##VIDEO ID:Y_BrUZjBXBc## this government meeting is brought to you by eastw works and our local cable subscribers all right at this time I'm going to open the uh February 5th town of Southampton planning board meeting and welcome the members of uh Charter Spectrum uh in the listening audience and U we have a quorum present tonight Dan L Valley Mark darnold myself Paul demon um Paul FAL may join us um at some point and the first order of business tonight is I just would like to U let the board know and make it uh read it into the record that I received a letter of resignation um by Steph Johnson um to step back from the board and uh with regrets and I'd like to thank Stephen for the time that he spent with us and I wish him well because I know he's on a lot of other committees in town uh the first uh agenda item I have here is the chapter 61 withdrawal request by Jeffrey and Carolyn Floric uh 3.19 Acres at 158 f road map 27 lot 3 and I received a packet for the members I just gave you a couple of sheets on it I didn't send you the whole packet and I'm glad Richard's here tonight too just to maybe clear up some questions but um the main question was is there's not a u a bill of sale with this but an appraisal and typically when we're dealing with these we're dealing with a purchase and sale agreement as part of the application process um that being the case there is an appraisal it's U quite in depth and I did read in the uh one of the paragraphs of the Mass General Law chapter that um absent of purchase and sale and Appraisal um is um necessary and also the town meaning the select board end could require an independent appraisal as well the town would do an appraisal on top of of this particular one as I read the statute the applicant the owner doesn't have to do an appraisal then just give notice of withdrawal if the town wants to exercise their right to quir they do an appraisal uh and then they had to buy it for the appraised value if the owner doesn't agree with that appraisal they can do have their appraisal done and and then eventually could have three appraisals but but yeah but process basically is they submit their request withdrawal if the town wants to exercise the right then they would need to have appraisal done Jeff Floric is here and Jeff just give us a little bit of information you is it is it 3.19 I'm confused on one of these Maps it on the application it says 3.19 and there's one here that says one 1.62 or something together well oh they're they're combined yeah all right so um and again I couldn't find it here unless I probably dig through some of the fine print but on the entire site there's how many acres um 30 plus 30 plus all right so that's what I didn't have but you uh for your information similar to last meeting when we had the one over off of um peat Road or in that area where there was several Acres being that that were existing but yet only four I think or five were taking out for building Lots so there's only 3.9 being with 3.19 being withdrawn on this um any questions from any of the board members um once again if there's there's uh it it looks like it's a building lot eventually right yeah y for residential both both those have been per okay anything from you Mark um I um on P recently was we had a foret where chapter 61 um was put up and we had to the board form reject a request for I mean first refusal that included with this what was that again uh if someone's telling a chapter 61 partial the town has wrer first refusal I'm not following um and this is this is this remove Pizza property from um 61a is that correct 61 yeah 61 61 B uh okay I'm sorry yeah 61 Not A or B it's just 61 and so the town has right to indicate they want to buy it or not and they right to buy it or supersede anybody else's I see cies here from the assessors anything you would like to comment at all taped right tonight hi Cindy Palmer 71 Glendale um actually the board of assessors hasn't yet reviewed um and given an opinion on this um however um I I stepped in here to hear how you guys are going to deliberate on this and see what your thoughts are um I will say one thing we did vote um nope that was the other property I apologize excuse me that was the other one from last week that you looked at so I don't have anything else to add well giving that there's 30 plus remaining and um we're not talking a a big parcel here I have no objections to waving our right mhm I have no objections no objections I hear can I have a motion then from one of my constituents here oh right can I would like to make a motion to uh to wave wave thank you that's the right word our right of first refusal for the uh property uh on former Road from chapter 61 it's 158 former 27 thank you thank you motion made by Dan do have a second I second Mark second any other further discussion all in favor I I I so this will I'll send our um motion along to the corresponding boards that also have to Dear with this and process will keep on going until it ends up at the select board I assume correct y that would be the way thank you thank you gentlemen all right next we have Kyle finel is here with us for some DTA Grant work that was awarded To Us by pvpc on water supply protection zoning revision and is here tonight to show us the draft and we go forward from there good evening board members I do have prints of the memo and Amendment thank you very much that different from the one you sent or no they're just broken up little is it the same as you emailed [Music] out so I'm joining you tonight to offer a final memo on the work conducted by Pioneer Valley Planning Commission as part of our district local technical assistance um project from calendar year 2024 where we reviewed the town of southampton's existing water supply protection overlay District bylaw um so we're going to go through um um the work that was completed primarily as task one which was focusing on the bylaw itself there is a secondary memo that was uh distributed to members of the board and is um included in the packet that I just handed out that relates to the secondary task of the project and we can get into that as well um that related to public engagement with neighboring communities um concerning the shared aquer resource so the task works that was completed through the project um there was a thorough review and comparison of the existing provisions of the water supply Protection District that's zoning bylaw section 7.2 uh comparing U the existing bylaw to the mass Depp model bylaw on