All right, call the meeting to order at 603 of November 5th, 2025 of the Hatfield Planning Board meeting. I am Stephanie Slush, chair of the planning board. To my right, Amy Tar, alternate chair. All the way at the end of Doug Finn. To my left, John Jeffris, Lee
Bell, and our assistant planner, uh, Bella Jagger. Um, as always in the agenda, uh, first item is public forum. This is an opportunity for folks who are here to speak to something that is not an agenda item but might want to bring something to our attention as a board.
I think everyone here is here for an agenda item. So I will close the public forum and the next item on the agenda is to approve the minutes. There's three sets of minutes. I hope everyone had a chance to take a look at them.
Any comments, questions on those? >> I do have a question on the minutes for August 6. Um, halfway down a a sentence that starts with the hearing continuing from the
June meeting concludes with um the last phrase in that sentence. Is that from the letter that was written? >> The first page you're talking about? >> First page. >> Okay. Talks about the withdrawal neighborhood. Yes. >> Is that from the letter or is that a
summary of what was said in the letter? >> Um, I guess it's a summary of what they said in the letter. Should we put a quote? >> Um, I would prefer to not summarize >> a statement that >> that feels pretty I mean, I understand
what they said. I believe they're here and I understand that and I understand that that was kind of the understanding, but I'd rather not >> have it in >> memorialize. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I would use their language that they use the quotes for the phrasing for that. >> Either a quote or nothing.
>> I Yeah, you could simply strike that last phrase from the sentence and I would be fine with that. But I don't have a problem with including a reason of some kind. >> Um >> Okay. If I >> Yeah. Okay. You'll strike it. >> If it if there were would you prefer a
like a quoted statement from the email as the reason or nothing? Well, well, like that's why I asked if they said in their letter that they felt it was an inhospitable neighborhood, then I leave it. That's fine. Otherwise, if if that isn't a quote, I would recommend just striking the phrase. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, it's sufficient to just say that they requested an, you know, to withdraw their application. So, >> okay. Got it. Agreed. Anything else? >> Comments. Thank you.
>> All right. Can I get a >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of August 6 with the one amendment as discussed >> the other minute minutes as well or we're just going to do one of >> Oh, do you want to do all the rest? I'm fine.
>> Uh then I'll then I'll amend my motion to approve the minutes of August 6 as >> I'm I'm not going to be able to vote on the other two. >> Oh, true. Because >> let's stick with August 6 then. >> All right. Any further discussion? Oh, I need a second. >> A second. >> Any further discuss? can actually vote on the other two. It's just that you
have to say that you have a good faith belief that everyone else you're going with what they're saying. Basically, you don't have to have been there. We've asked Andrew again. >> We just vote this one through and I can understand >> whatever you'd rather. Yeah. All right. Uh any further discussion? All in favor? >> I
>> I All right. And then the meetings uh minutes of August 20th and October 1st. >> Make a motion to approve both sets of minutes as presented. >> Any further discussion? >> I make a motion. >> Second. Sorry. getting ahead of myself. Uh, any further discussion? All in favor?
>> I. All right. >> I am abstaining from one of those, right? >> Yeah, but they're bundled, so you can just or do what Bella said. You can say >> we'll just be a sheep and agree with a kid. >> Um, all right.
And now our first item on the agenda is um to discuss with Kyle Fel of Piner Valley Planning Commission update on uh the project he's working on uh with us to review our zoning bylaws um and make
recommendations for what we should think about prioritizing and updating our bylaws. Kyle, >> he's here virtually so apologies for Would
it be helpful for the public to see any of these? They he said that if he shares his screen that they can see it on I mean I mean like this public but >> great share screen and everybody will be able to see slides. >> That's what Thank you.
>> Great. I will do that right now. >> But I'm talking about can you get this to them so they can Sorry. Yep. Sorry. >> Yeah, that's >> um >> I'm offering to give it to
>> if anybody on my other board members I feel like we should offer to give to those people there if they want to see it other we can use Okay. Yeah. Thanks. >> I'm fine. >> Okay. Do you want one more? Would you like to look at our presentation? Sure.
share. >> No, we apologize that we didn't have anything for viewing for you all. All right, we're all set at Kyle. Thank you. >> Yeah, happy to. Uh, thank you all again for accommodating me uh joining remotely tonight. Um so tonight we're really just
going to focus on um a quick recap of our conversation from August where we presented a mostly complete technical review of the zoning diagnost uh zoning bylaw review our technical diagnostic
and then um I'm going to just give a quick kind of highlevel uh discussion of our recommendations that are in the document. in front of you and I'll welcome conversation. You have the packet. I also have it uh digitally so I
can pull that up if we want to show uh any members of the audience what we're discussing. But um yeah, just uh quickly again briefly we just want to talk about takeaways from our initial conversation
thoughts that you shared there. Um there were some additional elements that we tried to include uh in the diagnostic. There's also some pieces that we didn't put in there uh that I would like to discuss. Um and
then we can go through uh a little bit more detail the final recommendations that we did include which uh some of those do have appendices and some references resources um included in the final product.
So, uh, for the general public, just quick context, this is part of a DTA funded project. the the town applied at the beginning of 20 25 for a grant from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
to do um the zoning diagnostic as well as other parts of um actions from the Hatfield um comprehensive plan. So, this was a majority of our work um that we
started over the summer and we're kind of presenting the final product tonight. Um so, we presented our first draft in August. Uh again, that was an initial review of our diagnostic on the zoning
bylaw. Uh and we gained a lot of feedback from planning board members. Um a quick summary of those key takeaways. uh consistency uh of the document. So consistency not just of of format but consistency of
um uh terminology um and layout especially accessibility getting reading the document not just um for a developer or someone who wants to bring um a project before the planning
board but just you know accessibility for the general public was uh key concerns. Um there was a request and an an acknowledgment of an the need for real indepth analysis of the zoning districts
as they exist. Um zoning districts not just base zoning but also the overlays. Um and the environmental constraints to development that exist in Hatfield. um noting the the large amount of area that
is flood plane uh but also the constraints of steeped um slopes in the western part of town. Um so I'll speak to that but just wanted to acknowledge that was a big talking point
and a lot of our takeaway uh included that work. And then there was an a note that some of the new regulations particularly for missing topics like battery energy storage system um those may kind of be
shaped by state activity new regulations coming from the commonwealth. So in regards to additional analysis of the zoning map, um we started to do that work um particularly focusing on um the
areas of spot or split zoning. Um, as the board was wanting to initially was thinking of moving forward with some of those uh, resoning efforts, we did not deliver final maps due to the cancellation of the public hearing, but
we have, you know, a list of 41 parcels that are kind of uh, have already been identified as potential uh, areas to reszone. So, we encourage you to continue that
effort. Um, we recognize that those are um kind of inconsistencies in the zoning map that we think need to be addressed uh in the long term, but we also recognize that that's a process that
>> I think warrants um public participation and and open discussion. So, we conducted a general assessment of zoning coverage uh to get a better sense of how much of the town is intended for
each zoning district. And this includes the overlays. So, we didn't we didn't present this data in the uh diagnostic, but it's here in the slide deck. Um
the base zoning coverage can be seen in the table. Um again there are eight base zoning districts. Uh the three that really cover the majority of town. Um your rural residential is approximately 32% of your
town is designated for rural residential. uh outlying residential is uh almost 30% of the total area and your agriculture district is uh 20%.
And I do want to just point out that um what's interesting with this quick little summary uh is just to acknowledge that when you look at the use regulations for these three districts
uh particularly in regards to housing um there's not a lot of difference. Um, this is something that, uh, we started to converse with the planning board back in August, but just pointing out, you know, the kind of big question of is this list of existing zones
appropriate? Are they unique and distinct enough to really warrant this number of regulations? Uh, and so I just wanted to to highlight that um uh implication based on how the zoning uh coverage currently plays out.
So if we look at the overlay districts um in this top um table, this is really just kind of total area. The there are four official overlay districts in the zoning bylaw. the water
protection district which is dedicated to protecting public water supply sources uh primarily in the north and west part of town but there's I believe an aquafer zone kind of in the center of town as well um that
um totals 13% of the total coverage of town um the mixed use overlay which um is the smallest it's um uniquely delineated kind of parcel by parcel. Uh that really only adds up to
approximately 120 acres, about 1% of town. The riverfront protection overlay, uh which is really just the riverfront um along the Connecticut, it's pretty uh self-explanatory.
