Good evening everyone. >> Hi. >> Hello >> Tom. >> I'm having trouble getting my camera on. It's a tablet I haven't used before. Just FYI. But you can hear me. Okay. Right.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. Who's town of Shootsbury? >> I think that's me. I got to log out and come back. Be back in a second. >> Okay. >> Uh, we
How are you? >> Good. Good. How about you, Nathan? >> I'm doing good. >> Good. Thanks for Thanks for all your hard work. Oh yeah, no problem. >> And uh how are your kids doing? >> Oh, good. You know, it's uh
you know, we just went through a quick boat of uh you know, whatever is kicking around Shootsbury Elementary School over there, but uh I think we're on the up and up now. >> Yeah. How how uh old are they?
>> Six and four. >> Okay. I see a lot of work in your future. >> Oh, yeah. All right. It's uh 7:02 and we have a quorum. So, I will call this
January 15th meeting of the Shootsbury Plane Board to order. I'll note that the meeting is being recorded and I'd like to start off by uh again offering my apology for the snafu last
week and not uh posting the agenda. I was uh thinking about it all day and then you know when the critical window came where I you know finished my workday and before 7 o'clock it just went right out of my head. So, you know,
I apologize and I think uh I you know, I've got reminders set. You know, I obviously usually get the agenda up, but I might start trying to work with Matteo a little bit and have him start adding stuff as it comes up over the month, right? Just to kind of get
things in there. Um >> you should ask your kids to remind you when you get home. >> Yeah. Well, thing is, you know, I was uh Yeah. I uh I should ask my kids to remind me though. That's a good point. Okay. Um
I don't know if we're Yeah, we've got six. I'll also note that I'm going to designate Tom to act as a full member. >> Okay, >> we'll do that. Um and now we'll uh
Give me a second here. I'm trying to There we go. >> All right. Um, anyone have public comment? No. Okay. >> Hearing and seeing none. Uh, landowner
education and guidance. No. >> Yeah. I'll note that there was uh somebody inquired about ADUs. I think it was for West Palm Road. It was a couple weeks back and we gave them a copy of
the warrant from special wait from annual town meeting where we did the ADU bylaw and uh haven't heard from them since they're not here. Just a note. >> All right. >> Actually, can I I'll just add one note too on that. Yeah,
>> I sent out an email, but um Jeff Lacy had let me know that um Conway put in the 100 foot proximity for the ADU and they got back a response that the AG approved it. The AD AG approved it and I
had to go back. I couldn't remember if we included it, but we did. So, I'm assuming that that'll pass muster as well, which is cool. >> Yeah. No, no reason I wouldn't, right? Um, it's uh I don't know. I mean, I suppose
you could uh come up with a reason, but we we are I think I feel like we did a good job vetting all that out. Now, um yes, thank you. Next on the agenda will be review and approve minutes for 128
2025. So, those have been posted in the uh Google Drive and uh >> I'll move to approve the minutes of December 8th, 2025. >> All right. Do I have a do I have a second?
>> Uh can I've got um actually, you know what? Never mind. I'll second. >> Second. Okay. So, uh, De Kira moves and Hasty has seconded that the board, uh,
approve the minutes from 128 2025 and I'll have some discussion. I'll just note, I thought Matt did a great job with those minutes. That seemed pretty uh concise and uh well captured.
>> I I only had one questionable edit which I think I CC you on Nathan just to see but on the top of page six when we started talking about FEMA and flood planes. I think I was the one who was talking about FEMA reviewing the flood planes and he said you were. Do you
remember which one of us said it? >> Not that it really matters. Well, of page six. Yeah, it's the third paragraph. I'm happy to attribute you. I just thought I it came out of my mouth. I
don't really care. Well, you brought it up when you were talking about Farcohog and you had sent an email and then I had like kind of looked at what you sent
and you know I went out and found a model bylaw in the state and we talked about that. Um, >> but maybe it was you. Well, I mean, you did bring it up, but I, you know, participated in the discussion, right?
So, let's uh let's take a look. Um >> Okay. It doesn't matter. I mean, it's there's nothing controversial about it. So, um >> Well, I mean, you know, it's he I uh >> I'm guessing he he was watching the video, so he's probably accurate.
>> I I mean, you know, we're uh we're doing all right agenda wise. I don't know if if you if you want we could just do a quick uh No, don't care. Okay. >> Okay. >> I I've got one very minor >> edit if if we're entertaining
edits. >> Yeah, sure. Let me actually I realize I have the so I'm gonna 128 there. All right. All right. Are we are we looking at
my screen where we see Shootsbury Planning Board minutes December 8th, 2025? >> Yep. Okay. Um, where are we at, uh, Keith? Uh, page
four, paragraph two. Okay. Uh, uh where uh there's two again minor things. Um think this is this paragraph two.
Oh, uh, the last sentence of that paragraph, um, Hasty points out that operators of data center. I think I went back and watched the video because I think I used I said they and when I said they I meant um I don't I don't know what the
operators think but uh I think fire code and um from what I understand from uh our fire chief that the standard practice from a firefighters emergency response perspective is not to apply water to
these things. I don't know what the operators think. I think they're probably on board, too. Um, so, um, points out that current firefighting guidance is to not
apply water directly to the electronics or something like that. emergency response, guys. >> Yeah, perfect. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's great. >> That's really the only thing I had.
>> There. Okay. Um, anyone else? So, uh, there was one thing I, you know, maybe would be, uh, so I mean, I think, yeah, I I don't know. It's uh I'm good
actually. So yeah. All right. On uh in that case, I'll call the roll. See, did we lose Ashley? >> I'm here. >> You're here. Okay. >> Um yeah, I'm just going to stop sharing
my screen. Everyone saw the edit that we made on the screen. And uh by the rule, we're going to say um >> I >> Hasty >> I
>> Weston >> I >> Seaffir >> I >> and I'm an I. Motion carries unanimously. The board's approved the uh minutes from December 8th, 2025.
We made an edit during the discussion. Mattel, welcome. >> Hi. Sorry I'm late. CPC meeting took uh 10 minutes. >> That was a quick one. >> It was. >> Do I need to make you a host? Are you
already a host? I think I think I'm set up as co-host. >> Okay. Actually, um I'll make Michael >> I can I can Oh, yeah. >> Because we need to know it's only a
matter of time before you're gonna we're gonna So, Mattel, we just approved the minutes from last meeting. Good job on those. And now we're on data center uh discussion of data center bylaw.
>> I'm going to share my screen. >> Uh yes. >> Okay. So, and I'll do a little intro. Um so, thank you all for the last discussion. Um you'll see at the top in this key, you guys all see it already.
>> So, there's there's a couple of colors going. So the purple are the edits that I made based on the conversation we had at our last meeting in December. And then the green are edits I made in conversation with Jeff because what I
have been trying to do is sort of get different people's inputs. So it seemed like having a conversation with Jeff would be helpful. And then the red are things that um Oh no, that's not right. Let's see. Hold on. Nope. The green is
what I got from talking to Nathan. Yes, from talking to Nathan. Nathan had a couple of comments that he pointed out and the red I got from reading the minutes just a couple of days ago and realized there were things that were discussed at the December meeting that I didn't put into the
changes and it seemed like we should. So, that's sort of how this breaks out and it's there's not a ton of them. Um, so I can go just go through them if it makes sense and then we can if everyone has questions. Um
so I clarified here uh one of the questions I think Steve asked was you know how are we measuring size and you know he was saying that it's the area of you know the width and the
length but then the height including floor and basically the volume of this thing. Um so that one of the things I did is I looked up and gross building area is essentially the volume. So m you know the footprint times the height. Um so I put that in the definition and I
tried to capture that in the data center definition as well. So that's hopefully clarified. Um so I'll just walk through it and then we can circle back if that works for everybody. um this green one here, this this is one of
the things that Nathan pointed out um which was when we think about the zoning act in addition to solar being a protected use there's nine protected uses one of them is education and so um Nathan pointed out that it could be that like UMass said they wanted to
build one um and there it's education is protected use so we'd have to figure out how that plays out so this is sort of a placeholder basically say that um to this extent necessary to protect public health welfare and safety inconsistent with the limits of statute um we're going to enforce these regulations. So
at the time if someone comes forth and they're an educational institution will have that conversation and try to figure out but my understanding is we're going to we want these regulations to stand within the context of what we can do in the law. Um,
and then Nathan had requested, this is one of the things I I missed from our previous um, meeting when I was looking at the notes that he had wanted to put the definitions in the body as well as and it said that it was in this section of
post in the definition section. I think we can discuss um, I think Nathan's intent and you can tell me later what it was that we should put it in here and not have it in the definitions. Um, I ended up putting it in both because that's what we have in solar. Um, so it seemed like just replicating solar. Um,
I do think putting in the body is here because you know the original version of the solar bylaw. I think the first two versions everyone would say we know it's you know we know what the dimensions are but then you could never find them because they were in the definitions and no one ever looked in the definitions. So I think
it's helpful to have the body here. Um, >> Michael, can we uh interject things? Um if >> yeah let's go through the changes and then we'll we'll open it up. >> We'll circle back. >> Okay. >> So the big I think the biggest change
that I ended up doing based on the conversation we had was that um splitting out power backup systems and I intentionally didn't call it batteries because I didn't want the AG to get all wigged out. Um but basically splitting
out that from electrical storage and UPS. So what's the backup and what's the storage? Um and a lot of it I just sort of kept the the concepts that we had agreed to. Um I just called it like
you'll see here in three and four I just call a power backup. So I was labeling them consistently splitting them out. Um and then this red shows up in this section. And then with the electrical storage, um I think this is one of Nathan's points that um just for future
proofing that we reserve the right to to review and approve technologies that are not anticipated. Um because we or we're specific about some technologies. Who knows what's going to happen in the future. Um and then the other significant part and this is what I think we can probably dig into but you
know Jeff had made um some impassioned arguments in terms of lithium ion batteries and so when we he and I talked um it seemed like we're the lithium nickel magnes cobalt oxide we talked
about it being prohibited um unless there's a way they can demonstrate um that there's there's needs and I think that I think this might have come from u Heath I'm not sure what the origin was and then some of these in number three
the parameters to basically say if we're going to use lithium ion batteries requiring something some are carried over like you know not using PAS foam etc um but some things are new which is having a buffer between the batteries and fliable materials which is not a new
concept for our conversations um but it sort of breaks it out So the bottom line is with the exception of the bad lithium you know nickel magnesium cobalt oxide we would allow lithium ion um with these parameters um so I think that's all
there and then this red thing is the same as before that you know for future proofing we'd retain the ability to authorize uh to review and approve new technologies are not yet out there um and then I think that's that beginning part is most of it um there's a couple
of small things here. Um I clarified again the the maximum building area just it carries over from earlier. Um I think there's Tom had made a point. Um oh it's not this one. Oh yeah, this is Tom's
point that in addition to emergency response plan if the fire chief requests it an incident action plan which is a more detailed tactical um sort of document um and apparently I think it's in Wendell the fire chief wanted it. So,
it seems like um having at the cross of the fire chief just sort of makes it more articulated, you know, if they don't need it. Um because it's sort of like who does what as opposed to how you're going to approach it. Um which is more strategic in nature. Um and then I
think there might be one thing at the end here, but I'm not 100% sure. Um no, that's it. So, comment away. Jeff, do you want to uh >> Michael, did you have did you have a chance to see my email and uh throw a
few of those things in or No, >> I didn't throw them in. I did see them, but I have to pull them up, but I think Nathan got them as well. Um, so if you want to Nathan, do you want >> I I have not I've not reviewed that, but we can uh discuss it now. Yeah.
