Everyone said they were writing paper. Now, they literally just got very exciting. It would pain in the ass. >> Yes, that's why I brought it down so you
can take one. >> That's why it's here. >> Exactly. Okay. So, let's see. So, 874 749. >> I guess it's >> it's take the win. I think that's
>> feel like I'm holding playable card. >> Yeah, sure. >> We also got right into town clerk and school committee. >> School committee. Yes, you got it. >> I might have known that I could have gotten my child down from expect school committee.
>> Yeah, >> I guess in Wendle there was a vacancy on the board of health and two people. >> Not them. The other agency Sweet. >> I'm sorry. You didn't get any for constable though.
>> Wow. >> School committee. You got You got one vote for school committee. >> Everybody except Megan. Ashley. >> Vote for >> Ashley got a right to school. >> Oh, that's good. Um, Templar,
>> do you got six votes for Templar? >> Do you know how F Damon did. I kind of [ __ ] >> Yeah, Damon got 17. >> Oh my gosh. >> Leslie got 20. I got >> I mean I did it this
unmute. No. Okay, let's see. So, that works. Glad you sent that email because I forgot that tonight was a hybrid. >> Yeah, I didn't know until I looked at the agenda this morning. >> Okay. Is this fresh or is this just
champ? >> Yeah, that's I guess what's been waiting for us in our logs for the last >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, you get to have one now. That's Every time I come to Deacon, I forget to pick it up. Steve doesn't have his either. What's that? This You're right. I don't. >> You should take one.
>> Steve will be happy to know that you beat Michael by one vote. >> Two votes. Two votes. >> No, because I count the provisional the three provisional ballots. >> Oh, okay. >> You know, >> well, as I told I told >> that person I bribed. >> I told there's still people don't want to vote for me. So, that's clearly the
difference right there. >> I don't know. The fact that I got to write it, I don't know. I put a whole lot of credence in thought process that goes into some of these ballots. So, if they could write you in, that means they know your name, which is pretty cool, >> which kind of concerns me a little bit, too.
Again, as I said, >> Walter Walter's got 477 for >> for cemetery, whatever mission. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think he's >> That was a big campaign guy in town. >> Okay. Team,
>> any ideas how we switch the camera? That's just making it move. I think built-in camera. >> You want to control the camera? >> Maybe. >> You have to make that one host. >> Yeah. Make it conf.
Okay. I should make you co-host if I can. >> Can you do multiple hosts? I haven't joined yet. So, >> Oh, that's you. You need to. We have two people in the waiting room. There we go.
>> I'm joining. Ashley's joining. Oh, no. I think that's good. Right. It's a great my spot. >> Um, all right. I can admit people into the room. >> You can do that. >> Yep. >> You know, the room looks a lot better in
that. >> Uh, it does >> the camera than it does in real life. >> There we go. Little more head. >> If somebody's done some cleaning or tidying up in here, We do. All right. Hang on. >> You're admitting.
>> Yeah. Oh, >> we don't have any minutes. Oh, no. We're reviewing approved minutes for your hand. >> What's our previous one? >> Just a complaint. You're sitting around too much reading material here. >> What's our previous state?
>> It's this raised her hand. Oh, briefly flashed. Okay, that's good. >> Just s you you have people in. >> Um I did. We have Well, Ashley is gone
now. Uh oh, >> we have Diane and Greg Adams and Leslie Bracebridge. >> Okay, >> we have quorum. >> No. Yeah. Well, if I elevate you. Yeah. >> Okay. Elevate. >> That's all the same.
>> I can't. >> Are you not? >> I didn't swear myself in yet. So, I'm still an associate member. >> Okay. You have to >> Well, I'm not actually. >> No. July 1st. We're not No, I think it's I didn't read your email. >> It is not the fiscal year. >> Yeah, >> it's bas It's
>> I'm so confused. >> Starting the day the day starting the day after the election. I checked with the elections division and this is the guidance they gave. Town clerk and town moderator are set by are set by state law and in our town school committee is set by a vote of town meeting.
>> Yeah, I changed that when I was on school committee. All other elected offices have to comply with MGL which says that elected offices starting the day after the election as soon as the person is sworn in that's when the term begins. >> It's different than appointed which are start at the fiscal year. >> We're not sworn in yet.
>> No, I was suggesting he could swear us in after the minute. Yeah, you're but your current term is still active >> and then when you get sworn in you replace your old term. >> Oh, until July is it? >> Oh, Ash was in the way. >> I thought you had that control. >> No, no, I gave it up. >> Okay. >> How come you can't see people? should be
able to change the I think >> that's a host control option. >> Yeah. Uh I've been in this room for a long time. We at the last we used to meet you know
in the old days pre-COVID days seems like people should be able to be seen based on this um video. >> You just did something. >> Yeah.
View gallery thumbnail. Let's try thumbnail. No, >> Ashley, can you hear us? That did nothing. Participants >> Ashley is not muted. So, >> are you trying to get gallery view right
now? >> No, I'm in gallery view. That's what >> That's what's so weird. Okay, I think we can be heard, but I can't hear. >> Well, they may be on mute. >> She's not muted. >> Okay, >> Leslie is not muted either. Jeff West.
>> Yeah, she just texted me. She's probably screaming at her computer. >> Sorry. Oops. >> There's Jeff. >> There we go. There's Jeff under that. >> And they're all in they're all
in the meeting. Are there cameras on? >> Jesus Christ. >> Things up. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, I know. >> Good tail. >> They push >> the wrong button. I think
>> now it's off. >> On the YouTube. Uh, >> I'm wondering Oh, what's up, baby? >> Okay, Jeff's over at the town. One day we will catch a pop and find out what he is doing and see if
he has the time on him and maybe a quid for the bus or a chick for the way home. >> Catch that. >> Catch him. >> Don't let him get away. He's gone now. Try not to color >> because he does not like >> Jews is acidic.
>> Oh no, >> it's getting worse. >> It's going downhill >> experiments. Take two Jews and make >> in your special lness. So let let me see this slide.
mute. Actually, am I in a little mound? >> Oh, there we go. We did it. We did it. >> Yeah, but there's an echo. >> That's because No, I got my >> Yeah, it's your audio off, >> but you're muted.
>> Oh, well, I don't know your audio in in Zoom. Your audio on the computer has to get turned off too >> there. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let me just see if we got Okay. Andrew's cork. We can't see Jeff.
We can't see Greg and Diane Adams. We can't see. >> We can see Jeff. >> Yeah. So, but we can see Jeff and Ashley is not there anymore. Oh, there Ashley's there. >> Ashley's there. >> She's there.
>> Is she Is her camera on? >> Camera's on and she is unmuted. Jeff, can you say something? >> Apparently not. >> Jeff, can you hear us? >> I can hear you. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Oh, great. Well, okay. >> So, I'm not sure why we're not hearing
Ashley. Okay. Hey, Ashley, text me if you can hear me. Jeff, you can hear us. I guess that's so everyone can hear us. >> I think um yes, I definitely can hear you. >> Okay. Well, why don't if they can hear us and they can see us, we can start.
>> Okay. >> Which is we're subpar in terms of technology, but it's working. >> Then Ashley won't be able to talk. It's >> Ashley. Can you hear us and talk? We know
>> we hear her. She's in the >> Oh, she's going to come over and she's going to wear a mask. >> Oh. >> Oh, she gave up. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And Leslie and Diane and Greg,
you guys, I think you can hear us. I totally apologize. >> Oh, good. you >> that that at that point when the right before the odd voice came on, I had a message from you asking if that you
could unmute me and so I answered yes, but I think that odd voice came from outside maybe. >> Okay. Well, we got you. That's good. I'm going to try the same thing then with Diane and Greg. >> I'm gonna >> Hi, we can we can hear you. Thank you.
Oh, great. Cool. Okay. So, at a timely 710, I'll call us to order because we um and I'll I'll activate Tom. So, we have a quorum. So, we got a quorum. >> Correct. >> We have partial technology. >> We have Jeff, too. >> Oh, we have Jeff. Correct. Hi, Jeff.
Forgot about that. Um, so we you're the chair. >> I am the chair for today. So, who It says our chair. >> Okay. >> You sure you want to own all of the last
10 minutes? >> No. I'm just I'm definitely gonna um give him grief for that part. >> This was his idea, right? >> I guess exactly. He sort of put us in a tight spot. Um so public comment
Diane Leslie guys have any public comment you want to share? Not I. >> Okay. >> No, thank you. We're we're just here to listen. >> You're just just watching the technology hysterics here. >> See what we can learn.
>> Okay. Well, I'm glad to have you both. Um, so I don't assume there's anyone who's here for landowner education. Is that Leslie? I'm assuming you don't need any landowner education. Diane, same for you.