That's about 6% of the town. and the flood plane district which includes the flood plane as it um lies along the Connecticut but also includes some of the um
uh Mil River watershed. Uh that adds up to about 27% of town. So I put a we did total all this. I put an asterisk on this total because this isn't reflective of the total acres and the percentage of
town that is covered by all overlays. This is the total the overlays as individuals. So there are instances particularly how the flood plane overlay and the riverfront protection overlay interact.
those overlay districts really sit on top of one another um almost entirely. So you have an interesting intersection of overlays. We weren't able to get into all those details in our kind of first
um pursery analysis, but I just wanted to point out that this total line doesn't reflect that reality. Um there's also interesting uh instance of I believe in the the very north of town
along Route 10 um that there are three three overlays that intersect. So you have an instance where you have a base zone with water supply protection with flood plane protection and mixed use all
on top of uh a handful of parcels. So it creates a really interesting scenario if you were to think about how uh a property owner would advance a redevelopment of that parcel. Um so another kind of instance of um why
further in-depth analysis may be warranted and um is actually a recommendation of the valley planning commission for you to consider. Um we did break down how these overlays relate with the base zone. So
how much of each overlay district is zoned for which base use. Um, I just want to point out that a majority of your business zone is uh also has a mixeduse overlay delineation over it. 66
acres totally or in total. Um, what's interesting is that the riverfront protection overlay is entirely zoned for agricultural use. Um, the water protection overlay is also
primarily zoned for business use. um and town center. Uh and then you also have the flood plane which again is is primarily zoned for agriculture um uh and additionally with rural residential.
So, just wanted to point out some of these um interesting kind of coverage and patterns of how your base zones relate to the total percentage of land area in town and then
how your overlays kind of um uh interact with those. In terms of the final recommendations for the town based on our uh initial diagnostic of the zoning bylaw, um we break these recommendations into
two groups. We call them short-term priorities and then longer term priorities. With the short-term priorities, we're assuming that these are actions that the planning board can can take without an extensive uh community engagement process. Uh
primarily this is for the purpose of really modernizing the document, making it more accessible. Uh addressing some of those uh formatting errors that occur over time with cross references being lost or um um
provisions being reumbered or shifted. Um those types of items. Uh longer term priorities are the actions that may require longer term discussions, right? where you want to engage with the public to do real planning thinking about um
regulations and development patterns that residents are open to or uh the town think would be appropriate in the long term. So we have uh five short-term priorities
um that really focus on enhancing the table of uses and the definitions defining all terms that are identified. Um expanding the use of visual aids and cross references. Um so we discussed
that a little bit not just depending on the table of use but considering um diagrams to help uh convey concepts such as the measure measuring of frontage or u lot coverage of a building or imperous
cover. uh reorganizing and reformatting the zoning bylaw uh comprehensively is is um a short-term priority. It's not an easy task
to say the least, but I think it's um it's identified and recognized by the planning board in our first conversation that that there's just too many um sections that are kind of in an illogical order. And a reorganization is
um kind of a necessary step to get all the relevant uh regulations and procedures and um definitions in uh their proper place. We include an appendix A which is a very
high level uh organization of the bylaw thinking about how you could start grouping those provisions together. Additionally, we have um recommending a revise and update to outdated provisions.
Um there was a list of those presented um in the diagnostic and uh one that we identified from conversation with the planning board
back in August was that the provisions for home occupations um actually exist entirely in the definition section uh with one line in the table of use. Um it's a rather
uncommon and um um >> impractical placement of a regulation. So um that's just one example uh that we really wanted to highlight u because it is so unique. Um and we've added uh as
appendix B a model home occupations bylaw or home business homebased business or homebased occupation bylaw uh just as an example of to bring what is existing from the definitions into a more proper regulatory format and then
put it in as a a special regulation. Um but there is a list of incomplete or outdated provisions that begins on page 15 of the diagnostic that um also needs to be revised. And then we we kept in the topic of
considering adopting a battery energy storage system bylaw. We know that it's a high priority for the town given kind of actions that are happening at the state level. Um and because there's a a need to modernize the solar um
installation provisions at this time we decided not to include the the model that's coming from the state as the regulations are not yet finalized. Um I don't know if the public comment
period on the regulations will impact the models but um at this point I don't have full confidence that the models are um currently as they are currently available the best starting place. Um
happy to offer that uh if the planning board hasn't had a chance to review those I can send along that that link. But in terms of the longer term priorities, um just three at this point that um
really focus more on uh kind of looking at the additional uh topics that may be of interest to the planning board andor the community more broadly. Uh we've included the smart growth
community checklist um as appendix C. This comes from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission's um last regional plan. Uh a lot of these that the town uh was interested in and investigating
uh back in the late 2000 as um they've they continue to be discussed. They're also included in um many of the potential actions that come out of the Hatfield 2040 Albertson plan.
So I also encourage everyone to remind yourselves uh and uh review earlier in the U diagnostic we we call out all those 22 actions. Many of them have um
zoning topics uh to discuss such as 40R smart growth or 40 Y starter homes um village center zoning um design standards and the like. Generally we also recommend in the long
term addressing exclusionary zoning. Uh this can be done by promoting housing diversity particularly when it comes to housing types that are permitted uses by right. That's the the key topic there is exploring
um areas of town that can permit more than just a single family home by right. Um removing the developmental hurdles for property owners uh and folks that are want to bring a increase of housing production to town.
And then in terms of adopting regulations uh that are missing topics uh we had a short list of missing topics identified uh and based on feedback we decided to provide two um as appendices
model on short-term rentals. That's actually more of a general bylaw, but uh it's something that we think would be worthwhile to consider. Um particularly as they become more and more um common and they have um kind of
an undue impact on not just uh housing availability u but also um tax assessments. Um there are implications there. And then we also include a model bylaw as appendix E for a mixeduse village
center. So uh know that's something that's been discussed. I think it's um similar to the mixeduse overlay and mixed use development provisions, but this is more of um kind of a cohesive
uh attempt to think of mixed use as more village centers and may provide additional uh provisions for you to consider. So, uh, that's a quick overview of kind of what we've, um, taken from that initial
draft and that conversation in August, how we've tried to, uh, rectify or address some of those additional uh, concerns or topics, and then some of the resources that we have available for you right now at this time. >> U,, but of course, we're we're happy to
continue with this conversation and support the town. uh as you uh carry on this these recommendations into future action. So at this point I welcome conversation uh questions. I'm happy to bring up sections of the diagnostic if you want
to review uh anything uh more in depth or um if you want to look at any of the appendices uh and share that with the audience I'm happy to do. So, >> I want to see the appendices. >> I'd like to see the whole document. Yeah.
>> Um, I do have a quick question. Um, we talked about battery battery energy storage system. Uh, potential addition of a bylaw. You mentioned that there's a model bylaws that are being considered uh at the state level. I understand that there's also model bylaws being considered for solar that reflect the
new regulations relative to that. Is it your understanding that neither model is final at this point? >> It's it's unclear to me. The last I um saw the models it they were released at the time of public comment on the
regulations and I'm given the amount of feedback that I heard from our member communities and the feedback that PBPC provided I I'm curious and hesitant to share the
models as they currently exist partly in hope that they will be kind of addressed and adjusted due to the feedback because um it's just it's it's a lot to this the current regulations
take a lot of decision-m away from local boards. Um and so we just weren't ready to put those state models in there at this time. I'm happy to send those along if you'd like to see them though. >> A follow-up question to that. Can the
town of Hatfield put a moratorum on any development of new battery energy storage system or solar large scale solar and by large I mean more than 35 kilowatt hour arrays unless roof mounted
um can we put a moratorum on that on to give us a year to really develop good strong bylaws >> that's a that's a fair question I believe Blandford the community of Bford is currently weighing this option.
My initial takeaway is going to be that a moratorum is not going to hold up to attorney general scrutiny. >> I believe it violates um mass general law chapter 48 because
um solar is now >> in some degree protected, right? And because it's now, you know, a large scale um say a large scale of 35 megawws, right? That falls into a category
of clean energy production that would take um a development like that before the uh energy sighting and permitting board. It's a state entity, a new state entity.
So, >> yeah, >> I just don't know. I I couldn't recommend that course of action. Um, some communities are are pursuing it, but I at this time I I really don't know. And I I I tend to be pessimistic.