>> Well, they're just minor minor things, but I thought I'd throw them in. I think you um some of them were caught. I don't know whether on page two under C one and two. >> Yeah. >> Do you want to put an A and D after number two as well to make sure that
number three is included or no? >> Say that again. >> You see where it says alternative ma manner semicolon and >> yeah. >> Do you want to put an and after number two as well? Oh. Um,
>> or remove the and and uh make it uh well, I mean you could put and but like it's uh >> I think actually would be better because one and two have to be true. Um I think three is not a condition. It's more a
statement. >> So I it's a good catch. I think what I would do >> that's a three is a condition too. I mean it's like three has to be true that uh >> okay >> such a waiver does not I mean I don't know it's like you know >> like that.
>> Yeah that's all I don't know maybe not I'm just throwing that out because it seems to include one and two and not three. >> Yeah. Um that that's good with with me. Um and if it's a condition Nathan like you're saying then we should have them all be Oh Tom's got his hand raised.
>> Yeah. Am I muted or not? >> Nope, we can hear you. >> Oh, good. Yeah. Um I'm glad we got to this one. I didn't know if you wanted to get to things like um punctuation things like the and that Jeff caught because I was looking at that too. But
if you wanted to stay at this section C for a second, um I'll just mention it now and tell me if you don't want me to go there in other parts of the document and instead I can do it just over email or something. But in number one, um, do you see how negate is double
underlined? >> Yeah. >> The that before negate should not be there. It's a and at the beginning of number two and number three, the that shouldn't be there. They should just start with such
because they all start with if um at the beginning of section C there. Well, before before you go making the edits, just give everyone a chance to conserve. I mean, Tom's usually >> Absolutely. >> Um,
yeah. I mean, you know, so kind of following it from if if special circumstances of of the site, it surroundings or the proposal negate the need, right? Yeah. So >> had proposal that Nikki and it confused me and I realized why.
>> Yeah. No. Yeah, I agree with that. Well, yeah. Okay. >> Um, so that would mean at the end of number two, we would put a semicolon instead of a period. Um, also in number one, I think it's standard practice, uh, where it says the objectives of this
section, I think it might be better to put of this section 8.13 after that. It's been my experience that even if you say this section, you still label it. And that might be true for the bottom where it says paragraph C under number
three. Um, it might better be put paragraph 8.13-2C. And if it's okay with everyone, if somebody could explain what this sentence means that we just added the 8.132C to I just didn't quite understand it
about the affirmative or negative vote. And again, if it's something that's better, just dealt with me over an email. Tell me. We don't have to take up time with it now. >> No, it's quick. It just means that uh voting to
allow a waiver or to disallow a a request for a waiver or to allow a request for a waiver uh is not equivalent to voting to issue the permit or deny the the permit. So for example,
uh there could be waiver considerations that are part of a special permit application and the board may vote on such waiver applications in the affirmative and then go on to deny the permit. >> That's what I thought this might mean. Okay.
>> Yeah. So that's that's it. It's as simple as that. It's just saying that you know >> uh you know the consideration of of the waiver is not to be confused with the consideration of the permit itself. >> Yeah. And this language was copied from the solar one that Donna's, you know,
approved a couple of times. >> Yeah. One of the sentences, the more I read it, the less I understood it and I had to leave it. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Sure. And Jeff, did you have another one? >> I did. Page five
>> um under um three. And then just in terms Stop for a second. If we're listing a three here, shouldn't um the um lot size be an A? Shouldn't we do >> Oops, sorry. That was not
>> Shouldn't it go >> Shouldn't it go three then A B C and so forth? >> Um A1, A2, A3? >> Lot sizes. I think you changed it. Okay. Uh go up. >> Yeah. So this Well, this is A1, right?
And then two and three. We jumped around a little bit. Um, find three again >> right there. >> Okay. Find three. Oh, okay.
Wait a second. And then underneath is large size. >> Yeah, >> maybe. Okay, maybe it's changed. B >> I would >> I would >> Yeah, let's not do this because I'll make sure you know once we go because we
have to have it go through Donna and whatever, but I'll make sure that whatever the >> hierarchy is is consistent. Okay, >> we do, >> excuse me, we do have a bylaw that states that uh
formatting uh section concerns may be uh manipulated as needed by the town clerk or you know other I don't know the exact language, but it basically covers this situation. Um >> okay, >> it's good it's good to get it right. Uh
but just you know for to alleviate your concern about it you know we can uh we can tweak this stuff and you know the only thing that's really important is that um >> you know where there are references in
different sections of the bylaw that when if if we do have to tweak anything that we are very careful about making sure that we don't um um rupt any of the existing references. I
mean, it's good to get right if it is um I mean, I see how it how it works. Uh it seems correct. Um it may be helpful if uh the numbered items under the lettered items
are potentially indented um a little bit or something like that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I'm not concerned about I'm not concerned about it. I'm just bringing it up. Um I'm fine about skipping it. Let's go to maximum building area. Uh three,
I would suggest where it says uh facility height and unfinished space. I don't know if you'd mind or consider adding exterior buildings, storage facilities, and any associated equipment. So I wanted to include the exterior buildings and storage
facilities. Maybe that's um understood, but maybe it should be included as well. So inclusive of inclusive of facility, he hide and unfinished space. I would add exterior buildings or storage facilities and any associated equipment.
>> Yeah, I think well let me let me I'm just going to go up to the top for the definitions because that's how I approach it in definitions. Um uh this includes uh oh no, it doesn't include that. >> It doesn't include exterior buildings.
>> Oh, here we go. a data center including buildings, accessories, structures and equipment within the project footprint. So it would just be >> accessories. >> Okay. >> Carrying this concept farther down um because it's this is in the definition
but to your point we can make it more clear just so it's it's not confusing. >> So accessory structures would be uh exterior buildings or storage facilities as well. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um what what page is that? Um, I'm on page five under three. Um,
>> yeah, >> right there. as >> I was just going to include facility height and unfinished space, exterior buildings or storage facilities, but um
it doesn't matter. If you if you feel like it's included already, that's fine. >> No, no, no. I think uh just cuz it's in the definition, it'd be worth doing there. I think that's uh >> in um
>> including accessory structures >> including uh buildings uh exterior buildings maybe not necessary or storage facilities maybe not necessary. >> Yeah, they're all accessory structures. Okay, >> I've got a question. Um,
inclusive of So, we're talking area and then it says inclusive of facility height and unfinished space and then the next one we talk about the height of the structure. >> Yeah.
>> So, I'm I'm wondering if including facility height is >> should we get rid of it? >> Not needed here. I'm not sure what that means. >> I you know it it was tricky because it came you know it was part of the
conversation about um I think we agreed that height was there but it wasn't clear last time we talked and so I sort of put it in just to insert the concept to make sure everyone understood even though we define
um the I'm I'm gonna make you guys nauseous again for a second. Sorry. Um the gross building area is really includes the height um because it says all floors. >> Well then it's well so I think what
they're talking about as I would again since we're talking area >> Yeah. >> which is two dimensions, >> right? >> Um that would be if and it's 5,000 square feet. So, if we had a 2500 square foot first floor and a
2500 foot second floor, that's 5,000 square ft, >> right? >> But, um, so that in this includes all floors, blah blah blah. So, that makes sense. Um, but then when you add in the height,
then we're talking volume, I guess, or that's where my mind went was on that second one down farther that we were looking at. Yeah, I was assuming it was volume, you know, like it seems weird to talk about volume in this stuff. I, you know, like when I was learning geometry
or whatever, whenever you learn volume, >> it's like that's the 3D measurement. When it says all floors, you know, it seems like that makes it be volume. >> Not really. I think because it could be
a a floor a room with a 8ft ceiling or a room with a 10-ft ceiling. We don't really care as long as it doesn't exceed that exterior height. You know what I mean? >> Yeah. >> Um or like they could have a basement or
two basement, >> right? Um, and as long as it doesn't exceed the 5,000 square foot area and doesn't exceed our, you know, exterior height above grade. >> Yeah. >> The volume doesn't really matter to us. >> So, do you think volume is different
from gross building area? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Should I say just the volume, gross building volume? >> I don't think we want to go to volume. >> Okay. >> I mean, houses aren't measured in volume. They're measured in square footage. Yeah, that's it seems like it's
a different >> lingo for this. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, so if this is this >> while we're on this, uh, what I don't know if Tom, you want to say something? >> Oh, yeah. I mean, yeah, I'll say what I
was going to say and then it might be, but um, on page five where this comes up, we could just say maximum gross building area and then just put Oops. Sorry. >> Let me You get there first.
>> Yeah, I'm here. >> Okay. So, after number three, it could say, imagine it just saying maximum gross building area dash and then skip the next sentence altogether because gross building area has already been defined above >> and just go to the next sentence.
Facilities greater than 5,000 square feet in gross building area are prohibited. Would that work for everybody? >> Just adding the word gross twice. >> Um so like that.
