Hello. Uh, I'm guessing that's Mark over there, but you are muted. Oh, nice. >> So, you're you're not live anymore, are you? >> Oh, we're remote. >> Weren't you remote and live at one
point? >> Yeah. I think you came to the one live meeting we did in the last four years. >> Well, I'm here in Town Shootsbury. Yeah. Oh, you're in the town hall. >> Yes. Say hello.
>> I'm thinking long, but um >> I'll sit in my truck. It's fine. It's a turn on. Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. I'll be on my truck. >> Don't go out until I think I have something I'm still doing. >> Okay. >> You may >> I'm going to grab my files then. >> Okay. >> Sorry about that.
>> Oh, that's my fault. I I just, you know, I went to that meeting. It was live, so I didn't think you would change back, you know. But I think I think you did call into it that one. But uh yeah. No, I mean you know it's uh as long as you have uh service there.
>> That's the surprising part. Isn't that amazing? We have service and town hall shoots. I'm going to grab my stuff out of my truck. Not that I really need it, but might as well sit here with it. >> All right. Now we u we have Michael,
Tom, and Keith. >> Good. >> All right. So, uh, with, uh, I'm going to designate Tom as a full member. And having done that, I'm going to call this meeting of the Shootsbury Planning Board
to order. >> I'll note that the meeting is being recorded and is uh, being held virtually. I'll also note that our land use clerk is unable to attend tonight's meeting. >> Excellent.
>> So, uh before we do anything else, I'm actually going to ask if uh someone would volunteer to uh actually, you know what, never mind. Um because Matteo will uh use the transcript. So, we're good. and
and I'm he asked me to take minutes for the executive session discussion. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that's why I was that's why I had my head was for that. Um I'm going to make you a co-host, Michael. >> I see Jeff is in the waiting room. Um
all right. So, uh moving on to our first order of business, which is uh public comment. Um, is there anyone here that would like to uh make a public comment? >> Marylu Kanka, I see you have your hand up. Would you like to speak? You're on mute, so unmute yourself, please.
>> Hi, good evening. Um, my name is Mary Lou Kanka. Yeah, I live on 105 Wendell Road and um I have a couple of questions. Well, first, can the iPhone person identify themsself? Cuz I don't
know who that is. And two, can you give us some kind of hint uh about this executive session? Is it in regard to the case? Because as a town resident, I thought the Kohl's, you
know, that that whole case is gone or not active. Thank you. >> Sure. Well, I'll do the first off, I believe that's Mark Whiteitman on his iPhone there um uh attending the meeting
uh remotely. He has an agenda item with us tonight. Uh regarding the executive session, the purpose of entering the executive session will be to uh review some of the minutes from prior executive sessions. And we've been
advised by town council um that even though the litigation has now ended that we are uh okay to go into executive session for the purpose of uh reviewing uh those minutes that have not yet been made public. And
that's all we're going to say about that at this time. Thank you very much. Now, is there uh anyone else who would like to uh make public comment? Hey, Nathan. I just want to quickly jump in and introduce myself if that's okay.
>> I would love that. Thank you for coming, Jesse. >> Oh, sure. Uh, hi everybody. I'm Jesse Grogan. My family and I moved to town a little more than a year ago. Um, and I'm considering throwing my hat in the ring for planning board um when elections
come up in the spring. Uh, I work at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, which some of you may have encountered. Um, my work has mostly been focused on urban issues, but I do a lot with economic development and affordable housing. So, I'm interested in coming today just to
to watch the meeting and learn a little bit more about what issues are at play and get to know you guys a little bit so I can think about whether I want to run uh in the spring. >> Jesse, thank you very much for coming tonight. It's good to have you and it's
uh exciting news I think uh for Shootsbury anytime somebody that does anything professionally with planning has an interest in serving on uh one of our zoning boards. So that's outstanding news. Uh we hope you uh enjoy the show
tonight and uh look forward to hopefully uh signing some nomination papers. Right. So um thank you for uh Jesse. I think you have one vote already. >> Well, you know, >> has begun.
>> I I will support anybody who is interested in uh you know, volunteering and contributing to to our work on uh on these boards. So, um now, okay, I think that wraps up public comment. Um now, I'm going to ask, is
there anybody who is here for landowner education and guidance? And what I am going to do is uh I'm going to note that this is a portion of the meeting that we uh provide for any member of the public
who may or may not uh be thinking about putting some business before the planning board or the zoning board of appeals um to uh you know come before an open meeting and just you know have a a quick uh interaction with the board as to how they might proceed, what the process
might be like, anything like that. And I'm kind of laying that out a little bit because at the last meeting we had someone that wanted >> landowner education and guidance and they waited for like two hours and they were like, "Hey, um, hello." So this is
this is the moment if if that's you. >> He's talking to >> hearing and seeing none. >> Un I mean I heard a little bit of chat. I don't know if someone was trying to say something. Okay. Hearing and seeing none, we're
going to move on to our next agenda item and this will be I have review and approved minutes for 11:10. Uh I think we're going to we're going to push that back a little bit just because we we do have uh some other
people that are here attending the meeting. Um, I think next we'll uh take on uh the Whiteitman conservation restriction for 101 Lebert Road, lot H-151. Uh, now on this item, you know, we do have Mark Whiteitman with us. Uh Mark
before uh you know I would just like to you know note I believe uh you know Matteo has distributed what was a uh conservation restriction and you know it's been approved by the uh
by the conservation commission I believe right they've signed off on it and currently >> yeah Mark go has it has it been approved by the state yet or is it with the state currently Yes. So, it's been approved by the state, the conservation commission, and the select board.
>> Oh, okay. >> Everybody's on board. >> All right. Um, >> it meets all the requirements that you uh had in the special permit that meets the Mass General Law 134, sections, whatever it was, 31 through 33, I believe. Obviously, the state wouldn't
approve it if it didn't. So, we're still waiting for the uh final signature copy from the state, but we've been back and forth. We've been back and forth with them twice and they gave us final approval and that once we had the final approval then they told us it was now time to have the conservation commission
and the select board sign. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah. >> Jeff, was that you? >> Yeah, Jeff was not muted. >> Um, it is me, but I don't know what's happening. I'm not on video or um >> Yes, you are. >> or audio. >> Yeah, I can see you and hear you.
>> Yes, you are. >> Okay. Thank you. I didn't know that. >> Yeah. All right, no worries. >> It's a different computer. I'm in Ann, Michigan. Thank you so much. >> No worries. And do you understand the agenda topic we're on?
>> I'm Yes, I do. Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, to finish that, we're we've been uh back and forth to the state a couple of times and um they had m very minor edits. So, I I give um uh Birkshshire Design a lot of credit for putting this
together very well. and also the conservation commission because they held my hand through the whole thing. It was it was a lot more extensive than I expected. Um the conservation commission uh had signed off as well. The select board signed off. Then we sent it down
to the state and they said wrong. Um you got to sign after we tell you it's okay. So we sent it back to the state with the small edits they had on the second round. and they approved it and said now we need the select board and the planning board or excuse me select board and the conservation commission as the
CR holder to sign off and then we sent it back to them. I think if Matteo was here you could tell me for sure but I think it was about a month ago we sent it back to them. They had said they'd have it back to us immediately. Um and you know state I don't know what that means by the state. So um it doesn't ma
in the fashion that it has already been approved and the select board and and conservation commissioner signed off for the most important part of it. Um did did uh anyone else have a chance to uh look at this and see kind of confirm
what we have? Okay, I'm seeing some nodding hands. Right. So, um would anyone like to uh offer you know I mean so we we have a condition um and a special permit that was uh
special permit was awarded uh to Mark Whiteitman as the applicant for lot H151. It was a an open space design for a single buildable lot. Right. And that's what the conservation restrictions for. Part of the one of the
um conditions for that special permit was that you know they'd bring the conservation restriction to the board for us to review and approve it. Right? So we need to for the condition to be met, we have to uh give some sort of
approval which can be a roll call vote. And I would imagine uh Mark might like to have a letter um you know from uh from us to uh to that effect. >> Sure. >> The vote's fine.
>> What's that? >> The vote is fine. >> Oh yeah. If we Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. >> So I can make a motion or try to at least >> that that I love I would love that. >> Okay.
I I move that the grant of conservation restriction uh presented to the planning board on December 8th, 20126 approved by the shoot conservation commission and select board uh and the Commonwealth meets
our condition for a special permit. Okay, we we we have a motion on the table that uh essentially we'll say that we met that condition for the special permit and uh >> does anyone second that motion?