>> I would suggest that we need to prioritize developing a battery energy storage system bylaw and have it before town meeting uh this coming spring. I don't think we can afford to wait. If we can't put a moratorium on it, I think we need to take whatever model is available, the best guidance we can get,
develop something locally to at least give us some kind of oversight. >> Um, otherwise, right now, we have nothing, which means that they just lean in on the state and they can build what they want. >> Um, I am not afraid of battery energy storage. I think it can be done very well and I think it'd be a fantastic
industrial non-residential taxable property. Um, and I don't think there's any reason to be scared of it, but there's a lot of local reviews that we want to make sure we do specifically, you know,
uh, uh, proximity to groundwater sources, uh, ability of fire department to respond to and manage an incident, uh, at such a facility. There are a number of things that we do want to make sure we have a good handle on. Um, and and the only way we can do that is
through a bylaw. So, I think we're going to need to look at something. We're going to need to look at the model bylaw as it stands >> and other communities are all also wrestling with this too. It's >> the same thing like when the marijuana, you know, became legalized and we had to like put something into our bylaws. We're all kind of making it up as we go
as this is new technology that is being developed and implemented and yeah, right. >> State mandates in some way, >> right? And the the the complicating factor is also that battery energy storage when combined with a solar array is a way to get more capacity connected
to a grid that is close to reaching its limit uh than currently would be per permitted. uh right now for example I don't know the exact numbers but I would suspect that say a brand new 10 megawatt solar array that covers 30 acres of land would not get a interconnection permit
from Eversource because they don't have the grid capacity to carry 10 megawatts of power from any given location. Combine that with a battery energy storage system then it actually reduces the load on the grid. The energy is stored on site and released in smaller
amounts to the grid on a 24-hour basis. and you know and that's how they're supposed to work but without any kind of oversight without any kind of regulation in place some facility like that goes before the energy setting committee at the state level and gets built and we have no say
>> right >> so I think there's some urgency there and we do have to look at that >> yeah we should work on that for May >> yeah if possible >> even if it's imperfect even if we have to revise it it's at least a start yeah we need something
>> um Bella, I I'll make sure to send those over uh directly to Bella and she can circulate. >> Similarly, with all the appendices referenced, I think it'd be good for us to sit with this and do our homework on this and um continue a conversation at
our next meeting about what the outcomes of all of this. >> I know personally I need to look at all the different appendices that we're discussing here in length and have the slightest clue what we're talking about. Okay, >> agreed. >> Also, the some of the short-term
priorities do not like seem like they might they might seem like short term in some respects, but like what are we talking about here? Like couple years, but in the sense I guess that Kyle was saying that it's it's I
don't know if short term is the only way to describe it, but you were saying that possibly it doesn't require as much community >> board can do. Um, yeah. Like I guess but like I I see that in like the reorganizing and reformatting, but like something like enhancing the table of use, there are going to be lots of feelings about that. I feel like
potentially. >> Yeah, >> we've already been warned. >> Um, yeah. And even something as simple as like our home occupation, also known as homebased business bylaw, like is very small. It doesn't really cover much.
I can foresee if we were to like make it more legitimate or whatever and put it in our bylaws that it would be seen as like making it harder or something. I don't know. But anyway, I just like foresee >> having been a small business owner in town, I think that it would give more
direction than be >> than be a problem. I I think that there there are probably small businesses like mine was that it would be great to see some regulations or non-regulations or you know some type of authority that
would say this is okay this is not okay you know >> yeah and I agree with you just like I agree that anything that we would propose would be for the betterment of the businesses and the town and the community but the political piece of bringing it to town >> absolutely we already found that out >> yes exactly so
>> you So I just would want to like yes I would like to move all all move on these and >> so that yeah that the only my final request is that we get a >> if access to the full documentary >> and review them for next meeting agenda
>> and then if Kyle if we like review these and like maybe we have more questions for you having someone either you or someone from your team come to that meeting if we have further questions if that's all right >> potentially. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, we're happy to join um at
the December meeting. Feel free to um either reach out to me directly or or send questions through Bella uh and we can address uh any concerns or further questions you may have. Uh additionally, if if there's any of
the recommendations that you think you are looking for additional resources, let us know. we we do have plenty of things to to pull up uh draw upon and references to share. I'm still sharing my screen, so apologies. Um but yeah,
we're we're happy to to come back in December. We still have uh a section of the budget um to work with the town. Um you know, this project is really for implementing
some um key strategies from Hatfield 20 240. This was a big one. Um, and you're correct, Stephanie. You know, these these short-term recommendations aren't necessarily easy things to do. >> Um, but the thinking there is that
>> it's more logical to get those things done in the in the near term. Okay. >> Uh and um particularly in in terms of reformatting and kind of restructuring the document so that those bigger additions
um can be u appropriately included and uh integrated when they pass town meeting. >> Do have one question. It's might be too much detail. Um, in your review of the zoning bylaw in general, uh, this is a
question about the about the text really. Did you find or did your crew find uh, a significant amount of repeated or closely similar language repeated multiple times throughout the document? And is there a way that we can leverage that and get
more efficiency out of the document? I don't know if I'm explaining myself well enough. Can you can you elaborate on that second piece, the gaining efficiency? >> So, in other words, uh by efficiency, I mean simplicity. Uh you mentioned that
certain uses such as residential uses are similar in a lot of the zones. Um if there's a way that we can just say, you know, use that language and just say residential uses are allowed in all of these places and then put all the associated language with that in one
section. That's just one poor example perhaps but >> yeah so um there are instances of kind of more more like redundancies or repet repetitions >> um
>> particularly given that a lot of I think it I think it's probably more often occurs with some of the procedure that is associated with various special uses >> or or you know special regulations. So
um I think that's that's where it's most likely occurred. I can't off the top of my head point to any particular example. >> Um and I don't know if we get too much in depth in regards to that, but um I'm happy to circle back and do another pass
and just kind of give some examples in the document if that's helpful. >> That's okay. It'll come out in the wash. No problem. >> Okay. But but I think you are right. Um that's um Doug, right? That was
>> forgive me. Uh >> I don't I can't see your placards in your name tag. >> We have neither. >> Uh but but you're right. I think that that was something I believe we discussed in August. there there are opportunities to streamline the document
itself by um addressing some of those repetitive provisions, those clauses that just get plugged in. Uh it it often happens, you know, over time, particularly when you build uh a zoning bylaw off of different models. You know,
every provision has a severability clause or a um you know, an authority provision and, you know, things just start getting kind of clunky and repetitive. Um, so I think a reformatting, you know, a a
comprehensive effort like that, you you'd start to identify all those um repetitions and redundancies and you can start to remove those. And then, you know, examples of of streamlining the the procedural administrative
provisions. I believe you brought this up in August. You know there there is a requirement to accurately and um um reference the appropriate governing
general laws and then you can simply from there you know direct uh folks to the appropriate rules and regulations adopted by the planning board. you know, save space in the zoning bylaw, avoid taking things to annual town meeting and
bring it into either a an example would be like a subdivision rules and regulations or even the planning board rules and regulations that the planning board has a little bit more flexibility in terms of addressing uh administrative and procedural issues as they may occur.
You don't have to wait until annual or special town meeting and then go through the public hearing. Go beyond a public hearing process. You know, rules and regulations at the planning board level is is just a public hearing to to rectify any uh issues that arise. And that was actually something Bella and I
went to the citizen planning training collaborative um half day >> half day session in Greenfield last month and one of the ones we went to was around site plan review and it was that basically we're recommending we take all
the procedural elements out of the zoning bylaw so that we can change them like so it doesn't say like why you need eight copies of this thing or we follow this step one two three four like we can take them out and we can change them when we need to and not have to bring them to town meeting.
>> Agreed. >> Right. >> And and I think it also allows the planning board to prevent inconsistencies particularly with site plan approval because it isn't codified in Mass General law. It's really up to
the local uh boards and authorities to to kind of hold themselves to consistent standard. Yep. >> So, taking those elements out of the zoning bylaw allows you to be more consistent uh and conduct yourselves in
a more fair um and consistent manner. It it helps kind of just do business locally with the board and and build more positive relationships with applicants and developers. >> Yeah. Anna makes it easier for the public, too, when you say like, "Okay,
you don't need to read these 70 pages. Like, this is the steps. It's this two-page thing >> like, yeah, I think you can make it more easy to read and update it and >> and those regulations that can easily be
colossally intimidating >> to a residential person trying to figure out what it can and can't do or what the zone or zone isn't. And and I think if we were to simplify it so that everybody in town that wanted to look at it would understand it
>> would be a huge benefit to the general public, >> you know. So, >> absolutely. >> We're working on um putting together files of both internal instructions for our team here and also external facing instructions so that we can just hand something out when people come in and
like this is the process for site plan interview. you know, even if it's like a lot of repeated documents between the three types of applications, just having it all in one place, you can hand it out to people instead of referring them to like 12 places in the >> It is daunting when you tell somebody,
well, it's in it's in the the rules and regulations. Just go read them and you'll understand. Well, you know, there might be 42 places that you got to read before you can understand what applies to you. And >> and that's something I think we need to eliminate at all possible for some type
of land use in this town. You know, let's make it easier for people to understand what they can do as opposed to fight with them afterwards saying, "Well, you can't really do that." And that document should let people know explicitly what they can and can't do
relative to where they are. >> Yep. Okay. >> Any further questions or comments for Kyle? Thank you. I I can imagine this work is could be kind of boring, so I appreciate I appreciate you uh digging
in and uh yeah, look forward to >> looking at >> I appreciate the smiles and a little bit of levity. It it is um it can be tedious work, but uh we understand that it's it's really essential to uh helping our communities
not only operate more efficiently, effectively, and consistently. But, you know, open up those opportunities uh for growth and development in a way that you uh as you know, community members and um
local officials really see as is appropriate. and necessary. So, we're happy to be of service. Um, again, I'll um send some additional resources to Bella to C circulate particularly on
those those hot topics. Um, and uh I will put the first Wednesday of December on my calendar uh for uh if not me, another member of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission to be in attendance so that we can uh take any final
feedback. But um um again, we appreciate um the town in this project. We appreciate advancing the uh actions from the comprehensive plan and hope to continue uh being of service. >> Thank you, Kyle. Thank you, Kyle.
