Hey, Nathan. Hello, Michael. 7 o'clock. Not everybody is here. What's with my audio? What's that? I'm just messing with my audio. >> I can still hear you loud and clear. Can
you hear me? >> Yeah, but it's not in here. >> Oh. Nathan, >> can you hear me now in in your headphones? >> Now we can hear you. We can >> That's better. Okay.
Okay. Huh? >> Hey. >> Hey, everybody. >> Matteo. Congratulations on your new gig. >> Oh, it's uh it still needs to be approved by the select board next week, but um
>> Oh, well, I wouldn't want to uh >> I'm confident that >> congratulate you uh before it's a done deal. I just want things to go smooth like for the town. >> No, no, that's uh that's good, you know.
I mean, it's uh >> for the election. >> Is that what we're talking about? >> Just to have somebody there doing that at the very least for the election. >> Yeah. >> I'm not I'm not going to do anything
else. Just the election stuff. famous last words. >> I'm not going to do anything else besides the elections, dog tags, vital records, but nothing else. So, we're just waiting a moment to see if we can get a few more members to
join. Uh we can make quorum with Tom if need be, but I'm gonna just give it a minute. Pretty warm today out, huh? And tomorrow it's going to be warm, too. Warmer.
>> Warm and muddy. very muddy. Yes. >> With my kids, I uh constructed a big snow fort in the front yard and it's still hanging tough, but I know
it's not long for this world. All right, time being 7:03. I will call this meeting of the Shootsbury Planning Board to order. I'll note that the meeting is being recorded.
Present we have Michael Deier, Keith Hasty, Ashley Pipro, Jeff Weston, and Tom Seaffort, who I will um sign to act as a full member.
To Benolo, our clerk, is here. We have some members of the public at this time. Would any member of the public or anyone for that matter like to make public comment? And I'll qualify that as uh a public comment not related to our
proposed bylaw amendment on uh data centers. Okay, we're hearing and seeing none. I will uh inquire as to whether or not anyone might be here for landowner education
and guidance. Okay. hearing and seeing none. We've got, you know, we gave ourselves a little extra leeway room for this public hearing and here it is 7:05 and we've got air in the agenda.
Um, do we want to uh try and do the minutes from uh February real quick? >> I'll move to approve the minutes of February 9th, 2026.
We have a motion. Do I hear a second? >> I'll second that. >> All right. We have uh take care of moving seaffort seconding a motion to approve the draft minutes from
February 9th, 2026. Any uh discussion? >> I had one substantive thing. Um it was it's on the top of page four. Um the second paragraph it's when Jeff
asked Lenny about the tankers of the fire department >> and the way it was written it just said um Sanka describes them and I thought what was be helpful to put in the minutes is that uh Sanka states there
are two engines for a total capacity of 3,000 gallons which I think was the reason behind the question. Um I think there might have been a one typo. Oh yeah, actually very significant. The first line. So what page is this? The
first line on page two. Um when Lenny starts talking to us, it says Murphy asked about the enforcerative NFPA and it only says 55 net 855. So just to correct that. Matteo, do you have these uh
already incorporated into the draft or uh you know? >> Uh I don't have them in right, but Michael did send them to me by email, so I'll put them in. >> All right, >> Keith. >> Yeah, I can sorry I can never find the
the icon hand. Um I don't have a copy of it up in front of me right now. um somewhere I think it's about the same place where um Michael just noted the tanker discussion. Zurwanka stated something along the lines of the
protocol current protocol is to let these things burn and that you want them to burn hot and fast. I'm paraphrasing. Um, and I thought a little clarification on the end of that sentence was the reason for wanting them if they are
burning to burn hot and fast is that there's less toxic emissions, less pollution. If they the hotter a fire burns, the less um the less emissions you get off of. >> That's top of page four. It's right above the part I I talked about. So,
you're right. All right. So, we're just going to add burnout as hot and fast as possible to uh to minimize toxic emissions or something along those lines. That >> I think that was the the rest of his his
statement. >> Okay. All right, I've got that. Uh, anything else? All right, I'll call the role. Um, Hasty. >> Hi,
>> Deara. >> Hi, >> Pyraftoft. >> Hi, >> Sepher. >> Hi, >> Weston. >> Hi, I'll abstain. And the U motion carries.
The minutes from 2026, February 9th are approved. We've got some edits in. >> Nice job, Nathan. One minute to go. >> Right. I was noticing we did that right on time.
And uh all right, I'll email that to you, Matteo. They add it there. Um it's 710. So, I will uh open the hearing.
Let's see. We're having a public hearing in accordance with Mass Emer Law, chapter 48, and the secretary and the Shootsbury zoning bylaw. The uh planning board will hold a public hearing um to uh hear
public comment on a proposed amendment to the Shootsbury zoning bylaw that would add data centers to section 3.11 use table section 13.2 definitions and amend section uh 8.13 with language
regulating data centers. At this time, I'd like to ask uh Michael to uh give an overview of the uh amendment and then we'll uh open it up to uh public.
Now, uh I'll also note that on the uh on the website, I noticed initially there was a version of the bylaw that had the comments uh from Donna Town Council
Incorporated already. Um, I recently also just added the uh, you know, the unchanged version that we had. Um, I guess it doesn't matter if you want to just, you know, the the high level stuff is all the same. If you want to kind of
go through that, Michael, and uh, >> yeah. >> Yeah. What I was thinking, tell me if you think this makes sense. Do a high level thing, have public comments, and then I can review Donna's suggestions. >> Yeah. Well, I think uh >> as opposed to doing them on the front
end. >> No. Yeah, I want Yeah, I wanted to uh do that. I wanted to do public comment and then yeah, open it up to the uh to the board. We can start with uh Donna stuff. That makes sense. Yep. >> Oh, I was going to just do a high level thing, not Donna stuff, >> right? Yeah, high level thing just to
just to um review the amendment and then we'll we'll have uh anyone who wants to make a comment >> uh can make a comment. Uh once everyone who's wants to speak has spoken, then we'll uh yeah, we can review Donna's stuff and anyone else that any other
possible changes uh anyone might suggest. >> Cool. That sounds good. Okay. So, um the planning board is following up at special town meeting in September. town meeting passed a moratorum on data
centers with the commitment that the planning board would come back with a fleshed out bylaw about data centers by town meeting of this year. Um so that's what this is. Um and this
first thing we did is in the use table we added two new uses um micro data centers and small data centers. Um we also added data center into the definitions of the zoning bylaw. So that would be a a definition section and then
the main body of data section centers is 8.13 which is a new section and some of the things that we did getting sort of jumping back to the use table is in the micro
um data centers they were defined as 150 square feet and small data centers were defined as 5,000 square feet. both of those maximum. Um, and some of the things in the design which we had a lot of discussion about is we ended up
agreeing that there'd be no extractive water um in the design. So, it would be air cooled or if there was another way, but not not extracting water. Um, you could have closed loop water if you wanted to. Um,
there'd be no PAS for cooling. backup systems would be prohibited from using gas or diesel and there'd be no lithium ion, nickel, magnes um batteries for energy storage. Um those are sort of the
big design issues. We also addressed issues of lighting, signage, noise, visual impacts, um driveway access, hours of operation, and then we had a range of requirements which included the size of the lot,
frontage, setbacks, etc. Um the size of the lot would be 9,000 90,000 square feet. Um which is consistent with the zoning bylaw. And then minimum setbacks would be 75 foot from the front and 75 foot from the side and rear. Um
let's see if there's anything else. Um I think oh one of the other important things is we're requiring um an emergency response plan um and if needed an incident action plan both in
consultation with the fire chief and emergency management director um and the police chief for the emergency response. Uh, and I think that's probably the most substantative of the things. Everything else is we can we can go into if there's
questions, but um I think that's it for now. >> Thank you, Michael. At this time, I'd like to ask whether or not any member of the public would like to make a comment. Lewis, Lewis, Sanford, no other way
around. No, Sanford. Louis, >> hi. >> Thanks. Thanks for working on this. I really appreciate your work on it. Um uh as it turns out I've done some work in this area because I work with uh investors that have been dialoguing with
some of the u digital companies about data centers. So I have a really small amount of knowledge. So, I have a bunch of questions, not really um any uh particular critical comments, but just to say things that occur to me when I
read this one is I'm wondering if the intent and you know, feel free to I guess I'll just say my questions and then you guys can answer them if you want or whatever. They're not nothing too difficult. Um, one is um is is the intent to ban or or not allow larger
than the operations that are described or would somebody get a waiver in order to do that um to do a larger operation? Um I'm aware that uh some closed loop operations use cooling towers. So they
still they might use half the amount of water uh that would be in a in a fully uh you know in another system. So that that seemed like an issue. And then um uh but that so you're basically I I
don't it's it's kind of Oh, so what if somebody wants to um use some water? Can they get a waiver? Um and uh you know I'm concerned about the amount of energy demand uh that it that it
could pose and how it compares with the town's uh cons town's energy consumption and this has been a problem in other communities. So uh I realized that by scaling it down as you have it's probably not as big a concern. I did some math on it. I guess you guys probably did some math to figure out how
much energy consumption it could involve. Um so those were just things that occurred to me. I I you know support what you're doing. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Uh Sanford um >> answer it or you
>> Yeah, I'll I'll take a stab at it, Michael. Um so with respect to you know the the size of the uh facility there there is a waiver provision included in this amendment that is similar to waiver provisions that are
already in the zoning bylaw. And it uh so it says that you can wave or modify um things that are in here if if the u
special circumstances of the site, the surroundings or the proposal negate the need for the imposition of the requirement. um or if it can be met in an alternative manner. And such a waiver uh does not degragate from the public purpose and
intent of the zoning bylaw. And the waiver does not negate the provisions of uh this this section uh below which is um you know some of some of the regulations contained in 8.13.
So basically if uh you know you have to you have to meet that bar in order to to get a waiver. So uh if someone just said you know I want to make a really uh big data center um you know that uh they're not going to be able to obtain a waiver
um through this clause unless they meet those uh criteria there. Uh the other thing to note is that while that waiver provision is applicable to the requirements laid out in section 8.13 regulating data centers, uh there are
other provisions in the zoning bylaw that would be applicable that are not included under that waiver condition. For example, within the bylaw, there's a a section on dimensions which limits and um I think you know forest conservation
uh zoning district limits the size of a building to uh 20,000 square feet in gross area. >> Which is what? That's four times the size. >> It is. Yes. >> Right. Um
>> Oh, sorry. So, this is one of the things the town council had suggested we put in there, but um the suggestion was to have a statement in the size floor area section that basically says data centers over 5,000 square feet in floor area are
prohibited to make that clear. And by putting it in the particular location, it would make clear that that's that's the usual normal size. But also the the discussion about waiverss that we had is if there was a you know an accessory building and it was like 5,100 square ft
that that would be the kind of thing but the norm would be 5,000 or close to there close to it you know nothing that was monster. Um, oh, so I was just going to ask, so how would um, if somebody coupled this with a solar farm, um, so they're going
to power it with solar energy, how would that uh, change the equation, if at all? >> Uh, that's a difficult question to answer on the fly. I think there are >> I feel like I could say something about that cuz I brought that up Stanford
thinking like should we reference our solar bylaw excuse me or somehow consider that and we talked about it um you know we have an existing solar bylaw so if I don't think we have
any sort of provision in this bylaw related to the Danish centers acknowledging any connection But if somebody did want to power their data center via solar uh you know they would need to follow all the provisions in the solar
bylaw. >> And I think the other thing is that there's the concept of primary use versus accessory use. So if it you know if the primary use is a data center the secondary use would be solar um to think about it that way. So, um, you would get
treated where solar was secondary. Um, and you know, if you had a data center and then you had a large solar installation, I think we'd have to figure out, you know, is it really a secondary use or are you sort of, you know, is it a primary use? So, that would be for the board to consider at
the time based on, you know, the dimensions and all. Well, also I think you know what I was starting to say was you that the bylaw does contain you know section 3.4 mixed use town of Shootsbury encourages the mixing abuses where such mixing does not
create land use conflicts accordingly. All special permits and or site plan reviews for a single project with mixed uses shall where practical be consolidated into one proceeding. Right? So, you know, the bylaw does provide for mixed uses.
>> And you had a question about water, right? >> Oh, well, uh I mean it just I mean I I was impressed with how strict the water provision is. Um it's basically saying they can't I mean they presumably they'd
have to have you know if there was uh you know people on site they'd need some level of water uh a normal amount of water but for the oper for the data center itself you're saying no water basically being drawn from the environment which is very impressive and
um uh I imagine somebody's going to try to get a waiver on that if they're going to say we're doing uh air cooling but we're using towers or whatever that, you know, somebody's going to try to wave that and I, you know, I support the strict
provision as it is. Um, but I was curious about it. >> Can Can you send us some information about towers when you get a chance? >> Sure. >> Great. >> Just be educational.
>> Yeah. Any other comments or uh questions, Sanford? >> I don't have any others right now. Thank you. >> Well, thank you very much. >> I like the idea. I mean, I would just say I support the idea of trying to restrict these things to the 5,000
square foot as much as you can. So, if there's ways that you can make it clear that that's really the top size that you think is appropriate, uh that would that would be better. >> Very good. Um I also note the uh as far
as the energy use we don't have uh you know any specific numbers or anything uh like that right that that would be something that you know we would have a chance to evaluate during a special permit uh proceeding.
