4.3 4.3 where if you have a pre-existing non-conforming use, you can as the planning board um if you feel that the proposed new non-conforming use is not a further detriment to the neighborhood um you can issue a special permit for that
proposal. So, um, that's what the attorney interpreted our zoning bylaw as saying. And our attorney, um, said to me on the phone and then wrote us an email to confirm, um, his interpretation that if the planning
board at no point issued the landowner a statement saying that basically the house is an accessory to the industrial use on the parcel. if we never issued him a special permit or a statement saying that that detached
single, you know, single home is an accessory to the industrial use that we can think of it as a pre-existing non-conforming use and proceed with the special permit avenue. >> So, where do we sit? Where do we sit with the the lawyer and the the
applicant? >> Well, this is the letter that the >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay. So now are we needing to endorse this letter? >> No. >> Or is this justformational? >> This is just what the lawyer wrote so that we could give this to our lawyer
and he tell us his interpretation of our zoning by >> I'm sorry. Have we heard back from town's attorney? That's what I was saying. And town's attorney concurs with this opinion. >> Yes. >> Okay. He said if the planning board here had never issued the land owner any because basically we the only question
was that we allow one single family detached residence >> in an industrial zone. >> Industrial zone. >> Yeah. >> And so but it had stated in the zoning bylaw um table of uses in the notes section that it needs to be basically accessory to the industrial use meaning
sort of like smaller than in the footprint and whatever. So he was saying that speak unless we could find some scenario in which the planning board had issued the landowner a statement saying that they are now thinking of that house as accessory to the storage units that
basically it doesn't really qualify as accessory and that we can proceed through the special permit avenue. >> My my only question will be >> and it's a simple question to ask and it's going to be really really tough to answer. What prompted the change of that property to industrial an industrial
zone? >> I think the Benson family in the '9s wanted to build those storage units >> and so they requested a change in the zoning for their property. >> Yes. Correct. >> Then the hardship is a pre is is of their own making.
>> The Benson family sure I mean >> it wouldn't have been for the storage >> that matters runs with >> for the storage back then. It was an insulation business back then. There is a blueprint of a from the 90s of storage units that we found in the town clerk's office which we thought might
>> was the was the um was the residence industrial was it always on industrial land or did it was it was it turned into industrial land in the 90s is my question because I think it may have always been industrial land because of the business that was going on and the connection to the owner that lived in the house next
>> that's a good question >> when when did land zoning first happen in Hatfield >> the 60s Well, was that property zoned in the 60s? >> Right. So, that's >> easy question to ask. Tough to answer. >> It could very well have been industrial
then. There was it was the Hatfield Club back in the day. It was, >> you know, it hasn't it hasn't strictly been a residential building historically. >> Well, I'm not necessarily talking about the use on the land. I'm thinking about the actual the zoning, the formal zone.
And if it was initially residentially zoned, regardless of the use on the property, let's say there were industrial uses on the property, but it was initially zoned residential. The industrial uses would have been the non-conforming use. And forgive me for, you know, maybe talking
too much here. I'm verbally processing as I go. If the land, if the lot was originally residentially zone, then the industrial uses would have been the pre-existing non-conforming use. Then at some point the owner wanted to change the uses or expand the uses. And so instead of just applying for a special
permit to modify an existing non-conforming use, they asked to reszone the land. The lot that lot got resoneed. And again, this is needs concurrence. We need to make sure that this is what what I'm describing is what happened. If they
asked to reszone the land to industrial which gave them permission to do whatever they wanted to do on the land then in my opinion personally speaking that house became accessory to the industrial use >> de facto >> be of their own decision they said I
want the whole lot changed to industrial I would strengthen that argument with the fact that that house probably when this zoning happened I bet you John could concur with This was
was such because the back what is now industrial land was a nightclub and the front was a house with a kitchen in the front of it that the owner lived in. >> Okay. >> Was in the cellar. There was also a kitchen out back. Okay. So they were tied together as one.
>> So I guess the fact though to that it would be an accessory to the industrial use. Zindustrial or we would have to >> it would have been a commercial use at that time and we've got to confirm the timeline and the actual >> history of it. Yeah, >> we have to stop this discussion. John, go ahead.
>> Continue afterwards club and barn. That house was used as a club bar. Rooms are used for meetings etc. I don't think anybody was ever living there. the property owners lived offsite,
>> but it would but it would have been considered the point of it would have been considered an accessory to whatever the use was in the back. >> But you say but you're right about the kitchens there and so forth. >> We got we got to move on. >> Okay. >> All right. So I have to read this at 6:15. The planning board will conduct a
public hearing on Wednesday February 4th 2026 in town hall 59 Main Street Hatfield. 6:15 consider the adoption of proposed storm water management rules and regulations, but can be reviewed in the town hall planning office during the planning office's regular business
hours. >> Okay. >> Okay. And I'm not sure if you need to vote to open the public hearing. Lori has left me a note that says you have to vote to close the public hearing. So, >> let's just go ahead and the public hearing is open as 6:15. All right. Okay.
>> Okay. >> Any public comment? Andrew, are you with us? >> The town administrator in the room with us. >> I am here if you need anything. >> He's trying. >> He's trying.
>> Oh, yep. I'm here in case uh you have any questions, you need anything, but I don't have any comments. >> He's talking. Do we have sound? >> No. >> I can see your little sound lines moving. >> They're coming out of that speaker. >> Yeah. Looks like Andrew is muted now.
Now he's unmuted. >> I'll try now. Can you hear me? All right. >> All right. We can't hear you yet, Andrew. >> Um, there's no sound coming out of that speaker. >> You can hear him >> in your headphones. >> Is that speaker connected to your
laptop? >> Yep. >> Is your laptop sound muted? >> Is that unplug it? >> Not touching anything. you a choice to look where >> bear with us, Andrew.
>> If you click that little up thing, >> why is your camera Andrew, you there? >> I'm here. Can you hear me? >> Mhm. >> Curiouser and curiouser. >> Microphone speakers.
>> Okay. I used to have these marked. Which one was microphone? Which one was >> Oh, they're different. >> Somebody took the tape off. >> Not I would never. >> Yes. >> What about now? Say something else. >> Uh, how about now? Any any luck?
>> Loud and clear. >> All right. Great. >> Yay. Has everyone >> after all that? I really don't have anything to say, but now I feel like I need to earn this. >> Thank you. Work to hear nothing. Come on. >> Thank you. >> That's what I was concerned. >> All right.
