This government meeting is brought to you by Eastworks and our local cable subscribers. Good evening everyone. I'm going to open up the town of Southampton Planning Board meeting for um April 15th. We have a quorum tonight.
Mark Darnold to my right, Paul Fergal, myself, Paul Demons, and we have our consultant Richard Harris who is the former town planner for the town of South retired >> kind of >> except for these things. Um Jim Lee, our
other board member, is out of town. So, we do have a quorum. So, we can begin before we start the discussion that uh we had planned. We had a u an ANR come in. So, we'll have that first before we start the discussion. Mark Reed is here
from um Heritage Surveys and Engineering with an ANR for Ashley Stacy Ashley at 82 Gun Road. And uh we have the plans in front of us. And Mark, just tell us what you're going to do. Um,
Stacey lives at 82. The property we're talking about is at 73 75. >> Yep. >> Gun Road. So, Stacy, it it was a Hackworth part of the
family. So, the the family owned the entire parcel. Um, it was deeed to Stacy in an L-shaped configuration, >> 2.1 and 2.2. >> Yep. We're are owned by Stacy. >> Mhm. >> Um,
so that part of the agreement through the the trust and um is that Stacy would have this portion of the property and the rear portion of the property is going to be added to 73.
>> All right. So that was my question. So 73 is getting 2.2, >> correct? >> And is there any increase in 2.1? There is, isn't there 60,000? >> Well, there's a decrease because it used to be a backwards L. >> So the total on this one's going to be 60,000 square ft.
>> Correct. >> All right. >> Um, and it has no changes in frontage, but it does meet the requirement of the 175 for the RR district. It always has. So there there's an old
foundation in the rear of the building um that used to be a garage that burnt burnt down quite a few years ago on the property. >> Questions from the board, Mark or Paul? >> No, it's straightforward.
>> So you have an existing easement on parcel 2A, >> correct? >> I'm sorry. 2 21 2 >> 21. >> So, so there originally there's a driveway that comes in, loops around >> and there was a driveway to access the
building in the back. >> Got it. Okay. Um, so there is a currently there is an existing easement to retain the rights to get to the building foundation in the rear of the
property across that to a to one parcel. >> That's not considered a common driveway or is it? No. >> Uh, no. Cuz it only serves one entity, one excuse me, one lot. Could they still
build out in the back or no? >> Uh, yes. It could be a garage. >> It could be an ADU these days, right? >> Well, that's true. It could be. >> Yeah. >> Depends on the size. >> But the the existing house at 75 has its
own driveway. So, it wouldn't be a common driveway that go to the house. >> But there's a driveway behind it though. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Any other questions? >> No.
Do I have a find my Where the hell does that go? Do I have a motion to endorse the ANR for Stacy Ashley at 82 Gun Road?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mark and seconded by Paul. All in favor? I >> I >> I >> All right, Mark, let me just sign that myar for you right now.
There you go. And I'm going to keep the rest. >> Thank you. You have a band. >> All right. Thank you, Mark. If we don't see you before, have happy retirement. >> Yes. I'll be around.
>> Are you going to stay on that side? Huh? Well, we do have a vacancy on the board. Yeah, we can always unless we have a new uh person come up couple weeks. >> All right. Good night, Mark. Thanks.
Bye, Mark. At this time, we will entertain comments and questions and any other information the public would like to um add to a
proposed draft amendment that the select board forwarded on to the planning board um regarding BEST storage. Everybody's familiar with best battery energy storage systems. That's an amendment to the U current
zoning bylaws and of solar. Uh it was forwarded to us after the last town meeting or select board meeting. I believe it was the fourth that I received it. And correct me if I'm wrong, but we have 65 days to
um post a public hearing. Well, no. Town meeting cannot act on >> No, not not town meeting. We Yeah, >> town meeting cannot act on a zoning bylaw amendment unless the planning
board has made a report on it or 65 days has lapsed. You have 65 days in which to not only hold the hearing but also make your report to town meeting. So given the fact that this isn't going to make the upcoming town meeting, isn't
there a six-month period you have to have the hearing, >> right? Any hearing that's held more than 6 months before town meeting isn't considered valid for that time meeting. So you have to have a new hearing. Uh so I will not advise you to hold a hearing
unless you know that there's going to be a town meeting next 3 4 months uh to make sure. Can >> I ask a clarifying question? Would that special time meeting? >> Yeah, any town meeting. All right. If u the plan will hold a hearing let's say
in April and town meeting is in June, May, June, July, August, September, October, November. They don't have to hold another hearing before that time is held. >> Kate, correct? >> Nice to meet you.
>> Um, did you get any indication from the select board about if there would be a special town meeting in the fall or I mean sometimes we've had them in November, sometimes we've had them in December, sometimes we've had them in January. So I I have no idea. So, I spoke to Chris Fowls on a couple of
occasions and they said that there actually might be a special town meeting as soon as June or July, which is um one of the reasons we're also looking at some of our groundwater protection bylaws or regulations as it relates to this. They weren't sure yet. It depends on the outcome of the override and the budget as they're going forward if
there's additional state funds that are uh provided to the school. But the last thing I heard from Scott was that they would anticipate just because there's so many transitions within the budget that um Scott basically said they thought it would be a special town meeting that would need to take place over the summer
and of course it's on the air because our our next meeting hasn't happened yet. >> Um so Richard, we gather information this evening. Mhm. >> It it will take some time for the um
bylaw to be drafted with some of these ideas. >> Drafting bylaw, if you if you know what you want to do, then drafting bylaw be fairly quick. Um but it has to be draft before you can advertise the hearing, >> of course.
>> Um and I would advise before The only problem with the having held second hearing is the cost of the advertisements and no and notifications. Um big things newspaper advertisement.