Uh, if you don't come back on, I'll just assume that's the case. You don't have to unmute. Um, you guys don't need any land owner education. We're all adequately educated. >> We don't need >> And we don't have minutes. Correct.
>> Uh, there were minutes 13. >> Oh, okay. >> Cool. >> So, I want to move to approve the minutes of April 13th, 2026. I haven't looked at all. The only Was that the one I missed?
>> Uh, yes. So, the only thing I I noticed when I I did look at them when they first came out was that I was not listed as absent. >> Um, uh, I think Tom pointed it out to me. I corrected that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Did you guys read them?
>> Okay. Want to move to approve them? >> I'll move to approve April 13 minutes. Yeah. Mhm. Steve, you want a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> Okay. Hearing none. Steve, how do you vote? >> I >> Keith,
>> I >> I for Tom >> I. Jeff, >> I >> minutes of April 13, 2026 are approved. Um, so we only have one Well, maybe we'll flip it and see. Does
anyone have any member updates? This way we can go through substance while coming over. did I guess I don't know if this is unanticipated business or an update but um I'll just mention it quickly and we may or may not discuss it at all but I
represent the planning board on the Lake Wyola advisory committee and there's a discussion concerning a road by the lake called Birch Drive or Birch Road and part of the discussion at least concerns
whether that road or part of the road is a shared driveway and as far as I've been able to figure out that would be a zoning bylaw question. >> Um, common or shared driveways appear to
need a special permit and um >> existing driveway or >> this is there's a question as to whether it is a shared driveway or not, >> but it's physically there's a there's a driveway there now. >> Whether the private road is a shared driveway is I think what the question is for some people.
>> Um, >> is it officially a town road? No, it's a private Lake Wyola associationowned road and uh there's a question about plowing responsibilities for the snow and part of that question will be answered with
if it's a shared driveway or not in terms of responsibilities, but it's not apparent that it is from what I've done research on in terms of like the registry of deeds and whatnot. So, >> um I just wanted to alert people that it
may be coming up. >> Um or I don't know if we want to, uh or if anyone's had actually experience with shared driveways, special permits with our zoning bylaw to ask for any sort of reference that
people know about. This may not be relevant, but I have a memory of town meetings many years ago where they determined that the town of Shootsbury would plow the lake Biola roads
and if that's a Lake Biola road, it's an association road. Don't think there's any distinction. Me it wouldn't be a shared driveway but a road. >> That's my inclination. Yeah. Again, I'm not basing this on any >> Yeah, exactly. I I haven't referenced
it, but there is a policy and I think it might be what you're referring to. >> And there are five or six criteria about when it wouldn't be plowable, I believe. And one of them is if it's a shared driveway, >> correct? >> Um, but if it's a public access private road, it will be plowed, for example.
But I don't want to paraphrase it wrong, but the shared driveway detail is what may be um an important one to uh clarify on this issue. Uh Birch >> and the association has no um nothing
documented about that particular >> correct as what is on the registry of deeds is that this is part of the large piece of land which is all of the connected private roads at LWA loans, right? and just that it's just a private way. Um, and there's nothing to show
that anyone ever applied for a shared driveway special permit or designation of that. Um, so I guess I just want to say it wouldn't I think it may be coming up in June or as soon as June because the select the town administrator is looking at it as well
as the highway department. >> Make them do the work first. Yeah. God bless. Maybe. And would they come to you as an initial inquiry? >> I would hope. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, maybe just suggest they check in with Matt. >> Okay. When you get tired of looking into it,
>> but makes sense. I have I'm sorry. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's great. Thanks. >> I have a belated update. Thank you for running again. Congratulations on another three years. >> Congratulations. Actually, >> congratulations. >> Sure. That's an update. Thank you. >> Yeah, it's a big one. So,
>> and to both of you, you didn't congratulate yourself. >> I know. Congratulate yourself. >> Yeah. >> And Matteo, you want to tell us? >> You got that right. >> Once we're sworn in, if we're if we're acting >> as for we're in that
>> once we're sworn into our office, then we're we're good for the next three years. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I mean, you're good right now because of your previous >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. So actually our terms go from the day the day you're sworn in to the day the
next person's sworn in. >> Yeah. So it's kind of sloppy like the fiscal fiscal year would be consistent. >> Is there a deadline after the election to be sworn by for that? >> I don't think I realized that. >> I I deadline for clerks. Okay. It's set
state law. But otherwise all it says is as soon as the day after the election someone can be sworn in. I looked into this like a couple months ago because this news will make Rita very happy, I will say. But she was asking like if I knew when her term
ended. Uh so she's probably the same thing. So anyway, I knew we configured >> from uh many many years ago is that the select board unified everything to July 1. And whether or not we could find it in their minutes is another question.
and whether or not we want to or need to, but I think that's where the July 1 start date came from. And I don't know what uh the consultant who's there at Secretary of the Commonwealth has to say
about that, if it's worth even looking, but that is the history of how it occurred. And that's why Michael had to go get that special um exception for exception for the school committee for the regional. you were concerned about
the regional function >> yet. I love that you remember these things. Um Leslie, thank you for being here. Um do you know what decade the select board might have made this decision? Just to narrow it down a bit.
>> Do you remember what decade you made the >> Yeah. Um >> that's in town meeting minutes for sure. >> Yeah. Know that one I know. I looked it up. It's it's probably like between 2008 2012 or 13. the school committee. >> Yeah. >> 2011.
>> It is nailed it. >> So I'm just curious. Are we going to be digital? >> So we have to just look for the select one prior to that >> meetings as part of our >> that I mean that would be ideal. >> That would be ideal minutes of permanent records. >> I would I would say we should figure this out before you swear anyone in.
>> Well, okay. So, I I will say that the um the the town can change when elect when the term of office for elected officials begins, but it's by vote of town meeting. >> Oh, select board adopts a policy setting it >> that that doesn't comply with what's in
master general law. >> Okay. >> And I do not believe the select board it ever went to town meeting. Uh we could just simply look back at the town reports and see when my format stating
term starts terms started as the way to uh list appointed officials. So it's obviously before 2011 but it sounds like it doesn't hold water anyway. >> This was educational. Thank you Leslie.
>> You're welcome. Going to try to unmute. It's a little difficult on the iPhone, but I will eventually unmute. >> Okay, welcome. >> Hi. Sorry for the technical >> I think it must have been my computer because he's working. So,
>> it didn't detect my camera and I could hear everything you all were saying, but you couldn't hear. >> Weird. >> Yeah, it was weird. >> That was weird. >> Well, >> sorry to make you get out of your house, but this is good. >> Cool. Um I know I'm not a member, but can I for
there's a discussion going on about the um Jewish cemetery? >> Oh. Oh yeah, we're on outdates, right? >> So >> yeah, >> I just wanted to >> who's who's discussing on the town site? >> Um they are beginning with the board of health. This has to go through the board of health, but eventually the
conservation commission also has to sign off on it. And I believe there's also a role for the planning board at some point >> to expand >> question about well they're not going to expand it. Um so they're they're looking at a parcel that is on the other side of lever um of lever road towards Monty
road and there's a discussion yeah um about what is the front >> about frontage chalk did it have to be on which >> oh that's right it was money first >> yeah and whether it be considered a buildable lot if it's a cemetery >> and I think the other thing that we'll have to look into is what counts as a
structure didn't we go through that with like headstones or something >> yeah well when they were they were look when they were looking to expand the current site. That was one of the discussions and so but it's a little vague what you know
they're very small structures. >> There was a lot of documents from the 1980s in like amongst all the emails that we got and so I was flipping through some of that. So we have that to work with whatever they did last time and it looks like it's the plot that was
being considered for solar development. Oh, that's >> so it's Koh's land that they're looking to purchase. >> And from what I read, correct me if I'm wrong, Matteo, it said that Kohl's was willing to have the driveway come in
from Leopard Road even though the frontage is not on you. But >> yeah, that was the question about the frontage is if the driveway is on one side, if the driveway is not on the side that has the 250 frontage, >> right? And it said we it was a special permit
in 1970. Whatever. That is how the cemetery was built. >> So we're doing special permit. >> So I guess we could wave it, but we'll wait till we get a proposal. Cool. Any other updates? Oh,
>> I have to ask a favor. And can we go back to landowner guidance because I have to ask a question as an abuing landowner? >> Sure. to something that I received noticed about from the conservation commission. >> Yeah, let me say any other updates before we go back. >> Okay, you're on.
