Call the meeting to order. Uh January 7, 2026 at 6:04 p.m. Sorry for the late start. All you watchers, loyal watchers and listeners. Uh my name is Stephanie Slush. I am the chair of the planning board. To my
immediate right, I have Jimmy Tar. He's our alternate chair. Far end I have Doug Finn. To my left, John Jeffris. All the way at the end of this table, Lee Bell. And then we have Bella Jagger, our town planner. Also here virtually, we have
Andrew Lavine, our town administrator. First item on the agenda as always is public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in the public to bring anything to our attention that is not part of the tonight's agenda. Considering that there is nobody here and nobody online
here uh from the public, that isn't a part of the agenda. We will close public forum and move on to uh we do have the next thing on our agenda is approval of the minutes but we have no m meeting minutes >> to approve. So that moving on to the
next agenda item. Um I think we want to mix it up a little bit given Andrew's participation. But Andrew, are you here? I'm here. >> Great. So we will since you're here, we'll just get the storm weather water
stuff out of the way. So, Bella, Andrew, take it away. Take it away, Andrew. >> I think Bella will do a better job. She's actually spent a lot of time on this uh kind of reconciling what we have in our zoning with a um with a model
bylaw uh program. If you hear background noise, my two-year-old is here with me, so hi, Francis. >> Uh you might want to say hi and weigh in on zoning regulations. So, so um just the background on this is as
we talked about um there is uh a a uh consent order right now from the EPA because uh because we are still um not quite in compliance with the regulations that they have on storm water and post construction uh uh construction post
construction storm water water uh regulations. Sorry. Is it impossible to hear me? >> No, you're good. Great. >> You're fine. >> All right. Great. >> Good. >> Um, and we have uh adopted a bylaw um last town meeting uh that then sets
basically a shell. Um, the bylaw allows us to um create regulations for um for uh uh for this um storm water program that we've now put together. and the regulations do need to pass planning board and be approved after having a
public hearing. And we were pretty close already with the bylaws that we had existing in our zoning. So, we're trying not to too badly recreate the wheel here. Unfortunately, kind of have done that because um instead of modifying our zoning bylaw, we've adopted this at the general bylaw level, which I I do still
think is worth it. But as we do our work on the general bylaws and zoning bylaws next year in our review process, we may end up making changes. All of that said, for now, we have until, you know, early February to adopt uh these regulations, rules and
regulations under the uh new general bylaw that was passed uh to be in compliance with the EPA um under the MS4 program. So, uh, what Bella and I have tried to do is basically take what we have existing, add the the few areas
that we are not currently in compliance and then we'll have regulations that basically match what we're trying to do already um, with that one uh, or two uh, areas that we needed to add. So, I think Bella can kind of take you through what the standards are that we needed to
adopt uh, under EPA and then kind of show you how it would work. It doesn't change much for the planning board, which is really nice because the way it's set up is that, you know, this storm water permit is basically already something that you're doing when you're uh reviewing something for a special
permit uh or a a site plan uh review. You we don't need to create a new permit, which is really nice. Um the uh special permit basically already acts for that. And if the concom is involved, an order of conditions uh substitutes
for the storm water permit, too. So, this really is only needed in narrow areas where you're not already needing a special permit or some other kind of review from planning board or if you don't need uh an order of conditions from conservation commission. So, Bella can talk you through the rest, but we
think that we we we've had this review by engineering firm. They're confident that it meets the EPA's guidelines. Um, we will review after your meeting tonight. Uh, send this back to council again. They they've been involved in this process, but town council review one more time. Uh, any concerns that you
have tonight. Uh, but this will be ready to, you know, be reviewed by you and then can go to a public hearing sometime this month. Uh, so that we can have this approved in time for that um, deadline that the EPA had given us. If we don't feel like we're ready, we can also reach
out to EPA and see, you know, since we're pretty close here, uh they might not be stringent about it because they just want us to make sure we have a good program. So, if you need more time, we can make that happen, I think. But, um I do think that we're pretty close here based on the existing regulations,
following the uh model bylaw that was out there uh and um adding what we needed from that model bylaw. So, I'll pause there. >> Um thank you. Oh, Andrew, that was a great intro. Um, so in terms of what the
EPA needed us to do, it was all about pollutant load. >> It wasn't We had like pretty robust standards for the amount of runoff. Honestly, we weren't too bad. It was just about total suspended solids. Um, and so we adopted the I'm sorry, these
pages aren't numbered, but it's under um storm water management standards. That's where we were lacking. And so two exactly. Thank you. >> Where are you? >> 7.2. It's like twothird of the way through the >> half almost halfway through the whole
thing. >> Oh, I got 6.0. I got you. >> Okay. >> So, you can see in the comments off to the side that the first EPA requirement was about um you know pollutant removal
equivalent to 90% of the average annual load of TSS. The second one is and that's for um post construction and then we needed we needed basically for post construction for redevelopment. So we
adopted those standards into these rules and rags and then the rest of it was basically since we can't currently apart outside of an annual town meeting change the zoning bylaw or change the general bylaw we had to make sure that nothing in here conflicted with what we have in
general or zoning if that makes sense because this is the thing that we can change at a public hearing >> anytime. So, in the long run, as Andrew said, we might be updating or like streamlining this a little bit so that it's not like this one big document and
then like what's in our zoning and then what's in the general, but because we can't currently tweak zoning or general, this is where we wanted all of it. >> Yep. >> At the moment. Okay. So, it was a matter of making sure there were no conflicts between these rules and rags and the numbers and specifics that we have in the zoning. Yep. >> Okay. So then that's partly why we
decided to make this sort of a bulkier document was that you as the board when you are asked to review one of these aren't bouncing between these and then like referring back to the zoning and looking like five different places. We pulled a lot more of the specifics into these rules and rags so that you can
kind of see this as like one guide book since this is new to all of us on planning reviewing at this scale. Um, again, Concom will still have jurisdiction over anything where there's a wetland and you're looking at things that are per our zoning. Um, one acre or
more of disturbance and that's like total total disturbance of the parcel or 10,000 square feet which isn't actually that big. It's like 100 by 100. That's was triggered by the overflow parking lot or um thingy pickle ball. So, that's
an example of like these rules and regs would help you to review something like that. And it does provide too for you to um hire a consultant if you're having trouble like parsing the site plan, things like that. And then it also >> like if it was something a little more
complicated than a >> than a gravel than a gravel overflow lot, >> right? It allow because like Concom has the ability to hire a consultant that's in the general bylaw for wetlands where you can like get outside review and this creates like a fee structure for that which is helpful in case you have
something complex. Um, but it also creates basically everything goes through our site plan review process as we have it written unless if for things that don't trigger site plan review or special permit or the other one
site plan special permit with site plan approval you if something is still big enough to trigger what the EPA wants you to review this provides for that as well. So if it doesn't trigger concom because there's no wetlands and it doesn't fall under one of the categories
that we review through planning permits but it is an acre or more or 10,000 square feet there. This makes it possible to review things like that so that we're not out of compliance with EPA. Does that make sense? >> Okay. >> Can you give an example of a project? >> Yeah. I was curious like for example is
and is farming exempt from that like I'm thinking the giant project that Norse Farms just did. >> That's literally the exact one that I thought of too. >> Yes. They're exempt from that. >> Okay. You're asking. >> Yeah. Because >> agricultural uses. Yeah. According to the the general bylaw that was passed,
agricultural uses uh are exempt as in is any uh just general mate. >> I like agree with that in theory, but considering what Norse did. So, anyway, >> farms can put in 3 acres of new structures, >> cement, >> cement, glass, steel, pavement, big
tanks, lots of runoff, and be exempt from any review under this. But if Fishtails wants to expand their parking lot by 100 by 100, it has to go through this kind of review. Andrew, is that you're saying that's what's in the general bylaw is a is an a exemption
that would >> the general bylaw is is an acre. >> The um the the the current regulations is the 10,000 square feet. >> So it's a quarter acre. >> So yeah, just to just to say that Doug,
that is a fair and accurate statement that yes, >> right? We do have a funny thing with a exemptions here, but if it were not agg, >> if it were a project that were that large and it didn't somehow trigger any of our other review processes, we would at least have an approach.
>> And I don't say that to be anti-farming, but for you know, >> that's a very industrial type of >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, does that all make sense in terms of what >> this is for when it would come up? just
to name it because this is like seems very high stakes and I would be much more inclined to be like consultant please more often than not I would imagine. >> Oh for the reviews. >> Mhm. Yeah. Okay. Um >> I feel like it would depend on the
project but yeah complicated project is so yeah there's calculations to obviously. >> Yeah. If it's more than like a gravel parking lot situation. >> Totally. And that's partly why like a lot of the definition section is um fairly technical and we like left a lot
of that in just so that when you're looking at things at least you'll have something to consult if you're talking about something that's kind of like >> conservation adjacent or whatever you won't have to be totally in the weeds about what those things mean. Um I have just another question that I'm curious about. Like you said, our current bylaw
was like pretty good otherwise. Like were we stricter in any regard than what the EPA is asking for in any other ways or we have is what the EPA is asking us to be more strict on? I'm just curious. >> I think our square footage was stricter and then our runoff I think was
stricter. Um it wasn't bad honestly. It was literally just the pollutant load that we hadn't mentioned but okay I think we were pretty solid otherwise. Yeah. Speaking of solids. Nice, Andrew. Any um Do you want to tie a bow
on this? What are your thoughts, >> Francis? >> Sorry, was was there a question? >> Do you want to um put a bow on this? What are what are your thoughts for any any other consideration? >> That I want any, you know, feedback that we have from the board tonight or anything we need to run by council. So,
I think that the question raised earlier about applicability is really important. Um, so you know, we have time to try to make sure we get this right. So if you have questions about this for for council and everyone else, let's make sure we ask. >> Um, you mean Doug's question, Doug's
comments or >> about >> where >> about like the Norse farms question is the example? Is that what you're talking about? >> Uh, under applicability. The comment
that I made was um if the storm water regulations were bylaw, >> the plenty board inherently has the right to wave minor provisions in the bylaw if it's deemed in the best
interest of the town. Um we don't have the right to wave any minor provisions of the general bylaw. So if the general bylaw says 100 by 100 and somebody comes to us with a parking lot that's you know 100 by 105 that meets the criteria they have to go
through the whole process. Whereas if if we were looking at it we're saying you're talking about a gravel lot. It's in an area where the soils aren't hydro uh you know hydro uh hydraulically active. There it's non-hydraulic soils. It's non hydraulic uh uh plant life. storm water will, you know, you've
you've prepared an area around it where it's going to accept storm water runoff from the parking area. It's not going to be paved. We don't see the need to go through a more drastic study. >> So, we would wave that and we could just simply say you don't have to go through this process and save you the trouble. But, as a general bylaw, we don't have
the right to do it. We would have to put them through that work. Um, that's the only thing I was, you know, trying to drive at when I was talking about applicability. >> We then say, "Hey, you should reduce your parking lot by x amount." Well, that's the thing is reduce it by five feet if you could. Yeah. But um and the
smart and savvy person would. Um >> so so even if you're designated as the permit granting authority, you're saying you still wouldn't have any ability to to wave any of these restrictions? >> Um the restrictions in the in the um in the rules and regulations. I think we
could wave minor, you know, provide minor waiverss for some of the requirements in here. Sure. But the overall requirement you know what triggers a project as being required to be reviewed under the under this because it's the general bylaw. I don't see that
we do have the right to wave those. Um could the select board possibly. I don't know but I'm not even sure about that. >> Yeah. My my thought was since you're designated as the permit granting authority that it essentially then put goes into the planning board's
jurisdiction and you have the ability to wave as as described in the the sample bylaw. PA gave us. So, I don't know, but I think that's a fair question if I answer. >> I do think it's an incredibly niche kind of area of discussion and I'm not, you know, it's not a mountain I'm going to
die on one way or the other. Um, and it's fine. Um, I'm just raising it for, you know, just general intent. Um, the only uh the only other comments I think I had for the rest of it is just some of the organizational things. um putting the the parts about the planning board's
decision towards the end of the document. Just logically, it made more sense. That's all. >> Was it 6.5 actions >> um and plan changes the one after it? It felt like those belong towards the end of the >> Is this something that would be a part
of the code whatever 360 co whatever >> 360? >> Yeah. Is that going to be a part of this um process? >> This is Let's see. >> Yeah. I mean, I guess they would be reviewing any documents of ours that are like directly interlocking with our
zoning, right? Because it's like they want to make sure those are all working together properly. So, even this is outside the zoning code, I feel like they should have to review this >> or at least link it appropriately, I guess. >> Yeah. Make sure that it's not in conflict. Um, is that right, Andrew?