>> Yeah, I'll second it. >> Okay. Do we have any discussion? >> I'm just impressed that Mark is still stink. >> So is Mark, right? Yeah, >> I would say Mark is is practically an
honorary member of the planning board himself at this point. >> I was going to vote for the woman who was speaking earlier about joining, but I thought that was probably out of line. >> Well, I mean, you know, if you end up building a house there, Mark, he could. >> Well, as I said, I actually have it on a
deposit to some very nice people who um have a sister >> Yeah. >> Yeah. who lives in town. And I I'll discuss that after the votes finished and we'll have another conversation about one other condition. >> Oh, okay. Sure. Well, I'll uh I'll call the role. Um
I see uh Decara. >> Hi, >> Hasty. >> Imprompt. >> Iforton. >> Hi Well, I see Presley there, too. >> Hi.
>> And uh I'm an I. >> Great. >> Motion passes unanimously. Okay. And um so Mark, I guess you you have something else you'd like to ask about. >> Yes. Thanks for the time. Um >> I'm not going to give you very much time because we don't have it formally on our
agenda and we have a lot to talk about. So I just want to very quickly if you would. >> That's quicker. That's longer than what I'm going to say. >> Okay. Good. Good. Um the neighbor at at n one of the conditions is that I agreed to either put an arborite row of
plantings to shield 97 Le Road from the road going in or give them up to 10 or give them $10,000. Uh, I got a call from Mac a few months ago who was the gentleman that was on the planning board meeting representing his family from 97 letter road at that planning board meeting and he called me a few months
ago and asked when I was going to be able to send the 10,000 bucks and I said because your lawyers said that was okay to do it that way and I told him I was waiting for a final CR approval and once I had that I could send him the money. Uh, unfortunately I can't get a hold of him any longer. The post office I sent a
certified letter return receipt request into that house. the I didn't get anything back in two weeks. I went to the post office. They said they no longer have a mailbox at that location and they canled their PO box. There's no way to get mail for them. So, I went to the house, knocked on the door, saw an extra car there that I hadn't seen
earlier. Uh, nobody answered at the dog was barking for a while. I thought maybe it's Kristen and she works at night who is the owner. So, I left a a letter in her door knob on her car. Uh, it rained that night. Thought it might have gotten destroyed. went back 10 days later, put one in an envelope, in her car, handle
again. No response now in in I think almost two weeks. So, I don't know how to get a whole I'm trying to give them $10,000. I'm not sure how to do that. It's a requirement of the permit to get a to get a um building permit that has to be paid. So, any suggestions would be appreciated.
>> Um >> I've never had so much such a difficult time giving somebody that kind of money. Well, uh, yeah, you know, I we can look into that and we'll get back to you, Mark. >> Appreciate it. >> But thank you, you know, the for the
update on that piece as well. >> Not a problem. I don't want to hold you any longer. Thank you for the time. >> No, no, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Um, thank you. I'm glad you're able to wrap up the conservation piece. I know that was uh quite a thing. >> Yeah, that was that was quite a thing. Thanks again. I appreciate it.
>> Sure thing. Byebye. Um, bye-bye. Okay. Next, uh, you know, we do have coordination with board of health on, uh, regulations, and I'm wondering if there's anyone here
from the board of health, which I don't see anyone, so that's fine. We'll we'll have to follow up with them uh after after this and just kind of check in and see where they're at. Has does anyone know anything?
>> Um I was just rereading the emails I think earlier today and they said they were going to get us a draft of something >> either by today or a couple days ago. So and I did see at the library pot lock and she said they were working on something but that's as much as I know.
>> Yeah. So, they may have talked about it at their last meetings or whatever and and then just not quite gotten to the point where they have anything to share yet, right? Um Tom, you you haven't been in touch with anything or seen anything, Tom?
>> I was out there last meeting. Um but I think how you described it is accurate. They were wondering about um they had attended a uh best seminar or webinar that I had also attended and they were glad to be educated a little more about it and
yeah I don't want to speak for them. I think the best thing to say is that they've identified parameters that they want to work within now a little better. >> Yeah. No, that that's uh that's great. Yeah, just kind of they're still working on it. I guess that's good enough for us.
Well, now that it's 7:17 and we cleared uh a few extra items pretty pretty quickly there, I say we'll we'll go back to uh the minutes for
November 10th, uh 2025. >> Approve the minutes of November 10th, 2025. >> All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. >> Ashley Brop seconds. Okay.
>> And uh for discussion. Um now I see that uh let's see, Michael had a >> a really simple one. I can it's it's page six. It's basically um >> here. You know what? I'm gonna actually
get this up on my screen because I can >> Is that right? >> Okay. All right. Um, okay. We want to see the minutes. >> Should I zoom in a little bit? >> Bigger is better.
>> You said page six. >> Yeah, it's the line. It's a like the thirdish paragraph question response. It should just be with the articles in the past incent. >> Michael, your voice is coming across a
little electronic or something. >> Oh, really? >> Oh, that's better. >> Yeah, it was this. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. So, it's just that uh it's just the articles that Hasty has sent as opposed to Jeff being skeptical about
his own articles. >> Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Michael. I' I've got one other note down in that same area. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I'm looking for it. It's where talking uh there's a
paragraph in there where I speak to um open space design. I think it might >> somewhere in that. I don't I'm looking on my phone so I can't see the whole page and I don't know what page it's on.
>> Oh yeah. Okay. I've got right here. >> You see that? >> No, I'm not seeing it. >> Okay. >> P It's bottom of page five. PC suggests using language from the open space design section to prevent data
centers from being grouped too close together by giving a developer benefits for spreading them out. >> Yeah, that I think my my and I haven't gone back to watch the video. Um my intent of referencing open space design was to keep them clustered, not
to spread them out. >> Yeah. >> Okay. um kind of the exact opposite of what how it reads. And again, if I said it that way, I I guess leave it in here, but
that that wasn't my intent. >> I think the intent came across, that's how I remember it, that you were basically saying to me, not all >> Yeah. Um, so we can let's see you know. Um, rather than taking up time trying to
figure out what to say here, should uh I mean whatever one be amendable to I can go in and just kind of I'll make a comment and say uh clarify clarify So we'll say to be clarified via
transcript and so we'll go in and you know it's kind of we have we have a motion and you know typ often times we we you know we incorporate uh edits um during
discussion um you know should we asked ask for a motion to uh amend the motion uh to just you know provide for you me to go in and and make this update uh after we've voted on approving the minutes.
>> I just have a I mean I think based on what Keith said it's really easy. It could just be >> AC suggest using language from the open space design section to promote clustering of data centers. Keith, that gets to it, right? >> That that was that was my intent. Again,
I haven't gone back to see if, you know, maybe it came out completely different, but in my mind, that was what I meant. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, yeah, that's great. Okay. Um, anyone
else have anything going on? >> Just do one typo correction of my name spelling. >> Yeah, >> on the bottom of page six. It's funny because it's right after it mentions that I corrected my name. Scar. >> Um, are you scrolling on your document,
Nathan? Because it's just frozen on my screen. I don't know. >> Oh, is it? >> Yeah, same here. >> Oh. Oh, you know what? I I'm sorry. I uh I forgot to resume sharing. I paused it because I was moving stuff around. >> Oh, okay. Yeah, right there. Exactly.
Thank you. It looks like it's where your cursor is. Perfect. Appreciate it. >> And Nathan, I have a comment, too. If I could, >> please. >> Could you go back to page six? >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Thanks. >> We're on six.
>> I think it was just a typo. It said Weston responds with skepticism about the reliability of an article. I just read one. a single article that okay, you fixed it that Hasty sent since they were funded by since it was funded by industry. I only talked about one
article about an article since it was funded by industry. I only actually looked at the first article that was sent. Thank you. >> Thank you. That's correct. And this was the uh
>> this is an article on lithium batteries that was um that was written by a for-profit agency supporting the lithium um energy comp uh basically industry >> and that's the only article I looked at. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah, I um was going through I've got some edits in Word. So, I've got instead of activates designates C for as a voting member.
song and and then so I just kind of added a little bit more context here. I said read clarifies the boundaries of the coordination effort between boards indicating that the BH board of health might want to
focus more on battery storage and the PB on data centers noting that she thinks that the board of health has more latitude to regulate battery energy storage systems and the
planning board would. And you know I said, you know, I kind of uh clarified mine a little bit further. You know, Murphy notes the attorney general has ruled that battery storage are covered under the solar exemption in the zoning act. The planning board cannot
unreasonably regulate or prohibit best, but you know, reasonable regulation for the purpose of public health and welfare is okay. >> Nathan, you might want to just add safety in there too since that's part of the it public health safety and welfare. >> Yeah.
