Are we on silent mode until we actually officially start the meeting? Apparently not. No, we're just uh or are we just staring out into space? Yeah, we're we're just staring out into space. Okay.
I think it's called deep thought. That's a nice way to frame it. Yeah. I always feel a little bit more nervous when there's a public hearing or something more formal going on. I forgot my tide.
Right. Me, too. I thought I thought about, you know, back when I first joined the planning board and we weren't all remote. I guess we we were remote already, but kind of like the expectation was there. we someday would just go back into town hall. I was like,
I should just get a suit and wear a suit 100% of the time. I've learned practicing law, one has to adjust one's costume to the setting. in um in uh in a place like Shootsbury, if
a lawyer walks in wearing, you know, a $1,000 Armani suit or or I guess they cost more several thousand dollars, you're clearly identifying yourself as a foreigner. Um in Ammerst, you don't wear a tie. If
you're if you're down in the larger places in Hampton County, you better wear a nice suit. Really? Yeah. Oh, yeah. Oh, in Springfield. You bet. Well, it it is uh 7:01. We do have a uh quorum present. So, I will call this uh
meeting of the Shootsbury Planning Board for September 8th order. First, I will note that the meeting is being recorded. I'll note that I uh Nathan Murphy, Michael Dave Kiier, Steve Breler, Keith Hasty
are present. Associate member Tom Seaffort is present and uh not sure not sure who is did I miss anybody who's here? I don't think so. Um yeah, Gail Hundress is here from uh the
broadband uh team. Uh this is tangentally related to what we do, so I'm just listening in. Excellent. Well, we're glad you're here. um as well as all the any other members of the public uh that uh are here. Um for the time being, I'll uh I'll
designate Tom to uh act as a full member uh unless we end up getting uh all seven of our full members uh present. And this time I'll ask if uh what's that time?
I just said okay. Excellent. I'm glad you're I'm glad you're ready as always. Um, is there anyone uh here that would like to make public comment that is not related to the public hearing? We are about to begin in a few minutes.
I am hearing and seeing none. Is there anybody who is here who is interested in speaking with us about landowner education and guidance? That would be uh if we were to start
that now, we would probably just cover the high level and pick it up after the hearing. But I'm not hearing or seeing any. I'll note Ashley Pyro has joined the meeting as a full member of the planning board. Welcome Ashley.
Good evening. You haven't missed much, Ashley. So far, nobody wants to make a public comment or um anything else. So, okay. So, I'm just uh we're just now going to uh hang tight for
few minutes. Let people filter in. Is Donna McNichol going to be here? Do you know? I don't know. She didn't mention specifically that she's coming. I uh
I didn't get the impression she was coming. Yeah. Has anyone heard from Deacon or Jeff as to whether they might be u not coming or coming? No. Okay.
Okay, it is 7:05. So, I will open up the public hearing for the planning board to consider a uh proposed amendment to the Shootsbury zoning bylaw. To start, I'll just read the public notice that was
sent out, I believe, to the Greenfield Reporter. Uh, Shootsbury Planning Board will hold a virtual public hearing on Monday, September 8th at 7:05 p.m. to consider an amendment to the Shbury zoning bylaw that addresses data centers establishing a prohibition in all
districts in a moratorum through June 30th, 2026. The following sections of the zoning bylaw will be amended. The definition section will add a definition for data centers. The use table will add a add data centers as a industrial use
and a new section under supplemental uses will enact the moratorum. The purpose of the moratorum is to provide adequate time for the planning board to develop reasonable regulations for data centers to be considered at 2026 annual
town meeting. Additional information is available through the Shootsbury town clerk or on the town website. I would like to note that Jeff Weston has joined. Welcome, Jeff. Glad you're here.
Nathan, you want me to or do you want to read the proposed warrant article as a way to kick this off? Yeah, you know, um that would be great if you want to uh take that, Michael. Sure. Um, so just because not everyone
was here at our last meeting and it's a public hearing, I'll just say when the planning board met on August 11th, um, we took the following vote. The planning board supports a one-year moratorum for the installation of data centers in
Shootsbury. A data center is defined as a facility composed of network computers, storage systems and computing resources used to process, store and disseminate large amounts of data and that such a facility is either a principal use or is used in a standalone
capacity. Further that the chair is empowered to conduct all procedural steps to achieve this objective. So that's what we voted on August 11th. Um, subsequent to that, Nathan and I checked in with town council um, and crafted the
warrant article that's slightly different, but the intent is the same. So, the actual warrant article is to see it's entitled moratorum prohibition on data centers. um in the Texas to see if the town will establish a moratorum on
the application for an installation of data centers by amending the town of Shoot zoning bylaw by adding a new use in section 3.1-1 use table by adding a new section under article 8 supplementary regulations 8.13
uh and then I think I'm missing a number there um and then moratorium oh adding a new article which is more to my data centers and by adding a new definition to section 13.2 definitions or take any
other action related there too. So in the use table um we would create under industrial section a new category called data centers under all four zones rural residential um FC town center and
lakeola they would all be um not prohibited um under definitions the definition is um data center a facility composed of network computers storage systems and computing resources that is used to process, store and
disseminate large amounts of data and that such a facility is either a principal use or is used in a standalone capacity. And then there's a new section A13 which is what Donna had suggested to us. Um and that is A13 moratorium on
data centers. And this is where the change is the town of Shoot Spring shall enact a moratorum on the application for and building of new data centers as defined in section 13.2 two of the Shootsbury bylaw. That's the definition section. The purpose of the moratorum is
to provide the Shootsbury planning board with sufficient time to research and understand this complex use so that reasonable regulation can be developed for consideration at spring 2026 town meeting. The moratorial will be in effect starting on September 30th, 2025
upon adoption at special town meeting. The morator moratorum will be in place until June 20th 2026. So Michael, yes. What didn't you say in the use table was there?
The use table is that it's a under the section of industrial there's a new category called data centers and all in all four zoned regions. It would not be allowed. Um Okay. And I wasn't sure what I what I heard it says. I wanted to make sure it was clear
just in case anyone had the same kind of uh misaring I did, but it's it is not permitted. Right. Right. Correct. And so just like I just read it, but to explain a little bit of what we got from talking to Donna, um is
that we need a new section that's the 8.13 the moratorium data centers that has specific dates of when it starts and when it ends. Um because the attorney general would want to see that. we had to have a reason which is for us as a planning board to understand the issues
so we can come up and craft an appropriate regulation. Um and so we in the vote that we took last month we said a year this is a little less than a year so it would start on September 30th when we had special town meeting and it would go um
through June oh uh it should be June 30th. Yeah, I guess we can change that after the after the hearing. Oh, it says June 20th. Yeah, it should be June 30th. So, running through June 30th with the assumption that it's special town meeting, we will have crafted and
presented a bylaw that can be voted upon and at that point we can change the use table. Presumably, we probably won't change the definition, but anything could be changed once we come up with it. But the idea is that we would substitute the current use table um
in an presented and hopefully approved by law an annual town meeting in 2026 and we can strike the moratorum because that would no longer be relevant. Um so that's how we got to where we are today.
How did I do? That's good. It's good. At this time, I will be opening up the floor to members of the public. So, I'm going to ask that people either, you know, turn your camera on and raise your hand or if you
can uh on the in, you know, we're all on Zoom, right? So, if you go to there's a either a raise hand button you can use. Sometimes it's under like a react button you have to press, but you know, depending on what your setup is. uh after I go through any members of the
public who wish to uh provide comment I'll uh you know open up the uh discussion to members of the planning board present and at that point you know there's going to be more discussion that
ensues um a after any planning board member that kind of initially says they want to speak has spoken I'll open it back up more broadly if there's if people have follow-up questions questions or uh additional thoughts you based on the discussion that's taking place. Uh so that's just kind of a high
level structure of what to expect as we proceed through the hearing. And at this time we'll proceed with anyone who would like to make a uh public comment. I see uh Michael Pill. Yeah.