>> And I didn't think about it. I was going to ask at the Furco building inspections, but somebody here might be able to help me before I go there. Um, I received an abut's notice because a neighbor or an ab butter is applying for
a notice of intent to the conservation commission which appears to include taking down a house and putting up a new house of >> the same footprint. >> No. and I'm in the Lake Wyola district
and I wanted to know if anyone could just help me like stepwise what happens when are things maybe happen concurrently like are would they need to apply for a building permit? Would that come across the planning
board radar? And if either of those were a yes, is it um something that can happen after a notice of intent with the conservation commission is sorted out or is there one thing happens first or a second that
anybody knows about or um >> is that clear how I'm wording it? >> Yeah, I don't know about the which comes first, but they would absolutely have to apply for a building. >> Okay. Because that's why I was I could go >> they're moving the the location of the house from what you
>> from what I saw on the plans how I understood the diagrams for the notice of intent said that the old structure was here and the new structure would be up here. >> It still has to conform with setbacks and >> exactly that's what I was thinking about. So I didn't know when to um ask
about is there a building permit even or um or can the notice of intent happen even though maybe there hasn't been a building permit yet. I don't know the answer to that. house first. Okay. >> If it's on given it's like like if it's on a legally non-conforming
they might be exempt from setbacks. >> They were grandfathering >> maybe. But once they move that house >> it changes. >> Yeah. It changes the game. If they build exactly where on the same foundation that's one thing you're right they're grandpa. But once they
>> shift it's a new project. >> That's good to know that helpful >> enough. I mean, I might still drop in at Ferg and ask if they have any input, but um >> you don't have any any NOI
perspective on that. >> Um I don't think that the order in which it happens matters, but what would happen is they would need to get a building permit and it would be the building inspector. It would be the enforcement officer who would say you need to get, you know, this is not compliant. You need to get a permit. Um
but uh yeah, and and that parcel, the construction is it's not on the same foundation. They're essentially >> spinning they're spinning the house. >> Um and it's definitely close to the setbacks. So, you know, it's you know
what would the bu the building inspector would not say you need to get a conser a permit from the conservation commission. Um so they might be doing that first before going and getting the building permit. Um but I don't think they need to do it in a particular order.
>> Okay. That's I guess kind of what I'm asking. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you enough for that. That helps. So we only have one agenda item which is the clean energy laws that has been on the agenda for a few
week a few months. So I thought I'd go through this and we just have a conversation so we know what's coming. So I made a whole bunch of handouts. Um actually want to pass them around that way. Actually made my own. Oh, picture that
way. There's that. Those are all things I can have a long list of >> I got >> documents used at the end of the minutes. That's >> so um
I think the one I'll start with is the multi-page staple ones and I'll just I'll go through it and then when your I start glazing over I'll start >> everything's going to be all right. >> I don't know if it's the middle one that's good.
Cool. Okay. Um so the background is um in November 2024 the clean energy law was passed and that was preceded by a whole state
process of trying to figure out why is clean energy deployment going too slow. Um and in my humble estimation and Keith has been following this too so if you should chime in. Oh, I will. Um, but in my estimation, you know, what
they decided was one of the main reasons besides interconnection was that towns were permitting too slow. So, they're going to basically reform the permitting process. So, a lot of this is about that. Um, and they came up with
two categories of clean energy. So, clean energy is solar, wind, battery storage. large is 25 megawws and more for solar and wind and 100 megawatts for battery and then small is underneath those. Um so the state's going to
regulate the large ones after lots and back back and forth it ended up that municipalities are still going to be able to regulate um the smaller ones. Um, and so this little diagram here, if you ask the
OE they didn't really change the substance, they changed the process, which I don't think is totally accurate, but that's the way they're thinking about it. Um, so they created a whole process that has gotten codified into regulations. And I think that's part of what I'll go
through. But um I'd say the big change that is the one good change is the pre-filing process is really robust. So there's committee engagement. So you know what we've experienced a developer shows up our front door and says I want to put something here and either they've
submitted a proposal or they're going to and the pre-iling has requires a whole process with the municipality and the community to have engagement so that there's education and feedback before the proposal actually gets filed. So if
you flip to page two on the bottom, um the things that have to happen in the brief island is the developer has to meet with local officials. The local officials identify key stakeholders. So committees, individuals and bigger
towns, organizations, businesses, etc. Um there's an opportunity to check for the plan for accuracy and to confirm all the needed permits. And one the big the big change in process is they're looking municipalities as a
whole. So they it's called a consolidated application permit process. And so unlike now where like when we were dealing with the solar stuff, you know, they would have to go to the concom process. They'd have to come to us and go through our process. They were separate. we would make separate
decisions with the new regs. It treats the municipality as a whole in the sense that we have 12 months as a municipality from the time the application is deemed complete to make a decision for all the
committees and then constru constructive approval kicks in. And so one of the the things that's good, you know, is that the concom gets to do its process. is just constrained within 12 months. We get we to do our process also
constrained within 12 months. It's unclear to me if the board of health um if there's board of health regulations is not necessarily a permit, but the exception to that permitting process is ministerial permit. So like a building permit is ministerial. So that doesn't
count. Um but at the before 12 months is up, the municipality has to basically make decisions each board. So Com would have to actively make a decision and the planning board in our case would have to actively make a decision for us to be
fulfilling our role. If either of the committees that's required didn't make a decision, it'd be constructive approval because it was deemed that the municipalities as a whole didn't make a decision. Um if either of the e if any of the committees who are involved with
permitting reject the proposals, then the proposals accepted. Um, so we're sort of we're free agents in terms of our decision-making. We just have to do it within the the construct of this 12-month period and do it as a municipality. Does that make sense?
>> It does, but we need and you'll get there. We need a local government. >> We do. I will definitely get there. That's definitely the thing. >> And that's not insignificant. >> No, it's huge. There's a lot to say about that one. Um, >> if we do reject it, if one board rejects it, it's a no, does that restart the
timeline or >> No, then it's just they can appeal it, but they can only appeal it to the energy facility signing board, which is the state agency. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Um, which Tom >> if there's mutual agreement, you still can't continue it for more than 12 months.
>> No, right now. >> Okay. >> It's a real problem. >> And I think that's a valid change. Although I will say looking at this, their pre-filing workload is pretty significant that if they do all these things and have talk to everybody,
everybody should have a pretty clear idea. >> Oh, pre-filing helps. >> Yeah. So, really the 12-month ticker isn't as >> it's consent, which it seems like. >> Yeah. I mean, it seems like just the pre-filing stuff could take quite a while. >> Yeah.
>> And there is no time. >> No, there isn't. No, there isn't at all. And so yeah, the pre-iling just it just has to happen. >> No time limit for the >> preiling. Correct. And the pre-filing just has to if I remember correctly has
to be finished 60 days before the application like there has to be a period in between. Um so the cool part with pre-iling is they have to do public outreach. They have to have a public meeting. They have to consult with the
municipal leaders about when a good time and place is for a public meeting to maximize participation. And you know, it might be they might need translators, they might translated into material, they might have to have daycare, all that kind of stuff. >> Um, and then one of the things I really push for is having a project information
on a website. So the developer has to put all the stuff on the website. There's one place everyone can go for everything. Oh, >> sorry. You probably There's no um clock on replying to the pre-filing application. >> Say again.
