This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. So at this time I'm going to formally open the town of Southampton planning board meeting for July 20, 2026. And I have a quorum present. Bob Riggs
down the end, Mark Darnold, Paul Fergal, myself, Paul Demon, and our uh board consultant, retired town planner for the town of South Hadley, Richard Harris. Jim Lee um unfortunately has to recuse himself from these from this hearing um
all through the outset because he is a uh not only in a butter but he is um uh his sister is married to one of the uh property owners. Before we start the public hearing on the uh Pleasant Street project, we have
a little bit of housekeeping to do here for Matthew Gabrielov. Matthew, where are you? on the back. Matthew is simply asking to have his address changed from 87 East Street to 3 Pleasant Street. He lives on
the corner and uh it would be easier for you to have three Pleasant Street as a address >> as a frontage. >> Frontage, right? >> Okay. So, without further ado, is anybody got any u questions or comments to make about an address change?
>> No. Do I have a motion to change the address from 87 East to 3 Pleasant Street? >> So moved. >> Is that Bob or Mark? >> Mark. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Motion made by Mark, second by Paul. All
in favor? I >> I >> I told you that would be painless, Matthew. >> Thank you. I will forward that to the assessors and they'll take care of it for you. Welcome to Pleasant Street.
>> Yeah, you may want to stick around. >> Without further ado, we can start with the U main agenda here this evening. We have an application from
Manhan LLC, Manhan River LLC for a 5.4 4 megawatt DC aggrav voltaic solar development with best storage located at 43 and 53 Pleasant Street map 2520 and 2423D
and I'm also reading from the legal announcement that was published in the Daily Hampshire Gazette on July 6th and July 13th. This is subject to the provisions of section 2757.2 2 and the water supply protection
district section 2757.6 of the solar electric generating facilities bylaw and article 9 site plan review in chapter 227 storm water management and erosion control of the town of Southampton zoning and general bylaws. Copy of the
application was available at the town clerk's office or by emailing the plan of uh planning board at town of southampton.org. And again, it was published July 6th, July 13th. The abuters have been notified to my knowledge. And do we have
green cards? Um, thank you. Very good. And also I'd like to let everybody know that in addition to the abutters, um, if you don't already know this, each town that abuts Southampton,
which means East Hampton, Holio, Westfield, Huntington, West Hampton, and Montgomery are all notified of any, uh, site plan, special permits, uh, type of thing when it comes to, um, these notifications. also the Pioneer Valley
Planning Commission and the Mass Housing and Community Development. And to this date, uh I have not received any correspondence from either of those communities unless someone there is here tonight that will speak when called upon.
At this time, I'm going to call um Michael Z from Manhand and also Blue Wave to u start the presentation. And he will be joined by Cam Coine and Melinda Costello. And I also believe
that attorney Tom Rei is here from Bacon and Wilson also um representing the applicants. So um come to the podium and make your presentation. It's on our TV up here. We couldn't get the screen to work, but we have something. So, please
proceed. >> Thank you. So, uh, introduce myself, Mike Z, um, on behalf of the applicant, Mayan River, project director at Blue Wave. Um, Paul introduced the project team, but just to
state it again so folks are aware, um, for anyone who may may speak on behalf of Manhan River tonight. Um, Brief Art Mueller, project analyst at Blue Wave. Um, Melinda Costello, Western Samson civil engineer for the project. Cam
Gozen, Western Samson, civil engineer for the project. And then, uh, Tom Rey, Bacon Wilson, um, Blue Waves permitting uh, council um, tonight. So, I'll do a a brief introduction um on uh on the project and then we'll kick it
over to Weston and Samson for some of the details on the civil engineer design um storm water design, etc. Some folks in the room probably have already heard a bit of this. I gave a similar presentation during the conservation commission um permitting
several months ago. Um, but for folks who haven't, uh, Blue Wave, uh, we're a Bostonbased company, founded in 2010. Over 100 megawatts of, uh, solar and storage projects, uh, operating and in construction.
We have 15 projects in, uh, throughout Massachusetts and New York that are aggrav agricultural production for those projects. A lot of folks typically ask um what the benefit of a of a project is uh to local economy.
Of of our projects operating um there's over 2 million um in annual kind of payments that are being made um by BlueWave. of that is uh pilot agreements uh payment in le of taxes uh that we have with towns uh which is annual tax
payment uh when a project is operating um paid to the the town local economy there and then we have our landowner um lease payments made to land owners as well as if it's aggrav Voltaics it'd be a farmer agreements that we have um you
know payments made to farmers. So this project as proposed is um a solar agotics um I'll touch on the design of why how that's a little bit different. There'll be a few photos here u that you'll be able to see. So uh the solar design um has it so that
farming can continue within the array. Panels are um as proposed here for this project uh elevated at 10t height um as a single axis tracker and then it's spaced out um from panel edge to panel
edge um 18 ft and this allows people animals uh tractors to continue uh to work the field. uh when I say panel edge to panel edge uh if you can see the red dot here so be
from this panel edge to that panel edge so this span right here is approximately 18 ft at minimum that's what our designs as um and for a couple other photos as you can see this is you know
approximately 18 ft uh in width um you can see a tractor being able to maneuver in there. The photo on the left you can see uh as a single axis tracker modules for a project will face the east in the morning and follow the sun
throughout the day. So they'll rotate approximately up to 60°. Uh when they're flat around noon time, they'll be at that 10ft height uh horizontally stowed. when they're rotating the highest point of the the panel
as you can see in this part yeah approximately 13 ft at the lowest edge it's approximately 7 ft as a aggravate project in Massachusetts uh when a project's operating uh there's annual reporting that goes to MDAR mass
Massachusetts department of agriculture as well as DOER the department of energy resources to show that agriculture production and compliance uh under the smart program as a solar project um you know continues to happen. So that's annual reporting when the project is
operating. Um prior to that uh there's an application process that every project has to go through MDAR reviews D reviews uh um as a qualification um to meet an a solar uh regulation under the state
um that we do for for each project. So, Blue Wave is partnering with uh Ron and uh Steven Bashista as the farmer for this project. Uh they're the land owners and historical farmers. Um I can speak a little bit of why the Bashistas want to do it, but if I want to invite Ron up
quickly just in brief, he can share um you know why his farm is is interested in agriculture. Um, I'm Ron Bajista, uh, 65 Pleasant Street. Um, we feel that, um,
it's a viable concept to help preserve the land as farmland, uh, and also provide income, added income for the farm so we can continue to keep doing what we're doing. Um,
we've looked at other other solar companies that weren't advocates and there's just no no interest there. Um um sorry I'm not good in front of groups or
speaking but um um blank. Um some of the questions that have come up concerns were were um as concerned as
anyone about any of the issues. We want it to be right for everyone um and uh not hurt the land at all, things like that. um we see benefit to the land under the solar panels um in some cases
versus what we have now which is um wet spots and dry spots things like that and the panels actually create like a microclimate the more to even things out to a point um from what what I've researched anyway
um it's a minimum swap over for us to start utilizing this this area and um you know um have that added income for the
future. Um another thing that I personally like about it is the contract is a maximum of 30 years. um if the panels are no longer viable um it's gone and it's all arranged through
the through the contract or the um permit I believe is that what it's called um application. So that's another benefit for us. Um but in the meantime gave us some capital to work with and keep going. Um I'm sure
there's other questions but I can't can't think of them can't to answer them. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Uh get into project details. Kind of cut off at the bottom, but I'll do my best
here. See if we can get that up a little bit so the slide before isn't there. But the project as described is at 43 and 53 Pleasant Street. Yeah, it looks good.
The two parcels in total is 129 acres. We are proposing to interconnect to the existing three-phase that's at the corner East Street and Pleasant Street down here. um
to go up um it's about less than a mile to the project site and the entrance is and we'll get we'll see it on the next screen but um at 53 um right around here. All right.
So as described uh the project um of that 129 acres uh project area is about 40 acres of that um within the fence that is proposed the solar uh array of it is about 22 acres
project size of the solar is just about 5 1/2 megawatts DC um the battery component um comprised is just about 5 megawatts as well the equipment pad ads. There's rectangle right here as well as
right here. There's two of them proposed make up just about a quarter of an acre. And then our proposed battery storage are located at set equipment pads. Those um containers um we're proposing up to four um self-contained battery
containers. For a comparison in size, that's roughly uh four parking spaces and that makes up just about 640 square feet. Again, they will be located at the two proposed equipment pads here.
>> Excuse me. Can you identify that using the mouse so people that are watching it? >> Yep. >> It's not I don't think we can't even see the uh thing. >> Got you. Um, so this this is the one equipment pad and this is the second equipment pad um that he was referring
to. >> Yep. >> Can you can you uh use your mouse for the people that are using the the video conference or not the video conference but the televised portion so they can see >> on the laptop. Thanks. Thanks Melinda. >> Yeah. So here's the southern equipment pad and here's the northern equipment
pad. Okay. Um I guess while you're there real quick, probably the one to highlight is just where the proposed access road is going. Um you can see Pleasanton Street there and that's right next to just north of uh the existing 53 Pleasant Street entrance.
All right. So the the current agricultural use here is is hay grain corn. Uh there's a compost area as well as area for cattle grazing. The proposed uh dual use um or agriaic
um purpose for this uh in the first three years is continuing hay in compost again compost in about 2 acres and then um potential for continuing grain corn and and grazing um after that three years. And you know blue wave as would
be owner operator of this project. We we leave the farming to the farmer and um to their discretion of you know what they what they'd like to do for the farming as during the life of the project. So
those are the highlights on the solar portion and the egg portion. And I want to touch briefly on the some common questions that we get from a a battery storage perspective um and why it's
being proposed with uh the project. In short, it's encouraged under the the smart program um when there's a solar project to include uh a battery energy storage. Um this is due to uh economic benefits uh uh by it helps optimize
electric grid operations, reduce the cost of meeting peak demands, helps avoid need for additional transmission and distribution investments and helps uh balance the electric grid. So the battery energy storage will absorb and store electricity uh generated uh by the solar
project uh when in operation and then dis discharge it uh the electricity later you know during peak demand. So what we have proposed for the battery technology is um lithium iron phosphate or LFP is the acronym for it.
the proposed um manufacturer um that at the current time that we've provided in our application you know as illustrative you know subject to change um prior to any building permit the company is e storage and the product is the soul bank
3.0 know that's an LFP technology. It um as described in the application, you know, follows all applicable NFPA, National Fire Protection Association safety codes. In our application, appendex K and L. We provided draft uh hazard mitigation
analysis and an emergency response plan uh that was completed by um one of blue waves consultants uh fire risk alliance that um hazard mitigation analysis shows as proposed um the the battery energy
storage of the soul bank 3.0 meets performance criteria outlined in the NFPA code 855. Um we also or I say FRA also notes in there the review of the UL certification
testing uh that the Soul Bank 3.0 I know had to be had had done and completed and the highlight of that certification um shows that it the technology doesn't create thermal runaway event or any propagation and that's typical for uh
that battery technology that which is the lithium iron phosphate. With that, uh, I would like to, uh, kick it over to Cam, uh, lesson Samson to highlight and just touch on some other, uh, pieces of the design at at this
time. Thank you. >> Uh, good afternoon, Cam Goz, Western and Samson. Uh, I'll just touch on some of the, uh, site design aspects. So uh as as previously mentioned the proposed development covers about 40 acres as currently
designed it's the uh it's comprised of the 5 1/2 megawatt uh a solar array and the uh best the battery battery energy uh storage system that will reside on the two pads that were also previously mentioned.