Um, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And then uh under Michael started talking and said he agrees and he added that um agrees that uh zoning cannot be used to
prohibit or unreasonably restrict energy storage and as this is where I add add that there is little guidance available for what would constitute reasonable regulation. And he notes the clean energy law passed last November and that the regulations
are currently being developed and will include requirements for municipalities to utilize a consolidated and timebound permit process for solar facilities under 25 megawatts and energy storage facilities under 100 megawws.
Put a period and I just you know kind of replace the sentence where he said you know he knows the situation with the new state regulations coming soon. is evolving and summarizes some of the major changes under the new state regulations. I just kind of expanded that a little bit with
some details. Um, and that's all I had. Uh, so everyone good with that? >> Assuming I said it, I was I'm great with it. >> Yeah, it's you know. >> Yeah. No, it is. I mean, that was, you know, like you did say explicitly that
you don't have anything to tell us what uh reasonable is. We know it's unreasonable, but we don't know what would be considered reasonable. And uh and you talked about, you know, the 25 megawatt and 100 megawatt. Uh >> yeah.
>> So, you know, I mean, I've got these uh >> stuff abbreviated, but yeah, I'll just I'll All right. So, I mean, you see it. I'll I'll put it in. I'm going to expand the uh abbreviations that aren't used throughout the document and keep the ones that are. And other than that, it'll be there. So, uh anything else
from anyone? Okay. So, I'm going to stop the share so I can see everyone and call the roll. We'll do Brassler. >> Hi.
>> Hey, Cara. Michael. >> I said hi. >> Oh, okay. Good. I could I couldn't hear it. Um >> Hasty >> I Praftoft >> I
>> Seaffort >> I >> Weston >> I >> I'm an I motion carries unanimously. The minutes from November 10th, 2025 been approved.
So I'll incorporate these changes in and right after we wrap up tonight. All right. Moving right along. >> Mary's got her hand up. >> What? What? >> Mary Lou's got her hand up.
>> Oh, yes. Uh, Maryl, would you like to uh say something? >> Yes, please. Thank you, Michael. Um, I know you all understand what you're talking about in regard to the data center stuff, but I just have like, you
know, a quick lay person question. Are you seriously considering it to come into Shootsbury or are you like in the talk about it stage? Marylu, are you asking whether there's
been a >> proposal for a data center or >> say what? >> Are you asking if there's been a proposal to build a data center? >> Okay. So yeah, I mean data center I looked it up.
It's not a good thing. It uses water like stupid waste, you know, and considering that we are on groundwater. I don't think I'd want to live around a data center, never mind a cell tower.
But so since you people seem to be the ones who give out these quote unquote special permits to do all this stuff in town, where are we at with this data center talk? Cuz I don't I do not know your
lingo. Do you know what I'm saying? Yeah. So I guess maybe then I am asking has there been a proposal? >> No, there has not been a proposal. Um, >> thank you. >> What what's happened is there's been a
the planning board put forward a warrant article that appeared on the warrant for a special town meeting back in October, right? And >> warrant article passed. >> What's that? >> Okay, I think never mind. So we had a
special town meeting in October with a where the planning board put forward a warrant article that prohibit you know explicitly prohibited uh data centers and established a moratorum period until um a future date
uh coincides with annual town meeting of next year. I forget what the date was specifically end of April, end of May uh some sometime like that. and uh and also included a definition in the bylaw of what a a data center is. Uh
this this warrant uh did pass at special town meeting and is now with the state uh attorney general municipal law office under um review. >> Thank you Nate. In the interim time, the
planning board has taken up, you know, developing a a zoning bylaw that would um possibly uh permit data centers in
one or more districts in town with uh pursuant to a special permit application. and you know the various elements of whatever this bylaw turns out to be. And uh you know if the board
uh finalizes a bylaw, you know, if and when it does, uh one step that will happen before annual town meeting uh would be to hold a public hearing at which time you will have opportunity to voice your
um you know to to make your comments known about any uh proposed zoning amendment. So that will be you know the you know you can always come and give public comment and we don't mind you know answering some questions. Uh however I
would note that you know at a at a public hearing that that will be the uh the time well you when you'll have the opportunity to to make your uh comments about a proposed zoning amendment.
>> Very good. >> Okay. And with that, we will be moving on to our data center bylaw discussion. And I understand Michael has distributed an updated draft to the board
and he's starting to share his screen. And here we go. >> Okay, >> Michael. So, first my thanks to uh Nathan and Keith who are the people I got feedback from this last round. Um,
and basically what the process has been after our last discussion last month, they sort of took all the input, reworked some things, did a little bit more research, uh, ran it by Nate Nathan to look at stuff, got some feedback from him, tweaked it some more, sent it to
Keith, um, and then sent it out to everybody. So, it's gone through a couple of iterations, but should reflect mostly what we talked about. So, just per usual, the green text um is what got added since the last uh planning board
meeting and it's up in yellow highway. There's things that I I felt we definitely needed to just talk about. Um some things got changed that probably not. So, I'll just run through it. Maybe we can cycle back to the discussion part. Um there's not that many but the
one of the big changes if you remember last time there were three categories for data centers. municipal. Um the feedback was that was confusing and maybe not necessary. So now we ended up with two. Um they have different names. So the
smaller one which I think it originally the last version was called small is now micro. Um and then there's small and as Steve has pointed out in the industry it's called edge but it seemed like we should create our own um because you never know if the industry is going to
change something. So those are the two and then one of the conversation pieces is for um the micro ones the really small ones um we talked about them being site plan review and the question would be should it be the planning board or does a site plan review or should it be
the ZBA so that's sort of that one question to review. Um in terms of definitions there's the general one and then the micros and the small got rid of the the larger one. Um, and the only thing
that's notable here is that I don't I I actually don't remember if it was a comment or it just seemed based on the conversation, but um originally the micro the very small ones for 100 square feet that increases to 150. So that's something we can discuss. Um so
but the the other one the smaller one is remain 5,000 square feet or less which is what we had talked about for the small ones. Um so going down so probably the most substantive area of conversation was the
both the cooling and then the electric electrical storage and backup. So the cooling we already had talked about that there wouldn't be any uh groundwater surface water um withdrawn for cooling. there wouldn't be toxic
hazardous space as a swastic refrigerants would not be containing PAS. Um, this was something that I added we should actually probably just check in with. Um,
Keith made a comment about it would be hard to measure this, but the idea would be if you're actually cooling this and you're pushing out hot air. Um, you know, you would don't want the the butters to sort of experience hotter air. So, that's something we can
discuss. Um down here under electrical storage and backup, I tried to rewrite it a little bit um based on the comments from the last meeting. And I think the thing of note is that I think we had agreement that we
wanted to prohibit both diesel and gasoline generators and the worst kind of lithium iron batteries lithium batteries which is lithium nickel maganese cobalt oxide um which are the more um prone to fires. The question um
which we might want to discuss is some people talked about prohibiting propane because it was fossil fuel. Um, I know Steve had suggested propane because it wasn't diesel and it wasn't gasoline. So, that's something we should just clarify. Um, and then
number two here, this is Keith had mentioned at at the meeting suggesting that we space out the the lithium ion containers and cabinets. So, three times more the National Fire Prevention Association recommendations. So, that's
captured here. And then if anyone saw we talked about tried to look at the capacity size for batteries and there was weightly about a month or so ago passed
a best bylaw and they tied it to the current best model bylaw that's not finalized but in draft the DO put out and there's different tiers of size and so the 250 kilowatt hours aligns with the the smallest tier of best so that's
tying it into that. Um generators we talked about, you know, that there's air quality issues and so tying into both D and the board of health and regulations. Um and then the water usage um was mostly
the same. This sort of ties to the um language that we pull I pulled in last time from the uh the solar bylaw. Um this this part I is new but it reflects the conversation about not not creating
a reasonable risk that groundwater on a budding land becomes significantly diminished. Um so again we can c cycle back to all this stuff. Um all these things are not a typo that Keith pointed out. um
dimensions. These got put in here based on our conversation. So the maximum floor area would be 5,000 square feet. Last time I talked about a polygon at some point. Um and we now it's sort of become aggregate
square footage. I think Tom had talked about maximum height and so we tied it to the dimensional table for what the heights are per um district. And then frontage also just ties it back to the the frontage in the dimensional table
that exists. Um we had a conversation about should we allow more than one data center on a parcel and basically what I think the consensus was is we can do yes we're going to allow more than one. Um, and
then this is where the whole getting rid of the polygon and talking about um, total square footage came in. So the total the sum of the square footage I think was Tom's suggestion. Depending on what the sum is, it would either be the micro or it would be the small. If it
was bigger than the small, then it would be prohibited. Um, and that's so taking them all together. Uh, this is just some clarifying language that Keith had suggested about um, signage. this in terms of the mitigation of
fires. This whole next section is about mitigation. This basically um requires that if they're utilizing battery energy storage that they'll be required to submit an energy emergency response plan approved by the fire the
fire chief cheat. Um making sure there's adequate fire suppression resources either on-site or reasonably accessible and a containment infrastructure for runoff. um mitigation for air pollution have to comply with the EP uh air pollution.