Um Okay, Andrew, do you want to introduce as you did last time or I can do it, whichever you. >> Well, I I'll just say briefly um and if there's there's no public comment, then that's that's one thing, but uh we we did talk about this uh last time. U
these rules and regulations um are kind of the the the uh the filling that goes along with the shell that was passed at at town meeting uh in May uh la of last year that created uh this this uh this program of
uh of storm water uh um construction and post construction um ordinances of uh uh regulations um that we are passing ing because uh our current uh zoning based uh uh zoning
uh bylaw based um regulations uh didn't meet some of the uh pollution control uh guidelines that uh are part of the MS4 program that the EPA requires. So what we did was just set up this program using sample bylaws that
the EPA recommended and this these regulations fit inside that bylaw. They basically are the the regulations that say how the program works. The planning board acts as a permit granting authority. And in most cases, we're not going to need to to use uh many of of
these regulations because uh or at least need to set up uh an individual permit uh because if a project does fit uh the qualifications for this, it's usually either going to already be going through a special permit process or have
jurisdiction uh with the cons conservation commission. So, an order of conditions by the conservation commission or a special permit by the uh planning board uh are already going to to fulfill the role of a um of this
storm water permit. But in other cases, uh in some narrow cases, you'll they'll need this additional uh storm water permit uh which the planning board will be the granting authority for. All of these regulations lay out basically what they'll need to see in a storm water
plan. uh what pollution levels they'll need to meet and uh the exemptions for that. So, I I think it's it's pretty good. It fits nicely with our current regulations. There's really not much that changes except for some of these
explicit um uh qualifications that came from the EPA that we weren't currently meeting about pollutant levels and and and what's required for uh a uh a permit. So, I don't think it's going to add too much more work over what you're
already doing because most uh most plans that you'll review do require a storm water management plan. Uh this just has a little more specificity on uh pollutants and a couple other things, but I think we we did a decent job of of narrowing this down so it won't be, you
know, too much more work both for applicants and for this board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so I made some notes on the document that you have, the red line document. Um, just sort of walking us
through this, um, and answering a couple of the questions. Everything in red in the comments is me. The blue is Doug. And then um just to kind of recap a little of what Andrew is saying, the specific triggers for this occurring are
if it's not under conservation jurisdiction, so there's no wetlands on the property, if it disturbs at least one full acre of land or creates 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface area. So we saw this with the um overflow parking lot for the pickle ball
people. Um, and this the benefit of all of this is that it gives the planning board a really clear set of criteria to use for that type of review and it also gives you the ability to hire a consultant. This document itself issues the planning board the authority to hire a consultant for like if it's a big like
much more complex >> project or engineering set of plans that we don't really have a lot of experience reviewing. Um, so it gives us that ability and then, you know, it gives us a super clear set of definitions for you to be able to reference in those
moments. Um, and then it also provides for a review process for any project that isn't also um reviewed under site plan review, special permit or special permit with site plan approval. Um, so that means something that is only
triggering I don't know when this might arise, but you want to have this safety in there. If it's distri if it's triggering the size like the one full acre of land service or 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface, but it's not triggering site plan review special permit or SBA or wetlands, this also
allows us to review those things. So nothing is going to like fall through the cracks of our review process. Um, and then in terms of some questions that were asked in the comments, I think Doug, you asked when the planning board would would ever require um both a
erosion and sediment control plan and a storm water management plan. >> No, actually I totally understand where that would come into play. >> You said I assume the planning word would never require both an SP. >> Oh, sorry. No, I thought I thought that there were would be cases where >> Well, it's just that
>> Oh, no. Okay. No, I ignore that. >> It's just so everyone >> it's explained. >> Great. Reverse it. >> Erosion and sediment is for mid construction. Storm water management is for finished construction. Um and then let's see what are some other
things that it does. Um does mention that concom get time to respond to um these plans as well. If Concom has any comments, even if it's not jurisdictional, they have time to issue those comments. Um,
>> are there any time constraints on that? >> Uh, yeah. 30 >> 35 days is >> 5 days. Yeah. >> Which is consistent with special permits. Okay. >> Exactly. Um, and then it provides that the applicant um
has to issue an operation and maintenance plan. Um and then it describes what that needs to contain. And then there are future requirements for what the applicant needs to do in terms of like annually giving us a report um to you know show that they
haven't created a new port source pollution outfall um which is what a lot of this is about. And then um what are some other helpful elements? We did kind of beef up the requirements
for the storm water management plan just so that it observes um NHSP and other environmental concerns. And then um yeah, just tried to make sure that it tied in really tightly with our zoning and with the general bylaw so
that we are um nothing is in conflict and we have all the information we need when we need to review one of these. That's kind of the purpose of this document. Are there thoughts or questions?
>> So, if we touched on most any possible questions that a potential person would come and ask that we can just send them to this information and say the answers are here. >> I think it is it would be really helpful for applicants too. Yeah, I think it
provides them with a super detailed set of um things that they need for any kind of application that triggers this review. >> I think it will also uh eliminate the perception of us being arbitrary to one person or another person. The rules are the rules. They apply to everybody.
>> Agreed. >> And I think that would be really important for us to um stipulate when somebody comes that these are the rules. >> Okay. You can come say I like you or I don't like you or I think this is okay or this is not okay. But the rules are the rules.
>> Totally. >> And I think that protects us a lot from being accused of being arbitrary or favoring one person over another or one project over another. >> Agreed. And we can always point to, you know, this was something the EPA specifically told us to do, >> right?
>> And that, you know, we didn't make these up. These are standard and they meet all the >> these are the rules, >> benchmarks. Exactly. >> Okay. My only remaining comment 1.0 purpose that rewrite it that literally says the purpose of these rules is to establish
these rules and that's not the purpose of this document. So that needs to be a summary of what the town is attempting to do by implementing the rules and regulating these things. what what are our ultimate
goals? And and that should be at least in plain clean language. It can be bigger than just a sentence. It can be bullet points. It can be a couple of paragraphs, but you know, what are we trying to prevent? What are we trying to
protect? What are we trying to enforce? >> I like that. >> You know, we recognize that erosion can be a problem and can become a source point a source of point source pollution. You know, we recognize that storm water when improperly managed can cause damage to neighboring properties
and water, you know, I don't know. Therefore, we are putting these rules into a place in order to protect the assets of the town and prevent, you know, >> whatever. >> Yeah. House housekeeping thing. I agree with Doug on 4.0 being at the end as well.