>> So >> I mean we could add as defined above but it is defined above what gross building area is. >> Yeah. Um >> so grow my understanding is by the definition above gross building area includes exterior buildings, storage
facilities, any associated equipment that include that is that is gross building area as defined above. >> Am I correct in that Tom and Michael? >> That's how I read the definition on page two or page one
>> building. That's what the definition includes. So yeah, I mean if people are good with this that that's an elegant solution. So >> okay, >> do we need to make any similar edits and the other uh place where you uh
I think define it for small and micro. Let's look at that. >> Staying on page five for one, you might want to um in the very next part in sighting requirements, you might want to um put gross building area again. Uh >> yeah,
>> that was the last thing I wanted to say about that section. >> I did have a question about small and micro and the wording of them. >> So at the top the definitions we're talking right? >> Yeah. um right here
>> for micro data center um I thought it would have said is not greater than 150 square feet >> oh that's uh that's the uh >> or 150 square feet or less actually
because that's what we say later 150 or less >> which for me just brought up the question why isn't small data centers given a range of 100 of greater than 150 square ft but less than 5 not greater
than 5,000 square ft. Um because that would mean all micros are also smalls but not all smalls are micros. I mean, yeah, that's >> I don't know if you want to say less than 5,000 or not greater than 5,000
>> such 4,9.99 doesn't become >> Tom, you missed your calling. You You would have made a maybe you did a a great copy editor, technical editor. >> Yeah, the the world is better for people
whose brains work like this. It's definitely not mine. Oh, does that cap does that that does it right? There's no >> Well, the the comma before the is in the micro data center should Oh, no. There should be a comma after equipment related equipment or you can take out
the comma after cooling equipment. Either two commas or no comma. >> Okay, >> there we go. >> Hold on. Um, >> I want to point out that accessory structures is not in this definition right here. >> Oh,
>> it's it's up here for all data centers right there. Well, that's okay. So, um >> maybe that should be put down in the gross building area definition and taken out up there.
>> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. So, here's here's a question. What's the difference between gross building area and floor area? floor area. >> I I think I mean the way I interpret it and I totally could be wrong. When I
think about floor air, I think like Keith said, it's two dimensional, >> you know, and then you you could have multiple floors in which case you're getting to a 3D dimension. It's >> well, not really. >> They're both >> I think both the way you describe gross
here is that uh I think somewhere it says measured from the exterior walls of the building. >> Yeah. So floor area would have been interior floor space. >> Yeah. Right. Right. >> So we're just kind of talking how big a building could be. >> It's defined in our bylaw. So let's have
a side by side if if we could. >> Okay. >> Um where it's it's in our Hold on. >> Yeah. So if you go, you know, you go to definitions and search, if you do floor area, page 81.
Where did you say Nathan? >> It's on page 81, but I'd like to have it if you >> Yeah, he's gonna You're gonna copy and paste it in there. >> Oh, man. You are >> Hold on one second. >> I just got to move you guys so I can do that. You're lucky I'm good at this
stuff. Um, okay. For Ariel There you go. Yeah. Seems like a good catch. >> So here's the I mean I just don't I'm confused. So do you think floor area
in includes oh combined total gross of area of all floors. So it is that >> okay. So we don't need this definition of gross. We just have to >> Yeah. Just find and replace gross building area with floor area.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It may not be quite so simple as that, but we've already made some edits that would probably move us in the right direction. May I add something to this too? >> Yeah, please.
>> Um, if you just scroll up a little bit to um, data center. >> Yeah, >> perhaps that last sentence just doesn't need to be there. >> Agreed. >> It's not really the definition of it because some do exist that are greater than like you're really getting at the
prohibition that's spoken to later with that sentence. But if it weren't there and if the floor area includes the things like the floor area of accessory structures and it appears as though it does um then that sentence doesn't have anything
that we I think need there in the document. >> But I think to Jeff's point we would take the buildings accessory structures and put it in the micro and the small >> so it was clear that a micro included those things.
Well, I think we're going to be um replacing gross building area with floor area and micro and small. And then in the floor area definition, I'm reading something about accessory already there. >> Well, it says the basement. Well, it
says the basement or attic space in connection with the principal or accessory use. It doesn't say anything about out buildings in the >> floor area. I think that second sentence of the floor area one might be tweaked for the purposes of this document. >> Um,
>> hold on. Hold on. >> Get the accessory in. >> Tom, >> yes. >> So, floor area is a it defines a calculation. The calculation is applicable to structures whether it's a principal structure or an
accessory structure and within the regulation of a bylaw which either allows or disallows said principal structure or accessory structure is where you may you know uh dictate uh how
that definition applies right or you know how how you're going to apply that definition to your item. So let me ask another question is uh why would we reference
floor area in both the definition and in the section of regulation? Um well I I guess what I my answer would be sometimes having duplication in different places makes it
clear because you're going back and forth if you're reading about data centers and you can say you can easily ascertain what the floor area would be and what's allowed. Um, like I guess I go back to, you know, the solar thing when Jeff was really insistent that the
size of allowable parcels was only in definition. You would read through the whole solar thing and you'd be like, it doesn't say anything about size and people would I mean, I used to get confused. It's like, I know it's here. I can't find it. And then I would remember, oh yeah, it's in the definitions.
>> So, as long as you know it's not something that's, you know, inconsistent, I think it's sort of helpful in that. That's my thought. Well, so two things, you know, based on the way you just described that, it seemed that having it in the definition
was confusing because you're looking like what is this? Um, and two, I uh well, I don't disagree that repetition is the key to learning.
I would say that, you know, when you're constructing uh documents, it's um uh I I think it makes more sense for things like that to be identified in in a single place to
prevent potential errors um of having them in two different places and poss I you know, if you're talking about just having a number in two different places, you know, you know, you can take it, but it's, you know, I think it makes more sense to have it in one place. I think, uh,
right, you know, and the other thing was with solar, uh, there was, you know, the we never got any proposals, right? But, you know, if they were, they were going to, we all know they were going to be
greater than 15 acres. And so now it's like, okay, well, it says it's limited to 15 acres in the definition. And the special permit um or the, you know, the regulation in our bylaw says that, you know, in a
special permit application, the board can wave provisions of this section, but if it's in a definition, it's in a different section. So you run into this. I mean I I think you could do it. I Jeff always said you could do it, right? But you I think it makes it cleaner if you have it
contained within the section and the and and leave the definition to just um you know the definition should be a guide for what section applies for your you know what I'm going to I'm going to submit an application. You know what
section of the bylaw is going to be the regulation governing my use? Right? Where do I figure that out? That's based on definitions. That's what definitions are for, right? And and when I want to go and figure out, okay, what's permitted for this use? You know, what
are my requirements? You know, like we have a dimensional table, right? But, uh, that's like a a general thing. You know, no use is going to be permitted over uh 20,000 ft, right? We can say we're going
to limit it to 5,000 ft for data centers. But suppose we get an application and it's going to be 5200, you know, or it's it's going to be they want to make it 10,000 ft, which is allowed by the bylaw. And the reason that they're doing
that is because, you know, it's not all like server racks and and battery storage and things. They've got some office space in there, right? they want to be able to um you know do some you know uh you know for whatever reason, right? But
it's it's not uh I mean you're just talking about a a bigger building, but you're not talking about necessarily drawing like twice the amount of energy from the grid or having twice the amount of backup generation, right? and you say, "Okay, you know, we can make an
exception for that uh restriction in the in the bylaw." But if it's in the definitions, too, it makes it it makes it less clear that we have the authority to do that. >> Um, it's not an unreasonable argument. Um,
I wouldn't I wouldn't what's die on my sword over that one. Um I think you know what I would say is we should keep data center in the definition section >> because you have to define what things are. fully agree with that. Yeah. And
you know and if you do you know if you know the board agrees to move away from including the size in the uh in the definition
the you know micro data center small data center you could argue to remove those from the definition and and specify that in the in the regulation I I would I would keep them in and say, you know, it's a you
know, a data, you know, I kind of I I I have a markup of this. You know, it's not necessarily the most refined thing, but I do have it. Um well, I would keep wouldn't I would just keep this language. And if we move this highlighted section out of the
definitions, I would just cop cut and paste it into the 8.13 section. >> Yeah, we could do that. I I mean I like having them in the definitions because they're in the use table,
but uh you can kind of you know I think you have a place in the definitions where these are there and where you say you know it's 150 square feet or 5,000 square feet. Um and he would say and he would just say here you know micro uh mic uh micro data
center is a a data center in which the uh built facility is um or where the you know the gross floor area uh
adheres to the specifications in section what 8 point whatever >> 13 >> yeah 8.13 if if everyone's all right with that. >> I just got I just got confused, but Keith should go because she was going to say something. Well, I I guess now I'm
I'm I'm trying to go back in our conversations of, you know, when these when it first came up, I think our at least my my in my mind's eye was the big massive facilities being built in other areas.
And so we were talking about scale of these things. And I'm I'm as we're going through this I'm looking at micro data center of you know a 10 by 15 foot room or building and I'm like that's not even the size of
a shed. Um and do we even need to have that in here? Could we just have small data center anything less than 5,000 feet or less and large data center greater anything greater than 5,000 ft
and just um so actually I was looking back at the use table and we have data centers under industrial but again a 15 by 10 foot shed to me doesn't I mean it kind of
cheapens the term industrial Um that perhaps small data centers would be under the business and then we save and put large data centers under industrial and just um
consider them prohibited in all zones. You don't have to do that because we have a prohibitive bylaw and you you say what's allowed in the in the statement >> and you know I mean when you say you know we say we're allowing small data centers and you know we have a limit of
5,000 ft. >> Okay. you know, and and we as a board would have the option to expand that to a max of 20,000 ft because the waiver clause does not give us the authority to allow
the a primary building, you know, or the buildings for the primary use to be greater than what is it 20,000 feet in forest conservation or or 10,000 feet. >> Right. Right. uh town center uh rural uh roadside residential, whatever it is.
>> Um okay. I mean I mean my thinking, you know, there's two parts I think you brought up, Keith. One was what categories are they in? Um I mean technically you're probably right that a micro is more businessoriented than industrial. Um we could do that. It's just a you know then you have to sort of
find it but we could do that. Um, I think the other part for me the reason having the micro in there is because of site plan review. So, >> yeah. Yeah, I I I just picked up on that. Yep. >> Yeah, good point. >> Generally speaking,
the sections of the use table are, you know, organizational and uh have no effect. We have light industry listed twice. >> Yes, we do. >> Is what would it take to tidy stuff like that up?
>> Um, that I think we could probably do because I think that in our amendment where we did that, we said we were moving it, you know, we said what we were doing. Um, and I think that the
edit of the document uh was just botched. So, it's a botched edit. It's not a change of material fact. And it's if anything, it would be bringing our our you know, you can we could check, right? But I
think we could do that. >> Yeah. I mean, they don't change anything because they're identical. So, it's just >> Right. >> Well, that's that's that's the thing, right? Um now there is one exception news category. You want me to scroll to somewhere Nathan?
>> Um uh not yet. lost it. Man, there's so much stuff in the bottom. You know what I wish we had is headings. you know, for both the word document and for I mean I suppose we do have some
stuff in the Yeah. um so that you can basically you know navigate you know via like headings if you're looking at a a PDF document or a word document you know the different sections are properly uh with proper headings heading formatting so that you
can you know say all right you know I'm looking at you know article 5 open space design now I need to go back to whatever I'm doing All right. I want to say section 8.5-2. >> You want to say that? You can say that. Do you want me to go there?