The uh yeah it's it's this is my law firm video. So that's why the that name is there. Um, I'll just briefly read, it'll take less than a minute, an email I wrote yesterday. Um, data to the planning board. Data centers not being
specifically allowed are currently prohibited under Shootes and the word is in quotations, prohibitive zoning bylaw, which expressly states as follows in section 3.1-1
on page 7. Um, and that's 3.1-1 use table. and I quote, "The use table that follows indicates allowable uses in the district shown. See article 13 for definitions of the use categories." And
here's the key phrase. Uses that are not listed below are prohibited unless state or federal laws preclude such prohibition. Okay, that's what the zoning bylaw says. So what that means is
is um you don't need a prohibition against a specific use. It is unnecessary. Uh a a sneaky lawyer might even claim well gee if you feel the need to start enacting prohibitions against specific
uses then maybe that general prohibition doesn't mean what it really says and you should really be listing every specific use you don't want. which is of course why the case law supports a prohibitive zoning bylaw, which in plain English
means the only uses are that are allowed are those that are expressly described as being allowed in the zoning bylaw. Everything else is blanket prohibited. Um, in other words, there's no need for
a specific prohibition and it's already prohibited. There's no there's nothing in chapter 48 section three unlike solar for example or nonprofit educational or religious that overrides zoning zoning
um local zoning. Uh Donna sent me an email. She said I don't disagree with your analysis but the point here was to have a moratorum on this very specific use until the planning board could study and draft a bylaw. and and I certainly
agree with that and it sounds like that's your focus. So I guess my point is you don't need a prohib you don't need a pro a prohibition but if you want to enact a moratorum to send the message that indeed you are dealing with it and
you're working on it I I I I agree with Donna about um about that and god knows with a with our tax rate um who knows it's possible with proper condition something like this might even uh you
know meet the board's approval. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. And uh Mr. Dier, is there something you would like to uh interject with at the time? I just had a question for you in terms of process. Um are you thinking we just
hear everybody and not respond and then maybe subsequently have discussion? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I mean, you know, like I was going to kind of go through and I don't know if anyone on the planning board has like prepared like a a written kind of statement or something they're going to read from or, you know, and then Yeah, we'll have our
usual banner. No, I just wanted to clarify because if we're not responding to what Michael said, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew that we weren't being rude. We just that wasn't the process, right? Yeah. Yeah. No, I would like to Yeah. Um, that's that's exactly right, Michael. I would like to go through if
anyone else wants to make comment and then I'll give the board a chance to make comment and respond to other comments and then we'll have a broad discussion. I'll you know we'll allow people to come back if they want to and so on and so forth. Um
now is there any other uh member of the public here who who would like to provide comment um on the proposed zoning amendment? Looks like people are mostly just here for the show.
Well, uh, Mr. Pill, thank you very much for, uh, providing comment tonight. And at this time, I will ask turn to the members of the planning board, uh, to see if there's Oh, I see Gail has, uh, put her hand up. Not too late. Uh Gail,
if you would like to make comment, please uh please go ahead. Okay, thank you. Um it's it's uh just a comment that as you go through this process, it would be great if you could keep me in the loop. And the reason is
because the little I know about data centers is that um they well they need a connection. They need an internet connection to the larger world. And so it could be an opportunity for us as the municipal light plant to sell dark fiber
or even a full back haul connection uh to whatever entity it is. It has a lot to do with kind of like where it's cited, if they have any other options in town. Um we do not there's no other providers of high-speed internet fiber
besides our own network. Um, so this is just more of a request coming coming from my committee to yours saying keep me in the loop so that we can um contribute to the decision in some way of of how we can serve this and how it can be beneficial for Shootsberry if we
decide to pursue it. Um because anything that we sell to um some kind of private entity could offset the cost that everybody in town pays for their connection. Does that all make sense? Yes, Gail. Thank you. Um, I would just
one uh you mentioned uh two things like you know regular fiber or some sort of backend connection or or something. Could you kind of repeat that and maybe uh um break it down uh Barney
style for those of us who aren't uh necessarily familiar with uh the uh infrastructure involved in that. Sure. Sure. It it it's um it's not it's not too complicated. So, let's say that there's a data center that's built next
to the um Shoots Sparial Elementary School, just say um and uh they will use a massive amount of electricity and that's kind of their biggest usage. But the other thing that they're going to use is data. They're a data center,
right? So they have to connect to the larger internet h and you need to buy your connection. So the question is who do they buy that connection from? Depending on their location, they could buy it from a plate, you know, a company like Verizon
um to connect to the wider internet, but then they could also buy it from us um because we're a provider. And so that would be a kind of a direct purchase of we're going to buy our bandwidth. So kind of like the size of the data pipeline, which could range from just
gigabytes to terabytes. It could be huge. Um, and so we would uh act as the middleman and kind of resell a a a the pipeline of information access to them.
There's a second way to get that data and that's through something called dark fiber where all we act is the um uh let's see how do how do I analogize this? um we supply the empty pipe, but
we don't put anything in the pipeline. So, we don't actually sell the data, but we say, "Okay, we'll connect you to a main center down in Springfield." And believe it or not, our connection goes all the way down there. Um because that's um how we provide uh redundancy
in our network and safety uh to get back to the wider internet. you know, we just don't have one little tiny point, you know, like on our on our border with Ammerst where we connect. We go all the way down to uh to Springfield to make sure that our network is really
reliable. So anyway, uh that's another way that we could sell a asset to um one of these data centers by saying we'll we'll either sell you the um with bandwidth directly. We'll sell you the
pipe and what goes through the pipe or we'll just sell you the pipe and you can fill it with ever you want. We'll just provide the infrastructure to get where you want to go. Does that clear it up at all? Yes. Thank you. That's uh that's very interesting. Okay. Um, I appreciate the clarification there.
Uh, I notice a few people have jumped into the uh hearing. So, I just want to catch everyone up that you we start we've opened up the hearing and right now we're taking comments uh from the public
and right now I know uh I've I've asked people to either you know raise your hand with Zoom or if you have your camera on you can raise your hand if you would like to comment. Um, is there anybody who has uh just just recently hopped on the call who would like to make a comment or anyone for that matter
that wants to um a member of the public who would like to make a comment on the proposed amendment? Okay, I'm hearing and seeing none. And uh Gail, I would ask if you would uh to just uh put your hand back down. so that we uh don't get too confused here.
Well, now you're presuming that I can figure out how to do that. Just give me a second. I know. I know it. It's uh There we go. I did it. Okay. So, at this and just to reiterate what we'll do now, I'm going to open it up to the board to go around and uh
anyone who wants to say anything uh can and then we'll just after that it'll be more or less a free-for-all. Well, I mean, we're going to maintain order, of course, but we we'll just uh it'll be more like the usual dialogue that you tend to see at planning board meetings here. Uh
Michael, so I thought I would just cover a couple of things that we talked about last time and then maybe just respond to um Michael's point, which you also discussed last time, but just sort of to do a little bit of summary because I think there's since people are
interested if that makes sense. Um, so you know, this all started because we got an inquiry in town about bylaws about data centers during the summer and then we brought that back and did a little research. And I think on the
concern part, the things that rose up from looking at research, you know, of what's going on in the country, you know, there are things that have to get looked at in terms of regulation, you know, so that data centers use depending on how big or small they are, but they use lots of water, they use lots of
electricity, they have exhaust because they have backup generators, there's noise, they may or may not require lots of land, they do require security and lighting, and they're 247 operations. So, those are things that we identified as a board that um were things that we
might want to regulate. We definitely had some members um and I think to Gail's point talking about revenue generation um and to Michael's point that you know if there's a possibility that it could be designed in an appropriate way to fit into Shootsbury that would generate electricity uh
generate revenue. Um the other thing I think in terms of that came up previously is that the school probably with our current definition probably you know has a data center because they're backing up you
know their computers and we're very clear that spray um net has probably some backup. So depending on the definition that also might be considered a data center currently. Um, and while municipal uses would be able to do it no matter what, we wanted to
make sure that we didn't unintentionally um, create problems in any kind of regulation. Um, and I think the the last thing I'd say just in response to to what Michael was saying, you know, we did discuss and it is accurate about um,
section 3.1 in terms of allowable uses in the use table that was not specifically mentioned. The concern and I think the reason that we we're putting forth a proposed amendment and moratorum is that is twofold. One is that we're
just coming off of a potential lawsuit and I think we've collectively realized that pretty much anything can be argued by anybody. Um and so um we do have a situation where with the Wheelock track we did not have a solar category at the
time that we lock proposed and it was it's slight put into um light industrial and so there one could argue if one wanted to that this could be light industrial and we didn't want that just to happen sideways um and we didn't want to get sued for someone saying no in
fact you have precedent. We wanted to be really specific and buy by time. So, um it seemed like the most prudent way to do it was to identify what the use was um put a a moratorum on it and then come back in some thoughtful manner. Um you
know, in terms of town meeting, but give us some time. But it seems like these things are evolving and you know, AI is just growing rapidly. So, we wanted to have a little breathing room. And then I think the last thing I would say that we discussed is there are different sizes
and different types of data centers and Keith had brought this up originally you know that the issue of scale is really important for Shootsbury. Um so it's the use but it's also the scale and so I think part of the development of a regulation is to try to figure out how
can these be design regulated so that an appropriate scale if there is one um and we don't know the answer to that yet um could be allowed and where it would be allowed. So I think generally wanting to figure out how do we do this thoughtfully so that we can regul
regulate appropriately. Um, so I'm, you know, I think that's pretty much how we got here and why we're proposing what we're proposing. Thank you, Michael. Covered quite a bit there. Um,
I guess one thing I wonder if uh well, I guess I'll just kind of let people say their piece and uh maybe circle back to it, but I see Ashley has her hand up. Ashley, take it away, please. All right. I just have a question for Gail since you're here, Gail. Um, I'm
wondering about our capacity. Like, what kind of capacity Oh, thanks. What kind of capacity do we have as far as how much connectivity we could potentially sell to interested developers for a data
center? Now Gail has to figure out how to unmute. She's mastered the hand thing. Oh, it looks like you almost had it for a minute there, Gail. Yes, there it is. Sorry. Sorry about Sorry about that. I'm
not uh I'm not in a great connection. Uh can you uh repeat that? That I you froze and then I missed that entire question. I apologize. Oh, okay. All right. Um I'm wondering about the kind of capacity that we have with our shooting net like um could we
handle something like this and of course the question of scale you know a a smaller one I don't think it's likely that a giant data center is going to come to Shootsbury but could our our infrastructure handle the kind of things that we're talking about selling
it depends on what uh the the center wants. Um if they want a say a dedicated fiber going all the way to Springfield um then we would provide part of that um
you know going and then it would be probably some kind of handoff to another provider. Um, we the nice thing about fiber is that it's almost limitless in terms of its capacity as long as you can upgrade
the head-end electronics. So, um, it's it's a really hard answer to to give, but I I I guess mostly yes, unless they want something really really enormous. um it may incur some costs uh
to provide whatever they need, but we would pass that on to them, right? It wouldn't be something like, oh, we're going to we're going to do this and then pass, you know, the cost on on to Shootsbury residents. Um because it would be a it would be a commercial deal. Um you know, not a residential uh
providership arrangement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your question, Ashley. Is there any other member of the planning board who would like to make statements regarding this amendment this time? I got another one.