Uh this is a addition here in the documentation. This is for medication and drinking water protection that where it already had be had been that there needs to be documentation for the border health indicating the data center were
not posing low risk water quality. Um Nathan was saying that this might just be under the purview of border health. We can discuss it. Um but I added the basically that based on estimated use of water for regular and peak operations
and sheep spare to create some context. Um there's a question here for discussion um about for noise. The the question was should the planning board require or um not require a noise
assessment to be conducted adapted expense? That's something we discussed. I think Keith had wondered if we should require it or um just may have it. Um I think we're almost at the end here. Uh
oh, there's there's a small thing, but um in copying over the language from the solar bylaw about fencing, um I sort of tweaked it a little bit and Keith had pointed out I think I said opaque and he was like, "Do you really want opaque?"
So, I thought this sort of works, but it's up to you guys that um the fencing should blend into the surrounding environment, whatever that might be. U because I think the idea is you know we don't want it to be a huge garish orange thing for example um
this is just that there's a document in terms of materials but the document that there's no pest to use on site for cooling and fire suppressing and when known with the components we might they might not know so we can't require it but uh we definitely want to prohibit
um the on-site cooling and expression with PAS and then the discontinued operations I added I rewrote this um just in terms of if I mean it's interesting I I listened
to a story today where they were talking about Virginia and d the data center push nationally and there was a comment about well you know if data centers are a financial bubble which some people are saying and some of these things don't happen, what happens
if they get built but don't get used kind of thing. So, this is sort of speaking to, you know, we've had this in with the solar bylaw and we had the energy storage, but basically it's discontinuence. Um, so if a data center stops functioning as it's permitted, you
know, per the permit that we give it, uh, there's a couple of scenarios. I mean, if it was sold and it continued to be a data center, then everything could go to the new owner. it's just if it's not being used at that um what will be
required to be removed um and the time frame for that. So I sort of updated this a little bit and that's the end. So I can go back to the beginning and we can jump through to whatever people want to talk about. All right, I got a question.
Your sound is really weird. It's like sometimes you sound like you're a machine and sometimes you sound like Michael. >> Oh, hold on. Let me change my mic. >> Okay. Um, I this may just be something I missed,
but we're prohibiting the use of water in here, but then it talks about water use in another provision. And I'm wondering, is that only related to the wells of the Butters or is it for like
if it has a bathroom for example, and they need water for a bathroom in there or something? Hold on one second. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Good. So, Ashley, I missed like the last
just little bit. I know you're talking about water. I'm sorry. >> Yeah. No, that's fine. Um and you definitely sound better. Uh we're not allowing them to use groundwater, right? It that's one of the provisions, but then somewhere else it
talks about their water use. So, I was just confused and I'm trying I need to pull it up myself. I had it pulled up but I lost it in all these minutes. So, >> um I think it was the part where we're talking about the impact on the
abutters. >> That's what I was wondering if it was just something related to the abutters. Okay. >> Yeah. And so I mean I guess it's I think actually Keith had pointed out that um we might not need that your
butter section as well for that logically speaking if you're not extracting anything out of the water. Um it gets to the whole point of I'll just get to where that is. It's where the board of health, it's we're requiring a a statement from
the board of health um saying that there's uh here it's right here. Uh the applicant shall require documentation from the shoot board of health indicating that the data center will not pose an unreasonable that's noise uh
from the shoot indicating that the data center will not pose an unreasonable risk of existing water quality or volume availability to residents and businesses to a distance determined reasonable by the board of health. The documentation shall include data of estimated use of
water for regular and peak operations in shoot. So I it's we could omit it because we're not requiring we're prohibiting water to be taken out but you know I guess it's do we want to just keep it in?
>> So my my thinking Michael and Ashley I picked up on that too that it seemed um maybe unnecessary. So we I think we're prohibiting groundwater or surface water for that matter used for cooling which would probably be you know that's the
quantities that we're probably worried about. And so I thought well maybe this section isn't necessary but there might be uses for they might use water for other reasons firefighting. Um and my what dawned on me and I think it was that um
uh that webinar Tom that you linked the best webinar where they suggested you know if you have an isolated best facility you might perhaps have a water tank or a pond for firefighting water. So if if a facility needed firefighting
water and they built a water tank and then filled that water tank with groundwater, that might be a case where we would want to ensure that they didn't withdraw groundwater at a rate that would affect the neighbors wells.
Thank you. That's a great great point. I might have thought about that back when, but I forgotten. Um Ashley, does that hit upon what you're thinking? Yeah, I think so. I'm I'm looking at the document. Is this document that you're
sharing with us more updated than the one that you sent to us? >> Only like a couple of words which are highlighted in purple, but basically it's identical. >> All right. Um, >> so it shouldn't have changed spacing or anything like that. >> Yeah, I got so many things open. Um, I
mean, somebody can talk about something else and when I actually figure out what I'm talking about, I'll raise my hand again. >> Okay. >> I wouldn't mind staying on it if that's okay because I think I had a similar question um on page two where it talks
about cooling. A data center shall not withdraw groundwater or surface water for cooling. And um that's what led me I think to the similar confusion later when it talked about where the wellheads for the data center would be. Um and so I'm wondering
maybe it could be tied up or it cleaned up a little bit. It was just some language acknowledging that um for non-ooling purpose water used for non-cooling purposes >> somewhere. Um >> it's on page three. Yeah, right there. Water usage.
>> Okay. This one. >> Yeah. Yep. That's what I was talking about >> because that also made me pause. I was like, wait, I thought there weren't going to be and then I thought like Ashley maybe it's for the bathroom or >> Michael before you before you make that
>> firefighting makes sense. >> Before you do that, Michael. >> Yeah. So, I want to bring your attention to uh 8 uh section 8.13-2 um B >> here.
>> Upon Yeah. Upon written request by the applicant, the planning board may wave or reduce any site plan review or special permit requirement of this section 8.13. by the same majority vote for the permit itself upon written findings included in
the permit if special circumstances blah blah blah blah blah you know and that such a waiver does not negate the provisions of of uh you know uh section 8 basically the purpose above right um
no it's No. A 8.13-4A1 which is special circumstances of the site surroundings of the proposal that negate the need for imposing of the requirement or the objective of the section may be met in
an alternative manner. Right. um and that the you know such a waiver or reduction will not degra uh uh what is it derogate from the public purpose and intent of the zoning body.