>> Um could I make a brief comment? >> Yes. >> It's hard to imagine having solar as a even primary use for a data center. Um, I've got 30 solar panels and today is the first day in 3 months that I've gotten any electricity whatsoever. 30
kilowatts and you can't run a data center on in you know on unreliable um power. So to to connect the two I think is would be folly unless you have a very powerful backup system. And we
limit the backup system in in this particular bylaw to um what is it 250 kilowatts something like that. Um which is not a huge amount of power. So um I don't think solar could be connected with this in Shootsbury in Florida maybe
but not in Shootsbury to clarify that I think the limitation of 250 kilowatts that's applicable to uh was it any kind of batteries right not necessarily uh >> right that would be the storage capacity
of a um of a nonflammable lithium battery or less flammable lithium battery. >> Okay. >> Uh thank you, Jeff. Would anyone else from uh the public wish to uh make a
comment? You'll have another chance. But since I'm not hearing anything at the moment, I'm going to read an email I received uh the planning board received from uh Jeffrey and Andrea Rogers in response to a uh town announce communication that went out about the
public hearing. Dear Nathan, thank you for putting together an amendment to regulate data centers. We cannot attend the hearing, but would like to you to know that we support the amendment. We appreciate your effort. Andrea and Jeff Rogers. So that's uh just a note from another
member of the community. Okay. Um I'm going to throw it out. Is there any other uh comments from members of the public? >> Yeah. Um my name is Mayor Fox. I Where's my video? Um, I live at Lake Wyola, so I
was looking at it from that perspective. Um, and I don't have it in I'm trying to get it in front of me, so I think I'm just going to go off screen while I look at my question. Um so um it says a micro data center which is
150 square ft or less in floor area would be um permitted by uh site plan review subject to site plan review by the planning board or the zoning board of appeals. Um and then further on it
says that um trying to take and tie this all together. Um that um uh noise which would be um I think it's
H it shall it shall be minimized during construction and operation to protect uh public health, welfare and quality of life. um e noise either episodic or continual during both construction operation shall comply with
Massachusetts D noise regulations. And I actually haven't looked that up, but um I guess my question would be that uh if it's allowed at the lake, how
close would it be to um if it's 150 square ft, how what would be the proportion of the lot size that it would have would that's the part I'm not clear on. Like what size lot do you have to have to have one of these? um uh if
you're at Lake Wyola um since it's a concentrated uh area of people um one and two um uh my understanding of these data centers and I I'm only just getting
into it is that um there's a continual hum. So it it might not necessarily be that it's a loud noise, but it's still something that from, you know, my observations of or my
understanding of reading things online could still really get in your head, you know. So, so what um what uh without having looked at the D's regulation, does it address something along those lines? And that's one question. And then
the second question is that what percentage of the lot size um would uh that 150 square ft be considered? >> Well, under dimensional requirements, lot size uh the size of the lot used for
a data center regardless of district shall be 90,000 square feet. >> Okay. Okay. minimum setbacks for data centers, the street setback 75 ft, side and rear property line setbacks 75 ft. >> Um,
and you know to your uh question about noise, I don't think that it would address something like a dull humming uh you know the the state rags or even the local noise ordinance. I mean it's akin to uh you know uh you know just normal heating
and cooling for uh houses. I mean, houses are, you know, couple thousand square ft, right? So, if you're talking about a 500 uh 150 square foot uh area, that's uh I don't think you're you're really talking about anything that's
going to be more than uh the kind of things you would hear just already at the lake. Um but uh there would be uh well >> so for instance um when people lose
power here at the lake there's a certain number of people have automatic generators and it they kick on right so I am a significant distance from those people I don't have really good hearing but I can hear that and I know exact exactly when the power has come on and
off. So what about people because we are in a concentrated district would people how far would notice be or would notice be required to any of Butters? Um and how
far would that go? Would it go as far as the noise goes? I guess that's my question. Well, with uh a micro data center, it's a site plan review, which doesn't uh doesn't require notice. >> Okay. >> I don't believe. Right. Is that true?
>> Yeah. >> Can I just say one thing, >> please? >> So, with the D rags, I actually looked at them this morning and so I could find them easily. Um what it talks about is that to be compliant with the D regs um
whatever the source is can't increase um more than 10 dB um from the facility during operating hours at the property line. So that's not very much. Um it's it's I mean I I couldn't
quantify like equivalent to what it is, but looking at other things, you know, I was just reading something and there was a report that said that on average the noise from a solar installation, a larger one is about 50. So it's it's
significantly the right Keith might know. >> Yeah. I I I'm just thinking off the top of my head when we were look we were talking about the wind turbine um and it's it's a a dB increase above ambient. Is that is that right? >> Yeah. So, like on a on a windy on a
breezy day, I actually when Michael and I were doing the the wind turbine thing, I I downloaded an app and went outside on a breezy day and just on my back porch was like 50 or 60 dB just from the breeze. And I think the D the noise rag
is that so if you're in a quiet neighborhood, even I guess a subtle hum might be detectable. Um, but if you have neighbors that have heat pumps and stuff like that, um, whether it rises to the level of a
nuisance or not, I guess is is questionable. >> Thank you. Uh, Henry, I see you have your hand up and we're gonna come your way once we uh wrap up with mayor. All right. Um, now mayor, uh, at this time having had some
questions answered, would you like to say anything u pertaining to the bylaw? Any further comment? >> No, I I think that um well, yes. Okay. So, um you I guess I I would like to
know if there w you know how many parcels of land at the Lake Milo district that this would apply to. Um there's a parcel of land that's I think about 14 acres over on the other side of the lake uh
um Lake View Drive buffered by the dirt part of Wendell Road and and then Shore Drive and um you know that would be like a primary place that something like that could happen uh or you know go in um no
notice uh and Um, people I I I guess the notice part is the the biggest thing is that I really think that when you're dealing with a concentrated area like the Lake Wyola district that I think notice is really important to have um so that people can be aware of what's going
on in their neighborhood. Um because it's not like the rest of Shootsberry where you know people could have several acres of land and and you know you're buffered by trees and and um I don't I think it's just a different consideration and I that's my question
is that do you know off hands how many parcels are above 90,000 square feet at the lake >> I don't >> okay so I guess that's my question is that why did like why was this where did this
come from who came up with that >> the site plan review >> yeah that it's just a site plan review you Um I think the thinking behind it was that for the micro ones because they're small um you know when we started this
process I think it was actually around special town meeting um Gale Hunters representing the Mville light plant said you know that the town might has extra capacity and so if someone came knocking at the door they could add capacity easily there and then actually by the
definition if the school was to add you more computer storage or whatever. Technically, that would be a data center. So, for those kind of uses or implementations, we didn't want to make it a whole big special permit process.
Um, where we were very clear we didn't want to make it by right where there was no specifications. So, it still had to meet all the specifications. It's just a lower bar in terms of the process. Um, so I think that was the thinking behind it. Fact, that was the thinking behind it.
Um, I mean, keep keep in mind uh what is it 150 square feet? I mean, that's that's a 10 by 15t room. That's the size of a >> moderate bedroom or living room. So,
>> I understand that. I mean, I live on a dead end. I bought up against um conservation land, but um I have my property. I share lines with one two three uh five other people and that's
that's not there's others that have even more neighbors and um I just think it's a different consideration but um >> that's my question I just to Nathan I
mean it's I think we can write in through the process if we wanted to that it's site plan review but that you know notice to a butters is required. There's nothing to say that we couldn't do that right. >> So yeah
>> um I don't know but I think we should discuss it after we go through comments. I mean, you made a good point. >> And and I and it's coming from a perspective of that um the regs were changed the years ago to allow people
at, you know, to tear down a house and go up, you know, build another house brand new with no notice to a butters and obtain a permit. So yet if somebody had an existing house and they wanted to put a second floor on, they would have
to inform all their neighbors. So that that loophole has changed Lake Wyola greatly and um and created a lot of big, you know, a lot of large houses down here. Um but uh it's I I think just the lake requires a little bit different um
consideration um because it is so concentrated. Um, so just that's my two cents worth and um, thank you. >> Thank you, Maya Henry.
>> Yes. Uh, good evening. I uh, wanted to commend you for the effort here. Um, I was a bit concerned about the noise factor and maybe offer some observations.
Um I noticed in the text that uh the only real uh provision for a distance from this what one of these micro or small scale data centers is a one for
the visual element 30 ft. Am I right? I read that. In other words has to be 30 feet and it has to be a buffer. Yes. uh trees, whatever, but there's no provision uh for the noise factor
of the of the same sort. Um and and I'm just wondering given that probably don't know what these things sound like. Yes. Has anybody has anybody looked or researched the sound levels of these things and how they might carry in a forest for
example? So that it might be possible to have in in the in the text some provision uh for testing um you know uh upfront but you know that
they meet certain requirements for decibels but also uh after construction and and if necessary mitigation of of such noise. I don't know. It might be more complicated than it's worth, but um noise travels in
forest. I know I play music outside and people hear it way away far away. So, uh that's something to keep in mind. Thank you, Henry. That's uh much appreciated. Uh is there anything else you'd like to
uh speak to at this time? All right. Um I see uh Sanford is uh back with the stand up. >> Yeah, thanks a lot. Um so I just asked AI about noise from a 500 square f foot um uh data center and I want to read you
what I just found. So I'm now I'm more concerned about this issue than ever as I hear about it. Um so you know AI could be hallucinating you know might not be right but this is what AI just told me. A 500 ft data center can produce significant noise with exterior sound
levels typically ranging between 55 and 85 dB comparable to a loud humming, a vacuum cleaner or power lawn mower. Even small highdensity data centers can produce noise that is noticeable and disruptive to neighbors, particularly at night. Key noise factors for small data
centers. constant drone data centers operate 247 and the cooling systems create a continuous low frequency hum that is difficult to shield HVAC center systems blah blah blah um while they're smaller um while 500t facility is
smaller than major data centers the noise can travel significant distances especially in quiet residential or rural areas and then it says many community noise regulations set maximum limits at 50 to 60 dB be which data center noise can
sometimes exceed. So there you go. So I'm I'm concerned about it and I'm particularly concerned that, you know, you get this thing in there and then it turns out to be producing more noise than you expected or than they projected and then we're
stuck with it. And it's hard to shut something like this down once there's significant investment. So, I I see significant reason for caution about this noise issue, which I think could be uh could be a problem. And I'd like to make sure that um if there is a 500
square ft proposal that we have adequate opportunity as a community to um to probe that issue in particular. >> Thank you. Anybody else
member of the public to provide comment? >> Um, if I can say something, I'm a little bit confused. Um, uh, mayor said 150 square ft and then, um, Henry said 500 square feet. I thought it was 5,000 square feet. So, I'm I'm confused about
the numbers that are being um, spoken here. No. Jeff, I I think it was Sanford who said 500 and I think he just researched it just quickly with that random number somewhere in between to get some
information. >> Okay. >> I underestimated it significantly. Sorry. >> And I think mayor was talking about 150 square feet, >> right? which is in our bylaw and which is in the the bylaw we're discussing 150
being micro and then the 5,000 square foot being the largest that we would allow. >> Mhm. Okay. So the largest is actually 5,000. Okay. So that's what we're talking about. Not 150 or not 500. We're talking
about 5,000. I just want to clarify that for myself and see if I was missing anything. But in Lake Biola district, we are talking about 150 square feet. >> So it's I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Nathan. Go ahead. But, you know, with the with mayor's
comments and questions pertaining to the, you know, as the draft currently stands, you know, having the uh micro data centers allowable by site plan review in all districts um
including Lake Wyola. So, that is 150 square feet. Um Sanford's comments uh regarding his AI research were about a a facility that was 500 square feet.
>> So am I missing >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Henry again if you don't mind. >> I don't mind. >> Well, I just did the same search for 150 and it says generally it ranges from between 75 and 85 dB.
Um and um could peak to uh 90 dB. Um so yeah. >> Mhm. >> So I can't remember >> similar numbers. Similar numbers to 500
square foot. >> Yeah. 150 square foot. No. Yeah. >> 150 square foot. Similar numbers. >> Excuse me for not being completely aware. Is the um the size in Lake Wyola smaller than the rest of the town? Okay, I'm sorry.
>> What's uh the question, Jeff? >> Um the Michael shook his head. Yes. So, the size in Lake Wya would be different. 150 square ft, Michael. And the size in the rest of the town would be 5,000. >> Uh we currently currently we don't allow
a small one, the larger version in Lake Wyola district, just the micro. >> So, we're not change. There's still just only two tiers, but in Lake Wyola, the larger tier is not is prohibited.