groundwater protection uh pbpc staff held periodic meetings with Mr Richard Harris planning consultant with the town uh on update to the work and just to clarify questions and gain guidance there is a memo and draft recommendations that I presented at the October 2nd planning board meeting um where we had a thorough discussion on a few of the provisions we did complete an update of the Southampton zoning map which was sent to the planning board chair electronically we also uh following the October meeting uh drafted a revised use table where we tried to insert Pro uh permitted uses within the district uh into the existing table of use by adding a new column um we completed the redline version drafting the the water supply Protection District bylaw and then we've Al also provided uh an amended um bylaw that's at the back of the memo so it's it just reads cleanly with all without all the edits and reformat so before I get into details of the work I would just like to offer uh a thank you to the members of the planning board for your assistance assistance collaboration guidance on some of these topics and also thank you Mr Harris for your uh time and contributions so if we want to look at the uh existing bylaw that's provided in Red Line edits um it's a little hard to follow but you'll see what has been added and what remains of the original uh italicized text uh comes directly uh either either directly from the model bylaw or is um uh revised language upon consultation or just to provide [Music] Clarity a bulk of the work uh relates to combining existing um sections of the bylaw that relate to prohibited and restricted uses so following feedback from the board in October we decided to closely align with the model bylaw create one single uh subsection on prohibited uses and follow the model bylaw by introducing um specific performance standards so uh of the subsections of the bylaw that are um most uh directly amended or revised in section 72d uh District delineation language from the model bylaw was inserted um intended to offer greater protection to the water supply by including all Parcels divided by The District boundary there was a request at the October October meeting for some additional GIS analysis geographic information system analysis um due to a limited budget on our GIS we didn't get to that um I do provide a recommendation if that is information the board would like to have before determining if this exact Clause is relevant or necessary um I can support the the planning board chair in requesting local technical assistance from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission uh our GIS specialist doesn't expect this would take a lot of time but he would want to spend a few hours just to clarify and be exact um uh to at least give a sense of how many Parcels this actually impacts uh because as you know the boundaries are extensive across the total area of the community but also um um line in terms of linear feet the boundary is extensive it it circles back it Loops there's Pockets there's a secondary section up in the northwest corner of town which is the Thai cared Reservoir Watershed so there's a lot of boundary to examine if I can inject I think it's even more important to see which part how Parcels are impacted by it because you may have a 30 acre tract of land that has one acre within the boundary but this language would apply to all 30 Acres I think it's one thing when you have a 1 acre piece of property and 40,000 ft is in the dist district and you're applying to the additional 3,000 sare ft that's not as big an issue it's I think it's the so I think it's it's knowing which parcels and how big they are and how much is being applied to by this so I think they could do a free technical assistance to do that think it'd be worthwhile to have the chair request that yeah yeah the process for requesting local technical assistance is really just a an email request from the planning board chair uh directly to the executive director who then reviews budgets and can allocate hours as needed so um if the chair would like I can also follow up with draft language if that would be helpful it's please need not be overly complicated so moving along um section 7.2 e prohibited uses um again the general guidance provided by the planning board in October was to bring the existing water supply Protection District bylaw into closer alignment with the mass D model so primarily that comes in the form of adding um the Clause relating to prohibited uses if quote designed in accordance with spe specific performance standards so similar language was introduced at the top of that subsection MH uh and then redirects the uh audience of the bylaw to section 7.2 G which is your special permitting procedures so where the model bylaw provided specific performance standards or references to state regulations similar or often times exact language was introduced to the relevant existing provisions there were several uh insertions so if you want to draw your attention um those Provisions that were amended 7.2 Point E1 regarding hazardous materials 7.2 E3 regarding Solid Waste 7.2 E4 regarding underground storage of petroleum products 7.2 E6 regarding outdoor storage de icing materials 7.2 E9 regarding Earth removal and 7.2 e13 regarding above ground storage of petroleum products there were two Provisions in this subsection um that we inserted directly from the Mast EP model bylaw that's 7.2 E5 regarding storage of sludge and septic and 7.2 e 11 regarding the stockpiling of snow from outside the district so both subsections were found to already exist in the town of southampton's General bylaws regulations chapter 280 which is the groundwater protection regulations um under the authority of the Board of Health we had discussed um at the October meeting that there are some instances of duplication and and given that the groundwater protection regulations are limited to Zone 2 which is not the entirety of the water supply Protection District but a majority of it um these two uh Provisions at least were brought in exactly to expand or extend those protections across the entirety of the water supply Protection District overlay the revision of 7.2 E9 regarding Earth removal within 4 feet of the annual High groundwater table uh that was changed also to align exactly with the existing Town law General bylaw or the town General bylaw excuse me so the one provision that was untouched uh which I welcome a pause and discussion if we'd like 7.2 E2 