So um if a proposal was received where you know these requirements were met the requirement to uh you know prohibiting use of groundwater for cooling could be waved by the planning board. uh in which
case these um provisions become much more relevant. >> That's helpful. I mean one thing I I just remind us that we're in the notes I had from last time is that we wanted to focus on the results slashoutcomes that we're
looking for as opposed to like the technologies and things. So I I try to sort of do that. So for example, not depleting the neighbor's water is different from like how you would not deplete. >> Yeah. No, I mean I think I think you
know the so you know I basically I think you know this clause in here about uh you know requiring the board of health to uh weigh in on any water usage associated
with the application is is valid, you know, whether it's for cooling or otherwise, right? >> Yeah. You know, it could be, you know, um and you know, it could be water usage and uh dis uh
water usage. So, that would include drawing water and discharging water, right? >> Yeah, I would guess I would think so. Yeah. I mean, we could make it more explicit. >> That whole discharging water thing, we haven't touched on that, but I think
that might open up a whole another D can of worms. That's beyond us. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean, I think, you know, if you have a, you know, point source discharge, that's regulated by the D for sure, right? And we heard a lot about
that at the uh at the library site, right? I think you know there was a well you know we didn't hear about it on the board but um you know if there's a point source discharge for any kind of facility
that's something that is you know I believe regulated. >> Should we put in a discharge thing here in reference to EP that would that cover it? Yeah, I you know I think that's and I mean that also might be covered in the
wetlands protection bylaw. Uh so I mean you know we could call it a research item for sure. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is that okay with everybody else? Okay, >> Jack. >> Yeah. Um,
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead, Nathan. Yeah, I was just, you know, before we moved on to the next thing, I was going to note that uh, you know, one of the things that always kind of bothered me about some of the conversations around around solar,
you know, before I was really, you know, completely uninvolved in them or whatever was this uh, you know, we had the definition of a large scale ground mounted solar, right? in the definitions it would say what uh 15 acres right or uh
>> right that the lock or that it couldn't be bigger than 15 acres. >> Yeah. >> And then you know we all knew that they were trying to propose you know sites that were going to be greater than that. >> And it was always kind of like you know like when Jeff would talk about he would say oh yeah you know we can wave that.
Um but to me if it's in the you know it would be you know more ideal to have that within the body of the regulation as opposed to in the definition so that it's more
clear that it's covered by the uh the claw the waiver clause. Yeah, we we did do that in the last the 2023 solar bylaw that got rejected for that very reason because it it's like you don't want to have to refer to the definitions to understand
how big these things have to be or anything like that. It's Jeff. >> Hi, thanks. Um I don't have my notes in front of me because I'm coming in from Ann Arbor, but these are the things that um are concerning me right now. I know
that in um 2023 6,000 gallons of water were required to put out a single Tesla battery. Um and we're talking about these lithium battery systems that are you know many many times larger than that. Um so I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Can I stop I just want to stop you there because I think you know I've in thinking about that so it's you know our first the first conversation was about scale and how big these things are. So these won't be monster ones because the biggest that they'll be is 5,000 square
feet. So you know it's bigger than a residence but not a humongous thing. So >> I'm not sure what kind of battery support systems it would be >> right >> foot. But but it won't be like one of the mega ones. Yes, >> I understand what you're saying, but
we're talking about a Tesla battery um in a single car versus whatever data center batteries would be, which would be significantly larger than that. And we have a single tanker of 3,000 gallons. So, it seems like um we're
asking for these are just my you know, my opinions. Um and the American Chemical Society has come out with an extensive study of showing how um the water released from these lithium batteries are toxic to um because of the
lithium and magnesium and copper and um ions are toxic to living things. And since we have only a single aquifer over Shootsbury, um I I don't quite understand um how this could possibly be safe for the uh
residents of Shootsbury to have a large lithium battery, certainly larger than a single Tesla battery in a car, how that could possibly be safe um for our the residents of Shootsbury. So this conversation um is a little bit puzzling
for me. So, I'll end it there. >> Well, I will say I actually have never looked to see what kind of lithium batteries are in vehicles. I sort of feel like they're not the iron phosphate, which are the more stable ones. Um, but um I mean, you know, I've
been very concerned about lithiumies. My thought was if we were having them be the iron phosphate version which are less volatile and they were for smaller units um
it might be in the range of reasonable. Um but I think this section right here what we're prohibiting you know the the two things that are up for grabs is if you need a generator what's the fuel for generation? Um you know currently we
have diesel and g gasoline we're prohibiting and then like I said um propane is something we should discuss. I mean it's cleaner than the other two but it's also a fossil fuel. And then in terms of the energy storage there are lots of other technologies.
The primary one is you know lithium based. So the lithium nickel magnes oxide ones are the you know the really bad ones. the iron phosphate are presumably more stable. Um so I mean we
could not have any lithium ion batteries of any chemistry um and require other kind of batteries for storage. Um I don't I mean we could say no storage but I think that's probably not practical. Um because I think if they're
if they're they do need storage for downtime and stuff. So, I don't know. What do people think? >> How did you gonna note that uh you might want to uh word on the street is that the town is
looking at installing u some electric vehicle charging stations at town hall. >> Not anymore. >> Oh, no. >> No. Yeah. In order to do it, you have to have a paved parking lot, which we don't have. So until we're getting paid, we're
not doing anything. >> Okay. >> Welcome to We're off the We're off the hook uh for the time being. But I I think you I would note that uh I'm sure quite sure there are several people in town who
have electric vehicles. Uh so it seems that this uh threat of you know a a battery fire of a single Tesla could already be present in town. And uh I'm not sure how a report about
you know this water used for that uh battery fire really you know translates to this conversation because you we don't know how the fire was caused or why they use so much water. Is that currently the best practice under a fire
department? you know it's a you know it's very difficult to really uh you know translate that to uh this effort um but you know I think you know wherever we can we should uh
think about incorporating you know uh you know the most current uh practices for fire suppression or uh what have you uh or essentially you know requirements around uh uh requiring a emergency response plan uh
with the fire department and other emergency services, right? You know, that kind of thing to um make sure that we're doing everything we can to appropriately mitigate any any risk of uh fire and um subsequent uh
contamination from that. Can I can I just add that we need to keep this whole lithium ion battery fire thing in perspective and if you read any of the reports there's a good report out of uh Australia New South Wales put out a
pretty pretty comprehensive report their whatever they call their fire agency on the leading lithium ion battery fires are scooters and wheelchairs and ebikes and power tools and toys. Um,
fires from either home battery energy storage or bigger battery energy storage are exceedingly rare. Um, but but they whenever there's a fire and a battery is involved, it just gets the headline lithium ion battery fire. I
mean, how many of us have hybrid cars? How many of us have e-cars? And how many of us stay up at night waiting for our car to burst into flames? Um I think I think it's a new technology. I think humans people are naturally
u wary of new technology. Um, I think as time goes on and that the actual risk involved becomes more and more apparent, uh, we'll find that we're probably spending a lot of time on something that we may
not need to. >> Well, I think the other thing just Tom, I see your hands there. I think in addition I mean Jeff for me I mean the I've always had the concern I guess the things that I was trying to put in here to mitigate that one was the requirement
that the police chief has to sign off on a emergency response plan so contamination and firefighting. So if the police chief says we don't have the water you know we can't can't do it then you don't get the report it doesn't pass. The other thing I think is just
down here at number three which is the aggregate storage of a battery is going to be 250 kilowatts which I think is you know in this in the small range. I I don't know how to quantify that but you know I think the whole idea is to bring it small. Um, it wouldn't it'd be
obviously than a residential battery, but I don't I it's not going to be big like a big solar in installation of a commercial size. I mean, that's my that's that's how I'm coming to peace with this is that if it's small, um, I
get your point about the car. Um, so anyway, Tom, >> thanks. Um, one immediate question. It's not my first one, but you just said police chief a few times. Michael, >> fire chief. Fire chief. Yes. >> Um,
>> and I actually had a question about number three there and whether or how you got the 250 number, which is to say, does that align with what we know about data centers and what the typical battery storage would be for
them? Like is that the normal proportions that a data center less than 5,000 square feet would never have battery storage greater than 250 kilowatt hours? It it aligns with so
with the clean energy regs um there the states developing model solar bylaw and model energy storage bylaw. And in the in the model energy storage bylaw there's different tiers of batteries and therefore regulations associated with
that. And so tier one is the smallest and that and 250K is the ceiling for the smallest tier. Um, so it seems like by definition it's going to have to be among the small batteries on an installation. That's that's where I got it from
>> if it's realistic. I don't know what the reality is for data centers and battery storage if anybody knew if that's like a a doable thing even. >> Yeah, I don't. So I can I offer um one I think the current fire code allows up
for a single family or a single family resident or two family residents up to I think it's 60 kilowatt hour aggregate battery capacity uh per home. Um >> what was what was the number Keith? >> 60 kWh. >> Okay.
>> That's that's off the top of my head out of uh out of the fire code. Um, and the other Tom, I think, you know, I'm thinking these battery backups are basically like a uninterruptable power supply for your computer. It gives you enough time to shut your system down.
