than our local cable subscribers. >> Good evening everyone. Yeah. >> At this time, I'm going to open the Southampton Planning Board meeting for May 20th. I have a quorum and I'm um still waiting for one more person. I
haven't heard that he's Paul Forgal will not be here, but in the event he comes in, all well and good. Um I have Jim Lee here, Mark Darnold, myself, Paul Demon, and our board consultant, uh Richard Harris.
I'm going to take out of order on the agenda our update of planning board policies and procedures and fees. So, we can start right off with the uh battery energy storage system uh draft for a bylaw uh that we're
creating. And Richard Harris is here who spent the last two weeks um putting that together. It's a combination of the state bylaw and some of the comments received from some of the people that came from the last meeting and
incorporated that in there. So, I'll let um Richard start off and summarize what he did and then we will cover it section by section. Paul pretty much hit on the head. What I did is I took the model bylaw that uh
DOER has put out comments from the last meeting as well as received a copy of the proposed bylaw in Blandford and I tried to marry all that together. In some cases, I didn't agree with the
language in the model bylaw or the language in Blandford and I wrote what I thought was more appropriate and was clearer. In some cases, it the state was not clear. Plus, there's some things that don't need to
be in the zoning bylaw. For instance, both the model and Blandford specify what has to be in a site plan application. Well, that's going to be in the policies and procedures of the planning board. And we do that because
if you put in the zoning bylaw and 5 years from now, you decide, hey, no, this is in there and this is what we really need. Well, the only way you can change is go back to town meeting.
If it's in the pine board's politics and procedures, they can advertise and hold a public hearing and if it's agreed that hey, this makes sense, they make it make the change then. Um, and I did that because sometimes for go back older
bylaws, they specified you'd had to have a U parchment plan submitted on site plan drawn parchment that hadn't been used in how many decades? Well, technically you couldn't accept an
application as being complete unless it met the zoning requirements. Um, and as we became more into technology, we wanted PDFs, electronic copies of plans. Well, we couldn't require that under the zoning bylaw
because they didn't specify those. But you put in your policies and procedures and you can then require that. And it's a lot more easy way to make it a nimble approach. And again, polit procedures handle administrative functions, not
substantive policy issues. Uh so that's just one example of where I and it cut out a page and a half of the bylaw. Now this is about 18 pages. It would have been 20 pages if
you include all that detail. But to the board that means you're going to have very lengthy policies and procedures. Just uh the other aspect of that is often times your site plan for solar, site plan for commercial development,
site plan for battery engine storage have a lot of similarities. the scale, the size is what needs to be on there most part and that doesn't need to be repeated half dozen times in your bottle that once in your uh uh politics and
procedures and then where there are additional items that specifically relate to battery engine storage or solar or commercial development or warehouse that gets addressed in the specific section policy procedures.
Um, in doing this, I also tried to fit it into the zoning bylaw. You have both the model bylaw and Blandford and most others
would specify the plan board or so and so is a site plan review authority. Well, that's already in your zoning bylaw. It doesn't we don't need repeat half page of language about that. That's already there. Um
so looking at the definitions we have a section on the bottom that deal with definitions and part of that section says terms are as defined that particular section except solar certain other things are in that
that subsection zone by law. So I did the same thing in battery injury storage because those are unique definitions that relate only to battery injury storage and not to houses or anything else. So I limited that there. U there
was question raised last time regarding the solar electric generating facility section and how to address battery engine storage. So I want to be sure that this amendment makes it clear under solar that if there's any conflict
between section 176 and 177 and section 717 that the battery storage section would govern. If there's any conflict on that topic,
then you have to put the uses into the uh use table. Both the model and the uh Blandford specify within their bylaws that actual amendment where they go.
They really should be in their use table that go that covers all the other uses and districts. So what I tried to do is put tier one, two and three as they relate to as a kind of relate to what is
solar energy facility is regulated. Um and make the same requirement applied there whether special permit or site plan review or it's not permitted or it's uh allowed.
Um, and there's there's differences between a tier one, tier two, and tier three. And you get to what's an accessory. So, I take this, that's the broad picture.
Um, and I also want to note that what would be approved by the attorney general, that's questionable. We are I'm comfortable that if you follow the model bylaw turn journal is going to approve it
because they probably worked with the OE on drafting the model. So as you deviate from that, you get into more area of gray.
And so there may be some aspects that we think are reasonable and attorney general may say no. Um that's when you hope that attorney general uses a line item veto as opposed to a blanket veto.
uh purpose section A and now we're looking at the proposed section 7.17 the actual regulations for battery engine storage you know first anybody have any questions about I assume everybody's had
a chance to look at this it's >> before we go any further just a minute Richard does anybody want a hard copy of this because I can run some more off if you choose let me copy if possible. >> This could take a while.
>> How many you have? One, two, three, four, five. Excuse me. The one that just came in. Are you going to need a copy of the model bylaw? He's running off copies for everybody. Five people. >> That' be great. >> Be number six. I'll go let him know. >> Thank you.
Figured I'd save some time. >> Yeah, that's okay. Is this for a specific area right now? Is this for a specific area? No. >> This this doesn't designate >> sites. This this indicates what zone
districts be allowed in. But these people here tomorrow >> is not a good idea. It just like >> we know we need our insurance. >> Yeah, I know. I knew you guys changes
the to hang out. >> When your mother had it was >> full house. >> Yeah. So, 200 garage. Oh yeah. Usually those people
He already had started. It's like we're watching church about Are they recording? son. >> It's just I don't know if it's just a speaker or what? >> Well, I'm going to try and
That was pretty good. >> Hey, this wasn't in the override, so you owe me six bucks. Okay. >> Residential neighborhood. >> Okay. Christine, you had a question. >> Yeah, thanks guys. Um, I just wanted to
be clear on the the model diet team was drafted back in October from what I understand. Is that the same one that is still circulating? I mean, we've been working on it or you've been working on it, but has there been any update from the DOE beyond that October one? Because
it's been circulating somewhere with them. I'm assuming they've done some updates already that >> I took the one off the current one most current one off the website, >> right? >> It feels like the October one has probably already been edited five times
over by DO. >> And I took most current one they have. >> Okay. All right. >> Um >> I don't want us to, you know, backtrack and do double work. No, >> they've already thrown out or something. So yeah, >> you you had said something before in an email that Senator Vis would have let
you know when the DOE model came out. You haven't heard anything? >> Well, just just for some background here before Richard continues, if in fact this draft we work on tonight and the language is acceptable going forward, uh
this is not going to be ready for um you've got a town meeting in June, correct? This is not going to be ready for that. um in June. There's no way it's possible to to get that all together and advertise a public hearing and go from there. So um at the very
least we can we have a time frame and Richard can explain that. So if there is changes from the DOE one, we can maybe review it again before uh we we put out the final. So >> Richard go ahead please.
>> Okay. Um so on the first page that's what I mentioned earlier and then you got at the bottom half first page you got a primary use battery engine storage that's where that's that's their permitting and then
you've got an accessory use which is one that is accessory to a another building another use on property such as manufacturing warehousing maybe a bedroom storage for an apartment complex or uh uh municipal building what
have you. Then I put down here accessory use when accessory to a solar facil solic generating facility. Um the model bylaw doesn't differentiate between accessory use and accessory use for a solar
facility. In my opinion, that's a mistake because I think it's one thing when you're doing battery engine storage that's for a another primary use versus one that's for solar electric generating
facility. I think that's they should be treated differently. >> Before you continue, hold on a second. Just for those that are not familiar with zoning language, the RR is rural residential zone. RN is rural neighborhood. RV is rural residential village. CV is commercial village, CH is
commercial highway and IP is industrial. So those are the zones that we have in town. Continue. Thanks. So anyone has any comments on house propos they Yes sir. >> I just got one thing on page one
under tier two on all three categories. Is there any way to make everything on tier 2 in residential PV instead of SP? >> In other words, >> the special permit, right? >> Right. Because it's my understanding
that the the site plan uh re review is less strict or less to deal with than the special permit is. Um and and so I you know I just like for
instance rural neighborhood under primary use is PV but rural residential for primary use of tier 2 is SP. I mean I I would is there any way to do that or not? >> That's what the board wants to
recommend. Um I I try to follow kind of what the zone bottle has on solar electric generating. But also I would note that for instance accessory use if a warehouse is allowed by
site plan review then the accessory use should be allowed by site plan review. If if it's for a solar electric generating facility, same with that. If the solar electric generating facility
is allowed by sight plan view, then the battery storage associated with it would reasonably be allowed the same way. Uh so you're not treating it more rigidly than the primary use. But again, it's up to the board how they
want to recommend. I guess my point is is tier three for all three uses are PB. Tier two for five out of six of those things they're S or PP or or SP instead
of PB. I can understand tier one being uh you know primary use. Tier one not permitted. Accessory use and uh accessory use solar is being
permitted by right after it was permitted by the permitted by right. Uh, that makes sense. And then it's just that the other ones I would think could all be PBS, but
>> So, just to be clear on this, you're saying the SP is that's just special per bit. >> Uh, that is site plan review. >> Site plan. And who does that? >> Plan board. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that still is painting board. It just requires site plan. But but his point is that a
special permit is more discretionary in approval denial. >> Mhm. >> And site plan is less discretionary. That that's his his point about this. >> Yeah. But doesn't it also reflect the tiers that make it such
>> right? That's that's as I tried reflect what the solar does as well. What? How? So, just give me an overview of what tier 1, two, and three is then because it's all about the size of the generating facility.