Didn't catch you on that one. >> Yes. Yes. I was saying that that that is my understanding. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Um we do a public hearing on this. We vote to adopt. Does this get recorded at the registry like rules and regs for subdivision might or or do we just vote
to adopt and we're good? >> Andrew, do you know if it's recorded at the registry? It seems like it would be similar to >> the the regulations would be >> I don't know anything about uh recording the regulations of the registry. No
>> it may not be required. I mean rules and regulations for subdivisions are this may not >> maybe it's not. We'll find out. >> Yeah. Okay. No worry. >> Yeah I didn't I didn't see anything that that would require that. Um but good um you're saying that the regulations themselves or that or the permit being
approved? Well, the permit being approved definitely would be recorded. It's a special permit. It's still a special permit, but um I'm just >> rules and regulations for subdivisions are required to be recorded at the registry of deeds for them to be, you know, enforceable.
>> Yeah, I I didn't see anything like that. >> Yeah, this probably isn't. This probably isn't. Um >> therefore, not enforceable. Just kidding. >> Right. >> Just kidding. The only other question uh thought I had is uh fee structure 6.3 item number two
essentially is either a summary of or >> oh right >> a word for word copy of MGL 4453G which gives land review boards the right to seek consultant fees from the applicant
for review. Um I just simply felt it wasn't necessary to restate all of the provisions of that chapter. we could simply just point to that. >> Okay. >> You know, the planning board reserves the right to see consultants fees >> uh under MGL chapter 4453G. >> Okay.
>> I I I'd love to see you hear attorneys >> Yeah. >> advice on that and I'd rather just point to that section because 53G includes, you know, the fact that you have to take it. It has to go into a separate account. Money that's there has to earn interest. When you pay it back, the interest earned has to go back to the applicant down the line.
>> Totally. Yeah. >> And the rationale for having certain other bodies of text maybe repeated from zoning or elsewhere in this document were that you might need to reference them during a meeting, but you're not going to need to reference this during a meeting. It's not like important for you to have this >> Sure.
>> What do you think, Andrew? >> Okay. Sorry, can you say one more time? Uh just Doug's comment about taking the section that is basically um copied and pasted from MGL about um fees and maybe just taking that out since it's since
it's verbatim from MGL. >> Yeah, I mean we can just say reference at the MGL. I'm fine with that. >> Cool. Um, and so if there are, we're sending this to to the attorney after this and then we're
bringing it to the February meeting, which will be the hearing for this, right? >> Did we talk about having an additional meeting in January? Uh, if there's a way to do a public hearing for this and end of January, have it approved then, right? >> So that we complete this before
February, that'd be great. But otherwise, let >> Right. We had talked about that >> 22nd or something like that or 29th. >> Yeah, we could well we can schedule it at the end of >> the meeting unless we want >> the 28th would be great because it would
give us enough time to meet the posting requirements but but uh you know it's up to this >> two weeks in a row. >> We have to post for this >> if it's a public hearing. Oh yeah. Yeah. Sorry. >> We have time. >> Yeah. Two weeks >> on the 28th of January. If they do it on the 28th of January. Yeah. >> Yeah. If we do it on the 28th
>> people I guess we can talk about this now. Is there a quorum for 28th? >> So we'd have two weeks in a row. >> Does that make sense? >> We don't need to have one on the 21st then, do we? Is that what you're saying? >> No, it would be the next meeting in February. >> No, the next meeting of February would be February 4th. >> Is there a requirement that as to why
we're trying to get this in for the 1st of February? >> Is requiring. >> Yeah, that was the deadline. >> That's why. >> So, it seems like another meeting couple weeks from now would be the right thing to do. >> Yeah. >> What' you say, Andrew?
I think if we're the week after the EP or two weeks after we can still make it work, I think it would be. >> So saying you feel like it could be okay if we have it on the 4th for example, a regularly scheduled hearing. >> No meeting. >> It had the EPA has got a deadline for the first. >> Yeah, but he said he thinks we can make
it work if we needed to ask for an extra. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, I misheard. All right. >> But we also have we should meet again in January anyway, like >> to talk about town meeting things, >> right? Because we need to have stuff ready for the February That's the hearing for other stuff. That's why.
Yeah. >> Meetings in May, right? >> Yeah. But we need to solidify like at least placeholder warrant articles by when when is when is there a hard deadline for like what's the deal with the February um
deadline for warrant article stuff, Andrew? Why do we have that in our minds? >> Um the warrant article deadline. >> Yes. I think it was midFebruary. I can't remember the exact date. >> Right. But it doesn't need to be finalized language. It's just place
placeholders like we're going to do XYZ like >> that. That's right. It just needs to be that that we will have something that doesn't that the final deadline really pencils down. It's more like mid April. >> Yeah. For hearings >> for the actual language and all that. And we we can have the hearing after the
final deadline, >> right? or no, we kind of want to do that before the final deadline for all the language. >> Yes, for language. Yes. >> Okay. So, we don't have to have a second I'm just we we don't have to have a second meeting in January for anything other than storm water if that's not
still what people want to do. We talked about it for like bests and other things. But, >> and if we schedule the public hearing for the first for our meeting in February, >> EPA will probably say that's okay. If we're >> they'll be like roll their eyes and be like, "Sure, thanks." >> Okay.
>> Okay. So the fourth then is that okay with you Andrew >> 4th I think is f >> okay >> so we'll send it to the attorney um shortly if there's any other comments
let us know um we'll ask them all of the questions we went over today and then we will advertise for the hearing on the forums >> sounds good Okay, fantastic. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks everyone.
>> I mean now what we talk about now we also have someone named Marie >> on the call. Not to put you on the spot, Marie, but if is there anything you'd like to talk to the planning board about? You can. Yeah. Hi. >> No, not at all. I was curious as a
citizen and figured I would lurk in the background. I apologize. >> No, don't apologize. >> We welcome uh >> lurkers. >> Anyone interested in learning more about what we do? That's great. Thank you. >> Absolutely.
>> Um all right, other thinking a little bit about town meeting. >> Um what are we thinking? Okay, so last time we had talked about a few different possibilities for what we could do. Um, did he leave? Yes.
Okay. Um, one that we talked about, the first one that I dug into and then it became all-consuming was the best model bylaw. I have a lot to tell you about it. >> Um, what we talked about was adopting the model bylaw. That was what we were into >> and best for the public now that there's is
>> it is battery energy storage systems. So that basically accompany solar arrays. >> Oh yes, exactly. Um and the PVPC zoning um diagnostic that we had recommended that we at least
think about this and come up with some kind of regulatory language in our zoning soon. There is a model bylaw that the state came out with last year. Um no one has adopted it yet because it just came out in the fall. Um, but it is
brand new and it's a re it's like a it was required to be released because of the 2024 climate act which is going to create a comprehensive permit process for best that the state it's not it's
not overriding local zoning but it's basically like largescale BES can apply for one permit from the state instead of going through local regional and state permitting and so the state had to release. >> So the state's incentivizing basically >> incentivizing it. The state had to
release and I'm going to do a little mini >> Oh, you're gonna present to us. >> Does the state override the local opinion about all this? No. >> Yes. >> Well, not No, they don't override. Um >> Well, considering we don't have anything in >> you have to have thing. Yeah.
Considering we don't have a bylaw. Yes. Right. >> Exactly. >> Okay. So, that's new to me. >> Can you see? Yes. >> Anything? Okay, cool. So um the point is because of that the model bylaw exists. We had talked about whether to adopt it. Um and so I dug into what adopting the
model bylaw would entail. Um long story short, adopting the model bylaw, just like with storm water, means that you have to have your table of uses tie into the model bylaw. You have to have the zones chosen where you want to allow things and by what review process.
And then you have to have your review process dialed in with the language around BES. So >> I'm gonna try to explain kind of what BES is, what the tiers are like, um the sizes. It's kind of hard to visualize, so I created some visuals for you and
then sort of break down what we're considering. Um, let me see if this Okay, so >> just before you dive into I just wanted we originally kind of were like ah we don't really need to do this to prioritize this but then after like thinking about it more seeing some of the stuff in the news with other
communities and municipalities kind of struggling and wrangling with these types of things. >> Totally. >> We kind of came at the last meeting we're like maybe we should prioritize this. Yeah. >> And I think it's also important to note that like we do have some solar arrays in town. >> Um and they could conceivably come back
and be like, "Hey, we want to put a best system in now." So I think it is something we want to at least we also have um with that open farmland zoned industrial all over the place. So it's worth considering what we can and can't
permit. Okay. So as we said, battery energy storage systems are basically the storage and distribution system for renewable energy generation facilities. So um solar, geothermal, etc. Um it's how the energy is distributed either to
a house or a business or into the grid. They mostly use lithium ion batteries. Um they're not using batteries that have like battery acid leaking into the ground. It's like a solid state battery um similar to a laptop or electric vehicle. Whenever you see storage mentioned in the context of renewable
energy, it's referring basically to a battery. So that's the shorthand I kept seeing. They're being built because um increased demand for renewable energy systems both by as I just said small scale sort of like building and homeowners who are looking to reduce
their bills and have backup power sources and then also the state is incentivizing these large scale um installations at best because it's a key component of their net zero emissions by 2050 plan. Um they can't build as much solar as they want to without the
storage and distribution piece. So, at tier one, um there's three tiers of vests. It's really It's the sizes of them. I had never seen them before. I didn't think um they at tier one, they look kind of like this little guy off to the right.