>> Thank you. >> Can I ask a question? Um, is there a reason you have to have the larger tier in this bylaw? Was there like a legal reason or policy reason? Um
well the reason was to uh let's see what do we have for our uh purpose purpose the bylaw is to provide reason uh reasonable regulation that strikes a balance between protecting the public health safety or welfare of Shootsbury residents and reasonable development
that supports the vitality of the community. Um so I think you know the idea was that you know we were you know we came up with a regulation uh that you know doesn't you we don't prohibit it outright and we've got a lot
of criteria in here so that you know if somebody came with an application to build a a data center that was you know 5,000 square feet or less they could do it with a special permit if uh if the board finds that their application
adheres to this uh bylaw, right? Um >> okay. I I I'm just learning about this. I I want to say that um if this bylaw comes up in town meeting, I'm going to oppose the larger tier and try to strike it from the bylaw. Um I I I don't think
we should have an operation of that scale. >> Thank you. >> Add one more thing too because the way that this is Well, can I just add one more thing too? I should before I get going. But um the way this is all
written is that you know during construction the noise should be minimized dur you know in in operation it should be minimized but nobody's going to know about it until it's already allowed and then then what is
the recourse after that? So I I guess I just don't understand why I forgetting I mean not just the Lake Wyola district but since based on what Henry is saying you know and what Sanford's saying that why not townwide
require that there be notice to all of Butters um so that they are aware before and could attend cuz otherwise how would they know until after it's approved. Right.
Fair comment. Diane and Greg Adams. I see you made it. I read your email out loud earlier. >> Thank you. >> I don't know if you were here already. >> I think that was somebody else's email you read. >> Oh, you know what it was. I apologize.
>> Rogers. That's okay. I did hear that. >> I don't know why I confused that, but >> that's okay. Um, my question is, is there a limit to the number of data centers that will be allowed in Shootes Fairy? I know that the size is very
concerning. I'm I love Shootsberry as a natural peaceful place for families to, you know, thrive and and I am concerned with large um
data centers and the need for them. I do I did hear Michael say that we need we might need one for the school, but I mean if how many would be allowed? I don't I would really feel
so disheartened and worried if there were many around. To answer your question, Diane, there is no limitation imposed uh in the proposed amendment and I think probably the reason for this is because
there's a provision in the zoning act which is you know the mass general laws that uh requires uniformity across districts. Uh so imposing limitations on the number of a certain kind of use
um arbit you know is a fixed number in the bylaw I think could be problematic legally you know I'm now having said that uh you know the if
the if if the thing is going to be greater than 150 square ft it requires a special permit and the Special permit is also a a a construct of the zoning act and it
uh allows for discretion of uh the planning in this case the planning board is the special permit uh granting authority. Um and it's you the special permit is intended so that you can say all right you know
we want to you know we we acknowledge that we may need to you know have a certain use or or want to allow a certain use within a zoning district. Um but we also acknowledge that we wouldn't want this
use to be you know built on every parcel in that zoning district. Right? So that's that's where that discretion comes in. uh so that the board is there to evaluate a given proposal and say all right um you know you know maybe you do
meet you know the criteria that's in here but it's uh you know we had a data center going uh you know next door last year you know neighbors are already complaining about it or the noise or or things have gone ary and now we're just thinking you know this is uh you know um
you know if we are able to make findings that uh you know that approving the project is not uh a benefit to uh the town or to public welfare and health and uh you know we're well within our power to
decline uh to approve uh a special permit application for any any >> do do all towns and municipalities have to approve some data centers? I
mean, could we be data center free? >> Um, we we uh we could be data center free. Um, there's no protection uh for the a data center uh at the in state law
as there is with for example solar or educational facilities, daycare uh centers, that kind of thing. Thank you. >> Now, Tom, I see your hand up. Are you uh
did you have a comment on something somebody said or are you >> I did actually. I wanted to ask you if it was okay if I could ask you whether um I'm allowed to ask Mr. Lewis just to clarify what he said so I understood it correctly. Was he talking is that okay
if I do that for a quick >> Oh, thanks. Right. That just wasn't >> if he's willing to engage with you. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I just wanted to ask him if he meant um in the last bit that he spoke about he would support up to 150 square feet but not above that.
Is that another way to say what he was saying? >> Yeah. >> I just wanted to know where you were drawing the line at the different categories of size. >> That's right. Yeah. No, that's what I'm thinking right now. I'm also I'm doing research now and I'm learning that like
Fairfax, Virginia has a 200 ft buffer to any residential areas. Uh I don't know how that would apply here or whether that would apply, but I thought that was interesting. So like I'm still learning about it, but my inclination is to think that 5,000 square ft seems large, but I'm like also
imagining like what if it were far from any residences? Maybe I could imagine, you know, up, you know, up by the power lines or something like that, there might be, you know, a place where it wouldn't where the noise wouldn't really
be bothering people. Um, but I I'm I'm really concerned about, you know, if this is too close to people's homes and suddenly, you know, we all live out here cuz we like how quiet it is. Suddenly you have like a non-stop worring and whining sound in your neighborhood. That just doesn't seem right for for
Shootsberry, frankly. >> Right. Thank you. >> All right. Uh Henry, go ahead. >> Yeah. Just uh I think it's important to distinguish, you know, the the frequency
of the noise here is is critical. I just did a very cursory uh search on it. Um the fans produce low frequency noise that travels much further than high frequencies and has
greater effect on on humans and and uh animals and that kind of thing. So it's something in other words that's one of the the the what people apparently complain most about is the low frequency noise which is often not very
perceptible but certainly has an an effect. So, it's something to look into, I think. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Okay. Is there anyone uh in the public that we
have not heard from who uh wishes to make a comment? Anyone in the public at all that maybe has already spoken? Last I'll say last call for uh for questions before I start uh going to uh the board and uh and
we'll have uh some we have some questions we need to talk about. Last call for questions. Okay. Hearing and seeing none then uh I suppose it's time to discuss and hear
about our review with uh town council Donna McNickl. Michael is sharing. >> Yeah. >> Can you all see that? Oh, hold on. It's the wrong one. There we go. >> You know, Michael, I was wondering why
uh you know what what is the deal with the the comments there and why we wouldn't uh >> I'm going to explain the comments now. I didn't want I think it makes sense to just do the comments.
>> Okay. >> And and read them. It seemed like doing it in public session was a little bit better. Um so Nathan and I met with Donna I don't know about a month ago at this point. um he wasn't able to stay
the whole meeting I was with and so some of these things he's heard and other things he received the comments just like everybody else um so the first comment is up here um where
basically Donna suggested that given the specs that we had for the for the small data centers i.e the larger ones that she thought that they should be prohibited in town centers as well as like Lyola. She just didn't think that would make sense to have them there
given what we were talking about. Um so that was her first recommendation and maybe Nathan I'll just go through each stop at each one. Do you want to do that or you want me to go through them all? >> Oh yeah. Yeah. I mean I think uh you know
Yeah. Just go through them all before we talk about them I guess. Yeah. >> Okay. Cool. Okay. So, under definitions, she made a recommendation um based on data center research that she's had from other towns that um the definition should also include cooling
systems, security systems. Um so, that was under definitions. Um in terms of applicability, she just suggested different language the extent permitted by law, which gets
the intent. She and Nathan and I talked it through and she said it better reflects the intent and is more clear. So that was that suggestion. Um, this I mentioned earlier when we were talking she had suggested putting in
data centers over 5,000 square feet in Florida are prohibited and putting it here because this way it's allowed to have the waiver position um address it in 8 813 C. Um, so it's still
part of the same thing. um under cooling. She just added this suggestion um cause air temperature of the property line to be warmer than the anticipated average ambient air temperature such that it creates negative impacts for an
abut or the natural environment. Um moving on under electrical storage she just added um direct negative impacts um are not limited to noise. She she suggested basically be more specific. So
even though we said um that include but are not limited to that we should say air or water contamination, fire or other disruptions to the surrounding environment. Um following that although we cite NFPA 85 855 and the mass fire code she said and
all other regulations just to be comprehensive and then we talked a lot about the internal and external and for consistency of the reader. Um in 4A she suggests make saying internal and external because in 4B we talk about
external. So it's just it's it's more consistent terminology. um doesn't change the substance of it. Uh under visual impacts, you just suggested doing the to comply with this bylaw. Um seems straightforward.
Uh there's a few more coming up. Uh yeah, so this was a good point. She basically said, you know, BA, especially because she she did a huge hugely deep dive in terms of battery energy storage and storm water for the town of Orange, which represents, you know, she made the
point that storm water best practices are designed to put water back into the ground, but you don't want that to be the case that the water's contaminated. So she suggested adding storm water management system should be designed to prevent any potential contaminated water
or runoff from entering on-site or adjacent drinking water sources including aquifers, streams, ponds, etc. Uh let's see under wetlands she just suggested that we make it all streams not just
perennial streams and then requirements regarding installation of the perimeter fencing. She instead of having it be a dwelling, she said a budding property because dwelling is too limited. It's, you know, it's just a use uh as opposed to a but a
budding property under safety and the emergency requirements. She basically said that we should expand it to have any other information requested by the fire chief, police chief, emergency management director. Um,
emergency response plan should include provisions for avoiding the risk of service and groundwater contamination, not minimizing it. And then with the PAS, the next line, she said the application of PAS containing agents for firefighting and heat suppression is prohibited in less way by the planning
board. She was really clear that the planning board can say what's prohibited, but by doing this wording, it allows the planning board to have subsequent conversations if we're having a discussion about a special permit with the fire department. So, we could wave
it after if the fire department said they wanted us to. Um, so that was she was acknowledging an interest in waving, but also was confirming that we do have the right to prohibit and this is the way to address it. um
appertinances the driveways and pertinances including any electrical energy or data storage structures that's in relation to information in the site plan. Um we're almost there for liability of insurance rather than have an amount. She she suggested
liability insurance shall be in the amount satisfactory to the planning board which allows us to negotiate and feel comfortable with what we end up with. And then again based on her work um with Bess and Orange, she suggested that we require as a submission a
hydrarology report. Um a report by a qualified professional with demonstrated knowledge in hydrarology, hydro geology that provides the planning board with information regarding drinking water sources and recharge areas on site and within 400 ft of the property lines so
that we have a sense of how what's happening with the water. Um and then she focused on abandonment and this was it's turns out that there's three different parties that can um determine if something is abandoned. So it can be
the building inspector, it can be the select board, or it can be the board of health. And so she suggested naming those and then collectively calling that the town so that any of those three actors could take action in terms of abandonment. And then finally, she
suggests we have a severability section at the end so that if the AG decides that they don't like one of these parts that the whole thing doesn't get thrown out. So that is what she suggested. So I can go to the beginning if that would be
helpful. Um and Nathan, you can tell me how you want to proceed with this. Well, I think uh you know, we've kind of like heard that. I I before we know get into the nuts and bolts of what what Don, you know, the changes
pertaining to legal review, I just want to open it up to the board to see if there's anything um anybody wants to uh add to the conversation. And one quick thing, I had the document
you're staring at on my screen as well as one with the comments and I realized I was scrolling in the wrong one. So, I apologize. I thought you were seeing all the things I was talking about. >> I thought I thought we were I was able to follow. >> I think you were, Michael. That's great.
H fascinating. Okay. And you can you can >> uh Sure. >> No. Well, I was going to say you could leave it up if uh anyone wanted to, you know, kind of look at something, but you know, I just want to open it up to the
the board and see if anyone wants to say anything before we get into Jeff is clapping. I see. >> I'm sorry. I um I didn't mean to clap. I meant to put my hand up.
>> Okay. >> Um and I don't Oh, sorry. >> There it is. >> Um two questions if I could. >> Yes. No, with the um what we went through with the solar panels um in the Dover amendment, we were required to
have uh bylaws, which I know that may become obsolete shortly um to not prohibit um solar panels. I know that that was a requirement and and um and that's why we wrote the bylaw as we did.
My question is, is there some thing that is preventing us from outlawing these data centers completely from Shootsbury? And um in my opinion um and I said and I said this when we
talked about data centers in the beginning, I'm completely against data centers in Shootsbury. And it seems to me the people who came from, you know, from Shootsbury, um, I didn't hear too many positive comments about data
centers from them. And, you know, I live in Shootsbury and I'm very much against them. So, I'm wondering, obviously, it's just one vote. I'm wondering if there's anything that would prevent prevent us from saying no data centers allowed in our town. How about that? And those are
my comments. Thank you, Jeeoff. I would say uh probably nothing present uh preventing us from doing that and uh we were close to that state. Um, previously with uh the possible
loophole, it uh if the planning board were uh inclined to allow a data center as a light industrial use. Um, so
>> I would second Jeff's um Jeff's proposal to you put it out there that we Shoots is a data centerfree community. >> Thank you.
>> At this point I I do want to hear from the board. uh we've had uh ample time for the uh public to comment and you know I think after if if the board wants to have a conversation I think uh you know I'm willing to open it back up
to uh the public if if you have a a question on u something specific uh but I'd like to uh allow this to uh our process to continue to the board side at this time uh for uh for at least a little while. Um,
so Jeff has spoken. Is there anyone else that wants to say anything on the Ashley? >> So, um, something that I heard tonight, well, there's a couple things I heard tonight that I think are compelling and I'm wondering about the process of adding them. And obviously, the timeline
is short cuz town meeting's coming. Um and so whatever we we do needs to be done quickly. Um one thing is I would feel more comfortable adding in a requirement for a butters to be
notified. Um, you know, there's a lot in in these bylaws and uh I think it's okay to say I wish I had been more mindful of that. I if if this
was happening next to me and people were talking about it and and considering permitting such a thing, of course I would want to know. That's how I would know to show up at meetings. So that's that's my first thing. Um the second piece just
to give a little background um I mean we did do a lot of research on this and we looked into sort of this idea of edge data centers and there's been a lot of conversation about you know who in what kind of organization
would want to build a data center in Shootsbury you know um considering where we are and We considered of course the university maybe might want to do an edge data center and um
edge data centers tend to be smaller. So this is I think one of the reasons we came up with the 5,000 square foot number. Uh so just all things that we're considering and I think I lost the last thing I want to say. So,
for right now, I would feel more comfortable having something in there for for a Butters. I would like a Butters to be notified if if this was being considered. Is that something that we can do? Can we add that in at this point?