>> Great. >> Yeah. And it'll be our board's homework to read up on all the good work that your team did so we can talk about >> because next I mean like for all intents and purposes, December is really when we should be thinking about like what are we going to be putting on the spring town warrant if we need to put something
on there because there's the timeline of the public hearings and things like that. So, if we could start thinking about that in the next couple of meetings, that would be great. >> All right. >> Thanks, Kyle. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Kyle. >> Thank you all. Uh, Bella, I'll be in
touch and uh we'll talk soon. Thanks. >> Talk to you soon. >> Right. Um, John, do I It would help if I ended this, right? >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, and then do I need to keep sharing my screen or
no? Is there things you want to show us? >> Just have a bunch of notes I want to look at and I was >> okay to not continue to share. >> That's fine. You don't have to share screen. >> I just want to note that for folks here the for the site plan review we're going to start wait till 7 before we start that because that was what in the
notice. So thank you. >> Oh okay. No longer sharing. What do I do? >> Do you want to? I can turn this off. It's not a big deal. Um, okay. >> What's shown on >> I would rather not, but it doesn't really
>> I can't. There we go. Thank you. >> Got it covered. Thank you. >> Although I know you're distracting probably. >> Is it still shared for on John's purposes? No, I don't think so. >> Um, okay. Next thing is the AG response. >> Yes.
>> You want to talk about that? Okay. >> That is also in our packets. >> Yeah. >> It's in relation to the um at town meeting this past in May. We updated the ADU bylaw to put it try, you know, to attempt to put it into
compliance with the state's uh updated guidance and law that they that went into effect in February of the earlier this year. Um, and so again, another example of like us trying to update our bylaws to stay in
compliance with state mandates. Um, and so in doing so, we worked with the town council to update. Um, and then we and it takes certain amount of time for the AG, the attorney general's office reviews all of the town meeting warrants
that we approve um and and says like, "Yep, this is good." Or, "No, this is not." And so we got heard back that there's they think there are some issues with what we passed at town meeting. So basically um Kyle Finel told me that this is it's been happening to a lot of
towns specifically this parking space thing because of the um proximity to bus stations and the wording was everyone's having the same issues. But our particular issue that they had a problem with was the phrasing at least one parking space, which is kind of funny because the AJ thinks that it sounds
like we're requiring more than one parking space. So our attorney wrote to them and said, literally, we're not requiring more than one parking space. We're requiring at least one. It gives people the option to have more than one. It doesn't insinuate that you can't have more than one, but
>> no response. >> Well, they sent it the same day, so >> Okay. But um before we go further, does the current version of the bylaw that was reviewed and passed by town meeting last May, does it include the exception for ADUs that are located within a half
mile of a transit station? Did we put that in our language? >> I don't think Well, that wasn't the thing that they had the issue with >> really. >> Um let me double check. >> The thing that they wrote that is the at least thing clear though.
Okay. So, that's the only portion that the attorney pushed back on so far. >> Um, I think he did not push back on the element about proximity to stops. So, I think that it's not in there. >> Interesting.
>> Oh, so it's not in there. >> It's not in there. Okay. So, I think he went with that as we need to. >> That's an easy enough thing to add. Mhm. >> Just this requirement shall not apply to any protected use located within. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Exactly. And then the definition of what
those are is just in the definition section of MGL. So we don't >> Yeah. And you would just need to point to that, right? Exactly. >> Um and then the second point the attorney did not push back on. I think what we're waiting for is basically suggested language to revise what we
have. But do you all have you have the letter from? >> Yeah. Okay. >> So it's on page six at the top. Um the issue was basically that we are using site plan review um to take a look at protected
use ADUs that don't meet the all of the basic requirements of section 3.4.4C 4C, which is stuff like dimensional requirements and access by fire and the ADU being behind the principal dwelling and basic essential things that we're allowed to um regulate by the state. We
wrote in that if it doesn't for some reason meet all of those requirements, the building inspector can send it to planning for site plan review and we can take a look and consider its impact. The issue that they had was that site plan review is supposed to uh basically deliver a determination which can't be
you have to have stated objective criteria for making that determination. >> And the last line here where we say we will not impose an unreasonable harm to an any butter. They were saying that we don't have stated objective means of determining what unreasonable is. Makes >> sense. Yeah.
>> So should be agreed. This is as do you wish you should strike this whole. Yeah. >> Well, they only struck the part that's bolded and under. >> Just the bold part. Exactly. Everything else is perfectly kosher. >> But what's interesting is when you get down to paragraph five, the same page. >> Mhm. >> Where it says towns are prohibited from
imposing dimensional requirements more restrictive than the principal. >> Correct. >> So I mean it's saying we can't even say smaller than principal dwell. No, the dimensional requirements refer to things like setbacks,
>> not dimensional, size of lot and not not the location of the We can say the AD ADU needs to be set further back on the lot, right, >> than the principal dwelling. We can say that, >> but we can't say that >> you're prohibited for being more restrictive than the state.
>> What's that? >> You're prohibited from being more restrictive than the state. [Music] Right. I don't think that is more restrictive than the state though. Okay. Yeah, I think um >> I I was assumed that dimensional requirements are things like
>> Yeah. setbacks. Yeah. Front side lot setbacks, that kind of thing. >> So, those are the only two issues that they had with it. Everything else in the bylaw has been accepted. So, we can proceed. Not bad as if it's been accepted. And then um >> bulk and height right here. I wouldn't want to >> does it say that >> speculate but
>> underline >> what do you >> we're talking about dimensional standards is applied across the whole thing it says bulk and height which is talking about the building >> excuse me >> not just the distance from the neighbors driveway >> it says bulk and height
>> 605 page >> so I I'm thinking this the same your ADU could be the same >> you could be the same size as the principal >> states are where we are prohib prohibited from restricting that >> that's only for protected use ADUs which
are automatically limited to absolutely no more than 900 ft. >> Okay. >> Um that being said, >> I'm thinking of some of the properties up here where they have a big front yard, you know, lots of room between the the road and the house. If they want to
put an ADU in their front yard, we may not be able to stop them to stop them or to >> as applicable. Here's the list, right? Yeah. >> And the question is then how much um neighbor input would prevent somebody
from doing that and how much neighbor input would not prevent them from doing such a thing >> for a protected use ADU. >> Right. Neighbor input doesn't come into play. Right. >> The site plan review part allows for like some conversation around some of that. We still can't
>> but I honestly thought that we had it covered by saying shall conduct the site plan review and approve >> that we're required to approve it. >> But then we added that sentence that >> allows for subjectivity
>> subjectivity. So yeah. So I get that. Yeah. >> Yeah. The other thing too, like I was wondering also like what if there's already the principal dwelling is already so small that it is this less is 900 square feet or less. Can that qualify as the ADU? Someone could put
behind it or heard I've heard that. >> Yeah. And and I personally don't have a problem with that. >> Someone has a tiny house on a big piece of land and they want to build a larger house >> accomplishes the same. >> There you go. Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> The intent is there. Um, so yeah, ultimately good news. They
didn't have any big issues. I think both of those were comfortable with. I think the at least thing. I wouldn't want to speculate, but I think our attorney made a pretty good argument for the at least >> issue. Yeah. And so if anything, we would just need to strike this line at town. >> That's struck. It's automatic. >> Oh, it's already struck. So we don't have to bring
>> attorney general strikes. It's out. >> Great. So we don't need to go back to town meeting. Okay. >> Still gonna fight over that, >> which I like. I like to I don't agree with >> Yeah, it's a good letter. I don't know if you >> It's just about word definition.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Someone wants to go to court over us for the at least. That just seems kind of silly. Anyway, that seems silly. >> Yeah. Cool. >> Okay. All right. Perfect timing. >> Wow. >> Thank you, Bella. >> How we doing for time?