>> If uh Yeah, if you would. If you can bring up our uh >> Yeah. You don't see it? H >> I'm >> I see floor area. >> This this is in our our posted bylaw.
>> Yeah. Oh. Um Okay. I'm not >> It's on page 35. >> Okay. Um, and if you share just your word window, it might not. Uh,
>> you got Do you see that? I'm in the >> Should I stop? >> I'm going to stop see sharing and then reshare, I guess. Um, stop. Share. Share. What page? >> It's uh
>> Whoops. >> Oh, I just Oh my god. Uh, >> you said 8.5, right? >> Yes. 35. Page 35. But it's uh it's page 31 on the document I suppose. Right here.
>> Okay. Right there. >> It says uh um go down to uh 8.5- two >> non-residential uses >> identified as business uses and community uses in the use table
shall comply with the following standards unless such standards conflict with the restrictions on municipal regulatory authority contained. just a little so this is just the only reference I'm aware of to the higher
level categories of the use table. It's just an FYI to kind of you know say it's you know there is something in there for it and and moving you know if we were to move it from uh industrial to
business then it changes it changes it would make this com uh apply. >> So, better to just keep it industrial, I think, is the point, >> I think. So, and and also just a note of little FYI, this little funny uh
reference to it, but yeah. Okay. So, that's Thank you for doing that, though. >> Um um so, no, wrong one. Sorry. Yeah. Okay. So where we left it was taking micro and
small out of definitions and making sure they're in the body of >> and don't forget the last sentence there of the data center definition >> this >> and >> take this out.
>> Yep. But then put the you know if you want to we put the accessory structures down in that section of the regulation. >> Okay. >> You could cut you can cut it. Yeah. cut it so that you can, you know, you can use it parts of it if you need to and
then just But it might just be adding in. >> So it see it seems to me >> so under a gross building area. >> Yeah. >> Say that the uh limitations on gross building area in this section shall
apply to you know principal and accessory buildings. You might put it right like right under a >> permitted data centers. >> Can can we rehash why we want that? >> Well, that's I mean I I don't I wouldn't
say uh we necessarily want that, but if uh I think that's what the majority of the board wants. >> Well, so I I mean I'm not sure. I I forget the discussion where that cat put in. I'm thinking again our our initial concern was the
scale of the building. Um and >> I go ahead. >> Yeah. I I mean I have I guess I have two thoughts. One is I sort of don't want to retread some of them because then it gets sort of we just go back. But I
think substantively the more I mean the idea I think the conversation the way I thought about it was in a data center there's more than just server racks servers there's the
batteries there's you know whatever there might be an office there you know there there's a whole bunch of stuff that comes as a package deal. And so, um, you know, I mean, 5,000 square feet is, I mean,
that's almost two and a half times the size of my house. >> Yeah. >> I bet you there's some houses in town that are close to that. >> I No, I know. But I'm thinking if it's a data center, then like it start it's it's a big thing. Um, you know, the idea
was to sort of limit it. So, I I I sort of like having it be all the stuff that you're going to put associated with it is limited to that. >> Yeah, I guess I'm again I'm trying to think. We don't do houses that way. If somebody wants to build a a standalone garage or a shed
associated with a h I mean it kind of confuses the or to me the whole idea of limiting the scale of the building to our town the primary building.
Well, if you here's an example, if you had the server racks in a building, but then you've you know, you know, to Jeff's point of having the batteries external to the building, >> right? >> They're part of the operations. You
wouldn't count them or um you know, there's going to be other operational stuff. Maybe you have external fans for cooling. Like there's there's other accessory uses that are core to the operations. Um, and if it could just be that like, hey, we're going to make this thing as small as we can and then we'll
just have lots of outbuildings and that we can squeeze it in that way. It seems like it's a a loophole in terms of how, you know, >> I guess I'm trying to think of what we're trying to limit or what we're trying to um
control. Um and yeah, it's almost, you know, verging on the the accessory dwelling unit. Um that Yeah. So yeah,
if it was a if it was a uh hypothetical the the data center is one building unoccupied just a bunch of machines and then a small office building
affiliated with it. We would permit that as one one facility. I guess >> I that's how we would do it. I mean I think it opens up the example that Nathan had which is like you know if
I mean this would be a discussion for the board to consider but you know by com by requiring them to be a total of principle and accessory use you're saying it can only be so big. if they came back and said, "Wed, you know, well, we got a we got a pretty close
dimensional fit to what you're asking for for the actual operations of the data center, but we have this little office somewhere that we're going to stick on." I think that's a subjective discussion for the board to have of like, you know, what are we trying to do? But, um, the waiver provision sort
of gives us that flexibility if we want to have that conversation with someone. >> Okay. You know, I I think it's all right, Keith. I mean, I you know, it's not how I would do it either. And uh but it's you know, it's uh
>> Yeah. No, I'm good with that. And and you know it might it may be like cleaner Michael to just put uh at the end of each micro data center small data center you know 150 square ft or less and gross building area inclusive
inclusive of principal and accessory structures. Okay, I can I'll change the gross area. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that works. >> Okay.
Okay, that was a robust conversation. Definitely clarify. >> Yeah, it was good. >> Um >> I mean it's getting uh starting to get on in time here. >> Yeah, >> there was one thing. Oh, let's um
>> I I do have two other things to say if I could. >> Yeah, please. >> Uh one is it's a minor thing for all of us except for um Matteo. When um Nathan and Michael, you say Jeff, you're talking about Jeff Lacy sometimes and
and Matteo doesn't know that he um that you're talking about Jeff Lacy and not Jeff Weston. So, I would encourage when you say Jeff just to throw in Lacy so he understands. >> That's that's a good point. >> Um anyway, for Matteo because he wouldn't know. Um
>> why don't you want a nickname? >> You can call I said I taught for 37 years. I've been called many things and uh Ashley probably has as well. So um you can call me something else besides Jeff if you'd like. >> We should refer to Jeff Lacy just as
Lacy. >> Yeah. Or whatever. Uh or make up another name for me. Either is good. I wanted to go to sighting requirements if I could on page five. >> Can we stop at three first? >> Uh sure. >> Or I mean unless we I mean I don't care
>> if it's I don't want to ruin your train of thought. >> Yeah. Go, go, go to that. We'll go back to three. >> The sighting um on page five. >> Yeah. >> Um I'm trying to find it. >> Yeah, it's now on page six. >> Okay.
>> Okay, good enough. Um so from my read in this uh it it seems like um you could have multiple data centers on the same plot. >> Yeah, that's what we discussed last night. >> Yeah. Well, I don't think that we should
have multiple data centers on the same plot. That means 5,000. What's the difference? I mean, you can have like five 5,000 foot buildings on the same plot. So, I think it should be clear that one data center per plot. Um, >> well, and
>> but the second sentence that matters because it's a sum of the floor area of all the data centers. >> Well, maybe you should put the word however in front of that. Um, however, the sum of the floor area um will determine something like that.
shell. I think it should be clear that um there's only one data center per plot. That's that's my um two cents there. >> How about if rather than doing that if I just do it this way? So it's um
>> so they're two different things. The sum of the four >> would that be? >> I I don't think we should have multiple data centers on one plot. Well, >> I think we discussed it last time. It seemed like people were okay with that. Uh >> um well, I'm not I don't know about
everyone else. Um so, what's the difference between having a 30,000 foot data center center and um and and six 5,000? >> You can't >> you can you can have you can have
two 2500s. You could have five 1000s. >> Well, that's fine, but they have to be a total um a total amount of So, is that clear? Is it wasn't clear to me when I read that. >> I think it's clear, Jeff. >> Mhm.
>> Yeah, that's the intent. >> But what wasn't clear is the sentence to me anyway was the sentence data centers need not be contiguous on a parcel. >> I don't know what that means. >> They didn't have to be touching each other. They can spread be spread out.
We can get rid of it if it's unclear. >> Yeah, we don't give anybody ideas. >> Okay. How's that? >> It seems like they got to be separate. If they're going to be if they're going to be like five 10,000 data centers, there's got to be some space between them. Otherwise, they're just one bush
anyway. So, um I guess you don't need that sentence. Well, I don't know when when I'm, you know, Nathan said I'm not correct, which is fine, but when I read multiple data centers, I think of multiple data centers of 5,000 each. That's what I think of when I look at that. So, maybe
it can be clear. Uh, multiple data centers with a, you know, somehow a defining statement saying that they all have to add up to 5,000 ft. Or maybe that's just being redundant. I don't know. >> Well, I I I'll I'll give it to you, Jeff, that it is kind of an odd thing.
And although I and I do think that this may be stemming from discussions we had about whether or not we could have data centers on contiguous parcels. >> Yeah. And now we >> I think we missed that.
>> I think it should be clarified maybe um however you know even though there are multiple there may be multiple data centers in a single plot that the um that the what whatever the word is um can not be more than 5,000 square feet
in in uh in area. >> I think that's what it says. So it says the sum of the floor area right will determine the permitting status. What does that mean? >> So like >> it as you in the use table. So is it a
micro? Is it a small? Is it >> right right? >> Um >> so determine the permitting status. Are we opposed to putting in but it can't be bigger than 5,000 but all of them together can't be more than 5,000
square feet. >> Rather than that I would say we should uh reference the section directly above it. >> So we are opposed to that. >> Well I mean it's just
>> redundant. Yeah, it's you're saying this thing right here >> because you said it right immediately before. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um you could just put in parentheses multiple data centers with a with a combined, you know, volume of whatever
surface area of or or not include it. I'm just I'm just saying that when I read it, it's confusing to me. >> Okay. >> I'm kind of with Jeff on this. It it centered will determine the permitting status, especially
I don't know, maybe I'm it might be a misread or a misunderstanding on my part, but especially because, you know, by special permit, they can be larger. might not hurt to just put in here. They can't collectively be larger than
5,000 ft. >> Something like that I think would be useful >> for clarifying. >> How's that? is uh >> I I don't want to put in the the 5,000 square feet here. >> Okay. >> It's it's state it's stated that you
know the uh um yeah, you know, I do see how it is confusing though, Jeff. I think >> how about if we got rid of uh will determine the permitting stat the floor area.