>> Yeah, Michael, you're nodding your head. Yes. >> I I I don't see why not. >> Uh-huh. Okay. Nathan, I don't think I can use the raise hand function while I'm sharing. It's I think they presume I have the
floor, so I'm raising my hand. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, well, do you want to uh speak, Michael, or >> Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to provide, I guess, a couple of comments. Um, >> before you do that, I just want to uh before uh Okay.
>> Just Ashley's thing about um >> requiring notice. Um I mean yeah Michael may be right we may be able to I think it's uh a good question to to ask you know that's uh
I mean I would certainly just from a process perspective uh hesitate to have a bylaw where for some site plan reviews uh notice of a butters is required but others uh it's not um but uh I mean it's certainly something we can look into and
and just one more comment before Michael. Um so, you know, we have the public hearing now and uh you know, we're going to meet again in April where we're going to want to finalize a report to town meeting and um
you know, we we uh we do have time. I mean, you know, certainly ideally we'll finalize a a draft to uh send to the select board to hopefully have uh you know, represent on the warrant by our meeting in April. Um but if we were to uh I think we we could
even make further changes after that. It would just be uh the motion would be something different than is uh printed on the uh warrant. That would be a lot more printing. Um but there is uh we do have time now, Michael. Well, thank you. Um, so I think
just sort of for benefit of the, you know, the residents who are commenting, you know, the the history of it was, you know, we had the moratorum at September town meeting and then we agreed to have a conversation. Um, as Jeff likes to say, we don't all have the same
perspectives on the planning board. um you know and I think I mean personally I would have been very happy just to ban them but I think we tried as a as a board to sort of find a middle ground that sort of reflected various perspectives and I think where we landed was okay in terms of having the micro
which is a very clear message um from the municipal um light plant and potentially the school you know micro are really small um and then the smaller that we allowed in three districts instead of four um I think Donna's point about maybe not allowing them in center
is something we should consider. Um I think the the things that got raised are really important though. Um so the notice I you know I would support noticing for this and I think to mayor's comment you know those who are on the board we spent a
lot of time talking about the increased height issues at Lake Wyola if you remember a few years ago we had very long meetings with the ZBA. Um, it could be that we just, you know, we could fix this. We could put notices in
here for this, but then we could revisit it next year and maybe change the whole process for site plan review to require butter notices. It seems like that's a reasonable thing, but that would be a subsequent conversation. And then for noise, what struck me just in terms of um because I think you know we did
struggle a little bit with the wind turbine at Sirius and there was one thing that Donna had put in here for cooling which I thought was good language. Um where what I read before was in terms of cooling cause uh a data
center shall not cause air temperature at the property line to be warmer than anticipated average ambient air temperature such that it creates negative impacts for the butter or the natural environment. And so because I think noise is so tricky if we had
similar language around noise um it would be you know it's subjective but I think noise is a tricky one but if we put it in there it would give us the ability to sort of talk to an applicant if we had an applicant about what that would mean and
sort of dig deeper but it's a placeholder about noise. Um but I would like to just sort of figure out how we address noise because I think those are the two things we heard. Um, so and I think just in terms I see your Keith your hands up. I think in terms of
process, Nathan, just to sort of pick up on that, like we could vote tonight on a a version that we moved to the select board. Um, we could also have another meeting later in March if we wanted to check with Donna and
sort of revisit it. Um, but I think we do have time to just to sort of confirm, you know, what you said. So, I'm I'm done and I think I can I'm not sharing. So, I could raise my hand next time if I need to. >> Do you think that it's uh late to uh go
to uh our regular uh April meeting? Um I think well given given the context of our report to town meeting you know so like there was one time when I first got on the planning board where we met you know you're allowed the planning board's
allowed to make an oral report to town meeting if we if we don't submit it like within 10 days prior to town meeting. And so we've done that. We've also met the morning of town meeting. I think it was planning board um to agree to a a
report like what we're going to say. Um so we could do the last minute stuff, but I think given you know if if we're all on the same page about what >> I mean we're talking April's April's a full month before uh Oh, >> that's Oh, that's true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. April's fine.
>> Okay. All right. Yeah. So, April April's >> Yeah. >> key. >> Yeah. Um, back to the noise thing, which I I do think that's I'm I'm glad the people that brought that up did bring it up because I don't know that we really thought about it all that much. The So,
the state the D noise rag talks about at the property line if I'm not mistaken. Right. So, and again, that's where noise gets tricky. Are you measuring DBs at the unit itself or are you measuring it at the property line or you measuring
it at the uh dwelling on the adjacent property? So, um, I think the D rule, again, I'm sure they put thought into how how to, uh, articulate and and,
uh, accommodate the fact that we all have different sensitivities to noise, but we all live in an environment with other humans that we all make noise of some kind or another. Um the other thing is it um in section C of this thing the
project specific requirements we do have a a clause in there that says the planning board may require a noise assessment to be conducted at the applicant's expense. So we do give ourselves some some room to if we think there may be noise issues
uh to ask for for a better assessment. So, for what it's worth, >> thank you. Um Jeff, >> um as we um are all volunteer elected officials, I feel like um to represent the people that voted for me, I feel
like um it would be in the best interest to have another proposal in addition to the one that we're possibly going to have. Um and that proposal would say that there will be no data centers in Shootsbury. That would be a second proposal. So if
the first one um we'll see what happens with the town voting for the first one, that's fine. But I think the second one should be no data centers. And if we're not required to have one, I think it is absolutely foolish
to have a data center in Shootsbury. And I think that there were two reasons why this whole idea came up. One was because we were contacted by someone who we don't know about do you have a bylaw about data centers data centers and we didn't. And the second that there were
planning board members who wanted to have the possibility of having an additional income source in Shootsbury which is reasonable considering the taxes and the financial stress that we're on that we're in um many people in Shbury. But however, we are in my
judgment, I'm speaking for myself, but as a representative representative of the people who voted for me, um I feel like um the possible financial gains of having a data center, however many dollars that would be, and it wouldn't be very much uh would be far more
detrimental than actually um would be far worse to have a data center than to change the life of anyone who's chosen to live in Shootsbury for the reasons that we live in Shootsbury, the forest and quiet. So, I think um it would surprise me that the town would vote for
a d having bylaws for a data center versus a bylaw saying no data center whatsoever. So, that would be my vote. Um and I'll forgo the few dollars that I might gain from a possible data center.
Anyway, that's my opinion. >> Thank you, Jeff. Okay, Keith, >> just to revisit my memory of how this discussion started was again that the consultant that contacted all the towns asking about data center bylaws and in
our early discussions. We the planning board talked about we talked about the town's financial situation and that was before the the fincom has had a couple of meetings telling us that the the writing on the wall is is worse than uh earlier
projected. Um and we thought amongst us that a data center, especially one limited in size to again the size of the new library is basically what 5,000 square feet is. That's kind
of how we came at at that size. Um thinking that that was something that fit in the landscape of Shootsbury. It wasn't a mega structure. Um that wasn't out of character with with our town and other structures in our town. And we thought that there might be
potential for it to do good for the town. It's a relatively benign. It may make noise, but it's not a aluminum smelter. It's not a gravel pit.
Um, it's not a lot of things. And I think we've as a board we went through and developed these regs or proposed regs as a a way of u limiting it to fit the scale of the town and be protective of the town, the health, safety and
welfare and rural character and still allow the potential for some economic activity in this town other than property taxes. And Jeff, might it disturb somebody in town? I don't know. You know what else disturbs somebody in town? If we have to lay off
town employees because we don't have the budget to afford them, or if we have to shut the school because we can't afford the school, the town has no revenue other than property taxes. So, we can say no to everything and and not get a new fire truck like the fire chief
needs. Um, not have a new greater like the highway department needs. Um, so there's trade-offs and I think we thought, at least personally, I thought a data center was again a relatively benign use that might
bring in revenue to the town. So that's it. Off my soap box. >> Thank you, Keith. Um, Ashley. >> All right. So, um, as I'm just trying to bring it back to,
um, like, uh, logistical discussion about if we were if who would propose, um, a bylaw that would say no data centers, is that us or could it be done by the select board or could it be something
taken up by residents of the town and put on the floor at town meeting? Could be any of the above, Ashley. If the playing board decides to recommend uh hey, you know what? Just um strike the whole thing down. Um you
know, just skip it. Skip go ahead and you know why lay on the table indefinitely. I'm >> Well, I don't know about like strike the whole thing down. I mean like if we strike the whole thing down, we're back in the situation that we were in when this all started where we were contact
>> not true >> because we've already amended our bylaw to have uh in the use table. >> The moratorium has no effect. The moratorium expires >> but they're in the use table permanently.
>> Yeah. with with um uh yeah as end which is uh not proh not prohibited. >> Okay. Okay. So that's something okay that's good information. Um so that's one conversation right and then going
back to this current bylaw which we're considering. Um, I appreciated Henry's comment about could is there some sort of test that could be done related to noise and you know like I'm looking at the ambient temperature can't go up however many degrees at the
property line whatever like how is that measured? Should I start taking temperature regularly at my property line so that I have a record of it you know in case something goes in next door? How is that kind of stuff measured? And how is is there a way for
us to regulate it in a reasonable fashion so people can actually have an understanding of what kind of noise and could we put that that on the developer? I know we have it in there. Is it something we could require? It says we can request it a
noise analysis. I'm just not sure how something like that works. Not sure if any of you have the answer. Michael, do you want to talk to Ashley? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, >> I mean, I think for noise as well as temperature, they just do
computer modeling. Like I just looked at something today where they, you know, they know the model. I was looking at something about a solar inverter, you know, so they know the model of the inverter and they have the specs and then they do some modeling which, you know, it's all hypothetical. um you know
they don't know shoot spray and they probably don't take they won't know the ups and downs of the hills and the amount of trees and all that stuff. So it's very but I think that's how they would do it. Um so it's technically whisbang but probably inaccurate um in the practical world.
That's that's my unofficial sense. Um, now in terms of the logistics of of I guess I have a there's a logistical question logistical answer and then a a suggestion. Um,
to Nathan's point, anyone could bring it forth. Um, the question I would have is if you had two warrant articles, one that said none and another said some, you have the the the one that says none,
like which you have to have one that wins, right? So, it has to be written in a certain way. Um, which is tricky and I think that takes some thought. I my suggestion would be because I feel like we've we've traveled this road together since September and we all didn't start in the
same place and we're not you know I think it's it's fair for Jeff to say where you know he is I you know if we started and I had my brothers I would not want them but I feel like we've worked together um and I feel like hearkening back to you know what Nathan said we made a commitment to town
meeting to work on something to deliver it to town meeting that was substantive and so for the most part if we can make some tweaks to this given the noise and the noticing which I think are the outstanding issues I think we have a good strong bylaw that's protective but
also create some opportunity um within reason um and it it could be up to citizen petition it could be up to select board I mean the other people could bring forth we don't want any data centers but um
I'm trying to separate my personal opinion hat from my board hat which is, you know, the board sort of been working on this. I think it's really good. We're really close. You know, we just have to sort of look at these these tweaks and consider Donner's stuff. And so, if we
can get this, then I think we can we can fulfill our commitment to town that we've actually worked on something, given our best collective thought and brought forward, which doesn't mean that, you know, it only takes 10 citizens to do a citizen petition. Um, if that was
there, this question is still like which one wins. I don't know the answer to that. That's like a legal thing how it's worded. Um, but I uh I think if we do the protections that were we identified tonight plus the ones
we did and incorporate Donna, I think there would it's it's good, you know, and we can we could revisit it in a year or two if we need to. Um, >> is that where >> Yeah, I'm done. >> Yeah. No, I you know, I don't,
>> you know, I find it unlikely to to have two warrant articles pertaining to it. If there was a citizen petition, you you could, but not not certainly not on behalf of the planning board, >> right? >> Um, right. You know, so what would happen is, you know, at this point, uh, the the the warrant isn't even
finalized. We could just totally have it off the warrant and just say uh or or or we could you know have some sort of uh you know modification to the warrant article to say you know after deliberating endlessly on data centers the planning board has decided that it's
abomable abominable idea and we don't want to do it and that would be you know like a resolution rather than a bylaw amendment. Um, you know, we could do that. Uh, >> but if it's in the table, then I don't think we should do that. Like, if
they're in there, I think we need a bylaw to regulate them to just I'm not saying we're going to do this, but to just scrap this bylaw right now feels negligent to me considering that it's possible now that they could be built if I'm >> prohibited. No, they're prohibited.