>> Um and then we'll have updates. Any other further updates from you after? >> After. Yes. Okay. All right everybody, hello. It is 6:59. We are going to start uh talking about the next the site plan review that our
process um this is not like a public hearing where we have to follow a lot of mass general law related things. Uh this is more around we have flexibility on how we have site plan reviews but part of that is notifying a butter. So um not
butters have been notified with the following um I'm like waiting till it's seven it's not seven yet 69. Um they've been notified with uh updates. There's proposed updates to what was approved
for the what is now being called the Hatfield Rally House on West Street. It is now 7 o'clock and I will read the notice that went to the abutters for Massachusetts chap uh general law chapter 4A the zoning act and as a
butter to parcel number 211-12-0. You are being notified that there will be a site plan review amendment meeting by the Hatfield Planning Board to discuss the impacts of a proposed gravel overflow parking lot on the site of the Hatfield the Rally House pickle ball and tennis facility on uh November 5th, 2025
at 7 p.m. at Town Hall. This will include the review of an amended storm water management plan. Plans of the proposed overflow lot are available to view at the town clerk's office at Memorial Town Hall on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays from 9:00 to 4:30. Um we
there were some uh questions and we kind of went back and forth to whether this would be have to be an amendment to the site plan review and we ultimately decided that it was um considering the as mentioned storm water plan and the additional pretty like significant
addition in parking. So with that I will hand it over. Thank you. Uh for the record from the design group um here on behalf of um Pat and Ashley and and the crew at the rally house.
>> Yeah, if you want to sit there so you can see it. Great. >> As you mentioned in your sort of discussion there um this um we're here to for you tonight to request an amendment to what was um the approved site plan. If you recall, it was your
large tennis facility, pickle ball facility. Um there is a parking lot um in front of the building um with an entrance and exit on on the north and south side and then an additional um formal parking area um up closer to the
building um behind the um the commercial building garage along the uh west street. Um the plan that was included with the site plan application originally or that approved was what you're looking at here. What
we're talking about is really just trying to formalize um an overflow area for those, you know, um periods where they may have, you know, larger a need for larger capacity in the lot. This parking lot is surrounded by curb, so there's nowhere on site that other, you know, that if if a lot is full, there's
nowhere else to park on the site. And it was really, you know, there was so we lowered a portion of the curb in this area um to allow access to this portion of the field. this is going to remain, you know, largely undeveloped as as it is um
or was. And um rather than just leave that as a dirt, you know, or grass lot, um the the feeling that the feeling was that to just make that a little bit more stable, a little bit more formalized with a gravel surface was a little bit more appropriate. Um so that's what's proposed there. The grading, all of the
other, you know, components of the site plan um that was approved haven't changed. The use is exactly the same. um that you know there were questions about um traffic impacts but the traffic is based on the square footage of the building and the courts inside. So none of those no figures or numbers change
none of those estimates change. Um all the planting that um was proposed is still originally um included. And so from a storm water perspective you know these I don't know whether you can see them from there but this sort of highlights where the various storm water
flows go now. Um you know the back portion of the building largely is collected in this detention basin. There's surface flow. There's a channel um and a detention basin in the back. The front portion most of the storm water management in the front um is handled via a a rain garden up along
West Street and then um through the use of the porest asphalt. Um and so um this gravel area has has always been intended to continue to drain to um to the west. Um it was just a slight you know
modification of the you know one of the contours there but all that will you know is is is all at grade essentially. Um we did provide a memo with um the uh amendment request just speaking to you know storm water flows coming off that
but essentially you know the the um the summary is that even in the 100redyear storm we don't get beyond a cubic foot per second in terms of flow. all of that infiltrates given the sandy soils within you know 250 feet I forget um from um
just given the infiltration rates and um the the um capacity of that soil to take that you know that little bit of additional runoff that would get generated from the gravel um it's not a big increase from what would have been grass normally. So, it's just a slight uh a slight curve number change. Um but
otherwise, every um all the other components of the of the plan and and conditions we would expect would would still exist. >> So, I have a question. Are you already determining that you need overflow parking?
>> So, we're we're lucky enough to have uh already have 300 members. >> Yourself for the record, too. Pat Roach, >> one of the owners. >> And we already have uh more members have signed up for us before we open than
anticipated. We plan to have um a party for our founding members. And we realized, wow, we have them all here on the same day. We're going to need some extra spaces. So, this wouldn't be typical >> um for a normal day when we're operating just
>> Yeah, we wouldn't need it. >> So, this would Maybe for a special events four or five times a year. I would guess that we would have to access the lot. >> Or if you have do you have tournaments or things like that that could be more? Yeah. I'm just Yeah, I guess my question
is like why wasn't this factored into the original plan or like why? Yeah. So, the original plan was based on like how many people would be in the building at once using all the courts. And um this special event has kind of prompted us to think, all right, well, we're going to
have more people because people will be coming in and u gathering and checking all the different uh amenities of the place out and we'll have people cycling in and out to do uh activities on the
courts. So it would be more people than would normally >> I think it was kind of an oversight. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We haven't done this before and um you know we've gotten some good advice from people who have done it before but still there's so many things
that have come up that um we just didn't anticipate. >> And what's the present capacity for parking? >> Oh 70. >> I think we're close to 70 cars. 5 70 cars somewhere in that >> and this this facil this addition would
create how many more spaces about >> um there's room for 40 cars. >> Okay, it's a 60 by 130 space roughly >> increase of 50%. >> Yeah, that's a big increase which is part of the reason why we wanted you to come to do this amendment
>> instead of just only park over there. Mhm. >> Yeah. I think I think part of the issue, too, is that if there was a more uh more attainable overflow area, if the lot wasn't curbed, for example, and they could just pull off the pull off the parking lot and into the field and use that, you know, mow part of the field
periodically. Um, you know, that would certainly, but given that that we're all curbed and, you know, there's no other access to to, you know, an overflow spot. Um, again, just it prompted the the need to, you know, think about that a little bit harder and at least try to formalize some area that could be, you
know, reserved for that kind of use. >> The building is concrete floor essentially underneath everything. So, you're not limited in terms of weight. Uh, building capacity then would be limited by exits, by fire code. Is that correct? >> Uh, there's a building code capacity,
I'm sure. Yeah. I don't know what that is, but I think, you know, and can speak more, but I think largely the capacity is going to be driven by the number of courts or players that can play at any one time. >> Well, that's the operational expectation talking about the building capacity. >> Yeah. I don't know what the Okay. What the building code capacity is. All right.
>> Um, I appreciate the fact that you included storm water, storm water analysis, storm water study study. I am not a an expert in that. I can't speak to that. Um, has any anybody from the conservation commission looked at this? >> Looked it over. We I mean I took it to them, but it's also just like
>> it's just three different projections of um different levels of storm basically and comparing runoff between the grass area that would exist and then the proposed gravel area and showing like how much volume change there is. >> Okay.
>> And it's very small, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And part of the reason why you're keeping it gravel as opposed to fully paving it in that regard too. >> Much more impervious. Yes. >> Yeah. >> I'm assuming >> Sorry, I didn't mean to cut somebody off. I'm sorry.
>> We we require um an amendment for 10,000 new square feet of um imperous surface. And this is widely thought of as semi-pervious. So, I think this is already they're already, you know, >> yeah, >> it's not quite at the trigger I think
that we would normally require, but it's good to review. Um I also want to acknowledge that there are members from the public here and so I do want the opportunity to like um any comments from the public if they would like to on what is the amendment is.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. >> You could come up to the microphone just for the question. The thing that I am thinking about too is I believe there's doesn't mention on here but the house near there and the extra park. Yep. So which
>> Ed Malinowski I think you know me. Um I guess my first question is um we've had very little rain lately but there's been a lake at the north end of the building for two weeks. What's going to happen with that water? I mean, I think largely the the I mean, the site really just
needs to be stabilized and vegetation needs to get growing. That's the big it's >> standing water a foot deep. >> I I mean, >> somebody ought to go by and look. I see it every minute of every day. Looks like it could be skatable or
fishable. >> That's a lot of water. >> Yeah. I mean, it's all it was just hydroed. >> It's underwater. Yeah. >> Yeah. at this point. It's been that way for a while. Um, you know, there's an old farm saying about having 10 pounds
of crap in a 5B bag. We're getting close to that right now. I'm tired of picking up trash coming across the street. Has nothing to do with this, but the more parking, the more people, the more trash. Um, try to be a nice neighbor so
far, but uh, I'm kind of stretched to the limit at this point. That's it. Thank you. >> Uh John Wilks, 277 West Street, North Hatfield. I just have one question. all this uh new, you know, gravel parking
stuff. How will that impact that phase two possibly of the property? >> I had the same question because the original plan had >> outside court. I think that's one of the things we had. You know, my wife was here the last time we we talked about
the traffic. The traffic been construction traffic is crazy, but we understand that. But uh you know with the additional parking and uh uh will there be new courts put in there at some point with and still accommodate the
five four or five uh vents every year where you have the overflow parking for a tournament and everything like that. So, >> we would like to see no outside, you know, the puck puck puck thing, you know, uh, at this point. I think they've done a good job building the building.