How about if it just says the sum of the floor area for all will not be larger than 5,000 ft and get rid of determine the permitting status blah blah blah. >> So like what you just crossed out
this >> how about we just reference this? >> Yeah, reference. Um, >> so I mean this is interesting. You know, the other thing that brings up, right, is uh I feel like there are
other areas in the bylaw that speak to ownership and uh you know uh consistencies of ownership or entities within proposals and plans like that. Um I mean so I mean I'm
And and again, I think we were kind of like at first talking about contiguous parcels, not you know, multiple on the same lot. And then we started talking about whether you could do like a open space design kind of thing, >> right? Where subdivision, right? So, I
mean, I don't I don't think this is really addressing anything that we had a concern over. >> Do we just get rid of the whole thing? Yeah, let's get rid let's get rid of the whole thing. I >> I mean I'm I'm just asking. I'm not saying let's do it. What what do other people think?
>> Yeah, it it adds because it just d on on me. Um you know, we have a parcel or a lot could be an acre and a half or 500 acres. And
that's just another factor that kind of leads to the the logic or rationale behind the way we might word this. You know what I mean? Um it seems like a parameter that's missing the size of a lot.
>> Uh because we obviously with a house if you're putting a residence in there's requirements for three acres. Correct. I mean for the most part. >> Yeah. It depends on Yeah. Two acres I think. Two what? I don't know. It varies, but yeah, something like that.
>> So, I mean, I I imagine I we all know, I mean, maybe, you know, that there's lots out in the middle of the woods that are, you know, 08 acres that have just been passed on from family member to family member for generations. And
is it okay for someone to build a data center on one of those? >> Again, we kind of get into like the subdivision rules, right? If somebody has a big plot of land, >> okay, how many houses go up in this? >> There's uh too many questions to answer
right now. All right, we got to revisit this. Um, >> you know, basically uh we got to put a pin in it. Okay, >> I have a suggestion just not about this particular thing, but um I think Nathan
in I think your email about the agenda for the meeting, you wanted to set a public hearing date. I think that the in between stage is running it by Donna. So if we highlight this and ask Donna if there how it seems to her and what she
thinks um in terms of wording, could we get rid of it? Could we keep it? Could we define it better? um de and then because what we always do is ask Donna, we do a rewrite and then we come back and go over it. So when we go over it the next time, we could either jettison
it or accept her comments or whatever. But um that might be a good way to go. >> Let me ask this. Does anyone have a problem striking it? >> I feel like this conversation has gone on so long that I'm kind of like punch drunk from it and I don't want to make
that decision right now. Maybe we can each think about it offline on what the problem is that we're trying to address with this section. I mean, I kind of get it, but I can't really >> articulate it very well. >> Okay.
>> It's clearly mined into something sort of bigger, at least in the last five minutes or so. >> Yeah. >> All right. Yeah. Does anyone have anything else they want? Anything separate from this they want to talk about before we move on. Section
>> Yeah. >> Do you talk >> section three or page three? >> Section three. >> Section three or page three? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh page three. Uh number three. Um >> this one.
>> Why must a battery be located external to the facility? That would that would be for Jeff to answer because I mean I know but I don't want to take his wind steam away. Okay. >> Uh this is Jeff Weston, right?
>> Yes, you. The other one's not here. >> Um that's a good question. Um it is possible um in a data center um to have a water um some kind of uh
sprinkler system. Matter of fact, it's mandated if the structure is over 5,000 ft, but you can have them less than 5,000 ft. So, my concern about that was um to have a uh lithium battery um
backup and then you have a fire. you have a water um sprinkler system and then the water sprinkler system goes over the lithium batteries. So if you put the lithium batteries
outside um then you don't run into that same kind of um issue. >> That is that was my suggestion. >> Okay. I think we should somehow just uh I I think we should strike that. I think
NFPA 855 and the mass fire code is pretty detailed on internal installations of of batteries and containment and isolation and fire suppression. Um that it may be for the town safer to
have these in a isolated room inside a block building than to have them stand alone outside the building. So, I guess I think we should just defer to NFPA855. Um I I
I yeah I um >> I I I think just following up on that, if we look at E, we talk about the direct application of water or foam with PAS. So Jeff, that would include sprinklers, correct? >> Uh yes.
So you have a situation where you have um a sprinkler system and you have lithium batteries inside. So if there's a fire um in the building, one would assume that the lithium batteries could also catch on fire and then we're in a situ situation where water is sprayed
over the lithium batteries. Then we have all those contaminants going right into our groundwater. So that's that's where NFP855, if you have lithium batteries inside a building, they have to be in an isolated container, not subject to being sprinkled by a general sprinkler system.
And again, if it's a a room a building full of of computer electronics, I'm not sure they're going to have a water sprinkler system in there. But again, the the you can get online, you can get free access to NFP855
and read through the chapters um chapter and verse on on how these things are installed. I don't know that we have the expertise or need to delve into things like that. >> Yeah, Jeeoff, what I would suggest to me
is just like if you look at live here, we're sort of saying that a different way. Um, so that you know, you you wouldn't have the sprinklers going on the batteries. You know, you might flood you might flood the rest of the building, but to
Keith's point, if you had an isolated in a contained area, there wouldn't be water directly going out of the batteries. I mean, that the fire code, they they are pretty in the weeds on everything about the installation of these batteries. I mean, it's it's pretty
crazy. I mean, I know firsthand um just in my house. >> I wanted to add >> Well, anyway, I'm sorry. What were you going to say, Tom? Was it Tom was speaking? >> Yeah. Um, thanks Jeff. As far as 3e as
well with um application of water being prohibited, um it is my understanding that in some cases water can be used to help cool a thermal runaway and whatnot. It is never the first choice, but there
are some um contained systems that in the worst scenario do allow for um the application of water to the battery unit in a contained um structure if it's just not um responding enough
with letting it burn out over time. So I feel as though 3E might be except for the PAS or toxin oriented portion of it, but the prohibited part and everything. I feel as though that belongs more in the um emergency
response plan that would be generated. >> Well, the emergency response though is not nec thinking about the environmental impact. Like they'll say we want to we want to contain thermal runaway, but they're not going to be thinking about the the runoff or anything like that.
>> Yeah. I I had a suggestion for that because I thought PAS was the focus. Um just to reward it to say firefighting and heat suppression agents containing PAS chemicals are prohibited. >> That's how I
would suggest it for this one as well. >> Question on that. Is this like uh are we talking about firefighting or heat suppression equipment that is maintained on premise or is the idea
that this would be applicable to any emergency response? >> I don't know that we're going to tell the fire chief what he's going to use to respond to an emergency. But I think we could say for anything installed on
site, we could say no PAS chemicals, >> but I don't know that we want to get involved in the fire departments. Uh >> well, I don't know if we have the authority to to do that, >> right? >> Or I mean, you know, it I mean, suppose we do have the authority
to impose that in the bylaw, it wouldn't necessarily have the effect of preventing it from happening. it would potentially constitute a violation of the bylaw should emergency response come and use PAS or spray water
on it if if the provisions are like this in our bylaw, right? And then you say, "Okay, well now that's a violation of the bylaw and your special permit uh has been violated and we're revoking your use, right?" But that doesn't I mean,
you know, so that pushed them out of business, but we've still had, you know, water go over it or whatever. And, you know, potentially the uh effect that we're trying to avoid is not avoided. And it just results in in shutting down
the econom economic activity that we're trying to allow in balance with public health and welfare, right? You know, I mean, I think these questions are difficult to answer. Uh, I mean that's what that's kind of like one of the questions I had, right? Which was, you know, uh
um >> that might be out of the realm of of zoning to say, you know, fire, you know, unless you're talking about just equipment that's maintained on premise, right? >> I I think maybe just installed equipment that they would have again >> the various fire suppression mechanisms
that would be installed in a battery container that >> they can't use PAS chemicals. you know, e even that you're starting to get uh I think in real uh danger of uh you know, running a foul of uh the document you keep referencing, Keith, right?
>> I But well, yes and no, though. I mean, 855 is definitely the go-to. Um but I think there's lot I mean, just sort of thinking about how towns are approaching this. Towns are all over the map in terms of, you know, how they're thinking
about it. And like I was having a conversation yesterday and my feeling is the way you get ahead of it is you have design requirements that are associated with with precaution and safety. So, I mean, what I was what I'm think based on what I've heard was um if
we scratch 3A and we expand 3B to talk about that any lithium ion batteries have to be in a contained sealed room or facility, whether internal or external, you know, but that it's
contained. So, it gets to the fact that they're isolated, which is what Jeff Weston's thinking about, but we get rid of the external part. Um, and presumably there's going to be no water on those. I mean, it I haven't seen what Tom said
about some place sometimes you want to have the water to to bring down the temperature um to prevent the whole runaway getting worse, but it does beg the question of then containment of runoff. Um, >> and that's that's a separate issue.
Again, I think if we if we get into the emergency response realm, again, fire chief ain't going to listen to he ain't going to read the zoning bylaw. >> He's going to address whatever is sitting in front of him. >> Well, I think that's discussion on the front end like that the training and
orientation to say, listen, you know, this is different, you know, and you should be reading reading the bylaw, reading 855. Um it's not just a houseire kind you know kind of thing. Um >> so I'm going to suggest an approach is
you know one we have provisions for emergency response plans emergency incident plans right and you know I think we can add a provision that uh that says you know the the planning board may impose conditions
uh related to fire suppression and emergency uh response provided that they don't violate uh fire code or or other applicable uh laws um
something like that. So that when we get an application and we go through the documentation and we hire, you know, a consultant on the on the petitioner's uh dime to review this stuff and we see if we see a problem, we can
figure it out. And the bylaw says that we can impose conditions with respect there too. That way we don't have to say oh you know they got to be outside they have to be a 75 foot buffer right there has to you know all these specific
things we can say you know the um you know somewhere you know in the purpose it could say you know a primary concern with uh data centers and uh you know their ancillary systems would be
um contamination getting into the environment, right? Uh especially in the event of fire, you know. So you review of these uh emergency response plans and
uh procedures uh with you know both the inst you know the entity that will be operating the data center with local emergency response is going to be a key part of special permit review process and the planning board may implement
additional conditions with respect there too to ensure public safety and we don't have to put this all here right Now it's something to roll around. I mean I mean everybody share doesn't you know everyone shares concerns about uh our drinking war
but I think you know it's very difficult to address everything you know with some of these specifics up front. >> So here's building on that. I mean, I guess the way I would respond is like
I'm not as attached to the external as long as we put in the, you know, isolated facility because it seems like the way you're describing it, there's the initial design for the construction and then this emergency response and so it the parameters around
construction and design are within our Bailey wick. So I would say you know B for the individual containers and C for the buffers and D those are all design things of like how you build this thing.