You have is it? Go ahead. Okay, maybe Michael knows the answer to this and I'm just letting you all know at any point a bunch of teenage boys could come in here and I ask forgiveness for anything they say. Um, so I'm I'm wondering
if anybody knows if the state is working on regulations for these because it sounds like uh Michael Pill that you said that there's nothing in chapter 4A section 3 right now that the state has
to say about them. Nothing nothing that I know of. and uh you know unlike solar, daycare centers, um agriculture, religious, educational,
I mean the uh the do amendment, which is what chapter 48, section 3 is called after a 1950s court case when it was first enacted, um it's become like a like a a Christmas tree. Um uh there's
also provisions for sober, uh recovery houses in there and and uh and and disabled people's housing, but um I don't know of anything relating to data centers.
Yeah, I would I would just tracking the legislation nice there's nothing in the works I'm aware of. I think more pertinent or equally pertinent is that the administration is, you know, very open to AI and pushing AI and so in order to make AI work, you have to have
data centers. So I think on the administration side, they're trying to roll these things out. Um, and you know, I I I don't know if there's legislation regarding that, but the administration definitely is trying to
site them. um and there is without any I don't think there's any guidance at this point. Um it's emerging. Thank you. So Steve, so isn't there with um maybe you don't
know the answer to this, Michael, but sounds like there's a conflict though between reaching a certain energy goal by 2030 and AI. Those two things are not in the same uh they're not running parallel.
You are a genius, Steve. Yes. I I act like a month ago, I wrote to the climate chief and I said like what gives if we're pushing AI on one hand and we're trying to do a decarbonization on the other hand with a a climate goal. Um
yeah, I think it's an issue of one silo not talking to the other silo. Um, I mean hopefully someone's trying to balance it, but I have not seen that yet. Okay. So, one other quick observation. It sounds to me like with this moratorum,
we're kind of committing ourselves to developing a bylaw and not relying on the use table. Correct. Uh well I think the first part's accurate you know that we are committing that you know by the time annual town
meeting comes around we will have you know a proposed bylaw to bring to town meeting. Um and I think I mean this is just me but my sense is that the you know whatever the proposal would be it'd be that um there's
probably parts if we like the definition we have we can keep it but we can tweak the definition that'll go into the definition section. I think the use table I would suggest we keep the category of data centers and just figure out you know how they're regulated. So maybe it
goes anywhere from not prohibited to by right and everything in between. So um it depends on what the zoning is. So I think we would keep the the use table but figure out what that looks like per zone and then just like we did with solar and marijuana and all the other
you know wireless stuff we would come up with. We'd probably swap out 8.13 um for moratorium and data center which is just called data centers and put whatever we want in there. So I think that that's how I foresee it happening with the vast majority of the discussion
being how we build out the language around 8.13. Okay. Jeff, would you like to speak? I would. Um, I appreciate everyone's uh Can you hear me? Sorry. I just want to thank uh Steve for his comments as well before, but uh Ste
uh Jeff, please. Thank you so much. I I appreciate every appreciate everyone's concern about this. Um, you know, I remember a few years back, I don't know, maybe five or so years back, perhaps even less, when we had uh uh very little rain and we
certainly knew wells that were failing in in Shbury um um neighbors wells were failing and um not able to get enough water and so forth. And that's just our own houses drawing the water in Shootsbury in the aquifer that we have.
Of course, we don't know the the um potential of our aquifer, but we do know that in a drought situation, it was failing for some houses. It's it's hard for me to imagine um I I haven't done a lot of research in um data centers, but the one I read about was taking a half million gallons of water a day. It's
hard for me to imagine even on a smaller scale of that being um advisable or desirable in a town that um already has had wells fail in um in time of drought. So, I think a moratorum is a great idea. It's hard for me to imagine actually voting for a data center in our town,
but we should certainly talk about it. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Okay. Um, I see uh Tom, you've got your hand up. Would you like to speak? Thanks. Yeah. Um I kind of wanted just
to talk about the siloing and a little bit of what Jeff just mentioned whether during the process we might be able I don't know how it works um because this would be a planning board discussion but to bring in potentially um health issues that the board of
health might be able to address about the effects on water public water supply or the quality of water and um the noise and uh the lighting issues that might be at play in terms of how they would um
aly with or existing state uh health regulations or whether the town would be interested the board of health and looking at a regulation towards data centers perhaps and separately I was also wondering about the benefits that could come to the town
from something like this would they be at all tax related um because I could be wrong but I understand kind of just one tax rate in town and something like solar give a pilot you know in lie of taxes a payment but would there be
ability to bring in theers or whoever's involved for purposes and tax a data center in a way that gives more revenue to the town for it or alleviates other people's taxes in some way and I know that's probably for
express on now does anyone else having a little bit of trouble hearing everything Tom was saying with connection. Yeah. So Tom, you're coming through a little bit spotty. What I heard was you wanted to talk about silos and you you
mentioned uh the possibility of of uh consulting with the board of health for potential regulations uh pertaining to data centers um regarding the impacts on water, light, and noise. And then and then you started to talk
about may there might have been some other details in the middle and you started to say something about taxes and that part especially I didn't fully hear what your question or comment was on that. Would you want to try and repeat that part? Sure. Can you just let me know if I'm
coming through clearly now? Well, yeah. Okay. Because I couldn't notice any of my um whatever happened. Um, for the tax question, I was wondering about whether uh it would be possible to bring into the discussion whether data centers
might be taxed differently in a way that would help alleviate residents taxes or perhaps contribute more per whatever square foot or how things are taxed because I don't understand perfectly the taxing situation in town, but I don't know if there are different tax rates
for different uses and I'm not aware that there are. Um, and since this wouldn't be like an exempt from taxes project, uh, would it be helpful to bring in the assessors or somebody involved with the tax revenue issue
um, down the line if that makes sense? That was about what I said. I think Okay. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. I guess uh so Michael is there are you would you like to address something specifically
that Tom said? Um yeah two things. One is we don't have a different tax rate for residential and commercial. So um if this would be commercial so that would be an opportunity to sort of look at different tax rate. The other thing not to put
people on the spot but both Kad Hilton and Arlene are both on the board of health. So I don't know given the you know the issues that Tom raised if it seems like we would probably take Gail up on the shared checking in with between boards
about making sure that as this process of developing a bylaw goes forward that we check in with the MLP. Um presumably do the same thing with the board of health. But maybe if you guys want to request that now that might be helpful. So, uh, Katherine Orlene, uh,
as sitting members of the board of health, is there any response you'd like to make at this time? I'm not seeing any of you come off mute. See, Arlene has come off mute. Are you about to speak, Arlene? Um, yeah. So, there's a lot I don't know
about data centers, but I am learning that there, as has already been mentioned, um, by Jeff, the need for water is monumental and, um, that water's also got to be disposed of
somehow. So, and that water has the potential to contain uh who all sorts of um uh potential uh contaminants to the aquifer. And so, it's mostly on this
water consumption and water um disposal that I think currently we have concerns. And um and we're all learning about this as we go, but um and also Jeff mentioned very um uh appropriately the noise and
light issues to a butters. And so setbacks um could setback requirements are something that we would need to research. And um and where in in the town such a facility
could be cited is um hard for me to imagine without it being a very intrusive um presence. So, as I said, we are all this is new to all of us and we're learning as we go,
but these are some of the concerns that are on my mind. Anyway, I don't know if Katherine has anything further to add to that, but Well, Arlene, thank you very much for your comments. Um, I would like to and Michael, I do see you and I'm trying to
I'm going to try and make sure that the uh if there's any other uh board members uh that are going to it's starting to get a little bit uh I see uh um Keith and and Steve are putting their hands back up. But before we move on, I would
like to ask Arlene um you you mentioned the potential for contamination in uh water uh from data centers and I was just wondering if if this is something that you've uh you know if you have any a source on
that that you would be that you would be happy to share with us. No, I don't. But um I understand that the water consumption is a matter of cooling and um so
uh cooling the um data processing. Oh yeah, of course of Yeah. Yeah, it's true that there are some I do not know what the potential contaminants are, but I'd like it to be something that we with you explore. We
we can explore and work with the planning board to um to become better informed about this. Okay. So, you haven't heard anything any specific piece of information that cited? No. Contaminated water?