You know, they've they, you know, they put their money in it. And one of the things I did find out, I believe your franchise. I didn't know that. Is that true? >> No. No. >> No. Because on your website or Facebook, it said, you know, rally house and then it went into a dozen different uh rally
uh houses across the country. I just thought probably you were a franchise. >> Okay, this is just just >> uh Yeah, I would actually like the applicant to address the potential phase 2 outdoor courts question. I think that's fair question to ask.
>> Yeah. Well, I it's a good question at this point. Um we have just been focused on getting the indoor courts done. That's our big priority. Um, and we haven't thought much beyond we know that we're permitted to do them. Uh, we would
have to go back to Jeff and see, you know, looking at the old uh one that he showed before. Obviously, there's going to be some impact. So, we would have to if I'm reassess where new courts, if they're going to come in, would go.
>> So, I do not recall the original plan that we looked at. I I know there was a version of the plan that showed >> four, five, six outdoor courts. >> I do not recall that they were proposed or being considered at that time and that if outdoor courts were supposed to
be planned that the applicant would come back to this sort of second phase. >> I thought we went if I remember I thought we we agreed saying like sure let's approve it as is. I thought >> I think that that's what happened. It was approved as is. >> You said phase one and two approved.
We're going to vote it together. That's what you did. >> Yep. So then I'm conf I'm a little confused why that didn't show up on this plan then because >> alter this. Is that what you're saying? >> I think it would be >> you have to come you'd have to come back
again for a new site plan review amendment if you're going to do outdoor courts. So that's there'll be another notification. >> You do it the first time. You've been all right. You know you know it it's fair to fair. We want to be good neighbors too, you know. And uh you know hopefully they have good success. You
know we don't we hope that that's here for three years and we're looking at another business moving into their facility. So >> but uh you know it could it's better than having a concrete plant. >> So >> do you know off top of your head a rough
estimate of the impervious surface coverage on the lot as a percentage? Um, >> it's a wild out of the way question, but >> I don't, if I had to guess, I would say we're in the 15 to 20% range. >> Okay, thanks.
>> And and I also see like the septic it looks like too. Like that's that's also part there. So yeah, you'd be kind installed. >> Yeah. And you'd be >> I imagine quartz wouldn't be >> you can't >> on top. Right. Exactly. So there would be limitations to what the size of that
could be. >> So is this the stuff they come here? >> Yeah, that's >> I don't at this point the inside like I I can't even think about that. >> No. >> Fair. Okay. >> The only other thought I had about this
is I'm looking at the parking. I assume there's a center the the parking area as proposed based on how it's how you approach it from the main driveway. it comes into that south center boundary of that parking area. So, it implies that
there's going to be a a travel lane down the center traveling north south with parking spaces facing outward, which means you're going to have some cars coming down there into that parking area and then turning and facing headlights out to the street. Um, so to me that my thought is there needs to be some visual
screening. Uh, as we all know, November, December, January, February, it's dark at 4:30. I assume you've got hours after 4:30 at night. Um, and you're going to want to encourage people to be there in the afternoon, evening, what have you. We want to make sure that headlights aren't shining into the neighbor's house or shining across the highway, uh,
across the road. So, well, could that be accommodated by screen? Well, not just screening, that the drive for people to come into that area be on the roadside and then there be two sets of parking lines toward the back of the property so that no one's ever facing the street.
follow what I mean? >> Yeah, I follow what you mean. >> You know, and that seems to would possibly eliminate lights uh um car lights shining across the street into people's residences, >> accommodating it by a one-way loop
through the parking lot that >> right >> comes in south to north on close to the road, uturns at the north side and then goes down roughly through the middle. >> Right. So, the only way to get into a parking spot, like you said, is to pull in facing west to any given parking spot
and then you pull out and continue around the loom. That's >> I'm with you about 90%. I think I'd need to draw it just to see, >> right? I I think it would wind up with a a larger um east to west dimension on the parking area, which I don't really
care one way or the other if that's the case. >> Yeah, I think >> that would solve it. I was just thinking about >> screening vegetation may be less complicated. Roseing vegetation would also solve the problem. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. To the road. Yeah. On the road front end road just to
for Yeah. If that's would be acceptable. >> So yeah, we can certainly look at just a way to, you know, have parking so the cars are all facing to the west. Um and if that doesn't seem like it's a very feasible option, we can propose some screening along that edge. mechanically building the parking lot, you're going
to take up the top soil anyways and replace it with a compactable gravel, I'm sure, uh probably with, you know, coarser stone below and then a top layer of compactable gravel. So, take that top soil, create a burm on the east side, on the roadside,
>> mulch it, top it with some two by two foot tall arbor vite staggered every five feet. In three years, they'll be 15 feet tall and fully screen the area. As long as it doesn't mess with your slopes too much. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I definitely think that there
should for the because I think the house isn't the house like right across from that where the proposed gravel is. >> It's pretty close. I think >> the driveway and the home. Yeah. If we could put some screening there, I think yeah, >> that would just be >> that would be helpful. >> With that understanding, I have no problem approving this.
>> I'm going say I'm of the same mind. And I'm also just confirming there's no going to be no lighting or like street lights or something in that gravel area. Also, >> you can talk about that. Any parking lot lighting? >> I mean, not beyond what's already closed. >> So, you're not going to add new lighting in that parking area? >> It'll stay dark at night. Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Just one question. Has the lighting been installed yet? >> Any of it? >> Uh, it's not hasn't been activated. I know that outside light >> think it has. >> And it will only be on during business hours. Correct. Or it'll be on It won't be on all night.
What was the question? >> The parking lot lighting when it's installed. >> No. No. >> Is it dark sky lighting? >> Yes. >> Saying shielded. >> Dark sky. Yeah. Dark sky. Shielded. >> Yes. Perfect.
>> Great. Any other discussion or any other comments from the public? I would I would make a motion to approve the modification to the plan as presented with the condition that um a plan for vegetative screening be
prepared and submitted um >> period >> there. I'll second that. >> Thank you. >> I'll second that one. You put at the end of a sentence. I forgot. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? I just want to
say that 60 foot would have never accommodated an all west parking. Just I just figured it out. >> Okay, fair enough. >> It would have had to have been another 12 or 14. >> It would have need another 20 ft. >> All right. Any >> We have more discussion. >> You had one more com comment from
>> All right. Any Oh, >> yeah. Uh James Fusk, uh you guys are all worried about headlights. What time does this facility plan on closing? Granted, it's winter time and headlights are on at 4, but what time for the rest of the
year do you plan on closing? So, we have to worry about headlights and and uh you know, things that people don't like. >> 6 to 9:30. >> 9:30 at night is when you close and then the help leaves around 10.
>> And those cars, sorry, director of operations, those cars won't be parked in that parking lot. the parking lot you just put your finger on >> behind us >> behind that wall you guys just built >> which is 2 ft 2 and 1/2 ft down
from the existing plane. >> Mhm. >> This is the first time I saw a map. What is that? Is that a roadway going on the north side of the uh 253 West Street? That big gray line in the middle?
>> Yeah. What is that? Is that a roadway? >> Driveway. >> And then there's another entrance over >> Yeah, the north end. I see that. >> This is the first time I saw a map. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. And then there's the two parking lots. So, there's the one right behind.
>> I'm sorry. I was told to I got a letter in the mail. I was told to be here for 7 o'clock, so I feel like I'm a little late, but then I checked it. It says seven. Yeah, this was this is an amendment to the original plan. So, this is a that that is the original plan that was
approved uh back oh gosh, I don't know when. And so, they were coming >> summer >> they were coming back to discuss uh additional gravel lot parking lot. >> Okay. I'm just just looking. >> Thank you.
>> Hey, Flip. Um there's a sec. Yeah, if you want to take that. There's um a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Yeah. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I
>> Great. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you so much. >> Curious when do you anticipate opening >> to the public? January. >> Nice. Yeah, we have a founding member opening on the 14th of December.