>> Okay. Hi, >> Ju just as a comment, you know, when it comes to purpose and objectives, these regulations should should be seen as fitting in with the bylaw that was passed. And the bylaw does talk more about what the actual purpose is. So
saying that that the purpose is to establish minimum storm water management requirements in order to minimize damage to public and private property uh safeguard the public health uh protect aquatic resource and wildlife habitat protect quality of of of health and human and water resources. So you get
the purpose from the bylaw and then these regulations supplement that. So there's not a lot not a lot of preamble there because it's really already handled by the bylaw. >> Okay. I still think they belong here. Yeah, I mean we were trying to make the regulations not duplicate anything that
would be in the bylaw. That that that was our our thought. >> So you talking about just the first sentence? >> Just the first sentence. And my question is, is less better or is more better in this situation
>> in terms of >> uh in terms of the statement we're making? Do we want to start getting into, you know, expanded specifics or do we want just a overriding this is the rules and this is the way it goes? >> I think um the checkpoint would be
Like Andrew said, just making sure that we're not duplicating anything that's in the bylaw. If there's something to be added, right, to what's stated in the bylaw that we feel like is necessary to stating the purpose, we could do that in 1.0. >> Okay. >> If you wanted to repeat, you know,
language in the bylaw, you certainly could do that. Um or or or you know, say it in another way that that you feel like states the uh the purpose nicely. Well, and it would be like stating the purpose of the rules and regulations as distinct from the purpose of having a
bylaw about it. So, we could, you know, distinguish between those two. And if there's anything else to say, we could add it here. I mean, I do think the sentence is kind of funny. >> I don't I don't have the text for the uh and I I realize it's not a the purpose of these rules and regulations is to create rules and regulations. It does
refer to the storm water management bylaw, >> right? I'll go back to my argument from a few months back that town laws, for lack of a better term, that regulate land belong in the bylaws.
Town laws that regulate activity, um, use of roads, use of public spaces, that sort of thing should be bylaws. >> And I'm sorry, let me back up. >> Regulating land uses in any way, shape, or form should be a zoning bylaw. Mhm.
>> regulating any activity that affects, you know, you know, inter, you know, regular day-to-day interactions, things like speed limits or, you know, crossing against traffic or whatever, those are general bylaws. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> I would say a >> it doesn't matter. They hold the same
weight. But when the planning board can't on its own motion consider a change to a zoning bylaw or change to how land use is managed that it has to go to the select board and if the select board don't agree it doesn't proceed further
>> then we would then we as the land use and planning entity of the town would have to create a fight where we're going against the select board to make a change to something which is in our purview. Mhm. >> Um, and I'm trying to, this is so higher level, it's not funny. I'm not trying to
speak against the the the storm water management bylaw as it stands. It's fine the way it is. Just say that it's it was established by the wrong entity and it's in the wrong section of the the town's regulations. That's all. >> I'm not sure if that's >> if it's any consolation that the it's
very very similar to what already exists at a uh zoning bylaw level right now, too. And I think when we do the the full proper uh review of our zoning bylaws and our and our um general bylaws that's coming in the next year, year and a half, I think we'll remove one of them.
And I think your comment is is worth pointing out that we should probably do it to the general bylaw, which is silly since we just passed it. We can make sure the right language ends up in the zoning bylaw. We could most likely remove one of them. >> Right. And I do understand the reasons why it became a general bylaw for
expediency. Totally get that. So, >> there's an expediency and there's also kind of we're at I I liked your way of saying it. We're kind of at the at the nexus of activity on um on land and how
land is used because this is an activity that we're regulating is is the the the storm water um management and the the regulations that come there. So, we're kind of at that nexus. I think you're right that it's more like uh land use than it is like activity, but kind of
right in the middle. >> Yeah. >> So, that leaves us sort of stuck between two different things and which one is the more important for our focus to be. >> Well, in terms of just this that we have in front of us, no objection to the way
this is written right now. >> Okay. And I don't have a problem with um if this is the official public hearing for this, I have no problem submitting this as a warrant article to for a town meeting to review and approve. >> Oh, no. I'm sorry. This doesn't go to a warrant article. I'm sorry. This is our rules and regulations. We simply vote to
approve it. Right. >> Right. >> So, you have a timeline for that. >> Correct. >> Is there a timeline? >> Timeline for that. >> It's today. >> Today. >> Okay. with the understanding that you know any corrections that are in here
will be part of the final document. I have no problem making a motion to adopt these rules and regulations as presented. >> Okay, >> I would second that motion. >> Okay, we have any more discussion on it?
Andrew, you got opinion? No, I appreciate all your consideration on this and uh and um passing it tonight. We'll we'll put us in compliance with the EPA, which is a nice place to be. >> Sounds good. >> All those in favor? >> I I
>> I motion passes. >> Let the record reflect that the motion to adopt included a motion to close the public hearing. >> Um to second, that >> I'll second that. >> Okay. And then vote to close. All those
in favor? >> I I >> Thank you. >> Thank you everybody. >> Thanks Andrew. >> Okay. >> We had our little deadline extended um by the EPA till Friday, but that was the deadline for approving these was like
the 2nd of February or something. So, we had to do it today. >> We're only a day late, not a dollar short. >> Exactly. And the EPA is a mess anyway. So, they're okay. >> So, not to worry. Okay.
>> Right. How about uh we move on to battery energy storage systems. >> All right. So, we're having a public hearing on this in March. >> Um but because we had to advertise for it differently than was done, but today
we can discuss what we have and get a little teaser of what we'll be talking about later. I know it's hefty, but and I know that it went out yesterday, but um
>> So, has anybody come to the town with a proposal yet? Well, like I said, we did get that email from this company, Blue Wave Solar, who >> um if you've been looking at the paper recently, um there's been a few towns
that have big battery um projects in the proposal stage from that company, >> right? and they emailed me and they were asking about like what regulations we have and um so they didn't of course submit a proposal yet but they were kind of scanning for I'm sure they're aware
of the timeline that the state has for these um sort of expedited permits. I don't want to say expedited but comprehensive permits that they're going to start issuing this year. So >> and do we know what the timeline is? July, they're going to start issuing the
um it's a it's called a consolidated permit and basically it is a way for the state to help larger scale um best projects move through. They're not in any way discounting the zoning that anyone has. It's just that if you don't
have any zoning around it, it's that much faster. >> Okay. Um, but they would basically the state would basically take the town's zoning around it and like move it through the permit just at the state level. So it wouldn't even have to go through us. It would just go >> go above us. Right. >> I'm sorry. You're referring to projects over 100 megawatt hour.
>> Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. The town no longer becomes an an a review authority. It becomes just a participant in the process. >> Gotcha. So, and have we had anybody come with
private applications, private uh forays into the the process here >> for smaller scale stuff? >> Not really. I mean, even last year um I know like Dennis Morren um was interested in doing a battery just for some solar panels that he wanted to put
on his sugar shack. Like little stuff like that will come through. And I honestly don't even know what scale of battery that would have been if he had looked at it. There may be people that are just interested in like smaller residential scale batteries that we haven't really >> been aware of. >> You don't regulate
>> and and it it seems that that is um by right >> well so that's what this we don't have any rules about it at all as of so that's what this would be. So, okay. So, this I did all of these I did all of these modifications to this
is the model zoning bylaw that the state gave us last fall. >> And as of the last meeting that we had, what we talked about was because we as a town are allowed to um break down the tiers that they provided differently.
>> Um we had thought about instead of and I think this is smart. What we had thought about was instead of creating as some other towns are doing like overlays all over town where like batteries are allowed in different you know tier it's like we decided we wanted to try to take advantage of that tier freedom that we
have to break down the tiers differently >> and use that instead of creating overlays. And so I worked as hard as I could to try to figure out natural um division points between the best at different scales. and I've come up with
five different tiers um and then a table of uses for those tiers. And so I tried to sketch out in the comments here what these best installations at different scales sort of look like um size-wise and then tie
that into the table visa so that we can kind of understand what we're talking about. Um, so on page three, you'll see where I lay out what the five tiers could be. >> And as Doug mentioned, like we cannot
regulate, we since we are a land use board, we can't regulate anything that doesn't have land use impacts. So if it is something below a certain size, if it's like the size of a generator, we can't regulate it. It doesn't >> Right. So that's that's a home system.
>> Exactly. So something under the state's tier one was up to 250 kilowatt hours and I left it at that. >> That's that's fair. Um the battery that we're installing and I brought this up at the last meeting. The battery we're installing at the elementary school in West Hampton is a 75 kilowatt hour
battery. It is a size of this end of this table. >> Okay. >> Right. >> And about you know four and a half ft high. The diesel generator that is already there is twice the size. So, >> and I called Valley Solar and I got a technician on the phone and tried to get
him to like tell me what size things I was like, is it the size of a printer? Is it the size of a fridge? Like what help me understand, you know? And then I wrote down like what he was saying to try to visualize because I think that's one of the hardest parts about this is like what does it look like?
>> And he said 123 kilowatt hour battery is the size of a Tesla Cybert truck battery. So like >> if that helps. So >> the Ford F-150 Lightning is 130 kilowatt hour battery, >> right? >> And then >> 250 kilowatts can be up to the size of a
commercial generator but not much bigger. It's like 9 by 8 by 9 ft. And so that is the cut off for tier one which in our table in our proposed table of uses we're allowing by right everywhere because really we cannot argue that that has any land use impacts at all, right? >> That would be something like the
building inspector and like the fire code and like all of that regulate those things. So you'll see in the table of uses which is on page seven tier one which is up to 250 kilowatt hours is allowed by right in every zone because I don't think we can regulate any further
than that nor do we want to. Tier two we're talking about and on seven page seven actually I put those comments in again so you can see like what size things are. Tier two I broke into 250 kilowatt hours to one megawatt hour.
That is like one megawatt hour is like two commercial generators. >> Okay. >> Okay. And that's where I've tied it into site plan review everywhere except by right in industrial and light industrial.
Later on in the document we can talk about what the cyclone review looks like for these. Um, but we could I mean I think I think obviously industrial and light industrial it makes sense to allow these things by right at that scale. It's like
two commercial generators. That's not bigger than anything we would allow in industrial normally. and light industrial. I don't think that we do a good enough job in our zoning of distinguishing the difference between light industrial and industrial to really argue that they're
sort of substantively different zones at the the way that they're defined in our zoning. Now then tell me if you want me to stop. Um, tier three >> page. >> Um, um, >> yeah, >> right here.
>> All right. Page three. >> I'm sorry. I've got another comment, but it's it's about something that's above. It has to do with colllocated. >> So, please keep going through the tiers and then we'll get to that. >> I'll just break down the tier. We can talk about all of it. Tier three, um, I broke down to one megawatt hour to two. This is now we're talking about two
megawatt hours is like three to four shipping containers. And what I learned is that the batteries are not, this may be obvious to everyone but me, but the batteries are not the size of the shipping container. What it entails when it's in a shipping container is that it has all of the fire suppression technology inside the shipping
container. >> Yeah. >> So, it is like designed to not spread any kind of fire between containers because it has heat sensor technology, auto shut offs, and then the fire suppression is within that box. I >> believe it's carbon monoxide. Um fire
suppression, >> right? >> No water. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um so tier three >> would be special permit everywhere except industrial and light industrial where it would be site plan
review. Um and then I would love to say that that tier is banned in drinking water protection and riverfront, but I'm not sure if that's pushing it too much. Um, with the size the low end of that
size being one megawatt hour, which is like one which is like two commercial generator size, I'm not really sure if we can res if we can ban that in drinking water. >> Are you talking about tier three or tier four? >> Tier three. The low end of tier three. I'm not really sure. It might be pushing
it to try to ban that in drinking water protection, but I don't know. That's something we should talk about >> just so we move through these. Tier four is special permit everywhere banned and drinking water protection in riverfront >> and the same with tier five and tier
four and five are where we're getting into like many shipping container size to a field of batteries basically. So my comment actually is in rel relative to page seven >> halfway down item B colloccated battery energ energy storage and I'm not sure if
I saw this before or not >> um says that they may be colloccated with solar solar photovoltaic power generation electrical substations or similar facilities >> but then it says that it doesn't that's outside of the tier uh
rating >> the collocation. So that means if somebody wants and and and the thing which triggered me is the the reference to an electric electrical substation >> which an electrical substation might be located on a very very small piece of land and it might be nothing more than a
few transformers or a couple of telephone poles where lines interact and there's otherwise nothing on the property. >> Yeah. Would that does that automatically mean that they now have the right to put in a tier five battery energy storage on that same property without any kind of
review or oversight? >> I don't think that saying and I actually crossed out as you can see here are encouraged to because I don't that was in the model bylaw and I don't know what substantively in here is
encouraging them to be colllocated. I just changed it for May. But um I think like are you saying we should change electrical substations, get rid of that or are you saying >> I don't know. I'd um again item B 3.1B
on page seven. >> Um >> maybe colllocated. >> I the solar photovoltaic installation makes sense. Power generation substations >> that makes sense. um electrical substations. That's the thing that kind
of bothers me. Um because it it those can be much smaller than a power plant. >> Mhm. >> Or a field of solar cells. >> I'm not sure that we're saying I'm not sure that we're saying with B that in
fact I would not want to say that colllocated best is its own category that like skips over any of this review process. But I will draw your attention to this might answer this question. In the definition section under accessory,
I edited what accessory meant. >> Yep. >> To say it's on page one actually. Um, a best installation shall be considered accessory an accessory use only when it meets all of the following criteria. The
best is secondary and incidental to the lawful primary use of the premises and serves the same lot. The best is building integrated which is a later definition that says the best has to be literally within the building. It can't be an exterior structure. So it
has to be within the building footprint. The best is behind the meter which I also put a definition for. >> And then the best is classified as tier one which means that it's under 250 hours. So that's the only thing that could be accessory, right? >> If it's all of those things, >> right?