>> The use table is >> they're prohib. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. And that but doesn't that and that expires and that >> okay it >> does not expire. That's that was the whole thing with the moratorum. >> Okay. Oh so that changes it for me. So they're prohibited
indefinitely basically like forever if we don't make this bylaw. >> Not forever but they're you know as it stands. As it stands right and you know um >> Huh. >> Yeah. This was Nathan's point just to
point out like what Nathan said early on is if we put if we prohibit in the use table that will stand but the moratorum ages out on June 20th um of this year and so he was objecting because it didn't make sense. >> I misunderstood. I get it now. Thank
you. And that was something you know that was an odd turn of events you know in the genesis of this right but u I think you know some people wanted it prohibited and I kind of protested against the whole thing and then
somebody threw out well it could be a more temporary moratorium until we come back and you know have a more comprehensive regulation and so it turned into you know now we're doing a comprehensive regulation and for better or worse. Now, uh go ahead,
>> right? Yeah. Um that's >> Thanks. Yeah. And excuse me if I repeat anything that's already been talked about, but it will also help me just to hear my notes a little bit out loud as I say them and hopefully it might help the discussion. Um but it sounds as though
some of the um key factors were whether we could work notification into special permits. Um there's a question about noise and um I believe you could theoretically change the existing language to noise or a noise study shall be included and not just can be. I don't
think that would be um uh undoable theoretically and I'm just offering these theoretically with no you know stance per se. Um as Keith pointed out all noise regulations talk about property line measurements. Um that would be how it's done. And from some
real life experience I've had with um some desk special permitting um the uh applicant usually does or you know the consultant that is ultimately agreed upon does actually do site visits at night during the day different times of the year. Um so it isn't only a desk
model of the noise. It usually has to incorporate both a real life um one um uh what did I write here? Uh well, I know that I was just concerned. Oh, right. Um I'm not concerned actually if
however this ends up even though we spent a lot of time like you know I'm really a full believer in you know where you end up after your good effort is where you were supposed to be. Um so I I'm comfortable no matter how this goes you know with the majority vote in the
end um uh in retrospect or in you know looking forward um I think we've done an excellent job in getting to where we are now and so we're we're we're operating out of really informed opinions uh however this might go. I'm a little leerary about the idea of knowing even
if the two obviously weren't sponsored by the planning board that there could be two competing um articles on the warrant. So, I just wanted to offer that as um kind of something to think about if it does seem like it might be going in that direction. um if it's something coming
from the planning board and I'm associated with the planning board, I kind of want it to pass and um I I want to make sure that if we do that, we we put out something together that we believe would pass and um you know, timing might be an issue to consider um
for something like that. So that that's all I wanted to say. Thanks so much. >> Thanks, Tom. I'll just comment that by the time we meet next where we would finalize it, I believe the we might be past the window for uh citizen
petitions. Um but you know, I mean just to kind of expand on what we were saying earlier, right? you know, the planning board could uh, you know, withdraw the article or uh recommend an amendment to the article uh or or basic or recommend an amended
uh version of the article, right, in in the last hour. But also uh if you know the planning board decides to move forward with it more or less as is after we make some uh whatever tweaks we're going to make to it uh you know any any any voter
whether it's uh Jeff or uh you know me or uh anyone can uh or or or or uh Sanford Lewis maybe um can go in and just uh put an amendment uh on town floor and as long as it's uh reasonably
within the scope of what the warrant says does um then you can do it right the moderator can uh you know rule that it's in good order and the uh the town can the meeting can vote whether or not to make the amendment or not right so I
see Matteo had his hand up for a minute there what do we have Matteo >> I was actually about to say just the same thing March 25th is the deadline for citizen petitions so it'll be before um the April meeting of the board and that the real I think the the real concern then would be if there's an
amendment from the floor that is within the scope of the article. >> And Matteo, can can you help us with these citizens petitions if we in your new uh possible uh position as uh election facilitator or what what that is?
>> Uh no, I promised my wife I was not going to touch town meeting. I mean, if if there's a citizens petition, then that goes um to the select board to get put on the warrant and the moderator doesn't other than deciding the order in which warrant articles appear. The moderator doesn't
have any role in the citizens petitions, they have to appear exactly as they're written and the select board has to allow >> No, no, I was thinking more from like a town clerk and certifying uh >> Oh, yeah. No, I I mean I would end up having to certify um
uh certify the signatures. That's what I meant, Matteo, is you can you can help us with the uh certifying our signatures for our town petitions, our citizens petitions. >> Yeah, I but I think that you're right that the that the larger concern here is less with the citizens petition to have
a competing article and more with just an amendment from the floor to change um the the zoning bylaw amendment. >> Go ahead, Right. Michael. >> Uh yeah, two things. One, a piece of history and then two, just a comment on
discussion. Um when the original solar bylaw um passed in 2016, there it started with the citizen petition which I was part of and then there was the planning board um solar bylaw and after discussion on the floor the citizens
petition got withdrawn and the planning board um bylaw got passed after it sort of was adjusted. So you know that was I don't I'm hoping this doesn't rise to that occasion. That was not a fun time. But I think I guess on that note, I really
liked what Tom said. You know, I'd like to see this work. I think it's a matter of listening to where people are at, trying to have it, you know, we've tried to make it pro protective. Um, if we can be responsive, you know, um, I feel like it's it's it's
pretty solid. It can be improved based on the comments. Um, but I think I I think it was Tom you said we we know we're coming from very informed positions at this point. We lived with this for, you know, months at this point and we've had back and forth. So, um,
I think we've limited them in size. There's things that we've done that are huge, which is not like not water extraction. That's huge. We didn't talk about noise, which is something that needs to happen. and the noticing um and the only thing I'd correct you Tom on I think you said noticing for special
permits that's required it's for the site plan review that's the issue um so those are those are my comments >> thank you Michael >> Jeff >> so if we had um if this bylaw was passed
by the um planning board and we had a a citizens position um uh petition also. How would that work, Matteo? Um would one negate the other? How would that work in town meeting or would the citizens position be written in such a way to negate the um planning board
vote? I I have no idea how that would happen. >> Um I would defer to to town council about that. I mean, I don't think the sequence in which the articles appear matters, but but the citizens petitions appear last. And I would imagine the
stricter um regulation would take precedence, but that's something that town council would probably determine. >> Mhm. So, how can we run that by I don't know is it can I say how would that uh
be run by town council if the citizens were interested in doing that? I so town council can't um town council doesn't um evaluate or sound off on citizens petitions because
they are um articles for the town to consider that don't come from the select board >> and council is the select board's attorney and the attorney for the rest of the town boards. So that's why town council reviews, for example, the planning board's articles, but if you
write a citizen's petition article, um she she won't review it. You I mean, you could get an attorney of your own, a municipal law attorney to review it. Um but as far as like which one would take precedent, I don't know. I think that's something that she would have to decide
probably at the meeting. >> She would have to decide who who is she? >> Uh Donna McNichol, the town council. I don't cons >> I mean I I suppose ultimately the decision would be up to the attorney general's office, the municipal law unit because they're the ones who approve or
disapprove of any bylaw um any zoning bylaws or general bylaws. >> I would like to stop this uh line of uh conversation because I think it's something that we need to cross if we get there and uh you know we're already
an hour and 43 minutes into this uh scheduled meeting. So, um, you know, if anyone is interested, uh, in doing a citizens petition, um, you know, go for it and the, uh, chips will fall where they may. Um, I'll just make one comment
that I find it very unlikely that town meeting would pass, uh, conflicting, um, articles. Um and there are you know we have the tools that are used the tools of parliamentary uh procedure
to address these issues at town meetings should they arise. Okay. Uh and we'll have town council there to you know and others to guide us through. Um you I just want to make a couple comments uh real quick. Um I guess uh to start you know I I don't
really uh remember exactly how it happened that uh we ended up getting um the uh the micro data centers allowable in in all the districts. Maybe it's always kind of been that way because it was small. Um but I would certainly uh
support uh removing it uh from Lake Wyola. Um just on account kind of that um on account kind of the tight uh um
land use there. Also, you know, I think yeah, it's a good feedback from uh the public, you know, the concerns with noise and we haven't uh we addressed it, right? We you know we have you we know there's noise and uh you know we have the uh the
references to the uh noise ordinances now uh you know what what else we can do uh to uh um deal with that you know we can look at uh setbacks we can look at I don't know how effective noise barriers
are or any noise shielding um you know but I think that would be a great thing to uh try to incorporate if if we move forward with something that uh you know if we keep the uh small data centers in um and
I don't know I I as far as you know the noticing uh question is an interesting question. I mean I I suppose I don't see why not. I uh I don't really like I would my inclination would be to make it all a special permit uh if we need
noticing. Um but it's uh you know I think I think our understanding was with you know the micro data centers 150 square feet it's not really uh going to be an issue with the noise I think was our understanding and we're hearing some you know
conflicting information here but you know I would also caution that it's uh you know it's it's very unreliable right we're talking about you know people are going to to an AI I believe I heard someone say and uh
or going to Google and saying you know what's the the sound of a you know 150 foot data center uh you know I would uh you know I would be very surprised if if you know a a 10 x 15t shack is going to
you know generate uh any kind of intolerable noise. I mean I do I would be concerned about it if uh it was being built but I would uh it it is uh worth looking at though. Um I I would consider putting everything under a special perm.
So I do think that uh you know whatever we move forward with we want to you know the noise issue is something that we can uh work to uh address more possibly uh possibly larger setbacks especially uh or or possibly provisions
that would um allow for you know requirements additional requirements or conditions to uh allevite ate noise if whatever you know systems in place are found to be more prone to generating a louder noise.
So that's uh I don't know that's my two cents on uh on where we uh are if we move forward with u small data centers right
and uh I did promise that you know uh we send it back to the public for uh possible questions whatnot. So go ahead Henry. Yeah, just to say um there's an emerging uh literature, scientific literature on
the effects of low frequency noise and um it's not just an AI or Google search here. I can send you a few links if you like. I'm not sure who to send it to, but uh it's not just a subjective thing. Low frequencies affect your body.
We do not perceive it through our ears. um that just there's something that we should take into account is the science on it. It's it's it's not just simply uh you know subjective experience. Well, I I I agree with you
wholeheartedly, uh, Henry, and I, uh, but where where I would just push back was, uh, you know, some of these data centers that we've heard about, right, the really mega projects, you know, I think those are generating a lot of low frequency sound. Perhaps perhaps
>> a uh 150 square foot facility is uh extremely small and uh I don't I don't know um but I am uh a little bit skeptical of uh of the of this uh kind of a small facility. I
mean, I feel like it's, you know, um, you know, the the reason we did it was, you know, where the school does something, um, or, you know, it's just a a small kind of, uh, uh, building with some, uh,
computing infrastructure in it, right? Um, and obviously would, you know, possibly need some cooling, but it's not, uh, I don't know, it's not a a several thousand square foot facility. I think that's just the level of scale I think
is really uh worth noting. Um Keith, >> yeah, I I again I think Tom, did you mention perhaps requiring a noise study? Yeah, I I think maybe that's what we because again, you know,
information from AI, which kind of cracked me up. I'm wondering how much noise was generated generating that answer at some data center somewhere probably in Fairfax, Virginia. Um, so you not knowing what kind of a cooling equipment they're going to use.
So to require a noise study, it may be a non-issue. They may say, you know what, our cooling equipment makes no noise. All right, no problem. Um, so yeah, maybe maybe we just make it a requirement that they do a noise study
and then we can review the scientific literature regarding health effects on different frequencies if that's applicable. Um uh I'm I'm as some of you know I'm very much details matter and just citing random
numbers or studies unless you get to delve into the actual literature and read the literature word for word. Uh even scientific literature can be misleading um or misused.
So yeah, I think maybe maybe uh to solve or to better cover ourselves regarding the noise issue, make it a requirement that a noise study be done for any of these projects. >> I'll make >> All right, let's uh make it uh I'm going
to call it the last one, actually. >> Okay. Um, just as far as uh when we started this process, we were talking about a wide variety of things among them like potentially banning them and sizes and all of that. And I'm a high
school teacher and I brought up how, okay, there's data centers in most public schools by the standards that we're talking about. I mean, like there's 150 square feet is not too much bigger than a closet. And I've seen the place
where all the servers are in Belchuretown High School where I work. And so if you ban them at 150 ft and you know that could potentially create a problem if like you know uh this the elementary school needs
to expand their capacity. So it's just something to consider. I don't know. I think primary use versus secondary use is probably something that would take care of that. But that's just a comment I wanted to throw in there. they're already in schools and so like when we think of data centers we get
very freaked out because they're massive and we do not want those in our town but we have to be careful too that we don't put our school or um other I don't know what else there would be in town that would need that kind of capacity but we just have to be careful of that
that's all oh and one more thing it's nation technology like we are learning it's a really tricky thing to regulate uh just because all of this is happening so fast and um you know we've really tried our best but it's been really
great to hear people's comments. It's been really eye opening for me. >> I would like to thank all the members of the public for coming and participating in our hearing tonight. It's very important and we appreciate it very much.