>> Well, the Well, no, no, it's not because standalone is not associated with a generating facility. Standalone is the primary use is battery energy storage.
A accessory uses when you do have accessory use. So electric is tied to the um solar generating facility. So it's not correct to say that
battery industry is tied to the solar. Not always. Uh the sizes of >> you had it had on one page you have page three tier one two three and four
>> tier one is on two 250 kilowatt hours tier two50 up to 10 megawatt hours. >> Mhm. Um, when you look at your solar, anything five, anything over 250 is large.
So, there's a there's a difference between the battery engine storage and your solar by the size of it alone as well as by the purpose of it. Um but the tier one primary use I mean um
we have these little electric batteries that we have in our houses for backup energy. Is that considered a bass? That's under this the way it's written here. >> Is that what >> is that considered a tier one >> primary roof? >> Primary use. >> It falls under no not primary use
accessory use because accessory to the house. >> Accessory to the house. Okay. primise is what they proposed in Westfield last year for instance where it's simply a compound of these battery engine storage units. >> Yeah, that was a misinterpreting that
primary use was >> Mhm. >> for tier one. >> Yeah. >> U and I I would Yeah. And I you're not going I don't see you ever having a tier one as a primary use anyway. But Right.
just cause size of them. Um so it's up board as whether you want to require all tier 2 to be special permit or not. and don't decide that it's not necessarily think about him. All right, continue.
On page two, we get into the real meat of the um proposal that would create a section 7.17 to regulate battery engine storage systems. A is the purpose.
Um I pretty much follow what is in the model bylaw. Uh I think a lot of the purposes stated in the planford relate to the purpose of zoning in general and so I didn't repeat
those here. Um and make clear that it is intend to be consistent in line with the state's permitting system because if you don't do that I think you're going to have issues down the road. Any questions about the purpose or
comments? Uh section B is definitions use uh and secondary to the use of premises for other law purposes. Accessory solar is tied to solar uh and then what as a right or by right
zoning is a sighting is battery batteries battery and storage systems tier 1 2 and three and four I know the model bylaw does not have tier 4 the planford does and I like the idea of putting the definition tier four in
here so it's not a question that's just hanging hanging out there. Uh often times you'll see a bylaw that will say the highest tiers at this level and then you wonder what if it's over that what what what does it mean? Well, this makes
it clear that what it means. Um then our brownfield site is building integrated battery and storage collate colllocated community benefits
agreement and community benefits plan. Um the model bylaw is is interesting that it has this definition of legally binding agreement for it. Um it does not have the sense I added in
here under community benefits agreement. I added the last sense. This agreement should be based on the final community benefits plan. So it doesn't make any sense to have a community benefits plan that's not then
the basis for the agreement. Um, and Planford had a lot of details of what should be in community benefits plan and I agree with those and add a few in there such as mitigation measures.
Um, here we are. Emergency operations plan. >> Can I ask something? >> Yes, sir. >> Those benefits, uh, could they would it make any sense to quantify them? I mean they're they're great those are great things. I just wonder
>> the plan would do that. >> Oh no. Okay. So after they apply then >> No, as part of their application >> as part of the application they would need to submit a community benefits plan and there as I see it there'd be a interactive process.
>> The town would work go push back and forth. >> Yeah. And the final what I call the final community benefits plan will be the basis for the community benefits agreement cuz way you if you read the model bylaw it's like you have this community
benefits plan and have this community agreement but there's no connection to them and that didn't make any sense to me. Um then you got NFPA, you've got um per and PFAS and
standalone primary use best installation. Uh then you got is there any questions further questions about definitions? Section C, applicability and permitting the pre-founding requirements that's in
the model bylaw, but reason to leave that in there. And then how applies that you got to have a zone approval to get building permit.
One thing that I added in here that is was not in either of the model or Blandford and very frank I think it's the biggest gray area that the AG's attendants like to look at is on page six.
Item seven prohibited within the water supply protection overlay district. Um and I put that in there based on discussion at the last meeting. I'm not sure the attorney general general will approve a blanket prohibition.
That's what the town if town wants to do that. If if the AG rejects it, may they just reject it one sentence, but one section. >> Yes, sir. >> I'd like to just go back a little bit. We skipped over pretty quick. Um it's on
page three. Um there's one sentence in there that just I just think it it could lead to some a lot of confusion in the future. I don't know, maybe I'm overthinking it, but at the end of the top paragraph on page three, it says, "For the purpose of this bylaw,
batteries utilize utilized in consumer products are excluded from this requirement." That's pretty vague. I don't know if people could get by this somehow with that sentence. So, I don't know if we should be more clear on that or what we should do or is that you >> that's in a model bylaw and I think
that's in there because somebody buys a flashlight don't want them to require go through this permit or they've got a vacuum cleaner or a lawnmower that's electric. I mean, >> yeah, but could they use that as an
excuse to bypass this? I've talked >> I would say no cuz >> Okay, it it was part of an air conditioner. That's a consumer product. >> Good try, Jim. Well, I'm just trying to protect us, that's all. >> No. Yeah,
>> but I had same question when I thought about and said, "No, when really we look at what is a consumer product, >> right? It's pretty wide open. I mean, they can charge my car with it. That's consumer product. So, does that >> the car the car is a consumer product? I
don't consider the charger a consumer product." >> Okay, that's Yeah, there's a lot of gray area there. I just thought that it's not exactly clear. >> Just one more thing on page four just under the community benefits plan the bullets you've got the the numbers of
mitigation measuring 1 2 3 47 >> I think that's a great list of of things to be included in that plan. I think that's really really helpful to have that laid out emergency services support road maintenance and all that kind of stuff. I think that's really important to have in there.
Where we at? Page six, seven. >> Uh, that was 6 91 7. >> I got something. >> Yes, sir. >> That number seven is an excellent. I mean, putting that in there and like you said, if the attorney general has some issue with it, hopefully we just
>> it could lead to what? To them disapproving the entire amendment, >> right? But I would hope they just do that one section. >> My only question with that is it says notwithstanding the classification of
permitted and prohibited uses in the table one. I'm just wondering my take on this wateride water supply protection district. There shouldn't be best users there like you taught, but
they also shouldn't be able to be located by anything by special permit or site plan review or anything. So I >> that's why it says notwithstanding. >> Okay. I didn't know what that meant >> because if you don't have that in there. >> Yeah. >> Then you've got conflict between the use
table saying it's permitted >> and this saying prohibited. >> Makes it clear that forget what the use table says. says if it's in water supply protection district, it's not allowed. >> And I did that because Southampton's use table does not have a
column for water supply protection district on it. So it's some do, most don't. And I'd like to have it on on the table, but
it's very complicated to do that. It's I've done it and it's very it's just very challenging. >> Yeah. But it's it's probably stated anyway some of the prohibitions in the water supply protections bylaw itself, isn't it? >> No.