>> Great. Well, congrats. Came by with the building inspector and the assessor and it's very beautiful. >> Oh, thanks. >> So, I have one more question for you guys. Is somebody there most of the time? >> What What do you mean by that? >> Is somebody at the facility most of the time
>> right now? So, as a planning board member, I could pop in and see what's going on. just, you know, to put some feet on the ground and eyeballs on the real thing instead of a picture. It'd be really beneficial to know, you know, to see what's going on because from the outside
it looks really large. >> Nothing further on our agenda. Right. Right. >> There are some things. No, we got >> Well, I'm just excuse I'm sorry. Just for the purposes of the audio, if you don't mind moving into the hallway. Sorry. Thank you. >> Thank you all.
>> Thank you. >> We can wait five minutes. Two minutes. >> We'll give him one more minute. seem to recall that was one of the things that they did >> between two parking lots on the north side of the Kendall Company lot in South
Deerfield when they built the back parking lot. They actually took some of the top soil and created a burm between the two >> and then did some evergreens there and it worked out really well. Yeah. >> You know, and if you take a whole bunch of top soil, just as an aside, and build a burm out of it, it's going to be prime
growing soil be loose. Going to be loose. It's going to have all those things to to promote those that uh sight block from growing more quickly. >> Oh, yeah. >> Sorry. Excuse me. >> Excuse us. Do you mind >> the door, please?
>> It's a public meeting now. Get out. She said, >> "No, we just we just have audio." That's so finish some business. That's all. Thank you. >> Could have been nice. >> No, please don't close the door. No, we want to keep it open. >> Thank you. See you later.
>> Okay. >> Didn't get the message the first time. Like I said, we be more emphatic. >> All right. Okay. >> Hey, listen. I'm 75. I'm not afraid of of that stuff. >> All right. All right. Last item. There is something kind of exciting. The bylaw
review committee. >> What's that? Oh, like the town bylaw review committee. Sorry. >> Yeah, the town there's a committee that's reviewing all the town bylaws. >> Not our zoning bylaws. >> General bylaws. Got it. Okay. >> Yep. Not the zoning bylaws, the general bylaws, which includes wetlands, but not
zoning. They have decided to use a service called E-Code 360, which maybe you're familiar with. Yep. You're familiar with a lot of other towns have their bylaws formatted by E-Code 360. They offer full bylaw restructuring, indexing, formatting, um, and they also
offer legal review all in a one package deal. They give you an assessment of cost based on the length. And so for them to do our general bylaws and zoning, it would be $13,000. >> What that seems so, right? And so
basically, >> is that is that the assessment? Is that the full codification? >> What >> is that? the assessment or the whole codification. That's doing the assessment and getting the the bylaw into their system. >> Exactly. >> 13 grand. Do we do can we like support that? Can we
>> Let me go on and I'll >> Sorry. I apologize. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. >> Very exciting. So, yeah, >> the formatting they want to keep the formatting changes. The legal review will bring it up to the basic like make sure that we're not out of step with the state. >> Um they want to keep that separate from
big substantive bylaw. I mean zoning changes because it's easier for the public to parse. And so they will be doing that work over the course of 2026. And so 2027 ATM they want to kind of reserve for the >> annual town >> annual town meeting. They want to
reserve for the formatting like vote for us to vote at annual town meeting on the formatting. >> Wow. >> Vote. >> Amazing. So which means annual town meeting in 2026 we can make some substance changes to the zoning which could include best systems. Anything else we can get worked in there and then
2028 we can bring substance changes. 2026 will be for the format. >> 2027 will be for >> sorry. Yes. 2027 will be for the format. Does that make sense? >> It was a little confusing to me at first but like the timeline but okay. And are any substantive changes that we add next
year be part of the review that we could then for 2027? >> I believe yes because they're going to be doing all of that over the course of 2026. So if we adopt it I think in May they can look at that too. >> Reviewing it all including the new >> right and then from then on what I'm not
entirely sure of is like when we adopt substantive changes in 2028 and ongoing like how do we make sure that it's formatted correctly from then? Do they give us like the tools to do that? >> You know what I mean? But it's it's also like it's super searchable. Like you can click in one place and it will take you to another place.
>> All hyperlinks all built in. Yeah. Table matches like all the other towns that have it. It's like the same format. So it's like you can look at Northampton's, you can look at ours. It's like >> W3C compliant. So it's searchable from Google. >> You can send people like a link to the actual sentence of the law. >> So it just just goes straight to that
part of the code. >> Yeah. >> So >> So that's a huge step forward. We're also I think they're allocating funding for that separately from any other funding we may have for the zoning. So I think >> do we need to like vote of we approve
like does any like letter supported by us or is it already in the works? >> I think it's in the works but I'll >> it's happening. So this >> the uh select board is running this. >> The bylaw committee I think is making the recommendation to the select board
to allocate funding for this project and the number that they got 13,000 includes zoning. >> We don't know if there should be a grant that you can get whether it's a community compact grant to basically do the recodification and the digit >> modernization digitization
>> municipal modernization that kind of thing. Yeah, I >> agree. Um, don't know if Andrew is like looking into that or not. >> Yeah. Speaking as a >> a stingy taxpayer that doesn't want to pay anything more than we have to. >> Totally. >> Uh, >> the only thing I would say is before they codif because
>> it sounds like 2027 is >> I I'll describe it as recotification. Yeah. That's where you basically take the whole thing without changing the words of the bylaw. You rearrange everything >> and put things into proper >> Right.
um outline format sequential. So big number one, then capital A, then small number one, and then lowercase A and then Roman numeral one and down the line. >> The only language they would be changing is if there's something that we have that's like directly in conflict with like they would. Um, do do you think we would have an opportunity to do some of
the block rearrangement in 2026 >> before they codify >> because a lot easier for us to cut and paste on our own document, >> right? Yeah. >> Before it goes into the system. That's why I think like the homework of reading
what PBPC put together and coming back in December and trying to figure out what we bring to town meeting with this timeline in mind I think might be a bulk of our conversation next. >> Sounds great. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And maybe um I don't know if like you and you and maybe Andrew we could
meet and try to really nail down what the timeline looks like because I'm not sure he has and then >> maybe work in some of the things that has told us and try to figure out exactly when >> it's appropriate along the ecode 360 like timeline >> because they have their own like very specific
>> um >> and if there's some letter or whatever that's needed to for the select board or something as like an additional support like we on board. Would that be putting together some sort of letter that's like >> Okay, I'll find out if anything like that would be needed. Otherwise, this is
a big part of our >> moving ahead we're moving forward on. So, that's great. >> Yep. >> Um, okay. >> The So, maybe you've heard through different channels the new the flood insurance rate maps are now out for Hampshire County. There have been there's great buzz about it. Um, it
basically means interestingly the maps have nothing to actually do with the cost of your insurance really. It's because that's defined by private insurance companies. It's essentially a map of the extent of the flood plane which has been redelineated our larger. >> It's definitely larger. Um, and even if
it's not larger in places, it's more that like what was a 500year storm is now a 100-year storm. So, um, Kyle and Andrew and I have been attending workshops and trainings. Um they this all will tie into like our buildability assessment for the housing production
plan. All kinds of things like this. Um it shows areas where property owners are mandated to buy federal flood insurance um and where we're required to regulate development and how. And so um there are aspects of our bylaw that we need to
update. Um they the laws for regulating the flood plane are split between the building code, the board of health code, um our flood plane bylaw, and then the wetlands bylaw. Um >> sounds really easy. >> Yeah. And so um if there's things that
are out of step, um DCR and FEMA will tell us what they are and we can change those things in our bylaw. We also have to designate a flood plane administrator. Um, but if we, so the timeline that we're in now is there's a 90-day period where towns can submit
what's called a letter of map change. And that's basically if there's been any like large like hydraologic or hydraulic change in the flood plane, which would include like a covert or a dam or something like this that's been built since they've been doing the mapping. Um, and there's a 90-day window for that. And then after that, they have to
um hear they have to look at all of those applications. And that can take basically a year because every town in Hampshire County can submit these. They can't move forward until all of these have been considered. It's called the appeal period. And then after that, um there's a six-month window called the compliance period where we have to adopt
the new flood plane maps as a community and we have to we have to update our bylaw. So they're expecting 2027 is when we have to have all that done by. They kind of time it out with annual town meetings because that's how everyone does everything. So, it'll probably be the period for us to adopt the new maps
and the bylaw will be early 2027. And if we don't, for some reason, vote to adopt the new maps, then we're out of we're suspended from the NFIP program, which means we don't get FEMA aid in a flood anymore. So, that's the >> They cut all the funding for that
anyway. >> That's the good. >> It would behoove us to do it correctly. >> So, we have a year to put a big drain in. It goes under the river. It has to go under the river. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> Um the flood plane maps have to be
adopted by a vote of town meeting. >> Yes. >> The bylaw that you're talking about is it it's a combination of both general bylaw as well as zoning bylaw. >> Our flood plane bylaw is in the zoning bylaw. >> It's in the zoning bylaw. So >> and that has to be adopted at town meeting in 2027.