regarding Trucking terminals bus terminals car washes motor vehicle gasoline sales and automotive service and repair shops so I believe we understand in our conversation in October there's um this particular provision has led kind of to this task uh in a past application um the ex the model bylaw provides no language on these uses um in terms of specific performance standards additionally I did a brief comparison referring to neighboring communities that share the Barnes great um the Barnes Great Brook aquafers um so looking at eastampton Westfield Southwick their water supply protection uh bylaws have a very similar provision minor differences um Southwick focuses on Marine um fueling Westfield has some exception for um Aviation refueling I also looked at Hadley uh they include this similar provision as a prohibited use with no performance um uh standards references so I think that's where there's still some opportunity to either revise the provision by teasing it apart or clarifying um I believe there may be a potential with some of these that are listed in the table of use to pull out and um clarify that the you know as it exists in an underlying zoning there could be a special permit process to follow um but of course that would be at the determination of the board but as it's written according to this there be these are prohibited yes so let me get this right so you could you could request in CT is it certain zones or or we we uh categorize different businesses that would be allowed so to speak under a special permit so if if we were to take this provision uh 72 E2 and we broke apart um some of the some of the uses are listed in the table of use as requiring special permit in commercial and or industrial zones so if you separate those I believe any of those uses would automatically um lead an applicant to follow um the provisions in 72 g1a commercial and Industrial uses which are allowed in the underlying District so if you were to tease those apart I would think that an applicant would just automatically follow the special permit process without specific guidelines or performance standards Rec you were going to interject something Hadley has same provision as this prohibiting uh your gas gasoline sales in the water to my recollection it they don't I don't have it in front of me it was again a quick reference I could clarify but I'm fairly sure they had some prohibit my recollection was they went to the U model language on un on storage of petrolium products that has the performance standard so it can be above ground with right yeah um um spill containment yeah yeah the 110% or whatever right uh I'd have to again I'd have to go back it's this this what got started all this a couple years ago this very same issue right and um I know Holio has something like this but they have some allow that they've got some cont contradictions inin right um if you want to allow any of this if this stays in here is prohibited is prohibited right what you'd have to do is take it out of here and put it in under the special permit provision if you want allow the special permit and make it clear that to get the special permit you have to have the performance standards met otherwise you don't necessarily have to perform standards met uh I thought one of the biggest questions regarding that other one that uh was disallowed when they tried to change the zoning was um there was there was a question about whether it was Zone one two or three the the water supply if it was going to make a difference which zone it was in so you knew which one you might be allow versus one you wouldn't um there's no there's no zoning districts in in Southampton now you just go by the water supply Protection District as a whole you can create regulations for Zone one separate from zone two separate from Zone 3 recognizeing mass does not map nor regulate Zone 3 right um which not going one of my other questions I got to later on but where that zone 3 is included here cuz I'm not sure you get the information from um so I I would suggest this is something we need to look a little bit further but how we want to address this um and I recognize that DOA has finished this it's going beyond that uh but we need we need to take a look at this before we take a town meeting for sure would you what what are your comments Dan or Mark I mean all those types of businesses as as it is are going to be prohibited right yeah so I think mind if I go first oh sorry sorry you started to talk I think that we want to we have a number of these businesses already in these in these uh in the water supply Protection District um so what we want to do is make sure that they're applying the right uh compliance standards like for storage of fuel uh petroleum products for so that they can continue to use operate the way they are but be in compliance to these these rules so we're protecting our water but still allowing um these operations to occur well um just to follow the question uh are they not grandfathered if they're functioning prior to the change regulation yeah it's not going to affect grandfather businesses the the existing ones are allowed to continue okay um that's they may have to get a either finding from the board of appeals or a special per from the planning board to making alterations or expansion but I also think like if we go back to the trigger event for all this we want to try to allow that type of business but in a safe manner right which I think is what we can do by crafting this the right way no I think check and find word I think brought this up last time it it says it prohibited transmission of um [Music] um petroleum products and to be the previous Gas Station review have the gas from the tank pumped on the driveway to the pumps right um and so I it's a tiny thing but I'd rather solve that now than during a hearing process what what Hadley has prohibited is petroleum fuel oils and heat oil bulk stations and terminals above ground and then there has some uh storage of liquid hazards materials unless and then that goes into the mass D model standards um same is storage of liquid petroleum products in excess of 15 Gallons so unless above ground level and on an improv surface and either in a container you can fall Mass the EP standards um so that that's how Hadley had treats that I I just one because I remember read it somewhere so they don't actually prohibit those they they have they're prohibited unless you meet these standards right right I mean it was quite it was quite