>> There's no clock on replying or responding to the pre-filing. >> No. So, it's I mean so the first step is meeting you know they'll meet with the municipal officials and we would say did you pay attention to this permit you know and these are the people you need to talk to and then they go and have the
public meeting. in the public meeting, they have to take the feedback down and they have to document it. Um, and so there's a pre-filing checklist that gets submitted along with the proposal when they submit it. And the checklist basically says we did all these things and one of the one of the things that's
included is documentation of the feedback. So they have to say what the feedback they got and then how they responded. Um, which is really great. Um, so you know, if they came in and they said, I mean,
yeah, if they came in with slopes of 60%. And we said that's really crazy, they would have to put that down so it's in writing before they proposed. But, um, that, as Keith was saying, there's no timeline in the pre-filing. um may not I would assume
well I this is I'm going to jump around again but the local government representative which is sort of the the person who makes the trains run there's a lot of responsibilities which we'll talk about but that person determines when the pre-filing checklist has been
completed so and that's a municipal representative so until that person says you did it all they don't they don't get to proceed to the application so all front end stuff is really good. >> And it could be a person or it could be the select board. >> Well, okay. So, the way it's the way the
reg's set up now um is it's the chief administrative officer for the town. So, in our case, it's a select board. So, by default, it's a select board. The select board can designate. >> Sure. >> Um and so there's two things. I mean, one is that we have to decide town. And
I've mentioned this selectable already and me and T have talked just a little bit about it, but the local government representatives, the person who on the front end with this pre-iling stuff is sort of making sure that everything's happening um and is
coordinated and then as we go through is really the key person. So it's it will even if it was a select board they'd have to designate like one of I don't think a group of them could do it effectively >> or or could they designate somebody to be the their their stand and the representative and then come the end
when it's time to is this complete or not. >> It's not the decision of that person. It comes back to the select >> possibly. Yeah. >> But there's still a huge investment in time for that. >> Oh yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. No doubt. >> Yeah. And so I mean one thing I'll just I'll just front front front with this
since you brought it up. What I mean it's essentially a really big unfunded mandate comparing municipalities. And so the reason I brought to the select board a few months ago was we're in budget season and you know even if Matteo is willing to do it but using him as an example since he's doing planning route
already there's more activities than he's currently doing. So, we would have to budget time. And the challenge is for every municipality, you don't know if you're going to get an application, so you can't effectively budget. So, what I've been working on with legislators is
lobbying for changing statutes that it would allow um 53G consultants, which is the the consultants that we've hired at the applicant's expense. So that and the way I'm thinking about it is if that actually happened, you can create this
core of experts who are, you know, just doing it for each around the state. You got an application, you could call them, they would know what to do. Um, and it's a little tricky on the front end. Like if it was written correctly in statute, you could stop the clock until you had a local government representative in place
like the contract was signed and then you start the 12 months or you start the pre-filing process. Um, but currently that's not in law. DO I went to an MMA meeting two week last week and DO is starting to suggest
that but if you read read the regulations they really can't because it says um a chief administrative officer can designate a local government representative. In my humble opinion I don't think a select board can designate an applicant to pay for somebody else. That's a
little stretch of designation. So it'll get worked out. Either we'll have to >> wait say that last part again. You don't think the select form could require the applicant to pay for an NG a local government representative? >> Not the way the regulations are written
now. I don't think it can the town. I don't think I >> I >> the way I understand designation is like you're you've got the power to sort of like tap someone, but I don't think you the town of the select or anyone can tap
an applicant and say we're going to pick Matteo and we're going to have you pay him. Like that seems like a stretch. >> Could the cost of that be built into the fee structure? >> Well, that was actually so I was at a meeting on Friday. I got invited to the Hilltown CDC. there was a meeting of the
Hampshire County Hilltown. So it was like Warthingington, Goan, Blainefield, um Chesterfield, West Hampton, and they talked about jacking up their fees >> um as a way to cover all this stuff. So it is something that we might want to
consider because our fees are really low at this point. But even if we jack the fee to cover the cost of a of an LG local government person, can we should those fees cover hiring an independent person or would that be somebody in town?
>> Um I think we could I'm not like if if we didn't have the applicant paid and we were paying for it. Well, I think if if we up the fees as NAR was suggesting >> and those fees we were confident would cover >> whatever time
for an LG >> I would think so because then it's somewhat >> the language just says designate. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> We wouldn't want the applicant to be hiring. >> No. And well in the 50 >> well in 53 scenario like we did with you know storm water stuff for weak and whatever
>> the town does the hiring. It's just the applicant puts the money in a bank account. So, but yeah, I think I think designation would be tapping our own consultant. I mean, that that seems possible. Um, now the one thing I'll say which is this little follower of ear sheet is the two things that I had
presented to the select board a few months ago and pitching because DOE has really not been spreading the word. There's two things that need to happen. The law goes into effect July 1st. Um, and so there two things that need to happen. One is
the executive body for the towns have to vote when they're going to start accepting consolidated permits. So you can optionally start on July 1st. You have to start on October 1st. Um and so the select board has decided we would do
it on October 1st. Um so for us we're set. Um and then the other thing is just figuring out who's going to be the local government representative. So, you know, if on October 1st we have an application, we know how this is going to work. So, we're not eating up time. Um, so those are the two like
timesensitive things where we're standing right now. >> Do you know if the select board has discussed it yet? >> They have not. We I mean I >> besides the day. >> Yeah. No, we we talked about it briefly at the select board meeting. Um, but it was too much to figure out at that
point. I don't think Matteo, you weren't there. Um, so Nathan was there. Um, and Nathan was the opinion that we might not need to do anything and just sort of have Matteo serve in that function. But I mean my sense is looking at this list there's more tasks to be done.
>> Oh yeah. >> So quick question about the process then. When who is responsible increasing the fees to cover local government representatives? >> I think it would still be us. Look at
>> yeah because it's like we still own the special permit process. >> Okay. >> So we could just decide and I think that was just a majority vote at a meeting. >> So it feel it seems to me that that's a stop gap measure until maybe the state you can convince the state to change. >> I I'm actually hopeful Joe Cer's office
is pretty receptive. But yeah, I think that's exactly we should I mean between now and October. Well, we'll know if the law gets changed um by the end of July. And if it does, then I think we could just, you know, revisit in the fall and back up the prices and figure out how to
do that. Um to try to be creative. Um >> so we have fee structures in place that we would raise or we would create new fees. >> We've got fee structures now. I mean, we we increased them after relock, but they're still pretty modest. They're like 250 bucks or something. It's not
going to get many uh hours out of No. >> Yeah. 10 times that maybe covered. Maybe. >> Yeah, exactly. Um, >> does changing fees require a hearing or anything? >> No. When we did it last time, we looked into it and it was just a matter of the
planning board deciding to vote at an open public meeting. So, I think the art part would be figuring out how to get close to covering the cost. >> So, >> we could revisit, you know, if we go through one of them, if it's not enough, we'll know we need more next time. Yeah.
>> Or maybe even in process. I don't know if that's possible, but >> I don't know if it probably not in process, but yeah, it' be tricky. We could probably ballpark >> a one year. >> Yeah. >> Employee how many hours a week we think
it's going to take. I think >> yeah, I'll move on just in terms of the the process part. So in the application they you know they submit the consolidated application. I guess they're just jumping around but that's
that's all right. Um this is this is confusing. So there's right in March the way the the law read is that by March 1 had finalized the regulations and so the core regulations got
finalized by March 1st. There's four sets of guidelines that are connected to the um regulations that were presented in draft form. They got public comment and they're rejiggering them. They're not finalized
and they're not public yet. Um so how much still change? It's hard to know. And then the other thing that's connected to that is the green committee communities division of DOER is got tasked with developing model bylaws for municipalities. So there's going to be a
model solar bylaw and model best bylaw. Um and that's not out. They're two two months behind terms of releasing it. So that's a little tricky. Um the other thing that's in draft form which is where whereas launching off from
the law said that do had to create an application. They didn't describe how comprehensive it was but had to be in it decided they were going to do an application form an online portal and it was going to work for all 351 communities. So they released a draft of
that. I had a field day with my comments. Um but my take I mean it's it's an impossible task number one. Um and they tried to do it for not only every municipality but every possible board and committee. So you know like
the application was concoming boards and ZBAs and boards of health and there's a few others historical commissions perhaps. Um my takeaway was with even though they're trying to cover all that stuff, there's stuff that we would want locally that we
require in our current bylaws. It's not in there. And so one of the concerns would be an applicant would go to this online official application portal, fill in all the fields and attach all the stuff and say that they complied with applications, but we wouldn't get what
we want. So, it's unresolved, but it's definitely out there as a concern. Um, and one of the reasons to wait till October 1st to see. >> Yeah. No, absolutely. >> Not at all, man. >> Maybe even later, but I know we can then. >> So, quick question about that. Did I
read this correctly? In the scoring of those categ >> in the in the scoring of those categories. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The applicant scores those categories. >> Oh, yes. Yeah. I'll get to that in a second. >> That doesn't make it. I mean, they have a whole >> Come on. >> Yeah, that's
>> How would you throw that if you were the applicant? Oh, yeah. This is I'm >> We get We get to review it, right? It's It's >> hardly No, no, no. >> I mean, it's the same tool. We have access. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. We can look at it. Yes. >> And if we draw the same polygon,
we should get it should spit out the same >> Yeah. Yeah. So, but the only the only there's interpretation involved here. Well, that's the DOE says there's not based on I'm just saying what they say. They say it's it's it's objective and
you just draw the polygon to get the same result, >> right? >> But >> I mean, I think it's rather simplistic myself. >> Well, I wouldn't I won't disagree, but what's even worse for me is the fact that the applicant >> get to give their own score to the thing. And >> you know, I'm not convinced if we were
independently scoring it that two scores would the planning board and the applicant scored. The interesting thing and this is what I was surrounded to Keith about is that the only way you can appeal the scoring >> is as if the data the underlying data is um inaccurate and flawed. So that piece
of yeah so they say this you know the carbon sequestration >> scores high or low right it's trees we can say oh no there you know your your your uh land cover
source for that is wrong because there are no trees there >> right >> or there are trees there whichever way >> which again the data they're using to inform these things are >> yeah I think they'll put go into discussions. >> Yes. So, I'll get to that in a minute.