Um, in addition to that, we have the proposed 25- ft gravel access drive, which will also include uh uh improve uh improvements to the existing gravel drive coming off of Pleasant Street. Um, just a note as as part of this
project, there's no uh no tree clearing proposed. site grading is uh limited to the pads, the two pads, the north pad, the south pad, um as well as the western portion of the proposed 25 ft gravel access road.
And the the entire solar array will be surrounded by a 7-ft tall farm knot fence with double gate to allow access to the array area which will include an 18 ft offset between the fence and the solar panels uh which to meet electrical code requirements and allow access around the
site. Um also landscaping has been provided trees along the southern portion of the site for screening. Those are eastern red cedar and red maples. Thank you very much. to provide adequate screening for
abutters. Um an underground underground condo is proposed to extend from the equipment pad areas along the proposed access road to the proposed utility poles prior to interconnection via the
existing utility pole on the side entrance along Pleasant Street. Um, I would also like to mention that this project got approval on 76 and uh the project complies with all applicable zoning bylaws. Um,
and uh that's pretty much what I have. Thank you. At this time, I'm going to ask, is that all that you're presenting at this point? Okay. Um, questions from the board at this point before I open it to the public
if it's appropriate now to go into the details of some of the submission information like a drainage report or things of that nature. >> Yeah, that was provided. Can >> you repeat that? I >> have some questions regarding the uh the drainage report and drainage
calculations. Yeah. Question regarding the hydroad uh calculations. Yeah. And one of the things I noticed that the uh total area didn't change and the time of concentrations didn't change and the curve numbers didn't change. It was I don't know the infotimal change in the
overall area. But what I did notice in the um calculation, it stated that you had um um um um uh real crops were um
real crops were 18 acres and then in the pre and post. So not any change in row crops. um at all. And and um and then you had uh in your thing you
had cattle grazing areas and there's no information on that. So you know a large area that was calculated to be um um mostly road crops and and um very little
no no grazing. you had some meadow. Um um I got the sheets right here if it makes it easier for you. >> Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. >> Just to just on I got a a pre- and post from just a 25 year storm. Um just to make it
that there's there's really no there's no um storm water attenuation. There's no um infiltration detention basins whatsoever. Um and so it's sort of critical if you claiming that you have a certain amount of um corn and and uh uh
cattle grazing but you don't have any uh open meadow but u calculations don't reflect that and that's the only way that you can really justify what the uh the pre and post drainage calculations are are the same. There's minuscule difference because of the very small
change in impervious area. >> Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. Um so overall for the pre-to post um analysis as you mentioned under existing conditions we went through and modeled everything as the farming operations currently operate.
There is a portion of the property that he uses for row crops which are existing corn fields within the northern eastern and southern fields. There are meadow areas throughout the site. Um gravel access roads, dirt access roads and then there are some woodlands around the
perimeter of the site. And then we go and we look at the proposed area of the development. Um, and after I get through this analysis, I'll I'll pull up the hydrocad maps. Um, and I can show it over there as well. Um, but we do the same thing. We look at the site and then
just see if there's any need to change the ground cover conditions. But as Mike explained in his presentation with it um agrovoltaic system um the the intent of the design is to keep
farming operations continuous postdevelopment. So there's not a lot of ground cover changes associated with these designs. The areas that the proposed solar development is going in being um existing hay fields. the solar
the the solar goes in on top of that and the meadow cover condition underneath remains the same. Um curve numbers or sorry the times of concentrations associated with the um drainage areas those stay the same too because the
water runs off in the panels and it just goes to the ground below it. And overall the site conditions in terms of topography are going to remain the same. there's some minimal grading associated with one of the access roads and the two equipment pads. Um but other than that
the site is for the for a large portion of it is remaining under its existing state. Therefore the storm water and the numbers that you see in existing have minimal changes to post development. the changes and the increases, the minimal
increases in curve numbers are associated with the increased width of the gravel access drives. Um disconnected pavement for the impervious for where the proposed equipment pads are going. Um and then we use um
we use an impervious for the post which we model as 3-in diameter posts. Um and it comes up to a minimal increase in impervious. Um, and if you would like, I can pull the watershed maps up on the screen and and show those as well if you
would like. >> That's good. I'm good. >> Good. Okay. >> Yeah, I've looked at the map. So, >> okay. >> Um, >> so it's currently hayfield where you put in solar arrays. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. I assume that's harvested
hay fields that he is and that's not going to it's going to continue to have metal but he's not going to be harvesting under those. >> Yes. Yes. That's the intent. Yep. You have to as part of the smart program you have to submit a farming application and
prove that you will have farming operations continued under your array >> under the rays. Okay. >> Yep. While you while you're on that subject be so these are following the sun, right? >> Yes. >> So, how does that minimize the amount of
sun that a crop would have? you know, going back and forth all day. And when it's raining, is there going to be enough maybe Ron knows, I don't know, maybe is there enough uh water that's going to be able to, you know, sustain
these crops or hay >> or whatever is under them um throughout the process? Or how how does it change the dynamic of farming >> that's not covered? I won't I won't go into too much detail about the farming because I'm I'm not a farmer, but from a
storm water um standpoint and just general site layout, the panels themselves um like me Mike mentioned, they rotate throughout the day at noon time. They're completely flat flat. So, compared to just an open farm field versus having this array spread out over 22 acres, there's going to be some
shading aspects just in general associated with the area that is underneath the panels from how the sun is hitting it. Um, from a a rain standpoint, it's it's unlike a traditional solar PV array where you have a fixed mount system and you have
really tight inner row spacings to get as much solar in as possible. Again, the smart program has requirements on what your minimum row spacing is. And then for this site, we have 18 ft clearance from edge of panel edge of panel when it's completely flat at the middle of
the day. And that provides adequate space to one get your farming equipment in there and also to provide that rain and the sun exposure that's needed to continue with your farming operations. >> They can get the farm equipment under the rays. >> Yeah. So Mike, is it 7 ft minimum height
at the lowest angle? Um, and it's all designed with farmer input to make sure that the turning radiuses around the side, everything's designed to make sure that the farming equipment used for this specific site, it won't be an issue once the system is installed.
>> There are tracker controls as well um during the operations um working with the uh asset management team. If there is a need to stow uh panels horizontally at any point for farming purposes at a higher which is
the 10 ft um that is a possibility as well. Um I think there's a question on shade. Um under the smart program the regulation is uh as a as project which is aggravate project um under the smart
program can't shade um a field um greater than 50% there's a calculation and analysis that gets completed that do and m reviews. So um that is a regulation requirement um under the program. So that the pros
project will be in compliance with that regulation. Um blue wave also has projects that are hay fields that are in operation agotics. They are successful in producing hay um what we've seen in Massachusetts.
>> Mhm. >> So what equipment do you use to hay under these at 10 ft? >> Yeah. I have a, you know, a 13 acre field that we hay and with just the roll bar up on the tractor, you're at 10,
you're close to 10 ft. And with all the stansions from the uh collectors, how do you get through all this? And then how do you get equipment in there to rake and then gather? >> Yeah. So there's a a full farming application that um is a project we've
submitted to hemdar and do for their review. That review is in process. Um the specific detail on the tractor that we're proposing this right I don't have in front of me. Um but we rely on the farmer to um do the farming within it.
Um the bashas have told us um their equipment or equipment that they need um in order to be successful farming within the ray. um that will be confirmed by MDR and DER in the review. Um the specific question on how it will
be done. I'll look at the plan or if Ron has that um data point on top of his head, I could I could speak for you can speak to it if you'd like. Um,
so when we um came up with all this, we were asked about what we're going to be using. We want to use all our existing equipment. We're welcome to get newer equipment if we have to, but need to or
when the time comes. But it's designed now. The tractors we have with the offset mower, you can go down one side of the array mowing close to the other post at any height, 7 ft, 10 ft. You can't come down the other side because
they would be down. But the way we mow and the product we harvest is silage bales. So, usually all we do is mow it. There's no tetaring, no raking. Sometimes on a wet application, you may tether and let it um
wilt a little bit before you bail it. Um but it's um not the same as having to spread it all out, dry it, rake it, then go in and bail it. >> So you're just cutting it and bailing it. >> Cutting it, let it sit, and then bail it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Which is what we've been doing
since 1985, I think. >> Okay. I have a question uh Melinda maybe or whoever is regarding your safety on the equipment. Do you have um is there detection there prior to any event
happening in fire or or heat or anything like that? Is there like a pre control that will send you signals that there's something might go ary in the battery or energy storage? So your question is specific to the battery.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. There are monitoring and controls in place. Uh I believe they're described in um hazard mitigation analysis or emergency response plan which we provide in
appendex. I can get you the exact page but yes to answer your question there controls in place. Um each uh when operating they are monitored 24/7. um by an asset management team um to if there's a
notification of a control or alarm going off that team will get notified. Uh it's under NFPA code as well to notify local authorities um you know within I think it's under 3 minutes or under a minute usually happens pretty
pretty quickly as well. There's a got a robo dial that happens with certain controls um or alarms that go off um to notify the various parties um and that that occurred to >> Are there suppression systems involved
with the units >> of any sort? >> Yeah, this is noted in the hazard mitigation analysis. Yep. This is under on page nine soul bank three.
Um it's optional. Um aerosol suppression systems. Um as proposed the the cabinets um in our HMAS noted here um will not be
equipped with them um with said optional fire suppression system. >> Do they have guns? >> They will not be equipped. >> Correct. >> So they will not have suppression systems. >> So what does that mean? Do you let them burn out?
>> Yeah. as noted in the HMA here. Um, kind of the operating procedure of it as noted, they're UL certified not to propagate if they're in the rare instance of a fire. Um so the actions taken again are noted
in here um is to set a cell that may have an issue um a burnout um and there's protocols in place in the emergency response plan for the fire department to to follow um monitor and make sure that that cell
burns out um and the the burnout you know the air the gases dissipate. Do they have condensation monitors? >> I have to double check that one >> to confirm >> and get back to you.
>> So, just curious on the suppression issue. So reading your application, it it states that water seems to be the best, but would win it still makes sense to have a water suppression system in addition to waiting for the fire
department. >> Water is So let me pull that page up. Water is not the best again source to in a fire event. You do not it's recommended in here not to put water on a cell that is on fire. Uh it's
recommended to let it burn out. Um, >> it has, >> are you in appendix K emergency response plan? >> I believe so. Okay. PJ. Yes.
Yeah, I think by the >> they're looking for you. They're looking for us and I question. >> I think it's in the HMA under 539. >> Yeah. >> Water supply page 27.
One thing about that one. >> So page 28. No typical best firefighting response procedures do not require recommend offensive firefighting tactics to manage suppress fire. There's well testing showing no
propagation. And that was without a fire suppression system installed or manual fire suppression via hose lines. Mic >> I can go I can go up there. >> Yeah.