>> So, is that what like they're selling? That's what like the solar company when I got my solar panels a few months ago, they were trying to sell me one of these. >> Right. Okay. >> Right. And so, it can be little like this, like the size of like a electric car charger style. You can see that it's kind of scaled to the size of the solar
panel. This is tier one. Or this is also tier one. You could have like a much bigger solar array on your house and then these types of like refrigerator sized best. This is tier one. Okay. Tier two, you start to get um things that look like this. So it's like person for
scale. Um we have a >> is that you inspect >> disguise? Is that a model? >> Disguised as an inspector. Yeah. Um >> model sized. there's like a gravel and asphalt pad. Um they have to be spaced for fire suppression, things like this.
And they're often coll-located with a renewable energy generation infrastructure. Um you might see it on like a community college or like a little um business park or something. This is tier >> that was tier three. That was tier two.
>> Do you do you have a wattage rating for tier two? Um I do in a different thing. Yeah. >> Okay. We'll get to that later. Thanks. >> Um tier three is you start to have like driving lanes. Um it's you can see that
it's scaled to the solar off to the side here in this other parcel. >> And are these tiers defined by the these are the state definition. >> Ti. Yeah, exactly. Um and then this is also tier three. So there's a wide range um within and you start to have you can
see like it might be paired with this facility over to the left um and they can be on different parcels and this serves like the grid. So the differences between the tiers, tier one is for like one building or a site um the power stays on site. There's like not export
back to the grid. Tier two, multiple buildings are a little campus. Power is still shared um within that defined area and it doesn't really go back into the grid. And tier three is like a part of regional infrastructure and it's might be cited in a town but it's serving the regional infrastructure.
>> Um okay, what are the risks associated with each tier? Tier one, it's really the risk associated with any other common building infrastructure. Tier two, you start to get like potential for thermal runaway, which is batteries overheating. Um, in the past, there were
fires, hot gas release. Um, and then breakdowns are prevented by temperature sensors and auto shut offs, but you can still have if there is a fire, um, they have to use chemicals to put the fire out, and then you can have runoff from the chemicals that they use in fire suppression. And then tier three, you
have this, >> which could happen with tier one, too, >> potentially. I guess so. Yeah. Um, tier three, you have a large runoff footprint. Um, these are the when people think of like best failing, it's at this scale because it's linked into the regional infrastructure and it presents
a much scarier prospect. But a lot of those were between 2017 and 2022. And since then, the fire control um system is like has been much improved and the permitting has been improved and the safeties have been improved. It says that in the official D document it said
that the safety has improved 97% since 2018 for the large scale best. So that's a good thing. But I think the framework we're being asked to think with is even if there's like a 2 or 3% chance of failure, where can we afford to have
that failure in town? So do we want to have it in the flood plane? Do we want to have it drinking water supply? Um >> imagine not. But those are similarly though like if there was a house fire on that land and you had chemicals to put out a house fire there like that's still
happening. >> Are we dealing yet with with um the potential for this happening right now >> in town? Are there solar arrays that would support this? >> Yeah. >> In town where >> my house
>> for the for the tier one? >> No, I'm talking about for the tier three. We have any um scale solar? >> We have two or three of them. >> S turns on North A. >> There you go. >> Which one? >> S turns on North Afield Road. >> Yeah, right there. >> And you got to cut and >> there's one on >> cut that dirt back from the
>> And there's plane road. There's a big one on plane road also. >> I did just get a developer sort of scouting email about a large scale solar too from like last week. So it's like I think we have a lot of land that would support large scale solar and we do allow it. No. >> And would that same land support this
situation? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Battery energy storage is much smaller in terms of the area that it requires compared to the solar that would be feeding into it. >> Right. Okay. >> So 20 acres of solar, you can put less than an acre of batteries on it to capture all that energy and and store
it. >> Um, >> so >> yeah, please. >> This is your I think this is the number you were looking for. Tier three is it's basically 100 megawatt hours or more. >> Sorry. >> And then tier one and two is less than
100 megawatt hours. >> What is tier one? >> Was that limited? What is tier one? Is it limited? Have a high limit? >> I don't remember. >> So town of West Hampton's putting in 125 kilowatt hour solar array. I'm sorry.
It's 175 kilowatt array. >> Think eight times the normal average home array. Mhm. >> We're also putting in a battery energy storage system. The battery energy storage system is 75 kilowatt hour in capacity. >> It will take up no more space than a larger home generator.
>> Okay. >> 4T x 6 foot footprint about 6 ft tall self-contained full fire suppression built into the unit. >> Yeah. >> That's 75 kilowatt. >> So it's tier two. >> Tier it would be tier one. >> It's tier one self. >> Well under tier one. Yeah. Um, and it
will provide 40 kilwatt hours or about 40 kilowatt hours. >> Mhm. >> For 4 hours. That's enough to power your home for 48 hours. I mean, this is attached to the regional or the elementary school, so it's a bigger facility. >> The average home battery is only going
to be one quarter of that capacity. 10 kilowatt hours. Think about the same size as your solar array. That's it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> It's minor. They're also self-contained. They have all sorts of temperature um controls and all that. When you're talking about anything more than 100 kilowatt hours, that's where you get into multiple units on site. Fire
suppression is much more critical. >> Mhm. >> Mega um if you're talking about >> megawatts though. >> Yeah. If you're talking about 100 megawatt hours, that's a massive huge >> setup. Yeah. >> I'd love to see one come into town because our taxes would go down. Our
property taxes would drop by a third. think why is that? >> Because it's the same reason why Northfield and Irving don't pay very high property taxes. >> Why is that? >> This facility is an energy facility. It is a generation plant. You would get all the benefit tax wise.
>> Um it would have a value. Um >> and does that value get spread across the town or does that value only apply to the the people that are running the show so to speak? >> Well, the value would be in that the town gets to tax that facility. Okay. at
its at its you know retail value >> tens if not you know hundred million or more depending on the on the capacity of the the system >> tax value on that great we don't have to worry about anything ever again I'd love to see that for that reason >> sure >> that being said question for you in all
your reading have you ever found anything which allows us to limit the kinds of battery technology we would allow >> the scale you mean >> not the scale not the capacity but technology >> lithium ion is dangerous and causes
fires. Lithium iron phosphate 120th the risk. >> No, I definitely have not gotten to that. >> Okay, that's >> I would that would be my first question to council or to whomever is can we can we prohibit lithium ion
>> battery technology at any at any kind of scale? >> Okay. Um, >> lithium-ion batteries, if you look at them the wrong way, they will burst into flames. The people who have had their phones burst into flames in their pocket, those were lithium-ion batteries.
>> Okay, great question. Um, >> okay. So, starting July 1st, 2026 is when the state is going to start issuing these consolidated permits. Thanks. >> Which is it expedites the permitting process. It does not ignore local zoning
or anything like that, but if we don't have any about it, that just it doesn't help us at all. >> That means we have to pass something at town meeting if we want >> to try to do something. And I will walk you through what I think the vulnerabilities in our zoning are next, but I will get through the rest of this.
Basically, it still has to just we don't have to come up with any kind of like fire code review. All of that is done by um local and state code. D regulates drinking water protection. They're banned in zone one, which is the area immediately surrounding public water
supply. We can regulate um what happens in zone two and zone A, which are other water supply. >> Are zone two and zone A also parts of the state like you're throwing out >> D? I'm about to Yeah, there's D regulations that we would use to
regulate it. Basically, um it's surface and groundwater supply, but we have to say so >> in our zoning. And then um concom would regulate anything within jurisdiction of the wins protection act. So what and I don't this is a really interesting question about lithium ion. What we
can't do as a town um we can't ban best outright at any scale across town. We can't say no zone three any or tier three >> only in industrial and there's only like 2% >> one acre of industrial. >> We also can't do anything that the AG
would see as a deacto ban. So we can't say no best in residential because like 80% of our land area is residential. >> Mhm. >> So we can like there's no hard cut off but it starts to be like the AG will be
uh will not look kindly upon what appears to be trying to get around this and like only pick parcels that have no utility supply or something like that. Mhm. >> Um, we can limit or prohibit best in zones that already have clearly stated public health and safety safety directives. So, if it's like
>> our flood water, >> in our flood water, our drinking supply, things like this, we can back it up by that. And I'm >> the flood plane. >> Exactly. Um, and then we can adopt the model bylaw um when we're able to and then we can tie Bessin to like a robust
site plan review, special permit process. Um, so what we should be asking ourselves now and then I have one more thing to tell you about and then we can look at a decision-making framework for what to actually do for town meeting is how much of this analysis do we really have time
for before May or before I guess March is what we're talking about instead of February. Um, how much of this needs to be done now? How much can eco 360 and the zoning consultant work on for us? And then ultimately like how do we want to approach this? Like are we
enthusiastic about it? Whatever. So what I've done is I gave you this little handout and the first thing on it is what I see as some vulnerabilities in our zoning
where we might be basically allowing us at any scale or any tier as it is as it stands. So, um, just so that we're all on the same page, not mentioning something in the zoning doesn't ban it. We've talked about that before. Um, yes,
>> unless the zoning is written that way, >> but that you have to mention it in order to you mean unless you wrote in something that says nothing that we didn't put in here, >> except for uses such as are expressly stated or uses similar to what are expressly stated, no use in HB field shall be permitted except the following.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, >> we don't have that. I don't have that. I don't think we have. >> It's not in the Well, anyway. Okay. >> Um >> All right. >> I'll double check. Is that >> But we can't. Battery energy is the same as solar. We can't ban. >> We can't ban for this. It wouldn't even Right. >> For this that wouldn't work even if we
had that clause. So, okay. My concerns are >> Yep. >> Um and you probably don't have the zoning right in front of you, but I will read to you what it says. 5. So, in the table of uses 5.26, 26. >> We allow renewable or alternative energy
development facilities, renewable or alternative research and development facilities or renewable or alternative energy manufacturing facilities including blah blah blah solar thermal solar ret. Okay, we allow those by site plan review in light industrial and industrial.
Okay, I think that language does not exclude this. >> Correct. So that would be anywhere that's zoned like industrial or industrial it would be allowed. You'd say >> be a site review. Exactly. >> And so this can't really go on on agricultural farmland. >> Sure can. >> Sure. >> Now it can
>> you mean zoned in the a zone? You mean? Yeah. >> Zoned agricultural, >> right? >> Um well it says no but only under 5.26, right? So if it's zoned a then no. Yeah. It's only allowed in light
industrial or heavy industrial. plan review. Okay. >> By site plan review. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Um then my next thing is that 6.12 Okay. >> is the accessory use. >> Mhm.