So, I think just >> got to happen in 12 months. >> Yeah. >> Well, no, this is still pre- Okay. All right. >> No, no, no. The site suitability is part of the is part of the >> I thought they had to have that at the end. >> They do an initial one so many respond
and then the other part is the official. Um, so I'll jump to the the parts of the application because I think that's sort of um so on site suitability. So there's several things that are part of that are required as part of the application. Um
you know sort of make sure that things are cited correctly. So one of them is site suitability. Um there's lots of issues there but I mean there's let's see one two there's
four categories plus another um that they look at site suitability. So like Keith was just saying there's carbon sequestration and storage, there's biodiversity, there's agricultural resources, there's climate resilience. So one of the things in my opinion, if I
looked at this a lot, is they were trying to get objective data and so they went hunting for the data that they had, which means that know these are like really good things to be looking at, but they're hard and so the data doesn't exist. And so my favorite example is
climate resilience, right? which on the face of you say, "Oh, that's cool. They're looking at climate resilience." If you dig deeper, what they're what it is measuring is the exposure to flooding of the facility itself. So, not even
flooding of the community um or the area. >> That's the primary criteria of >> that is that is the only criteria and the re and the reason >> call it something else actually. >> Exactly. And if you track it back, it's because under the municipal
vulnerability preparedness rating if for communities that are applying for that, that's one of the measures. So they have a tool in there for measuring this thing. So they they tied it to that. So there's some things in here that they're measuring which, you know, it's good to
know that the facility is not going to flood or not, but you know, it's not climate resilience. >> Call Yeah, call it that. >> Yeah. >> Flooding or not floating. >> Exly. Um the carbon storage stuff um they expanded it a little bit. I think there's two data sources now. Um I don't
know Keith you had opinions on that one you want to share other than the whole premise being flawed. Um >> no I mean it is what it's built in. >> Yeah. We don't have to we don't have to get to it. >> The fact that it only applies to this particular use of land
>> doesn't apply to shopping centers, doesn't apply to farms, doesn't apply to any other land use, but we're going to hold the one technology that will help address climate change. >> We're going to hold to a carbon sequestration standard, nothing else. So
this whole scheme, and this is my comment to them, was everything here, their whole scheme places clean energy below all these other land uses, below agriculture, below trees,
uh below biodiversity. All of those things rank higher than clean energy. And if we're trying to address climate change, that makes zero sense. But the that horse left the barn. >> On the other hand, there's no one
building giant shopping centers and rural forests, which is where >> Eastern Mass, they certainly are. >> I understand. But like that's where a lot of this stuff is going to go. So I imagine that's what >> you know where most of this has gone? Worcester.
>> Worcester is cleaning the state's clock in building solar. We think we're being burdened. No, Carlton's the number one town. >> Worcester is >> Did they ever count >> the the whole county >> county? Yeah, Carlton's got 27. >> They are by far again. Western Mass has
not been >> Well, we are getting now like Bford's got four. Lfield's got two. Worththing's got two. I mean there's >> I mean not doesn't add up to 20 >> depends on how big they are. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, so these are the
things biodiversity is capturing biomass uh biomap information. So these are the four areas where they get graded and the grading is um zero to five with the exception of one of them which I'm forgetting which it
is. Um and then you can have modified >> I think the climate resilience is the three, right? Yeah, >> that could be it. >> I think so. Um, and then so the lower the lower score the better. And then one, so
one of the issues, well, I'll hold that for a few minutes. Some of the things they don't address at all. So they don't look at drinking water at all. Um, the initial draft they talked about drinking water and they cited D um, Rex, which only covers public drinking water supplies, so not private water wells.
Um, and then I think they got enough comments about that. Now there's nothing about drinking water. Um so it's not it's not officially part of the the rating. There's nothing about wetlands and wetland regulations in there. So you know the concom would pick that up. But in terms of looking at site suitability
and then noise which is something we've talked about they you know they cited D uh noise regulations. Um but they took that out. So it's and then the draft was cited and they took it out in final version. So there's no noise. So there's some key factors that are just not getting scored. So I mean my personal
two cents it seems like it's a very partial tool um you know um >> for for me here's the real okay so from reading this stuff so this a project gets a high score still doesn't mean that we can't be lit litigated under the
do you know >> yeah okay yeah so like that's >> like come on >> we went through this whole process of scoring and it can still be and and requiring huge conditions that cost the applicant a lot of money as a way of dissuading
the applicant from doing the project. No, >> well, some of I mean regulation. >> No, I I I'm trying to figure out where this was. So, there's on page six there were some over amendment concerns that I identified. One of the big ones from my
read is that if you score badly on the suitability, the regulations don't say that a municipality can reject it, which seems like a fundamental flaw. got it basically means the scoring thing is meaningless. >> Well, yeah. So, what is the score for to
or >> Well, I I asked I asked Rick Collins, the director, during a webinar about that. >> Uhhuh. and he said, "We don't think we need to put that you can reject it in there because we assume that if it was cited in a really terrible way, the
municipality would require such mitigation that either the developer would change what they were planning to do to make it better or they would pull out, which seems like just a backwards way of approaching." Yeah. Good sighting. Um, and my fear to your point,
Steve, is like if your municipality rejects a project, it opens up the door because what the law said, I guess backing up way back, the legislature finally heard like the concerns about the do amendment because they poo pooed for a long time.
>> So in the law, it says if municipalities comply with these regulations, they'll be deemed complying with the do amendment. So if you follow all these rules, you can't get sued. The question is when you step outside the lines of what the regulations are. Yeah. Presumably they can sue you again. And
so like one of the examples are if we say you got fives and three of the things, this is a terrible splat. We're going to reject you for it. If the regs don't actually say municipality can reject them, they can threat to sue and then we're back in that dance yet again.
>> Right. Right. >> Been we've been that we've done that. >> Yeah, we've done that. Um, so does that make sense everybody? >> So the other thing I'll just say with with the scoring, you can have score modifiers where they can do things that
to improve their score. What's the good thing is to modify the score and to improve it. The municipality has to agree to it. Um, so that's really good because a lot of the stuff about um modifiers of more social environmental kind of things like you know we'll hire
people, we'll give you a baseball field, that kind of stuff. Um, so they can increase it. >> Do you have that on the page here? >> Uh, it should be on three, middle of three. Modifying. >> Yeah. >> And then the scoring to Steve's point,
it's completed by the applicant. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Where's the word? >> And do we >> Oh, there. Sorry. Thank you. >> Did you challenge that score? >> Only in that slim thing that it was Yeah, >> it was technically the data was wrong.
>> Not that we I mean, you can't challenge I was saying you don't have we have local knowledge and you're missing this, >> right? That's what I'm >> Yeah, that doesn't count. I mean I went this was for EFSB for the large project but this project got this question got brought up and they were
like super super like oh no it's only if it's a really narrow data issue um they were not opening the door crack um so let's see small projects I'm just
small projects are exempt you know under certain you know, under an acre in front of the meter the small canopies or ex um >> how I should know this, but how many what's the lattage for me?
>> Oh, six six megawatts DC. >> Yeah, it's it's 30 acres. It's 20 acres, I think. I asked Jeff Lacy this 20 >> The whole footprint is about 30 32 acres. you read out the driveway and the detention ponds and then inside that
footprint 20 something acres of panels give or take I guess. >> Yeah. >> Um let's see. I think I just want to what else do I want to highlight? So we get to do our process you know in the 12 months we can do whatever we want um
per our bylaws. um and the concom would do theirs. Then we have to come back and with the local government representative is the one who has to sort of make sure that each committee makes a decision. Presumably there'll be a piece of paper that the town signs off on that says this is the municipal decision. Concom
votes this way, planning board votes this way and gets submitted. Um so if we don't make a decision in time either any as a multiple units it's constructive approval and the DOE has guidelines and standards for
if a project's constructively approved which is good. So um >> does that mean that it gets approved given doesn't happen in that in that time period without conditions? >> No they're they're putting in so both >> they put in what we can't put in. >> Correct.