>> Something that's >> battery storage is not addressed at all. No, not battery, but I mean other items in the water supply are >> what the battery what the water supply protection district essentially does doesn't restrict that much uses
but it's how you use land such as storage of chemicals uh fuels stuff like so it's not a per say land use prohibition in most cases it's an operational pro prohibition
restriction. >> I I got one more thing on that. >> Yes, sir. >> Both Blford and Planefield came up with a overlay district where solar and vests were allowed. >> Mhm.
>> So, if it wasn't allowed in their new overlay district for solar and best and none of those areas in those two towns where they came up with a new map were included with the water supply protection districts. So just by the new
map there weren't a lot in those water supplies >> and that that doing an overlay district is a great way of doing it. The question is how long do you want to take to have something go town meeting? >> I understand >> because I in my opinion you need to hire
another consultant to do to identify what is the appropriate overlay district. You can't just arbitrarily draw a line and say this is the appropriate area for for it if you're not going by the underlying zoning district.
And there are consultants that do solar energy facility analysis and can identify for you the best areas in town and perfect areas in town for it. But you're probably looking at 6 to 12 months once you hire the consultant. And
you're probably looking at much more money than Plane Board has in their budget to hire a consultant. >> You would do it, right? >> We could have another one.
>> I'd be surprised if it cost less than 15,000 artists to hire somebody to do that. >> Um, >> page seven. Page seven uh that demonstrate ownership or control some type of site control for building
permit for the any type of permit building permit site plan view anything um site plan section D site plan review and special permit applications >> it's already >> um >> in their bylaws right
>> again we're we already state in the zoning bylaw plan board is the site plan view authority. Uh they're also a special per authority as well. Um and they're going to have policies and yes they can
applicants can request a waiver um by the same majority vote required for a special per itself. For instance a super for a special per you have to have a super majority four out of five plan board members.
If they get asking a waiver from a special permit requirement, they have to get four out of five. Site plan review, it'd be three out of five generally. >> Why do we need to have a wave? Because there's a couple other places further back. That's
>> there may be a situation they're appropriate for waiver. >> Okay. >> And some communities say, well, they can get a variance. No, you can't. Not not if the zoning board appeals follows state law
because state law on variance is very strict. It is a unique hardship associate topography of the land. So it can't be based on what the applicant wants to do with it. It's the
hardship has to be in with the the land itself. And so I live in South Hadley and that ZBA has not granted variance in 15 years, 10 15 years because the current
membership, current chair says, "Oh, you want to build a 4 4,000t house? Well, you could build a 3,000t house and therefore you don't need a variance to use the property." And she's right. you look at the strict reading of the
statute. So, so a waiver is a way to alleviate some of those and again it puts it put some restrictions on granting the the labor the waiver.
Um, page eight, section E, general requirements. And we have compliance with laws, ordinances, and regulations. Um >> state code
>> state code site plan special permit where is required NFPA um 855 must met certification equipment standards um and with that I use combination
what's in the model as well was in Bford I think Blandford has some good ideas and uh but also I don't like long paragraphs in bylaws When the first sentence says something and everything else relates to it, I like to quot
afterwards so people it it draws them out. People can't say they didn't see them. >> Mhm. >> And then fees must be paid. >> Now, before you go any further, under uh F
two, you got a typo there at the end of it. Facility. Just find it. Oh, okay. Facility. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> could I ask something about
>> Yes, sir. On page eight on number four, E4. Maybe Chief Fulli has some input for this. I don't know. NFPA 855 is my understanding when they came up with that they were it was basically it
didn't accommodate or didn't really relate to large commercial you know large scale solar or not no large scale solar large scale best and and the regulations under that really aren't correct
>> right well they've updated it uh they're coming out with a new >> uh code book this here. >> Oh, good. >> And uh so basically, you know, large systems are covered under it. Um
so, you know, you'd have to follow the whole code book. And I mean, the code book is >> Oh, I know. It's just what I understood these ground storage unit size battery units where they said it could be three feet, it should be more like 10 feet.
I mean, but you know, I'm no expert obviously, but did you want to comment on it? >> Have you been able to see the new regulations for the 855 yet? >> No, >> they haven't come out with >> uh I don't have a copy yet, though.
>> But this would capture if it was updated, they would have to follow the new code. Correct. >> Right. Yeah. And as I remember correct, that came from model and from Blandford in there. You're still on nine.
>> Uh page nine, part F, site design, operational standards. Um, got front yard set back, side and rear yard,
then setbacks and wells and septic systems that I think came from Blandford. >> That that seems extreme. If you have a septic system and a well on a lot, you may not be able to >> a tier one best system on your site.
>> Yeah, that Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I just said that eliminates a lot of if you have a well and a septic system and everyone in town has a septic system. Um 150 ft from a septic system is um pretty large radius. And >> 150, right? 150.
>> That's that's what the proposed language is. >> Yeah. >> And why would that be true? Pardon? >> Why would that be restricted? >> Um I mean if you have a 50ft set back from rear side yardage lines and you have a septic system 150 foot circle
there and plus a 50ft set back from the sides. I don't say it would eliminate if you had a larger lot but if you had a marginal size lot it would eliminate the ability to put a tier one on a residential lot. >> But why wouldn't there be a problem if you have a well? Well, uh it says uh
from wells and septic systems. You have a septic system here and you have a well here. You put 150 foot circled around both of those. >> You won't and then 50T set back from side and rears. >> I agree. If there's if there's a leakage or or a problem with a battery and it
gets into the ground, okay, how does that downstream save anybody who might have a well where water is coming from that area to to to their well? >> Oh, I I I understand. I just think that
that 150 is a make a statement that that would >> water flows very very regularly underground. and see my well and I can see the water flow like a little river underneath. If something got in there, it would spread to a lot of other
places, a lot of other areas. So, who mitigates that? Who's responsible if other places get contamination from a fire or leakage? >> Oh, you don't know? >> No, I don't know. Again, I'm just I'm just saying >> that's
good not to know, but it's good to know. Well, it would be it would be the applicant or the owner of the system. Certainly, >> are they're responsible? >> Yeah. >> For the millions of dollars that it could cost to clean up a lithium fire or >> if if that should happen that >> if that should happen,
>> I hope so. The state of California couldn't cope with some of the fires they had and some of the problems they had. that the the big issue as Mark is leading to is let's say somebody's got a uh electric vehicle and they've got a
battery storage system to that supports their solar for their house and charge the vehicle. This could very well prohibit them from having either solar or their or a battery and storage at their house
because of the separation requirements. >> Is it is it possible to specify as you specified with consumer goods like thinking about the car charger or something like that? You know, of course I I also appreciate the water protection, but of course I I worry
about overly, you know, regulating personal uses such a state drive for electric cars. >> I think one way of addressing it would be all tier 2, tier three, tier four >> because if you're you're not going to
have a a tier two for I tier two, three, and four absolutely, but it's a tier one, I think. Um, so I think that may be the best way of addressing your concern without being overly regulated.
>> And is there any circumstances maybe this is a more of an environmental question where a tier one should be prohibitive over certain well or subject system maybe that's what would be answered within the the well the zone water protected area. Right. Correct.
But primary use tier one would be is prohibited in all the residential anyway. Uh so we're only talking about accessory >> and accessory to solar as for tier one.
So you got to edit that then I >> I'll edit that sentence to make it all tier two tier three tier four >> two three four actually written anywhere that whoever owns whatever leaf will take care of that just
>> no that's I think that's just under he going to change he going to modify >> what is he going to modify >> top here the the problem you have is >> if you put
my other eye >> I don't I don't want to have four discussions at one time. >> Two and three. >> Okay. So, he's going to put two, three, and four. >> Do we have one person speaking at a time? Please go ahead. >> I had asked that I was concerned which
is why I came tonight. most of the town, twothirds of the town I'm told as well. And where would it be written that whoever actually owns would leave just as if it's not written in zoning
that if somebody's at gas station and they cause damage downstream that they're liable. >> Okay. >> Um it it that that is basic common law and tor law that gets gets involved. >> Okay. um with that.