Yeah. >> So on page 28 of the hazard mitigation analysis in the appendix and that is under section 539 water supply. >> Mhm. Typical and best firefighting response
procedures do not require or recommend off offensive firefighting tactics to manually suppress a best fire. The UL 954DA unit level testing demonstrating uh that fire will not spread from module to module in the cabinet. So this result
was without a fire suppression system installed in said uh soul bank 3 cabinet and without uh fire manual fire suppression via hose lines. So with LFP technology as proposed here,
it's recommended um not to put water on any uh burning cell because it does not propagate and it's safest to um let let it burn out. >> I don't believe the fire chief is here tonight. Is fire chief here? He was at
one of our meetings prior when we were drawing up a draft for the new zoning proposal and I remember him distinctly saying when someone asked that question that that he said it would burn out. They would not use water >> as part of the application too. I
believe the fire chief has seen the full documentation here. I don't know if he gave any response to to the board >> from him. No. >> Okay. As a courtesy uh for everyone here, if you're referencing an acronym, please spell it out and everybody knows what it means.
>> Yes. Is there an acronym you'd like me to >> There's a few, but uh Okay. >> NFPA. >> Well, NFPA. >> Yeah. So, National Fire Protection Association. >> You referenced HMA before. >> Yep. So, Hazard Mitigation Analysis. Yeah. >> It's not hot mix asphalt.
>> Could I ask you on your pads for the best storage What kind of um pads are you are you pouring? And how many how many layers of containment do you have in the event of a
fire that you know spills hazardous materials? What what what are you using to contain that within the pad? >> Yeah, so the equipment pads it will be a concrete pad with gravel on the perimeter. let Weston and Samson speak
to more of that design spec to make sure that um there's a detail they want to um be specific on, they can. Um similarly in the hazard mitigation analysis page 28 right below this section uh this speaks to
um potential spill control requirements or code requirements. So this is 5.4 technology specific protection. Uh lithium ion batteries do not need to meet the exhaust ventilation
requirements of NFPA 855 National Fire Protection Association uh code which is the spill control and neutralization requirements uh of that code or the safety cap requirements in the so what that means is as designed here there
isn't a spill containment um around the equipment pads as it's not a code requirement to have as such for the technology we're proposing here um which is the lithium iron phosphate uh technology. Um
the units the battery units are can show a photo if helpful. It is on the main pages of um our appendix for the hazard mitigation analysis and the emergency response plan.
Uh it is uh self-contained unit uh hermetically sealed. The code requires does not require a spill control because of the nature of the technology and the design. Everything is self-contained in the
battery container. And Melinda is pulling up a photo of the unit. Even stop on one of those. So, you're saying there will be no evidence of any kind of leakage of any type of hazardous
material from these whatsoever from these self-contained units? To my knowledge, um there would not be um self-contained in in a container. In the event of a rare event, again, in
the rare event there is a fire, if a cell's uh on fire, it will not propagate to another one. There'll be gases be offging um that would, you know, dissipate in the air. There isn't a leak or uh chemical um
that comes out of a potential fire event. Uh >> given that this facility is over in the aquapore, which is the main purpose and source of contention around here, >> would you be adverse to putting in
another layer of containment of some sort under the pad that you're going to build for this? just because it's over an acryer.
Would you consider that? >> I think I would need more detail on the request of uh a design there in the sense that the project is as proposed is is meeting the code requirements. So, this would be above and beyond I believe
what you're asking for. What? >> Yeah. Right. That's why I'm asking if it's if it's something that you would consider because it could be a condition too. I'm not I'm not sure I'm not going to say it would be, but it could be >> just just as an extra layer of protection
for >> Yeah, we are open to discussing that. Yes. Um and I think we would look to our engineers as well as uh fire risk alliance uh who helped us with the emergency response plan and the hazard
mitigation analysis reviewing the code see if something like you know above and beyond the code has been done and um you know work together on on that. So we're open to discussing that. Yeah. >> Can I follow up on that? Uh and uh with
Paul's suggestion for extra containment, your transformers oil filled transformer. Uh would that you consider also putting in a containment for the transformer? That's biiobased. I believe we provided
a spec for that under appendix H electrical plan and specifications. So since biiobased I would say no. It would not not needed. >> Bob, do you have any more questions?
>> No, not at the moment. >> Oh, yeah. At this point, >> not this time. >> All right. At this time, I'm going to open it up to the public. But first, I'd like to ask, are there any town or city officials here uh that would that are
representing your community at all from the notice sent? Of course, Caitlyn. Um, okay. So, Caitlyn Rrooks is here from the board of health. So, we'll take the town officials first and let the residents follow.
and please direct your questions to either Melinda or Michael. >> Hi, Caitlyn Rooks, Board of Health 189 College Highway. Appreciate the other board members being here as well. Um tried to focus my questions around the scope of the board of health and I have
consulted with D who um really wanted us to focus on groundwater protection and I'm appreciate the fact that several of your questions have been related to groundwater protection. Um, we are requesting that there's uh safety data sheets provided by for all chemicals
being stored within the best unit as well as anything that's going to be on site during installation of the project just to have a better understanding of uh what type of chemicals if they're hazardous um are being stored on site. We noticed that um in the application it
said that there was no hazardous materials on site and DP did site that lithium ion batteries are not inherently classified as a hazardous material which was a little surprising to me. Um but of course there are considerations in the event of thermal runway and fire that
could potentially expose neighbors to toxic gases. Um and um so part of our the other thing that I'm curious about and maybe this is not a question for tonight is what our true understanding of emergency plans are for
both Southampton as well as our emergency uh response partners. We rely heavily on mutual aid. And so I would like to just advocate for there to be a better understanding of our emergency response uh protocols or procedures related to
this project and make sure that we are not going to put our firefighters at undue risk of harm because of a lack of understanding, a lack of planning, lack of training. Um again, that's a town question. Um, I did have a question about the risk
of, you know, thermal runway and, uh, you know, while we say that fires are rare, one of my questions was, are there any trees or things that might, uh, surrounding the area that might comp be at risk for compromising a best unit?
Um, as an example, I've had two trees fall in the past 3 weeks in my property. So, I was just curious if there is a risk of a tree potentially falling on this best unit and I didn't know if anyone would be able to answer that. >> There are no trees located in the
vicinity of the proposed test. >> Um, D also asked or encouraged us to really look into the groundwater protection regulations as authored by the board of health. And so we'd like to get a better understanding of what the
impact is on um soil disturbances on the property and maybe that could be provided in a separate report or if it's already available and I missed it, I apologize. Um but groundwater protection of course is a big concern of the board of health and risk for compromising
wells. So I got a report of wells that are surrounding on Pleasant Street, Gun Road and um East Street and a majority of those properties are reliant on wells. So I just want to name the concern about risk of compromise to the
water supply and um really make sure that we're complying with our existing groundwater protection regulations. Um, I know that it mentions protection within the water supply district, but I just want to make sure that we're collaborating together to make sure that
we are um adhering to all of our existing groundwater protection regulations and acknowledge that the existing storm water management plan that's identified in the um planning board application acknowledges storm
water management but also doesn't under doesn't elaborate uh or include information specifically around containment, fire containment activities. And I understand that there's uh best practice to not apply water in a fire, but I don't understand
if fire suppression is not going to be applied what the risk of is of compromised air compromised air quality as well as the risk of um compromise to the neighboring wells or um groundwater contamination is with this project. And I just didn't know if anyone could speak
to um the risks inherent to installing a best system over this. And just wanted to go back to while it is best practice to install a best system um per Mike C's reports. just want to acknowledge the
risk as it compares to all of the neighboring properties with this BES installation and just ask the question if it's feasible um to consider a best list system because it would have a substantially less uh risk of compromise to the water
supply. And so I just want to name that because that's one of the the main concerns that have been reported by neighbors. And while it may be may be revenue generating, I also just want to acknowledge that the boundaries of this project as it could impact the water
supply would not exist just on 43 and 53 Pleasant Street, but could also really have a pretty widespread impact on neighbors. Um, and one of my other questions was uh cost of remediation post incident. So, while the decommissioning bond um that was
submitted accounts for at the end of life this project being removed, I was unclear to me what asurances there would be if there was um some sort of incident, a fire or something that required for equipment to be removed that was outside of the standard um
expectations of like what's identified in the plan. and if there was any sort of environmental monitoring including air quality or w water quality, who would be responsible for those costs and how they would be um carried out to make
sure that the neighbors um were taken into consideration with any significant in incident. Um as as you all know, this is really taking place over the aquifer and zone 2 water protection area. And so it's really important to us that we are adhering to the groundwater protection
bylaws and making sure that we're thinking about our neighbors the neighbors water supply. Um one one last question that I want to ask now is um in the plan it identified a 52 decel baseline noise level. Um 52 dB is the
equivalent on college highway if I'm sitting back at my house of a car driving by. Um and so I want to understand uh how the noise study was conducted and if it was conducted at different times of day and night and during different times of the year. I have not been able
to replicate a consistent noise level of 52 dB especially at night. Um and as uh maybe you know maybe you don't but uh noise considerations would fall under a noise some trade regulations uh that the
board of health is expected to uphold. And so my hope is that if we are going to use a baseline noise level of 52 dB that um sorry let me explain that would allow for the system to operate at 10 dB higher which is 62 dB. And again that's
a pretty loud noise level. And again, thinking about the neighbors, I just want to make sure that if we're using a 52 decel noise level that um that's a reasonable number to start with and just to make sure that we are um
understanding the noise from this project and how it might impact no uh neighbors. The other question I had about noise was will tonal noise noise be produced and if there is uh noise complaints which is certainly reasonable if there's a 52 decibel noise level
which would allow for 62 dB during normal operations what mitigation strategies would be applied if there are decibel levels that are higher than what the regulations allow and I'll start there. Thank you.
Did you get all that? >> I think so. Thank you for the questions. I will address I think three of the points and I'll uh um ask Weston and Samson to address um two others here. The first so the emergency response plan
that we included um in our application is a draft emergency response plan. where we know that will needs to be finalized prior to um you know the project um you know I think getting it building permit starting construction and
operating obviously we're totally open to uh having a condition um for this project um if approved to work with the fire department uh board of health any emergency response management um
committees uh with the town um collaborate on that together to finalize that plan. So all departments that need to be aware of it and know what goes in there and agreement amongst that. Um so just want to note that um open to making
sure that that gets done um with collaboration across the town and the various departments. the there's a a question regarding decommissioning. Um but in the event of
of an issue um the project it wasn't a part of the application package but any project um that we have uh there will be insurance um you know required as us as a owner and operator.
um we can provide a certificate insurance to show um liability coverage or whatnot in the event um of something needed to be done um to ensure right that that happens um and it gets remediated.
There was a note on fire suppression again and I just want to clarify some additional detail in the hazard mitigation analysis on page 27 um which is again in appendex L
section 5.38 in brief the uh NFPA National Fire Protection Association code number 855 Five requires automatic fire suppression to be installed in rooms and areas within
buildings and walk-in units containing energy storage. The soul bank 3 um is a best style that is unoccu unoccuable with all internal components accessible via exterior doors. Uh so
it's not being installed inside of a room or within a building. And therefore what we have proposed here um does not meet that um code requirement to have fire suppression systems in it. And as such um the site design complies with um
the fire suppression system requirements because of because of that code. And I will have um Won and Samson address um there's a question on soil disturbance storm water as well as the the noise levels. Thank you, >> Payton. Was that everything that she
had? >> Just the SCS sheets for any sort of chemicals or hazardous materials that would be stored either during installation or um on the property as part of this lithium ion best system.