Um if I would talk to the town minister and say are you sure you're going to have hearing before no later than October and that and if he is then go and advertise the hearing once we get
drafted and hold the hearing >> and also they have a deadline for warrant articles. You know they won't accept anything after a certain date >> but they have to uh define what that date is. >> Right. Usually it's one month. >> Yeah, it it the the statutory
requirement varies whether it's a annual timing or special timing is my understanding. So um and from a practical perspective for a zoning article to make it on to
town meeting any more than months notice anyway cuz the logistics of trying to er advertisement stuff like that. So >> well we don't want to do it twice because uh this board does not have a very um big budget. We have bare bones
budget. So uh we have to count our pennies um in all aspects including cons um cons consulting. So the um reality is that if you have a hearing
let's say um May >> you're going to be gone the month of June. >> Month of June I'll be gone. If you have a hearing, let's say May 20th, then
that would carry you through November 20th. And I can't see anybody having a special town meeting after November 20th. I mean, that's that's right around Thanksgiving, and nobody wants to meet that late in the month.
>> All right. But given given the comments that'll come tonight and you you you take into consideration some of the comments, then you bring the draft in. The draft has to have another meeting and are we going to be certain that that
draft will be accepted that evening or um >> you hold the hearing on the draft. The board can still make changes after the hearing. >> Continue it. No, you can just close the hearing. The purpose of hearing is solicit comments
and input right >> in making a recommendation town meeting. You recommend town meeting that the bylaw be adopted with the following changes as uh rected in the revised draft in
appendence A of your report. And that that's how I've done it before. um when I go for South because again you don't have a hearing and say it's great idea we'd appreciate comments and then
you don't make changes based upon those comments if those comments merit changes you make changes >> well some of the comments could be controversial though and you couldn't there's you know maybe sides then are going to agree upon some of the uh >> well it's changes >> and I don't want to be sure but but
often is what the planning wants to recommend at Time meeting the plan orders of the pend that this is what should be recommend meeting. You make the recommendation time meeting. You've got open town meeting here,
right? So any anybody can go there and say we oppose these chang and and al offer an alter an amendment as long as >> the changes are within the scope of what was advertised for the hearing.
And for the town being one for instance if you propose to amend the definition section and the um let's say 7.6 whatever the bylaw but then someone wants to make a
change in the use table that's beyond the scope. So you'd have to make it clear what sections you're revising your >> and and the amendments can only be made on those sections. >> Correct. >> Right.
>> It's is up to the moderator of a town meeting to rule whether or not a item is beyond the scope of the article. And that's usually um what I've seen in the past they rely upon the town council to advise on that.
>> Mhm. And the when you and the other aspect that is when you adopt a bylaw amendment, you have to then submit to the attorney general's office. The attorney general's office will look at it and they'll look
at the illegal ad, see what was advertised, and see whether or not the amendments are within the scope of what was advertised. >> Mhm. and it's not they're going to say you went beyond and therefore you did
not follow the process. >> Is that a line item veto or is that entire >> It depends. It depends on the extent of the uh error uh what they would have called an error. Um, I've had T I've
never had the AG throw out a bylaw amendment completely, but I know some that have been thrown out because when they looked at the amendment in it totality, the amount what they were throwing out
was so significant, it gutted the entire amendment. So, it it depends upon the scope of it. If it's matter of a definition, probably not. If it's
if it's a matter that the bylaw in its totality tried to do something that was not legally permissible, go and throw it out. Even if some sections were fine, the overall thrust was
uh beyond the scope of what the law will allow. And the AG's scope is look at is it consistent with the state constitution, state law, case law. >> Mhm. Without further ado, I think we'll begin
with uh the public's comments and we'll allow you about five minutes or so if you can um give us the abridge version of some of the changes you'd like to see um in the new bylaw best
storage and come to the podium and state your name and address. Let me one other thing I would suggest in this process and that's one we need to get done quickly. Get the draft as quick as possible. I would suggest that be sent to town
council pre before the public hearing to see if town council has any concerns about this proposed changes. >> Mhm. >> Uh what was I going to say?
Oh, before I forget your comments, if if you could because again we don't have a stenographer here to take minutes, but if you could send your comments, your bullet points, which you're really interested in by email to Southampton
Planning Board@gmail.com after this meeting so we can make sure that we've got the uh thoughts that you're trying to convey to us correct. that would be helpful. So, >> followers, just because I kind of feel like we're here because I prompted it.
My name is I'm short. My name is Caitlin Rooks, 189 College Highway, and I am the chair of the board of health. Um, I recognize the limited town budget for all of our departments and um
the challenges that these larger installations, regardless of if they're agricultural or industrial, what type of challenges they can pose for small towns and that the state is trying to push these systems faster than regulations
can be developed. And we're not alone. There's been many other small towns who are facing the same exact problem. Blandford, Worthington, and all of them are struggling to get guard rails in place to kind of prevent them, these
companies from coming in with lots of resources, lots of lawyers, lots of time on their hands to challenge people. Um, and some small towns have been sued. And to be really quite honest, I really don't want it to be personal between
people in town, myself, the board of health. I feel like these regulations that are proposed by the state, and I did bring a copy of them, um provide clear guidance of what is allowable and what would require special permitting. And I actually feel like that would help to reduce the administrative burden
because there are some of those systems that can be installed by right. And I feel like it would also help people to understand like, okay, this is what's allowable and this is what requires a special permitting process. I've been trying to understand how it lines up with our existing um zoning regulations.