>> So would an attorney would take care of >> Yes. >> Yeah. typically be a did button turners get and damage property owners get attorney and sue the pardon. They'd have to demonstrate that that was a cause of it. Um
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Sir, just that's a great idea to have just tiers two, three, and four there. If it's two tiers 2, three, and four, is 150 foot from a well anywhere close to far enough. I mean, I'm sure it's far
enough from a septic tank. I'm really not sure what the restriction is on a septic tank or a septic system, but well, I guess it goes into groundwater, too. But 150 ft from a well for a large scale vest system seems should be like a,000
ft or a half a mile. I don't know. I mean >> more >> 150 me that's not nothing. >> Well, we can put it in there and we can see what the AG says about it. Huh? >> I No, I I would not be surprised the AG has quest has issues with this.
>> Really? Because if you're trying to locate a facility in a community that has almost all septic and all almost all well, >> is it effectively precluding it? Um, they could very well ask for some type
of doc documentation that it doesn't overly restrict locations. >> Be nice to know what >> I think a th00and ft that I doubt. I would not be I would expect the AG's office throw it out the entire bylaw.
>> Okay. We don't want that. >> You want 500? >> I think 150 is pushing it. >> Okay. >> Um then you got buffer and screen requirements and then setbacks for tier
2, three and four in particular. And then buffer and screening particularly for those are more restrictive. >> I got something on the buffer and screening. I'm sorry. I got a lot of things. >> Is there any way we can add something to that buffer and screening thing where to
basically say that they have to plant enough density and tall enough trees and shrubs to do something day one, not year 10. >> I mean, I've seen so many of these things. They put up the screening and it doesn't amount to, you know,
until years and years are gone are passed >> and you know they put them up the plants or the shrubs and the trees die they finally get around to replacing them they put six foot tall ones in I mean it doesn't do anything
>> you can ch long time >> the caliber of the screening or something like that or >> well or a minimum height to start with >> the problem you get is you try to acquire a
minimum height sufficient to screen these from any possibility and depth it's going to be cost prohibitive to do one I mean how much does it cost to plant a 20ft tree if you can find them at
you're looking huge amounts of fun >> I'm thinking more like what most of them are doing is arborvite you They >> Yeah, but but his point is they plant 6 feet and that's not or 4T that's not high enough. You may need a 20ft tree to
screen it in all in all instances. >> I mean it depends on topography and what's in the area. Um well buffers and screening can also I know there's a section in here about fencing but isn't buffering screening uh include fencing as well? That's buffer. >> It can. >> Yeah,
>> it can. The board can approve granting waiver from the planting that requires a fence as well. Um, and usually a fencing is a interim screening measure.
>> That is until the plants get grown. In terms of diseased and dying, that's that goes back to how the communion forces is owning by law. If if the community wants to be sure
that the buffers are maintained, then the community needs to be sure that zone enforcement is properly funded and supported. If not, then I hate I I don't want to put this the
wrong way, but if the community doesn't support and fund enforcement way needs to be done, then the community gets the results it funds and approves. >> I just got a quick question. When we talk about battery storage out, is it do
they build a building and then everything's internal to the building or these units that just stay outside? No, they're battery storage. The um uh commercial the the big ones, they're basically like a um trailer
>> with the battery units inside. >> Box car. >> Just a box car. >> Box or a shipping container. They stuff them in there. >> Yes. >> Okay. I just I had no idea. Best reason when they've had them they've had a fire the what I've heard the best approach is
you just pick that up leave in one spot let it burn itself out separate from everything else >> there are some battery there are some battery storage that are enclosed in buildings I >> well if it's accessory to a building yes
it'll be something inside a building but the uh uh battery and storage systems that support solder. The going uh solar base of these uh flatbed or uh
uh trailers that have the units inside. >> Do you know the frequency of the fires? Is it like every 13, every 50? >> They're very infrequent. >> Very infrequent. you know the consequences if it gets into the year.
>> No, I don't. And I'm not I'm I'm not an expert. >> You may want to look into it. >> I'm just looking in I'm just looking at what we're drafting here for by law. The state says you can't prohibit them
and I'm not getting in the debate of whether they are good or bad. Just how do you regulate them? >> State has three motions that they've been working on for about a year and they've gotten nowhere with it yet. So, I'm wondering what the holdup is. >> Um,
okay. >> We're on 10 still. >> Page 10. Dimensional standards for pertinent structures. Watch stuck. Um
the hiccular access for tier 2, three and four that's on page 11 all lines to be un underground feasible access to the site.
Go ahead, Richard. >> Um, fire protection and fuel management break. This large came from combination of the model and from Blandford. >> I have a question maybe for chief on
page 11 B2. It says the fuel brick shall contain no combustible materials. Is that as a house a combustible material? If you're next, you have it outside your >> uh we're on page 11, very bottom there. It says a fuel brake shall contain no
combustible materials. I It goes on to explain about vegetation and shrubs can be exempt. But um there's a is a house um there's a so there's my question is if if it's next to a house 10 ft away from
the house is that considered within 50 ft of a combustible material >> that would be 50 ft from anything right >> that that's what uh says must be 50 ft from any combustible material >> excluding shrubs
>> you know we have probably close to 15 maybe 20 uh ESS systems, energy storage systems in town, you know, in houses, in garages, mostly outside on uh you know, people have solar on the roof. They'll have a battery system. And I mean, those
are bolted right to the house. They got to have a fire uh wall material in between the house and the and the battery. Uh >> I think this really intend for tier 2, three and four as well. >> I just think in the way it's word I think we need to be addressed but I make
sure it's clear that this one not exclude have having so I'm I'm that two uh the break would apply to tier 2, three and four because I don't think it necessarily applies to single family. >> You're going to >> tier one. Yeah.
>> And note that. >> Yes. On page 12, AS is materials. Basically, don't store them if you don't need to. Fencing and sight security.
I got something on. That's fine. It's just is there any way I guess there's no way if one of these battery units or multiple ones ever caught on fire and you're dumping thousands of gallons of
water an hour onto these things for hours at end or days on end of work. How do you or there's no way to contain that? But and yet we're talking about containment of hazardous liquids that are, you know, stored on the site.
And yet the real hazard is that there's a fire and the water dumped on the surrounding area to keep the fire from spreading and all the smoke getting washed into the ground. >> Say goodbye to your property. >> Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I'm just
bringing it up there. >> Well, maybe we should ask the chief, what do you use for a battery fire? Is it a foam? Is it a water or what? I'm just curious. >> Basically, their uh the new uh policy is to uh just let it burn out.
Um don't put water on it. Just let it burn itself out. And like I said, control the surrounding area that it doesn't spread. >> Yeah. Because aren't aren't some of these bigger ones, Richard or whomever else wants to weigh in, aren't they on
>> huge concrete pads similar to uh containment areas you have in u gas stations and stuff where it's it's not just overflowing onto the ground. They have containment pans that have to contain so much liquid uh in the event
of something like that. >> And the chief is right that they don't don't put water on it because all that does is spread it. It doesn't put it out and makes it worse. So they use foam and let it burn itself out. That's it. Foam
with no POS. >> I see that here. That's good. Okay. N on page 12. Nine is fencing and sight security. >> So there's fencing in there, right? And 10 is signage base minimum signage signs there on what's necessary for the
health and safety. >> I think you got a typo there on 10B at the end of that toward the end of that line. It is to be installed. >> Oh, okay. On page 13, lighting.
>> Before you get to lighting, I got something on signage. >> I on page 13. >> Mhm. >> I I personally think waiting 90 days for them to change the signage as to who's the contact person is way too long.
I mean, they ought to do it a week. You know, if something ever happens in those 90 days and somebody needs to call somebody of importance and the sign gives a number that doesn't even exist anymore.
>> Well, would 30 days be a lot better? I mean, can it be done in 30 days? You think >> what? That's that's related to signage on the site. So, I would expect and I think I've read somewhere where they would have to anytime there's a change in ownership or whomever is in charge
that they have to let the um emergency personnel in town know immediately, not 90 days from when those happen. So, >> exactly. >> Okay. Well, now they're changing sign a little quicker. That's all I'm saying.