>> And then accessory best because that is basically so confined and small has its own section in the table of uses where it is allowed by right everywhere because it's basically under 250 kilowatt hours and inside the building
>> and that's fine. So then I hope maybe that addresses the colllocated thing where it's like >> well is coll-located battery and energy storage accessory to the principal use on the on the site. >> No, not under our definition
because it's not small enough. >> Okay. >> Like it can't be considered accessory unless it's literally inside the building and under 250 kilowatt hours. >> Okay. So the accessory use best being allowed in all districts is fine, >> right? So then otherwise
>> but you're but item C you you say that bests that are not colllocated with these things shall be regulated in accordance with the section uh uh and as shown on the table of uses below. >> Yeah. Correct. Right. >> So that implies that the table of uses
and all those restrictions regulations applies to non- colllocated and nonacessory use bests. So the so again the colllocated bests already on a site with a facility
how do we regulate those or do we >> okay it's saying sorry it's saying colllocated is regulated according to section 3.0 >> I'm sorry where >> that's that's the solar thing in our other law um >> shall be permitted in all districts
where solar photovote installations are allowed as established in section 3.0 Maybe we should just I mean I think what's missing is that we just take the line that's in C where it says are permitted as shown in the table of uses below and add it to the colllocated
section. >> Are we required to provide different uh review or approval processes for colllocated battery adder storage? >> No. >> Why don't we just strike that section? >> Great. I mean I don't >> to solve the problem.
>> Yeah, I love that. Um >> then it's it's based on the size of the battery which implies >> greater impact on the land and the environment and the and the and the surrounding area. >> Totally. Okay. >> So yeah, you want to put a a giant >> big X >> 20 megawatt or 50 megawatt
>> battery energy storage on your field of 400 meg, you know, 200 megawatt of solar. Great. That's fine. But we're going to review it and we'll >> Yeah. >> Trying to think what they even wanted. I mean, I don't really know what >> I would be tears.
>> So, my question is, do we have that big a solar fields now in town that would be able to, you know, impact have an impact with this proposal right here? Do we have that big solar fields in town? >> The one right by uh the old the old food
bank, >> right? >> That's that big in in production. >> Sure. Okay. >> Big enough. >> Oh, absolutely. >> For what? Exactly. to warrant placement of a battery storage system. Yeah, absolutely. >> A big one. Sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> I mean, they come in all sizes, so I guess um >> yeah, I don't know the size of the capacity or the name plate capacity of that field and usually battery energy storage is less than half of that. >> You know, >> yeah. So, okay.
>> It's also an expensive thing to put into place. All right. So my next question is far from all the specifics. >> Are we going to be taken to task by anybody that lives near the existing solar field
>> that we're say we use the one on on the by the industrial park. >> Sure. >> Okay. There are houses there. Are they going to be adversely impacted by the placement of this situ system next to their 200 megawatt or whatever it is
their solar field. >> So that's where we would look at the review processes for what we're ask them to do. So that would be either site plan review or special permit >> which is laid out. So, the bylaw that
they gave us provided a pretty hefty site plan review like list of requirements. Um, which was helpful, but I expanded it a little bit and sort of toughened it up a little bit. >> Where are you? >> Um, let me find the page where site plan review is laid out. Um,
>> starts on 6.2, section 6.2 required documents. Is that right? >> Yes, exactly. >> Page 11. >> Okay. So I'm saying you know the basic requirements of our site plan review application from the zoning bylaw are referred to you have to submit those
basic things but then also the following. So starting on page 11 um and these big gaps are just like built into this model bylaw format but we will get rid of them. Um you can see what's required for site plan review.
It's quite thorough. Um, and then I added in that we would like to see locations of NRCS mapped prime farmland soils, farmland of statewide importance, and farmland of unique importance. Um, and
also locations of mapped 100 and 500year flood planes. Um, and along with all of what else is laid out in this bylaw, which is an operation and maintenance plan, emergency response plan, um, payment and lo taxes plan in
some cases, and then, um, you know, all of these other elements that are required for something, this technical, site suitability report if applicable, which is tied to 225 CMR 29, which is the small energy small clean energy
sighting um regulations that are coming out this year from the state. Um, so basically this list of items is what we would require for any kind of site plan review. And then our special
permit section, which is laid out later, um, asks for even more in the way of um, items from the applicant, which we have the power to deny an application if it's special permit. um if it doesn't
meet the standards of this bylaw. And then additionally, we want them to provide visual renderings of the project, an alternatives analysis um of other reasonable alternative locations, configurations, and site layouts for the proposed best um that
demonstrates why this site is what was chosen. Um a community impact statement and an environmental impact statement. Um and if we are asking for special permit and we feel that they have not met this very intense list of
requirements, we have the ability to deny the project. >> Do they have the ability to say uh give us another give us more time to con to uh >> to be in in concert with what we're asking. >> Sure.
>> So we're not going to strictly deny them if they don't come up with the right plan at first. >> No. Okay. Okay. So, I I see sometimes it's a trial and error situation of people trying to figure out what they can do within the parameters of what we're going to allow. Yeah.