>> Yeah. And so there's standard provisions that they developed. Um there there's substantive ones, there administrative ones, and they're they're decent. I mean, it's I put it on page seven, but there's administrative and legal conditions, there's requirements about construction, there's requirements about operation and maintenance, and there's
decommissioning. Um we enforce them, but they're not bad. So, and I think I mean, my point was there's a high likelihood there will be constructive approval. So that was, you know, I thought they really needed to think about it and I think enough people
were reminded of that fact. So that's that's not bad. Um, and then in terms of the regs, there's not a lot in the regs u on page four where it says public health, safety, and environmental guidelines. These are these are some of
the draft guidelines that they're they've floated that they haven't finalized yet. Um Jeff L and I wrote a white paper about a year or something ago. Um and we pitched the 15% slope which they incorporated. So it's one of
the few things they put in. They have to comply with NFPA 855 which is the battery energy storage. Um this is another Dover amendment concern I have which is what they've said what
do the OO has said in webinars is municipalities can have more stringent substantive guidelines than do suggesting where they suggested but they've only said it orally they haven't said it in regulations so if you look at
the setbacks they're requiring 20 foot setbacks um on the front, 20 on the side and 25 in the rear. Ours are much bigger than that. Um, so they said we can have more stringent ones, but then they have these. And then another thing that they've said, which
is another point I just wanted to make, this is actually work for us. They've repeated multiple times that they don't think municipalities have to change their bylaws in order to comply. Um, and Rick Collins, who's the director of this division, is on the planning board in
Abington, his own town. So, he has some sense of municipal stuff. Um, I'm really confused as like I haven't seen the draft bylaws yet because they haven't put them out, the model bylaws. Um, it's hard for me to think that we can keep ours exactly like I think we'd have to
tinker with something. So that it's unclear because on the one hand they're saying these are the setbacks and you can do something more but on the other hand you know we might have to revisit something and like substantively what do we have to comply
with? What don't we do we have to do 20 feet? Can we do more or do we risk getting sued? I mean that for me it's like everything that we deviate from this opens the door to being sued. No, absolutely. I mean, so there's you're right. You know, we Yes, we have stricter setbacks right now, but will
they hold up against a suit? And >> well, they would if it was in black and white that said you could do it if you could have stricter ones, but it's not in the regulations that say it. And they've only articulated it during a webinar. Um, and so like, you know, the other thing I'll just say with the like with the model bylaws, it's the way I'm
waiting just here. So in 2014 DO developed model bylaws the last rep and they had a whole little par set of paragraphs where they said we really encourage you not to develop solar in forest land on doesn't border because it's just a
suggestion. So the question is all these municipalities are waiting for the model bylaws to come out but for the model bylaw is just a suggestion you know and if you adhere to it just exposed legally is not so like it's there's just a lot
of lack of clarity >> and we don't know how I mean we don't know how east of 495 th those model that model bylaw is going to be as far as the biasing. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think I mean they've heard heard stuff, but I mean I think for for me the big aha was um private drinking water wells. >> Yeah. >> You know, so it's it's not maliciousness. It's just that it's not people's mindset. So if you live in an urban area, you expect to have municipal
water and you don't even think that you don't have it. So if you're not, >> you know, if you're having lived in an urban area a long time where you're 20some who's just this is their first gig and they asked to do this stuff, it it just doesn't get in. I mean, it shows
in the sight suitability. I mean, they just didn't think about it, but I guess they may not. I'm I don't know. They haven't thought about it. >> Now they have, but they can't. I still Nobody has pointed a clear nexus
between a solar development and any kind of effect on groundwater. >> But it's whether it's proven or not, if you wanted to regulate to be protected, you right now you but there's nobody has presented a plausible
solar panels do what to groundwater resources? There's >> batteries though. Show me any evidence that a battery has affected groundwater or what what even the mechanism would be
for a battery even a malfunctioning battery or a burning battery to affect groundwater because you have you have to have a release of something bad in a quantity sufficient to affect the groundwater and it has to
be able to get to the groundwater And again, I I I keep bringing up, show me any plausible pathway,
>> but like aside from the substance of it though, I mean, if >> the earth, the movement of the earth, like the the landslides that happened in Williamsburg when they were doing that development and it polluted the river and >> No, that that's a totally that was during construction. They weren't
following the law. They were the company was breaking the law. The town was not holding them accountable for their erosion storm water management. It flushed into a wetland. It it it did bury a wetland that they got fined for and they're having to remediate, but it didn't contam but it didn't contaminate
groundwater, >> right? >> But I think but my sense is >> it's who gets to regulate it, put it in there. like we like we should be able to have this discussion at the municipal level and just say I convinced you and
you were like, "Oh, sure. Let's put something in." At this point, if we put something in because I was able to convince you, we could get sued for that. >> That's the issue because it's not in there. So, I hold >> But I guess Okay, go ahead. I was going to say the one of the things I left out
which I think is important is like one what they say you can mitigate or or the issues identified and stipulated in the site suitability. So the climate resilience quote unquote and the um the
carbon sequestration if it's not the language you Yeah. is that page >> it's uh page six. >> Yeah. So is that the language verbatim? The local government should not use a whatever. What is >> it should? Yeah. Yeah. It's So it's not shall it
should. >> Yeah. >> Locization. So >> So that seems like they've left wiggle room in there that >> we could Yeah, that we could try and then we could get sued. But >> Oh, no. No. We could negotiate with the with the applicant like for whatever the
mitigation is that you would want that. Yeah. instead of being hemmed in by these handful of >> well that's the thing is like you know so if we say we're concerned about X and X is not one of these different things >> it's I mean it's a it's just a gray area >> I mean there should be some nexus there
should you should be able to make some connection to whatever the resource that is affected we want mitigate compensatory >> right >> mitigation to make up for whatever we're losing >> totally
>> my concern is just that like if it's not if doesn't say we have the right to do it. Can we have a developer who like doesn't want to play ball? >> Yeah. I mean, I guess I again when I looked at that should, I'm like, well, if they wanted it to be hard, they just said shall and they didn't. So, it seems
to me like they've left wiggle room in there to >> again have some conversation with. >> Yeah. I mean, I think at the at the 10,000 foot level, it sort of gets to your point way back when, like if the whole idea was to speed up deployment of clean energy, as long as you have gray areas where developers can threaten
legal action, you're slowing it down, or you're getting municipalities to say, "We're going to roll over on this because we don't want to risk getting sued." So, they're replicating the dynamic. >> Yeah. I don't The whole endgame of if we play the game and then still can get sued
that Yeah. I I I I have to think on that because that seems right problematic, but >> I don't put a pause on anything. Anyways, >> so >> yeah, no kidding. No kidding. Eric to me and maybe you guys already thought of this. Forgive me if I'm slow, but it
seems like the pre-permitting process could go on forever and that the only streamlining we're talking about is that once the once the local government representative said, "Okay, we're starting >> box starts starts." >> Yeah. >> So, >> it could take two years to go through
the pre-approval process. >> Oh, conceivably. >> Yeah. >> I I didn't I hadn't thought about that. I was sort of being generous. And I mean, if you look at it too, because I think we've had issues in our previous experience with
applicants wanting some sort of asurances before the permit is applied. And it's like, you know, cart before the horse and because they want something before they invest a lot of money in developing these expensive engineering plans and doing this and that. And yet
this requires them to do all that the pre-planning process. Yeah. >> Like they're taking a big They're putting a big investment. >> Yeah. >> Before they even come to the town with the >> Well, I think definitely. Yes. But I also think, you know, part of the the
pre-iling is to actually force exploration of alternatives, you know. So like the stuff that we talked about like if you moved it here it would be less of a slope and we could deal with that you know like they can come up with their big plan but that back and forth of alternatives because
>> what we ended up doing you know unfortunately in one context we should have done on the front end where you know we were like when if they get past pre-iling you would assume that everyone's aware of it everyone's pretty copacetic and then you know maybe you have to do your due diligence to get
your consultants in there But it's on the right spot. It's in the right spot. >> So yeah, they've looked at the they know the wetlands. They've done all that stuff. I mean, they're not going to come in and just I mean, I don't think any smart company would wing it, but >> yeah, that's
>> So at what point in the process does the public hearing occur in that 12 month? >> In No, at the beginning before the >> in the pre the pre >> I don't see Okay, guys. Been going to be a cynic. I don't see the streamline.
Okay. I see 12 months and I understand what that means but or that pre-in process everything that's gone on in any of our previous projects could go on the pre-in >> I think what they're I think the state probably had ambitions to because they
saw every town was now shoot leads the way starting uh um come up with be frank burdensome bylaws right that >> you know it didn't take a genius to read
between the lines that these were kind of crafted >> right >> with an intent. Um, and so I think the state was trying to kind of all right, this is going to get out of hand with 351 towns doing this and that our clean energy 2050 net zero goals,
>> okay, >> are sailing off into the freaking universe. Um, >> the data centers coming. But like I've observed since living in Mass, boy do we like freaking lighting, convoluted,
dense, contradictory regulations on you pick a topic and there's some volume of regs that are indecipherable. And I think they started out with good intent thinking it would be an easy process.