>> Before we go to Samson, the insurance >> Yes. >> typically insurance uh protects the property owner and the coverage loss that you may incur. Will that insurance include an identification for the town and the community if there's
uh damages as result of a event? I'm looking at my permitting council to confirm because I don't know the answer off the top of my head and not to kick the can down the road, but >> what is if I'd look for uh Tom Rei to address what is typical.
>> So, we will look into that and we'll have to get back to you on that question. >> Okay. >> Is the town on the notice list if that coverage were to lapse? Oh, >> I believe so. >> Yeah, the the in the entrance typically you take it out, it covers your home,
your loss, what have you. But in this case, we're looking for an indication of the town in the community if there's a event. >> Understood. >> And also to make sure there's enough insurance to take care of the disaster and that that insurance is current and active.
>> Yep. So I will uh review our what I would call our standard um submission of certificate insurance that we provide on projects and um can provide that answer. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. We'll let the uh
public come forward now. >> Oh, sorry. Uh real real quick to address the um spec sheets. Um >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. So yeah, those uh haven't been provided because we haven't finalized any equipment. Um what
we've uh are proposing right is or you know for illustrative purposes we provided spec sheets and um and whatnot uh for module the battery containers transformer um and we're
um open and would agree to providing all safety data sheets for all the equipment um when that is finalized you know as part of you know prior to building permit application to planning board of health um and building inspector um for
the review on that. Um so that I think that addresses that one. I'll kick it to Weston and Samson for the soil to storm and storm water and the noise level questions. Yeah, thank you. Um, okay. So, for the soil disturbances, there's minimal grading um associated
with installing a new gravel access road um up to the southern portion of the site um for the lower I'll call it the lower battery pad if you're looking at the site plan. Um there's there's minimal cut associated
with that gravel access road. And then in terms of installation for the equipment pads, um again there'll be minimal excavation just to get a layer of gravel down for the base and then the equipment pads will be built up above that. Um and then the uh foundations for
the array itself will just be driven driven in place. No excavation is proposed associated with that. um for the noise study just to provide some additional clarification um going back to the analysis that was
included with the application. Um so we did some ambient noise analysis during the middle of the day um and those values measured um at the property lines for the parcel closest to each of the
equipment pads were an average of 52 dB. Um the reference sheet that we have associated with 52 dB is um less than a conversation like a normal conversation with background noise. Um we do have
reference um for the the guide that we provide for traffic um anywhere between 70 and 85 dB. Uh with that said the analysis associated with the equipment itself. So the proposed equipment at
each equipment pad, this analysis was done for each of the equipment pads. Starting at the northern equipment pad, um there's one proposed transformer, 15 proposed inverters, and two proposed um battery storage containers. If you um if
you add up all of the proposed um noise associated with all of the equipment and and totaled it together for an approximate sound pressure at the equipment pad um because both equipment h pads serve the same equipment. They're
each 88 dB. One that 88 dB is at the equipment pad at the northern pad and then at the southern pad. Now noise um gets exponentially reduced as you travel away from that equipment pad. So the
distance to the the property lines for the northern equipment pad vary anywhere from 75 m up to 427 m. Um that 75 was at the east and the west was 427 m. So, if
you if you calculate out what that suppressed noise is traveling away from your equip equipment pad at your property line, the closest is 39 dB and the furthest away at that western point was 23 dB. Um, and within all of these
calculations, it's it's not an exact science. So, we do provide what what we call a factor of safety. So we add in five additional decibb into these numbers just to protect um the calculations and to provide some buffer. So that includes an additional five dB
of um of added noise. So we are we're well below that 10 10 decel increase. we're we're still less than 10 dB um from what the ambient noise is measured at the property lines during the time of
the study. Um so the 23 and 39 that was at the north and then the south equipment pad um those distances were a little bit larger. Um the the shortest distance was 193 m and the longest
distance was 321 m for the south pad. The approximate noise levels at that eastern property line was 30 dB and at the west the longest distance was 26 dB. Again well well below the um average
noise level measured at the property line during the time of the study >> and that was conducted during the day >> during the daytime. Correct. Okay. So, speak, but I would request that those noise levels be assessed at different
times throughout the night because I have never been able to replicate a noise level of 52 dB anytime that wasn't cars driving by my house during the day. >> This is a very rural site. I mean, at at night, everything changes. This isn't a city environment where there's always
ambient noise around. >> Um, you can hear a pin drop on Pleasant Street at night. I I I'll add that it's uh I'd say not uncommon um to have as a condition you know we've completed a analysis of a u
you know potential um operating but um we can complete another pre-construct I would say have as a condition uh for the project if approved um to complete a daytime nighttime pre-construction analysis noise analysis And then after
construction, when operating um post construction analysis, daytime, nighttime, um to ensure compliance with uh mass D noise uh standards and if it does not meet said standards to
uh have a has a condition to implement noise barriers um etc. so that it is in compliance with mass DP standards. >> What would that be? What would a noise bearer look like? >> What would that be? And is that another
visual impact? >> Um, typically um so we'll depend on the post construction noise analysis and what may be causing that um of where said noise barrier could be installed.
Typically, it's at the equipment pad. So at the locations there on top of the equipment pad to provide a a barrier by an inverter u per se by the inverters per se um and that can be you know designed
there's different materials of what noise barriers can be I think it ranges from wood fiberglass etc. There's a lot of different um things on the market. >> It'd be a wall. Yeah, you could do a wall. You could have additional
Yeah, there there's a lot of v different ways you could come up with a noise barrier if if if needed to make sure it's in compliance with the mass D um noise standard. >> How how high is the are the equip are the equipment that journs noise? How
tall are they? How tall is the equipment proposed? Yes. >> At the equipment pad. >> Yeah. >> I don't have that in in front of me, but um we could >> see if we can check. >> I think it's probably ranges from 4T to
8 ft. Uh we'll get back down it, but it's >> you could theoretically look at a 8ft high wall with vegetation around it to obscure any visual >> potentially. Yeah. Yeah. And again, this can all be engineered to ensure compliance with state noise standards,
>> but still allows you still need to make allowances for for safety as well for access and >> and ensure safety. Yes. >> Yep. >> Let's respond. >> Thank you.
>> You had some followup. Yeah, just a couple things. >> Melinda or Michael? >> I guess a few things. Um, so during the so let's say it's once it's operable who who's responsible to maintain
the access for emergency vehicles to the site in case of an event. Yeah, typical it's a knockbox um for for access um so fire department can make sure they can get in. They would have
access credentials for that >> physical road itself and the access. So you're concerned. >> Yeah. So that will be let me pull up the site plan there and then we can show it in the sense that the access road all the way until the equipment pad is open until a certain
point then there's a fence where the knock knock box would be um if um yeah Melinda will pull up the the plan again and we can just the there's three different um >> who would maintain that
>> area? So the three different array areas, there's basically open access of that road until you get to um the equipment pad areas. That access road um is maintained by
uh owner of the project. Um so Blue Wave asset management team on&m has that operations and and management plan to ensure access to that. Um, and Melinda has the plan up here. You can see where the if you want to use
your cursor, you can see approximately where the gates are. Um, but that whole road right there is would be open from from Pleasant Street um until the equipment pads and then Thank you. So the gates are where exactly or the
>> Yeah, Linda's highlighting there. The red circles are you can see where the fence line is there and be a gate to the array there um in the equipment pad area. So that would be the approximate locations uh for knockbox
um and access for emergency response. So the land owner shares the liability if there's a problem with this road or >> uh we have landowner uh there's agreements in place with the land owner to ensure that um you know there is access um
to the project >> for you end or emergency. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> And so that include winter plowing and stuff like that. >> Yep. Yeah. There's agreements in place for that. Yep. Make sure that gets done. >> How wide is that road?
driveway. Yeah. >> Or driveway. What do you want to call it? >> Eight and a half. No. 20. >> How wide is it? >> Yeah. >> 20 ft wide. >> 20 ft in width. Yes. >> And that so that's been modeled for local vehicles to access.
>> Yes. Correct. Um so we model the access road um for a aerial fire uh an aerial fire truck. So a water fire truck. So, how thick is that road? >> What was that question?
>> What was that, B? >> How thick is that? How what's the depth of that road to support a fire truck? >> Go check that one second. >> EP. >> Uh, a minimum thickness of 12 in. >> Okay. Um and just to expand on that, we
do do a geotechnical investigation associated with the site which says pouring's done. Um and when the file final geotech um report um is put together, the recommendations um to align with the final design of the access road are pulled together
thickness and any fabric proposed underneath the access road is also recommended >> based on soil types and everything. So it could be thicker in some areas and then a minimum of 12 in. >> Right. Yep. Okay. >> Going back um
it was mentioned that the best practice is not to have a uh fire truck or fire emergency response use water. But what if it's a rain event? How do you contain any spillage?
And what considerations on the site have you made to basically mitigate any spillovers or containment that that might want to you know use gravity.
Can you describe this scenario just so I make sure I understand is a >> fire event or something of that sort, right? And let's say it's raining. >> Who knows what the chances are, but let's say that happens. How do you mitigate
the the the potential water runoff that might have some sort of chemicals or things of that sort getting into the ground? So in this scenario, rare instance of a fire as well as it's raining,
I don't have the best practice. Uh I will defer to the fire department um on this one and you can also ask our consultant fire risk alliance if they've contemplated this scenario and what the best practice would be that they advise for said fire department.
>> Maybe that extra containment pad that I was mentioning Just curious, why are we worried about getting a fire truck down there if you're never going to use water to put a fire out? >> So, emergency response, it could be um
um someone's injured in the field, they call 911, ambulance arrives, fire department arrives. I think just for any typical emergency response so that >> folks can access the site. The other I would expect is that if you have something on
fire, you want to be sure somebody's making sure it's not burning the fields and creating a grass fire. >> So reading in your application, um so if there was a just say there was a bad disaster, there's a lot of a lot
of the units burning. I mean there's alter hazmat suits and um I mean there's quite a bit of gear rec required on the responders behalf to be safely be in the area with this fire according to this
and still we would just watch it burn no matter what's happening. >> Are you referring to a specific page in the application? I just want to make sure I'm looking at the same thing. >> No. And I guess I should have made better notes, but um in here you talk about well there's
preparedness and somewhere in here it talks about training that would go into and the risk to emergency response people being near these units if they were if they were burning
and dispel hazardous gas, but not at levels high enough to affect neighbors. but being close to the units. Um, and I'm not sure if that was the what was the other company that Yeah. So, in our emergency response plan
that we submitted um by Fire Risk Alliance, I mean there is response tactics recommended PPE PPE personal protection. >> Exactly. uh that is on page 12 of the emergency
response plan section 4.5. So there's some information there. I don't if that's where your question stems from or if there's something specific on that one. >> I guess I don't really have a question. It's just more of a statement. Just trying to understand what actually happens if something goes wrong.