Um, so I think uh we'll talk about closing this hearing here pretty soon. Um, and now it's it's getting it's gotten a little late. Uh, Michael
just a process suggestion. So there's someone I worked with you, he calls it a negative poll where, you know, rather than having to agree to everything, you basically say, "Does anyone have a strong objection with X?"
And so like we've all had the opportunity to read Donna's comments which are the only changes that were written down you know so we haven't written down the noise suggestions or the noticing suggestions but at least um for the ones Donna suggested it might be
helpful just to say does anyone have an issue with Donna's suggestions and then we could if there are we can address the ones that there are but if not we can just sort of accept them as a whole. Um, so just a facilitation suggestion,
Nathan. >> Yeah. Yeah. All right. We can we can do that. Um, so yeah, let's uh move on to uh Donna's comments. Did everyone get a chance? Does does anyone have any uh objections to anything specific in there
early on when she with the definition of data center building with computers blah blah blah. What is the reason for adding the extra security system? Um, what else? What was two things she
added on there? >> Cooling systems and security systems. She said that they're part and parcel of every data center. So to include them in the definition because we talk about, you know, >> is she knows for sure there's a security system for every data center. I mean, it
seems to me we don't put roof on there either or toilets. I mean, it's a building for computers and uh that's the primary purpose adding in every little ancillary thing. And again, it's all about just
conciseness and do we really need to have go down the path of >> Yeah, it's a it's a good point. I mean, it's not those are not differentiating factors. I mean, marijuana facilities have security as well, you know. So,
>> yeah. I mean, some houses have security, but that doesn't define a house, >> right? I wouldn't I wouldn't d my sword on those, I guess, you know. >> Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't either. I'm just again, I'm all about short and sweet and avoiding excess
language if not necessary. Could we compromise because we go on about cooling later in the regulation and maybe if we at least mentioned the cooling systems it might be a good
connection to other parts but I also can live or die or live or take it or leave it. >> Yeah, >> I would second what Tom said to leave in the cooling system because obviously that's something that's significant with these things. >> Do we have anything on the regulation
pertaining to security systems? No, >> get on it. I'm just gonna um Yeah. No, that's uh you know, I mean I it could be it could be actually I think Donna was just trying to you know obviously the cooling is one of the main
things we're trying to regulate and uh security system we don't really have in there but that that could be something we might uh um consider addressing. But um does anyone else have any uh
>> you're okay with taking that out then? the security and leaving the cooling. >> Okay, >> I am with it. >> That's a nice compromise. >> Okay, >> again, not that I cared that much about
it. I >> think you just need an and or an andor. >> Oh, yeah. There you go. Thank you. Yeah, I um I didn't love the addition of data centers over 5,000 square feet and floor area are prohibited.
Um and >> was really clear about putting that in though for two two reasons. wanted cuz the one that it should get stated to make it clear but I think more importantly that the whole idea if you put it in here
since it's in the same section as the waiver it connects the two I think that was >> so to give the context of that she wanted to put it back into the definition right which we had you know talked about and she agreed uh with the uh
the point about you know it's it's less clear if the if the size limitation is included in the definition whether a waiver um could be granted. >> Right. >> Right. So she agreed with that. But, you know, I was confused about the emphasis
on size because it seemed like, you know, like another part of our concern with it was, you know, if I, you know, propose a data center that's, you know, greater than 5,000 square feet, you know, no, it's not a small data center. It's it's a big data center and I want to do it under light industry, right?
So, it goes back to the same problem we have with light industry. You know what I mean? So, I felt like it doesn't really address that. I don't I if I don't >> and and and we say a small data center is no greater than 5,000 square feet.
>> Yeah. I Yeah. I mean I would follow her lead because she's town council and she says we should put it in. Um I think the light industry thing that's the whole purpose of the definition. You know if light if someone comes in with a big facility and it meets all the parameters
of a data center you can't call a data center light industry if it is defined as a data center you know what I mean like if it didn't have all the parameters they we would just say you know looking at what you propose that's
a data center based on our definition so you know you're not eligible to build um I don't think they the option of coming in with a data center that's larger just by calling it light industry. >> Well, I mean I I would agree with you, but I I just uh you know, I don't
understand uh >> you know the um >> but I mean you know there's I guess it doesn't really matter. Um I mean I you know I was Yeah, you could leave it in there or replace it with just like a statement
like, you know, data centers are not to be, you know, regulated or, you know, permitted um under any other uh provision of the bylaw except, you know, 8.13. >> Well, I think her point was just being clear that the more clear we are, the
better we are in terms of >> I would rather keep it in there. I think we really want to keep them to that size and it's being emphasized and she she deals with this stuff all the time and must think that that makes it stronger.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think if she wants it in there and and we're all committed to keeping these things 5,000 square feet or smaller, it can't hurt. >> Well, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Can we can can
we go back up to the uh use table? So, all right. So, small data center. So, D town. All right. So, do we really want to not allow them in town center? because that what that kind of
effectively does is it I mean again I don't think any of these are coming to town but what it these kind of you know we're also concerned about rural residential and forest conservation so when we say it can't go
in the already developed part of town it's pushing it pushing potential developers into the again rural residential or forest conservation so Should we is there any
might we consider kind of trying to focus development towards the already developed part of our town or at least not making it not possible. >> I think just for background I mean her
point was not about where we should put it or not. she was her read of our specs in terms of what we were requiring was she didn't think it fit there and she based on that she said well if if it's not actually going to fit there you shouldn't allow it there. Um, if we
think that it could fit there, then I think we could make an argument. And, you know, while we're here, I think we can consider I I think it was is either you or Nathan who just talked about maybe prohibiting all of them like Wyola, so we could sort of expand the conversation. Maybe flip one in and flip
one out. >> I mean, it still has to be a twoacre lot, correct? >> Yeah. >> So, I mean, that limits how many spot how many parcels in town center or lake. I mean, but I think a mayor said that there was at least one parcel at Lake
Wyola that was 14 acres. So, um yeah, I would uh I I would be good with I mean, you know, I think it's obviously unlikely to go in a town center, but there's a potential for mixed use uh, you know, waiverss if
if someone, you know, wants to build an office building and, you know, there's like a, you know, someone wants to, you know, rent out part of the space to, you know, put some servers up or something. I mean I think uh that you know that could probably be
a micro data center but if it's you know larger than 150 square feet you know it might be th00and square feet right or 500 square feet something like that. >> I mean the library is 5,000 square feet and it's town center. I'm not sure how big the highway department or fire
department buildings are. Um but I mean because we already have again non-residential development in town center held a school for that matter. No. Yeah. I mean I think you make a valid point.
You know, it's not I think it would fit more in town center if if eventually like we had a town center get developed with like a you know some some development some commercial development there and it would you know potentially be in mixed
use with that. Um, but I don't see like a standalone, you know, data center like, you know, maxed out at 5,000 square ft, you know, with a full, you know, on a 90,000 square foot lot. I I think that scenario is much more
unlikely. Um, but other than that, um, yeah, it's >> I mean, I f I find it unlikely, too, but do we want to prohibit it? >> Right. Exactly. No, you know, it's uh yeah, I'm somewhat indifferent and I could go either way. You know, may also
make sense to uh you reduce the size a little bit for town center from like 5,000 to 3,000 or something. Well, as a suggestion then um if we prohibited all data centers in Lake Biola and based
on what Nathan you just said, we reduce the size allowable in town center to say 3,000. So they're smaller. Um, it's a smaller building on the same size lot. Um, how's that feel to people?
That's it's kind of Yeah, that gets to what I'm I mean, if we require two acres for any of these, right? Um, so, so it's not like one's going to drop into the middle of the the um beachfront
lake there lakefront Lake Wyola neighborhoods because there's no twoacre lots in I don't think there's any twoacre lots in there. Um, >> I think a lot of it has to do with how how tightly packed
for Shootsbury standards the lots are certainly at Lake Wyola and Town Center as well to a certain extent. So it's more about you know uh not allowing for noise issues
construction to bother people who are very close abutters certainly at lake I don't know as much about the town center >> right but but we require a twoacre lot which is the same lot size for rural residential >> right
>> so presumably there wouldn't be any more disturbance to a butters than there would be in the other two categories. >> I think the lots are a lot bigger in other parts of town more consistently
than they are at Lake Wyola. >> Yeah, there's more non-conforming lots in Lake Wyola. >> Yeah. Again, my my only thought was that we're when we you know, we're we're again unlikely as these things are in
town, um we would be discouraging development in the developed part of town and encourage well not encouraging but at least making possible um the development in the forest
conservation or rural residential. So >> yeah, it's a good point. >> Definitely a valid point, Keith. >> Yeah, I would be fine with allowing small and town center and prohibiting
everything in Lake Biola. I that feels okay to me for now. >> Yeah, let's do that. Keep it simple. Yeah. >> Is that okay with everybody? >> Yeah. Now, no matter where they put it, if they if they, you know, whether it's
they go up to 5,000 ft anywhere, it's obviously going to be, you know, closely scrutinized, >> we have the power to impose conditions and and limit it >> and request them to amend their plans. I don't just as I have no idea where if
we want to do the requiring notice for the site plan review where we put it but does anyone have an issue with if we're if we're allowed to do it doing that because I think that's the big difference between these two you know special permit has got the whole rigomear roll um and site plan review by
design is intended to be a little bit more slim in terms of expediting I mean, alternatively, we could I think Nathan, you actually said we could just you were okay with doing special permits for everything. Um,
it just seems like if the if the MLP wanted to do a small addition to the broadband HUD, having to do a special permit might be a seems like a lot. I I don't think that we would require a special permit for the that I don't know
if that meets our definition of a data center. >> I don't know. I mean, I guess they built another one next to it and they attached them or something. I depends how they do it. >> Is it a standalone use?
>> Yeah, the HUD is. It's the the white thing in the parking lot behind town hall, >> right? Is that a standalone use? >> Yeah, that's our broadband in town. >> I don't know. I I would I would say it's
uh you might be able to say it's a accessory to uh the municipal use, right? Uh well it would be a municipal use. I don't know if I can't remember if a
municipal use gets a exemption or not. Um >> it does unless it's other you know listed elsewhere in the table >> right? >> But it's uh >> in fact actually I think we we discussed it way early on >> and and but I don't even think it's a
data center. It's It's not servers or computing equipment. It's fiber optic routing. >> I think there's cards and stuff in there. I mean, Gail, >> there's cars and stuff in there, but it's not it's not a data center. It's I don't know. I mean, you know, like it's
that's kind of something we've talked about, but we've uh like never really gotten into uh what, you know, >> the communication facility. We need a new bylaw. Well, we have a Yeah,
>> that's next year. >> We don't we don't really uh I don't think there's any impact from the hut >> on anybody except we all get entered. So I'll just can I jump in Nathan and say yeah in addition to the use table and
what we just discussed earlier about the in the definition does anyone have any other objections to Donna suggestions? >> I didn't like the uh >> the 5,000 I left out. But aside from those the ones you've discussed any ones we haven't discussed that people have
issues with. >> Yeah I didn't like the uh down where it's uh the pro prohibition on PAS. um unless we waited by the planning board or whatever that uh I don't like doing that.
>> She was well she was responding to the the two dynamics that we articulated. One was that there was a concern that the planning board doesn't override what the fire department wants to have but allow and therefore allowing us to wave it but also recognizing that the
planning board can prohibit if we wanted to. I >> I don't understand that though. So, we can determine what the fire department uses. How how does the planning board have a nexus to the fire department?
>> I they might have professional ability to do things, but we can we can determine certain stuff. I mean, she's she said that we can. And it was 100%, you know, I'm not the the town lawyer, but >> I mean, I could see it. I again, I think
for if it's an installed system that, you know, is installed at the facility, it seems to me that would be in our our purview, >> but the fire chief carries on his truck seems like way out of our lane. >> Yeah. But the issue I have with it is
just saying unless waved by the planning board because uh you know like any requirement in this entire um section is waveable by the planning board and to say call out one you know it's you know it has to be this way
unless waved um I think you know kind of creates a contradictory uh signaling >> you would get rid >> we have our waiver provision we have our waiver uh provision you know town council has said that we can do this we can just leave it in if we want to and we don't have to, you know, put this uh,
you know, unless waved by the planning board. I mean, that's uh, you know, I think it's unnecessary and it, you know, says, well, you know, maybe, you know, you look at any other requirement, you say, well, that, you know, that doesn't say unless wave by the planning board, maybe I can't wave it. Like, what does
that mean? I mean, it's just so it's just, you know, we don't need to say unless wave by the planning board. We can leave it in if we want to. Um, and you know, Keith, your point is well taken. Uh, you know, I wasn't there for that part of the conversation with Donna. Um, I
>> mean, when would Lenny seek this waiver? >> You know, um, Lenny would the on the applicant to seek the waiver. So, it's uh, you know, I don't know. I'm not I'm not worried about it. you know, if uh you know, if any emergency responders uh
uh violate this uh part of the zoning bylaw, I'm not sure what's going to happen, but it's uh um >> Well, it be after the fact. >> It would be after the fact. >> They're even I don't think they're even held to this for emergency operations.