I've talked to the select board on several occasions and unfortunately started these conversations in January and and were never funneled to the planning board. So I apologize for those delays. Um, but there's there I have a list of reasons of why I think it's important to consider these draft model
bylaws that I'll be happy to submit to you. Um, and part of it is to help to create permit fee structures so that that way you're getting reimbursed when these systems are being installed. We whenever we have a large septic installation in town, we're eating those
costs because they require many site visits to complete the inspections. And you can create thresholds or amounts uh for permit fees to be able to call in consultants to be able to provide advice about these projects and to cover the cost of your staff having to go out and
perform the inspections. So, I actually feel like this does help to not only reduce the risk of us getting sued because it kind of defines what's allowed and what's not allowed. it would uh create um there are draft bylaws that are written that unfortunately are in
draft form as of October 6, 2025, but they are pretty defined and can be adapted to what would be applicable for Southampton. The thing that people are most concerned about and that I want to just like highlight as my first two
minutes is the the concern about these systems being installed over zone 2 water protection areas. And so I have been trying to understand what my responsibility is as a board of health member and what's within the purview of the board of health versus the planning board. and without having a lot of legal
consultation available to me as a board of health volunteer um have not really received clear information about um what the steps are to get you supported in in enacting these regulations too. I feel like it's
been a little bit of a a song and dance. Um but I I think the the the the buy right and regulate um as of right installations as well as there's different tiers that are recommended within the state based upon the size of the system. And honestly I don't think
anybody who's here is concerned about personal systems being stalled anywhere. I think it's the larger battery storage system, particularly the one on Bashista Orchards, that's causing some uh concerned neighbors to move forward because that whole project is largely
over a zone 2 water protection area. Um I'm just going to go through a few of these reasons why I think it's important to implement these regulations and um I'll provide you a copy of the regulations as well. Um, there would be required operation
and maintenance plans and emergency response plans. When I spoke to Blue Wave, the company that's proposing the solar installation on Bashista Orchards, they have not submitted any of that. They said it will come in some part of the process. I said, "Okay, well, we rely heavily on mutual aid from our uh
community partners. When do when are they going to be receiving training?" And they said, "Oh, that'll come later." And I can understand why neighbors feel uneasy about these solar companies. They don't I don't I I don't really feel like they are committed to the broader safety things that we're concerned about that
might actually impact groundwater. I did not get you know and of course this is a speculation because I haven't really dealt with them. Yes. >> Just to clarify something. Yes. Blue wave you know without coming before with a a formal application here. They might
have gone to the conservation commission, >> but without a formal application here, they really, I don't think, are expected to >> exactly >> present any information until such time as they come before the board with that application. >> And they said they will be, but unfortunately, I'm nervous that the the
these proposed regulations are going to fall after that. And from what I understand, you're only able to utilize the current regulations and current rule laws, bylaws to govern, I don't know if that's the right
word, but to uh inspect installations or plans. And I recognize that this is not a an overnight process. This is going to be a >> we have that and we also can we have known in the past to condition things that aren't written in in the zoning
bylaws conditions that might apply for safety and um other regulatory issues that aren't specifically pointed out in the existing bylaw. So we we have a lot of leeway when it comes to conditions on >> and I appreciate that very much and I
trust that you will do what's best for the neighbors. And also, I've seen towns that have been sued because they feel like they're being regulated or controlled too much. And I do feel like these proposed regulations can help to uh hopefully reduce the risk of that. As you know, it's not easy to get a legal
consultation in town. I've been kind of asking for them to tag it onto another conversation just to get some advice to save the town money. Um, there's also other board of health considerations including noise and light pollution and things that I won't, you
know, bring up, but my my my concern is that to determine that something is a noiseome trade after it's already installed is not in the best interest of the board of health, the installers, the neighbors, none of that. I mean, to install 10,000 solar panels and then be
coming in afterwards saying that, you know, this is a noisome trade is just not ideal. I you know I wouldn't want to do that to any of our neighbors in town. It's not financially beneficial for anybody. And also that unfortunately you know they're in the
process of revising the guidelines at the state to allow for noise and trade to be determined before an installation. Not saying that applies to anything that's being proposed at this time, but it's really hard again to determine that without um without really any information.
Um the biggest question at hand is what are what your ability is to provide guidance around whether or not things can be installed over zone 2 water protection areas. So I attended the concom meeting and they basically said
we don't regulate groundwater, we regulate wetlands and this project skirts right on the edge of wetlands but is over zone 2 water protection area. And so my only question I said when does this come into the conversation and they said later. And so that was I mean it's
just you know who are we approaching with these questions and who's responding to them I guess has been a little bit tricky. Um I trust you know I don't feel like it's my position to determine what of these draft actually I brought a couple copies. I only brought
in >> um you have a copy. Okay. Um, so there is a proposed regulation and I think that many of those sections are really relevant for the town. It was really hard to kind of pull certain sections out of that and
say that other parts are not relevant and just, you know, the whole reason that there's comprehensive regulation around this because they all are pertinent topics that need to be considered by the town. And I am not I'm a nurse by trade. I'm not a an
architect, a planner, an engineer. That's not my area of expertise. And so I just the reason I'm here is because I've been hearing a lot from neighbors that they're concerned about their natural resources. And I'm just interested in learning more about where our roles intersect as it relates to
that and inviting collaborative conversation to make sure we're just doing our due diligence with any proposed project in town. And I do think having some sort of rules laid out ahead of time will make it less subjective and more um more clearly
defined. I mean that's the whole purpose of regulations. >> Thank you. Kate, do you want to comment on one I'll note that in my retired state I've also been interrum planner for different communities including Lunberg
and Lunberg is interesting. And they use there's sections in state law 53G that allows use of outside consultants, third party reviewers, and they've used it to fund to have the applicant fund
inspections of projects as it being constructed. And that's something you might want to know approach town council if a town council is comfortable that 53 would 53g would cover that. Uh that then reduces the
impact on the municipality by have because under 53g what happens is the applicant puts up the funds and then the town pays the third party inspector out of those funds.