No. No, I have not. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um, you know, I mean, we would definitely want to know about that. If anyone has, you know, please feel free to send it to us. Um, I mean, that's a I mean, that's a question I would have myself.
Um, okay. So, I saw Keith with the hand up and then uh we'll go back to Steve and Michael, you are Michael Pill is also on the uh on the radar as well. So, Keith first. Yeah, you you kind of touched on it, Nathan. Um, and I'm gonna
get back to the scale issue that Michael Decier mentioned earlier is that um I think in our mind's eye, people are envisioning a big mega structure and it doesn't necessarily have to be a big mega structure. Uh, as as Ashley
mentioned, uh, technically the school might be acting as a data center. Um, and I'm thinking it might also be something as innocuous as um, you'll find in almost every town a
telephone exchange, usually a brick building with no windows, maybe a couple stories high. I think there's one on Lincoln Avenue. I think it's Verizon now. Probably started out as one of the Bell Companies. Um, that kind of just blends into the
neighborhood. It's not any kind of um highly lit you know uh again mega structure. So I think we need to again and keep in mind that these things could range from
something the size of a trailer perhaps to the size of a large house or small warehouse. um and not uh get over our skis envisioning um something massive. And again, as far as cooling water,
um some may use cooling water, some may not, some may be air cooled. Um, so I think the without having anything proposed and again we have nothing even remotely proposed, we're kind of getting
ourselves wound up over a lot of conjecture, I guess, and a lot of uh whatifs and worst case uh ideas. So that that's it.
Thank you, Keith. Steve Presler. Yeah. So, these are these are all good comments and all good concerns and they all lead to why we need the moratorum to do our our homework. I'll give you one quick example because I've just touched
the surface on research and I mean just scratched the surface. But with with regards to water, as Keith said, there's air cooled, but then there's also immersion cooling. And there's two types of immersion cooling. one that uses PAS liquid and one that uses hydrogen-based
um biodegradable liquid. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm just saying there's a lot of homework we have to do to create an informed bylaw and condition, you know, a bylaw. So, all good comments. We don't need to get
into the weeds right now because this is we just are talking about the amendment and the moratorum. Thanks. Thank you, Steve. And now I'll circle back to uh Michael Pill. I just wanted to note if they're
going to use water, if it's over 10,000 gallons a day, my recollection is um the the board of health loses jurisdiction to DP as the permit granting authority, but Shutesbury does have private well
regulations. So, if they're going to use water, um the board of health might want to dust off the private well regulations and see, for example, if there's any maximum number of gallons. And from a
perspective of zoning, um, I think there's no problem in specifying how the cooling needs to be done and and you can simply and and so, you know, Keith and Steve's comments are very very valuable
there because you can simply specify that we're not going to have um water in a water water cooling that would require a well and a septic system. And frankly, if I was a developer, um, you know, it's
hard to imagine, you know, I know, you know, what even residential septic systems cost nowadays, where you can find the soil condition suitable for them. And one thing I generally tell people who are interested in rural housing is when it comes to drilling a
well, there's only two outcomes. either they hit water of sufficient quantity and quality or you run out of money and um as you probably all know I mean it's unbelievably
hit or miss. Um our house behind ours has 175 ft deep well. The neighboring house 300 ft away has a 400 foot deep well. And the poor guys who rebuilt the parsonage across the street next to the
fire station, you know, the well driller was sold there so long I went over and talked to them and they were down over 700 ft. So you you you never ever know. And and that might be a way to incentivize some
alternative system. And what Steve and Keith have also pointed out is you might also consider a maximum size so that you might want to attract the smaller non-intrusive ones that would help
bolster our tax base. I'm just brainstorming here. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. Um I know we've heard from everyone on the board, I think. Uh yes. Yes, we have. Even Yep. Tom as
well. So, I want to just make a few comments. Um myself I don't have any kind of prepared written statement but I guess to start I'll say that I like the idea of uh doing a moratorum
to to give us time. I support that but I think that if we're if we're doing it that we should have something in the use table other than uh you know prohibited. Um I don't I don't
think it makes sense to prohibit it and do a moratorium at the same time. Um there's I guess you know going back to you know when Michael was speaking and he was giving kind of some context of it right
uh he talked about how we kind of tweaked things a little bit after having our conversation with Donna and and kind of the when we were talking about this at our prior meeting you know we're going back and forth like this and I said all right you let's do something temporary, you
know, a moratorum to give us time to do it, right? And not really, you know, grasping it. It's like, okay, that seems right. And, you know, we'll we'll put it in as a a no. And then and we're also taking into account whether or not the
definition of light industry, as it's currently written in our bylaw, would allow a data center. And as anyone, you know, who's spoken with lawyers about zoning might be able to guess or uh, you know, just to let the public know, you
could probably argue it either way. Uh, you know, you could easily argue that the uh definition of light industry that we have written does not uh include uh data centers um based on what it says. Uh you could also say you know
maybe it does, right? And you know the the thing is is data centers are somewhat eccentric use um when it comes to defining land use right it's a little bit is it commercial is it industrial right it's it's kind of a little bit of both right is it's it's
not some of your more clearcut uh cookie cutter uh you know commercial or industrial right um so there's this question of does that how does that definition uh leave us and I guess
So that I think fed into you know the idea of prohibiting it you know defining it and then prohibiting it because we didn't want to have any any uh um anything that was unclear about you
know where things stood. Um but the other thing that ca came out of it was that the use table the section on the use table is not going to be included in in the moratorum. You can't have you know the the use expire with the
moratorum. So if we have it in as is prohibited and then our moratorum expires and we do nothing then it sits there as prohibited. Right? If we have it as allowed by special permit then
it's uh if we do nothing then it would be uh allowed by special permit and you know we would have a definition and we would be able to regulate it that way uh given our our bylaws it stands or if we did nothing
and we get a project we can decide to interpret light industri industry if we were get to get uh you know if we got a a application for a mega project we'd probably say this does not fit the definition of light energy and therefore it's prohibited or if we got a small project we like we might say oh well you
know we can fit this into light industry we want the tax revenue we'll do it and then and then if we got a sec you know that then we would face the consequences okay now how are we going to what are we going to do if we get a application for a big project um you know obviously you know there are some people here that
don't want to get too far into the weeds on this Um, I guess all this to say, you know, my inclination is to make the commitment to come back with a proposed amendment at the next town meeting.
And and I'll caveat it saying that we can have a backup amendment, a fail safe to remove the uh provisions allowing it. I think we should put it in as allowed by special permit in at least some districts, not
not necessarily all districts to kind of say, all right, you know, we're interested we're interested in the possibility of a project of allowing the use, right? We have it as we're going to allow it with a special permit. We have a moratorum because we need to figure out what our regulations are, right? that sends the
right signal to industry uh and and and and lays out a path for people to come here and possibly do a project that would be acceptable, right? and and as we've heard some people say you know it all depends on
scale and uh you know when I talk about you know the favorability of a project I mean there may be some that that would be a good fit right you have the potential to sell uh for for a municipal light plant to sell broadband and that
could um reduce the uh the cost of internet for uh people across town if that was a revenue making deal. Uh I saw a post on on Next Door today. Someone was uh complaining about uh one fear or another. Not that this would necessarily address that, but obviously, you know,
people are concerned about uh every little cost they have. Um and obviously, yes, it would be revenue, uh tax revenue. If a project like this went in, you know, um if it was a nonprofit, I'm sure we would negotiate some sort of a pilot payment. Um, but if it was a a
for-profit enterprise that came forward with a project, then it's going to either be in commercial or industrial. We have to figure all that out. That's what the moratorium is for. Um, so it's uh I would like to see us turn around and and commit to, you know, coming back
with with a bylaw uh and and saying that, you know, we're going to allow it by a special permit so that, you know, we'll be able to impose conditions on it. And you know, nobody on this board, myself included, wants to have a project coming to town that's going to leak diesel fuel into the
ground that's going to deplete aquifers or anything like that. Um, so that's my main uh that's my bone to pick with the amendment as it's written. I think we should allow it with the moratorum. And additionally, I would say we should probably
come up with some sort of a a size limitation to avoid further confusion about some sort of huge project that we clearly are not interested in allowing intent. So that's that's what I would like to
see and that that's my comment for for the public hearing. Uh one last thing is uh in in my recent personal life I've encountered you know I have I have two children okay uh my son is six and my
daughter is four and I I'm I'm bumping into you know friends or colleagues whose children are you know have either just graduated college or or you know otherwise u maybe you know didn't make it in college and you know the kids are
living at home and they're having a hard time finding a decent job, right? So, you know, this is something that could also produce a couple of jobs. You know, maybe not if it's just one of those windowless brick buildings we're talking about. I mean, that's a possibility, too. But if it's something that's bigger
than that, but smaller than a warehouse, I mean, that could be a couple jobs, and that's, you know, that would be good to see. So, that's uh that wraps it up. Now, I see uh Michael's got his hand up there. I I have a process question and maybe a
comment, but do you want to I mean ultimately we have to close the hearing and then we have to decide what we want to do in terms of approving this and going forward so we can have a report to town meeting etc. So, do you I think
when we had a conversation way back months ago about when you close a public hearing, I guess the question is if we close it, we can keep talking to each other, but the public can't contribute any more information. So, I I've got a I've got thoughts about what
you said, but I I don't want to I don't want to hold open the hearing if unnecessarily like we can close the hearing and then debate if we want to, you know, approve this amendment and propose at the town meeting or not. I think that's probably
the better way to go. But if you want to include our all of our discussions as part of a hearing, I can share that now. Um, you know, I I don't I don't see a problem with keeping the hearing open to,
you know, if you know, so I mean, you know, keeping the hearing open, you're saying that we would uh, you know, we're just going to have a lengthy report on the contents of the hearing. No, no, no. I mean, we can discuss it all now. It's just that I think if you if one closes that then the public can't
give us any information. We're allowed to talk to each other. I I can go either way. I just want to know what you were thinking because I do have comments. I just want to know what line what line of the public hearing ending or staying open did you want me to comment on because we've all signed in pointed out.