I'm not thinking that these things are going to be able to, you know, if we have a week-l long blackout. >> I'm not I'm not envisioning the data center having enough battery capacity to run. I'm just saying I'm think in my mind I'm thinking this gives you enough
time to not destroy your equipment or or lose data, shut down your facility and then uh restart it when the power comes back. So um >> I think I think that's accurate and uh you know depending on the nature of the
uh you know use uh I think sometimes batteries are used to ensure um stable uh voltage and uh frequency and things like that right because there can be disturbances on the on the electrical
system that can impact um some sensitive uh electronic equipment And sometimes batteries are used to ensure that if there is such a disturbance on the on the grid that it doesn't get into your facility and damage your equipment. >> Mhm.
>> Welcome. >> So two two points let me just quickly make. One Keith is typically the um these battery um storage systems have their own internal UPS units which provide enough time for the system to
shut down. So the backup battery for um what we're talking about would a would avoid the UPS but then the other function of backup battery is to level out supply and demand across time.
>> So it it's not just for backup. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Can I tell you a little more about why I was asking? >> Of course. um in Wendell right now there's a best that's being proposed that would be 2.8 8 megaww, which would be about 11 times
the 250. Here it's a lithium iron phosphate. And according to the manufacturer, um there's a 150 ft zone around the battery, um which
shouldn't be penetrated by people in the case of a thermal runway runaway event. Um during a thermal runaway event, you would have to wet all of the stuff greater than 150 ft away um like forest
or the buildings, the solar panels or whatever. And their estimates with the flow rates that would be needed to do that would amount to um 300,000 gallons of water for 6 hours of continuous spraying in an event like that. I don't know if it's just a simple proportional
thing where you could take 111th of 300,000 which gives you about 27,000 gallons of water. Um but I just wonder if there you know I think it will come down a lot to an emergency response plan and approval from the fire chief. But um
just to give some ideas to people, uh if that math were correct, it would mean it would be a minimum of 25,000 gallons of water just to mitigate the like usually you just let it burn and you uh cool down the areas around it so
that they don't catch fire too. Um >> so there one other uh small thing that's come up. There are other technologies non-pasted technologies that can suppress runaway thermal runaway um you
know issues which we could look into other than water. >> Well the water would be for not the runaway like that would just be let to burn. It would be internal to the to the facility, I believe. >> I'm talking about the firefighting for
around the battery, not of the battery like >> No, I'm talking about of the batteries themselves where in the unit that they're installed in, there are fire there are, I believe, and I need to look into it more, non-past
um fire uh suppressing chemicals that can be used. I don't know any much m much much about them. I would have to do more research. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You can even pipe water like the one in Wendle might even have uh ports for water to go in to use in the not the
first case scenario. In the first case scenario, they would let it burn, but there is an option to flood it with water on the inside and try to suppress or cool the batteries that are um in thermal runaway. >> I I thought they were getting away from applying water directly to the electronics just
>> right. They they don't want to ever. >> It wouldn't be the first course of action. But >> yeah. Well, I will say from looking at research, I mean, >> I'm not I mean, I'm not a fan of lithium ion battery technology, but you know, there's definitely other technologies
out there, you know. So, in the Birkars, they're doing an iron flow battery, which I sent you guys, but there's also lithium ion batteries that are submerged like there. I don't I don't know how that works, but the battery is actually
in a tank of water. Um so, you know, I don't know how one would write a policy because the technology is lithium iona, but it's submerged in water, you know, but there's different approaches. Um I think >> you want to uh step in for a second, Michael. I I think we're getting really
off track here. I was I was going to bring it back to some kind of actional actionable item. >> That's what I was going to do. >> Oh, well, there you go. So I was going to say I think the variables are um for you know someone maybe I think maybe Keith said you know
splitting out generation from storage because you know they get conflated but they're it's worth separating out. So we should look at if we're going to let gen have generators what should the generators be? I think we so far agree that diesel and gasoline are not great. So propane you know we could allow or
not allow. And then for storage, I think that's still an open question about what we do for storage. Do we we I mean at one extreme we could not do it. We cannot allow storage and the other extreme we could allow a certain technology. So I think this is something
we can't resolve right now that we have to continue discussing. But I'll split them out because I think that that helps. Um, and >> can we also is there a way to put Michael somewhere like that wiggle like
uh because technology is changing like um that the proponent can that basically gives the planning board um leeway to review something as it comes along. you know,
again, if something we don't envision that we could review it and if they make a case, >> you know what I mean? Um, >> yeah. >> So that we don't have to spell out every technology. >> No, uh, Keith, don't we have that in the waiverss in that waiver?
>> Yeah. Yeah. But I was thinking make it at least, uh, you know, we have it explicit somewhere else. Um, >> Yeah. >> I mean, the other Sorry. It's it's not binding, but we could say that projects that don't use lithium iron batteries
are preferred, which doesn't mean they can't bring it forth, but it sends a message um that we'd rather you look at something else. Um you know, if someone came forward, well, presumably some applicants would want to make the planning board happy on the front end. Um doesn't necessarily mean
the case. So I think this is still this needs more discussion and review but I would say between now and January if you guys have I'll I'll come up with something but send me thoughts. Um I think this is part I was you know I was trying to get it from different angles in terms of
keeping it small. Uh but so I'll move on just given Nathan's thing. Is there any other areas of the new stuff that you guys wanted to highlight for discussion? I'm going to scroll down slowly, making no one nauseous.
We got the the water usage thing already. We talked about that. Um, see, oh, you know, Michael, I just had one item that I noticed when you were going through which was relating to generators. Uh,
and I don't know if it was masty P rags or whatnot. >> Um, uh, let's see. Yeah, air quality is the one, the air quality mitigation. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so, you know, if possible, we should try and get a a
reference for that. Like a >> I got it. Z10. >> Yeah. >> CMR700. >> All right. All right. I uh I maybe I was something else. I'll uh >> Yeah.
Uh let's see. So, in terms of the noise one, do people feel like I'm sorry, Jeeoff, go ahead. >> No, this wasn't this was just a note to Nathan because we haven't even dealt with the vegetation growing next to our lithium batteries in the town.
So maybe we could put a note on in terms of discussing that because there's literally vegetation right next to the lithium batteries in our town that leads right into this area of forest. So I think we should eventually talk about that, but that has nothing to do with what we're doing right now. It's just a
note to have a future discussion about that. Thank you. >> Very good. >> Hey, Michael, with this the section about the noise assessment, I put that require in there because it seemed like there was a word missing. So, I I I wasn't necessarily advocating to require
that. I just wasn't sure um what word was supposed to be there. >> Okay. Um I could I'll have to I don't want to make everyone crazy. So, do people think we should require a noise assessment or it
should be it should be more of a may Tom then I don't know Jeff if your hand's still up after Tom. Um I actually had a question about something else. >> Okay. So >> I would require a noise assessment if you are asking.
>> Okay. >> Isn't noise assessment doesn't noise assessment come under board of health? >> Um yeah it's just that we would require well the applicant has to require documentation from the board of health indicating that the data center would
not pose unreasonable noise levels. Um, so we're asking the for documentation from board of health. So this is not the noise assessment is not essential. I mean the board of health could require it if they wanted to, >> right?
>> So one could say it's overkill. One could say it's, you know, more information for us. Uh >> so uh here I think I'm feeling like this gets a little tricky and you know this is where I'm glad actually glad that we're kind of trying to coordinate a little
bit with the board of health. Um you know if you know right now I don't know how well suited the board of health is to you know assess uh whether or not a proposal from a data center is going to you know constitute a uh
um unreasonable noise levels right. um you know what I mean? So like depending on what the regulations are that they end up coming out with could could kind of affect what we want to say here. Um but I think you know you know at the very least we should say you know the planning board may require a noise
assessment be um you know completed to demonstrate that uh you know data center operations will not violate the noise ordinance including the uh mass EP noise
regulation sites 310 CMR 7.10 10 something like that, right? So, it's kind of like you know, you know, we we we are gonna, you know, impose this, you know, we we may impose this on you as a condition of operating a data center. >> Well, if we took out that first board of
health reference, then we could just keep everything may require. So, it would be all within our control. >> Yeah. I mean, that seems uh, you know, and I'm not um, you know, like I'm not opposed to referencing the board of health, but you
know, it just may uh well, you know, just make a note there that uh, we should um, look at what the board of health does uh, if if we can, >> you know, up to the up to the point of our, you know, public hearing or whatever. Right. >> Yeah. And if I remember correctly, based
on the wind turbine when we looked at the excessive noise bylaw that you may have, I think the board of health is part of that >> process. So, >> well, right. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, they they are listed on >> Yeah.