Yeah, it looks like you know per that section page 12 recommended PPE is National Fire Protection Association code 1970 firefighting gear, structural firefighting gear, use of self-contained breathing apparatus. So there's information there at
>> I'm just saying it's nothing. It's >> Yep. Yeah, it's addressed there. I I I agree. Yep. >> This meeting certainly is going to be continued, Bob. And I'm going to ask the fire chief that he makes it a point to be here uh for the next meeting to
answer some of these questions regarding how they would handle the situation. >> I can also have a representative from Fire Risk Alliance who put together these um the Heiser mitigation plan and emergency response plan to be present as well. So, um, they will be able to get
to these sections and points within the applications much quicker than myself. So, thank you. >> You're all set, Paul. >> Um, I think it's for now. Thank you. >> All right. At this time, I'll ask
residents to come to the podium one at a time and state your name when you come to the podium. Um, and try to keep it 3 to 5 minutes, no more than 5 minutes. And if you are here to express repeated
information, just try to keep it brief. You have new information, it would be helpful. But, uh, >> just just primarily some relevant comments and >> and the names. >> My name is Jack Pereza. I'm on Gilbert
Road in town. Uh, I've been looking through a lot of materials. I worked on the program or project to help Westfield put down the battery proposal that they had last year
and I learned an awful lot through that including some of the articles that were put out on a newsletter called the black squirrel which is readily available for a lot of people. But uh in in essence, the whole problem I have with this
situation is that I think the whole concept of of where we are right now started because of the global warming controversy, global cooling, global warming. Now it's just climate change. So at that point there
were people that came along and says, "Hey, we could get some solar energy." uh some websites I've looked into a number of of websites I list of a dozen websites uh one of them is called solarcompare.com
uh talks about disadvantages of panels sporadic advantages of sunlight varies toxicity that that would be uh obviously mitigated by a rotating panel toxicity of panel materials cause
environmental degradation fossil fuels are used to manufacture the things. A lot of fossil fuels. So, what are we doing for our environment that way? Particulate matter pollutants detrimental to people and wildlife come off the panels. There's uh actually
there's even a small Facebook article on that showing exactly that this is an issue just with the panels themselves. Forget about the batteries, startup costs, and storage. Big bucks. All this is big bucks. very susceptible to
weather events, wind, snow, hail, rain, sleet, etc. It does alter drainage. A lot of discussion has been done about mitigating that and and trying to deal with that. Uh, one of the questions I had is who is the nearest butter
downstream of this? I know that that property all kind of slopes down from upper pleasant down to the lower area. is where are the are batteries located near a a budding property owner? Is that my understanding that they're at the
lower level of this the the site? >> It doesn't appear to be from my reading of the map, but how far >> it's like uh what is it? >> Um ft. >> What's the topography?
is downhill. So, it's kind of >> from batteries to the property. >> 800 I'm taking a guess 800 ft. I don't know. >> Yeah, that that property could easily be wiped out with any kind of a battery issue. Um, basically
the whole concept of solar panels, uh, I I know there's some research going on right now of they've got things this big that will do basically the same thing as one panel will do. still in trial and development stages. So, it might be a long way off, but the panels themselves
are they're pretty inefficient. They're somewhat unreliable. I think the base the basic numbers that I heard were around 18 to 23 25% of the energy that comes in is is being
able to be taken off and made use of. Uh, and there was a website called solarp powerfocus.com that talks about that. Obviously, it's been discussed already. There's a serious waste issue when finished. I don't know what the benefit is we're
getting from all this. I mean, ultimately, I would hope that part of that is supposed to be to reduce energy costs. Doesn't happen to my electric bill. I've got people coming to my house probably once every week trying to have me put solar panels on my house.
uh sounded good the first proposal I had a few years ago, but the more I look into it, the more I keep questioning, you're going to cut my electric bill down if I do this, but where is that extra energy going? It's going to the electric company. How
come my electric bill, if I'm not a so solar power user, doesn't diminish? Supposedly, this these kind of projects are out there to cause this type of benefit or return to us. that's not happening. There's a lot of companies
just making a lot of money off of this. Um I I guess the main thing the thing that bothers me most of all are batteries because I know that they're highly toxic. You can destroy the land permanently. You're not going to
mitigate it. If if you have the proper battery issue, you can totally destroy the land. It can get into the groundwater. Can get into the manhand. It can get to other groundwater. I have a well under my property. I've seen when they replaced the pump, I could see the
water flowing underneath. If if that was ever on my property and it got into the ground, it would get into that water which could seep in to some other well probably maybe into the stream. I'm I'm the Manhan River is right down the street from where I live. And and where
could that go? Over there or or other places? I'm up higher than than where this project is going to be. So I would be upstream from it. But what about the people that are downstream from it? What what issues could they be facing? Ultimately,
you could destroy property. So it's un unmititigatable. You could destroy lives or health and I don't know who puts price on that and who is responsible for it. the cost of it, medical care, whatever else might be
required, deaths, uh loss of your whole your whole property. The other thing is too, I I mentioned this to to Ron, well, not to Ron directly, but bas Yeah, kind of directly to Ron at uh one of the last meetings. Uh he's farming corn
and hay. Where does the hay go to feed animals usually, okay? which go to market. Where does the corn go either to people and or to animals which go to market? Do I want to be consuming things
that are being fed or or coming from a uh a source that could be possibly infiltrated with all kinds of questionable hazardous materials now and down the road.
Batteries I think have I I don't know if they can correct me on any of this, but I think I've heard that batteries only last about their expected life. I think right now is about good life is about 15 to 20 years. So why are we talking about a 30-year project? What happens in 30
years when all of us are gone and a bunch of people have an incident or something major happens? Who's left hole in the bag? Who suffers? Who pays? Who knows? That's my concern.
If anybody would like any information, I have plenty of things that I'd be willing to provide. Uh websites, copies of these articles. I've got a couple here I can leave with people if they want to look at them. The black squirrel. Uh it's it's just
I'm an engineer by by training myself. I've got a master's degree in engineering, so I understand a lot of this stuff. And when I first heard solar, it sounded great. But what's being done with it today, it's a lot of people just making a lot of money off it. And I see that the downside far
outweighs the upside at this point. >> Hi. Uh my name is Kristen Melo. I live at 27 Mosley in Westfield. Um there are six in here, one for each of you and one for the applicant. Um, normally I would let Southampton
residents speak first, but you asked if there were any elected official in the room. And uh, full disclosure, I'm a city councelor at large in Westfield and I'm chair of the natural resources committee. Uh, but we're off for the summer, so I'm here in my own personal
uh, capacity. Uh, I'm also the director of Westfield residents advocating for themselves. Um, made a little bit of a stink about the battery storage in Westfield. Um so here are 26 multi-part questions that
we have curated about the proposal in front of you uh with specific page numbers to the document that is online. So um if it says page 30 or page 304 that's the document you have on your website. Um it's not of each separate
appendix. Uh so what you'll notice here is that these are just questions of fact. Um, however, since I've been listening tonight, uh, I have another. The first of which is, are we all aware that they are having the official welcoming
ceremonies for the F-35s at Barnes in September, which means whatever sound measurements you took are nothing compared to what's going to happen. Um, and so the cumulative sound impact is going to be really important when you look at that. Um, and also for
all the new energy sighting in the state, cumulative impact analysis matters and so you're going to want to ask those questions in the future. Um, also just uh as an aside because I'm a nosy kind of person and I look stuff up.
Um, in 2022 there was a peer-reviewed journal article um on the thermal runaway analysis of lithium iron phosphate electrical energy storage with different venting areas and void volumes. Um, there are certainly fires with these batteries. So don't listen to
people giving you science who are selling you something. Um, always always look things up yourself. So, the questions include things like, do the proposed best units contain any chemicals that fall under the OECD's
2021 definition of PAS? Spoiler alert, in Westfield, they certainly did, but it took 2 and 1/2 years to get them to admit it. And of course, when PAS lights on fire, they become airborne PAS. Different shapes and sizes of PAS, some of which are much
more deadly. So, you want to know what the combustion products of all those components are, too. There are literally 26 multiaceted questions. I ask that you get responses to every single one. I gave you one so that you could have a copy for them.
They're all written and I emailed it to you tonight. Um, they specifically reference the bylaws that you are working with. I understand that this is not a special permit. It should be um
they specifically go to the statements in your bylaws. They specifically go into what is required for a site plan approval. They specifically talk about the components of the battery storage. The application
in front of you is incomplete. It doesn't have information about that emergency that emergency plan is not good enough to say yes to. It is not complete. It is not safe. There is no information about who is responsible to
notify the residents. It's not fully baked. You can't just take some kind of cookie cutter template, slap Southampton on the front, and pretend it's okay. By the way, that tertiary containment that's been asking for is required.
It's required in your own bylaws. Thank you very much for bringing it up. One of the reasons you can say no or one of the reasons you could say yes to the solar panels, no to the battery is because this is in the zone two. It's
not a toe in the zone too. It is completely in the zone 2 and water doesn't belong to you. That water belongs to the state of Massachusetts and you are responsible to keep it clean. The choices you make in
this room put you on the hook for keeping that water clean. And you know what a bad job we've done. So these are my questions for now. There might be more if you continue it. And
based on the answers, I bet there will be more because I'm known as that girl with the questions. I'm an analytical chemist. That's why all the chemistry questions are in here. It is important to your water quality
that you get the answers. Water quality is public health. Don't take your science from salespeople. Thank you. >> Who would like to be next? Next. So, I'm from Westfield, too. My name is
Jessica Britain. Um, I'm curious. Um, so you guys are Boston based, right? Blue Wave. Okay. And who owns you guys? >> Defer to the chair if he wants me to address directly.
>> Yeah. Go ahead. So um Blue Wave um has been been in business since 2010. In 2023 um we were um acquired by Axium Infrastructure. >> Okay.
And they are it looks like an investment firm, a hedge fund that invests in different types of renewable energy, social and infrastructure. Um, and they're based out of Montreal
and they have locations in New York, London. Um, and they are actually set up with, sorry, I'm looking at my notes. They're set up with a lot of different um
national or global I should say um climate requirements like they have the net zero asset managers initiative and um
the PA staff which is the partnership for carbon accounting financials. Um, and it looks like they have a lot of oversight in the projects. So, do you guys own the projects or do you have to get approval with your projects with
Axiom? >> Blue Wave is the owner operator of the projects. Axiom is the parent company of Blue. >> Okay. But you guys don't have to because they have such a strong social responsibility in overseeing a lot of the projects,
especially stuff that goes to like net zero carbon. So you you guys don't have to get approval through them for your projects. >> I I would speak to business terms of >> I was going to ask you where you're
going. that. >> Well, I guess I'm just trying to understand like they brought up who's going to hold the bag. You know, first we're told that fires are rare when they're really not. And
you know we don't know what the actual who's going to do maintain like the all the guidelines um maintenance who's going to come in and mitigate for other towns who's who's going to hold
the bag. So, I'm just curious like how far up the chain who's going to hold the bag for, you know, the state of Massachusetts water, Westfield, uh, Holy Oak, like all the surrounding towns and cities should there be an
event because, you know, what we've seen over the last couple of years is that uh, battery energy storage fires do happen. And what we heard is the lithium iron
isn't necessarily as ironclad as um we want it to be. So I'm just curious, you know, how far up the chain is um who's going to hold the bag? And you know, is this truly about being local, you know,
in the state of Massachusetts having a project and feeling like, oh yeah, we're going to follow the rules and you know, this is, you know, feel good because we're supporting a local business, but are we really supporting a local business when it's a global organization
with, you know, climate agenda policies? So that's all. >> Thank you. Cassandra Adams, 40 Pleasant Street. I have like a statement I want to read and then I have a couple of questions. So, I'm going to say good evening to the Mr.