Uh so it's not direct payment from the developer to the inspector, it's to the town and town controls that >> I think is doing the following a similar >> usually is it's usually it's done in the review process but I said Lunberg uses
for actual inspections of the projects after they've been permitted. And that's something you might want to support town council if the Southampton town council is comfortable that that's permissible. And that way it wouldn't cut into your funds, it wouldn't cut in
town budget, it would be an additional cost to developer. But so I I think that's something we should should explore. Um, and there there I'm sure there's aspects of this model bylaw that we could then incorporate into the
zoning bylaw to address best. to answer Kate's question too that she raised in our current bylaw too for storm water um review. We have independent peer reviews done on the plans that are submitted. We
also have a clause in there about any outside consulting fees and it's all on the applicant. It's not on the town. So, >> it's currently written in there. Next. >> All right. Jeff Boater, 46 Plton Street. Um,
yeah, the biggest thing about these solar best systems and is that in a bunch of our minds, it should not be in a water supply protection district, just flat. It shouldn't be. It doesn't make
sense. It's almost common sense that it's not. Uh, they also shouldn't be in residential neighborhoods. um the particular Pleasant Street thing. I I guess we shouldn't talk about Pleasant Street because it hasn't even been proposed here, but you know, that's
a rural residential area. And the entire project pretty much is going in a water supply protection district. It's going bordering wetlands. It's bordering the Manhan River. It's bordering the, you know, all sorts of
things. Uh uh you know Kate's laid out so much stuff that you could spend a whole month reading through it. It's it's No, it's it's great. You did an excellent job and so I won't be labor that. But I
mentioned the other day and you said I should bring it up today about solar bylaws if I wanted to and I do. Um, >> yeah, you asked me in an email why how would they get on the town warrant? >> Yeah, I I No, I I understand the whole
>> that was that was your final question, but okay. >> To be honest with you, it get on the town warrant because we had hearings about solar uh edits we made to the existing bylaw which did not include best. It included reclassifying uh
residential which uh previously which were developed in 20 uh from my recollection we developed those in 2012 or 2014. They were they were old >> and to be quite honest with you we we developed those in a rush because solar
started to come on the scene then and here we had no bylaw in town so we we uh put something together and as the years go by you find out you have to tweak it. Well, we were having residential ground mount solar under a special permit, which was ridiculous because all
surrounding communities around us have it by right, >> right? >> And also some medium range um residential solar. So, we classified those by right and midscale, large scale, large, extra large scale, whatever you want to call them, those
are all by site plan review and special permit. So we reclassified those but we did not address Bess in any way. >> Right. Um to the extent that under the AG general's interpretations
best is always an accessory to a solar installation right >> um because the nature of a solar installation requires some battery storage but it's difference between it and a standalone best is generally that
the solar best is sized for that installation as opposed to the utility grade battery storage. >> Well, in in in our I'm saying our neighborhoods uh estimation here is
whether it's a a solar with a best system sized for that or it's a giant thing that was like proposed in Westfield last year or the year before, it's the same risk. I mean, if you got two cabinets with I think they got four cabinets proposed for Pleasant Street,
there probably were, you know, hundreds or maybe a thousand, I don't know, in Westfield. Granted, it's not the same thing, but the risk is still there. And when you put it over a water supply protection district, it makes no sense. I I just don't understand how that could
make any sense at all. there the you know there's many town you know there are towns now who are putting rules into place where that is not going to be allowed such as orange >> well it begs the question when it's going to be or if it's going to be
allowed because the DOE has not come out with their regs yet and it it surprises me too that why the experts that wrote the uh original law through the state did not take into consideration
um aquifers and and and uh water supply protection because they probably were assuming everybody's on public water supply. >> It could be because they're all from Boston. >> You know, it sounds crazy, but the experts that put this together didn't take that into consideration. I understand there may be something
>> or did they? >> Or yeah, did they? Uh and and maybe the DOE when they get them um uh revised here coming up pretty soon, maybe they're going to have some different regulations, but as it stands right now, the state's got nothing nothing on it whatsoever. They they're not concerned
about it at all by the looks of it. >> Well, anyway, the the new solar bylaw that showed up on the town website early this year be, you know, it got approved last May. It passed the attorney general sometime late last year.
I was I had printed out two sets of it November and December before it was changed. And I I just want to point out a couple of things that I noticed. >> The new solar bylaw, the ones that's currently there. U
it it's got in here it's got one mention of best. It says, "All plans for any solar generating electric facility shall depict the location of and describe any battery energy storage system proposed to be installed and operated in association with a solar electric
generating facility. There was never any mention of best in the bylaw that this replaced. >> Right. So this is basically, you know, it's almost like it'd be better not to say anything
because this is kind of saying you you can have it. And I I know the state is saying you you should be developers should be able to have vests with a solar facility. >> They don't say should, they say they can. >> They
turn Jones off says they can't. >> Okay. Well, so that was that was one thing I noticed. Uh, another thing. Okay, let's see. I got to find it in here.
Okay, there's a section in here about design and performance standards, and something was added that wasn't there before. It says in the water supply protection district, which wasn't mentioned in the original,
low growing grasses are optimal. Other grasses must be regularly mowed or grazed as so as to minimize the amount and height of the fuel available in the case of fire. I guess my thing there is it almost would have been better to say
it's almost like this is saying you can do it in the water supplies protection district. And maybe I'm misreading it, but that to me is worse than it was before when it didn't mention the water supply
protection district. Um, I would just say that if it doesn't mention it, it doesn't prohibit. Therefore, it's allowed. Uh it's and all this trying to do is give some clarification of a standard of what you got to do regarding grasses within
>> Mhm. >> the water supply protection district as opposed to just clear treat as as if it wasn't a water supply protection district. It >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Okay. The last point I'm going to make on this
is the original one that was in before last town meeting last year, there was a section in here uh was on page two of the thing, but it was labeled E action on site plan
applications. And it listed out a number of things in the old one such as minimize obstruction of scenic views from publicly accessible locations, minimize glare from headlights and light trespass, uh minimize unreasonable departure from
the character, materials and scale of buildings in the vicinity as viewed from public ways and places. And it goes on and on about various different things here. All those things got transferred to the site plan review bylaw.