noticeable when you know the project up there on College Highway came before us I mean there was pretty much some veh opposition to it even though a guy said you could you could drive a tank through the the um the tank and and wouldn't uh damage it I mean and they they had they had their professionals here with all the technical information but it's still didn't still didn't fly with some people so I I don't know I it's a sensitive issue I suppose but it's just U it's holding back some some Commerce I mean I don't I don't Envision us having Trucking terminal or bus terminals around here um but you know you car wash a gas station or another service repair shop you know you're holding back some growth in that regard when it comes to business but um I this something the board may want to consider uh as I said if you want to consider what you probably want to look at is yeah prohibiting the truck terminals stuff like that but then put as far as taking out the gasoline cells and car wash out of the prohibition and then go by go into the special permit section and put the pum storage and cells yeah as a special permit f it meets these performance standards which are in the model bylaw that's the way I would suggest but again getting back to the the zones if there's if there's less fear of some sort of great damage to the aquifer if it was in zone two versus Zone one or zone three that that would be helpful because it would guide you a little bit better knowing that you know they would be if it was in zone one which I'm sure is the the um most protective correct that's supposed to actually be owned or controlled by the uh water supply right you would say absolutely not but you would want to maybe give them a provision to be available to operate in zone two or three if if if it was on the books but there there's no zones delineated in here at all around the map is there just zone two just zone two zone two the the delineation of the overlay District aligns with Zone 2 with the addition of the um Watershed for the Reservoir the Tha car Reservoir so we don't have a one or a three yeah one is basically 4 what was that around the well around the well dependent on the size of the well it could be less than yeah withdrawal rate determines the U size of his own again like you said that has to be under total control of the water supply District anyway and and I know DP has allowed some communities to some water supply entities to do that through easement and some have it through ownership yes ownership being the ideal yes um we have we have ownership if you look at that property of where our well is on the map you'll see this like carve in a circle around on the property boundary so it's usually around 400t radius yeah unless is a small wealth well I about excuse me the rest of the board but I would I would certainly like to separate a few of those businesses out car washes and yeah gas seals and repair shops over terminals yeah absolutely that's the point I I get to is we have those businesses in those districts now anyways I'd rather new ones come in that are in compliance with these regulations such that they are protecting our water supply in a better manner um and to be quite honest with you remember um I don't think you're on the board then but a few years back Cumberland Farms had did some inquiries about expanding and renovating their store there like they did with several of their others and they didn't go forward with it and I'm sure it had something to do with the existing bylaw yeah so I'd rather have I would my opinion is I'd rather would have had them update their store and put the tanks in a safer place exactly than they are now so better better for the town okay let's uh we're going to flag that one then go ahead keep going Kyle so section 72g relating to special per uses two Provisions were revised following uh the October meeting uh first 7.2 g1c pertaining to impervious cover was adjusted from the existing 20% uh threshold to 15% that aligns with the model bylaw uh and provides greater protection to the water supply uh additionally there is language from the model bylaw included in that subsection that relates to um a system of artificial recharge um that would not result in degradation of groundwater quality so there is a provision there with some general guidance on performance standards I believe this clause also shows up in chapter 280 um the groundwater protection regulations from the Board of [Music] Health uh the other addition to this subsection uh 7.2 g2e which now requires that the provided site plan include proposed downg gradient locations for groundwater monitoring Wells that was a topic of conversation at our October meeting and I following review of that conversation I repositioned it as a um a standard requirement for all site plans proposing those Well locations um which the board has the authority to determine if those Wells are necessary um that pretty much covers the revisions amendments to the bylaw um additional work um relating to the oh yeah okay I'm going back here looking at this e is prohibited use uses yes for hi uses in include the following underground storage outdoor storage dumping and then item 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 we're taking is they were restricted uses and now they're prohibited uses I think those I think I just I think what we need to do is if we're going to leave them as prohibited uses we would need to go and put B storage tanks unless for under 13 batr storage tanks for oil gas petrum products unless place in the building all this I so I think we need to when when change these from restricted to prohibited there needs to be changing in the verbiage reads as prohibited unless um so I wouldn't need make wouldn't need flag those for revision as well um I was looking at the use table and I understand how difficult it is to trans translate the water supply Protection District into the usth table I've wrestled with that for several decades in South Hadley and I've never been satisfied with it but um in the Ed table anything identified as the p is permitted m in the 7.2 there is no section of permitted uses so we'll need to incorporate something to reconcile that difference right even is to the extent that permitted uses are those uses identified in table one as permitted by right in the water supply Protection District that type of language would address that and the nature of of this is that for instance in the use table where it's blank under waterf