>> Tom, you've been very patient. >> Thanks. Yeah. So, I'm asking about 8135A, the mitigation for fire risks. >> Uh, am I going up or down? Let's see. >> At the bottom of page five, >> right there.
>> Yeah. Um, the the questions I have, what confused me, etc. was uh the first part of the sentence at the discretion of the planning board. I wondered why that was included as opposed to just starting with data centers. um shall be required
to submit an energy an emergency response plan. Um especially because of the waiver language up above. I didn't know what the purpose of adding the at the discretion of the planning board was. Um, on top of that, I wanted to know if
this meant that if a data center did not utilize battery energy storage systems, would it therefore not be required to submit an energy an emergency response plan approved by the fire chief? Um, or only if it utilizes battery energy
storage systems. >> Well, it's a good it's a good question. I mean, my my thinking when I put it in here was I was trying to get at the risk associated with lithium batteries and so this seemed like a direct tiein that if if we were going to allow them that this was required.
>> Sure. >> I didn't I didn't see any fire risk from anything else. Um if people have >> thoughts that we should require it no matter what it's easy enough to keep. But that was the thinking behind it originally. >> Um and then the last part was um I think they are different things an emergency
response plan and an incident action plan. And I didn't know if we wanted to reference an incident action plan as well, which I understand to be more of um like an on the ground instruction sheet for when it's happening, what
happens, and the e who comes in and does what for firefighting, who stands where, who calls whom. Um and I've unders Oh, it is there. I'm sorry. Pardon me. >> No, I put it in just now. Oh. Oh, you
just typed it in. Oh, okay. And the emergency response plan, I understand, is a little more general, like who would be the contact person who would know how to shut it off and not actually the doing of things during an event. Um, so
we might want to look into that. Okay. >> Should I continue just scrolling before we run out of steam? Uh >> yeah, Mike, will you go up to just uh I want to say it's the bottom of page top of page two maybe or bottom of page two?
>> Top of page two. You said >> what? What's the content? >> Hold on. Yeah. B I'm sorry. Bottom of page two. It should be right right before water usage. Yeah,
>> that part. >> Yeah. No, it's Oh, so that's that's what I'm looking at right there. Number five. >> Yeah. >> So that's uh where did it where is it? You showed me the CMR earlier. That was that was in
the mitigation. Okay. Oh, and this is by DP. Um, does it make do we need the two separate clauses? I can look at that and maybe try and figure it out. But, uh, >> yeah, it it might be duplicative. I I
can check, too. >> Well, this this is the one I was thinking. >> Okay. >> Um, all right. That's uh that's all I had. Um, I'm trying to look at the It's 8:30
and um, >> yeah, I think we're uh, we're starting to get a bit behind here. >> Yeah. >> Uh, so I think I think we might unless uh, you've got anything else you want to try and answer right now. Um
>> well I think look I think we identified things that need more work. Um and I I think the only place of major you know discussion non- consensus is you know the battery composition which sort of
carries over from previous things. So, if you guys want to Keith, >> I got one quick question about the 5,000 square feet. Um, if it's is that the footprint of the building or does that in if it's multiple floors?
It's I'm I'm thinking about it as well that's I was Yeah, we should clarify. I was thinking about is the the footprint of the building quest plus equipment. You know, if there were batteries, if there was other stuff, but I wasn't thinking about up, but it's a good
question. I I guess I Steve, you're the one who talked about edge centers being 5,000 square feet. Do you have a sense of that's the volume or the >> That's the total That's the total volume across any number of floors. >> Okay. So, I should clarify that. Okay.
>> Area. >> Yeah. talking about area. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that's the way it's written out. It just says it's like a house. If you looked at a house, it would tell you the square footage, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Over x number of floors.
>> So, if if this is it, what's the area of the built facility? Is that you would all understand that to be multiple floors? Um, yeah, I would, uh, take a peek at some of the other items
in the bylaw, uh, you know, particularly the dimension table and and see if it says footprint or, you know, total square footage. Um cuz this may kind of be rather than a you know livable space in like a
residence kind of thing more of a you know what's the maximum amount of you know cleared land that we're going to result with right uh and I mean it might be something worth you know thinking about more in terms of uh >> you know the building and this you know
the work site itself you know parking lot >> fencing perimeter that kind of But I uh >> so the only the only thing I was going to say before we switch is I I started thinking about timing. So we're in December. Um I think we're having annual
town meeting in April. Um >> May. >> In May. >> Are we Is it going to be in Well, because special town meeting, we passed the bylaw. >> I can't remember. Oh yeah, that's right. It's going to be in May >> sometime. So we pro, you know, we'll
probably then want to have public hearing beginning of April. So I'd say we got, you know, January and February to sort of work it out, set up a public meeting maybe for March, something like that. So just in terms of thinking, I think you probably have, you know, two
months leisurely, three months if we're really up to the gun to sort of figure out. But am I am I correct in assuming it looks like a lot of this is, you know, pretty okay. We just have some key things that we have to sort of nail down.
Okay, that's good. So, I'll change the color coding and I'll highlight things in hot pink that we still have to deal with. I batteries being the most important one. Okay, cool. I will stop sharing. Thank you guys. >> Yeah. Um,
yeah. So, thank you, Michael. And I was thinking about uh maybe talking to the fire department a little bit, but I don't know if anyone's done that. >> I haven't. >> H >> I have not.
He's a very strict adherent to the mass fire code and the mass fire code on vest and battery storage is very detailed. There's no.
>> All right. Next on our agenda, we're going to look at uh what do we have? >> Member updates. member updates. And I think um most of what I expect here is going to be from Michael. Michael's got all kinds
of things set up. >> I only got I only got two >> two. >> Yeah. So the first one I wanted to check in. So I reached out to Nathan and basically said we we had talked after town special town meeting about
coming up with some kind of policy roadmap for how one has a dissenting opinion and sort of codifying that. So, I want to just take uh a minute or two to confirm what we what we thought was okay and what was not okay. And then I
could try to sort of figure out where does that live and what does it look like and we could sort of bring that forth. Um you know, if it's part of the bylaws, we'd have to, you know, get a town meeting approved if it's just a policy. I'm not I'm not sure where it lives and what it looks like yet, but it seemed like we did have a discussion
afterwards. Um you know, and as I remember there was two components. there was what went in the report to the town. Um the ability to sort of speak at the front of the room versus as a resident.
Those were sort of the two dynamics. Um and I don't know I don't know how deep we wanted to get into this but I thought we could work on that in parallel with the other. >> Yeah. I I don't want to have any discussion about it right now, you know,
except to kind of note that, you know, I thought, you know, you were going to do some >> I am >> you look into it or whatever. And I would say if anyone uh is curious about it, you know, >> take a look and you can send stuff to me. You can send stuff to Michael on it. And uh you know, with with the uh the
moderator piece, right? Uh that would probably best be a a bylaw to say if a town uh if a public body uh of for the town uh puts forth a warrant article
that and there's a a split decision on it from that public body that uh you know members of that minority may address town meeting uh um in the same manner as does the supporting majority.
Um, so that would be a general bylaw for the planning board and any other municipal board we want to do and we'd want to probably uh, you know, talk to the moderator about that and and possibly others. Um, so it would be good to uh, you know, get some traction on
it. The other piece with the planning board report, we can determine um, formally or informally how how to deal with that. And I know that you know some are uh there's some different opinions uh
about that as well. So uh I think it would be I would like to know if if there are any uh there's any precedent outside of our special town meeting we just had of there being multiple
recommendations in that report. >> Okay. So I basically I'm I'm gonna do some research and then bring it back to to everybody. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I would like to have an actual discussion about it in Janu. >> I'd like to keep the data center bylaw
discussion in January to a minimum. And I would encourage members to uh you know, if you've got anything you're looking at, you know, um try and try and get some stuff together to uh help help the board to, you know,
understand what changes you're trying to make and and and and why you're trying to make them so that we might be able to uh hopefully have a concise uh conversation about it. I know that's, you know, easier said than done, but
>> Michael, can you send out a claimed copy of what we just kind of went through? >> Yeah, definitely. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah, I'll highlight the stuff. Um, for sure. Um, so the other thing is a very exciting opportunity. I went to the first Burkhog planning advisory
board meeting last week and they had a a list of membership and they didn't have the alternate listed even though Nathan said that he was interested. So there's actually open slot. Nathan is willing to to have someone else do it I guess is the most magnanimous way to say it. So
if someone wants to be the alternate um which I think you can come with me or if I can't come um so there's it's It's not they're taking they're paying attentions for the people who are supposed to be there, but I think if you're an alternate, you can show up. So, um I know Keith, you had suggested.