by the use table. For whatever reason, as I read it, the only site plan review that is required for these systems is in an industrial zone. And therefore, all these things that used to be in the
bylaw, which are now in the site plan review bylaw, don't even pertain to what's going to be proposed here. >> Are you in agreement with that? I I no I I'd go back and look at it but um
site plan view is required for you use is required for large systems >> y in an industrial on by a use table. I I don't have a use table in front of me, but I I I
don't I don't think that's correct, but I'd have to look at >> Well, okay. As I read it, the anything in a residential zone, whether it's residential neighborhood or residential rural, what is required is a special
permit. There is no cry out loud. There is no >> there is no uh requirement of a site plan review unless you're in an industrial zone. And that's why I'm saying that the stuff
that was in the original bylaw has now been moved to that. So to me it's worse. I mean I I'm not saying it's the whole thing's bad. I'm just saying there's there's places that are not as good. That's all. Um, and I I don't want to be critical because I know you guys put a lot of
work into that and you know, but you know, it's to me it's just >> there's the there's the old This is the wish I could find. >> I have the use table here if you want to
look at it. Let me Yeah, let me see that compared to the one I have. Thank you. Maybe I'm reading it wrong. I, you know, it's quite possible, but I has changed to
>> Let's see. Medium solar is permitted in the RR and RN by site plan review and CH and IP by mine site plan review. the large soda um
they're not accessory or d use permit by special permit and rnch the large it's not quite as accessory or dual use or permit by site plan view and IP
so yeah medium requires site plan review >> yeah medium but medium's not very big requires site required not just site plan view but special permit. Special permit is more difficult than
site plan review. Special permit is the board has more discretion on whether or not to grant a special permit than do site plan review. >> Mhm. >> Site plan view has been interpreted by courts or what have you. Basically, it's a by right, but you can condition the
site plan to mitigate the impacts of the design of the project. I believe >> special permit >> special permit >> special permits you can deny them >> if they don't meet it requires four out of five plan board members to vote approval.
>> So the special permit include a site plan review then >> okay well then I stand corrected. >> Yeah >> cuz I was just re looking at that use table and I both residential districts said site plan said special permit but
the industrial said site plan review. just as you wrote read it I believe just now. >> Yeah. >> U yeah. >> Okay. And um when you go through the text of the amendment
uh or the bylaw, it talks about what general requirements applicable to all. So solar facilities require site plan view or special permit and and a special per special require site
plan as part of it. >> Okay. Well, that's that's good news. Thank you for that clarification. I didn't understand it that way. So yeah, I I guess I'll I used my five minutes, but
uh there are a lot of towns, you know, doing stuff for best bylaws for best. Some towns had best system bylaws and they're revising them. Some towns had nothing. Uh
>> some towns uh rewrote it and got it rejected by the state. >> Yeah. >> Right. There's that. But I mean, Worthington, I believe, is expecting to get approved on what they voted on just a couple months ago. >> But Charlie, you I think you were copied on the one from Charlie Kaniki about
window. >> I I saw that. Yeah, >> that was that was very interesting. They they uh tried to write it in their their general bylaws. >> Yeah. >> And it didn't fly. But they previous to that they they tried to u uh ban them
all period in town by their zoning bylaws and that was rejected. So they the rule for two, >> right? >> We tried to request a pause until regulations and Scott said we don't want to do that. And there's other towns that
are also just saying, "Hey," and we found out that um Kelly P and a number of other state legisl legislators tried to move forward a bill to prohibit bass installations until there was clear guidance. And they sent it to study. So
Kelly piece said they were going to send it again this upcoming year. It wouldn't be heard until the next legislative session. And I'm like, "Okay, well, >> you know, it's kind of discouraging. It's not like I'm opposed to any system, you know, like I want it to just be thoughtful and thought out and I don't
want it to be, you know, I I want it to be regulation, not like a lot of board of health rights are totally interpretive and I don't really want that at all. I'd love for it not to be interpretive. I'd love for it to be clearly defined as it is in the
regulation so it's not speculative. And the other thing, I don't know if you read through the the window court decision, but it was it was interesting to me too to make sure that you know, you've got some uh general bylaws, your zoning bylaws, your board,
you've got a lot of overlap in there, that everything is consistent. If you want if you want something to be rewritten, that's very important to make sure that everything going with it with the different uh laws and regs is is overlapping. And if it's traditionally
been done under zoning, you can't then suddenly make it a general bylaw. Right. >> Uh which is interesting because I know AG has approved a general bylaw that regulated that regulated the same
substance as a zoning bylaw. And I don't know how they approved that, but they did. Um in South Hadid we zoning has always regulated earth removal excavation and there is a group that put forth a
general bylaw to do the same thing and AG approved the general as well and I don't know I don't think anybody informed AG that we had zoning bylaw that regulated earth removal. Can I ask you a follow question pertaining to that? I'm trying not to but they do have
groundwater protection regulations or bylaws and it said that it was adopted by the board of health which is something that we're exploring. >> Yeah. >> But from what Chris Fowls told me there was also a question of if that was a z a
zoning bylaw versus a board of health regulation. And I said, "If it really comes down to it, we're happy to review the existing groundwater protection bylaw or regulation, whatever it is, and pursue it being um to incorporate best
as Orange has done." But I have no idea how to tell if it's a bylaw or if it's a regulation. And again going back to the limited town >> it go it goes back to um mass D developed a model z bylaw and model
board of health regulation. >> Well it's all model I mean it's clear >> and Southampton adopted an amendment to zoning by back early 2000s I guess for water supply protection
>> 2005. Yes. Subsequently, Mass DP revised their models and it appears that the board of health at some point took the model bought off MASD model regulation from
Mass D and adopted it >> as a regulation not a >> as a regulation because hypothetically >> the board of health cannot adopt a bylaw. >> Well, exactly. only town meeting can um so board of health apparently adopted it
as a regulation for for board of health and I looked at it and way I read it it basically is creates some standards of how you have function
planning board can approve a project under the zoning bylaw there's no permitting process under your regulation >> correct But if and I told Paul any sold operator needs to be aware anybody didn't work in water supply protection
district needs to be aware of your regulation because plan water approves uh a project if they then don't function in accordance with your regulation then you have authority to come in and say you need to correct this. Even if
they met zoning requirements they still have to meet your regulation. They just don't have to go through you for permitting, but you have enforcement capability >> and which is why we're looking at the groundwater protection >> regulations to possibly include best, but recognizing that you're the
permitting body. So, we just want to make sure that it's done as per your consultative guidance and not against your, you know, process. >> The um >> and I appreciate you taking the extra time to explain that. To be fair, I've
done some research because it said that we amended those regulations in 2023 and I was on the board and we didn't vote on that. So, I don't know how that I'm I pulled all of the minutes. I'm like, we didn't even talk about that. Um, >> then I would suggest that you might want
to go back to your board and have an agenda item where you vote on those. >> Oh, we're doing it this month. >> Mhm. Um uh and of course I've always advocated that if a board was going to have regulations or policies they should hold a public hearing on it as well.