>> That's what they're expecting. Yeah. >> Okay. So that's going to be and if the flood plane maps change significantly and if we're required to limit certain development within those areas, >> there's a huge educational component to that that we're going to have to start to think about quickly. >> Yeah,
>> it's probably going to have to start the summer before summer of >> people are not going to people are not going to understand >> what we're what what has to be done or what we're mandated to do. >> Perception is always our biggest opponent. >> Absolutely. you know, you know what are
you doing? I I hear this. What? I hear this. What are you doing? I can't understand why you're doing all this. And so, we're going to have to be prepared to educate the public, especially the public that's adjacent to these areas on going on and how we're trying to address
the situation in a manner that keeps us kosher with the state and also also does the job here on site. >> Yeah. And with the feds. Yeah. because like town business center I'm sure is all in the flood plane and that's where we're like village center let's have commercial growth let's
>> I'm hypo hypo >> hypothesizing hypothesizing that some of those restrictions might prevent someone from building a new structure like a new accessory structure >> yes >> suddenly you're telling people in certain areas no you can't build your own garage you can't have a garage you can't do anything else on your property
>> right >> wow well but there those people would be uh situ ated an existing flood plate. So, if we're going to deny them because of that, then >> no, that's a federal that's like the
law, >> right? And and and what used to be like a vis or or what used to be outside of the vone may now be in a visa, a velocity zone, and that changes what's allowable in those areas. >> Yeah. Or they have to jump through more or something that would be by right they have to come through to the planning board for.
>> Right. One of the one of the things that does change is uh in certain areas you can't do underground fuel tanks. >> Exactly. >> So, you can't have a buried program. It's got to be above ground. Mhm. >> Anyway, >> yeah, that's the takeway. >> So, um,
>> a lot we have to look at that. >> Yeah, it affects everybody and people are going to be mad at us, but it's not our fault, >> right? >> Yeah. Can we get somebody from the federal government to present this to town meeting instead of us? >> People are going to be back at us. >> Yeah, I know. Or they're going to be like not going to want to pass it at town meeting and we'll be like, "Fine,
when we have a flood, don't get >> right." Right. You know, >> we're on our own. >> Right. And and I think that would be an important component to make people understand that that you know if we don't deal with this, you're sort of left out there dangling on your own in
case there's an an incident. You have no protection from us. You have no protection from FEMA or anybody else. You're floating on your own, so to speak. If your house gets washed away, >> right? And the the private insurance you'd be able to buy would be astronomically. >> Absolutely. Yeah. you know, you see see
what's going on in other states with with health uh uh weather insurance. So, we'll call it weather insurance. >> I mean, 500% increases for homeowners >> in in their their bill. That's, >> you know, people would go crazy
>> here in this town. They would go absolutely out of their minds if their their insurance went up 500%. >> Well, yeah. Especially if you're weren't in the flood zone and now you are considered in the flood zone, >> right? Absolutely. I mean, you built a house and you thought it was safe and and you weren't going to end up with any of these restrictions and all of a
sudden your $3,000 a year in in flood insurance goes up to $15,000 a year >> and and and especially be egregious to people who think they live in a place that couldn't possibly flood five >> weird like Kyle was saying it's like we
have Mil River flooding, we have flooding around the oxbow. like it's not exactly where you would we have a levy. It's like it's not necessarily just for Connecticut. >> Um >> so that's on the horizon. >> But there has been an incident of serious flooding in this town. >> Is that a pun a horizon water?
>> No. No, it wasn't. >> I can't remember when it was, but I lived at 10 Prospect Street when we first moved to town. This is 40 years ago at least. And there was a flood incident. Uh the bridge at Prospect Street and Elm Street basically almost
got washed out. >> Uh the the first house on the right coming up Prospect Street, the water was up to the house >> in those fields and that was from the Mill River, not the Connecticut River. And then there was the incident when the dyke failed. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. >> So, >> do you have anything else, Bella? >> Um I do sadly. Yeah. >> Okay. Um we had a meeting with PVPC um Horse Mountain Conservation Area Forester uh UMass soil scientists kel land trust to talk about our drinking
water supply protection um and what constraints and strengths we have. The long story short is that all of this ties into again a buildability assessment for us with the age of our infrastructure. Um where we need to protect forest cover um how this affects
basically how much capacity we can develop. And then I will skip forward to tell you that I applied I sent in a um what was it called? expression of interest letter for a new grant um called it's a part of a new grant group called the eco onetop for growth which
is basically a follow-up to the >> regular onetop for growth um it's for uh environment and climate related projects >> in the state state based >> yes and Kyle Fenel recommended that we apply for the housing production plan because the housing production plan really needs to be responsive to all of
these things needs to respond to the flood plane comprehensive plan drinking water protection um the mapping updates that have come in. Also, I think we're at a unique position to like sequence the housing production with our zoning updates. And I think that's like a big
I mean that's complex. And so we've applied basically as a followup to having an MVP funded comprehensive plan. We argued that um the housing production plan is responsive too to like climate constraints and that Hfield is like uniquely limited by
many different types of climate and environmental constraints. >> Yeah. >> And so we asked for 50,000. We'll hear back from them about what aspects of our application we could strengthen. We haven't said the application. It's an expression of interest. So, they'll let us know like what our application
contain and hopefully we can get some help with that. >> And then what is the what is the deadline or when we'll be here back for >> um I think it's opening next early next year. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we were ahead of the game on that. >> Great. >> Yeah. I won't keep you any longer.
That's good for now. >> Please got to go to bed after drinking that monster. >> Understand? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Sleep. Is that right to sleep? Sugar. Sugar and caffeine makes me tired. >> Cool. >> Um, thank you for all that work.
>> Yeah, really. >> I really think it's great to have you on board. I >> I was just going to say the same thing. The the extra input that you've put into this board has been amazing. >> And it really makes our job a little
easier and it makes the information a lot clearer. >> That's >> so we appreciate what you're doing. >> Thank you for having me. It's been a real joy. I'm loving it. >> Is that sarcastic? >> Such a joy. No, truly. >> I love it. Great. >> I with at the risk of belaboring the
meeting is probably longer than it needs to be. I'll try to keep this to about 30 seconds. I would encourage us all to think about um >> what we want our zoning to do, what we want our uh uh zoning bylaw to do. Um there's a lot of moving parts in town. Mhm. >> I don't want those other moving parts to
settle into a place where now any changes we consider the zoning law bylaw are essentially funneled in one direction. >> Mhm. >> Um and that may not be a direction that any given one of us may prefer. So I think that basically means we need to get in front of it at least in concept
at least have some conversations about what we'd like to see how we'd like to see development proceed and at least lay that down and have that have folks be aware of that. um as they're developing other things such as conservation of land, restriction on on uses of of land
that's in a flood zone, what have you. Um we need to sort of understand lastly, we want people to feel like as they're being blindsided. Yes. >> By any of these regulations and hey, I have the I have the right to do this. Well, maybe you do, but maybe you don't. And maybe it you do if you do it a
certain way. Maybe you don't if you do things a certain way. And to have it be really clear for people to understand the dos and don'ts would be a and for people that aren't doing this all the time >> for that guy in the farm who wants to build three houses on the corner of his
100 acre farm. You know, is there a bylaw that present prevents him from doing it or can he put six houses in there? You know, just just be really specific >> about what people can and can't do in a way that they can clearly understand it. I've always said the art of communication is saying what you want to
say in a way the listener can hear it. >> That's right. >> And that's our job in the planning board is to set all this stuff out so the people in town can understand it and hear it and not say, "Oh my god, they're out of control." >> Right. Right. >> So yeah, public forums and things are definitely going to be needed to help
bring the public along. I mean, like all of our meetings are technically public forums, but you know what I mean. And even more public forums. In keeping with that, we need to make people aware in town that this is a meeting about this topic and and there is a public forum so you have something to say or feel about
it. Come and if you don't come then you don't have anything to say about it, >> you know, realistically. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It would be great to have a like some not that we ever have like downtime, but if we had a meeting that was um designated for a particular topic that we've been wanting, whether it's
zoning, whether it's flood plane, we're really getting ahead of things and talk to people about >> you know what all of this means before we have to vote on it. >> I think making some presentations or like slideshows and recording them, putting them on the town, like those types of ways to get information out.
Okay. >> All right. I make a motion we journ this meeting >> at >> 7:45 >> 7:45 >> I'm waiting for Lee to second it I'm doodling >> I second >> ur discussion all in favor
>> I >> all right meeting is adjourned uh 7:45 next meeting is Wednesday December 3rd can't believe we're already at the end of the year it's really crazy >> yeah so this all this discuss