>> And I think that there's might be a propensity for people to overseearch >> or overreach before they read and get all the information about what's going to happen to them when they try to do that. And I don't mean that in an adverse way. They're just going to be
scrutinized. >> Applicant. >> Yeah. Yeah. the application totally scrutinized and it and so it's seems to me important that we have all these things here >> so they don't say we you planning board people are just not you just don't like me or we're just not going to let this project go there's a whole bunch of
specifics here that give us more protection >> we can point to >> we just don't like anybody right >> one thing I want to um that I did add in well I put in setbacks
which we as a town famously have uh larger setbacks than maybe other places, but I tied the setbacks in here to the setbacks of each zone in our existing zoning. And
then I said where the two differ, the strictor shall apply. So I said front yard shall be at least 35 ft, which is kind of the standard for our for across our zones and our zoning bylaw. sideyard should be 20. That's five feet greater than what we normally require. It's 15
normally. And then the rear yard depth should be 30. And then I just said, you know, in the case that one of them is is a greater setback, it should follow that setback. And then I also said if it is a nonresidential zone abing or residential zone, the setbacks between those zones
shall not be less than 50 ft. Um and then I gave us this avenue to say for best tiers three through five. three through five, the planning board may require increased setbacks supported by written findings where necessary um to address fire safety, emergency
access, noise, visual screening, etc. And then um I referenced the Hatfield design guidelines handbook. I said that um all best installations that require site plan review should be reviewed for consistency with anything applicable from the Hatfield design guidelines
handbook. So, we can try to you we can try to actually apply those. >> Nice. >> Um, we don't have to like reprint them in here. And let's see. For best tiers three through five, the applicant may be required to conduct a noise study demonstrating compliance with applicable state noise regulations. We don't have
any local noise regulations, but um we can request a noise study if we want. And then um under 6.9.4, before this was really where I went wild with um what we might
be able to request from them. So for natural resource protection, I created a whole section um for protecting our local soils on any kind of major construction site. I said tied it into the Massachusetts Healthy Soils
initiative um and said that you know they need to map out any prime farmland soils they'll be affecting. If they can possibly avoid disturbing those prime farmland soils we would prefer that. And then this is on page 24. Sorry. Um,
>> if they have to disturb um native soil, they should to the greatest extent practiceable. Um, move the soil, sort it by soil horizon. Um, you know, cordon it off, protect it from erosion, reinstall it um by soil
horizon. Um, we might require a detailed plan of how they plan to do that. um that equipment should be parked on previously disturbed or compacted areas. Um then any prime farmland soils I wrote in
that they need to comply with all of those above standards and that no prime farmland soils should leave the town of Hatfield and that we the planning board would establish a place where those farmland soils if they can't be reused on site should be moved to a chosen location in Hatfield for future use by
um farmers or whatever the best use for that soil is. My question would be on that. What gives us the authority to mandate that? I mean, I don't disagree with it. I'm just wondering how >> how we know we can do that. >> Yeah. >> Um because on page 23,
um they lay out that we have a lot of power to do this kind of thing. in that blue box. Um it says basically we can require mitigation and offsets for damage to habitat um natural resources and our far
I mean it's >> indisputable that our farmland is like one of our you know >> thanks >> totally. So >> so one thing to note is that section six is only for the site plan review. All the things that we've been talking about so far would apply to any battery energy
storage system over 250 kilowatt hours. That means anything designed to serve a commercial building for the most part. Okay. >> It also says that we can wave anything from that list if we think it's >> it's a it is a heck of a burden when you're talking about emergency operation
plans and emergency, you know, and emergency management plans and consistent annual reporting. Mhm. >> Um >> it's a it's a big lift. >> Yeah. >> So, how specific is this situation about soil removal?
>> That's what we were just talking about. >> So, and it So, when they built the new elementary school, >> Yeah. >> a lot of beautiful Hatfield soil was stolen. >> Totally. >> Totally stolen. Just trucked away
without a penny of recompensation. >> Exactly. So, are we going to be very well protected for to prevent that from happening again? >> Well, in page 24, that's where all of that is laid out. >> Is there there's not something in the current bylaw which talks about soil
excavation removal? >> We would have it anywhere in town. >> I appreciate that it's here. >> This should be its own section. >> I hope that it can be a model for >> It should just be it section. It should just be its own section. >> Yeah, we're kind of doing what we can. Yeah,
>> it shall not be legal in Heffield to remove more than X amount of soil without a special permit from the planning board. >> But >> should be that simple. >> I know. So, starting here, I mean, I think it's it's kind of exciting in a way to be able to work this into >> Yeah. >> some policy. Um,
>> yeah. >> But yeah, the fact that we don't have it anywhere else in any of our bylaws um is pretty wild. But Jimmy, in response to what you're saying, yeah, it says here, >> you know, in >> first of all, to to your point, Doug, it is a big lift and I actually wrote a
streamlined site plan review um list for smaller things, but then it got a little complicated dividing projects up by, you know, site plan review process one or site plan review process two. But in the language here, it says that the planning board has the ability to wave any of
these elements that we think are excessive based on the scale of the project. >> Sure. >> And we could keep that streamlined site plan review list kind of in our back pocket and say like this really fits better with a lighter site plan review. We think it's on the, you know, small end of what we're asking here.
Does that seem like it might be >> It seems to give us more protection. Mhm. >> I like the flexibility you've worked in given the given the mandates by the state. >> Oh, good. >> Right. >> Okay. >> I mean, how how much of what we're doing
>> is already overseen by the state? >> Amazing question. Um, so, okay, definitely over aund. Well, >> in terms of overseen by the state, there's all the safety stuff, >> right? >> So, there's the fire, >> right? That part I get. Well, yeah,
that's that's in the definitions of U and kind of one of my earlier comments when you're defining tier one, tier three two, tier three. >> Yes. >> Each, you know, tier one, tier two, tier three, and tier five all say this facility must comply with the state's
electrical code 527 CMR12, states fire code 527 CMR1, and NFPA 855 or subsequent standard. That only needs >> when it's all five tiers. just put it in once, you know, just clarify that, you know, all tiers of battery, energy, storage need to comply with these things. Fair enough. Yeah, put it at the
bottom of the list. But yeah, you you already have to go through those three separate sets of code before you can come here. >> Um, so there's already a hefty regulation that's going to apply. >> Yeah, exactly. I can just switch that to the top. All must apply, blah blah. That's I'd rather avoid the heavyduty
technical >> review of these things and leave that to the professionals who actually know those codes and know what they're talking about. I'm more interested in okay, you want to do this thing on this piece of land. How is it going to affect everybody around it? Right. That's to me that's the higher level focus I want to focus on. >> That's what we do. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Exactly. >> So yeah, sound soils. Uh >> traffic on battery traffic really going to >> um effect on the neighborhood, >> you know, you know, and you do have to consider traffic onto the site in case
of an emergency. How where are they located? What's access to the site look like, right? How close are they going to be to other structures or structures offside that same site, you know? >> Totally. >> So, those are the things I'm most interested. >> Well, that's one of the things I'm thinking of is that site on North Hatfield Road with that with houses
directly across the street. >> Mhm. >> From them. So, what protection do they have? >> You mean the house right in front of it? >> Yeah, pretty much. >> Yeah. Right. There's a house with a >> right in front of it. And so what protection does do homeowner and that there's going to be more development out there for sure because those properties
are going to be for sale and eventually they're going to be sold. >> Yeah. >> Um >> what protection do those people have against something bad happening across the street from them? >> Well, and and in my opinion, that's where judicious placement of the energy
storage system, right? Like for that solar array, let's say they want to put a battery there. If they decide they want to put it right behind the house that's right there, right? Or right close to the uh food bank building, right? You'd be like, "No." >> Right. Do what I'm getting at is do we have the ability to say you can't do
that there? >> We have the ability to look at their site plan and go, >> um, this isn't going to work. Can you find another spot on the property for it? >> There's actually wording as to alternate >> as to alternate um solutions and locations. Yeah. Thanks.