>> thing. So any accessory use customarily incidental to any permitted use is allowed across the board by right. Yes. Everywhere. >> So there's increasing argument to support the idea that best is an accessory to solar. And so we might be saying
>> or an accessory use to any use that's happening on a part like let's say there's any business happening and they want to put in a best system as long as it's ex there's a strong argument that it's an accessory too. >> Exactly. And since we don't mention Bess anywhere it might at least cause confusion if we're at the planning board
and we're like is this an accessory use that's allowed everywhere? Yes. Or is it not allowed here >> except for in light industrial industrial it's like at least creating an issue. >> Help me understand your reference. You're referencing 6.12 of the table of use >> of the zoning bylaw. >> The table of uses table of uses, not the
section that there at all. >> Um, >> table of uses is 3 >> page 28 2 >> page 28 29. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, the first thing, sorry, since you were the first thing was just that we allow renewable energy stuff 5.26. We
allow it by site plan review in light industrial and industrial. >> Yeah, that's industrial. But we don't actually have specific criteria for that. And we don't have requirements specific to energy storage systems or energy generation like solar or wind. >> Right. It's just that you >> we don't have criteria that they must
meet at a minimum. >> We have solar stuff in the bylaw. >> Is that is that there somewhere? >> Solar review stuff in the bylaw, but that's the only one we don't know. So, and since we don't mention BES, somebody might try to squeeze it into 5.26. And then the next thing that we talked about
just now was that in 6.12 of the table of uses on the next page, page 29, any accessory use customarily incidental to a permitted use is allowed with no review in every zone.
>> Yeah. Okay. That's not going to go smooth. >> So that's a rough at the very least. I mean, and we we were just saying too that like it's also confusing because are we saying we're allowing it? yes in every zone or are we saying according to 5.26 6. No, we're only allowing it in
light industrial and industrial if they're trying to say best. And then the next thing is just that 5.31 and 5.32 are are solar allowances. >> Is this table of use or >> Yeah, still table of use. 5.31 and 5.32
are solar allowances. And you can see like if it's a 2 acre larger than two acre solar array um it's allowed by site plan review >> in any zone >> in three places and um
approval in the other places and so a best a larger than two acres solar can be allowed if that makes sense. >> Yeah. >> The only cap on the size is our cap on solar and we allow larger than two acre solar. So, those are my those are my thoughts about where the holes in our
table of uses are for this. And then in terms of what we could consider, I'm almost done. >> Are you Doug? Are you looking at 5.31 and 5.32? >> I am looking at those two. Yes, that's fine. >> Just that that's how big the solar is that we allow and that >> understood. I would say that's
incredibly large. >> It's quite large. >> I would say that that's actually something we should look at for this year. Reduce that number. um >> the twoacre thing or the whole or the kilowatt hour >> or or well I mean it's site plan review SPR a special permit with site plan or
just site review it's by right with with site plan review basically >> I guess site plan review at least public notice to the abutters and fair enough >> and we can in this meeting we can glance at what we have for solar and the bylaw
if you want to see like how substantial it is but so okay My thoughts about actually adopting the model bylaw this year are that it is probably too big of a lift. We could try um but we'd have to it would just be a bigger lift. Maybe
it's not too big of a lift. If we have till March, maybe it's okay, but it would require like a lot more legal review, making sure that the model bylaw doesn't conflict with um anything in our table of uses, anything in our in the rest of our bylaw about renewable energy, um all of that.
Alternatively, we could at least try to get BES into the table of uses, have like a specific line for best, define the tiers by the kilowatt hours, have them in there, um, and then decide how
that we'd have to pick which zones we're allowing what in if we did that. Um, we could say we could try saying and we'd have to draft something for the for the attorney and then also just see what the AG says. But we could try to ban it
in the zones two and three or tiers two and three. We could try to ban them in flood plane and water supply protection zone 2 and A. Um, I think from what I've read that's defensible because it's a it's a public health concern and it's not like the vast majority of our land
area >> kind of >> kind of >> the flood plane is big for sure. I don't think I mean that would be maybe the only thing but is that it's a big flood plane. >> Does the combination of those zones exceed 75% of the total land area in Hatfield?
>> We'd have to look into it. Yeah. >> Okay. I know that PBPC did uh I think in the comprehensive plan there's actually a percent breakdown of the um >> the town area by zone. Yeah. >> So we could look at that. >> Um >> some of those overlap and so that would
be tough. >> Yeah. True. >> And then if we add best to the table of uses we'd need and we have it go through like site plan review. could basically add this into our existing solar review
process for site because that's in site plan review. >> Where is the regulations for solar in the bio? >> It's in this. It's in >> I'm just not seeing it in the table of contents. >> See, I know it's weird >> because it was t it was tacked on and it's probably somewhere it shouldn't be near the end.
>> What is that? >> Um or like popped somewhere. Some years back we modified the Edgartown zoning bylaw so it just instead of referring to solar energy it refers to energy systems and it
encompasses solar and wind and would automatically carry battery systems as well. Mhm. >> Geothermal, >> anything which >> water wheels >> exceed, you know, ground mounted exceeds a certain square footage or and I think we actually put a minimum uh u
generation capacity kilowatts um that anything above that requires such and such review. >> Okay. It's on page 44 of the zoning bylaw. It's under the site plan review process. Well, it's under
>> Yeah, this is one of the areas where it shouldn't be there. Exactly. It's like it's tucked underneath the review process for site plan approval, which doesn't make any sense, but it's on page 44. Um >> Wow. >> Really? >> Yeah. Exactly. >> That's just design and performance
standards. >> So on page 44. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> just additional standards for this type of use. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So then above that is just like what you need to include in the application.
Um, >> I would >> I would love to look and see what other towns are doing >> with their solar bylaws and I know other towns do, you know, treat them as
separate types of applications, special permits and or just site plan views or whatever. And I I think if we can find something that we like, we can roll battery energy storage into that recognize it is yeah battery energy storage whether it's being added to an
existing development or proposed with a new development shall require you know review under this section. >> So basically we're looking at >> Did you also look at sections 6.23 of table of use and 6.24.23
two three roofer ground mount solar energy >> because it's uh already an accessory use I think is the justification for why it's everywhere. >> Mhm. >> So cooperative that's as simple as changing the
narrative. >> Okay. Okay, word smith it right now. Energy generation or storage system that generates up to 200% of the property use generates or stores up to 200% of the property use is as of right sighting
>> instead of PV. >> Yeah, just energy generation or storage. So that would cover everything, wind, you name it. >> And then we still want it allowed everywhere. Is that what you're saying?
Well, if it's only 200% of this the property's usage, I mean, >> you know, that would give me the the right to install an 18 kilowatt hour battery on my property and well, I have the right to do it as long as I get the electrical permit for it. >> Um, >> so
>> how does that relate to your usage though? >> Well, that's the thing is that I'd have to sort of if there was a question about it, if I'm proposing to put in a 60 kilowatt battery, then the building the electrical inspector should say, "Uh, no, wait. Show me a couple of electric bills that shows you're using 30
kilowatt hours, you know, per per month or whatever. >> Yeah. What are you growing in your house? >> So, is that is that the only is that the only um restriction? >> Well, the the challenge is that is that for residential, is that for industrial? >> And now, if you have a factory that's
gener, you know, that's using 500 kilowatt hours per day, >> right? >> Does that give them the right to put in a megawatt battery system at their property? >> Yeah. >> I >> And some would argue that it's that it's environmentally the right thing to do. It >> is the right thing to do. Yeah. Um they're not going to put one in unless
they're putting in solar panels enough to charge it and to use the energy. >> So that that means somebody can't put it in to sell energy back to whoever. >> Well, if they I mean they're going back doesn't distribute
back and say must not cannot. >> Um >> you can get into a cooperative with a bunch of neighbors on the same block with this, >> right? But a >> you >> a one megawatt battery installation is the size of three 40 foot containers and they're self-contained and they have
fire suppression built into them. There's regulations requirements as to how close they can be to each other so on and so forth. So >> I I don't necessarily have an objection to that. It's the megawatt scale >> 100 megawatt scale is tier three.
>> It's the tier three that the state is going to issue allow to be issued. Okay, let's just think like worst case scenario is the state passes this the municipalities that have not put anything forward at town meeting. These corporations are going to be targeting this the town probably small towns
frankly that don't have the energy or that don't have the rules in place >> and we have no right and we have no like recourse, >> right? Is that like the worst case scenario? this like and giant thing comes in and gets popped in industrially
zoned land or not industrial zoned land anything that is not protection that is arguably not near water. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> And is water the only thing that that is the um standard by which things have to
be protected? >> Amazing question. kind of >> y >> drinking water >> flood plane >> what their plan pass is you have to have >> so it's all about water >> pretty much >> for public health >> it's based on the fact that if you have a fire >> at one of these batteries you're going
to be dumping water on it for two to three days >> to keep it cool to keep the surrounding structures cool right >> the batteries will leech chemicals off either in vapors that go into the atmosphere or in chemicals that then get washed down into the ground via the storm water >> you don't want that anywhere near your
ground water cuz they are the nasty kind. They're forever chemicals forever >> and you've poisoned your >> aquifer. >> So for that reason, you know, this is where for a megawatt storage facility, >> do we do an impervious surface as a requirement? Do we do water damning
around the entire facility as a requirement? >> Make it so costly that they won't do it. >> I mean, right. >> I think it's not unreasonable to ask for that. So, >> are we allowed as a town to put those protections in? Yeah, but I don't know if we'll be ready for that right
>> for May. That that would be the goal. I think we should also >> What I mean is before they get permitted, >> are we going to be able to protect ourselves from the potential hazards that this might cause? >> That's the question. >> What can we get done? >> What do we get done from it by May? Right, >> is the question.
>> And do we have the ability to restrict these things? >> No. >> The state is saying we cannot ban any single tier townwide. >> Is that part of your Yeah. or appear to by restricting it to like four or five laws >> except for the watershed stuff,
>> right? >> Although um >> unless >> I talked to the attorney about it. I was like, can we ban best tiers two and three in our water supply protection districts and in the flood plane? And he said, that does sound like a moratorum. There is like
defensibility for that, but you'd have to write something up, send it to me, and then like the worst case scenario is that the AG rejects it. But that would be an argument for like the it's written into our zoning which is the requirement that that's like a public health and safety designated zone which is like
where it comes back to if our zones have like a clearly stated purpose. It helps us. So we can try to do that. Again it's already banned in zone one but it's not banned. >> Well I mean it would be >> zone Okay. You're saying zone one is not not best is zone I'm getting
>> zone one is um the area directly around >> um >> water supply >> area around public water supply >> that is like >> ft from a well 300 ft from >> like all of like >> Horse Mountain and then there's another part right on the Weightley line on five
and 10. >> Exactly. And then there's one south too. Okay. Along five and 10. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> not for nothing, anything we do put in place and because we're worried about water and so on and so forth. Every one of these battery storage units requires both heating and cooling.