Um and then taking E and in some version of what you said um put it in the emergency response being a smidge more I think it's it's important to say what the concern is because if we just say public health welfare and safety it's
really vague. Um but to talk about the protection of drinking water etc etc. Yeah it points it points in the right direction. So that would work for me. I mean Jeff is that how do you Jeff Weston how do you think about that? um my um you know, already uh we've spent
as a town um $700,000 um on um on um on trying to um mitigate the pollution that um that we have from PAFS and and and some oil
contamination as well um in our aquifer. So, my primary um you know, I do the best I can to represent the people that voted for me. And if if I listen to their voices
internally, I'm saying, well, um we really need to protect our aquifer. So, I think there must be some uh you know, some protection. And I would prefer it in a bylaw to um mitigate
possible problems with contaminating our aquifer. And I don't think we could depend on the fire chief um in reality. Um, so I think there should be something in um in the bylaw somehow separating
um the uh lithium batteries from the rest of the building that might have a water suppression system or whatever whatever fire suppression system that they include. There should be some kind of separation. Um um the reason why I thought external is
because you know these lithium batteries burn you know extremely hot and my concern is that um water suppression from the other facility if there's a fire would get into the lithium batteries and create leakage which would go right into our aquifer. So that is my
concern. Um, I I'm overwhelmingly concerned about our aquifer. >> Uh, oh gain that we might have is Ashley. What do you got? You're muted. Has anyone spoken with the fire chief? I think I saw in the last meeting that
from the minutes that was it Keith and I'm sorry like because I'm not obviously doing it myself but is it worth having a conversation and just you know asking if is PAS something that is a possibility
does that exist in the foam that you would use? Do you all have a plan for something like this? So I I I've got I I can add some stuff I heard I I listened to the board of health meeting from last month and um so it's
secondhand third hand I guess from um Katherine was relaying a conversation she had with Chief Zwanka where he and they were talking about the Wheelock batteries and he expressed he had less concern for
those than he did for he and I think the word the what he relayed to her was he he's not worried about those he's worried about the tools and the scooters and the ebikes he says that he he firmly believes and this is again second or
third hand firmly believes the first house fire he responds to in Shootsbury related to a lithium ion battery is going to be a tool or an ebike or some device in somebody's house >> he's probably not wrong >> yeah and he any And it again he I think
he talked about how stringent the wiring code and the fire code is as far as installation of these things that that it's very and I think she talked to Mo too uh and he he concurred that that uh the way these things the big commercial ones are installed or home ones are
installed that they're of a less concern than the toys and the scooters and the bikes. Um second the foam. So I I did some a deep dive just because I enjoy this stuff. Uh the AF that's used for firefighting,
Aquis film for foam which is the source of the PAS contamination in our town and pretty much every PAS contamination site in the world relates to training.
The PA the the foams used historically were upwards of 40% PAS. So for five gallallon jug of of firefighting foam that would then be mixed with firefighting water, five
gallons, three gallons of that is pure liquid PAS. And so what happened is at airports, at military bases, at any firefighting training sites where they trained with these foams, it was day after day, week
after week of applying these foams because it was thought that they were benign and they weren't harmful. Come to find out that all these sites are now contaminated. That's why it's at our fire station. And I haven't talked to um Walter or or Chief Serwanka on and
they may not want to share it because I don't know what you know litigation hold might you know the town liability of the town of exactly you know since the 1960s or 70s when these chemicals started being used in firefighting.
um how many times did the fire department train with this and do they have a a you know an estimate of how much they used that caused our contamination problem? So the take and I think I might have shared this with you Michael. So the takeaway is that the
groundwater contamination from PAS is from very highly concentrated concoctions of of PAS chemicals. Um, if you look at what's typically in uh, you
know, your can of Scotch Guard or something like that, which is the other source of PAS, uh, it's it's much less. Um, so I think I I couldn't find any evidence where the use of firefighting foam at a at a emergency response
resulted in groundwater contamination. Most of that runs off down a sewer, into a creek, whatever, and flushes down, dilutes its way through the system until it's gone. Um, the soaking into the groundwater was
specific to training facilities where it was used over and over and over again. Um, and typically foam, the whole purpose of this aquous film forming foam is for petroleum fires. It's not electrical fires. that's used for
gasoline, oil, airplane fires, things like that. So, I don't know that a battery or a data center, foam's not even gonna they're not going to use foam. >> Thank you, Keith. That's very illuminating.
>> You know, uh I we got some things to think about here. Um so, I guess I the only thing I would add and I appreciate the information Keith provided. I think you I knew I heard a little bit of what you said but
not I mean previous to tonight. >> Um >> but uh >> sound like my wife. >> Yeah. Well, no. I wasn't listening. I don't think you told me that whole bit. Um, but I mean I feel like for the bylaw
it it's easily that in 20 years we could be discovering something new like you know so I'd rather sort of lean and because this is all relatively new technology anyway I'd rather sort of lean into the protective nature um for
these things because after the fact you know the barn door is open and like where's it's sort of there. So it's not to say >> I I'll offer I'll offer a counter to that the the rule of unintended consequences in that I you know
>> you might have the potential again I'm not saying this is you know the chemicals you could extinguish a runaway battery fire with certain chemical that has PAS and it could extinguish the fire
stop the process and be done with it or come and spray fire, you know, water on it to cool it for a day and have the runoff from that. So, you kind of weigh, all right, what damage are we talking about or, you know, what risk are we
talking the risk of putting a fire out quickly with a chemical that we don't like or letting the fire burn and emit whatever it's going to emit for, you know, six hours. And to add to that, you
know, if there's a crazy drought going on and we're concerned about lighting all of Shootsbury on fire, maybe you go for the quicker option. >> Exactly. >> And so that's why it's it is tricky to regulate for these things beforehand. I
think that some of it should go into the site plan design, but I also or sorry into the B bylaw. Like the 75 foot buffer seems like a good plan to me. >> Yeah. I don't know why we wouldn't put that. Um, I think I'm honestly, Jeff, I feel a
little concerned about putting the battery outside of the building. I get what you're saying with the water. I don't know. It would be interesting to see if other people have done this, but of course, I know we're sort of in
uncharted territory here by doing a data center bylaw. I I I suggested that just because of the possible water contamination. >> Yeah, I get it. >> In terms of PASS, um you know, I used to teach this stuff.
Not that I'm an expert in it, but PAS chemicals can last hundreds, thousands of years. They don't have a natural they don't degrade naturally. So, um I, you know, I respect everyone's, you know, varying opinions. It's just that
um I am overwhelmingly concerned about um our aquifer contamination. I am not so concerned about getting a um economic gain from the data center. I mean that would be wonderful but my main concern is protecting our aquifers. So that's
why I suggested some separation 75 feet so in case there's an >> in case there's a burn um it has to be separated because we don't have we only have a 3,000 3,000galon pumper and we could possibly keep the forest around
the um battery um from catching fire. But we don't have enough water, nor should we have enough we don't have enough water to certainly put it out. And we don't want to apply these chemicals that do not degrade naturally. You know, thousands of years they don't
degrade. So, um, maybe I'm feel differently from everyone else. That's possible. But I will not vote for something that possibly can contaminate our aquifers. I feel very strongly about
that and I could be the outlying vote and that's fine. But um I want to protect our aquifers as much as I possibly can. So that's the way I feel about it. >> Jeff, if you are the one outlying vote, I'm going to support that you get uh all
of your reasons for being so >> well. So here I want to and I feel if um we took a vote of the people that I that voted for me, they would probably agree with me in terms of the importance of protecting their efforts, especially the people around the fire station who are
dealing with that issue right now in terms of the valuation of their property in terms of um you know taking in PAS chemicals and other chemicals. They I would imagine that they feel very strongly about this. I I just explained
how that site happened. It wasn't an emergency response with a one-time application of a chemical. It was years, decades of repeated applications. Um, >> I
>> think you're mixing up you're you're you're mixing up uh potential outcomes. If I'm in a car and my car is on fire and there's a pool of gas under my car, guess what? You can spray all the PA fast you want all over me, my car, I
don't care. Put the fire out. Um, so I think Yeah, we're we're getting out of our lane, I think. Um, >> well, I I mean I would I mean >> we got to stop. We got to stop. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> We're just uh we're going around in circles. Michael, hold on. Hold on. Listen, >> I'd like to have 30 seconds to respond. Um, >> you know, no, no, I'm I'm cutting it off. Cutting it off. We got to we got to move on in on our agenda. All right. We're We've talked about this enough. >> Okay.
>> And and and you know, I I want to uh you know, I think uh Michael as a drafter of this has a tough task to uh distill the conversation we just had into uh how we're going to move. But
it's 8:49. Okay. We got a few things left on our agenda. I don't know if we're going to do all, okay? But, uh, so, you know, I'm I'm going to just leave one thing in that, you know, the
I don't know to understand the actual risk involved in one decision or another that that I think is our task, right? and and it's difficult to do that and not it's extremely difficult for any of us to do that. Okay. >> And hey Jeff, I apologize for um being
emotional or >> is this is what makes our planning board fantastic. We have differing opinions. we can express um with respect what we feel and then assume that we have the wise you know the wise council of all of
us together will make an informed decision that's best for the town. Yeah. So, it's January. We have uh so we've got this this se, you know, some of this stuff here is uh
uh we have questions on, but I don't know if it would be a terrible thing to to reach out to Donna and maybe start to get a legal review going on this. Yeah, I >> Yeah, I was gonna That's what I was going to suggest is like there's the
bulk of this stuff is is not in play. Um, you know, and Donna is not going to Donna's not going to chime in about the substance of this stuff unless it was a protective use protected use, which this really is not. Um, I mean, >> she she might if if she's afraid of uh
conflicting with like fire codes or or anything like that, but that, you know, probably not, right? But yeah, >> so we just set up a meeting. I send it to her and then we can come back in February and sort of hash out the substance and all. I've >> done my best to sort of reflect this conversation.
>> I'm sorry. Uh, say that again. >> I was saying we can set up a meeting with Donna sometime between now and the next meeting. Okay. >> Based on her input and this conversation, I can then put something out that we could talk about in February and then we can hold have public hearing in March.
Okay. And then uh should we uh do a uh send it out to like the concom? >> Yeah. >> Anyone else? Fire chief, you know. Yeah. I I saw in the minutes it said Nathan Murphy said he's going to
reach out to the fire chief. I was like I did. I forgot about that when we did our review, but um so let me let me do a little reminder for myself and I would you know obviously there's a lot of uh it's a you know I feel like
the discussion you know maybe this the discussion might be getting a little bit emotional. Um, so you know, if anyone, you know, uh, Jeff, Keith, anyone else that, uh, wants to,
you know, try and put together, um, some information on this that is can help, uh, help us understand, you know, what what kind of uh, risk we're looking at, right? and you know like to try and make
a decision of how you know we might approach that. Whatever you might have or might be able to put together might be helpful. Uh might be something that could be uh kind of supplemental materials. Um
so I don't know that's an idea. I don't know what we'll we'll get from it but uh we'll work with Donna. We'll we'll send it to other boards and uh and get some uh broader feedback on it.