>> That's exactly right. from uh such worries like they don't have to consult with the law to deal with an emergency. >> Kind of a good Samaritan clause. >> So So why don't we take out Donna's suggestion and sort of know that in an
emergency setting they're going to do what they're going to do, but it's in there as a signaling and intent. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. And take us out of it as far as being an authorizing Okay, that's all I had, I think. Well,
any other >> Could you just change it to and or in the definition section where we phrase >> way at the top? >> Yeah. >> I was there, I think. No, I'm not >> in front of cooling systems.
and or cooling systems. Okay. Okay. So, where I think we're at, tell me if you guys think you agree or not. We've addressed Donna, the whole slew of Donna's editions. So those are taken
care of. The things that we haven't taken care of is noise. Keith made a suggestion about requiring a noise assessment as opposed to we might do it actually requiring it. Um there's maybe some other noise stuff
we want to do. I made one suggestion about the negative impacts and then the noticing for anything that's a uh site plan review. Is there any other additions that came up from the public that we'd want to incorporate?
>> Not from the public, Michael, but did we add in because my head is spinning at this point. We said town center, but we're going to make them smaller. Did we >> Oh, yes. Thank you. Yes. I I'm not sure how to do that, but I'll >> We talked about Yeah. I don't know. I
think we could just leave it as is for Town Center. I don't know. I mean, I did suggest possibly making it smaller. Um, >> yeah. And then it sound like we were going to do that. I guess maybe we should discuss. Maybe maybe not tonight.
>> Oh, we could disc, you know, I I just uh >> I would support it. Can we like could we just leave it as is and then again if a permit comes in when we're reviewing a permit a special permit I mean how big is the parcel the library
is on that isn't that like a >> it's like 10 acres >> can't we review it you know uh scale to the lot size or something and Well, of course we can, but if we say it
can be 5,000 square feet, then they have a pretty strong case to make it so it's not a data center. Allow, you know, the data center is going to have noise. It's going to be going 247. It's it's different >> because we but we allow them up to 5,000
square feet. Could we at our discretion limit it to 3,000 square feet just >> I don't think so. >> Well, of course we could. Or, you know, we can we can say, "Look, you know, we we want you to uh, you know, revise these plans. You know, we think 5,000
square feet is uh too big in this location, so make it 3,000." And if they declined to do it, we can decline to approve that permit application. >> Well, we'd have to have reasons for it. >> Yeah, they they did. They declined to uh take our suggestion and um
make it smaller. >> I think we're open ourselves up to getting sued because they were following our rules. you know, a a uh special permit is discretionary approval. I mean, it's, you know, any any permit applications that are our discretion, except for
solar, of course, but >> I mean, if we want it to be smaller, we should say it. In my opinion, I think it's what's happening is we're not clear >> if us where we stand on it.
I guess I'm I'm just um kind of back where where I started that the you know we came up with the 5,000 square ft because that was the size of our new library which is in town center. Um, and I think initially, you know, our
concern with these things were the big giant projects that were popping up in in towns, and we thought, well, we'll limit it in size. And we thought 5,000 square ft was a reasonable size for our town, even in town center, which is where the library is. And the school, elementary school, which is, I don't
know, 30,000 square feet, something like that. Um so I don't know that do we need to create another category of mediumsize what is it we got micro sort of small and small
>> no it would just be in the uh small data center you say you know except in town center where it shall not exceed you know 3,000 or 4,000 square feet whatever it is but I mean I was thinking that actually and then you know when uh when we kind of came back to it and Michael was like let's take it out of Lake Wyola
and leave it in and put it in town center uh without the qualifier of uh size reduction. I just let it ride because of uh what Keith just said. You know, we can, you know, if it's like on a parcel the size of the, you know, if
it's on a big parcel that's not, you know, right there in the midst of everything, then it could be 5,000 ft, right? If it >> I mean, it still has to meet all the other requirements. Still has to meet the noise requirements. Still has to meet the water, all those other things. So, it's not like we're just saying build a big noisy thing in the middle of
town. It still has to comply. >> Our council, however, thought we shouldn't allow it at all. And >> yeah, but >> she's been involved like she lives here. She's been working with multiple boards. She works in other places. She must have
a reason. I I guess it would be great to maybe talk with her about it. >> It would. Again, I would remind, you know, she's our council. She's not the board. So >> that's true. >> And she mostly I mean Ashley what she said was the way we defined it she
didn't think it could they could go in town center. Um so it wasn't that she thought it was a bad fit. >> I see. >> Um >> I one of I think you know I sort of landed on this thing here. I raised it before but um
Donna had added this clause at the end such that it creates negative impacts for the butter or the natural environment. I mean if we added that to the noise section um so that it was a little bit more protective beyond just the EP and the shoot spray excessive
noise. Um, and then also require a noise assessment on the front end that might help with some of the, you know, some of the protective natures of noise. Um, it's it's totally subjective, but it gives us some running room to
have the conversation with the with the applicant. >> Yeah, I I think so. And again, it gives them a target for their designing their project. Again, not that everyone anyone's coming here, but uh what they know when they design a project, they buy equipment that is going to pass
muster um if they want the project permitted. So, it's would get added here somehow. I just I'll make the language work, but um and then we would in the required
documents, I think it says we may require a noise. We we would just say that's mandatory. >> Yeah. >> Um we're getting there. Noise assessment. Uh >> yeah, I shall submit a noise assessment.
Oh, we don't even It's not even >> Oh. Huh. >> If we want It's They have to do it already. >> Well, where the hell did I see it? That was um We have conflicting. >> There's a lot of versions this out there.
>> Well, no. This is the early version I think it but it might be within the it might be within the document itself. >> Yeah, it says noise applicants shall submit a noise assessment. >> Yeah. Page five. Page five section C.
>> Yeah. >> Uh oh. Here. Okay. >> So, >> yeah. Under number two, it says the planning board may require a noise assessment. So, do we want to change that to shell? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> Sorry to bring it up, but when you just copied and pasted something >> Yeah. >> the word a butter, it was highlighted. I think it's supposed to be a butters and >> both in both instances. >> Both instances. Yeah. If it I don't know
if you want to do control F or if you remember the sections. >> Uh I'm getting closer to it. >> Control F means that I remember what I what what the words were. >> Search for a butter. I mean if you
>> Okay, >> there it is. That's why >> So it's a putter you're saying? >> Yeah. such a negative impacts for butterers >> and that was next one is the next one. There it is. Thanks.
>> Okay, so I think it feels like we address noise to our collective satisfaction at this point. Um, >> hold but look at that. Uh, >> excessive noise bylaw period. So, I know >> I know that I'm gonna clean it up. I
don't have the word thought to unless you want to do it right now. You guys can uh >> you know, I mean, just uh I suppose I u >> I mean it uh let's see. >> No. Yeah. You know, we need to uh we
need to find a way to adjourn here pretty soon, I Well, the only thing I was going to say was I think the only outlying thing one actually Tom mentioned it that we we're measuring noise at the property line. Um I think
it's built into D >> that's in the WC there that they mentioned that the 310 CMR710. >> Yeah, it's in here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Do we just leave it that way because it's already embedded in there? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> anybody who would be qualified to do a noise study would know that.
>> Okay. And then the only other thing is do we want to require noticing for site plan review? Um I think that's the only other thing that was outstanding and I'm I'm totally good with that. That's it's highly reasonable.
I mean, the reason people object to having to notify abutters is that it costs money because you have to get the abutter list and then you have to do the mailing. But, you know, it's a few hundred bucks and it seems like letting people know in advance that's that's a reasonable cost for a developer.
>> Yeah. I just uh you know, I I don't know. I I site plan review is like, you know, you uh you do the work, you get your site, you know, goes to the board. It's not a public hearing. Um,
you know, so it's like a I don't know. I I I feel like it's possibly a misstep. I mean, I I think if it was that level of a a use that was, you know, that much of a concern, um, then maybe it should be a special
permit. I'm not convinced that's the case with our micro data center, you know, 150 square feet. Um, maybe we could uh I don't know if anyone would volunteer to look into that more in the interim.
>> I'm happy to email Donna. It's a simple question to see like >> Well, yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. I mean, that would be another that be that's another question, the legal aspect of it, you know. Um that I would that would be good I would like to hear what Don has to say about it, but then I
would also like to uh um know more about it and not just do it. Um I mean, you know, I I hear the concerns of the public. I mean, we took it out of Lake Wyola for one, which I think addresses it better than sending notices would. Um,
you know, it's uh allowed in uh three districts. Um 150 square feet or less. That's uh I don't I don't know if it needs a a butter notice, you know. I don't know if
it does, you know, 5,000 square ft. Absolutely. You know, 2,000 square feet even, right? Sure. But, uh, you're talking about like a a shed with some servers in it. That seems uh
I don't I'm not I would like more information before I make that decision. That's me. I mean, you know, if people want to if anyone feels strongly about it, we've got, you know, Tom, what do you got? >> Um, I just think you kind of said it in
so many words, but I don't know if it would be legal to, um, require notice to a butters looked at one way unless you invite those abutters to a public hearing. Um, which would have to make a special permit, but like to notify them
but not give them a voice at the table is kind of um, >> problematic. Thank you. So, I think one of the only ways would be to convert it to special permit >> um if you really want notification, but again, I think the council can tell us
better. >> Jeff, point of information, um I guess this is for Nathan and Michael or anyone else. If the planning board votes for this bylaw and it goes to town meeting and it's defeated by 2/3 vote,
then the null position, meaning no bylaw, means no data. Is that correct? Am I Am I st >> You broke up, Jeff. >> I'm sorry. Let me let me say again. >> No, no, we heard it. >> Okay. Did you hear the answer?
>> No, I did not hear the >> Oh, I said that's correct, Jeff. If uh if this gets um if this fails, it doesn't need to be rejected by twothirds majority. If it fails to achieve twothirds majority in the affirmative, then
we're left where we are now, which is a uh ends across the board, which I don't like, but >> just think having the definition there. But anyway, um >> I I think
I'm just raising my hand. >> Okay. I I think you know I know that I cannot be there in that um it's my wife se It's important that the people of the town know that indeed if this is
defeated um by a twothirds majority then we go to a I guess a no position which in our case is no data center that's that's correct as far as standing. >> If it fails to uh have a twothirds
majority vote in the affirmative then that's where we are. Yes. >> Okay. So, I think the town people need to know that. I and I will not be there to say it, but I think that's an important message for the town to know um before the vote occurs. That's all. >> I'll tell you I'll tell you what, anything you want in the planning board
report as uh a potential denter, I will uh wholeheartedly support to be printed with our our report for everyone to look at. I I don't understand that. Would meaning that I could I could write something and could be read.
>> Well, yeah, that's you know, if uh we get the rest of the board to vote for it, I I would certainly advocate uh wholeheartedly for it to be included in that. Yes. >> Okay. Uh that would be my preference to have a statement like that so the town knows that um indeed if they vote
twothirds um then the um the null position is no data center. I I would like to You do have to come to the April meeting. >> Oh, yeah. I'll be at the April meeting, but I just can't come to my um I have to go to my wife's 70th birthday gathering. I'm sorry.
>> Can't say I blame you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um Michael, what what do you need anything else to uh you know, kind of uh get where we need to be to vote on this? And uh No, >> no. I think the only outstanding thing
is the, you know, what do we do about notices? And I think we can address that in April if I, >> you know, talk to Donna. I don't I don't want to jump in front of Ashley. I did have one point about that. >> Um, just getting back to the notification thing. Wouldn't if we
notified people, wouldn't the public the ability for them to comment happen at our meetings when we have public comment? Like if we said, "We're notifying you that this is a potential thing. the next planning board meeting is April 6. You can show up and talk about it during public comment
or not. Wouldn't it is that possible to deal with the potential legal issue that Tom brought up? Maybe a good question for Donna. >> It's a you're talking about um reaching selectively out to the public and so that selective process in the
beginning kind of has to trigger more for them. Um, so it's not really appropriate for the town selectively to reach out to some people to say, "You might be especially interested in making public comment at a site plan review where technically it's just up to the
planning board to decide between them and the applicant." Um, it it it's not congruent with the usual way of selectively contacting the public about an event. It's like that's because you have a special status, >> right, >> or something and therefore you get to
come to what we call a hearing. >> Yeah. Yeah. a particular hearing for it. I was just wondering if not >> showing up for a site plan review, but saying you can show up to a planning board meeting and make public comment.
>> Yeah. Um the chair's discretion. >> Yeah. With the forums that already exist, I think it would just be easiest to place it into a hearing category. It's almost like trying to create a new kind of category of communicating or
I think it's illconceived to uh to do it. I mean, you know, we're going to look at it, but uh we'll see, you know, what Donna says. Michael. >> Yeah. Just because you guys won't have the opportunity to hear about the clean energy rigs tonight, I'll just sort of throw out the idea that in the clean
energy rigs, they've created this whole pre-filing phase. So, before an applicant submits, they have to engage the municipalities and the public. So another way to do it is for them to have a public forum just to sort of say this is what we're doing
where we're doing it which is separate from the planning board but it's a way of making it public to everybody and then anyone who decides they want to come to the planning board meeting can. So that's another option. >> Anyway, we can we'll figure that one out between now and April.