Yeah. Yeah, I mean I think uh you know I think we could leave it open for a little bit longer and uh you know we can so I guess would you know did you have a comment? Yeah. Yeah. If you have a comment go why don't you go with that and yeah so I I strongly disagree. I you
know in terms of the use table um you know which which is what we talked about last time. Um but I think it's got to be prohibited in all four. Now, um I there's how I guess my two responses is one is the message I would want to send to
industry is that we want to be protective and thoughtful and therefore you're going to have to wait till town meeting. I don't want to send a message of saying if we don't get our together that you know it's it's you can come in because we don't have the information. We have no understanding of how we would do the use table right now.
um you couldn't none of us could articulate um special permit site plan review like lake bola rural residential we don't have the information to discern what the use table would look like um and so if that sort of rolled into operational it would be ill informed so
I got a huge problem with that I think more technically speaking what we usually do with proposals for amending the zoning bylaws is we bundle one warrant where we'll say we're adding you or changing the use table or adding a
definition and then we have this section which is what I articulated. We could easily because I mean the source of I think your concern is that either you think someone's got ill intent or that the town wouldn't support an amendment. In either case, we'd get stuck with
having prohibition. But we could easily split it out and have the use table be an amendment and 8.13 be an amendment. So if people voted down what we were proposing for size and scope and water and cooling and all the
stuff that we would put in 813, even if they voted it down, we could have the warrant be separated with the use table because by that time we'll actually know what we would want in a use table. Um so instead of bundling them together and saying this is what we're doing as a package concept for data centers, she
could split them out and basically send the message even if you know town meeting votes down the narrative regarding A13 the use table would would be up for consideration. Um
but I think the my biggest concern is right now I don't know what I would responsibly put into a use table. We just don't have that information. I think we sort of established that we have to do lots of research. Uh it's guess work. Um thank you. Steve,
you're muted. Michael answered a question I posed before um about if we're putting forth this amendment. That is a signal that we're considering a bylaw to allow data centers, the details of which
none of us know yet. So there's your signal to industry. Wait a year. Shootsbury is going to be coming up with a bylaw that doesn't outright may not outright prohibit data centers, but u once we understand more about data
centers, the type, size, water use, all those all those variables, then we can open it up. Then we'll have a real responsible uh zoning bylaw and a signal to industry, wait a year. They're considering it. We're not saying
outright it can't happen in shoot. Thank you, Steve. Ashley, um the whole procedural piece is uh it is like a magic that I don't understand. So, I'm I'm working on that part. I'm
wondering is it possible that we could have some sort of compromise where maybe the prohibition expires at a certain point if we No. Okay. All right. And then so then you know I was thinking like if that expired by the
time that um June 30th rolls around and it became something else in the use table. But okay. Uh so was really clear about that. She said a use is a use. It is not time limited. You have to you have to say what the use is. Okay. So, I hear your concern, Nathan. I
mean, if who knows what could happen in the next six, seven months? You know, one of us could well, we have associate members that, you know, the board could look different in seven months. Uh things could change. Who knows? Uh that said, I
personally feel committed to creating a bylaw and just based on the careful attention that I've seen from members of the board, I feel like we're on board. And um I think the way we're wording it,
we're not intending to prohibit these forever. We're doing a moratorum so we can study it and be intentional and informed and try to figure out something that could work for our town. I mean, just based on the questions and comments tonight, I really appreciate Michael
Pill and answering some questions about state law and you know, things that you've said and I appreciate hearing from Gail. Like I think there's a lot of interest in the town on how to do this and how to do it the right way um or do
right by by our our town's people. So um I have to respectfully disagree with you. I I feel good about moving forward as we have been on the path that we've been talking about for the past couple of weeks and um hopefully
we'll come up with something that's that that feels good to at least most of us. Um but you know I I share your concerns like it is it possible that our prohibition could expire or sorry the moratorum comes and goes and we still
have a prohibition and I that's a concern for sure. Um but I'm certainly committed to trying to not let that happen. I know it's just words at this point but uh that's my comment. Thank you Ashton. you know, I I would
just kind of further clarify what I said, you know, in addition to the, you know, idea of, okay, you know, let's say it's a special permit and then we're going to, you know, have a moratorum, right? You know, because I don't think it's makes sense to have a moratorium on a use that you're
prohibiting. And in addition to that is Michael Pill has brought up and as I brought up in our last meeting, we have a, you know, a prohibitive bylaw, right? So, if it's not in the use table, it's prohibited. I think if we want to clean things up
instead of putting it in the use table as prohibited and creating a contradiction in the plain language of our bylaw, then what we would do is we would clarify the definition. Uh we could even just put in a definition of data center. Even just putting in a
definition of data center as a you know what that is um is uh something that could potentially um you know it's it's a separate definition
from light industry right and we could modify the definition of light industry industry to say you know like real goods or tangible goods something like that so that there's no doubt that we're not talking antibiotic data center. I mean I
you I think it's in addition to the you know I I you know it's I don't want to give the message that you know we're pro you know prohibiting it upfront and saying we're doing a moratorum which I think is empty but also I don't want to put in
something in our use table that's prohibited across the board because it's a table of allowable uses and everything else that's not in there is prohibited. So, that's I think, you know, the two-pronged uh reasoning to to kind of add that clarification. And I understand
that everyone who said they disagree probably still disagrees um with at least with making it u allowable by special special permit. And if if that's where you stand, I would then I would ask that we at least consider um going the other way and you
know clarifying some of the definitions, possibly adding data center in there as a a definition. And you know, we have Michael Pill here with us and we can also uh continue to uh you know, we can we can get Donna back on the phone and and say, "All right,
you know, we're either going to modify the definition of light industry or we're going to add in a definition for data centers which would uh differentiate data centers from light industry or both. So that's my that's my
suggestion and uh we can uh I'll go to Michael now who has his hand up. So, as we discussed last time, we have special town time meeting in 22 days. And so, coming up with new language and
getting Donna on the phone and coming up with a whole another thing, it's doesn't work in terms of getting that warrant out in in a reasonable time because you have to let the populace know what we're actually proposing for a warrant. Um, you know, we were able to get this hearing scheduled at an
appropriate time and and I I think what you're suggesting creates more problems. I mean, if we miss the window of a special town meeting, then it's everything's for not. So, that
doesn't make sense. And um, you know, for everyone who's worried about finances, I I would not go back to town meeting and say, "Oh, you know, we we're maybe getting sued because someone wants to do it this way and we're objecting uh and we want to defend our bylaw again."