Well, the problem I have is sometimes it takes longer to get a sign change than it you would think it should because we know our bureaucracies are like and some just like I've dealt with
is it what's northeast utilities called now I've cover >> yeah I remember dealing north when they were northeast utilities and it would take 6 months to get response from about anything. And
so getting a sign change can take a while just because they do purchase order. They solicit bid. They they go the whole process. It's not a simple matter of like you and I will go out and just buy a sign to put up. They don't do
it that quickly. I know it's only signage, but um is there anywhere in here that says upon ownership or responsibility change? Notify them immediately, but give them 60 days to do the sign or something, but notify the fire department. So, if they
get a call, they know to contact right away. You're not going to wait. That's in >> That's in there somewhere else. I didn't I didn't see that. >> You want 60? You want to drop it to 60, Jim? I would go to 60 on that. But notifying the fire department immediately about change >> that I
>> I think that's important. >> I think I read that in an agreement. >> I don't recall. I read it, but I can't remember >> in the um change of ownership on page 17. >> Change of ownership type of thing. >> The best installation owner operator must provide written notification to the
Southampton Plane Board building commissioner and select board at least 6 days prior to any change of project ownership. So, I'd go 60 on the other one. I mean, give them Can you make a sign in 60 days? I think that's absolutely possible.
>> If you give them 60, they'll do it in 90 anyway. >> Okay. Page 13. Lighting face minimized. I can fly dark sky noise. Uh I this combination of the model bylaw
and the planford um I believe plan has the U 60 DVA in there if I remember correctly. >> I got something on that. That was the one thing that I really didn't like about
a cut off of 60 to me doesn't work. I mean literally at night it's probably 20 to 25. decibb in any rural residential or rural neighborhood, you know, sort of setting.
So to say that they can go 60 for a 1 hour average at their property line, I mean, that would be like three times the normal noise 12 hours out of the day. And these things go 24/7.
The noise on these things is huge. and and I don't know where Blander came up with 60, but I believe there's something in there now that uh allows 20 over ambient which even if that if it's
allowing it's 20 uh ambient or whatever at night in a rural area then it will allow them to go to 40 which is a lot in itself. public can say 60. That's that's just >> the state model had no >> I'll move out before I listen to that.
>> The state model had no um >> I'd have to go back in there. I think the state model said you had complied D standards if I remember correctly >> and there was some question talking about increasing the decibel or the tolerant tolerated decel levels. I
haven't really read into it too much because it wasn't really anything official. But I mean if that also could be changed by the state at some point I wonder too when you specify the DBA in here then that leads me to the issue of
enforcement because usually to measure the DBA somebody's got to have a little gadget to measure that which I know we don't have in Southampton. Um, and so how does that tie into the enforcement? >> And that that becomes a problem that that becomes a real problem because not only do you have to have the gadget, but
you have to have somebody certified. >> Correct. You could hire somebody to come in and do that, I'm sure. >> And you you can hire a consultant, someone do that. >> Um, so you don't want to put that in Ron Lauren's job description. be enforced to the board of health too,
but again back to the certification piece. >> Yeah. So just add that into your budget next year for >> that won't get done until batteries already in which case it's too late.
>> You know, you put up a fence around it to contain the noise, right? There could be a containment strategy to contain >> part of the buffer benefit. That's >> doesn't do much. >> A fence does more of buffer than sound
noise buffer than a uh vegetation does. >> What so do you think is 60 the what is determined in the state or the model bylaw? >> No, those in Bfords as I recall. >> Yeah.
And I'm not a noise expert, so I know the uh mass D policy is a bit more complicated to look at as to how you measure it, how you evaluate it. >> But does get back to point you made of
enforcement. Um that's the reason some communities for stuff don't specify DVA but can be audible off the site or can interfere with the enjoyment of the joining property
that that gets more vague standard that is more difficult to enforce but at the same time is easier to make an assessment whether it complies or not. Now, if I'm in my house and I can hear the noise from their clarity, it's too
loud without somebody having to go and measure the DVA. Um, a nice numerical standard is a good standard to have is you can measure it if you go to court
because this Paul's certified in using the noise measurement device. He measured 65, DVA is 60 and therefore they violated it. >> You can >> I think this is where the board of
health doesn't want, you know, as as the least subjective, but I actually appreciate the the concreteness of the EVA. I just feel like 60. >> I just typed in I want to know 10 megawatt system. Yes. And if you're going to
>> one meter, it's 70 to 92 just for a 10. >> It's not going to be >> And it says because of the fans need >> just a minute. Sorry. >> If you're going to be living next to this noise that we're manufacturing, it's not going to be a >> capital flight, you know. Good.
>> So, the pure tone, >> would this be considered a pure tone condition? It could be, right? It's like, >> yeah, >> this is like a 1990 policy. >> What we heard was a constant hum and at 60 dB. That's loud.
>> That's really loud. like hearing 24 hours a day. >> Yeah, I just just Googled for the fun of it um to see what came up. 10 megawatt battery energy storage systems at 1 meter is 70 to 92 dB
>> at 1 meter, but you're looking >> at one meter. I understand we're going to property line, but >> you're looking at >> I'm just curious. >> Yeah, >> 20 m away. >> Mhm. It's >> pretty damn long.
it's going to diminish. So, but yeah, >> I feel like that would warrant maybe a little maybe you can explore more options. >> Well, you're going to have another stab at this when it comes to public hearings so we can put circle that for something that we may have to revisit
when we get more uh get more authority on it. I think the problem too is they're allowing these to go into residential areas. I think that's, you know, if they're out in a meadow somewhere or a distance away, it might not be such a problem. But when they're in, you know,
100 ft from the home, that's going to be a awful problem. >> Well, they, you know, the the zoning where they're going to be located, some of these bigger units are certainly not going to be in a uh a close neighborhood. They're going to be out in a rural area somewhere.
And I understand that makes sense. But when they start putting them into residential areas, which is what's happening in Southampton, it's going to be a problem. There's going to be issues with it. >> What's next?
>> Uh, vegetation, page 13. vegetation tree cutting basically minimize I'd cut but don't if I move everything within 50 feet of the module again this
really is intended for the tier two and three >> what the vegetation tree cutting it's not intended to apply if you got a single family home and they have to keep all vegetation away from that. No. Um
and so um Page 14, storm water and drainage basically comply with the storm water bylaw. Uh G utility notification you can't constructed unless you've
given evidence of uh approval from the utility connecting into the to the plane board. And this is off-grid system. You got solder that's just helping your
house. That's one thing. But this really gets to um the bigger best systems. Emergency services and emergency service plan response plan. Essentially they've got to develop one work with the fire department which is
also here. the U fire chief is also the emergency management director and they've got to work with them and be sure they're kept in in the loop and they've got to have drills and training for responders
question. >> Yes. >> Do we have enough equipment? >> Yes. And I'm I refer to fire chief for that. >> Yeah. >> And that's part of the purpose of the
community benefits community plan uh benefit plan we talked about earlier was what's the impact of the project and how you met medicate. If there is certain equipment that the fire department doesn't have they need for it, then that plan should and that
agreement should cover it. >> Maybe get a new facility police. >> You have mutual aid also, right? U chief. >> Correct. Thank you. >> From what we heard, the process is going
to be we're going to let it burn. So probably not a problem, >> but I'm sure mutual aid will assist as wouldn't they just be called in anyway >> to monitor >> if needed. We would call mutual aid
>> and then the police will notify the neighborhood to evacuate. >> I don't know how what that's up to the the emergency management director. >> Yeah. >> If needed. Yes. What's the evacuation rate or distance that >> that's up the emergency management director to make that determination in
the event of an accident? top of the valley. Um and then page 16. And since this zoning bylaw, the building commission is on enforcement officer has authority to
order uh uh shut down facility. Um some places it might be the fire normally you'd think fire department or emergency management director but this
zoning. are typically the zone enforcement officer. Return to master-in-law, your building commissioner is the zone enforcement officer. Then item five on page 16, it requires them to find
conduct and fund emergency response drills. Then item I on page 16 best installation conditions basically have to maintain it. There's a modification they have to
uh may require site plan uh review again um change in ownership they have to notify prior to any change ownership. I got one thing on number one.