Chairman and members of the planning board. As I said, my name is Cassandra Adams. My husband and I have lived at 40 Pleasant Street for 47 years and thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I am not here because I oppose renewable energy. I am here because I
believe location matters and I do not believe an industrial solar facility with two battery energy storage systems belongs over one of our region's most important drinking water resources. I ask you to look beyond the words solar project and consider what is actually
being proposed here. This is a large industrial energy producing facility over 22 acres. That's equivalent to 17 football fields. It includes hundreds of steel posts, thousands of solar panels, electrical
equipment, transformers, access roads, and again the two battery energy storage systems. Just look at the size of the concrete pads that are shown on the plan. They are twice as long as our raised ranch and twice as wide. Most importantly, the industrial
facility is proposed over the Barnes Aquifer, one of the most valuable natural resources in Western Massachusetts. The Barnes Aquifer provides drinking water to thousands of people in Southampton, Westfield, East Hampton, and Hoyok. Clean drinking water is not
something we can replace if it's damaged. Once groundwater is contaminated, the consequences can last for generations. This issue is deeply personal to my family. My husband proudly served our country as a young Marine in the early 1970s.
During that service, he was stationed at Camp Leune, North Carolina for over a year and drank water that was later discovered to be contaminated with toxic chemicals. Years later, he was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. Whether people know something someone
affected or not, no family ever expects that the water they trusted could later become a source of lifelong concern. That experience never leaves you. When you've lived through something like that, you don't take risks with drinking
water lightly. You learn that decisions made today, sorry, can affect families decades into the future. For nearly half a century, my husband and I have been proud to call Pleasant Street our home. People chose
to live here because of its open spaces, its wildlife, and its quiet rural character. Industrial energy infrastructure is something entirely different. I respectfully ask the planning board to remember that your responsibility is not only to today's
residents, but also to future generations. Please carefully consider whether placing an industrial solar facility and two battery energy storage systems over the Barnes aquifer is the right location. Most importantly, please remember that once an aquifer is
damaged, there is no easy way to restore it. Clean drinking water is one of the few resources we simply cannot afford to lose. Southampton has one chance to protect the Barnes aquifer. If we make the wrong decision, we cannot undo it. My husband has already experienced what
happens when people trust that their drinking water is safe and later learn it wasn't. I sincerely hope no other family in Southampton ever has to live through that kind of uncertainty. If there is any doubt about protecting the Barnes aquifer, then the answer should not be to move forward and hope for the
best. The answer should be to protect the aquifer first. Some decisions can never be reversed. Contaminating a public water supply cannot. I respectfully ask you to deny this application as proposed or at minimum
require the applicant to reclo relocate the two battery energy source systems in any associated industrial infrastructure away from the Barnes aquifer before approval is considered. Please protect our drinking water. Please protect the
Barnes Aquifer and please protect Southampton's future. Thank you for your time and your thoughtful consideration. I do have a couple of questions. Um, have any of you on the board seen what these look like or visited any of these
arrays? I'm sure Blue Wave would be happy to have you go on a field trip and look at the ones that are up in Graanville. There's three areas up in Granville that they've put these on and they are not in the line of sight. You cannot see them.
There are no neighbors next to them. Believe me, my husband and I have traveled to a number of these arrays and they're in the middle of nowhere. There's no houses around them to see it, never mind on an aquifer. And I wanted to know too,
um, are you able to see the agreement that was made with the land owner? Do you get access to what that agreement is? Like they're saying that well it's in the agreement. It's in the agreement. So nobody none of you see the agreement.
>> No that private agreement. I mean, >> nobody ever sees the agreement with the land owner as to what's being >> that's a private party document on that's >> so we're supposed to take their word for it that what's in there is what the
>> take for the word is what's in the application >> and anything that's relevant the application is what board has to make the decision on. >> Okay. Okay. And just on the noise thing, we live
right across from where actually in the summer Steve Vista would be out there with his with his father actually many years ago. There's a constant breeze that comes across that meadow all year long. Constant breeze. We could listen to conversations way out in the back
field right where this best is going to be. So this decibel business, it's all it's I can tell you right now, we could hear whole conversations of what they were saying. Thank you. The applause. Yes.
Next, Linda Day from Maple Street. I just have a quick question going back to the insurance. Um, with with it being over the aquifer like everybody's concerned about, if the water was polluted,
how would you have insurance to cover all that? Um, and we would need to have insurance because if if there was a fire to begin with, you're going to have all the gases coming out. The neighbors would all be getting smoked out of there because you got to let it burn out, telling you
they'll put water on it and there's no suppression. So, it's just going to burn. So, first they're going to have that. And if it goes into the aquifer, now we're all poisoned. We're no water. So, what kind of insurance could they
give? And it would have to last, they're saying, a 30-year contract. So, 30 years from now, a $10 job becomes a million-doll job. So, how would they um have all this done up so that we could feel comfortable that we would be
covered and our future generations would be covered. And and there's a lot of towns even in East Hampton. I was talking to somebody the other day. They're worried about the housing, all the housing going up and taking, you know, the the well situation because East Hampton comes off of wells and for
their water. So, it's the same thing as us. We have wells as if if you keep drawing that down, well, it it's gone. You know, is it going to be gone or low or not as much as you can have? So all the more people are depending on this
aquifer. So we cannot have it poisoned or take the chance of it. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Richard Adams, 40 Pleasant Street. Uh got a few questions pertaining to the fire situations. Um all the questions
that you were asking were spot on. you. I'm uh actually a retired firefighter from the city of Westfield for 32 years. I have a general knowledge of what those questions that you were asking and I thought they were great. The problem I'm
having is why isn't our fire chief here? Can anybody explain why >> why he isn't here? >> Yeah, I the applicant sent um packets I believe to police, fire, and highway. it
was part of the application process. I I can't speak for >> I can tell you right now in the city of Westfield, the city council would have the fire chief at present at these meetings and explaining to the people and uh the questions that the board has
as to the questions that you had. >> Well, >> you know, it's it's not up to Blue Wave to be answering the questions that we're asking. >> I understand that. But if he's not here and this is certainly going to be continued and it's probably going to be continued for some time to come, there'll be plenty of time for him to
weigh in and I'll ask him to be here at the next meeting. Okay. Now, the the other thing with that is, you know, the our volunteer fire department does a great job. They're great for car fires, house fires, uh
brush fires, all of the normal everyday fires that are encountered. they are not prepared for combating an industrial facility uh with the best system in place.
You know there it's just something that I don't believe they're capable of handling. >> That would be a question for the >> Exactly. It sure would. And you know I the first question is what is this uh emergency plan? that would
>> all communities are supposed to have an emergency plan, you know, and we've heard nothing about that other than >> I'm I'm sure I'm sure he'll be able to address that when we get him here. >> All right. Very good. Thank you.
>> Anyone else? >> Okay. Uh Marshia Mazorski 3 Bkari Lane. Um as with everybody else, I'm concerned about the fire act and the and the battery storage uh portion of things. What I'm
wondering is is how much um reliability data is on the LFP systems? Uh does this change with the batteries? Is there a schedule for changing out the battery systems on a regular basis? Um how often do they degrade?
um and and rates of uh failure. Uh again with everybody else, I'm also concerned of the out outgassing um both from the the plume of the fire byproducts um for both the air and the
um aquifer. And lastly, um I think that uh charging and freezing temperatures is a problem. Um that if it gets below um below a certain temperature without compensation, you can cause um lithium plating forming uh denderites that
eventually s short circuit cells that then again lead to fire. So I'm wondering if there's also um a temperature control in these things. I'm I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I E I leen I love the idea of solar but I'm not so crazy about our battery technology as of today.
>> That's it. Thank you. >> Would you like to address any of that, Michael? >> No, not at this time. Okay. Next. >> Afternoon everyone. Um my name is Kate Savver. I'm uh a member of the board of health here in Southampton, address 34
Strong Road. Um we've had a lot of uh deliberating conversations on the board over the last few months once this project came to light. Um first thing I want to strongly encourage collaboration as we move forward potentially with this project proposal. There's been, just for
um full transparency, there's been no direct request given to our board of health for a review of this project. Um we have been in conversations with Blue Wave. Um but it is important uh as the board of health, we um the direct things
we're interested in is protection of the groundwater. That's been addressed in in many forms tonight. one two is the the nuome trade or ambient noise of this project potentially. Um those are the two the two major concerns and and all the chemicals that are associated with
this project which tie into both of those things. First I do want to say I sympathize with the basistas because we live in very hard economic times and we all are looking for ways to sustain. So, I just I I want to emphasize that that
we understand we do understand why you're looking into things like this because it's hard for us to thrive in this current economic condition. Um, and you want to keep your farm and your home and um your the important land that you have. So, I understand where you're trying to be creative with this. Unfortunately, the potential negative
impacts this project has outweighs those individual risks that we're seeing that have been presented tonight. Um, I do want to clarify some points. So, there was a statement made by Blue Wave that it's a self-contained unit and so in the event of a fire, there's no risk of the chemicals leeching into the ground.
That's that's incorrect. So, if there was a fire to the unit, thereby um affecting the outer shell from melting high temperature heats and things like that, there is an impact. There has been studies done in um previous incidents, not necessarily blue wave, I'm not
saying that, but with bath systems um where chemicals do leech into the ground. And so I appreciate you guys investigating the opportunity for an additional containment. Um what that would look like logistically. I don't know, but I'm I'm interested in that option. Um I also want to emphasize here um the
limited resources that I know being on a board that Southampton has. One financial and two with our public health. So one financial being a question that is brought brought up by residents in regards to insurance policies and things. I also find it
highly unlikely for any company to be covering additional residents outside of you know the the individual that they are coming into agreement with. I I mean that would be a wonderful surprise but I do find it highly unlikely. I can tell you for a
fact in our financial environment um and where we see it going unfortunately with the lack of federal um and even state local support that we're getting here in the town of Southampton that we would not be able to afford um public water tie-in for residents
affected if their groundwater was contaminated by a best system in the event of a catastrophe. And I understand that that's a huge what if, but I think it's important to know that um even a large detail that feels like a small detail when we're talking about something um this large with a lot of
different facts. Um but we would not be able to financially take that on as a town. Just want everyone to have a full understanding. So there would need to be an appropriate contingency plan for public water connection to all of these sites in the event of a catastrophe if we were to move forward with that.