>> Right. Um, let's have a motion to uh close the hearing. >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> Second. >> Okay. Dear moves by seconds to close the public hearing on our data center bylaw
amendment proposal. >> Oh, wait a sec. >> Oh, discussion, right? >> Yeah. I'm wondering if we should not close it because we're going to bring back new information from Donna and whatever
about the noticing and that might be considered part of the hearing because it's new information. The whole idea is >> uh unless it's just us, I guess it's okay. >> This it's legal uh advice which is uh that's allowed after the hearing of a
special permit and >> Okay, cool. you know, and and and this is uh this is different than a special parent, too. It's uh it's an opportunity for the public to be heard. Um so, it's Yeah, it's uh we're good. I mean, yeah,
we could continue it. I don't think I don't think that's needed. >> Um you know, we we've we've had the hearing, we've heard from the public, and we can incorporate it. We can, you know, um I think everyone said anything that they want to say about, you know, their feelings about it. everyone's
errored it out. So, uh yeah, I think based on things that are available in the public record already, we can decide uh our final draft of this thing in April. Um anyone else? I'll call the role. Uh
take care. >> Hi. >> Hy. >> Hi. Craftoft >> I >> Weston >> I >> Seafford >> I >> and vote in the affirmative as well and
this uh motion carries unanimously. The public hearing has been closed and uh now We're going to I think skip minutes from January as much as I would like to get that done. Uh
no, I think >> clean energy we can pass on if you want. >> I mean I I don't really want to talk about it. I don't know if So we're going to have to start doing this. um you know accepting consolidated
permit applications in October. Um but my you know the the main question I want to at least talk about briefly Michael is uh is that the same timeline for a model bylaw?
>> So I I'll try to make this short. So do we. So it's for projects that are solar and wind that are less than 25 meg and battery that's less than 100 meg and we're we municipalities are going to be
regulating dos doing the regulations. So the regulations were finalized they went into effect on March 1st. So the regulations there the way they constructed them is that there's the regulations and then there's some substantive guidelines. The guidelines
are still in draft. Comment period ends on this Friday and then what's going to happen is the guidelines get incorporated into the regulations. So those will all go into effect on July 1st. Um so
everything that's in there. So tell me your question again. I just based on it. Oh the model bylaws, right? So the model bylaws are also the equivalent of guidelines and there's a newly created division. It's the division of sighting
and permitting in DOER. They're the ones who've been leading this whole process for whatever reason I think because it was just a heavy lift. The green communities division of DOE the model bylaws. It's a very scattered approach. The model bylaws, there was a draft that
came out like six months ago. There's going to be a final draft that's going to get released, I don't know, in the next month to two months. So, we haven't seen the revised draft of model bylaws. And the the thing I think I would just share
is the current message from DOE is that municipalities don't have to change their bylaws to comply with the new regulations. However, these model bylaws are going to come out and suggest stuff and so municipalities could change their
bylaws if they wanted to. Um, but D has been very clear in the last few weeks. You don't have to do it. I think there's there's some confusion there in my mind. Um, because >> the existing bylaws we we have may contradict the regulations they're
putting out. Well, yes. And so it all comes out to the Dover amendment, you know, so and it's about exposure. So, you know, and the other thing that's inconsistent, there's so many questions, but Dere expressed a couple weeks ago, municipal
bylaws can be more stringent than the model bylaws will be, but it's not written anywhere in either the regulations or the guidelines. So, that opens up exposure as well. Like if we, you know, the idea was if we had a 500 foot setback and like their their
setbacks are only 25 ft. >> I know that from the the original draft. So we're going to have a bigger setback. Could a developer say the state's recommending 25, you've got, you know, whatever we have 100 feet or 250 or whatever. That's unreasonable. We're
going to sue you. And then just the extra layer of confusion is that in the law, in the clean energy law, what the legislature conceded after people like me complaining was they basically said if municipalities
follow the rules developed by DOE, so they comply with the regulations, they're essentially going to be deemed compliant with the Dover Amendment. So if you play by DOE rules, you can't get sued for the doer amendment. But it seems like, you know, which is a great
concept, but they're creating all these little openings where there it seems like there's inconsistencies and there's nothing in writing. So that's like the ne next dynamic for us. Like I've always assumed we would have to change our bylaws. No, I'm sort of in a holding
pattern. I want to see the model bylaws and I want to get some clarity about some of this stuff. Um, >> holding pattern is good enough for me, Michael. I think we got to leave it at that. >> Yeah. So, more to come. >> Yeah. No, I mean, that was more my kind of like
obviously we're late for town meeting on this, but uh it >> seems like we might be all right. >> It I pointed out to them like six months ago that anybody any any municipality that changes their bylaws, if they're waiting for the model, is going to have to do a special town meeting, which is
351 communities. I mean, so >> yeah, >> we're we're with everybody else, so they just decided to do it this way. >> No, I know. No. All right. So, uh yeah, we got the Wheelock uh annual report. I don't think we've received it, Ashley.
You haven't received it by any chance, have you? >> No, I haven't. I checked um on our planning board website today just to see what's there, and it seems like the 2025 one is there.
Um, and I was wondering who received it and who put it there. >> Could have been the select board received it and then the web committee put it there or something like that. But, uh, >> yeah, I mean one for 2025, 2024.
>> They're short. No, they're like two pages long. >> Did you say 2025? >> Yes. I mean, I can't remember now if it actually does, but it's there's a link for it. I can check. >> Yeah. So, hey, let's let's just do this. Um, I just want to say if uh if you
haven't already, would you reach out and say, "Hey, we need our annual report." >> Yes. Or did you send it to us? I think you did. Yeah, I'll check it out. I'll take care of it. Yes, I will reach out to the person. >> Thank you. And then >> I don't know if it's the same person. I was looking at the last one that I
received from them in my email before this meeting and I think it was 2023. So, I was surprised when I checked the website and I saw that there was one for 2024 and 2025. So, I'll check it out. I'll compare names and I will reach out. >> Why don't we sus out these details a
little bit offline? Um, we can check in with uh select board if we need to or uh town minister. Um, yeah. So, that's just a little note there. >> I just looked and it Yeah, it's on the website. >> It's there. like somebody I I was
curious >> cuz it wasn't through me, but I can reach out to them and just make a point of connection either way and just >> or I could reach out to the town admin. I don't know. I'll figure it out. >> Well, I would I would just say now that we know it's there, maybe we could put
on next month's agenda so we can read it and discuss it and see if we want to follow up about anything. >> Okay. >> 2025. >> So, that's our homework to everybody read it. >> Yeah. >> Ahead of the next meeting. >> It's not a lot of reading. >> Oh, yeah. cuz it's 2025, right? That's only a couple pages that we didn't think we had. >> And most of it's boilerplate from all
the other ones. So, >> I'm sure. >> Okay. Yeah, we'll all right. So, never mind. You know, yeah, we could just talk about it next meeting. We don't have to do uh >> I'll do some reconnaissance and report back. >> Okay. I think there was some
talk about one of those documents having been like a site plan review report or whatever. I think that got sorted out, though. All right. Uh that's about it. I don't know if we uh anyone has any updates they urgently need to talk about. Uh I I'll just >> I have a quick thing. I'm sorry. It's
really quick. Um I know that there are planning board or there's there's planning training that happens at the state level. I remember Jeff Lacy telling me about it. I've seen it come through our emails. It may already have passed. I'm just wondering if the board could fund that at all because I'd love
to go but I can't pay for it. We've paid I think we've paid for it in the past. Um I can't remember when, but I I'm pretty sure Deacon had approved that. I think I saw an email in the last couple days like this is the last week to sign up because it hasn't happened
yet. It's in two Saturdays, I think. >> Yeah. >> Who's going? >> I would consider going too, but I didn't want to get off my wallet. Yeah, I paid for myself a year or two ago and I wondered if I wanted to again
>> blow or wide. Nathan, let us all go. >> Ashley said meeting was April 6th. I think the next meeting is April 13th. Am I correct on that? The second Monday. >> Well, hold on that, Jeff, because we're just to figure out this.
>> Okay. the citizen planner meeting. >> That was just me being hypothetical, Jeff. >> Okay, so it's April 13th as far. >> I have no idea when our next meeting is by date. >> Thank you. Um,
>> do we have money from our fees and all? >> I don't know. I've never been very uh close with the budget, but and our budget's always very small, you know, like a thousand bucks or whatever for a year. Um
so we can uh >> we're almost at the end of the year. We don't have any more notices to do. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, I >> Oh, Matt knows. The planning board expense line is currently $7264
out of a starting budget of $1,000. >> We could all go if we wanted to 105 bucks. And who wants to go? Ashley, Keith, >> I have to look at it again and look at the date. I don't know.
>> Matte. >> All right. Well, I think I think we can say that uh you know I mean is it that the board would have uh vote to approve uh a spend like that I assume or is it just the chair doesn't
have authority to spend money and uh say you can go you can go right >> I just make a motion if that helps >> I think it would uh I mean I suppose we could do that um
sure Okay. I'll I'll move that the planning board cover the registration expenses for the citizen planner workshop for um 20126 for board members who want to attend
>> second. Any discussion? >> Could I ask Matteo quickly? Matteo, do you know um the cost for the hearing tonight? Has that already been taken out of there? that uh I believe it has because that budget is let me see that
was posted uh through well >> yeah through March 10th 2026 so as of March 10th that was the uh so as of tomorrow >> I didn't know if the newspaper build us yet but okay
>> I I believe they have because we had to send it a while ago. >> I see. All right. Um, anything else? We're going to call the roll. Decara >> I. >> Hasty. >> I. >> Croft.
>> I. >> Se >> I. >> Weston. >> I. Motion carries unanimously. Very good. >> And before we I just looking at this email from them. Um,
it says, uh, what does it say? Hold on. That's annoying. It's the last week to apply, but I'm having a hard time finding the date.
Oh, here we go. Okay. Um, the last week to apply for CPTC. Um, registration closes March 13th at 5:00 pm. >> Okay. >> So,
I can forward that if it's helpful. >> So, if I were to register, could I just get reimbursed from the town or do we have to wait for like a purchase order or something? >> I don't know what the process is. I've seen it done before. I know. I remember
seeing >> the the easiest thing is to do Yeah. to do a reimbursement. Pay for it yourself. Give me the the receipt or the invoice or whatever it is. Then I can submit the reimbursement request. >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. Awesome. >> Sorry. I Yeah.
>> Yeah. You got a you got a friend of mine question. >> Um >> yeah, sounds seems like we're good. you know, worst case scenario, we'll go in the next fiscal year and get out of that budget. So, I don't leave anyone hanging.
It's good. It's a good uh spend, not too heavy. >> It's a good conference. >> And I'm going to say my update is uh you uh an email we received eight hours ago from the select board community action event for our rural schools, 2 pm Tuesday, March 10th. Come stand together
for a community action event. Join us tomorrow, Tuesday, March 10th. At 2 PM, Shbury Elementary School, teachers, students, staff, and lots of community members will join hand in hand to encircle our elementary school. Our goal, increase funding for rural schools
to the full 60 million recommended by the legislaturator's own rural schools commission. For those of us who are uh not interested in uh revenue through development, this is the alternative and it may be a much more
viable alternative than uh anything else we have anyway. >> They've never come close. I think they came they mostly did 12 or 16 million out of the 60. It's pretty outrageous. And uh >> that's not
>> I just got a quick update um >> because I think last meeting Steve wasn't sure if he was running again but Steve told me he's running so since he's not here. So he so he and I are running. Um I did reach out >> I did reach out to Jesse Rogan Broen to
ask because you remember she came to a meeting and said she was interested. So I emailed her just because I was curious. I haven't heard back. So, I don't know anything about the third slot. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I uh I called Steve about that like a week ago and he told
me it was wrong. I just forgot about it because I was like, "Hey," you know. Um, >> that's because you're not doing nomination papers. It's easy to forget. >> Well, I mean, and it's like all this stuff with the town clerk. like how is everyone anyone going to get nominated?
Is there going to be a commit a nomination night or um candidate night? The select board's working on doing that I think >> or at the library they talked about. >> Yeah, >> April 25th is the uh plan for the candidates night.
>> Oh, >> it's going to be at the library. >> Yep. >> That's good to know. >> It's not finalized, but that's the date they're looking at. Beautiful. All right. We don't have any unanticipated business. So this moment I
would uh happily entertain a motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> I'll second. I'll second. >> Okay. The car moves in and py seconds to adjurnn.
>> And hearing no discussion, I'll call the role. I got a discussion point is that I really enjoy working with y'all that that this really is a nice group. So >> thank you. >> I second that. Thank you. It's good. It's good.
>> It is good. You know, I mean, I think uh I don't know if we're in our right minds going three hours tonight, but it's uh >> it's a robust uh >> robust conversation. >> I'll give you context. When I was on school committee, sometimes we went to
one in the morning. I I I mean I you know I I really like to cut it off at nine, you know, but we just I don't know. It's hard. It's hard when you got you know. Um all right, day.
>> Hi, >> Hasty. I >> H Highfraftoft >> I >> Seaffort >> I >> Weston >> I and thanks for your leadership Nathan. I appreciate it. >> Thank you and I we've adjourned. Have a
wonderful evening everyone. We'll see you what's left of it. Right. What's left of it? Yeah. Couple hours.