Protection District that is to be interpreted as prohibited oh because in a use table like this if it's not indicated as being permitted in some fashion is prohibited that's the standard interpretation of a use table um and you note in the key on the US table it has a dash not permitted yeah that Dash same as a blank oh there's a lot there's a lot of prohibited uses then in this table yeah and so we we need to do some reconciliation of that which is unreasonable and then the problem you have is [Music] taking a water supply Protection District which is an overlay and had and a lot of the uses are have caveats of performance standards and translating that into a tab form gets a little tricky and so we'll need to spend some time addressing those to make sure that it's clear that they are permitted uh because for instance no agriculture uses are fine as long as you have the uh performance standards yeah I mean could you have just a simple statement um um all uses permitted within the underlying districts I mean all uses within the underlying districts are permitted unless prohibited under Section we can work some nice simple language address that even solar is not allowed even churches AR allowed there some people don't think it should be but yeah that's question but we'll have to reconcile that yeah a lot of those got to be and that's not a big big issue do they it's just no I said with the water spot Protection District it becomes more tricky than does any other District because of nature of water spot protection of course [Music] okay um yes so the the attached U table of use is um was a draft and is as noted is incomplete so I think did a great job trying to incorporate into it's just a real challenge of trying to do that it's just because if you look at the language in water protection district 7.2 it doesn't direct correlate to the use uses listed and that so you really have have challenging and most often the use is permitted if they meet certain performance standard which can be referen in there that's um so uh just a quick note on the town zoning map uh while that um has been provided a digital format has been provided uh again that uh shows the zone 2 delineation determined by mast EP and the Watershed of the Ty hary Reservoir um as described in earlier sections of the zoning or the water supply Protection District bylaw um um this map would require approval at town meeting to become official and adopted um so that the town clerk could record it um there are some recommended next steps um as mentioned it's always uh important to uh Rectify um any discrepancies or inconsistencies that come up in various sections of the zoning bylaw um so a more thorough kind of cross comparison internally within um the zoning bylaw with permitted uses but also SE sections and Provisions related to soil LOM sand gravel quy and other earth materials uh commercial activities and of course uh aligning the water supply Protection District bylaw with chapter 280 our general recommendations moving forward uh I do point out that um following the October 2nd meeting um I went back through chapter 280 briefly to try to get a sense of the extent of that General bylaw um the way that it is written uh the regulations and proh prohibitions outlined there apply to zone two strictly uh but um uh apply quote not withstanding other sections of the bylaw so um the groundwater protection regul ations would supersede zoning is my understanding of how that General bylaw is written so U just a stronger case for trying to align with what the Board of Health is attempting to achieve in their regulations uh and then of course um Pioneer Valley Planning Commission we are not legal experts so we always recommend that um Town Council has a a review of any uh bylaw amendments and that summarizes a bulk of the work um I'm happy to um discuss any of these items or uh take a moment just to uh quickly summarize the secondary memo which relates to um the work related um with communities of the former bayac Barnes Aqua for protection advisory [Music] Council so a secondary element of the dlta project was to convene a round table to bring representatives of um East Hampton Westampton Westfield Southampton um to the table to discuss the shared resource which is the Barnes great Great Brook aquafer um for this uh work Town Administrator Scott uh Z Zac there we go uh and water superintendent Brett Simmons um were instrumental hosting and uh coordinating conversations um Personnel from the public water suppliers or water departments from East Hampton Southampton West Springfield and Southwick uh attended conversations uh a round table conversation to discuss what they experience um um so key findings uh participating water departments and their staff uh value or appreciate cross jurisdictional collaboration given that zone Twos for their respective Drinking Water Supplies um extend beyond the municipal boundaries uh there's a shared concern amongst um Municipal Water Department staff about adequate protection of Supply uh at an in-person meeting on the 13th of November uh water department staff across the communities um uh very excited to collaborate um um offering uh expertise and guidance uh and making themselves more available to contact um so uh there was an invitation to join the conversation offered to Westfield um the mayor responded and an email that raise some past historic issues with Barnes aquafer protection advisory committee uh which the group bayac did work under a 25-year memorandum of agreement before it expired um uh so there was uh Westfield opted out of the conversation at the time um so at this time um the water department personnel didn't see a value of reconstituting aaer protection Advisory Group um given that Westfield was absent and there didn't seem to be shared interest from all uh Municipal [Music] Executives um there was continued discussion on challenges and ways to address the challenges uh that are provided with appendices in the memo that was distributed um [Music] and then there was a final survey to help prioritize those challenges and U hopefully direct future action um I'm happy to continue get through all this if you'd like to read it in the record but the planning board chair hasn't and everyone has access to the memo and [Applause] attachments yeah I would just note when we talk about the Department's being uh informed about the velopment occurring in proximity to well whenever a special permit or defend the seion plan is filed the planning