Um, this is the cleanest, clearest way where it doesn't cost any money for town. It, you know, we are in September. We're talking about, you know, May, you know, maybe June. So that's nine months. It it's, it's really not a big
inconvenience for anyone who's looking to develop something because they have to build build it and we want to do it right. Um it you know and I I it just it seems like the consensus is that we don't know enough to come up with a good regulation now although we all committed
to doing that. Um and so we can't do some we can't do tinkering you know we this is the governmental process. Um we have a short window to do this. We came up with something we agreed to last time in terms of the vote um in terms of how we wanted to approach
it with the moratorum. It seems I I just I don't understand understand why prohibiting it with the commitment that once we know how we want to allow it, assuming we
want to allow it, that that's just part of the package deal of the thinking. Um, right now it's fabrication. I mean, I don't think anyone on the call could articulate where what you would do, you know, why a special permit across the board. Special permit, a
special permit in some versus not others. Um, it we don't we don't have the information. I think what we're trying to do is do it responsibly. So, um, but just to the short point is we can't do a lot of tinkering or we can't schedule
with it. We can't come back and have another meeting and still get it out. um in a warrant because we have to report to the select board what the final version is. Right now they have this as a in the you know in the file they've seen it. They're waiting for a final one
assuming that we propose it. If we come up with something totally different we're going to miss the deadline and I think that's the BS what the intent was which is to get something responsibly in time for a special town meeting. What is the uh deadline for the warrant? I think it's two weeks perhaps. I mean
they no they wanted they wanted it by sometime in the next few days actually. I want to say today, but I I remember talking to Brennan and saying, Matteo might know, but I you know, when I gave him this version, I said, "We're we're
we're meeting. We'll let you know soon." Matteo, they're they're voting to set it on Friday. Thank you. Uh Jeff, I agree strongly with Michael. That's all I have to say. Steve,
from a procedural point of view, how do we how do we move forward in this meeting to get to a point where we vote on the amendment or not? I think we're getting pretty close to that, Steve. I mean, do we have to do we have to
first close the public meeting? Okay. I mean, you know, I think we can vote while the hearing is open or not. It doesn't it doesn't matter. We have to close the hearing before we journ move on to our you know but it's uh
so um Ashley just a a quick thought since we're talking about potential scenarios that you know none of us know what's going to happen in the next year but let's say we get rid of the prohibition for the next
year and open it up to a special permit process, still with the moratorum, still with the the uh intent to create a bylaw and we do get a special permit for one of these things, that's going to take a lot of
our time and a lot of our capacity and our meetings. If something like that, which I think we're all pretty clear is probably not going to happen unless somebody knows something I don't. I don't know. um it's going to take a lot of our time and it might be more
difficult for us to craft a a good bylaw related to this if we're dealing with a special permit. But Ashley, if we have a moratorum, then we're not dealing with a special permit because there's a moratorum in effect. So this is something I'm missing. Can
you can somebody explain like can we do a moratorum? you. Okay. So, your issue is that you don't want it to be on the use table, but you still would like there to be you don't want it to be prohibited on the use table, but you you're still okay
with the moratorum. If you look at any other moratorum, it's going to be for a use that's either allowed by right or that's allowed. and you need to, you know, maybe there's something that's changed in the industry
or there's been some changes at the state level, uh, something or other and you say, "Okay, you know what? You know, we don't have this properly regulated. Um, we need time to regulate." You do a moratorum. So, no applications can be, you know, properly submitted during this
time because a moratorium is in effect. Mhm. There is no point in doing a moratorum for a use that is prohibited across the board. Why would you set a time limit? It's a prohibited. If you want to allow it, then you do the research and allow it after you're done with your research.
And the reason why this is different from the wheel lock situation is because of the Dober amendment. You got it. And that's that's a that can't that difference cannot be understated, you know, especially when we're hearing things like uh you know, we talked about
doing a solar bylaw, decided we didn't need it. Well, you know, you did because it was there was an exemption in the zoning act for it. Mhm. When there's no such exemption and we don't call it out as an allowed use, then you know there is no uh you know we
can it's prohibited. And another thing for us to keep in mind is that case law says that the courts will give a huge amount of uh difference to local municipal boards, planning boards and
their interpretation of their own bylaw. So that's that's my piece on that. And you know I understand I can see where where people are standing. Is there is there anyone who at this point who might be comfortable either um saying all right you know we'll we'll put in maybe
a special permit in the forest conservation district we'll limit the size to of the building to you know say a thousand square feet and all right I see I see I see four against so I mean that that calls it so
if someone wants to uh so we can we can stop because I you know we don't we don't have any votes to uh to override that. Okay. Is there anyone else that's here that would like to make com I see Tom, you have your hand up. Go ahead. Thanks. I was just wondering if there
were no moratorum, how would that affect the ability of the planning board to try to craft a bylaw about this? Well, if there are no moratorum, then we can just take as long as we want and craft a bylaw whenever we get to it
because it's already prohibited. It's it's already prohibit it's already prohibited unless unless we decided we wanted to interpret the definition of light industry as covering data centers, which you know obviously we could easily choose not to do. I mean I I have stated
I don't think it meets the definition. I mean you know we could do it. I I think if we did do that, we would open ourselves to the problem of okay, now we have uh you know, we said we can do data centers as light industry. You know, we have a nice little small brick building
like Keith was talking about, but then someone else comes in, they want to do a a 5,000 square foot uh project, you know, and now it's like, well, you said it could be light industry, right? That's a problem. I agree that's a problem. I don't want to be in that situation. I don't want to allow them under light industry, but I think that
if we're going to do something, we should do something that makes, you know, that different than what we're doing. That's But you have anything else? Yeah. So, let's say that it is prohibited um for the purposes just for my next question. according to our current bylaw. Um whether or not the
moratorum were to pass as written now at special town meeting would not necessarily affect any ability for the planning board to address it as a topic for a bylaw or for definition down the line. Is that correct? Like whether
that's correct. the restriction on a a proposed zoning amendment that is voted down at town meeting I I don't believe can be brought back after a certain number of years unless the planning board recommends it something like that.
Okay. I was just wondering like so yeah how it would go either way a town meeting how that would affect the future. um it would be almost uh you know the the changes that are proposed do
very little in my opinion. Okay. Thanks Michael. Yeah I just I want to respond to what Tom's question. So I'm seeking to achieve achieve crystal clear. Um, so what we've experienced
from our lived experience as a a town is that any lawyer can argue anything. So one can look at the letters on the page in our zoning bylaw and say if something is not named as a use that it's prohibited. A lawyer can argue that it
is a light industry in which case we have to go to court and say that no this is our intent. So we get sucked into legal stuff. The whole idea of doing this is to make it crystal clear that this is how we define data centers. We're saying that they're not allowed for the period and you know they're not
allowed. Our understanding is that when we come back with newly revised regulatory language in 8.13 that we would simultaneously update the use table to be aligned with what our understanding is. So that intent is to
keep us out of the legal quagmire that we just lived through. Um, and this is just clarity. I think it's the most responsible way to make sure. Otherwise, we sit around and we say, "Let's hope that someone doesn't come forward with the lawyer who wants to sue us and say
that this is what it is and there's precedent." Um, I'd rather not sit on my hands worrying about that until town meeting happens. I'd rather know that as of September 30th, we could actually do this in the clear, not worrying, thinking about it, having nothing on the
horizon. Um, and then the last point I would just say because um, it came up, Donna did not object to the fact that the use table was in there. She didn't say, "Oh, this is duplicative. Don't do it." You know, she clarified that if we were going to do the the data, the use table and the definitions, we had to
have the 8.13 as an additional section that explicitly said it was a moratorum because to Ashley's question, you can't have a use that's timebased, time limited. You know, originally we thought we'd have the use table do time out after, you know, a year and she said,
"You can't do that." But at no point did Donna say, "Oh, you shouldn't do the use table. You don't need the use table." She never came up. Um, so I think she my sense is all three are needed. Um, or all three are at least she was okay
with. Um, so I'm really trying to just keep us out of the legal mess. Thank you, Michael Chief. So, if we if if if if a company really
really wanted one of these things in Shootsbury and hired a lawyer to argue that it would fall under light industry, we still would review it as under a special permit under all those criteria we have
for any special permit. Is that correct? If if we were forced to review it under a special permit, then that would be correct. I uh you know, I don't know. Uh
I don't suspect it would be very difficult for us to say, "No, it's not light industry." you know, they they sue us and then, you know, I I don't think it's it I I I don't believe that the same risk is is posed as was with the use of solar because solar is protected
by the zoning act and data centers are not. So, it's like comparing apples to oranges and I don't think it's a very useful comparison if we're trying to, you know, be clear on but again, even if it comes in our hands, we're not powerless. We still
have to review it under our guidelines for a special permit which are relatively extensive and relatively open to be interpreted kind of strictly if we wanted to. So again, it's not like
somebody could march in and do what they wanted to without again, it's not, you know, the Dover amendment doesn't apply. Um, and we do have some general criteria for any project, right?
That's correct, Michael. Um, and I'm just going to say, you know, we're going a little bit back and forth here. I'm ready to hear a hearing. Uh, I'm sorry. I'm ready to hear a motion to close the hearing and move this thing along. Okay, we have a motion to close the hearing. Do we have a second?
A second. Michael seconds. Okay. Do we have any further discussion now or do we have any discussion on the motion to close the hearing? Okay. I will uh call the role. I'm going to start with um
Breastler. Can you someone state what we're doing here? Call the role on closing the hearing. Oh, closing the hearing. opposing the public hearing and then and then we'll uh yeah we'll do another vote after that after this. Um
okay. Uh all right he said I Okay. Um Hasty. Hi. Let's see. Um oh take care.
Hi. Bye. I Weston I Seaffort I will vote I to close the public hearing.
The motion carries unanimously. Okay. Now the public hearing has been closed. Thank you to all the members of uh the public as well as members of the board who provided comment. I appreciate that. We all appreciate that very much. It's very important. All right. Now, um, so now we have
Can I make a motion? I was just going to note that our next agenda item is, uh, sorry. Well, we've got a vote on this. Yeah, I know. I know. Um,
yeah. Next agenda item is to um lost my calendar, but yes. Yeah, we're going to be, you know, discussing what's going to go in the uh PB recommendation and voting to finalize a warrant article. So, yes, go ahead and uh make a motion. Well, I would move that the planning
board um adopt the warrant article as proposed to present to September 30th, 2025 special town meeting. I'll second. I second. No, we see we got Steve on there. So,
Michael moves and uh Steve seconds. Jeff thirds. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second uh to uh approve the warrant article to you know finalize the warrant article as it is written. Um is there any discussion on
this? No. Okay. All right. I'll call the role. Um, Brler. Hi, Deara. Hi,
Hasty. You're muted. Keith, you're muted. Keith, you're still muted. I don't know if you voted in the affirmative or in the negative. Okay, let me Keith is an I. Um,
we'll say uh Pipro I and uh Seaffort I Weston I. Okay. And uh I will vote no.