>> Okay. And we we could approve a site plan that says, you know, this is approved conditional on the applicant presenting a plan showing the battery energy storage no less than 500 ft for many adjacent buildings. >> Right. >> You know, in that case, if he's got the land to do it
>> because we have it written in that we can increase the setbacks if we want basically. >> Sure. Um there is something interesting which is that you can't like they lay out at the beginning like under the do um do law you can't condition
like you can't deny anything through special firm based on like no visual impact like that's one we can't say this is ugly you can't do it. >> Yeah. Basically like if something if a big best project comes in and it's going to be special permit we can't say like this is too ugly for town. They they
don't allow you to do that. would also say that that is, you know, too ugly as a condition that we could fix. >> Exactly. >> With conditional approval, >> deny, but you can >> you're approved, but we're we want to see a row of trees. We want to see nice decorative fence. >> Right. >> Right. So, >> sound debating walls, whatever.
>> Right. So I'm just just curious how much leverage we have to do that >> to to to you know to say yes your project is okay but you got to be a lot better off at what you're presenting to us as far as protection of your
neighbors. >> Yeah. >> And doesn't matter if your neighbors is the food bank >> or if it's a house across the street. >> I think I think we have that here. >> Yeah. Site plan site plan review doesn't relieve the the planning board of the tools that it has. Okay. to say okay you
presented us with this this will look better or this will be better for us if you do these additional things >> right so my thought and do that >> my thought process only based on >> the uh multi-million dollar company that comes and wants to do this that's got much
deeper pockets for for legal fees and other avenues of of resistance to us than we have. I mean, they're going to come in and say, "Well, you know, like this is a $50 million project, and you know, who are you to stop us?" That kind
of thing. >> We're the benefit of them being these big wealthy companies is that we are giving them an avenue to do it, >> but they have to meet a lot of standards, which >> Yeah. Our goal isn't to stop. We're we're pretty much approving. Our goal is
to steer so it fits into the community to the best of our abilities and to protect the people around it. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think that I mean a I want to know if you think that the tears are okay. >> I like the tears actually. Yeah, >> you do. >> Yeah, I do. I do. >> Okay.
>> Um cuz in I would The only thing I would think >> Yeah. >> I'd want to look at again is >> uh let me find it. >> Um looking at the right document this time. That's good. uh page seven
which is the tier table >> uh there are two things >> yes >> table one 3.11 yeah >> without being able to look at a zoning map it's hard to tell right >> you can pull one up so you can see it on
your screen the >> There it goes. >> There it goes. >> What I'm wondering is where business zones are, >> right? >> Those are most mostly still located along the five and 10 route 5 corridor, aren't they?
>> Business >> business. >> Not necessarily >> splotched in and out. They're the pink. So, it kind of looks like the light purple, but it's like this guy. And then actually, wait, is that No. Yeah, that's business. Dark purple's heavy industrial, light purple's light industrial, and this pink is business.
>> Okay. So, it's kind >> And there's some down along side. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And then there's like a little teeny one there. >> Yeah. >> I don't want to just take I don't want to distract us from this. >> There's still I mean, we still have to have the conversation about those islands, those zoning islands. But
anyway, I mean the the business zones are for the most part not contiguous with but kind of consistently placed with the light industrial and and industrial >> and that's so the only comment I would have about that table of uses is whether
the tier 2 >> should be allowed by right in business as well as in the industrial and light industrial >> tier two again is one to two >> right >> megawatt so that's one two or three storage containers up to four storage containers, >> right? >> Basically, they just sit there,
>> right? Yeah, it's a good question. I mean, some of these business parcels are so randomly dotted around, but like so is industrial, >> right? >> Like over here, this is a very random and then down here is very random for industrial. So, it's a good point. What
actually distinguishes our business zone from industrial light industrial? I'm sure that we don't have a super clear intent sketched out in the zoning >> to distinguish it. >> So, here's an example of of a situation. >> Yeah.
>> Marty Liry, you know Marty Liry? >> I don't. >> Has a car repair place right on the corner of Prospect and Schools Street or Justin Street. And um he's got a bunch of land behind his business and his
property is zoned industrial residential. >> You mean that's split? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So what if somebody in that situation wanted to put something behind their building, their property in sort of a
neighborhood still? >> So do we is that something that we allow? Is that something that we suppress? Is that something that you >> can't suppress it? >> I Yeah, I suppress is the wrong word, but you know, >> I think if we're if we're using this
table of uses, we'd have to look and say, okay, so unfortunately, and this is part of what you were saying is like we have all these like tiny little industrial parcels tucked into neighborhoods >> that >> and that's not some famously we haven't
been able to resolve that yet. nor is there like 100% townwide agreement that that's what we want to do. That's >> so this sort of highlights what can happen if you have an industrial zone in a neighborhood. I think some people would be fine with it. I think some people >> right >> would not,
>> right? Um, but I think when we're, you know, showing a good faith bylaw to the state that we need to get approved by the AG, I think there's really nothing we can do but say that the entire intent of an industrial zone is to allow things like this and that's where we should
allow it by right. And that shows them that we're like doing everything we can to be as permissive as possible >> while restricting it where we can't. I mean, I don't know what else we would do, >> right? Wow. >> So, the reason I asked this >> Yeah. >> is because of that specific property and
he's got quite a few solar panels panels >> Mhm. >> on his property >> and I'm wondering if he wanted to put in one of these best systems >> Mhm. >> it would be allowed in that neighborhood. >> It would. >> It would. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So my next question is in that
zoning if he wants to put an addition onto his building is that allowed by right by special >> industrial or residential building or >> industrial building. >> Okay. >> Is is it zoned industrial? >> Yeah. Industrial building. >> And he wants to add an addition to it. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. It's allowed by right. >> Allowed by right. Okay. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I have the answer for him then. >> He's asking. >> Yeah. Well, he's wants to he wants to he was going to come tonight. Okay. >> And I said, "Well, you got to get on the agenda." And he said he's also doing his racing thing.