board gives notice to the all the joining planning boards of that public hearing and I think it' be Inc Comon for a community to internally create a system whereby that planning board then distributes copies that notice to Apartments within their community that might be impacted by it and instead of imposing another burden on the applicant to give additional notice to people I think the community can create their own internal system fair and I notice are not being serated well a perfect example of that kind of communication was that battery energy storage system in Westfield you know that that that thing grew like wildfire when um the word got around and everybody everybody in this community responded and several others on top of it so um the word the word got out and then once it did devolves upon people to take notice okay is that it Kyle all um nothing more to report at this time all right well you did a lot of work there thank you hope it is helpful so we have got to just clear up some of the language we we need sit down and go through it at a uh session and do some tweaking or you then hold public hearing and take it to town meeting yep okay very good um Mr chair I will follow up uh next week with an email for local technical assistance if you're interested for the gis analysis yeah please want that excuse me send me some information on what I've got a request or how how I should go about it yes I'll thank you all have a nice evening thank you Kyle Richard you have solar um discussion draft amendments for us I don't think I'm going go through every word of it but no but I mean you've got the highlights um I mean all right go ahead um same based what I've tried to do is make small systems easier for permitting mhm and make dual use systems that are agricultural uh supportive easier for permitting mhm and accessory systems easier permitting and make only the quotequote large commercial yep that don't involve agriculture the ones that had the most difficulty that's that's the summary of what the objective here is exactly um to do that I no there's a lot of definitions that would not in the existing zoning bylaw so I thing need be clear as to what we're defining I tried to get stay within the permitted use non-permitted use framework to the extent possible of the zist Zone bylaw so we then incorporate these new terms into the use table and medium soldar for instance state that they are permitted by special permit by the planning board in r r and RN Zone districts I think that should be changed to site plan review but I don't make that change that get input from you uh similarly they're permitted by site plan review in ch and IP zoning districts I think there should be a minor site plan review which would not require a public hearing just a public meeting but again is inin the commercial Highway and Industrial districts so just before you go any further most of the ones I was reading from different communities along the way they they went from small to large there was nothing in between and so you have a feeling that there's some medium that should have a look trying to you're existing into this you actually have four different categories and they go from like a 16 to a 250 250 to 500 5 so I'm try and fit in with that system and going with small being up to 100 medium being 100 to 250 large being over 250 so it it it fits in within resistant framework without totally turning it apart um I my personal opinion I think I'm not sure 250 is a proper lower threshold for large I tend think 500 or even a th000 might be more appropriate uh given today's technology and what's happening but it is common for large to be at the 250 Thresh so 250 and up right yeah and there are some also have a u standard that basically if you have more than 2,000 ft of soda panels that's beyond the small residential type operation that comes more of a commercial and so that's why you got 2000 and and basically I they use different numbers I looked at what looked at the plans for one of the recent projects and look what their Dimensions were and 2000s above what the residential was but it it it fits in a reasonable threshold there at that um then large but not including accessory and accessory are if you got a commercial or industrial or whatever building or municipal building and it's accessory to that use it's not and it's it's sized so that is primarily used for consumption on that property then we limited 200% of the projected consumption uh that's in use that's if it's more than that it's probably primar to commercial operation and that go through the Large review process when you uh do these um over again your definitions or whatever try to put in bold with small scale your bold print what the KW is just so it sticks out a little bit small medium large yeah like small medium large okay so Weill the existing 7.6 and go with this new one um and my Che sheet over here while I where I changed things that that's way too complicated to distribute yeah but yeah because you didn't you didn't highlight through all of it what your changes were right I mean a lot of the other stuff um as I we were finding out going through some of these small scale which were categorized as medium scale in our existing bylaw it just it it had so much reg uh yeah tied to them that were more for commercial so purpose stays the same B applicability stays the same C General requirements stay the same D maintenance stays the same e is replaced e hadist e dealt with action on site plan applications and had about almost a page on that mhm replacing that with where site plan review is required for so generating facility process decision Etc are in accordance with article 9 and your plan board rules and regulations MH that makes it simple um existing f is fee that's part of rules and regulations it doesn't need to be in here um and that's addressed in section N9 already and so insert new section F solar Jing facilities Allowed by right small Always by right accessory if less than 250 KW hour kilowatt and dual use if it's less than 250 kilow by WR process is they apply for building permit building commission refers to plan board for review term that meets a Zone Zone bylaw and then similar similar to an anr right it meets the criteria that like any other building permit that that comes before you um front yard side yard uh base what the small are right now then screening they be screened they apply for waivers they want to they want to ask for a waiver do that before you apply for