>> In the summertime, you have big giant containers, metal containers, sealed containers that have to be cooled. >> You're talking about lots and lots and lots of air conditioners. >> Another more energy >> becomes a problem. And being someone who sit, you know, lives in the backyard of Schwazowski's up there, I'm very aware
of the fact that machinery can be annoying >> running 24/7 at least. >> So I think that actually should be something that we look at. >> The D. So in this like memo from the D about this, they have a whole thing about noise where they say
>> best can generate significant levels of sound from cooling systems, inverters, system electronics, and transformers. Um, blah blah blah can become a nuisance. It can be as much as 40 dB about background sound levels if not appropriately designed to attenuate sounds. Best must comply with any local
noise bylaws, which we don't have any. >> Right. >> There goes wood protection out the window. >> So, >> would you like one? I'll find one. >> Noise ordinance. We've talked about that. >> We can also say that any tier three
battery energy system has to be surrounded by an earth and berm that exceeds the height of the nearest structure by a minimum of 50%. Um well literally to create an earth boundary around these things. Yeah. >> Um and that will prevent sound from bleeding too far off of the site.
>> So >> well CNS had to do something similar. >> Yeah. Along Northfield Road. >> Yeah. That's why they have that whole thing with the trees. >> Pine planted. >> They're all dying now. >> Yeah. >> And trees planted on top of it, too. >> Yeah. Like multiple rows of trees. Our actually our buffer zone for industrial industrial is quite large.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Well, and a site like CNS is going to be a place where you're going to probably see interest in in not a tier three, but a tier two system, I'll bet. >> Right. They would want to probably help offset their >> roof mounted solar. Guess what? That's by right. And then a battery energy
system. >> That's no more than 200% of the usage on site. That's going to be a pretty big system >> for there. Yeah. >> But they use an astronomical amount. But that's exactly what we want though. We want that, >> right? You want buildings to be able to do that to themselves to like
>> Exactly. Yeah. >> So, so having, you know, things like, you know, sound deflection or or sound mitigation, um, water runoff mitigation >> in case of a fire and you've got to drown this thing. Um,
>> perfectly defensible. >> Yeah. Those are just conditions for approval. We're not saying no, you just have to build it our way. >> It's it's that's allowable. That's I'm being able for us to have that restriction. >> Yes. >> You could also like >> not restrictions of
>> you could also think of it like the open space development bylaw where it's like if you you somehow incentivize or you build in like saving 50% of the land like those are the types of things we could >> sort of think of this as an opportunity to do. >> Y >> or that you have to do substantial
mitigation or you have to preserve all the native soil on site or you have to do something like this. like we could actually shoot for the moon with like what we want from them in exchange. We just don't have time to do that >> right now. But that's what we I think that's definitely we should try to do
>> um with the zoning consultant or you know >> I think we do need some sort of stop gap something though just in case so we're not like a target for >> I think we are kind of a target. So >> yeah, >> one of the things about removing soil Yeah. >> is that when they built a new elementary
school, >> which is now not a new elementary school, >> enormous >> year in it. >> And what? >> I had one year in it. >> Enormous amount of material was trucked off of the property and sold or bought by commercial people. That should not be
allowable in this situation. And I don't know why it was allowed then because the people that were doing it didn't say anything. They just did it and no one stopped them. >> So, so I mean I think we need if we're going to do this, we need to have to
have some type of um oversight on what actually goes on, not what gets permitted, but what actually goes on on the site. And it's hard because we don't have a person that's responsible for, you know, watching where the dirt goes, so to speak, >> right? and and there was an astronomical
amount of gorgeous river bottom top soil that was excavated out of there and gone and bought and sold to somebody and we got nothing out of it. >> Crazy. >> That's like one of our most important valuable resources in this town, >> right? We have just have phenomenal dirt, >> right?
>> Yeah. >> So, I mean, if we're if we're doing that, we need to have some restrictions on what happens to the ground around when this is happening. And >> that's why all those prime farmland soils is something else that I was curious about your the question around like oh we restrict on water but like
prime farmland soils is another thing that's a finite resource >> we want to pollute our farm prime farmland >> one of the the things that we've been talking about in West Hampton is the we don't have a whole lot of rock up there not a lot of good soil but we have a lot
of uh forests a lot of undisturbed natural areas and we're seeing the the the word coming from Boston saying we want to encourage more solar more energy development. And guess what? They're going to be coming to West Hampton. >> And just like they did in Orange and a
few other places, sides of a mountain >> to put solar panels on it just because it happens to face south. Somewhere there has to be recognition at the state house that natural conserved areas are valuable and should not be stripped for
just the single cause of in the same way farmland is valuable and it should not be wasted on something that permanently displaces or eliminates agriculture as a use on the site. Well, I mean that's the struggle of us being a planning board in a town like Hatfield, frankly, is that we all really
love and pride and like love our farms and our farmland and >> we also as a planning board approve development on that on that farmland. Sure. >> So, >> sure. >> Yep. I mean, things are like progressing like there's in Hadley there's a few
cases of like the shared integrated farmland with um solar which is like a really cool thing. There's also like grazing with solar. >> So that was the reason a lot of the reasoning the former chair of the planning board when we passed these solar the idea in his mind is like oh if
something's going to be developed I'd rather it see solar because then it could always be returned instead of putting like a factory in there or something it'll never be returned back to the farm. >> You're right. You do have that as an advantage. >> Yeah. >> So okay. So what uh should we do?
It's what can we do by May, right? What and your >> changing of the table of usage >> seems >> well >> magnificent enough that we'll get this in >> that gives you the first tier or the first scope of this
>> conversation next year when it's a big >> So can you summarize that one more time? So you said for for 623 >> 23 >> um 6.23 >> to simply say >> and this is with regard to tier one best you're saying and tier two.
>> Oh, this is for everything. >> No, the way the way I wrote it is I just expanded that definition to say >> oh >> so 6.23 two three instead of saying roof or ground mount solar energy system >> strip it down to >> get it all >> energy system >> energy >> energy system >> energy generation or storage
>> and then under notes uh any energy generation or storage system that generates or stores up to 200% of the use of energy on the property shall be by right >> does that open me up to creating a gas
powered electric plant in my backyard because it's any energy generation. >> If you have a backup generator, that's what you have is a gas powered electric generation system. >> That's true. >> I don't have a backup generator. I'm just saying coal fired. >> Yes, you do.
>> Fired power plant. You just made that legal. >> No, fair enough. >> I'm just getting on the devil's side. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, if if you want to wordsmith that in so it's renewable. >> Love it. >> Energy. That's what I'm talking about. But then does that still then open it up
for your >> renewable energy >> firing up plant? >> Yeah, that's the thing. Or the wood to people with the wood burning backyard takes are like I got >> what happened with those people >> if they know >> in this case it's small and it's limited
to no more than 200% of the usage on site. It's intended to um allow energy generation and use for the site storage just limited to what's available on the site. >> They can still sell sell energy to the
grid. That's that that's between them and the utility. >> Uh and that's allowed under state law. So we can't override that, but it's intended to limit the scale of >> slap and renewable. We got to define that somewhere, I think. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think if we if we use renewable energy generation >> and storage
>> or energy storage that does not exceed 200% of the use >> covers the windmill >> electrical energy use >> covers the water dam people covers solar arrays >> and we haven't seen it but it would cover also somebody wanted to put in a big windmill >> y
>> or a fleet of windmills >> somebody then wants to come and put in a giant thing we only like factory that's only allowed in like industrial industrial but we then would also allow this >> y >> up to >> them to generate their own power. >> And so if they want to put in 250
kilowatts of solar on their roof and they want to put in um I'm making this up to you know a megawatt of battery storage that they put in the back corner of their parking lot. >> It' be part of that plan and that process or >> Sure. >> And it would be it would get us out of
it slipping into accessory use because it's specifically outlined in our table of use. >> Mhm. when limits the size. >> We should put in something somewhere that says that under no circumstances are battery energy storage systems
>> considered an an accessory use, >> right? >> You either treat them under this section 6.2. >> Yeah. Can you do that? >> Yeah. I don't know. >> That would be a question for me. >> That's a good question. It's an accessory use. You can't define what accessory use is.
>> We're very vague in accessory use. say that the battery we can exempt battery energy storage you know from the the term accessory use >> I think there are other >> for the most part if 6.23 23 goes through. You're saying that small batteries we don't care about. >> Not even just accessory use, they're
allowed. >> Um, you know, for residential use, for small, you know, >> commercial >> commercial or industrial use, that's fine. >> It's it's when it becomes a utility scale energy gen like if someone wants to put in a 200 or a 2 megawatt solar
array and battery storage, no energy is being used on the site. So, it would not be allowable under 6.23. if like it was a just a giant >> just for generation sale >> solar and battery generator >> just for sale essentially just
>> not used on the site like North Hatfield Road is a prime example >> where they have all that solar panels and and it's not powering anything directly it's selling electricity to the grid >> and that's all it's doing
>> so I mean are we going to make this so that people can't just do that I mean is that what the the the uh >> that's that's where that's where we have to define the criteria that says if you want to do that okay you can do it in these areas you have to do it under these conditions
>> right okay >> we're going to say yes you give us a proposal which shows that you're going to do that >> but that's going to be step two >> congratulations that's not for May that's for >> 2080 >> I think I honestly think that >> 2040 >> if we really want to work on it
>> I again I know it's done in other towns. I I know I can pull some examples and have something that we can look at. >> Oh, you're saying for the solar arrays in general or best >> any kind of energy installation. >> This is something where it's like why aren't the town these planners like all
meeting together and working together on this? If this is something that's new planners, >> come on. Look at >> these planners. It's a great question. You know, >> we can assume that nobody's going to install a battery energy storage system on its own. Right.
>> Uh, it can happen. Well, the tier three would be Yeah, tier three on it. >> Only battery energy storage. >> Yeah. >> On its own. On a lot just tied to the grid. >> When you say on its own, do you mean >> what? On it on a lot by >> I got 10 acres. I'm going to put in five megawatts of battery storage. >> That's what tier three is basically
>> without a solar array or any other wind generation, any other energy generation connected to it. >> I think the key is that it doesn't have to be on the same site as the solar. So, it >> it's just a part of the grid. It's grid infrastructure. Okay. >> So like you might have >> but we can say is that in under no case
would the energy that's being stored be used on site. >> That's what I was about to ask is do we need to say in 6.23 two three that it has to be on the same site >> on the same parcel >> because >> on the same parcel >> key because otherwise >> it could
>> I think that's fair >> okay >> because yeah you could have this you know CNS buying a lot over here and saying that this is going to be their% of their thing but it's yeah >> then and that's fine review they explained that out okay great we still want to see these
controls in place >> right >> okay does that conflict like if we throw that into 6.23 does that conflict with 5.26 do we need to tweak 5.26 I think this is more that is more around
production production and manufacturing. So this is the idea was >> storage. >> It doesn't mention storage. >> It doesn't matter. It doesn't deal with distribution. This is all about making the facility. >> The idea behind this was like Yeah. What is the back when this was in the early
early 2000s when this was updated, it's like this was the beginning of >> solar and like wind and like techn. It was more of like a technology. Let's be f let's allow for factories to create this green energy technology. >> Like a factory that makes solar panels. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> Or wind turbines or any sort of like any sort of product that could be considered renewable alternative energy. Okay. Factories. >> Can this be >> or like normally interpret it? >> Right. That's a good question.