So the motion carries. the warrant will go uh as written and now uh additionally we have uh I guess I had minutes in between but that's all right we can get to that um
drafting planning board report to special town meeting and telling recommendations pertaining to proposed zoning amendments so I guess it might be a little bit much to try and actually draft that up here how do we want to handle that
in the past before I before we had Matteo on board, you know, I think I would I would draft something and send it for people to comment on and then we would finalize it somehow. Um, Matteo could do it. I could draft it and
send it to Matteo and he could send it out for people to comment on. Um I think and you could review it at the you know and send it along to the select board. I don't I don't think we won't have time for another meeting. So
no and that's uh yeah the uh when when is uh the meeting again? The 30th. 30th. Yeah. And so the way it works is we either have to send something to town
meeting in advance of town meeting, which normally we send it to the select board and I would post it on the website. Um or if we don't get our act together in time to do it, we can have our oral report at town meeting. I always find that a little bit
uh it'd be nicer to have something in advance. You don't have to worry about remembering to do it and doing it correctly in at the meeting itself. Um, but those are the two options. Does the planning board have to vote on a final uh report or just kind of agree on the contents of it? I mean, the
report doesn't need to, you know, it needs to say that uh it's mostly the I mean I I think if Matt Matteo's phenomenal in terms of minutes. I mean, if really it's a matter of documenting what happened at the hearing
and then what the outcome is. So, you know, I gave a summary, Michael Pill commented, Gail commented, you know, Arlene commented, etc. Um, and what their points were and then what our
decision and action were, you know, so as we're presenting to the town. So, it's there's not much beyond that. It's really sort of how you characterize what people said. Um, which we can, like I was saying, either Matteo can sort of
convert his minutes into a report or I can work from his minutes and just sort of create something and send it to you. Yeah, that sounds sounds great. Okay. So, um, let's hear a motion to have, uh, Michael draft the report and,
uh, incorporate, uh, information from Matteo's minutes and, uh, the public hearing into it, as well as the, uh, outcome of a vote we just took that said, we're going to send a warrant article, uh, for special town meeting as written.
And, uh, does anyone want to make that motion? You can make it for yourself, Mike, if you want, I guess. Or say so move, what have you? So move. Okay. Do I hear a second? I'll second.
Thank you. Any further discussion, questions? Okay, I'll call the role. Hasty. Hey, I got to abstain. I'm losing internet. I I couldn't hear half of what you said, so abstain on this.
Okay. Uh Breler, hi Seaffort. Hi Croft. Hi Weston. Hi Cara. Hi.
I'm an eye. Okay, good. All right, we'll uh move on to our uh prior agenda item which is to review and approve minutes from 8:11 and 8:27.
Do I hear a motion to approve the minutes from August 11th, 2025? So move a motion. Do we have a uh a second? Second.
Okay. Move. Steve second. Any any uh discussion? I've got one under the uh discussion of data centers section. Let's see. Paragraph one, two, three,
[Music] four, five, six. Let's say paragraph six under the section on bylaws. Um, I would just like to incorporate a
reference to the uh section of the bylaw that um notes that that uh uses not listed in the use table are are prohibited. I'm pretty sure I uh I said that called
that out specifically during the meeting. I would like that to be included in the minutes. tail. Get a Yep, I got that. Beautiful. Okay. Anyone else? Yeah, I'll call the roll. Um,
hi. I Se hi pasty. Hi Cara. Hi Wesler. I won
I All right. Amendments. The motion carries unanimously. Minutes from August 11th, 2025 have been approved. Thank you. Do I hear a motion to
approve the minutes from August 27th, 2025? This was our special meeting to announce the news of the bylaw of I'm sorry, of the lawsuit being uh dismissed. I hear that motion. I'm pleased to make that motion.
I hear a second. A second. Okay. Okay, daycare removes background seconds to approve the minutes from August 27th, 2025. Is there any discussion on these minutes? I have a comment on I sent it to Matteo.
Matteo, are you there? Yes, I am. Uh do you remember the comment? I I don't unfortunately I didn't print it. The slight change that I made in the um in the in the minutes of that uh meeting. Yeah, it was a just a change slight
change of wording in how your um remarks were described in the last paragraph where you said it says Weston thanks to Kiara and then it says something he also thanks the select board for their support. Um so I I folded that revision into the draft that's up there now.
Okay, that's all I said. I I just um I think there was a little bit more information or something that was written that didn't exactly um express what I meant. So, um what Matteo just read about me thanking the select board
um and that he changed the uh changed the wording of that um that meeting is fine by me. So, I approve um I approve the the minutes uh with that slight adjustment. Okay. Anyone else?
All right, I'll call the RO. Hi, Seasty. Hi. Hi. Wrestler. Hi, Weston. Hi.
I'm going to the minutes from August 27th have been approved unanimously. The motion carries unanimously. All right, that's uh that wraps up minutes for today. Um so we have an item for discussion of
town moderator inquiry pertaining to uh town meeting. Did anyone read the email from our town moderator about town meeting? Or rather, is there anyone who did not? Can you refresh us on the substance?
I have not read it. I have not read it. Let's see. Um, I'm Are you talking about the thoughts about town meeting Iowa? Yeah, I'm gonna see.
Yeah, I responded to her. You know, I meant to respond and just say that I was going to put it on the agenda and I Okay, she says, "Uh, hello folks. It's town moderator. I would like to suggest
the select board sponsor an article to amend the town meeting date bylaw. This suggestion is not new and certainly not the first to suggest this. However, first I would like to get your input. Be sure that it is something we would that
would be helpful to all boards and committees that you all represent. Below I will explain and list two questions I have for you. Is it can anyone see this? Is it a little too small? How's that? Is that better? As of now, the bylaw says that the date
of annual town meeting will be on the last Saturday of April. There are two changes I would like to make to this. One change would be shifting the date from April to our to the first or second Saturday in May. It seems that there's a
general consensus that April ultimately feels too early to many. As Grace has pointed out, the town clerk Question one. Town were to hold annual town meeting on the first or second Saturday in May rather than in April, would this work better for the boards or committees that
you represent? Another change would be to include in the bylaw a date for fall town meeting each year. Considering that in the last 19 years, Shootsbury has held 16 special town meetings, it seems that making a
date predictable and reliable would be helpful for voters, boards, and committees alike, particularly with the number of hours shoot tends to spend in ATM each year. I believe it would increase expediency and therefore voter
participation and accessibility for all articles on the warrant if we split angle town meeting business into two. A citizen's guide to town meetings. The secretary of the commonwealth writes that a town may divide its business
meetings into two meetings. One business meeting at the beginning of the year in the spring. The focus is primarily on the budget, finances, and taxes. The second business meeting is held in the fall. It is split uh it is uh still part of
the annual town meeting, the focus is on zoning, planning, and bylaws. Question two. If the town were to amend the town meeting date bylaw so that we held a fall town meeting on the first or second Saturday in November the focus on
zoning planning and bylaws. Would this adjustment work for the committee or board you represent? I look forward to hearing your perspective of what will best meet the needs of Shootsbury's boards and committees and the town as a whole. Thank you for your insights,
Netty. Can I share what I brought back, Nathan? Yeah, please. Uh, you want to share your screen? No, no, no. I I can just summarize it. I mean, it was a longer email. I'm happy to share. I was sort of I don't know if I was wearing my chair of the ECAC or
planning board. We're just old fart in town. It's it's I'm starting to realize I've been around a long time. So the first thing I said because I don't think Netty realizes that for years we had annual town meeting on the first Saturday of May. So there was this assumption that we always did it in
April but in fact going back to May is what we used to do for the longest time. Um for in my memory at least 10 or 15 years um and the issue there is really driven by the state budget development.
So, the governor's budget comes out in January. It doesn't really mean much. Then the House of Representatives comes out miss in uh let's see February and then the Senate comes out
in April. Both of those connected to the same time as school vacations. So, the complaint is always that the town is trying to make financial decisions about the town annual budget before the state has come up with the final figures. So even in May, we didn't have that
information. Um so that was what I wrote there that you know later is better. Later in May is better if you can figure out how to avoid Memorial Day weekend. Um early June is best. And then the other big thing I said for the second meeting is also financially driven that
Matteo has the stats on this. I think we've done a ridiculous number of special town meetings in the fall, but my remembering is that almost exclusively we have a fall special town meeting for financial reasons. We have to approve a grant or we have to move
some money or stuff. And so the idea that we're going to do financial stuff around budget in the spring and then non-financial stuff in the fall is not based on the reality of what informs special town meetings in the fall. Um, so I don't know where
Nett's falling down on this decision, but that's what I conveyed. And um, I mean, knowing that we would have a special town meeting date is sort of cool. Um, so we don't it's not a question mark, but it's it's not driven by the other stuff.
You know, that's an interesting point. And I think that, you know, it's like kind of bestlaid plans and then you're, you know, you might still get this situation that comes up if we have the meeting in November, but then you need to deal with something in late September or whatever, right? It's it's rough.