building permit um then come over parking areas but may not diminish the number of parking spaces below the minimum for instance and and they may not alter the storm order that wasn't in the previous one was it no parking right that's new and the reason this is in there is when we're doing the solar bylaw in South adley um one of the plan board members said we had an interesting thing at UMass they pull over parking uh area mhm it's not going to change the quantity of water but it may change the direction the time the flow and therefore con so it could change your storm water system yeah because the nature of you're changing the shape Chang the rate of runoff and so we make sure that we want to be sure that's addressed if they're going to do that and then it's got the same position provision you had right now for Abandonment for small systems then I'm going to insert a g the existing bylaw has the exist B has a lot of um it has requirements for medium and large and what this is trying to do is say what size it is if it requires sight plan view or special permit these are the requirements that apply go and look at those and the dimensions are taken from your existing medium and large um Soda Systems same with prent structures we put have the um overp parking area provision in here as well and again they may ask for waiver and then the abandonment decommissioning is from your existing for the most part U we have on there the height of solar panels and Associated support shall not exceed 15 ft I'm thinking about the um the orchard one which just Pro was agricultural I mean they had to have it high enough that they grow trees underne and get farming equipment under it right so the lower Edge in the panel had to be at least that high so sure the upper was higher than that' be a perfect case for asking a waiver when they come in for site plan review or if it's going to be a small small one for the P for building from Asel waver on that because hey we got a tractor that's 18 ft high and you need a higher one then I've Incorporated in here design and performance standards as well a lot of these I took from the existing again trying to consolidate into one area um and also taking from some other bylaws I've seen that have some really good Provisions as well that address things had been addressed here um now we got lighting standards signage basically imply sign by law utility connections uh reasonable efforts to be made place them underground um access minimize grading and remove of stone walls or trees minimize impacts vegetation management uh Hazard materials identify they're going to be on there and and comply m d regulations impact on Agricultural and environment in sensitive land minimize those impacts again you got not more than 50% of the total land area proposed but the solar may be occupied by the solar panels with remainder remain remaining as undeveloped open space left in its natural state concentrate solar panels or spread in apart however you want to do it but try to maintain I think the um Blue Wave did really good job and that should be kind of the model that we will encourage people to do drainage if you got to get permit from storm water then uh that'll be part of the process sh current and do some screening uh safety environmental standards are taken from existing as I recall and then have a separate uh new H [Music] for those just requiring site plan approval specific site plan approval um and then States rich ones are I do that and your existing one include a lot of detail on what had be submitted and for most part I took a lot of that out because that's part of your site plan riew application there are some specific items that are specific to soda that Mak sense to have in here yeah that you could take out of here and have another separate section of your rules and regulations polies Po and procedures or rather that identify those yeah a minor thing here you have that the African sh show that not more than 20% of the trees on the site were removed unless there's a plan and replace uh I've gotten in the this ision before is a tree a 1in diameter sapling or is a tree anything over 40 what page are you looking at what's page number 8 11 11 uh trees uh what do you want uh what number um I'm h on page 11 H1 um oh at the top the B up to the top not more than 20% of the trees would be removed unless oh yeah there plan replaced um you're right I've gone through this before of different project submissions size of trees yeah and 20% over 5 in caliper whatever you want to do but uh you'll have somebody say there was a sampling there X in caliper yeah okay we'll clarify that thank you actually probably do is use 10 in cuz you use 10in later on so what that use 10in caliper that's a pretty good size tree well the idea is you want significant trees you don't on now I can I've seen projects where you basically go out there and Survey each and every tree and that's not what you're trying to get at you're trying and get the big ones that have the canopy and I'm looking at a um project another community and whe they want to do a park and they exed out must been 40 trees my guess those trees are not all 8 in caterer trees they're probably 2 in and that's a little bit much um I missed something when I was out so we're on trees one page 11 of the all right maybe maybe it's upcoming with land clearing because um I know some committies are communities were very concerned about the big large scale coming in solar fields and how much how much and where they were taking taking down trees vegetation and stuff yeah and that's that's what this relates to that um napkins question is medium and can be approved on minight plan rev viw only if the nqu waivers they're demonstrating electricity being generated is primar for one site or the not remove one 20% of the large trees and then there's a provision here I see in nine or B2 no more than 50% of the land utilized shall be forested how page you want 10 I'm just backing up a bit there because I missed that so 9 9b2 9b2 mhm no more than 50 % of land paraliz utilized for solar electric generating facility shall be forested mhm that's in line with what some other community is doing should be no more or no less then probably should be no less than yeah I think got the wrong word no more than 20 it's got no less than no less than 50% of the land yeah or say no more than 50% shall be cleared either way it's it's trying to be more positive about that's yeah leave Forest not not yeah and that's probibly