Number one. Number two, um, sorry. Okay, this this addresses and I wish the fire chief was here tonight. I think he may have had a conflict. We have had as a board of health conversations with him about this as we've learned more information about the project. And I
just want for again full transparency um at a state and a federal level, you're required to have an um an emergency comprehensive emergency management plan. Aside, and this has nothing to do with Blue Wave, this has to do with our town. I just want people to understand that today as we stand even prior to talking
about best systems and fire containment and all those things, we as a town of Southampton do not have an updated document. So that just gives you a sense of like how behind we are on the times and this is not at fall of the fire chief, you know, he is new to his role, but like we are we have a lot of work to
do at baseline for emergency preparedness. And then when you start talking about largecale things that could go ary like best systems it I mean that's adds another lay layer. So um I think again I appreciate you guys having a public hearing. This conversation I'm sure will continue. Biggest things to
emphasize is just collaboration and we're happy to have more discussion and appreciate all the public being here. Um and want you to know that this is not us against you. The she says we understand. We empathize because we're all in similar situations. No problem. Thank
you. >> And I'm going to also say we've been neighbors for 45 plus years. This has nothing to do against you. Um, but at a recent conservation commission meeting, >> your name again, please. >> I'm sorry. Eileen Boater, 46 Pleasant
Street. At the recent conservation commission meeting where they approved this um there was a representative from Fleetwood Environmental Group that said Blue Wave was exempt from certain regulations because this project is deemed agricultural.
An industrial commercial project of this size I I don't should not be exempt from anything. It should be special permanent. It should be a lot of things. This project consists of almost 10,000 solar panels which are anywhere from and I may have this wrong but somewhere from
8 to 14 ft high and I don't think most people there's two equipment pads that they have talked about north and south that are 52 by 107 that is four times the length of my home just picture that and they're n you had asked Richard
about the height they are 9 and 1/2 ft tall. So, if you have to put sound barriers up, those will have to be 10 ft tall. Those will look nice. Um, you know, the batteries, they claim each there. So, in each pad,
there's two lithium ion phosphate batteries, which were approximately the size of a parking space. There's 15 inverters, one transformer. All of these things make noise 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
I also would like to know if Blue Wave or anyone else is going to compensate the homeowners around this project for the loss of the value of their property because we've been told by a realtor, there will be loss. Your property is not
going to be worth what it was once. And as everyone has brought up, the noise and no one's brought up the glare that these 10,000 panels that are moving with the sun will throw at your home or
people driving by or whatever, but the noise is, you know, I, as you said, you can hear a pin drop on that street at night. I sat up on my porch the other night at 10:00 and I could hear crickets. I heard some koi
dogs and that was it. You couldn't hear. You could have heard a little something running across the back lawn if they had. So, because you're able to farm under this, you know, it's all exempt from this and that and the other thing. So, does that
mean if I were to have a big huge vegetable farm in my backyard that I could call it now farmland and pay less taxes, pay farmland taxes, you know? They wouldn't allow a Big Y or a CVS or
anything like that to go on this land because it's zoned rural residential, not commercial. The only people that are going to benefit from this project is Blue Wave. The rest of us will suffer the losses of our property value, our
sanity, and many other things. To me, these solar arrays belong in a parking lot over Walmart, over big malls. That's where they belong. Thank you. We have anybody else?
Anyone else like to speak? Thank you. Uh Jeff Boater, 46 Pleasant Street. I I really don't even know where to start. Uh I didn't prepare anything in writing. I think for the next meeting I will bring something in writing. It'll
probably whatever. Uh sound. Okay. The that's going to be a major problem for everybody. Uh first of all, in the documents that were provided, the
370 pages, it talks about they went by 70 dB out of these best units. That's what they determined that they were going to be because they didn't have the actual decibel reading from the manufacturer. Evidently, they didn't read their own documents because it's 75
at one meter from the best units. Um the inver and there's four of those things 24/7 buzzing away inverters the decibel reading off of those things a meter away is 72 72 or 73
I can't remember what it is it's damn close to what it is out of the best there's 30 of those we we went to a site in Hadley that has no best it's got I want to say four inverters the thing is only two acre site compared to this 22.
It's freaking loud. Excuse me. It's It's loud. Not necessarily on the street because it's back from the street, but as you walk close to it, it's it's it's noticeable. And this that's going to be nothing compared to this. Uh,
okay. Fires. You put these things out. You don't put them out, you let them burn. Everybody knows that. It could take five days. It could take two days or five days or who knows what it is. Up in Warwick, New York, a year, well, this past December,
I think it was, there was a fire there. Two years prior to that, there was a fire at the same facility. Um, you all you're doing is wetting down the area around it to prevent the thing from spreading. If one best unit's on fire,
you're going to soak the soak. I got to watch my mouth. Soak the area around, including the best that sitting right next to it that isn't on fire yet. So, you're going to be doing that for the duration of the fire, 4 days, whatever
it is. All the smoke that's going up in the air is going to get washed into the ground. Not all of it. Some's going to keep going in the air, but some of it is going to be washed into the ground by the fire hoses. And when it goes into the ground, some of it is going to be running off on the surface and others of
it is going to go into the aquifer into the ground. So, I mean, the whole thing just doesn't even make any sense. Uh, we're talking about fires. NFPA 55, you got you've got that in there a number of
times in the 370 pages. It references NFPA uh 855, the 2020 version. That's not the current version. current version is 2026. The 2020 version didn't even
address best systems like this. They didn't even probably have them in 2020. So, if that's what they used to to put this 370 page document together, that's wrong. Uh I I I I went through all 370
pages. I've marked it all up. I've I literally could stand here for four hours and talk. I I I just don't know where to start and I don't know where to stop. Uh I I
there's so many so many answers that in your in your project description, you you you state things out of the bylaws and you say acknowledged. What What is that supposed to mean? I mean,
okay, structures should be screened from view. Acknowledged. You acknowledge it and then you say and then you propose a screening thing that isn't going to do anything. I mean, you
got trees at I want to say 60 foot on center with with bushes in between them. I mean, between the arborites and the maples. I heard something about cedars today. These things start out at 6 feet tall. Maybe in 20 years they'll do
something, but you're not screening anything. You're you're the the screening line you're putting up is on the south side of the property that you know faces a few houses. The people driving by on Pleasant Street are going
to look at this thing and just shake their head. So, never mind the neighbors. It it's just it's absolutely it's the it's the wrong sighting for this facility period. You know why didn't it go further back on the on on the property? I'll tell you
why. Because it would cost too much money to come out to the Pleasant Street with the power. I I I don't know. I I got to just shut up because I I'm going to put together a list. This is just beyond beyond
Thank you. >> Would anyone else like to go ahead Kate? >> Hi. I'll make it very brief. Um, Caitlyn Rokes, 189 College Highway, also a member of the board of health. So, I just wanted to I had a list of about
two-sided piece of paper. Same thing as Jeff. many many questions many uh some of which I forwarded to blue wave some of which I actually think we need to address as a town um which is separate from blue wave but I just want to go back to the list of questions that I asked
>> did I interrupt you just are these board of health regulations that are they >> well so zoning >> so the the I I think that's a great question and part of my struggle is the fact that we were encouraged to defer to the planning board which I'm also trying
to be respectful of the process, but I also feel like again going back to collaboration that it's important that no matter where the questions get answered that they're addressed somewhere and I do think that some of them are pertaining to zoning and if you feel like it would be better to ask
these questions separately, we can certainly pursue a site assignment, but we were first encouraged to come here and uh follow the planning board process because it was believed that many of these questions would be addressed through the planning board process.
process. >> I know what the questions are. So, >> so I just I'll make it very brief. So, the first question I asked was about safety data sheets for the chemicals that would be included in this best system. That question remains unanswered. I asked a question about air
quality considerations with a toxic fire. That question was not answered. I do want to acknowledge this is a board of health consideration about the no glare uh that was noted in the plan. I just have a really hard time understanding how there will be no glare from this particular system. But yes, you're right that does fall within a
board of health uh regulation. Emergency management is a separate town issue and I'm going to defer that question. But I just want to go back to the groundwater protection because I heard a couple questions about that and I just want to acknowledge that the DMPs the best management practices for storm water
management do not acknowledge the questions that Paul brought up about the unfortunate incident of a fire. Right. Your question there, which remains unanswered, was about what would happen if there was a fire, where would that water go? Don't know if that falls within planning board or within the
board of health, but I think it's an important question to answer. Um, the noise question, not really clear. There can be a condition about noise studies. Still don't understand how there could be a baseline noise level of 52 dB. And I also, this is the one question that I
really feel like we need to come back to is, and this has been asked several times, and I'm still unclear, other than revenue generating to Blue Wave, I really want to understand what the public benefit is to this best system being installed in a zone 2 water
protection area. other than profit. I just, you know, aside, solar panels aside, eyesore aside, I just want to go back to the best system and the the inherent risks caused by this battery system and understand what the benefit
is of risk is to the town and the abutters and what what how is this appropriate land use over a public drinking public water drinking supply and if so like is it really absolutely necessary to move this forward project
forward? And if so why and if the why is a dollar sign without regards to the emergency plans or the risk to the town or the risk to the abutters or the risk to everything else. I just that to me is a very important question for blue wave
to answer is what is this I I understand the bushistas. I want them to be able to sustain farming. But I I what I was told is that the reason that a best system is needed is because it allows for a solar company to sell back power during peak
demand periods. That to me is not a rationale to everybody else in the surrounding area about why this system is necessary. And again going back to Blueway being a n a large company that exists far outside of Southampton that is I just feel like
it's really important for people to think about why why is the best system necessary. Solar panels may help to generate power and help to generate income and it's the Bashista's land, but the BAS system itself could pose irreparable damage to which we haven't
answered the question of what what who would cover the cost of remediation and environmental monitoring and removal of contaminated soils and all of these things establishing water lines. All of those questions are so far from being answered. Uh but I I just want to go
back to why is the best system absolutely crit mission critical to this project moving forward and maybe it'll go unanswered like many of my other questions. I just think just I'm just going to say briefly I think the economics of it
don't enter into what what zoning um is all about here that we have to address. But I'll let >> Richard planning board is bound to consider this application based upon the zoning bylaw and the stormware bylaw as
it existed on the date of application. U I would disagree with your comment that clearly isn't a plan board issue. I think it is I think falls under site plan review criteria. Uh I think there's that's what people need to look at is
the planning board has to review this based upon site plan review criteria in the zoning bylaw. And I had I think noise I think the um uh glare visual the screening all that falls within plan
board. It is a site plan issue. um maintenance of access. Uh we've already raised question that they're going to have to find an answer to is indentification issue. Um and um
so plan board is looking at with within the bylaw itself as it exists on date of uh application. Town can't apply regulations to a project after they've submitted an application. that that'd be kind of like saying, you know, I don't
want you building that house. So, what I'm going to do is, oh, you've already got a building permit. No, we're going to you apply for building. No, we're going to change the building code. So, you can't build a house. You can't change the rules after somebody applies for permit. That that that's just
grossly unfair. Um, as much as you may think the rules are wrong, that's what they are at the time. Um and so plan board and there may board of health regulations that board of health needs to administer and plan board can't
enforce those. Now maybe input from board of health results in conditions that plan board attaches to a site plan review and then it becomes enforceable to the building commissioner. But the plan board is
bound by the zoning bylaw and the stormwater bylaw as they existed when they submitted their application. >> Back with the people in their in their lives. >> The planning board took an oath when they took uh their positions just like
board of health members did to uphold the laws of the state and the town and plan board members would do that. Um, that's that's one of the problems of reason a lot of places have trouble getting people to serve on boards is
because sometimes a decision they want to make isn't a decision they're obligated to make under the law. Like sometimes you want to deny may want to deny a food permit to somebody because but they comply with the law so
you have to issue it to them. Uh, and so that that's not always what you want to do, but sometimes that's what you have to do. >> Does anyone else want to speak, make a comment before we wrap this up? >> I just have a quick question. Go ahead. >> So, I know we've been to a lot of these
meetings and the last one was the battery storage. So, this project is being looked at as far as what we have already on the books as far as bylaws and that's solar panels on your house
with a little battery storage thing in your garage. That's what we're using as a temp to to judge this project. >> No, we have we have three different four different uh scales of solar in our bylaw, >> residential and three or four commercial
>> and commercial. Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> This isn't really about the uh rule here. This is about our bylaws. We got a solar generating bylaw under purpose. It says the purpose of this section is to minimize I'm skipping
minimize impacts on environmental, scenic, natural, and historic resources and provide adequate financial assurance for eventual decommissioning of such installations. That's on page that's like on the first paragraph of the solar island. And your point is
>> My point is >> your point is >> my point is that there's a lot of things in here. >> We haven't got to we haven't even scratched the surface on what we have to discuss going forward on it which will be addressed at you know down the road. There's there's a lot in there and and
we haven't we're going to be meeting here quite a few times I can see in in advance. So we we've got a lot of work to do ahead of us. >> All right. Very good. I've got many things tagged on every single one of these.