>> Okay. So, so let me I don't want to retract that, but if you've got an established industrial use in an industrial zone, you know, there are a number of things which could require review >> site plan review probably,
>> but if it's it depends on the size of the expansion, the purpose of it, and so on and so forth. There may be loopholes in the in the bylaw which would allow it by right >> um or parts of the bylaw would allow it by right, but it might be significant enough where he would need site plan review. Okay. >> There's a percent lot coverage maximum.
>> Yeah. Right. So there's that. >> You could look at that. >> Okay. So but that situation would theoretically allow him to put a small best system in there also >> because he has the existing solar panels right now. could generate his own and could just put a small, >> you know, accessory uh
>> unit in there to to uh pro provide his own electricity anyway if it was a sensory. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, that was just one specific example that that might be indicative of what we might come up against in other places.
>> Yeah, totally. >> What I was looking for, I'm not just randomly looking at the internet in the middle of a meeting. Um, >> it takes between 2.8 and 4.2 acres of land to install a megawatt of name
megawatt DC name plate capacity of solar. >> So per that translates down to for every acre you can get about 250 kilowatt hours of solar. >> Okay. >> Okay. Consider that to be a 2:1 ratio between
the solar you generate on the property and the battery that you would install. >> Okay. >> Like the size of the battery is like >> Yeah. About half of what you can generate. If you want to actually use it for a commercial use or as a backup, >> you need to be able to generate enough energy in any given day to charge that
battery fully and then also to be able to offset the electric use on the site if there is any. Mhm. >> So if you have eight acres and it's all covered with solar, that's only a 2 megawatt solar array and it's only a 1 megawatt battery, >> which is going to be one maybe two
shipping containers. >> Okay. >> Pretty small. >> Just it's it's still pretty small. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's helpful. I think >> so. We're supposed to have a public hearing about this next month. I don't know whether it's going to be nobody or
whether I mean it's been in the news a lot so looking at >> we might get some yeah >> some superolous interest >> sure >> you know people that aren't ready to think about doing this but >> you know or and I suspect knowing this town we will also get some people that
want to not have it happen here >> because how it's going to impact my my house how it's going to impact my >> it's not project >> no no I'm just saying I'm just saying you We, you know, how many times have we had invasions in here of people that weren't happy about what we were talking
about? >> Spicy. >> It does. I think the most important thing that we're going to need to um explain is really the context for this and that the planning board has very limited
um we are limited in what we can restrict >> and that this is a sort of delicate balance of allowing like showing basically good faith effort to the state that we're assuring to be as cooperative as possible while also kind of flexing
any muscle that we have to restrict and make this fit the character of Hatfield. And I think we are going to get just confusion about what these >> are like, what they're for, why the state wants, you know, what level of resistance we could put forth around
this. And I think that the table of uses might be um an area where people are willing to kind of get into the weeds with it. I think like we're going to get questions like the ones you were asking. >> So I I sure if you think anything in this table of uses is going to alarm
people and what we should be prepared for because for instance like the tier three being allowed in drinking water protection again I'm like I >> special permit though, right? >> Yeah, exactly. I I I don't feel confident that we could get away with
banning that with the AG, but we might get questions. Um, >> and I'm just getting at the fact that the next meeting when this all comes public, more we need to be prepared with some specific answers because there's going to be some specific questions
>> and and in this town it might be a person as specific as what can I do on my specific property >> as opposed to what the what the plan is for the whole town. The thing is if some if somebody has a house and they have a shop, they have a business and they got some solar panels on the roofs of their buildings and they say, "Yeah, I want to
put in a half a megawatt battery in my in my on my property because I want to be able to capture that solar and either use it as a generator >> or sell the power for more time, you know, release the power out to the grid >> more consistently and and longer." I mean,
>> I don't see a problem with that. Um, it's just like anything where >> Let me back up. Edgartown regulates swimming pools, okay? And they regulate swimming pools because pool equipment sometimes makes noise, right? >> And the size of the lots and all that, people put their pool equipment right on the boundary, right next to their
neighbor's bedroom window, right? >> And so they they requires a special permit for a swimming pool in some cases >> because of the noise. That's the only thing I'm concerned with when it comes to battery >> uh storage, tier one and tier two. >> Is there noise generated?
>> If there is built-in air conditioning, there could be fans that run. Okay. >> And with the the container systems, yes. >> Right. >> With anything smaller than the container systems, it might be a small fan equal to what you see on a mini split. >> Okay.
>> Which are very, very quiet. >> Right. >> Well, we looked up last time was like it said in the D memo, it said something like they're like 40 dB above the normal. And then we looked up what that is and it's like the sound of like a like less than a haird dryer. >> Okay. Yeah. >> I do think these things are going to be important. like literally what you did
earlier where you were like the size of the one you were talking about is this big like I think people that will be helpful to people because these hundreds of kilowatt then no one knows what that is right >> I think if we are like prepared to illustrate a little bit >> right and I think that's that's a a
situation that will unquestionably arise >> exactly >> I don't want this this gigantic thing in my backyard in my neighborhood or my in my whatever >> it won't be >> and and so they we we are going to need to educate the public to what the probable size of somebody wanting to do
this on their own house would be, >> right? >> So, as they don't think that, God, my neighbor's going to have a tractor trailer back in his backyard doing this stuff and it's and that's not acceptable in my neighborhood. >> And yet, your neighbor could in fact
back a trailer truck into their backyard at any time they want and the neighbors could do nothing about it. >> Right. Right. No, I'm talking about putting a facility. I know, right? Yeah. Right. Um, is there any way through some of the local companies to get a a mockup
or literally to get a battery storage device for the public hearing? >> I would love that. You know, >> I can talk to the Valley Solar guy again. It was actually great because he's on the planning board in row. >> Okay. >> So, we had like a long kind of back and forth event like this. Maybe I'll ask him if he can send me images of things
>> with a with a human being standing next to you. Yeah. Exactly. >> Yeah. I think I think that would be very important for the general public to see and understand exactly the size and scope of what we're talking about. >> Um >> because unlike the storm water thing like this also has to go through town
meeting. So we need >> Does the Hatfield 2040 plan talk about renewable energy? >> Yeah. >> Okay. It would make sense to pull some quotes out of that. >> Yeah. >> If Hatfield emphasizes renewable energy as part of our future, battery energy storage is part of that. Yeah,
>> you know that helps us >> totally. >> Okay, all looks good. Anything else we have to do? >> Have we Have we beaten that one to death? I think so. Okay. Motion to >> time we Is there a second? Oh, did you move to
ajourn? >> Okay, I'll second that. >> Sorry. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> Thank you all again. I know this is such a boring topic, but you know what? Here we are.