>> It's always going to be somebody that >> could argue legally. >> Not just argue legally. try to find a way that their little niche is going to be okay >> or they're going to fly under the radar somehow >> and not and not you know break any rules
so to speak >> I would under 5.26 26. The list at the at the end of that description. >> Yeah. >> And assembly of equipment for solar, thermal, solar volt, hydroelectric, and wind generation. >> Yeah. >> Include battery energy storage systems
>> or even just simply energy storage systems, never mind battery. >> Okay. So, as soon as we put that in, which is cool, we're saying that we're allowing it by site plan review. So then we have to make sure that our site plan review process
mentions best. Yeah. Or at least doesn't >> Yeah. mentions it. >> Yep. >> So that's the next little step. >> And then so far we haven't talked about adding >> a line of its own or like a entry of its
own for best >> and >> we're kind of tucking it into other things. >> Yeah. And that's where I would say that we really want to put in specific criteria. We we need a separate section somewhere in the bylaw which says the installation of any battery energy storage system not covered under section
6.23 or whatever that is. Yeah. 6.24 >> the following criteria shall be required. >> And that's where you're saying >> and that's where we start to limit it to specific zones in town. Prohibit it from waterheds the earth and berms. You know,
a subsurface water capture system. What you think about here? You thinking about back? >> BM >> text on the page. >> BM. >> A page. >> Page. >> I think a page. Page and a half at the most. >> Are we talking about that for for May? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Liftable. >> I think so. Um, >> it's possible. >> Um, >> you're saying pull? Yeah. >> Create a dotted section. I'm now I'm thinking about going to how that fits into a town meeting warrant article.
>> It would have to be Well, >> depends on how the town administrator and the lawyer want to put the >> because it's like it's easy to be like that's what how all these have come in is like slap slap together this section and plop it in. But if we're tweaking this and tweaking that and tweaking this, is that multiple warrant articles?
Is that one warrant article? >> It's a great question. >> I would say one or nothing. >> I agree. >> Right. You want to make all the changes so everything is >> three changes. >> And if somebody says, "Well, I want to make an amendment." If you make an amendment, it could sink the whole thing, >> right? Because you can't pass like one piece of it and then leave the other
thing hanging and then we have a giant hole in our >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Exactly. >> And if we don't do this now, someone can come in in July 1 and put in the >> battery energy storage system by Right. Right. >> So, okay. When you're talking about one
page on best, >> are we he's saying is that under site plan review? Is that under special? Are we like how do we fit that in with our >> existing review process? >> I think you have to do site plan review because site plan special permit gives
the planning board the right to say no. >> Exactly. >> Site plan review assumes yes >> and only makes sure that the conditions that the town want. So if we make so far we extremely extreme conditions. >> Yeah. Very drastic.
>> There's also some amount of like uh fe like to the extent feasible like that you have to like I think probably with site plan review there's a limit to what you can demand. So that brings us to so far to recap we've said we're going to
try to do no in flood plane and water supply protection districts >> site plan review we have in light industrial and industrial if we're tucking best into 5.26 26 and then the permitting language
will fit under site plan review because so far that's the only review process that we've talked about for best. Right. That's right. That's right. Okay. >> So under >> wood tucking best like the best tier three only in industrial industrial
would that be considered too restrictive or no? >> I think it would depend on how much of that we have in town. It's a Not much. I don't know. It's a strip. You're saying if we allow >> If we allowed it in light industrial and industrial only.
>> Yep. And only um and not in those drinking areas and supply areas. It's not much. It's not a lot. It's like two lots. >> Yeah. That's not That's not enough. >> Let's point right to our big zoning map >> that we have right now. Where is it? They were supposed to bring it in person
and then they he had to come in virtually and Anyway, um >> what's the the reason why you wouldn't allow it in a a rural or rural residential or agricultural? >> What's the reason we wouldn't allow it? >> Yeah, >> I mean, what's that?
>> We talking about tier three? >> Yeah, which tier? >> Yeah. Well, anything that's not permitted, never minding the tiers. Anything that's not permitted under that 6.24 >> energy generation for the sake of energy generation. >> Why wouldn't we allow it in any other
zone? I mean >> because >> because we can't not allow it. >> I I'll invent an example. Let's say the pickle ball court never got built. >> Yeah. >> Somebody wants to put a a solar and battery storage system there. >> Yes. Or just a battery system.
>> Or just a battery system for that matter. Wants to put it there. >> What's the problem you're saying? if they built the giant moat and had the giant. >> The only the only reason we wouldn't >> I think is because we >> were presuming until maybe right now
that we didn't have any language for like how to regulate it >> to condition it >> to condition it. >> Yeah. >> But if we have the conditions we want maybe it's fine, >> right? Hypothetically if we have like >> because the state is making us say we have to.
>> Yeah. But if we have all of those conditions, it totally changes the picture of like the amount of concern around like where a t a tier three is, >> right? >> Um since we have to allow them >> I would allow a big buffer too.
>> That was going to be my next question is is can we require a larger buffer between any residents and such a system? >> Yeah, the noise >> 500 ft away from any residents. >> I think so. I think so. I mean we have >> as separate standards and stuff.
>> Yeah. But we have setbacks from like oh this is an industrial zone next to a residential zone. But if this get popped in >> Yeah. >> a rural residential zone. Could that be a special condition that we outline? >> Is that allowed? >> I think so. I think there's provisions for changing the setbacks in the model
bylaw. That's like one of the big things that they let you do. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> 500 ft. 5,000 ft. Yeah, >> confused as far as I know. >> It really isn't. >> I would, >> especially if you got all those things running, all that noise,
>> right? I would take um a look at what we put in and changed for the marijuana bylaws >> from those setbacks. Those are a little bit different. I think it's originally it was like 300 feet from any um property line but we
changed it or to from to every dwell to a dwelling but we should have changed it to property line or something like that. It should have been >> there was a lot of math being done around that. >> You said uh you were mentioning earlier I'm just thinking about sound. >> Um you mentioned earlier that uh a
larger facility can add up to 40 dB. >> Yep. That's what it says in the D memo. There are some decibel if you search keyword search in our bylaws Doug there are some decibel restrictions for light industrial and industrial and I'm curious if those
>> because that would be another argument to that those should only be allowed there but if we don't have enough of the land for that right >> so just really quickly doing a quick search >> uh decel rating of 30 is the same as a
whisper decel rating of 40 is the same as a quiet office or a refrigerator. >> Add 40 to either one of those. >> From 30, you go to 40. 70 is traffic or vacuum cleaners. 80 is a police siren or a noisy restaurant. >> Logarithmic.
>> It's logarithmic. >> Um moderate rainfall is 50 dB. 40 to that is haird dryers, blenders, and power tools. Um >> 40. So it's only 40. >> It's like a white noise machine basically. So 40 doesn't seem like it's enough protection
>> for anything that's anywhere near it for noise pollution. >> Say that again. >> 40 dB as a um upper limit >> does not seem like it's adequate to protect anything anywhere near this
place, this facility. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> 40 dB is nothing, >> right? Exactly. Yeah, but is it is each unit make 40 dB? And then if you add them all together, >> but the thing is that if you had all those units at a 40 decel, it would not raise the total noise.
>> It's still only going to be 40 dB. Just does not add up. >> Yeah. No, I think what you said is that generally a larger facility can generate up to 40 dB of noise above the ambient >> um noise level. >> Yeah. I think this is a typo, but it says uh can be as much as 40 dB. They
wrote about background sound levels, they probably mean above background sound levels. >> Um, if not appropriately designed to attenuate sound, which I think is the design is where we can >> where you want the conditions, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Um,
and then I don't know how Yeah, they would you would design it to attenuate the sound and then that shows that you've met the local noise regulations or ordinances like whatever we have for that which we don't but >> Yep. So when CNS first went in on North
Hatfield Road and before the rest of the industrial park was was developed there, there were neighbors that had noise complaints that were not addressed. There was not a bylaw or anything to restrict it.
>> And eventually what happened is they were forced to put BMS up in in and around the place. But on a quiet night, >> you can still hear it. >> You can still hear it at my house. Mhm. >> And they're supposed to not have backup camera backup noise thing, but they do.
Yeah. >> They're supposed to be have someone on on staff on site to like go to for questions and I'm pretty sure they don't anymore. >> So, I mean like Yeah. When is that supposed to get enforced? >> That's why building in the physical structures from day one that don't have
to be monitored that will just work. >> Right. Right. Right. >> Then you don't you know and and not temporary structures like fences, right? But physical land features are not going to diminish over time or degrade or whatever >> erode or whatever. >> Anyway, >> okay. So, so far this is great. Um, we
have >> for 6.23. We're adding it, we're changing the sense of it basically to general clean energy instead of solar specific. >> And then we're adding some wording around on-site only. >> Okay. Five. Is that right, Doug?
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Sounds great. >> Cool. 5.26. choose six we add this to the list at the end and then through that we are allowing it only in light industrial and industrial by right but through site plan review >> uh for 5.26 26.
>> Yeah, exactly. >> That's the construction of Yeah. development of Yes. >> Right. Or the argument was that it doesn't >> fall under that also. >> Well, and that's that's the building of the thing. That's not what's being regulated by the state. So, >> Right. Okay. Okay. So, why not put it in
there? But then for So, where does that leave us? Because we did talk about adding a page a substantial page about the conditions for permitting best under site plan review. >> Okay. Um, right. That's what we talked about. >> It might industrial or industrial.
>> Um, >> and then to that end, we've got 5.31 and 5.32. >> Yep. >> Can't we just roll that in? >> Yes. Into those >> in into those.
So 5.31 uh >> medium ground mount, >> medium energy generation or storage >> or tier 2? >> Yeah. Well, a medium generation or storage facility >> aka tier three. >> Um, yeah. And large
>> although over 500 kilowatts, that's still tier two, >> right? Megaww. >> Again, 500 kilowatts is a 40 foot long shipping container filled with batteries. That's that's a lot. That's going to be something for a good size
industrial facility to use to capture their PV energy and then use it overnight. >> But I'm saying what if a giant like not affiliated with a solar comes in this wants to come. >> Yeah, I think that would fall under one of those two. Yeah. I mean it looks as
though the one of the categories at the top of every column. So >> I know it's annoying. >> Rural residential. I don't know what all those refer to. >> Residential outlying residential town center town center business industrial light industrial a.
>> So I would say then that 5.31 site plan approval or site plan review site plan approval across the board makes sense. 5.32 that's where you start to say no in certain areas you're not we're not going to allow it. >> Yeah.
>> The residential the >> village residential what have you. It's weird that we have the exact same review processes for 5.31 and 5.32. >> Yeah. Kind of weird, huh? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, the language that we're
going to use for conditioning it, >> which I think is a helpful term we should use all the time. I love that. Um, let's pull from wetlands. Um, we're going to use that for all of our review processes, right? Or if we can, >> we have to because >> Yeah, we have to. We don't have any
other >> Yeah. So it looks like we're not meddling with 5.2 six then if we're going to be putting best in 5.31 or 56. >> Is that right? Because we don't anyone trying to build best here. >> Yeah. 5.26 is for the construction and development of the things themselves,
not their use, >> right? Oh, so then why would we even need to include best? Just keep it out. And >> yeah, we're not dealing with 526. >> I wouldn't talking about that. >> Yeah, just and >> sorry. Yeah, >> I wouldn't touch 5.26 then. You can leave it alone if you want. Yeah.