Yeah. Um Okay. Does anyone else have anything they want to uh add? I mean, it's uh Huh? Yeah. Um, as far as I understand it, the select board has the ultimate authority
to set the town meeting date, even if the town bylaw sets it at the third Saturday of September or a time in May. So, I'm all for having it as late as possible and practical. Um, and I sometimes question about the need for a
town bylaw to set it at a certain date since the select board always has that ultimate authority anyway. Um, about the other factor, is it saying that it wouldn't be allowed to put a financial article on a town meeting in the fall if the town meeting in the fall were
generally dedicated to non-financial matters? Like, would it exclude that or could it also just be added even though it wouldn't be the typical thing the way it's being proposed? Does anybody know that? It
seems like the tail has the same bill. Why you go ahead and the uh yeah the uh you're you're absolutely correct Tom. The language of the proposed um bylaw that's going to go before special town meeting is ex is exclusively about the dates. So it
doesn't say anything about only financial matters can only be considered in the spring and bylaws can only be considered in the fall. It's just the dates. It's just that customarily in the many towns that do split their annual town meeting that's how it usually breaks down. but it doesn't mean that you couldn't consider a financial matter
in the fall or a bylaw in the spring. Um, and likewise, it also because it's an annual town meeting, it's not a special town meeting. So, if something like for example um the insurance situation the town is in right now, which is provoking the special town meeting. if something like that came up,
you could still call a special town meeting um and and have it be legitimately a one or two article special town meeting as opposed to suddenly having a rush of uh articles like we do this year that are properly speaking annual town meeting business uh
getting packed into a special town meeting. Thank you. Matteo, will you uh is it true that um more or less uh Netti uh the town moderator has already uh set a course for the
uh bylaw amendments at this point. The the um yeah, the bylaw amendment is on the warrant article that the select board is going to be considering uh or is going to be finalizing on Friday. So, we're we're as far as feedback goes, uh, at this point, we're a little late to
the party. Um, unless I guess the planning board wanted to communicate its views to the select board before they voted on Friday because they have not finalized the uh, warrant. Okay. Okay. Um,
does anyone see uh does anyone want to uh do anything on this or should we move on to our next item? I have a question, but I think we should move on when we're done. It's just a question. Um, I'm just wondering like if So, we have two town meetings. What if there it turns out
there's nothing for one of them? I know that's highly unlikely, but do we still have to have it? No. You you Okay. If you you cover all the material you need to cover in uh in the spring, that's great. But um given the history of Shootsbury uh
yeah, we've had we've had many town special town meetings over the past 10 years that are longer than our annual town meetings or or even better attended by annual than annual town. Yeah. Yeah. They're often for big issues. Yeah.
It's hard to sit coming up though. Thanks for everyone who shared there. So, okay, we have the uh next item is update relating to pending release of executive session minutes. We can just really quickly touch on this at some point
soon. If not, uh we'll we'll either schedule something off cycle or uh do it at our next meeting. Um probably an executive session to uh first review and approve uh draft minutes and then um
uh decide, you know, review them for the purpose of deciding whether or not they uh you know, should be made public. Um, and generally, you know, we've gotten some information from Donna that they'll uh be made public since the litigation has
come to a close. But is uh is there anything you want to add, Michael? Uh, well, two things. One is I think Matteo's got a folder with all of the executive session minutes. So, he could, you know, whenever you decide it's appropriate to share, um, I think he can
just easily share that out. and then you know at the executive session minutes so they shouldn't be shared but the whole idea is to go through them and then we would review them like we do every other minutes in terms of wording and making changes etc. And that's one meeting in
executive session and then just to clarify based on what Donna wrote to Nathan and Matteo and I at a separate meeting in executive session we'd have the conversation about releasing them or not releasing. So the first one is just to make sure we get the wording right and everyone says these are the minutes
of that meeting it actually reflects it. That would be one meeting and then a separate meeting once we've approved those that version of those minutes we would go one by one and say we're approving to release or not. Um, and I think that's
probably we should double check with Donna just to make sure. You know, the idea is they have to be released if they are no longer meet the criteria for having them not be released. And so that's sort of the, you know, the more
debatable area, but we can easily go through and make sure that they reflect in that first meeting um what what the minutes of the meeting reflect. is that what you got is our clerk. Yeah, that that's that's correct. They
need to be reviewed and approved and then voted to for release in a separate it's a separate vote. Separate vote. It doesn't need to be a separate meeting, but it's uh you know just for logistical purposes. You could you know you know it's going to take
time possibly and uh you know you could uh split up any way you want. you know, review and approve in one meeting, vote to release in another meeting or review and approve some, release them, review and approve the rest, release them, whatever works scheduling wise.
Yeah, there there is one loose end that I that I need to follow up on Donna about which is some of the meetings were held as joint meetings with the select board and I don't know if we can release those minutes before the select board. I don't know how that works. Um basically
so here I mean you know and Michael you can chime in if if you think it might be different but uh when there's a joint meeting of the planning board and a select board if the planning board has a quorum then we need to you know it's it's still a meeting of the planning board that requires minutes. There's not
one set of minutes for the joint session. Um that's what we've done and it could be worth clarifying it but I think that that part's accurate. I think the tricky part is hypothetically if the planning board said everything in this set of minutes
is fine for the public to see and the select board had the opposite opinion and they said oh no there's still stuff in there that we think would compromise us you know based on the the lawsuit that you don't want to have one hand really see and the other hand thinking not so I think finding out how that
works clearly we're separate boards but we're one town so I think it's more political thing um than a legal thing. But I think it's worth Matteo sort of checking in if that makes sense. And easily it could be the other way
around. We could say, "Hey, we don't want to expose that." And the subboard says, "Yes." Um that just seems like it would be awkward. But you are correct. They're separate minutes. All right. Um, so stay tuned for that.
Uh, next on the agenda, we are going to, uh, just quickly touch base on the, uh, special permits we had for, uh, Mark Whiteitman a couple years back. Uh, I've been, you know, I think we've been keeping an eye on this. in terms of uh you know when you issue a
special permit, you've got a period of time uh where you have to uh start work or the uh permit expires. I reached out to Donna on this issue and I'm glad I did because uh long story short, um
there's more time now due to uh the leads act. Um, so I will uh I will forward what Donna has sent me on that and uh I think it's an additional
two years. So, uh, we've got nothing at this time. Uh, and the, uh, you know, whoever is, uh, managing that lot, um, over the
currently or into the next, uh, over the next two years or so is going to have their their time to uh, get their ducks in a row if they want to move forward with it. Nathan, in terms of the way the agenda was written, we gave the special permit and the CBA gave the variance, right?
Yeah. What did I put on the agenda? You said special permit and variance. So, I just wanted to clarify. Yeah. I mean, the ZBA issued a variance. Um, you know, variances, uh, you know, the act notwithstanding would
expire after a year. Uh, and that's so it's, you know, um I I you don't know if it would have to be the zoning board that would you have to do something about that or if uh you know I think you know it's possible the
planning board uh could be an actor if there was an expired variance. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking because that's we based remember we approved it based on the ZBA doing something then ZBA did the variance and they had to come back and then we approved it again. So if if
if their thing expires then our thing becomes questionable. Right. Well, that's why I put it in there. You know, I put it in there so we can discuss it and you know that's great. Thanks for tracking it. Yeah, you know, and I uh I'm glad I got a chance to hear from Donna because now
it's it's clear-cut. We don't have any open questions on it. I mean, obviously, we don't want to be bungling around and uh you know, doing anything uh you know, exceeding our authority or anything like that. So, um
we're good for now on that. Um but it's good even though it's uh you know this, you know, I just got that email from her today. uh from Donna about the uh the leads act. Um so even you know having that information I would
still want to kind of just have it up there because of that timing and you know not everyone knows about that act. I didn't know about it. Um so it's good to kind of just get it out there and uh have this quick conversation. Okay. Um
member updates. Does anyone have anything um they want to uh provide an update on? an email from uh Gail today uh uh commending Michael for uh the feed of
uh providing written comment to like every step of the way along with the I think it's the new sighting process and uh apparently not even none of the NOS's in the state that typically get
involved in this sort of thing uh went so far as to do that. So, uh, Michael, I think it's safe to say you've been busy. It's fun to see. Yeah. So, good work, Michael. Thank you for calling that out. Some
could say get a life, but you know. All right, it's nine o'clock, folks. Um, does anyone else have anything they uh anything? Okay. All right. Uh, I don't think there's any unanticipated business. So, I would love to hear a motion to adjourn.
So moved. I'll second. Discussion. Steve dropped off, so I think we're on the No, he's Oh, he's there. He's there. I'm sorry. I'm here. Uh, it was just that, you know, it's I don't know because of the connection.
We lost Keith. Okay. Okay. Um, all right. I'll call the roll. Uh, Weston. Jeff Weston. Looks like he's frozen. Yeah, he might be frozen. Really contemplative. One of the two. It's rough. It's rough. Okay. Decara.
Hi Brler. Hi Pra. Hi Sefer. Hi. I'm an eye and and Jeff. We're gonna you know wish you the best with your
internet connection there. Uh good night everyone. Thank you. All right. We'll uh we'll be in touch. Thanks Nathan. Good night. Adios. Good night.