>> I appreciate you reaching out to the chief. I'm interested to hear what Len has to say about it. >> Maybe want to come to a meeting. I don't know. >> Well, you know, and just a quick little addendum to conversation that Keith was
alluding to with uh Cat and everyone. Um, I bumped into her at the library opening and I think she said that the the fire chief more or less if there was a fire at one of the batteries on the wheelock site is his uh standing orders
are to to let it go >> and then you know control you know the area or whatever. So um that's uh but I think yeah um reaching out to the fire chief I can I can do that. >> I'm gonna
I am going to set a a reminder right now just because I need to. Uh and then we're going to I think probably have a brief conversation around uh what's next on the agenda? Is it
>> the dissenting opinions? Yeah, the minority opinions. And >> I think it it could be sort of quick. You want to multitask and do your reminder? reach out to fire chief. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. And flood planes is not pressing at all, so we can >> Okay. >> Yeah. And I sent out some notes before the meeting. Um, so I think I sent everyone a bunch of stuff based on the research which I was supposed to do. And so I mean I looked
at Robert's rules. Um, I looked at town meeting time, which is the guiding document for how we do town meeting. Eddie chimed in as moderator. Um, and I think so. Robert's rules,
town meeting time says nothing about it at all. There's no mention of dissenting opinions and minority reports at all. Robert's rules does. But the thing to note is Robert Rules says for every meeting, you know, so like if you're a nonprofit and you have a board and you run by Robert's rules, it's very
different from municipal government. It it's not necessarily, you know, I I think maybe Congress runs by Robert rules or the legislature does. So it's a lot of different things. Um what Netti made clear in her comments which I think everyone saw is that um for a town
meeting there's there's no minority report you know which is something that Robert Schules identified. So the way to think about it is there's a committee level minority opinion dynamic and then there's a town meeting minority opinion
dynamic and they can they should get treated differently because they're different settings. Um, so that's really the way to think about it. So what I told Nathan is, you know, my charge was to do the research and not sort of make a proposal, but I sent you the last document as a proposed plan only because
I had the impression people were going to like say you got all moving parts, but how do what does this mean? How do we do it? And so if I Nathan, can I take like just a couple minutes to outline that and then we can ask questions and discussion >> your proposal? Yeah, because it's more
it's sort of factual. It's based on the facts that I gathered, but it should have. Um, and we don't have to do it, but it it's explain why. Um, I think it's it was the best way to do it. Um, so >> are you going to share it? >> Oh, yeah, sure. I can definitely share
it. Um, you didn't memorize it. >> I read it. I did read it. >> I'm I'm cut to the quick. Um, okay. Can you guys see it? So, >> sort of like I said, there's sort of the
board level and the so at the board level standard procedure um on any matter at hand, the majority position prevails. And what both Robert Rule said and for town meeting is that
whatever the majority position is becomes the official opinion of the board. So there is no such thing as a minority report at the town meeting context. That's I can get to that in a second. But um if there is a written report from the board when we do a
public hearing for a bylaw, you know, or if there's a recommendation or a decision and we feel like we have to sort of write it up, um the substance of that can only be what the majority thinks based on our vote. Um and then there's two
who are in the minority opinion. Um and so what >> what did you just say, Michael? You cut out for a second. I'm sorry. Oh, for people who have a minority report, there's sort of two I mean a minority opinion, there's sort of two options at the board level. Um, so what's
interesting is that if we we've never done this before, but when we have our report or to town meeting about a hearing and just, you know, if someone says I I can't agree with this, you know, I want to make I want to go on record that
I desent. The way Robert's rules articulates it would be all the members sign our name or we have our names typed at the end of it after the report and then the individual or individuals who are dissenting can say they do not
concur and then have their names. So it goes on record that they're not concurring. Um you don't go into all the points. It just says that you're not. Um there is if there's one item it says if it is sentent is one item you can say
like I'm dissenting with section 4.73 but otherwise you just sort of say I don't concur with your name. So that's sort of one way to do it. Um, >> Michael, >> yeah, >> I I think on that it's more if like you you vote in the affirmative for the
report, but you know, you know, you know, with the exception of this one line, but you're still like approving the report. I thought that's that's how I read it. >> Um, that could be. Yeah, I that we could I think that's actually you're probably right or you could vote against the
whole thing. But yeah, I think that gets to the subtle point of like I'm in agreement except for whatever. You're right. Um and then the second thing which I think is really for us to decide is um if two or more members had a minority opinion, they could get
together and it's not a minority report. I came up with a minority statement is another term, but basically writing a document that then gets attached to the minutes. So it's more substantive. So it's like we don't agree. This is why it gets put at the official record along
with the minutes, but it stays at the committee level. It doesn't go on to town meeting. That's sort of the critical difference between Robert's rules and how town meeting works. Um, and then at town meeting, there's two things. One is that um only
the official recommendation um of the board gets presented to town meeting and it's either by the chair or a representative of the board. Um and that's the recommendation of the of the body. And then for people who are on the board who have different opinions, they
always reserve the right as members of town meeting in this case to express their opinions as part of the public debate. Um notably one can identify themselves as a member of the board. You just can't say that you're re, you know, it's not the recommendation of the board. But, you know, it's it's sort of
saying, well, I'm part of the planning board and I had all these conversations and this is what I disagree about. Um, but everyone always has the right to do that on the floor. Um, which is what Nathan did last time. Um, and then, uh, I think that's it. And I guess the
last thing I just note is, um, Ned's comments were based upon looking at statute and town council. So that's where the whole realm of how we actually do town meeting and why it differs from Robert's rules. Um and the last thing which is for another conversation is I
mentioned to Nathan that whatever we agree to we should codify and document somewhere. Um I'm thinking we might want to have a policy book or something like that so it actually can survive beyond this particular planning board. So in five or 10 years someone
says what happens if I desent there's a written answer somewhere. Um but I think that's a substant conversation. So that's basically what I found out um and why I sort of laid it out this way. Um does that make sense? Any questions?
>> Well I like to speak to it if no one else has any immediate questions. >> I do have a question. Um, I'm just wondering I I think I get it, but so let's say, you know, we pass this
bylaw on uh >> data centers. >> Thank you. Data centers. Um, and there's and I don't agree with it, you know, either completely or one certain part of it. All right. and and
also Jeff doesn't and and he and I dis disagree with the the same issues, okay? Or the same parts of the bylaw. So, we can write a statement that will be attached to the minutes of that meeting.
Um but the the bylaw still passes in the planning board and and we'll get voted on at town meeting and it's okay at that meeting for Jeff and I to stand up. Could we read that statement from the minutes and say we're on the planning board and you know we we have this
reason why we disagree. >> I think it'd be up to the moderator to decide if you could read it or not the moderator rules. Um, and I will say I mean one of the wonky argu Yeah. One of the wonky arguments around
the in the context of Robert rules is Robert Robert's rules say that only a group can do a minority report. Now we've established minority reports can't happen in town meeting but there was a discussion online about is a group more
than one person. Some people said you could be a group of one. So, I think that's like that's for us to decide. If you had if you had a strong opinion, we as a planning board could say, "Hey, if Ash's got really strong opinions, let her write up a minority statement and we'll take that document. We'll include
it as the um and attach to the minutes as well, you know." So, it's up to us to decide is a group two people and do they have to agree or can they just, you know, >> are not two people? I don't understand. >> I agree. I say what they said. Um,
>> wait, what? What was that, Ashley? >> I said, when is a group ever not more than one person? Like, how can one person be a group? >> But like, that's not even what it is. I just I'm just wondering like at what point do you cross a line at town
meeting? Like, if I actually read the minutes, assuming they've been approved already and they're public and all that, is that crossing a line or And you answered, you said the moderator deals with it. >> Yeah. Um >> well Ashley if I may um you can absolutely read it whether it's approved
in minutes or not. It matters not whatsoever if uh during debate you approach the microphone and are recognized by the moderator to speak though a time limit would be imposed on your remarks. So you can you can read whatever you want. It doesn't have to be
in the minutes. You can say you're on the planning board. But if it's, you know, like, you know, as it's uh as it currently stands, the idea is that um you know, you say you're a member of the board, but that you're speaking as a voter. >> Yeah. I mean, I couldn't read things
from executive session, >> right? Yeah. No, I think >> that's confidential information, but that's not uh >> So, anything that's not confidential and Yeah. And I'm not I I think I would be able to articulate any issues I had without having to read a statement from
the minutes. You know, I'm just I'm just giving a a sort of extreme example to see where the line is drawn. >> Yeah, I think the only >> say that's not extreme whatsoever. >> Yeah, I I would agree. I think the only asterisk I would add is that you probably couldn't say this is a minority report because those aren't recognized,
but you can say this is this is what me and Jeff think and then read something like that's totally cool. >> So, um, anyone else? Jeff Weston, of course, not Jeff Lacy. >> Yeah. Um, so I would say I uh I pretty
much disagree with these uh the kind of the way that this thing is constructed and uh I don't know. I I've I've been doing quite a bit of research on this myself. I haven't uh
uh collated it uh together. I think I'll probably uh put something together and uh send it to folks. Um you know, just to run through some things, you know, quick. I would say that, you know, the uh the minority report of a committee to an assembly can
be one person. Absolutely can be one person. Uh we'll get, you know, we'll get the the substance of that, you know, we'll do it. But for example, if uh if this board if we stood up a uh committee to uh even if it was five people to do something and put a report to the
planning board, I would I would rule as chair and it's my job to uh decide rules of order. Yeah. If one person on that committee uh submitted a report, uh I would absolutely allow it. And it would be uh if someone objected to it and a
majority did not vote to hear it then uh that would be that. But I would certainly accept the minority report from a single person. It's uh you know the use of individuals is not uh you know in the plural does not uh preclude uh an individual group of one
that's in a minority. Uh for example yeah it's and you're talking at the committee level not town meeting. Well, I'm It doesn't matter. And I would I would dis No, it doesn't. I would disagree that um you know, minority reports are procluded from town meeting.