And I think as they've gone through it, it's gotten worse and worse and worse and now it is a again I this is going to be a train wreck when it when it >> my take on that it's coming at it from a different angle but the end result is the same train wreck but
>> just talking to the state level folks they don't know how local processes work >> you know I mean just like the analysis of like municipalities like her and cats were
following statutes that they were you know like change the statutes and we will automatically have to change you know but they don't understand sort of on the ground stuff and so there was no consultation I mean but that would have gone on >> well no just in terms of forever if they
had to consult with 350 >> just some I mean like but then there's going to be outliers that well we don't like that's there was No, there was no western mass rural any representation on the commission. So they had a regional planning agency and they used the one
that represents the Boston area. >> Um and then there was some the the MMA representative was from Actton, >> right? >> You know, so if they just had a couple of voices and there to say this is how it works, they probably I mean like the
local government representative when we were at the UMass meeting, I made that point. I mean, if you remember, Rick Holland said, "Oh, we were we were thinking about making local government representative town clerk." And someone raised their hand. >> In my town, the town clerk works five
hours a select board. But at that meeting, I pitched the 53G consultant. >> And it's like there's instances where you can, it's true for everything. like you know if you want a factory floor and you want to make it work well ask the people who are doing the assembly line
they'll tell you how it works not the the boss it's it's the same problem so there's lots of stuff in here that I think because we all would like it to be effective just don't make it stupid it's going to be something >> so that's all I got
>> okay well >> did you say it's not clear or what's the case of the bo uh board of health involvement It's so you know um >> it's just not fair. >> I forgetting his name, you know, has
been leading the charge. Um and do you know Glenn Eyes? >> Yeah. >> So Glenn Ers was this was at this meeting on Friday with the Hampshire Hilltowns and he he worked for he was the public health agent at Furog for like 25 years or something and now he's doing consulting stuff with Wendel. Um,
so my understanding, you might know better, is that the board of health was the boards of health in Massachusetts were created like before the constitution. So we they have equal powers as the legislature. So they don't have to do go through the attorney
general. They can just come up with regulations their meeting and approve them. Um, so a board of health put in regulations to deal with the whole voice and trade stuff to, you know, as they it's defined. What I'm unclear about is
if DOE considers like just say Wendle since you guys know created regulations if there's battery storage regulations that pertain to a board of health >> um approval of some sort whether it's a permit or whatever I don't know if that
gets counted as consolidated permit or if it's outside just like everything else is outside board of health and I've asked a couple of times no one gives me clear answers so it's like in yet another one of these great areas is where >> it's going to take it down to do it and then someone's going to get sued and >> right >> like it'll be a tested test case.
>> Okay. >> So >> that makes sense actually. >> So clear as mud I think is >> Yeah. >> Um I mean the good thing is we don't have to do it till October 1st. Um I think we'll continue to talk about like who the local government representatives. Those are the first two. >> I think that's the big thing. Get in
place some sort of mechanism for funding it. Yeah. Identifying. >> Yeah. And we should >> bylaws figure out. >> Yeah, I'm going to keep I mean I'll keep tracking it. I mean my So this is my short stuff on bylaws and that's like I've been thinking about
this for months waiting to see something come out. It seems like at minimum you have to change your bylaws to say shoot spray zoning will comply with 225 CMR 29 which is all these ranks >> at the very least. like you have to
acknowledge that they exist and that we're going to do this whole process. Um granted, you know, we we get um state law prevails anyway, so we have to follow the regulations, but it seems like you might want to write it in and
then if there's something that's really divergent or like local government representative doesn't exist in our bylaws. Um so it's a procedure. Um, so I don't So it seems like we would want to. How extensive? I don't know.
Could we get by without doing it? I mean, >> we we should at least determine the things that are in the state drags now that we're not addressing like you're talking about like and even be at least be aware of differences like setbacks
and there may I don't know if there are other issues like >> there's not there's not a ton. >> Yeah. I mean there's probably the archaeology stuff, right? Didn't we? Oh, ours. Yeah, arms. Yeah, there's not cover. Right. Right. Yeah. None of it's in there. >> None of it's in there. They didn't take account of anything.
>> Oh, I think I sent them my reports and I all that stuff. Right. >> I mean, but that's what they so that's where again it falls short on the not paying attention to the local stuff because with this I am concerned about the common online portal because
we're going to ask for certain documentation you know just about that like you know we have a whole notification process it's not in theirs. So, how do how do we when they apply, how do they meet our need? Because you can't say you apply, oh, and now you
have to do all this other stuff. That seems like that's another place where it's really funky. >> Is there overarching state rigs or statutes on like tribal coordination or >> there's federal? >> Federal >> I know there's federal, but if there's no federal nexus, then that don't come
into play. So, >> exactly. No, there isn't. It's only about >> there is no state. >> There's burial. There's like some statutes about burial sites and things like that, but >> notification though. I mean, we we modeled ours in Shootsbury
based on the fence. Um, >> but but they did say we can be more stringent. >> They said it's just however >> if you be more stringent than the next then give you know make yourself open to litigation. >> I mean it's really it's like we dare you. It's it's so contradictory because
Rick has said I've been to like four presentations now and every time they say don't worry you don't have to change your bylaws and I'm thinking >> famous last words >> like you say these things but your word doesn't matter because if it's not black and white having lived through this
legal stuff enough >> like Don is going to say so he said that on April 27th at a webinar that's good >> let let me oversimplify if the do amendment stays in effect. >> Yes, >> we're still have all the same issues
we've had prior to this streamlined process. >> Yeah. And they still don't want to I mean >> they don't want to touch it. >> I I've spent I don't know the last six or eight years trying to get rid of the do amendment. The senator who was in charge of changing the law he just doesn't want to do it. I mean
and that's I agree with him. >> Where's he from? >> Lexington. >> Okay. >> Are we going to change the holdover amendment for like religious schools and stuff like that too or just for solar? Just for solar. >> Yeah, just not for everything. >> I don't think explain that.
>> We can't even change the solar. Keith, come on up. This is where there's because solar is new that there's a target on its back and we're treating renewable energy by these different standards that we don't seem
to hold lots of other things accountable that that >> but but I would but I would push back because the doer amendment was written with different intent and it's been misapplied. >> You say that >> it's true. It's true and probably and I >> I probably agree with you but but I
haven't gone back and look at the debates and the whole legislative history of where the do where the scholar came in. >> But but I will say if there's ever been a law that probably turned out better than they anticipated.
I think we're in a because they didn't anticipate climate change back in 198 whatever it was or they did >> 88. >> Was it 88? >> I don't know. 80. So the guy Jim Hansen forget his scientist who first kind of the NASA guy.
>> No, no, I think his name was Jim. >> There was a Fed. There was a Fed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think he was the one who started talking about climate change. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Al Gor mentor. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But I I personally I think all right they intended it for rooftop solar
people and >> hot water. Yeah. which all those def you know dilapidated hot water systems that aren't working anymore. >> Had to rip one out of my house. >> Did you really? Yeah. Did you? And it seemed like such a great idea at the time. >> Yeah. we that
>> but talk you know a law of unintended consequences that now that climate change has become an eminent threat people most normal people recognize it and it's becoming quite obvious that you know the clock is ticking
>> and lo and behold there's a law here saying that you can't unnecess except for health safety and welfare which is still in the do amendment right >> then why If it was a legitimate health, safety or welfare concern, then we would be able to approve it. The problem is we can't
because nobody could come up with a legitimate health, safety, or welfare. >> Well, we were about to try when we were entering aboutation. >> They walked away from us. Damn, they did. >> Probably probably shouldn't discuss that. But I again if we had a legitimate
if if there was a legitimate claim of somebody again stuff solar panels leech whatever I'm like well then we shouldn't be putting them on our houses or schools either should we so there's a lot of nonsense out there of people trying to
say it's bad it's basically you just don't like it or you don't want it in this place >> but it's not a health safety and welfare thing it's a we don't like it. So >> think about the forest as as a larger system. And there is a person in this town who had to spend thousands and
thousands and thousands of dollars when their well got contaminated as a result of flooding that never existed before we left. >> I think I I know. And I think we also had some very rainy years that >> Yeah. I mean I think they >> I hear people's basement flooding for no
reason too. When we were I mean we looked at people's basements that have been dry forever. They flood. I mean, not around the Wheelock site, but I think stuff just happened. So, I don't know. >> Yeah, you can disagree. >> Well, I mean, I don't I just don't know. >> And putting it in the forest and taking
down hundreds of acres of forest what really has people up, >> I agree. >> More so than worrying about the panel. So, there's plenty, not plenty, but I think there's legitimate concerns there, too, particularly with what happens to them >> when they have to be. Unfortunately, we
let Massachusetts reforest over the last hundred years. And if we' had just kept all these fields cleared from the sheep >> freaking boom, but >> that's a bumper sticker. More sheep.