it was number one and I i' change it from clearing forc it so you're still on page 11 um yes and again procedures I just go back to your uh section 9 is owned by law and your politices and procedures um a lot now I I um wrestle with some the requirements in here just pfy any requir application about documents yes um those contact information that may more important in a solder than is in a typical project so I left that in here um estimated earthw work I think that's essential in a uh s that may not be necessary in most other projects so I I included some things in here that I wrestle with but I and accusal engineer uh sound is more that comes up every time I don't care why command you're in yeah they bring it up and they did in lunenberg they were in here it's every place to do right and then I've got another section on specific items Rel to special bur but not site plan and then accessory that conformed to pre not the interesting thing about accessory I want to be sure got addressed is let's say they've got commercial buildings already been built but there are special conditions attached to that want to be sure when they come in for a uh SAR facility that's accessory that doesn't alter or doesn't conflict with those conditions um battery storage is a separate that I'm going to be developing separately separate Amendment yes I actually think this needs to go through first before you why I'm going to do battery storage is that's going to be another section of 7.6 um because battery engine storage systems tend create more controversy at town meeting than the soda bot does uh didn't didn't W and you can't have B that prohibits them right yeah me have tried to do that and the Attorney General office has returned rejected them uh they're given the same exemption as solar under chapter 48 Section 3 [Music] very good that's so I like this now we've gone this I've gone very very briefly but if there's specific items in here let me know now take some time and read through it and Mark it up and either email me the information or we can discuss it next another meeting but try to get I want to try to get this finalized so you can then a it for and hopefully have cleaned up before you advertise the public hearing well let's put it this way if if he doesn't hear from anyone it's okay yeah we that'll be and we'll look this over what maybe another week yeah look it over and if you have any concerns give it to him shoot an email to him yeah so let's say to me through him by next Wednesday NE by next Wednesday shoot me your concerns okay comments now fair enough on an email I sent you just jog my memory we did adus back in like August or September right yeah something like that yeah did that go did we have a hearing on that or was that just the draft bylaw do you remember I thought I know we did the Adu bylaw that Richard drafted did I have a hearing on that I can go back and look but I I can't I can't remember if we had a hearing on that something tells me we did did I think you did but we didn't have one on your special permit and site plan no but even if you did if it's more than 6 months before town meeting meets you need to do another one what's that public hearing the Adu yeah if you did it if town meeting meets May 14th the public hearing held by the planning Bo has to be within 6 months of that well that's way beyond that what's the uh what's the change in law from the state on Accessory ding units I saw in the paper what what's the change in the law from the state on Accessory draing units I saw in the paper that's what we that's what we addressed okay so we're appr compliance with that right okay cool in fact the building inspector emailed me last week and Richard confirmed it but he had somebody inquiring about that but our our our bylaw isn't set yet we've got it in draft form but has been accepted at town meeting but Richard says regardless the mass law is over is an effect regardless of ours has been passed or not so someone could come before us with one and we'd have to well actually they wouldn't have come before you oh there you go by rate all they had to do is apply for building permit building permit right and what what I advise Paul you had some but you had some exceptions so where they would have to come to us for three different I thought you had three different categories where they would have to well the only time they have to come to you is if they're not in compliance with state law but what you'd have to do what the building commission have to do is take the existance zoning bylaw and eliminate those items that are not complying with state law for instance you have a requirement for own occupancy he couldn't apply that you have a 600t limitation I think he couldn't apply that so anything that is not consistent state law and I laid out for Paul what I think those are he'd have to set those aside and B treat like any other building permit um that's I know some communties have inative Hadley for instance enacted a amendment to their bylaw last fall to address the new Adu law state law um lunenberg was going to and then they had issue and they they side put off till May but um the long you put off more likely likely is somebody going to apply for building permit because devel ERS to find out this way they can build a house and have Adu back there and got two have rental income okay that's the end of that and I the only other item I have I didn't have any warrants until Richard sent me his bill in between the time I made the agenda out but we want to pay him for um December and Jun January 20 $2,160 24 hours at his rate plus mileage so I'm asking for a motion to approve Richard's December and January consulting fee I move that we approve Richard's um invoices for January and December J December January yes $2,160 second all in favor hi hi thank you any other reports of committees or any information we need to know another thing that I wanted to mention is last time we had the a select board meeting and we were pretty one of the things Chris Falls brought up was they're I think they're called the bylaws committee but they were doing a a bylaw on swimming pools so swimming pools updating the our our our swimming pool bylaw so just because we're talking about bylaw that came to my mind you also said you're working on or going to work on Scenic Scenic Road right yeah M yeah we straighten that one out for sure do I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn seconded all in favor I I thank you Richard welome e