>> And if someone wants to make the argument that they want to make best parts in the factory, we can say that we have no objection to it. It's in Exactly. >> It's absolutely in it. >> I want to make I want to build systems. >> It's probably >> or Yeah. I think actually a facility
might be to take batteries out of old EV cars and repurpose them into new battery storage facilities for for residential use. That's a legitimate business model. >> Renewable energy. >> I'd love to see that. That'd be great. I wish we could have that instead. >> Wow.
>> Best factory. Um, okay. So then instead of tweaking 5.26, we're talking about 5.31 and 5.32, >> right? >> And the language for the actual conditioning is the page that we're going to put together with all the conditions we want, which we're going to try to pull from.
>> And maybe we want to make 5.32 a little bit different than in different zones, >> right? And then we Right. >> Yes. Exactly. >> So, >> and we can look at that. >> Yep. Site plan review can stay. It makes sense in industrial and light industrial. >> Yep. >> Business is a strange
zone here. >> Yeah. I know those are if if our map was consistent and didn't have those business zones plopped all over the place and all that. >> Well, yeah. I'm coming back to that myself. Yeah.
But if you have the setback requirements big enough or setbacks then it would eliminate a lot of uh yep parcels. >> Um I would say that 5.32 we should put a note in that says subject to conditions uh in section XYZ whatever that section
is going to be. And that's where we'll say the following conditions shall apply for any renewable or energy storage system, renewable energy generation or storage system under 5.32. >> And that's where we put in all the conditions. >> Mhm.
>> So that goes in the little notes section. >> Note on 532. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And then >> and then we're going to have to develop those, >> right? And then it's still by site plan review or whatever the process is. But this section would fall under our existing stupid site plan review special
permit >> section temporarily until we improve our >> probably underneath the wherever where the solar one is where it mentions the solar stuff. You just plop it in there. >> Plop it next to that. >> Yeah, we're going to have to amend or adjust that. >> Another reason why we should do this now so that e-code 360 can
>> catches it in the reord. >> Exactly. >> Yep. >> Just not for now. Not for this coming town meeting, but eventually I want to pull that section right out of there. >> The solar thing. Make it its own section. I'm sure it's makes sense. So >> So okay. So for what are the differences
in where things are allowed between 5.31 and 5.32? How do we want to >> that can I think that'll be the debate that we have uh of the hearing. >> Rural residential no for 5.32 rare residential. No. What's o >> outline residential? It's like West
Hatfield >> probably where our drawer protection area is. >> Yeah. Town center. No. Is TCB town center business? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Taking business. >> Taking care of >> every day. >> That's fun.
>> Everywhere. Uh B is business. Industrial light industrial agriculture. I would say agriculture. I know. >> Leave that for the debate. >> Yep. I think just the clear and obvious things, you know, uh village center,
residential, no, >> we have no village. What you mean like um well there's town center town center? No, definitely. Um >> why not >> for the for the larger battery energy? >> You're talking about for the tier three. >> Yeah, why not?
>> Why not? What? If it meets the setbacks >> in the town center where >> I exactly but that's what I'm saying. If we're going to be >> there's no possible way you can exactly be something that they >> can think of a couple places that would
>> I worry about this in my backyard on the boil farm. >> Yeah. >> Big piece not being used very well. Um >> it would make a great um subdivision. It would make a fantastic subdivision. I would much rather see that there than
this whole mess, but it's basically in my backyard. There's 50 ft of trees between me and it. >> So, I apologize. I'm missing Go to your daughter's basketball game. Go >> get out of here. >> Yeah, I know. We're running late. >> Thank you for doing this. This is really
the only way to do it, you know. It's just um I mean, I'm sorry you don't have the zone. You could look. I don't know the zoning. Can you see my screen? I guess I can. Yeah. >> Great. So, >> says next steps for planning board though on it. >> We're on a slide. Yeah. Slide seven.
>> Let me get our arms around before the February 26. >> Let me close this because >> you still seeing everything. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, >> the brown is >> town center business. >> Yep. >> We could just say no because I don't
think anyone will I mean they're small. It's a tiny zone. >> The green is agricultural. >> The green is a >> and also probably flood plane. >> Small flood plane. Incidentally, yeah, >> fair enough. >> I'd say like 90% of >> the yellow is u >> residential and the dark yellow is outlying residential >> and
>> outline and the hash mark is the water projection. >> Outlying residential is mostly forest anyways, right? >> Yeah. And steep slopes so they're not going to >> so it's not and nowhere and remember that a battery energy storage system of any capacity has to have a a good strong
grid connection. >> Got to have a good grid connection. You got to have the power there to connect to. So that probably won't happen out there. >> So yeah, I mean the rural residential, I don't think we should necessarily scratch that off. >> I think the concern with
>> not doing that was that we didn't have any conditions. But if we're building conditions in, then it's like okay. >> Yeah. >> And that's where we build in the protections that says if you're 300 feet away from a residence, no, it's no go, >> right? Um,
>> so should we say the one big question is like what is substantively the difference in our process between site plan review and special permit? I mean special permit is regulated by the state. So we'd have to it'd be like ultimately a yes if you No,
it would be ultimately a yes if you check all the boxes for site plan review and for special permit it's like we're allowed to say no conditionally. >> Yeah. basically >> special permit any any criteria that's not met is grounds to deny and the courts have consistently upheld town's
rights to do that >> right >> that if we try to put any kind of battery energy storage or solar for that matter under special permit it'll get struck down by the >> right because it's a decision not a determination >> yes >> okay so basically what we're saying is all we're trying to do all best as site
plan review >> I think we have to unless town's attorney says we can go with a special comment but >> right I That's maybe the implication. >> Site plan review seems to um it would seem to put up a firewall for
um people that might live anywhere near in the area that have a problem with this. >> Well, you mean special permit? >> Yes. This >> site plan review means yes as long as you meet conditions. Right. >> Right. But the state probably will not allow a special permit.
>> Because it's all renewable energy stuff. That's where we need to make sure that the conditions that we put in place are strong enough to keep it outside of, you know, close residential neighborhoods. You don't want it being built in your backyard. Neither do I. We have to make sure that the conditions are something
which are achievable but automatically restrict an unwanted facility too close to anybody. >> You can do a special permit. >> Really? >> Yeah. Does it Did anyone bring the bylaw that I gave you last time by any chance? Uh, actually, yep. Um
>> the model bylaw >> narrate to me what your gave us the model bylaw. >> Allowing use of battery energy source. >> Exactly. Yes. Okay. So on page seven this is all right. Um if I give this to you Doug
you'll have to just narrate what it says. >> Yeah if it would provides this is like a mockup of how you could allow it by >> What page are you on? >> Seven. >> Seven. And they have at the bottom there's a key. >> So large. >> Oh, I'm looking at it.
>> So they're they're not going with tiers one, two, and three. They are gauging it by name plate capacity. Yeah. Good. Good. >> And at the bottom they give a little code of what the like I think they say. >> Oh, they're saying special permit. Special permit with site plan review. Okay. Special permit. Special permit.
>> That's cool. >> Tier threes. >> Oh, wait. This is solar. Are you looking at the same? Sorry. I gave you >> seven is best installations by >> my right subject of plan. >> Wait, you guys are looking at solar. >> That's I gave you the wrong one. >> She gave you the wrong page. >> All right, here's the other one. This
>> Okay, page seven of best is use. It mentions accessory use though. That's not good. Did you see that? >> One sec. Page Okay. Incidentally, it's also on page seven of >> page seven of the other. >> Pass me back. >> Pass that one back.
>> Okay. Very similar to the other goes back. >> Yeah, it stays with us. >> Go back. Thank you. >> Accessories. >> Yeah. Do you see the mention though of accessory use on that? >> Right. >> Look at it. Why can't >> we're going to strike that whole three rows of that table. >> Residential or commercial >> site plan review and industrial and
agriculture. >> We can cut that whole accessory use three rows of that table. If we do the whole doesn't fall under accessory. >> What does be Oh, by right >> this right here land >> site plan review. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Or buy right or buy right for tier one
or tier two. Okay. So, somebody could put that in my backyard without a problem. >> A tier one or a tier two by Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Uh, no. >> If we adopt this, if we adopt this, and I'm I'm not necessarily saying I'm in favor. >> You're looking at the accessory use section though. You got to go up. That's
true. You go to the primary. >> So, if we say that batteries are never an accessory use, we strike those bottom three use. >> If we can get away with that, >> then in an agriculture on a tier one, >> which I think is still That's huge. That's 500 KW, isn't it? No, tier one's the little ones, right? >> Oh. Oh, I didn't I don't remember the
limits. I don't remember. >> Up to 500 kilowatt for tier one. >> Up to 99 megawatt for tier two. >> That's huge. I wish they gave a few more nuances. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Do we have to use those tiers as
discriminating levels between >> on our own name plate capacity? >> Tier 1 A, tier 2 B. Well, name plate capacity, you know, up to 100 kilowatt. >> Well, like we said, up to 200% of your >> energy use.
>> That seems to be fair because then it's No, I'm >> helping to >> page, >> you know. >> Which you don't have, Doug. I'm sorry. Take this whole thing. Sorry. Look on my Just look on there. It's right there. >> Right here. >> Okay, great. tier. The tiers described
below were developed based partially on input from stakeholders including municipal blah blah blah. The municipality may wish to consider alternate tiers based on local health, safety, environmental or other public concerns. The upper limit of the lowest tier reflects the commercially available systems and how they are generally
configured. Towns with existing best bylaws typically have upper limits for the lowest tier ranging from 20 to 600 kwatt hours. >> Upper limits for the lowest tier. Okay, that makes sense. So yeah, on the solar they had a 25 kilowatt hour >> upper limit for solar that's basically
allowed by right anywhere, >> which that's fair enough. That's a residential size system. No problem. That would be a a Tesla battery on the sidewall of your house or something like that. No harm, no foul. >> Right. Right. Right. >> 25 to 250, maybe that's our next tier. That's a that's a standalone generator,
but still self-contained about, you know, less than the size of a small sedan. Really small. Um, and it might have some air conditioning in the summer, but no more noisy than your air conditioner on the side of your house. Anything above that, but below the 100
megawatt, which is the upper limit, that's where it gets kicked over to the state. Anything above that, now we say, "Okay, this is by special." >> All of it special. >> We make our own >> and we develop our own criteria. >> Wattage limits. >> Yeah. Mhm.