Basically, I would suggest eliminating unless accepted as a public way. In no way should these things ever be accepted as a public way. That's my thinking. Well, I can't preclude town meeting voting to
accept anything. >> That's the problem. >> Okay. >> What becomes a public way is what every town meeting votes to accept. >> I mean, we've got we got streets in town that are residential streets that are in public way. So, I can't imagine why uh
>> I can't imagine town meeting voting to accept one, >> right? Um but I've always I told people for years and Peter said well that can't become town public way or town road. I said if town mean votes to accept it. It
does. And your best way to keep that from happening is to be sure town doesn't vote to accept it. Then we've got on page 17 abandonment and decommission procedures. This is a
combination of the model and the Blandford. Blandford has some language I liked and model had language I liked. Essentially they have to maintain it. If it ceases operation for I think it's 12 months
they have to go through the uh decommissioning process at the very beginning they have to put up a shy to cover the restoration of the site and that has to be updated on periodic basis because y'all know cost increase
sometimes more rapidly than other times. Did that include if there was a fire? >> Um, >> like I'm wondering if there's a shy bond. I feel I know this came up in this conference I went to about shity to protect the town for remediation as an
example or water testing or >> is there any is the shy just to like remove the equipment or is there other >> remove and restore the site? Yeah. So that would include >> so if they had a fire and they ceased operation, they'd have no the sure would cover
that. if they have a fire. And I'd go back to this other provision monitoring and maintenance on page 16. Best installation shall maintain the
facility in good condition. If they have fire, well, they've got to restore it, remove it, something otherwise facility is not in good condition. Therefore, they're in violation of it. Therefore, they are
ceasing. They'd be they'd be forced to cease operation and I would say you're uh then decommissioning it. >> So, then that goes back to like the law the lawyer managing any damages like I'm thinking about damage in the town as an
example if a water line needed to be established because of well contamination. That's something that came up as a a reasonable question like who would be financially responsible to live to manage the lift of that cost to connect people to city water as we've
seen with our we have a um transfer station that we may have to connect some people to wells because they might have their wells might have been exposed to PAS right so I kind of look at this as no different where we need to now establish a water line so these people their wells are not contaminated And I
imagine that it could be the same risk for a best fire. And so my big question is like who would be financially liable or responsible for mitigating the loss of the access to the well? I hate to say this, but it'd be a
litigation issue that would ultimately I think the court probably hold the um best operator liable for it and and most companies are going to try to resolve that through some type of uh negotiation
and simple solution is to install waterline. is installing water line is going ultimately going to be less expensive than multiple years of litigation on their behalf. >> Now um a quick thing under the sur you
have 125% of the estimated costs for decommissioning. What's the average life expectancy of a battery system? I think it's probably maintained. It it's going to that technology of it will probably become more obsolete than the
facility itself. So, you're probably looking at a pretty constant changing of the equipment that's inside. >> Mhm. >> Uh and how long does a computer last?
>> Yeah, I know. The only reason I asked if I know solar panels last 25 to 30 years solar panels. So if it was the same as that, that's like a percent a year in you know inflation. I just think it's um very low. >> Number two under that Jim kind of covers
it. It said that you should provide an updated estimate after every 10 years >> as well. You know, right? Okay. >> You see that? >> They have provide updates every 10 years. >> I missed that. So we can adjust that as it goes forward. Okay, we're good then. That's perfect.
>> That's that's purpose that 125% gets you the first 10 years. Then you adjust it again. Uh because cost of restoration is going to go up. It's not going to go down >> and each time goes up by that amount
plus the 25% tacked on. And the other thing I don't see in here, I don't know if it's in a place for it or not, is what do you do for penalties if they get within a few years of the end of their site and they just walk away? Yeah, we can go after the land owner, but um are
there any penalties that we should have in a bylaw or is that a separate document? >> Is a zoning bylaw violation? So, you can only go by what? >> Oh, you Okay. >> It's just zone violation, but that's where you get the decommissioning fund.
>> Mhm. and they walk away from it, the funds should be there to remove it and restore it. >> Is that spelled out in policies and procedures, too? Penalties. No, >> no, that's just it's a zoning violation. Uh, any violation of a zoning bylaw is
treated just like any other zoning violation. >> What's the penalty? >> I think there's potential fine of $300 a day, something like that. Uh but zoning is more restricted. They restrict how
you can enforce zoning than they do some other bylaws. >> If we add it in here, would it supersede the zoning? >> This is zoning. >> This is zoning. So could we put something in here that would be a little more >> No, you be governed by what the zoning
>> statute allows. >> Okay. But fines and penalties are in general bylaws. Correct. >> But that doesn't cover zon. >> All right. Okay. >> So, what is your is there any more
questions or >> concerns before we wrap this up? Go ahead. I I have a question. I don't know if it pertains to the bylaws per se, but the land or the acreage that the vest is located on, does that come out in 61A?
Because it's not agricultural at that point. >> Well, if you're using Yeah, you're leasing it. >> If it's a primary use, then I say yes, it comes out 628. But it was a dual use
whereas agraphic. >> Yeah. >> You need to ask your assessor. >> Yeah. The assessor would have to because it's not as it's a battery storage for a company that's making >> but but if it's a dual use solder with
battery energy as part of it the and like the orchard is putting one in. If that's under 61A, I would think it stay under 61A. >> I don't recall that coming out at Bisha Orchards. >> So,
>> but if it's a primary standalone battery energy storage, then yeah, I think it should come out of 61A because that's that's no longer supporting agriculture. It's just storing >> Yeah. Right. Right. >> the energy. >> That isn't Blue Wave or whatever. I
shouldn't say that. whatever the solar company is, wouldn't they be uh making money >> benefiting from that agriculture >> and that and the farmers making money as well, >> right? >> Uh so, uh I think a deal use probably
qualifies 61. That's again a question for your assessor. Um, and I'm sure they're happy with more questions about 61A, but I would think it would cuz it's as long as it doesn't diminish the
agriculture use of the property. Um >> Jeff actually got one thing under decommissioning. Uh on page 18 at the top you see C it says the site plan of the use authority may
allow the owner or operator to leave excuse me and it goes on or designated low grade foundations. I guess my suggestion is cross out designated grade foundations. To me, they should restore the thing. I I know what they, you know, to minimize
erosion. I see what it says there, but they should restore that property to what it was before they got there, including taking out underground conduits and wires and concrete, everything. I mean, I know that that
would be a little risk for minimizing er for erosion, but you're talking acres and acres of stuff underground that could potentially. This is in there just because it may be
circumstances that the greater good says no grant some relief because otherwise it may be so so disruptive to erosion that you've created more of a problem than you had. >> Okay.
>> So the idea would be to take it all out including the underground, >> right? >> It allows you to say but you don't have to in this area or something. >> All right. They'd have come back to plan board and say and should be planning board site plan authority >> Jeff and in two on that page 17
decommissioning shall consist of physical removal of all past installations structures equipment security barriers distribution and or transmission lines from the site. >> Yeah, the transmission lines don't say underground. Well, there
>> so there is a bunch of overhead stuff. >> Okay. So, I'll make there's some change to be made. I'll make those and get those to you. >> All right. Going forward because you're going to be unavailable for the month of June pretty much
>> unless you meet June 24th. But yeah. So going forward, what should we expect for a timeline to schedule a public hearing? I mean, there's no rush at this point because it's not going to make the upcoming town meeting. So
>> within six months of town meeting, >> what >> a hearing would need to be within six months. If you had mentioned within 6 months, >> so we had here in July, as long as the town meeting sometime this year be fine. Um, >> do you think there'll be another one
before the end of the year or no? >> Chances are probably good. So, most might be possible. >> There have been ones in December. I have seen them in December. I'm just >> December will still work.
>> Yeah, but often times we would >> How how far in advance do you know that schedule? >> Depends on the issues that are coming up. depending on other things that are happening in town. So downtown >> I don't know about Southampton but in most communities I've seen us use the
fall town means driven by financial >> the state budget options >> right >> I just wanted to say thank you for bringing this forward I feel like you're it has been really invaluable I feel like this is leaps and bounds over what
we currently have which is not very much and so I just want to appreciate the time and effort you put towards hearing people's concerns and also working on a draft so quickly. I think it will make a big difference. >> One things you could do is
I can make changes and you can have it posted on your website and so more people have opportunity to comment on and then you can have another mean discussion like this in July finalizing after that for public hearing
in August. And that way hopefully enough people will have seen it comment on it and get to something that doesn't create a knockdown dragout at town. >> Well, and by then there should be the final DOE model. I mean, if they don't
do that before the end of the fiscal year, I don't know what they're going to do. >> At what part during this do we go to the do we take our preliminary one and go to the attorney general or we go to the final? >> Attorney general only goes to attorney general after town meeting votes. >> After town meeting. Okay.