>> We scheduled a hearing for May 20th >> which is interesting because state law doesn't require that. >> Yep. We're definitely going to have just like as you did which I really appreciate you taking the time to hear public comment. We too are trying to follow you know a solicit input and make
sure it's a transparent process. Um, also when I was talking about overlap, we've got water supply protection district in our zoning bylaws 2757.2. So, a lot of what might be written in the upcoming
best bylaw will have to have some mirroring there. um as well. >> I would expect I would anticipate if board of health adopts a best regulation. It is would be more in line
with how their water supply protection regulations are. A performance standard has to be met and we fail to meet that then they have the ability to enforce it. Isn't a permitting process but a regatory enforcement process.
>> Mhm. What was written in the draft bylaw was about how you would have to have water containment, >> right? >> Documented water containment strategies, which I don't understand how that would happen. Anyhow, I shouldn't be specific to that installation, but that's what I understood was in that draft bylaw was
that there needed to be documented water containment. The um the draft water revision to the water supply protection district follows largely the model mass D bylaw
that was developed in 2012 I think which the same time as your model regulation was developed >> and the main thing Mass E did then was the original model by bylaw and regulation prohibited uses
such as petroleum. >> Yes. >> And what Mass DP determined is well, you could allow them as long as they're contained. So they create a containment as opposed to a flatout prohibition. And that's part of the changes that
occurred. Plus, a lot of communities adopted water supply protection district bylaws with zone one, two, and three. >> Mass D does not recognize zone three. They only identify one and two. That's
all they address. Where communities came up with zone 3, I'm not sure, but that is not in mass DP's regatory framework. >> Would you recommend that we consulted with D as part of this pro either
board's process? I understand that Kong has a as communication with them, but they have very much distanced themselves from enforcement in this particular project, but it sounds like their input would be really important. >> I have
tried to communicate with Mass D on water supply protection district working with another community and their response was less than official. >> Seems like it seems like the thing >> they they said they were going to and
then oh they decided they didn't want to respond to those questions. So >> that's a very diplomatic way of putting it. >> It's it it seems like across the board it's just like If I'm not mistaken, Worthington has uh
there was three uh warrant articles that they passed up there at their meeting a month or two ago and basically they're they're saying that uh we're not going to one of the things is they're not going to allow vests or or
large scale solar in the water supply protection district. And what they are coming up with is an overlay district where they will allow those things. I mean, they're not banning them from the town, but they're banning them from water supply protection districts, which
to me makes total sense. >> I mean, even the solar panels, I know there's probably arguments that those aren't contaminating things, but you know, there's microlastics on these things that wash off over time into the ground, >> into the water. Why? If if you know
things get damaged by a hail storm or you know windstorm or whatever all of a sudden there's cadmium and lead going into the ground. They're thinking, yes, >> and you you look at a solar field and you say, well, >> if they meet the safety standards and everything else, >> harm could that do, but there, you know, there are risks affordable even when
it's solar panels, >> it wouldn't be affordable, >> especially with the best even with a solar panel. any water supply inspections >> in residents backyards >> and yeah, >> MH said there's community benefit taxes
that like they're giving away fire trucks for communities that are installing these systems. I think that that's something else to consider as part of these rags is, you know, what's in it for the town. >> Well, I'm sure the fire department will be chiming in on it when the time comes.
>> Are those battery operated fire trucks? H >> battery operated fire. >> Is there anyone else in the uh >> peanut gallery here that would like to >> gallery? No. >> No. No. >> You like to >> comment on anything at all about
rewriting a new bylaw? >> No. No. >> Anything you would like to add that we should consider? >> I be able to talk. >> Sure. Come on up. I'm just uh my name is Richard Adams, 40 Pleasant Street, and um and we're here
to hear what is being discussed pertaining to the best system. A year ago, I didn't know what the acronym meant, but I'm quickly learning. >> Unfortunately, you hear that now. >> Yes. And uh what I'm wondering, what I'm
hearing is you're you're dealing with changing the bylaws to deal with this best system coming in. Is that the the solar? >> That's the scope of it. >> Okay. Uh the old best the old uh uh
bylaws were pertaining to uh battery solar system, a a battery storage system that was in a house for like a house storage. Is that correct? Actually, we had we had just that one word in there, but I mean most of the ones we
>> previous soda bottle really didn't address >> battery storage and it battery storage was has always been considered accessory to whatever sold installation was >> right. Okay. And um I guess my question
is has anybody had any uh experience with the uh larger systems that they're talking about that they're putting into these large arrays, the agrootic issues and and so forth. Are are have you heard them running on a
sunny day to to hear the output and the noise level and >> Well, we've only had two in Southampton. One is over on Old County Road that Eversource. They weren't the original applicant, but they bought it and that's a fairly goodsized field.