>> If we can do that, if we can develop our own wattage limits, I think that >> says right here, towns may >> says it may. >> There you go. >> Fantastic idea. >> Amazing idea. >> Okay. >> So, we don't have to deal with this confusing tier. We can create. >> We don't have to. >> No, we have to develop all this
>> by eight. >> Okay. >> No votes. No votes for both. >> We still have We still have a quorum with three of us. So, you can >> We don't have any minutes to approve. So, >> um we're going to work on developing the criteria. >> Yep. We could talk about and maybe do a little bit of research on the types of battery systems that are out there and
what people are installing so we can maybe develop more logical tiers based on such moving target. >> It will be Yeah. Oh, it would be really nice. It would be really nice to have an example of one of these systems so that
we could see and explain to anybody that has questions about it exactly what it looks like, what it sounds like, where it is, how it works. >> Sweet slidesh staring. >> Why do we do that? >> What? >> What did you say? >> We've got our slides on this with the
with the perfect, you know, it's even got a human there. even for scale printed out >> a presentation such as that. >> People in this town are not going to look at slides. >> They're going to want to know how it affects them directly or indirectly. And
uh and so we need to be prepared to have an explanation and even an example of why it's okay or why it's not okay. be that slideshow, but I think pictures >> the uh I can't remember the name of the shop, but the they used to sell small tractors up here on River Road in
>> Wait, CNA. >> I believe they just I believe they just put in a battery energy storage system. It's a an a tan beige container. >> Oh, >> parked just south of the old uh shop. >> I haven't seen it. I haven't been there. >> Yeah. And I'm pretty sure it's on a pad.
It's not >> It's on a pad. It's on its own. It's not And it's not a container like a standard Sealand type container. It's there. It's got all kinds of gear >> attached to it like ventilation and stuff. I'm pretty sure that's a battery storage. That's an example of one that's
about 500 kilowatt hour. >> So, we can point to that. We could take a road tour of that, you know, >> right? >> Um, we could maybe talk to some energy folks and say, "Hey, we want to do a show and tell in the parking lot. >> Show us what some common battery energy
systems are like, residential size, you know, >> like a public like an energy fair kind of thing, you know, public >> public walk through where they have to bring these big giant truckshaped objects to the town meeting. You walked past
>> how many kettle could this be in my backyard? >> This is what we're talking, right? And I think that's going to be one of the biggest questions that general population want to know. Where the hell you putting this thing? Is it going to be in my backyard? How big is it gonna what is it going to sound like? How is
it going to affect my my uh way of life? How does this affect the reason I moved to this town for whatever this town presents? How is this going to change that? >> Then you're then you're going to also hear, >> but my the land I'm going to leave my
kids, I want them to be able to make money, and that might be putting in one of these systems. So, don't liability to do that either because the >> the big ones are going to terrify everyone. >> Yep. >> Yep. They look awful and they're huge and so scary. So, I think we should talk
to legal about the warrant article framing itself, which is something CBPC mentioned to us because it's like if somebody doesn't like >> one piece of it, >> one piece of it that like tier three is allowed by site review in their backyard or whatever, are they also going to
strike down our ability to regulate any of it like the flood plane and the water supply? Do you know what I mean? Mhm. >> So, how do we structure it so that we can at least protect something without like permitting something else that someone's upset about? >> Mhm.
>> All or nothing. >> Well, that's when you withdraw it. >> Nobody's building any one of these anytime soon because the grid doesn't have the capacity to cover. No, they might be doing a small to mediumsiz one, but nobody's building a field of batteries because there isn't the grid
capacity to connect to it. You say field of makes me think field of dreams. >> 20 20 acres of batteries with the size that there was proposed in Westfield that got turned down. They they withdrew it. >> Well, that's something we could say in the hearing is like here's what we actually even have capacity for in town. Just so you know.
>> Yeah. >> But then so if we do that, you then need to explain to people my age what that means. >> Yeah. I don't know either what it means. >> We have a lot of people in this town my age that are skeptical of all this stuff. So, we would need to be able to
explain at a town meeting if that's where be the first question. How's this going to affect me? It's going to be in my backyard. It's going to do this, going to do this, going to do that. I I'll hear it all the I can I can hear the protests now that we would need to be prepared to answer
>> exactly >> at town meeting of why it's not going to do all the things that people are afraid of. >> Yep. So, I don't know. >> We got our work cut out. Definitely. We got to work on that. But >> yeah, >> battery died. Don't give it to me.
>> Okay, I got to go. >> Yeah. >> So, I just want to make one comment before we like move and close is like I would just like to note that that we had these two what seemingly little things on our agenda, but they're taking up a lot of our time and energy. And I would like to note that they are basically
mandates from the EPA and the state so that we like this time and energy that we could be using to being more proactive working on passing things with our comprehensive plan pushing things forward like >> we're kind of stuck working on these things which are I'm not saying they're not important. I think it's good that
we're putting time and energy on them. Otherwise, we don't want to be caught with our pants down, >> but I just want to name name that it's a little frustrating that >> we can't do the things that could be, you know. >> Yeah. Pushing more beneficial to the town. >> Yep.
>> Y exactly. >> It's been a pleasure. I'm sorry. I believe I >> No, you're good. Thank you. >> We could we just could pay bill for $80. >> I'm happy to start bouncing ideas so much especially for the conditions for site plan review. Fantastic. >> I can look out and see what other people are doing and I can bounce some ideas
off you. >> I mean, and to the note of tripling Bella's hours, I did put in a budget request to increase him by three more hours a year for next year. >> Isn't that tripling? >> Three isn't >> I know I'm slow. It's slow. It's slow. >> Are we having another meeting for the
next meeting? >> We're looking be there in February. So, you have to chair there, Mr. Chair. >> Um, it doesn't sound like it, but we will be doing a lot of talking. Yeah, there will be a lot of work and then like between for people >> if we could set up a just a working group
>> in January. >> We got we've got to nail down a time. So, I'll take a day off. I'll come here and we can >> Okay. >> nail some of the stuff down. >> That'd be great. Yeah. >> Sounds great. >> See you, Jimmy. Thank you, Jimmy. Thank you, Jimmy. >> It'll need to be early enough or soon enough that we have time to run it by
legal after. Before and after. Exactly. So, maybe what day is it? The seventh. >> Bye, Jimmy. Bye, Jimmy. >> I'm retired. I got lots of types. >> There you go. >> Come on by. >> And having his input as being
>> Yes, it's always representing a certain condition. That's valuable. >> The other thing too is when you do a line on a time like that, we can always post it as a public hearing just in case most of us are public meeting. Sorry. That if we need to post it, just we could do that. >> And it can be Yeah, it can be during the
day, whatever is, you know, good for people. lunch. I don't know. >> I know, John. Probably not you. I could come during the day if I needed something. >> We know what I needed to do. >> Also, you can >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Sounds great. >> All right. Okay. Perfect. Um, that's it.
As you said, Stephanie, it's like kind of We haven't really had time to dig into anything else from what we talked about last time that we were talking about bringing to town meeting because >> this is a big hole. >> But is there anything else that we wanted to move bring to town meeting this year? That's what I was saying. I
mean, we talked about the um homebased business bylaw, which is also a model bylaw, that I didn't have time to look into what it would entail >> to adopt that, like whether that really I mean, this is so technical and
intense. The homebased business bylaw might not be as intense as that, >> right? >> Can you forward that model bylaw? >> Just adopt us. >> What? >> Have you already forwarded that model bylaw? It's an appendex of the um >> of the PVPC thing. >> PVPC thing. >> I'll take a look at it.
>> I would love it if we can move if we could do I know it sounds like a lot, but >> I think one thing to be clear about about that is it is not like more restrictive than what we have now. It's actually >> it's actually expanding and and being more inclusive. Yeah, >> exactly. Yeah. Because ours is just defined in like a oneliner. So it >> Yeah,
>> that might be an easy thing to bring through town meeting. >> Yep. Um, >> I'm sure that might garner a lot of hot takes though at the public hearing and stuff like aligning on the specifics around certain things, but I think it's all for the better. >> But if we're meeting, if we're doing a
working group, which would be really, really great this month. Um, I will look into what that >> looks like. We should all look at it and then we can talk about it at that meeting. >> Even if you just pull together the model, pull it out and just have us mark it up ahead of that meeting. I'm happy to
>> Yeah. Well, you have it, right? >> You know, thinking about it, and I don't mean to prolong the meeting too much longer, but the the argument or the um the concern that Jimmy raised a few minutes ago about, you know, well, this this kind of energy system could go into my backyard. >> Um and the answer is yes, it could. And
the same thing is true of any zone that where it's zoned heavy industrial, it's pllopped in the middle of a residential zone. Mhm. That's the thing about >> Guess what? You know, this >> these kinds of uses we're talking about being allowed more permissively in those zones, which is why we want to remove
those zones from neighborhoods from >> trying to put up guards. >> We want to put up guards. We want to protect your >> ability to help people. >> Yeah. If you don't want to change your map, then we got to do this. We got to >> Yeah. Um but we'd actually rather change the map. >> Change the map. Yeah. to protect your
neighborhoods, to protect your way of life, to pro protect the quiet enjoyment of your property, you >> know, >> that's actually an argument in favor of the reasoning. >> Exactly. >> Which is happening just in a bigger picture thing in the next couple years.
>> Yep. Exactly. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I got one thing on this this uh doc with you're working on with Andrew is somewhere you got you got a note. Uh let's get a definition of hazardous chemicals. Oh, it's because there's a lot of different definitions of hazardous chemicals. Everybody
>> want the D in >> Yeah, just the standard. Yeah. >> Is there a standard definition >> of hazardous? >> Yeah, it has CAM has material and all that stuff later. >> There's just a handful. That comment of mine was just because it's in our zoning. >> I thought it was
>> all the red ones are me. >> Is Andrews or or yours? >> All the red ones are me and the blue is you. >> Yeah. But um yeah, it's just because our bylaws, a lot of different places that they talk about hazardous chemicals and define them against different standards of like board of health, D blah blah blah. And I just want to make sure this
>> if we can point to an industrial st a standard industry source. >> Yeah. >> For the definition, I'd rather do that. >> Yeah. Perfect. >> Because then it'll be consistently reviewed and updated as new fun chemicals are introduced to the world. >> Exactly. >> They're working on >> somebody's got to keep the list of us.
>> Yeah. Well, we're not qualified as delineated by these authorities. >> All right. All right. Is that enough tonight? >> Oh god. Yes. >> Move to getting through all of that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, no, thank you. I'm just saying >> and thank you for I'm glad we have
someone to do this because otherwise this would be on us, John. >> Yeah, they would get this 2028 or something. >> This What is my term up? >> Speaking of which, >> speaking of which, my term is up this year. Yeah, you have to pull your papers. >> My papers. >> Hopefully, you'll stay on. If you guys
want me there, I'm happy to do it. I'll be coming to you for signatures. >> We got to do that darn uh >> I don't have a pack paperwork by the point. >> I've already done mine. >> Okay. I got to do I already did mine. >> Made a note to print it out this meeting. I did. >> All right. With that, >> move to adjourn.
>> Seconded. >> Any discussion? All in favor? I. >> Meeting adjourned at 7:57. >> Thank you. >> After I told my family, I'll be home by