>> Um so going forward we need a peer review that we have to have on this project from an independent source. um our consultant um put out a RFP >> a solicitation
>> solicitation for firms to uh do the work and we weren't too successful but two did comply with the uh request >> um >> yeah no I >> just give some background on I sent this to plan board
>> um shortly after we made aware that there would be a need for peer review of a solar generating project located at least partially within the water supply protection district. I submit a an email in the mass planners list serve to see
if other communities had any recommendations. As a result of this solicitation, I was informed that the following firms were interested. Thai bond rural plane associates Berkeley Group. I'm also familiar with other firms in the region
that have been involved with previews of various projects. Thus, I submit a solicitation via email to Time Bond, Rural Plane Associates, Berkeley Group, VHB, and Fuss O'Neal. Um, I sent them basically saying big
issue is the water supply protection district. Um, and that's concern we already had. We received a response from time bond saying they would not be able to perform the work due to a conflict of interest.
Uh VHB said they had passed one at this time. Fel said they were unable to submit at this time. So we received proposals from rural planning associates and Berkeley Group. Um I've submitted those to the planning
board. There's I think there maybe based on input tonight, one of the things I didn't note uh in my solitation was um noise was a consideration and that we want the noise uh study reviewed as well
as fire safety. Um, and so what I might want to do is if the board says they want more peerreview proposals, I can solicit send additional firms. And additionally, I can ask these
folks say we also know that noise study peer review is essential. We also understand that fire safety h the emergency response has hazard hazardous analysis
is needs to be peerreviewed. That's critical item and have them give us revised proposals. U and then the board could meet at another meeting just to review and select a peer review without
any discussion of the project. uh because discussion of the project can only occur within the confines of a public hearing. When the data is submitted, that's we're limited to that. Um so I turn on the board decided what
they want to do if they want to select one of these two firms or they want to get some additional solicitation. Uh I'd let Paul go first on this because he's got some information to share. going through these proposals, I I think
it's in our best interest to solicit a couple more um different times to identify the additional concerns that came up today. Um and I and I don't think the these two
fully address all that were this time. So I I would ask reach out to a couple other folks to get more. Mark, any comment? I >> think he nodded. Yes, he agreed.
>> Yes, I agreed. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, what I'll do is I'll solicit more firms and also go back to these two and say these are additional issues that were raised at the first hearing. We want to be sure that your proposal
includes a review of these items and has the necessary skill set to do that. One of the concerns we I think we would share is that one of the firms had no engineering attached to it and that is a concern and
the other firm that did have engineering attached to it. We got to see if there's a conflict of interest the engineer and this for the applicant to weigh in on one board members works for that engineering firm. I don't know
if the applicant would see that as conflict of interest or not. Uh that's I think that's something for for the applicant to weigh in on that. Um but I I will try to sol solicit
something tonight or tomorrow afternoon and ask to have responses within two weeks which means I know board is scheduled to meet on another hearing on uh a August 5th. >> Yeah, we have a special permit uh coming
up August 5th. So that's when we're meeting next and we can put it on the agenda to select a firm by then. that we strictly just select a peerreview firm, not discuss the right >> the project or the application at all.
>> And given that given that um I think we discussed possibly continuing this then to September 2nd or do you think that's going to be time enough? September 2nd would be the date I would suggest and the worst case scenario is if the peer
reviewer is unable to complete provide a completely complete peer review by that that time then it'd be continued to another date when they know they would have ready by then >> which means you wouldn't get any prior notice other
than the fact that you'd have to show up. we'd simply open the meeting. The the applicant would request it to continue and what I would hope is we know in sufficient time that under your agenda
on the um uh you can post a revised agenda indicating the peer reviewer has requested more time and the applicant has requested extension a continuation. So that way people could have some idea what's going to be considered that night
at the hearing >> be on the town website and and uh my town government but you won't be getting another notice by mail the abutters. So before I go any further I'd like a motion to um continue the search for a
peer reviewer that we um keep going out of that process. Do I have a motion? >> I'll make a motion. Second >> motion made by Bob and selected uh seconded by Paul. All in favor? >> I.
>> I. >> And also I would like a motion that we continue this hearing uh till September 2nd here in this room at 700 p.m. Don't all talk at once.
>> So moved. Can I ask a question? >> Excuse me. >> To your peer review. >> Excuse me. Motion made by Paul. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Motion made by Paul. Second by Bob. All in favor? >> I.
>> Yes, sir. >> Yes. I was at I was wondering the Conservation Commission sent forwarded their peer review from Lubec. Is that something you're going to be using? >> No. Well, well,
>> mine need we need to find out what the peerreview report says >> for conservation. >> Mine saying they did a review of the storm water >> component and that is relevant to fact that you've got a storm permit application as well as a site plan
review application. We really should have the peer review. >> Are we going to accept their peer review or have a separate one on that? I would suggest you look at it first and see if you feel it's complete because I for one have never recommended
a community do two peer reviews of the same project of the same topic. My personal question is why the conservation commission had to peer review the storm water since they're not the stormwater pering entity
the planning board is. Um, and therefore I I think we need to get that that peerreview report and board needs to look at it and then we can decide whether or not you need additional peerreview. >> Are we sure about that? It it
specifically address storm water concerns. >> That's my question. >> And and not concerns that overlap to their perview. That's why I I haven't seen it so I can't speak to what it's done what it reviewed. No, I don't know
if they reviewed it to see if it satisfied the the 10 criteria. >> Can I just provide some some additional clarification? So, as part of our application to the conservation commission, um within the NOI, we were
subject to the storm water regulations within the water the >> well the state regulations. >> Correct. Yes. Um and that NOI application gets reviewed through the local conservation commission. So as part of that application, the peer reviewer reviewed the storm water report
um and the storm water checklist um that went through the 10 standards associated protection act. >> My guess is you would want another peerre because the question is did they review
it in comparison to the town's stormwater bylaw? So they reviewed it in comparison to the Massachusetts storm water standards. There was no the storm water standards associated with the zoning bylaw were not included.
>> Not zoning bylaw. The town has a >> the storm water. >> The st town has a general storm water bylaw. The question I'm asking is did the peer review. >> Specifically review the town stormwater bylaw and your application. >> No, they reviewed the 10 standards to
see. And so I would guess that yes, you want at least at have at some level a peer review of the storm water. Uh be sure they >> that's the intent right there's deviation between the two.
>> Absolutely. Because a commission reviews it for the NLI and relation to storm water for NI purposes is not the same as looking at for the storm water management. Are we going to ask LBEC to resubmit that under the general bylaws?
>> Well, first I would ask conservation commission to submit a copy of the storm water the review they had from beer from the >> I thought you just said it wasn't pertinent with the general bylaws. >> I would like to look at it first.
>> Well, what if they opineed on Yeah. >> town regulations, right? >> Yeah. I want to see what they put on there. Um, and until we see that report, I don't think we can make a definitive answer. And >> you also as part of that review also
review our responses that we provided to their comments. >> We should have that. We should have everything. Yeah. Um, and then you get the question. All right. If you did, and I know there was an
email saying that you should have the um peer reviewer from uh LEC Associates present. Well, they were contracted by the conservation commission, not the planning board. Who pays for that for them to attend? I mean, because consultants don't attend meetings
without being paid in most cases. I did attend a few meetings without being paid but >> something about peer review. >> Yes. Uh just so you know conservation when LEC did the peer review for
conservation not one meeting did a peer review uh did they attend it's a long long story which I won't go into but without having the peer review hear the answers
and be here in attendance when the peer review is talked about that was just absolutely out of order and and it wasn't a money issue. It was it was a procedural issue, but what a So, could you please have the
peer reviewer here when there >> I can't remember a time when we never have, Mr. Boater? >> I've never had >> this this board. This board this board. >> This board. >> Appreciate it. Thank you. >> I tell that's first time in my career I've ever heard of a
>> peer reviewer not being present at a hearing on application. Yeah. >> Uh because Everybody, everybody wants to hear the peer viewers speak. >> Are we going to automatically
>> engage LC for that? Are we going to are we going to decide here at August 5th on that too? >> August 5th, you'll make that decision because one of the things I've done in the solicitation to the other firms is
indicate storm water consideration. >> Please, we're trying to hear one another. Thank you. Therefore, I would hope that the firm you select do the peer review could do the storm order as well and they'd have the report from the vec to work off of. So,
>> all right. >> Yeah, I will uh I'll ask George Russell from the cons to send me the report and then send it send over to you. >> You know, you're soliciting proposals. I think it would make most sense to to
solicit a proposal from to look at the zoning bylaw as well to to give it to another out reviewer. They're going to have to do a complete analysis of the storm water calculation. >> I'll I I'll include the back. >> Excuse me, please. Excuse me. We're trying to I can't we can't hear one
another with the background. Thank you. That ambient noise. >> Not so ambient. >> What were you saying? No, I think uh it would make sense to solicit a proposal from LEC to do uh review of the stormwater as it relates to the town
bylaw and to get a review from an outside consultant. That outside consultant would have to do a complete review of the his own his or her own evaluation of the whole storm water calculation, storm water management plan and and as well then add on top of it
the uh review of this relevance to the town. >> G give me the report that that that's been submitted and the back and forth that went between West and Samson. I'll contact Robin.
>> Okay. Are we we all set here? So, we all set. All right. I'm on a motion from you guys to Or did I already get that? You continue to second. It's >> too late for me. >> Thank you, voter. >> We continue the motion. Second. Yeah,
I've got a motion here. Paul by Bob. Okay. All right. I do not have any more >> motion to adjurnn. >> Motion motion to adjurnn. >> No. Isn't there a Didn't we have >> No, I had that. That was done already.
The address change the address. Who did that first? Oh, there's nothing else. Make a motion to one of our members is not in here. >> Mark motion on the floor is to adjourn.
>> Oh, thank you. All in >> favor? Hi. Hi. >> Hi.