>> So >> yeah, egg can still clear, right? They can clear. >> Somebody wanted to raise beef cattle out here, they could clear 700 acres and say, "I'm raising beef cattle and >> or sheep." or she >> Yeah. >> So, >> right. Yeah.
>> So, recover everything for now. >> I think we killed it. >> Oh, I don't know. >> So, why have you been able to get an amendment kind of religion? >> Oh, no. >> Senator environmental justice.
you. I mean, >> how many years? >> It was anticipated. >> So, you had unanticipated business, but we did it. >> I have one more. Sorry. >> You go. >> Um, well, mine should have been an
update. I'm sorry. I did connect with the person who I don't have anything in front of me, so I don't remember her name, but the Wheelock person. and she emailed back and said the reason that she sent it basically it went to Brennan
um and I believe that she said this person requested it and she put his email down at the bottom and she said would you like it to be sent to you as well and I said yes you know we're the board that
>> oversees and manages this and I didn't say like you've sent it to us every other year but >> and it's or conditions that you sent it to us. Do we have it now? Is it >> It was It's been there. >> Oh, it's on the town website. >> But we haven't gotten I don't think we've gotten the 2026 one yet. 2026 is
over. I'm not I can't remember when it comes out. >> It's supposed to come in 45 days after the beginning of the year. >> Okay. So, February 15th, it's supposed to come to us. >> Okay. So, >> it's specified. It's like planning board, select board, not administrative
assistant. when you think they would just have a button and all they do is >> them about this before too. So it's >> and I think doing a site visit would make sense with that. Yeah. >> Do you So should I put those wheels in
motion? I mean do I want to try for one this summer or >> wait another visit? >> Yeah, >> I would love to go visit. >> I would too. I I would >> I would love if we could find a botonist. I mean, I I I pitched it to the guy if you could get like a school group to come do some vegetation or
insect surveys >> of the place. Um I don't know that they're anxious to do that, but um >> well, if we got permission to do it. >> Yeah, I but I would love to have at least a botist come and scope it out. >> So, I think that would make sense. And
if it's summer, you can can come more readily, which is great. >> Try. Yeah. >> Yeah. And we haven't got the 2026 one. >> Okay. Right. That's >> I don't think so. >> Okay. So, I guess we should remind them that it was it's overdue. >> Okay. I'll check it out. >> Many months.
>> So, site visit and Okay, I'll ask for the 2026. I might be wrong. It might be there, but >> bring a picnic. >> So, my only unanticipated business Nathan and I were talking about maybe changing the June date or if we don't
have business, maybe even cancelling. So, he would he's gonna >> he he he said he might entertain that, but um if we don't if we stick to Mondays um and this is just he's just looking
for dates, but um June 1st and or 22nd. Do these those work for you guys if we stuck to Mondays? >> June force 1st or June 22nd? Yeah, >> I would June 1st. >> I think I'm gone the 22nd. Okay. So,
June 1st might be a okay switch. >> But if he wants to cancel it, too, if we've got no urgent business, then >> Yeah. And and be a really quick >> take advantage of it. >> Okay. Steve, could you do the first? >> I think I can do the first. >> Okay, cool. I I'll just relay it to him.
He's not going to make a decision, but >> And I'm assuming if you have no urgent business, everyone's okay with cancelling. >> Okay. >> Manager and then just go until July, you mean? >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, oh, here's a question for you. If we're
all going to become full members once we get sworn in, what does that mean for reorganization? >> What do you mean? >> We need two. >> Everyone usually reorganizes on July 1st, their committees. >> Reorganizes >> picks a chair, vice chair, which
whatever they do. You would have to ch Well, sure. >> Usually the trigger is you get the new people in and then you say, "Oh, it's our new crew, so we'll do it." >> I would assume then it would have to happen once the new people are sworn in. >> Okay. So, we could reorganize in June,
but most likely we just do it to July. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, and there's one other thing I just want to say. >> You're going to have to get some associate members. >> Yes. I think Nason wants to push out a a he actually said there's someone who came up to him with town meeting whose
name I can't remember um who was interested. So that's good. And then Jesse I think it was the woman who came to our meeting like six months ago and said >> I forget her name. >> He was going to follow up with her and see. I mean when we asked her she said she was only interested in running. U
but >> was that before or after she attended the meeting? I said that one. >> Um damn. What was the other thing I was just going to tell you? Meeting dates? I can't remember. So, I guess we're not
going to touch upon it. Anyone want to move to a jour? >> I'll make that motion. >> Hey, Michael. Sorry. >> I just had something if I could. Um. >> Oh, yeah. Sure. >> Of course. >> Thanks. Um, first the June site, the June 1st is fine with me. My main
concern, my main concern about the weed lock and maybe I know Ashley just took off. Maybe she went to the bathroom or whatever. >> My main concern is that the um there is uh shrubbery or grasses uh growing right next to the lithium batteries that lead right to the that
center plot. I don't know how many acres in that center plot of um um of trees. So, my concern is that if um if there was a fire, then it would spread quickly to that large plot of trees in the center and then who knows where. So, um
it would be great. I don't know, Ashley. Um >> if you could make some >> You with me, Ashley? >> Yeah. Well, I mean, I just got back. I hear what you're talking about. make some kind of comment if you're in contact with them about um well my
concern maybe our concern about the um the uh grasses especially if they become dry in the summer and there's some kind of um fire event that it could go straight to the um straight to the uh that cluster of trees in the center and then spread out and we only have one
pumper of uh you know that's 1,000 gallons in a you know a tank that's 2,000. It's not going to stop a fire from spreading through the dry uh forest land in the summertime. So maybe we could explore or just bring up the topic of dumping gravel or something to um at
least have uh some kind of clearance between the lithium batteries and the um combustible material. Thank you. >> I think it might be useful if you all wanted to email me with any concerns and then I could like create a list. I think
we need to go look at the place. They may have done that. We haven't been there for two years. So, >> yeah, >> we could I think when you're back and forth, you can ask if there's any based on our input, you know, there's he he was there. He wrote it down if they did anything just and then we should have to
go to we should do the site visit them. We could see. But, >> okay. >> If we ask and they haven't done it, maybe they'll do before we show us. Um, actually, thank I'll I'll um send you something in terms of just um our concern about the fire, possible fire
spreading um from a possible lithium battery fire. Thanks so much. >> We did have the letter from uh Zurwanka's response to >> Mary Lou. Yeah, >> he doesn't seem overly concerned with it. >> Did you see that, Jeff? the letter from
Mary Lou and the back and forth with the fire chief and >> yeah um in my judgment whether someone is overly concerned or not there's still combustible material right growing right next to the batteries and um whether
whether they're not concerned I'm concerned as a planning board member and that's a seems to be a relatively easy fix of um of eliminating that um easy spread so um I'll I'll email you something, Ashley. >> Sounds good. Thanks.
>> Yeah. And if anyone else has anything they want me to convey, >> great. >> I'll wait like a week. >> I thought of the other thing. Just this is just a quick headlight, but you'll enjoy this. >> All right. I'm sure I will. I enjoy it all. >> So Keith and I ended up having coffee and
talking about sort of economic development. You know, the whole idea of like how do we encourage good and focus? He raised it. I can't even remember when but you know looking at like oh the data centers like how do we look at town center and developing things more that are appropriate to town center and sort
of just looking at our our bylaws our zoning this you know the districts things like that to sort of figure out okay they've been in place since 2008 2008 was a different time we want to sort of look at how do we encourage things and I we didn't come up with any answers but you know like overlay
districts or you know right now all the frontage pretty much the same. You know, you could change frontage and change incentives and things like that. So, I talked to Keith about the I mean to Nathan about the idea of maybe having beginning a conversation about that and say he was open to it. So, whether if we
meet in June, we might he might put it on the agenda. If not, we'll do it in July. But I think sort of foreshadowing like you know, it could be a big thing. It could be not. But having that conversation seems like it'd be worthwhile um to figure out how we do economic development, planning and
current things. So, so you move to a journed. >> I'll second if >> Okay. So, how do you vote? >> I >> Jeff, how do you vote? >> Hey, >> I we're officially great in person
meeting, guys. >> Yeah. Good to see everybody. >> All right, everybody. >> See you. Thanks, Mike, for all your hard work. Take care.