>> Yeah, I' I'd love to join you, Michael. >> Okay. Anyone else dying to do it? You want to thumb wrestle for it? Okay. I will I'll send in your name, Keith. >> All right. Thank you. >> Outstanding.
um >> guys for doing that. Appreciate it. >> It's a realist. >> Yeah. Well, I mean it's still it's time >> and yeah, it's uh yeah, Furcog is a different kind of
track than the stuff we typically do. So, it's I don't know, just another set of things if you're really trying to get involved to need to look at, but I mean, depends on what's going on, I guess. Um,
nothing uh on uh state rags for uh solar or anything like that. That's all still in the air, moving target. >> Yeah, I mean, they're they're slowly moving forward. There should be something coming out. I mean there is a hearing
uh next week for the emergency facility sighting board but that's the large ones not us so there's nothing for bo do yet that is you know ready to review for the next round. >> Well I'd like to mention also that uh you know Michael had sent us some stuff
on FEMA flood planes. >> Yeah. you know, they're looking at the uh the flood plane map and you know, Mattel and the uh I believe the administrative secretary for the select board received some notices regarding
this some time ago, right? And so this is an ongoing process and apparently at some point we may need to uh you know have a bylaw discussion about it. We already have a section on the bylaw for FEMA flood plane overlay
district. Uh however, you know, when Michael sent out the information the other day, I took a peek at the state website and they have a model they did a a draft model bylaw in 2020 and I I forgot how many pages I said was maybe like 23 pages or something like that. >> Yeah.
>> And ours is like a page page and a half, right? It's like one of the shortest sections in our bylaw, right? So, I don't know um how much of that is going to needed to be, you know, we're going to need to incorporate or whatnot. And, you know, maybe we can just copy paste it. I don't
know how much we're going to need to get in the weeds on that, but uh >> my hope is we don't have to dedicate too much time to it, but we we'll see. >> Yeah. The the only two things I'll share in that conversation, I I asked how what level of confidence people had, you
know, because FEMA is the feds currently. the feds don't believe in climate change, you know, so like what's the 50-year flood and the 100red-year flood meeting and pointed out that they de FEMA developed these a few years ago. So it was the previous administration who developed these things. Um, but the
other part was I asked, you know, we're on a hill, you know, we're not in the valley, so how much do we care? And what I was told by the planning board rep from Leverett was that technically speaking, the land next to streams are flood planes. So everywhere that we have a stream, we have flood points. So he
said every town's got them. Shootsbury definitely does. Um just not what we traditionally think of as flood planes. So that's all I got. >> Anybody Anybody recall the summer of 2021 >> and the rain we got that summer
rained like every day in July I think or you know almost every day. It was good for mushroom foraging, >> I bet. Yeah. And then one night it rained like I don't know six inches or whatever. It rained a lot in one night. It was like total torrential downpour
almost all night. And you know, Baker Reservoir was right up to the road there. You couldn't even, you know, there's a little covert that goes under the road and the water was right there. It was just a little whirl. And uh they uh if you go down to the
Cascades off, you know, down there, that was like Niagara Falls over there. So, I mean, I I never saw anything like it around here. It was crazy. But, you know, I mean, to your point, Michael, uh it seems strange up here in the hills
that you might be worried about a flood plane, but it was uh if you get torrential downpour, I guess it can be a concern. >> Yeah. Um, all right. Let's not terry uh Billy Dolly too much here.
I don't think I have anything else explicit for updates. I want to talk quickly about this land use clerk job description. Okay. I sent out um I sent that to the board earlier today. Uh I meant to send it a little bit earlier.
Um yeah, and I sent the email. All right. This was related to uh a little mixup we had with some of the required notifications on a zoning bylaw amendment and some of those were missed and it was in the binder. Um
you know so it was it was uh you know we were trying to figure out you know what do we do to make sure this doesn't happen again. And I went to the personnel board at one point just at a public comment and said, "Hey, you know, we had this issue uh you know,
are you doing, you know, are you doing some work uh regarding, you know, town hall employees and that kind of thing? You know, job descriptions, whatnot." And they said, "Yeah, we we're actually, you know, looking at doing some of this stuff." I was like, "Okay, well, you know, when you do the land use clerk, we're interested in just, you know,
making a few little notes there just to kind of cite some of these uh responsibilities to make sure that they're kind of, you know, there and accessible." All right. So, that's basically the extent of of what my aim was with that. Um you I may
you know seek that uh you know there's kind of clarity maybe and just you know because currently the land use clerk works with three different boards and oftent times you know the chair of those boards or the bars themselves right so kind of just being able to uh
you know outline some of that you know roles responsibilities expectations that kind of thing uh around that dynamic uh um organizational uh environment that the land use clerk lives in. Um, now you've got a few different uh, you know,
we have three different uh, descriptions that are incorporated in that document I attached in the email earlier. And if you have any you want to contribute to this, you know, send it to me and uh, you know, I'll have that uh, with me when I uh
um, check in with them at a future meeting. I think it's uh, next week, next Thursday. The next thing I wanted to mention was this uh job description. I'm sorry. Uh purchase of zoning act booklets. Michael said
something about that, right? >> Yeah, they're they're very cheap. It's just a matter of um the state house clerk I'm not the bookstore printed out the zoning act in hard copy. So I mean I
think they're like buck 75. So I mean we could just order one for everybody and you know it's it's going to be no different than it's online but it's people want a hard copy of it. Um, so, >> so I mean, you know what? We got
we'll call it nine members. If we have a a full boat with two associates, maybe get a 10th copy for the land use clerk, 10 copies. Should we uh just do a motion and ask uh
to procure whatever, you know, 15 bucks that'll be or is that I mean I I don't know. I mean, let's uh >> just you should just do it. We should just do it. >> Do we need to check with Fincom first? >> Hey, you know, we we have a budget. We
do have a budget. So, I suppose uh I you know, I don't I don't know. We we don't really have any kind of uh specific guidelines or this kind of thing, but um I'm not hearing any opposition to that, am I? All right. Let it be noted in the
minutes that no member of the board raised any opposition to purchasing these cheap zoning act hard copies. Very good. Now, um we don't have any other unanticipated business uh not uh
reasonably anticipated by the chair. So, that being the case, um we'll go ahead and uh note that we're going to enter into executive session. Uh for reason number three to discuss strategy with respect
to litigation if an open meeting may have detrimental effect on the government's litigating position litigation specific uh to the complaint received from calls regarding the Shootsbury solar bylaw and specifically the board intends to review executive
session minutes from over the course of the litigation including dates November 4th 2024 November 25th 2024, February 10th, 2025, April 9th, 2025,
May 7th, 2025, May 12th, 2025, June 9th, 2025, and June 17th, 2025, and July 14th, 2025. The board will not return to open session.
Um, do I hear a a motion to uh enter into executive session for uh and I I'm just Yeah. Go. Do I hear a motion for this? >> So, move. >> Do I hear a second? >> Second.
>> All right. Um, you just a little the discussion item, right, as we've uh alluded to earlier in the meeting. >> Right. Hold on. We have to turn off the recording. >> No, no. It's uh we haven't done the roll call yet. Oh, okay. >> Um, but I'm just, you know, noting that,
you know, we've, uh, we have had discussion with, uh, town council to, you know, and so going, you know, even though the litigation's over, we're going to go into, uh, executive session. Um, I don't think any of the, you know, we need to approvements and then
separately, uh, you know, review them and and decide to, uh, release them. So, that's the purpose of this, right? We know that the ex uh litigation's over, but we have this minute thing and uh Donna said that we're okay to go into executive session. Um town council did,
right? Even though the litigation's over, right? So that's uh that's what we're doing here now. Uh unless there's any further discussion, I'll call the role. >> Wrestler. I >> Hasty. I
hi Weston. >> Hi, >> Seaffort. >> Hi. >> And all right, we'll uh go into executive session now. Got to stop the recording. Good night, everyone.