>> It was the Kennedy family that proposed it, >> right? And you know, residents came out about that over there just like anyone else would because they didn't want to see it in their backyard. >> Yeah, we saw that one. That's hidden in the back. It's pretty nice back there. The other one that's uh not as large by
any scale of means is the one that Bisha Orchards up on East Street for the Agro Bayote which came with one battery storage >> but that's not that's a very you know small right >> and the reason I'm asking is uh when this was proposed and everything was
presented and uh what's coming our way uh we were told that there were different u places we could see we looked at one up in Granville that was not online yet and that's something that probably everybody should take a look
at. The the scope of that is huge and uh but it is set back which is good. Uh the uh other one that we went up to was up in uh Had Hadley the uh the farmer up there that >> Chakowski. Yes, exactly. He's got a
YouTube thing on on his operation. We went up there to look at the what he had uh and we were up there on a sunny day and what he's got is it's a 2.2 acre array which is small and uh 20x 20 or
25x 20 uh pad with the uh inverters and uh converters and transformers. And when we were pulling up to it, which was probably 500 ft away from the road, uh, we could hear it running. You could hear the humming from this, you know. So, the
closer you got to it, I mean, it produces an astronomical amount of noise, more than I anticipated. >> And from what we're being faced with is the uh, proposal on Pleasant Street is putting one directly across the street
from us in an open meadow. And in that meadow, um, whenever Steve would be out there haying or talking to somebody, we could hear pretty much word for word what he's saying. It carries directly across. And the concern being
if if that is where they're putting this and we're going from uh 2.2 2 acres to now 22 acres of solar panels and and uh battery backups. And there's two of them. There's one in front of us and
there's one to the right of us. Uh we're going to be uh having an issue with noise. That's why I was wondering if anybody's had the opportunity to actually the the proposed site and the scope of the of the battery and the and
the what the pad side would be to be able to hear that and see what we're dealing with >> because it's going to be a problem. That's all I had to >> that's that's project going to come up in future to the plan board
>> maybe. >> Yeah. Um that's the type of issue that is appropriate for site plan reviewing and mitigation efforts and everything else. how how you screen the noise, how you buffer the noise,
that is a site plan review because typically you can mitigate noise through a site design and that's type thing if project comes before the plan board that's something that you need.
>> Sure. >> Well, the other the other concern I had too is everything we've seen has been offset. It's not near residential setting, >> right? what what's being proposed here is right in the yards of people >> and they have it right on the road so
it's accessible for fire reasons. It's not it's not that. >> Yeah. >> So that was my question. Thank you. >> Go ahead, Paul. >> We we we see noise mitigation on on highways, right? They put up those
timber >> Mhm. block walls everywhere and they're quite attractive if you ask me. Um, you know, they have noise mitigation if you have a large building with a cooling
unit on top and roof. So, I don't know. They'll they'll put a sound barrier around to hopefully mitigate it. >> Yeah. Well, a lot of times they do that after the fact where the neighbors complain. >> Yeah. >> So, that's I think our goal is we're trying to get all this stuff before.
Exactly. That's that's what we need. >> The noise generated that what Rick was talking about the Hadley project. There's three inverters. There's one transformer. There's no best units up at at all. The best units have coolers, cooling fans or whatever cooling
equipment that runs 24/7 to keep them cool. So this just for what what it's worth, the project on Pleasant Street is going to have 30 inverters, >> two transformers, and four giant uh you
know, basically uh ground storage units with batteries and and so you know, multiply what you hear in Hadley times 10 >> and then some. Rich, uh, I guess my question to you is
we're going down a path that has, um, it's going to be obviously procedural cuz, you know, we have to go through certain reviews. Um, I would imagine the professional independent services
consultants are going to be very busy. >> Um, but let's just play this out. I'm not saying hypothetically this is what's going to happen, but let's say there was a site that would come in and
let's say that we don't know what the density is of the development, but let's say it's relatively um build up to maximize the property, but it comes at an impact to neighbors.
And let's say noise isn't going to be mitigated to a uh level that's acceptable to to the general public. Is is that a
condition that would give leverage to a board as part of the approval process to deem it not feasible given that
they can't mitigate a condition that is being proposed? If the applicant is unwilling to mitigate the condition and usually is a matter of the willingness because you know it put enough money
into resolving a problem and usually solve it right but what if it's >> well would that require more of a performance standard you know that's how you determine whether it's >> and I think Ford would use mass DP noise
standard says >> guidance, right? >> Guidance for for that, >> right? But then there's other conditional I guess what I'm trying to get at is >> and I was kind of joking around by saying they're going to put up sound walls, but >> they do. >> I I I know that that that's where I'm
going with this. >> So, are you going to put a soundwall on someone's frontage? Yeah, >> that's going to be 30 ft tall because of the I think what you'd have what you'd want to do is have if let's say a project
came before the planning board not saying any project in particular but a hypothetical project on uh route five came along and and you want on route 10 you want to do a um mitigate the noise on it you'd hire a
third party reviewer to assess assess the noise impact of it and give recommendations to planning board as to what how it complies or doesn't comply with MSDP noise standard and tell the applicant you got to come up with a
design or modification of site plan that meets the standard. >> No. And and that means they have to go back and build a 30ft sign soundwall 100 yards into their property right
around that facility. Then that's what they got to do. >> That's going to look nice. >> Yeah. If this is a mechanized industrial thing that they're putting on a rural setting. So you're going to have all these you got to put all these buffers up 30 ft
high or whatever. Okay. So then you haven't even talked about the fire issue that this thing may not catch on fire and then we have smoke coming out and the neighbors are all going to have to be evacuated. >> We have a lot of children. We have elderly. You know, it just is.