>> But you said the town attorney has to review it before it goes on the warrant. Correct. >> Doesn't have to, but I would recommend they do it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But most communities D or look at noise
to get some more information about the noise. >> D I got one quick question. Concerned about the drinking water issue. >> Would it be possible part of the permitting process that um they're responsible for drilling some
test wells in case there's a fire, in case there's a problem, there's some kind of a baseline to go back to. We put that >> say they never catch on fire but monitor wells. >> We could put that in the politics and
procedure that as part of their site plan uh application they had to um provide >> documentation of the test was it done? >> That's policies and procedures. >> We need that
>> but that's part of the application process. I put that in here as well, but then just they have to submit it as part of the application process. >> Do you do that on all tiers or would you do it tier three four? >> I think just two two >> two three and four.
>> I wouldn't require that for home. >> Just two, three, four. Okay. >> Can you add noise into that? Has to test the existing noise. >> How are they going to do that though? That's the problem. >> Unless they go to another site, which
we've already done. You know, when you talk about noise, I think it's almost impossible to do a pre-development noise test. Now, when you do a cell tower, you can rate do a balloon and people can see how
high it's going to be. But when you're talking about noise generation, I don't see how you can do that before something gets developed. Cuz even if they said, I we're going to take We'll take one
uh box of these of this uh best and put on the site and start going well that's not going to be the same as if they have eight triggers on there. >> Mhm. >> And so and they can't do that unless
they do the unless they do the development. So it's pretty much impossible to do a noise test ahead of time. Well, wouldn't it be zero? I mean, at night there's no noise at all. There's >> no there's quiet. >> That's called the ambient noise.
>> There is noise. You may not >> may not notice it, but there is an ambient noise level already. And that's the reason you can't say you can't increase noise because there is noise.
Um and sudden that 20 25 may be below your ambient noise. You may find out that traffic on the roadway generates that level or or people's cows or or horses or
if you don't have the basic and you say they could allow a certain percentage above and you don't have a starting point. That's the reason set that's the reason Bford is going with a fixed number >> regardless of the ambient noise is they
can't go above this level only in residential areas we all know woods >> there's a a family that lives in Munson across the street from a system they can't sit out in their yard they can't
open their windows. Now, that's sad >> due to noise. You're saying >> due to noise. >> And that's after they put up sound attention. They put up sound barriers >> because they were above the threshold >> and that cut the noise in half. They still don't fail.
>> I mean, it's really >> So, it's that's the noise is definitely a big concern. And I understand there's no way to really test it till they're up and running in which case it's kind of late. >> All right, ladies and gentlemen. Thank
you for your input. We'll see you again down the road when we put the final touches on this. Thanks, Rich, for coming in. >> Oh. I wanted to see that. That's what a best looks like. That's the one that just got built up in Granville on an
apple orchard. Abandoned apple orchard. >> Wow. >> And that's supposed to be up and running next month. >> And how big is that? >> How big is that? >> How many How many mega? >> I have no idea. >> I have no idea. It's going to it's going
to be online in June. I said Rick and I have to go. We've gone through many of them around here. We just have to see if it's >> and they're in the middle of nowhere. There's no houses around so it doesn't bother anyone. >> We just have to get it. As I said, more
agenda items going, people. So, thank you. noise and >> what the longest >> longest meeting we've had in two years. >> Mhm. >> Just going over fees. >> What precipitated precipitated this fee structure
>> was the cell tower company uh that put in the application for cell tower said he couldn't find >> he couldn't use us please. >> Thank you. Can you continue our meeting? The cell tower guy says, "I couldn't find that. There's a fee for cell
towers." >> Oh, 12,000 >> for special permit. >> Yes, >> special permit. Because we didn't have one. >> So, what did we put it under commercial something? >> I've got what I told you. But, so basically what I've done is I took your
existing B your system fee schedule, looked where there are some contradictions or there are some gaps and plug those in. Um, for the most part, I try to use
the parameters you have in your existing bylaw, but I would tell you that a fee, application fee is not a tax. An application fee is intended to cover the cost of processing the permanent
application, >> meaning including your fees. Correct. Yep. But but the problem we have with that is if you charge the applicant a a fee under uh chapter 44 53g,
you can't also charge them the application fee that they that cover the same cost. >> Yeah. >> So for instance, I I separate my time on the cell tower and other things that you then charge the applicant for. Well,
that that you can't do that if you take if your application fee is so high it covers all. >> Well, that's a good question because we've done it in the past where they've kind of double dipped. We've double dipped in that regard, but I want to make sure the fee for some of these
things is high enough to cover your fees. >> Yeah. >> You know, so now we're not losing money on it if I'm not going to charge them for it. But for instance, there's no way there's no way unless you have a lot of town council involvement that you're
going to have an expense of $5,000 to review a solar array because you're going you're going to charge for peer review of the application
under chapter 44 section 3G. So, so I I think I would suggest I wouldn't immediately cut these, but I would suggest that that's something you need to think about how you want to manage that. Um,
and what what I did was basically make sure we're covered by unknown or unspecified applications for site plan and for special permit. and subdivisions, I'd put an basic
application fee. So, somebody comes in for a commercial building or a or something that's not specified. you got a basic application fee, you know, you can charge them that like in
Hadley um they allow the u the applicant to select a peer reviewer of their choice and pre-approved peer review of their choice and they applicant pays for the review.
They allow the applicant to choose them >> that the No, they're telling you history. Uh and had they they have three approve three or four approved peer reviewers. >> Okay. >> And then the applicant can submit a a
proposal request proposal from those applicants. I mean from those approved peers and the applicant pays the review. No, >> I would strongly discourage that process.
>> I mean, I was one of the >> I don't think that I don't think that's consistent. Chapter 44, section 53G. >> I I don't know. I'm just trying to think the answers on it. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm saying you don't want to charge an application fee $25, but it cost a $5,000 review. You're not going
to charge $5,000 for an application fee if it just cost $10 review. Uh but um how do you >> um get a happy medium >> because if you do it under 4453G then the applicant has opportunity to
appeal the selection. The board is supposed to make the selection not the actor. >> I don't know what happened to it Jim but have page one two and three. >> I never have a full book. So, do should
we does this have to be that doesn't need a hearing fee schedule, does it? >> I I think you should I think you should hold a hearing on >> I don't have a page one. I'll just >> page one. Um >> hold true for policies and procedures too. >> Yes. My scanner
>> now given your the status of your fee schedule. >> Okay, I got that. Anyway, >> it's not required and so you might want to just adopt something revising your fee schedule and this be your revision. So, you got
something in the books and then when we add the policies and procedures, I'd recommend those be done through public hearing. >> You have three. >> I know that eats up your money. >> Oops. Tell Paul we found it. The only thing you had a a blank on on the first page
is battery energy storage systems less than 250 kW. >> That's a home. That would be home. >> I think it would and I don't I can't see where they would ever >> come in for plane review and myation is
to scratch through that but I just don't draw that to your attention >> before I did that. >> That's funny. So, I would draw that out and even if something came in where it had to be, that you'd still have the basic fee anyway. I think I think we're
charging for a residential one now. We were charging 125 bucks, I thought. But they're by right now, aren't they? >> Yeah. >> So, there's no fee schedule with it, right? >> No. But if there if there for instance if there was a
not a accessory use one that came in you still be able to charge 200 bucks for it. I think it should be sufficient for a small >> so less than $250 $200. >> No I would not even put that I would just if something came in like that I'd
use your basic application fee that I've got in here. >> Oh I got you. Okay. uh that the basic fee covers what's not specified. >> So if you had to if you amend the zoning
bylaw and create another use, you've got something that covers it. >> Okay. >> And um the only one of the ones I had highlighted in page two, storm water erosion and sediment control. So we've got subdivisions, single family
residents. So I'm saying Your current fee schedule has special permit for storm water and erosion sediment control. There's not a special permit associated with it. That's the reason I took that's why I
revised this. And basically these fees are what your current fee schedule would require under that under that category except I put other in there in case there's a uh storm water erosion control
that doesn't involve subdivision cluster commercial industrial. He just got 258. >> Okay. >> Breaker. Do you think the 650 is enough for subdivisions, cluster developments, and commercial >> for an application fee for storm water?