It's provided for in the personnel bylaw and we've seen it in the past with uh you know, the finance committee. Um there is moderator uh discretion. Um obviously but I think the problem in our
situation is that the statutory provision for a planning board report to town meeting is being conflated with a minority report or whether one can be done. you know, the statute doesn't need to provide for
there being a minority report or including dissenting independ uh so you know one right if we wanted to in our report to town meeting include a section on you know if anyone's dissenting why
they desented we absolutely could do that if we voted to do it we don't need any we don't need we need nothing to do that >> except the majority vote of the committee >> but the moderator Michael, Michael, let me speak. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah.
>> Um and as far as uh if there's a minority in the board, I would go so far as to interpret it that um you know, in the town meeting context that you know, we a minority, whether it's one or two people, could put
together a report and submit it to the moderator, say this is a minority report. And if the moderator rules that they're going to accept it, they could do it. Simple as that. And they could let you, you know, let you go up and present. I know, you know, Ashley and Jeff are on
the planning board and they, you know, they did not concur with this report. And and this is what they have to say about. And then, you know, oftentimes if you, you know, if you give five minutes to the majority, you might give three minutes to the minority. And the same kind of thing may apply of like, you
know, if someone objects and you put it to a vote and you require a simple majority and it's not debatable, right? So I mean that's that's that's my take on it whether or not I mean I you know that I think that uh the moderator has
the authority to do that. So the only two things I would say is with our current town council and our current moderator, they've both agreed that that can't happen. So I don't think it's for this body to make that argument if you know if one wanted to make the
argument that they're wrong and try to convince them that that's different. Um but they >> we have no authority to impose that. >> Right. But it's sort of like >> right >> this is my this is my opinion that it's within the moderator's power to allow it.
Maybe um the other thing I would just say which is I think in Robert Schules what I which I found interesting is that the reason for committee reports to in an assembly whatever the committee is and whatever
the assembly is is that the assembly wants to know what the recommendation of the official recommendation which is why they say this is this is the board opinion um and it's not a majority opinion versus a minority. ority opinion. It's always the board opinion because people have to vote. And so
that's just one of the things that was written that I saw in the research is that the body always wants to know what you know the assembly wants to know what the committee basically represented. So um I don't I don't know if that informed Donna or Netti's opinion, but I I it
jumped out at me. So I mean I think we have to figure out we're going to do it as a board and then meeting is a different deal. Well, as a board, there's one thing that we need to do in my opinion, and that is to approve a, you know, our reports in the
future by a majority of the board. And what we did this last time was to not do that and say, you know, you, you know, you'll do a draft and get it to me, right? We can't do that, >> right? I agree. >> We we either have to, you know, I mean, if it's over 21 days, we can just say,
"Yeah, whatever." I I I would not support that approach obviously. Um you know, so we either got to do it when we have right after the hearing if we're in a crunch time or or we got to call an offcycle meeting or something, right? And and there's a little bit of stuff in
uh Robert's rules that speaks about, you know, if you go to every member of the uh committee and they say it's all right, you you can do that. Uh that um so that's a potential avenue of it. Um I think that would run into open
meeting law possibly. So uh because you are you know if you're putting out the report it's kind of like uh a communication to a quorum of the board. So um so a lot to think about right you know I
think uh reasonable people can come over come up with different areas of this but I think for us the most important thing is that our reports are approved by a majority of the board and if a majority of the board wants to put in a section that you know if there's one or two members who have descented and and
highlight what those are in an organized fashion we can do that. If people don't agree then we won't do that. It's as simple as that. and we don't have to make it any more complicated than that. Now, that doesn't mean I'm not interested in doing a policy book or something like that, but
uh you know, this is not an issue unless we run into that situation again where you have like a chair that's dissenting and you know, whatever we went through last time. If we put it to a majority vote, then you know, then we're clear.
Uh, we can we can Yeah. >> Um, are we talking about when we actually write up the um the warrant, the agenda item that's going to go on to town meeting that the
dissenting opinion be attached to that >> or are we talking about just the ability of someone to speak at town meeting? Who? >> No, we're talking we're talking about the report the the town the planning board report to town meeting. >> Okay. >> Right. So, so that's that's kind of one
one piece, right? You know, >> it's a separate it's a separate document that is required by law that we do. So, that we're basically it's the mechanism for us to report to town meeting what the board >> recommend >> is recommending to town meeting is
>> which is different from the warrant article itself. >> Yeah. and is also different from minutes. So the minutes are going to capture the whole debate. >> Okay. Okay, that clears things up for me. Thank you. I Yeah, thanks. and and just
you know a few extra notes you know I can give you a uh a minority report or dissenting uh opinion from the Amoris planning board that appears on the Amoris town website that was uh you know part of the materials
available at town meeting uh before they updated their charter. I can give you a warrant article that includes the planning board report in the warrant article and provides not only uh the dissenting views of uh the planning board members that did not
concur but those of the select board members that did not concur. So it you know you can you can do it you can do it if you want to. >> Well the charter the charter commission stuff is different. There's examples of that as a separate case like there are different >> this is not this is pre-charter
commission >> no but like there are examples of minority reports around charter commissions and one of the examples is Ammerst that they call out >> on the current charter commission they have rules and procedures for the uh board of uh selectmen I think or the
town council and on those they indicate that the they don't I don't think they want a minority report they say that the report of a committee will include those views news of uh those dissenting with the report. >> Yeah. Yeah. That that's a different beast. >> It's a different beast, but it's also
it's also an example treatment of the uh topic at hand. Um you know, as far as you know, this the statute, right? It doesn't uh prevent us from doing that. It just says that we need to provide a report with our recommendations if town meeting is to vote on a proposed bylaw
amendment within 21 days of a public hearing. you know, if we don't do that, you know, it doesn't say that whether or not we can include >> um specifically a section that deals with reasons for members who uh did not concur with the majority.
>> That's true. There is there is no mention of minority report in statute though because I looked. >> No, there's absolutely not. But I mean there would there wouldn't need to be. You know, it just says you need the report to to be able to vote on it unless it's 21 days. Now, um,
you know, we've all got a lot to think about. I will I'll I'm in the process of gathering information. I'm going to put some stuff together, you know, and obviously, you know, what what the town moderator is going to do is out of our hands, right? It is their ruling on whether or not a town meeting would
receive a minority report um like separately, right? So if I want if you guys said no Nate, you can't do your little piece in our report or or no, Jeff and Ashley, sorry. They can read the minutes that they want to hear what you have to say, right? Um,
you know, you can you can write up a report uh and call a minority report and send it to the town moderator and select board and uh whoever is going to deal with that. I mean, it's going to the town moderator uh I think is um
I it might be an interesting question as far as like whether it's in the printed materials, whether the moderator has full control over all that or not that I don't know enough about to to say that, right? But I would tend to say the moderator has a huge amount of discretion in that. And uh the moderator
could say, "Yeah, yeah, I'm I'm I'm into this. you know, we're going to include it and we're going to let you present right after whoever the, you know, the chair or the designate of the chair or the committee speaks for the uh for the committee or board position. We're going to let you talk for a lesser amount of
time, but just the same or they could say, "No, we're not." Um, you know, the the the moderator has uh broad discretion uh to make uh rulings on matters of order, right? So, uh,
whether whether or not, um, and you know, and my argument, of course, is that this has been conflated with what the statute requires for the passing of a a zoning amendment. Um, and it and I don't think that the it should be.
That's my opinion, but I mean that's uh so we'll, you know, we'll uh I'm sure we'll talk about it more, but for right now, I would like to uh table flood planes and uh table executive session. Everyone in concurrence, I'll I'll do
that with a simple uh you know uh nodding here. I'm going to note for the minutes, >> I'm nodding. Uh that being the case, did I miss anything? Um uh I want to say we don't have any member updates or any unintended uh uh
unanticipated business. Um do I have anything on the agenda that we have not uh touched on? >> No. I wanted to say appreciation for this board for um the volunteer work that we do. Nathan, Michael, everyone.
Um Keith um and we're here. We're volunteers. is we want to do what's best for the town and I appreciate our dialogue. So, um I just want to I want to say that to everybody and um we should feel good about it because uh this town runs on volunteers. You know,
we got 80 plus volunteers and if we disagree, I feel completely fine about that and that's what um a good board should be. It should be um saying what we feel is best and then coming to a consensus the best we can. So, I want to end feeling good about what we're doing
as a board and individually and collectively and um it's a honor to be with all of you. So, thank you so much. >> Yeah. Thank you, Jeff. >> If if I may, I'd like to echo Jeff's uh sentiments and also um for purposes of posterity, I am in no
way pro PAS. Uh I am very concerned with our groundwater and groundwater contamination and public health. Uh yeah, I am not advocating the the the release of any PAS chemicals or any
other chemical uh wantingly. So just to be on the record, >> yeah, we're here because we care about our community. Otherwise, we'd be doing something else rather than this. So um thank Keith, thank you everyone for um all the work that we're doing together. It makes a difference. you know what
we've done has made a difference. So thank you. >> I'm going to add one more thing and then we could adjourn. So I agree with these guys totally and massively appreciated. The the thing I would add which is a recent insight is Jeff Lacy pulled me
into working with him a little bit and so I had insight into an unnamed town but this landing board is really like smart educates oursel on the issues we're thinking about ask really
good questions I mean there's a reason like the quality of our stuff that we're turnurning out is high quality because we're having these exchanges and we're doing outside thinking or research or whatever. I it's not it's not a given is what I'm learning. You know, um you know, yes,
you're always trying to get people to come on to boards, but some boards would do more work than other boards, and this is a rocking board in that regard. So, I think we should >> That's good to hear, too. Uh Michael, thank you. And, uh thank you, Jeff, and and Keith. Yeah, I I'm I'm really big on
uh having a diversity of opinions and and having disagreements. You know, I think it's so important to have different perspectives and uh and and you know, a lot obviously consensus building is uh a difficult
skill to master. It's a challenge uh and we try the best we can to do it. You know, you're not always going to get there 100%, right? But uh you know having a robust conversation and including all kinds of different perspectives on it is uh you know you
know very top of my list on you know what I value about our work here and and and the approach that I like to see taken with it. So uh thanks to everyone. Uh we got you know we got a little bit of work cut out for us here but uh uh no more tonight. Let's hear a motion
to adjurnn. So moved >> and seconded. >> I'll second. >> Ashley second. All right. So Michael moves Ashley seconds to adjurnn. And uh do we have any discussion? All right. Good. I'll call the role. We're going to go with uh Keith Hasty.
>> I dear >> hi. >> Ashley Pike. I >> Tom Seaffort. Hi. >> Jeff Weston. Hi. And I'm an I. Motion carries
unanimously. The meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you everyone. >> Everybody. >> Thank you Nathan. Thanks, Jeff.