Yes. That's not going to be your peer reviewer. That's going to be your application fee for for that. >> And if you're involved, >> that's going to be for storm water
permit associated with those. Remember, if you do a subdivision, let's say a defended plan, you're you're going to be paying 850 or more
in your application, plus you're going to pay a storm permit. >> Mhm. So, you're going to be paying the town at a minimum for two lot subdivision 950 plus 850 650. That's
>> $1,800. >> Yeah. $1,600 at least. >> 1800, >> which I think and that's not the peerreview cost. That's your basic permitting cost.
>> Mhm. So I think that's sufficient, more than sufficient. >> And your peer review fees on the last page, those were kind of guesstimates because you had a caveat there where they may be increased based on the estimates provided. >> Yeah, these are deposit the minimum
deposits they had to make unless you and then if you get a cost proposal that's more than that, they've got to supplement these deposits. So at their time application they can submit these you get a peer review peer review that
comes in let's say for a uh multif family. No that's a defended sub plan a defended sub subdivision plan and the peer review for that is going to be their fee is 1,400
you're fine. They come in peer review fee is going to be 2500 gives another $1,000 so we can continue with it. Seems to me that subdivisions that should be higher though. >> Well, can we talk about that? I mean,
can we mull on this and come back at the next meeting? >> Yeah, this is just a draft. Yeah, >> just a draft. Okay. I go through I want to compare it. >> All right. So, um, our next meeting we're that hearing for the cell tower. So, I'll I'm going
to you're going to send me some comments. >> Yeah. Um, >> because you won't be around for it. >> I know you're not going to close it at night >> because we need we're going to need a peer review on it, >> right? And I'm currently in process of
getting two peerreview quotes on it for cellar review. There's not many companies that do sell tire reviews. Um, when I worked in South Alley, we used Cityscapes do peer review and like them. So,
they're going to give me a proposal and Isotropes has done work for a number of communities in Massachusetts on peer reviews as well as for companies and they're giving me they've already given me a uh proposal. So I'll have at least
those two and I advise both those is I would anticipate at the initial hearing June 3rd the board will uh select a peer reviewer. I will note we can notify the applicant beforehand
what the range of the cost are and they can come prepared to give the town a check for the peer review and then that you can initiate peer review as soon as you have the money. Um and I would expect they're going to
give me a time frame. Uh I expect the peer review would take a couple weeks at least. So I would expect you to continue the hearing till >> July. >> July or if you want to do special meeting June 24th and make that your
second meeting, I can be there at that meeting. Um but I'll turn it just in July. Uh one of the um one the firms mentioned that they asked when the application was
received because there's a shot clock in the FCC. they had to operate under and basically you've got a deadline of October for acting on the application unless they agree to extension otherwise in the
FCC rules it gets approved >> and I don't see my response I don't see that as an issue because I would expect you you're going to take action no later than August or September So, >> I got a a separate question. I don't
know if something we should think about or not. I know we have a solar bylaw. We now have the battery storage bylaw. >> We don't have yet. We got a draft. >> Well, we're draft of it. And the only other thing I don't we don't have, it's not in the books, and I don't even know if it's a big thing anymore, but I I fly around. I see a lot of them. Wind power.
We have no windmills. That's totally off our books. So if somebody comes to us with a proposal, do we have any leg to stand on or they get it by right? Should we incorporate something like that with the battery? But that would
tie up the solar, the wind. >> A use that's not specified is prohibited. >> It's what was that again? >> A use that's not specified is prohibited. >> Oh, really? Okay. >> I thought it was the other way around.
>> No, no. If the zone bylaw doesn't make provision for it, it's prohibited unless the building commissioner as enforcement officer makes a determination that is so similar to another use that is allowed that way. Um,
>> okay. in uh South Hadley, they didn't have a cell tower bylaw and they had cell tower put up and tanners put up on a water tank and I said, "How did they get approved before I came there?" And there had been an
interpretation that the by the building commissioner and the my predecessor that antennas on the water tank were cell tower. they were a utility and therefore since the water tower was a
utility they were allowed as part of that utility. I didn't when I came in I didn't agree with that interpretation >> and redeveloped the cell tower bylaw to regulate. I guess
>> it's it it's in my opinion somebody they wanted to allow it because there's revenue for the water department water uh fire discipline water department and so the main interpretation that allowed that go and nobody's going to object to
it being on >> yeah everybody likes cell towers >> but for the cell >> well they like them when they're not freestanding when on water tanks or in other buildings that's fine. Mhm. >> Put a freestanding cell tower up and
people will come out in droves at times. Um >> got to put a couple branches in it. You can never tell. >> The um I wonder how is going to address air is coming up sometime on the old pro
brush building. There's a cell tower on the old smoke stack there at the Pro Brush building. >> Oh yeah. >> And the smoke stack is falling down. So they've they've approached the Elks next door about putting up a cell tower on their property and saying, "I wonder how
that's going to fly in that neighborhood going from a smoke stack to an actual tower itself." That'll generate opposition probably. >> Um because then be close to houses and stuff and >> um but yeah, there's currently two
freestanding cell towers in South A. One of them, first one, they identified a location, did balloon test, end up moving it to another location.
They went from a farmer's property or guy said he was a farmer to the Girl Scout camp site in South Adley. And uh the first guy got really ticked off
because he felt we were making them move it from his property to someone else's property. So he was losing that revenue. Not only that, he had a feud with his neighbor who was another farmer. And to get in the Girl Scout property,
they had to acquire easement through his neighbor's property, which got him some money and some improvement to his driveway, accessed his green houses to access. It became a it became a nightmare.
Um, but it did work out better. The bet near the location chose was less noticeable. when you're looking at Mount Holy Gra. The second one we had a peer viewer help with that. And
initially if you wanted all these foliage, well they got he started talking about what you had to do to make that work and someone just the internal well if you did internal it has to be higher.
So the question is, do you want a higher one that has nothing standing out or do you want a shorter one with that looks like someone trying to make a tree? >> Exactly. I've seen >> you pike just breaking trees. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Almost. I could never tell. >> We had buffer requirements that meant they need they need to get wavered. they had put in this one location or
if they get a variance from ZBA where we had a quad they had to be 7 ft off conservation property if they get variance for that they put out where nobody would it won't be near anybody's house
guess what happened variance got denied so they had to be posted to be with houses than they wanted to be or any of the neighbors wanted. Nobody objected to the variance but it got
denied. >> By the way, that cell company, they put in a separately balloon test. >> Yeah. >> Which I'm surprised cuz I had it in my >> Do you need anything on this one? >> I think I think it's a good idea. No, I put it in mine on >> I think I think it's a good idea on
their part to advertise it separately. >> Oh, do you need anything on this warrant or is that just for our information? >> Oh, I'm sorry. I need a motion I think to pay that
28240 to the gazette and it's we had a outstanding credit of like $353. So, the actual bill for the uh cell tower legal ad was over $600 or so, $700
something. But anyway, that's the net the net on it is 28240. So, need a motion on that. >> I'll make a motion to pay the gazette the 282.40. >> I will second that. >> Motion made by Jim, second by Mark. All in favor?
>> I. And just so you'll know for your June 3rd meeting, you'll have something you haven't had since last July. Invoice from me. >> We don't do those. >> Yeah, those are we only do those every 3 years. >> So So in at June 3rd meeting, you'll
have invoice. >> Yeah. I I was wondering, but I thought you were saving it up. >> Yeah, it's going to be one big one just at one time. >> Here's the money for a vacation. >> No, it won't go over contract. I'll make I I always make sure I never go over a
contract. I absorb hours just to make sure that doesn't happen. >> Thank you, sir. >> Perfect. >> Motion to journ. >> Make a motion. We adjourn. All in favor? >> I. than our local cable subscribers.