>> You can't compare this one to the other two in town. Just doesn't compare those. >> Again, I don't want to get into I don't want to get in discussion of a specific project. I raised a very hypothetical one because what my concern is there
become a ad adverse environment against a particular project that may before this planning board and this video gives applicant grounds to challenge >> of course >> a action by the plan board
>> and that's where >> right and that I guess where I was going with my question was it's going to lead to a lot of subjective >> uh review, right? That's that's that's
you know going to make people all on >> Well, you guys probably were the first compound meeting there was probably 70 people there. I mean people heard about heard the word best and flipped, you know, and we're not I'm people not people that just live there. People all
over town, they don't want to hear that word. But in fairness and in fairness to uh the applicant there or whatever in the characterization on social media and stuff as characterizing that site is
best instead of a solar array with some best storage. It was characterized as best which was not which was not accurate. >> Okay, I I understand that but I think I mean most people a lot of people that were at that meeting don't even live anywhere near there. So what do they
care as soon as they heard the word bass? >> Well, everybody when they heard about it thought of Westfield. So um that's what >> compounded the issue. >> Well, and again to me I know Westfield's Westfield, but whether there's 100 batteries or six, it's still the same
problem. You can still have the same problems. >> Potential problem. >> Potential problems. I went to a conference where there was people who met the D noise regulation, whatever the decel 30 decel performance, is that a performance standard?
>> But if it was 28 247 perpetual noise, regardless if it's within the D performance standard, you can still have negative health impacts because it's constant buzzing noise. And that's where it gets tricky because it falls within the
performance standard, but it does have health implications which is largely subjective, which is honestly my biggest concern in all of this is subjectivity. Uh, you know, so yeah, I I agree that that's going to be a a tricky
>> I recorded the the sound on my phone. I don't know if you wanted to hear it or not. >> That's not blame. I don't either. >> Go do a site visit if we have to. >> Gotcha. Did you have something to say, sir? >> We don't want the site on site and then
all these problems come. >> Yeah. Make sure it's a sunny day. >> Yeah. Would you come up to the podium, sir, if you got something? >> Just a question to see if you're aware of this. Um, I'm not name >> I'm not John Pepe. I'm not a Southampton resident. I live in East Hampton. >> That's fine. >> I just thought I'd bring this up to you. I don't know how much detail and in how
much detail you've examined the new uh sighting and permitting regulations that are in effect and which as of July um Southampton could choose to adopt that as the method for permitting permitting um solar and best it's have
have people looked through them and familiarize themselves with the new regulations you have between that's that's the that's the do >> oh No, >> chapter chapter 29's uh chapter 29 is the sighting and permitting of renewable
energy facilities. >> Yeah, >> it's they're they're the main regulations are not all that long and I think they're fairly clear. They have a bunch of guidance documents that address a lot of the issues that people are raising here. between July and December,
municipalities have have between that period to uh adopt the new regulations for receiving applications and processing them and following the new regulations. >> If you can't get your new bylaw in
place, as you seem to be suggesting by by your May town meeting, you're not going to have anything more than you currently have now in place. If Blue Wave comes to you and actually files their application, >> we're well aware of that, >> right? So, but you could adopt the the
state regulations as of July. And if if you look at those regulations, I'd be happy to sit down and explain large parts of them to people. As much as I understand them, I've spent a lot of time with them. All these things you're talking about are examined with fine
tooth comb in the regulations. When an application come in, they're they're forced to give the vendor's forced to give you a 45 days advanced notice of their application with a lot of detailed information provided up front. There's a mandatory public engagement process. Um
there's things like if the vendor says, you know, our equipment meets these noise standards, performance standards, uh and that's part of the part of the permit. Um there's a provision, I can't remember who funds it, whether the applicant has
to fund it or the state does, but for compliance people to come in and and run tests to see that they're actually com um abiding by it. >> So, it's something where you may be better off, you know, a lot of the stuff you're concerned about are really going to be
looked at closely and given a lot of weight once those new regulations come into play. >> Isn't that the one they're working on now? I thought they're still working on it, but he's saying they've already adopted one. >> DOE is finished with it. >> Yeah, the solid waste sighting and
permitting break. Some of the guidance documents might be still I think they're all done as of the end of March. even the guidance documents, the site suitability standards, there's what they call common conditions uh that are required of all facilities um in case in
case you don't get your review done within the year that's aotted and it bounces it gets constructive approval and it bounces to the uh state. You have the the facilities still have to observe these common live up to these common
standards. There's um mitigation. There's a whole section on mitigation measures and including money that you can uh if the facility is having a large enough impact, money that you can uh fees that you can charge the vendor to to mitigate or compensate the town. I
just wanted to let you know about that and if somebody wants to talk to me about it, I have a lot of information. >> Rich, have you at all looked at those? >> John, what's your how do you spell your last name? >> PI back earlier. I didn't look at the final ones. I know there have been discussion on
mass planners listerve about them and I was just trying to scan. >> What's your email, John? >> Uh, you want me to write it for you? >> It's hard to It's hard to translate. >> You don't want some Luke Renzy going in?
Just put it right under there. >> No, no joke mail. No, I'm just kidding. >> It's It's My name's John, but it's >> spelled the Italian version. >> I'm just going to say it. happy atgmail. >> Thank you,
>> Richard. I think that was in the email I sent this afternoon that my daughter had sent me. It sounds familiar. >> I don't know if you guys looked at it. >> She sent me, she works for a firm
in the state and I always talking about this and she sent me four links about something to deal with and it sounds like what he was talking about. Is that from the time >> they have to jump through those when they actually file? >> But I mean those are those are those are
state applications that has nothing to do with application here. I think a lot of the stuff when application is submitted and and deemed complete. That's a whole lot of a long set of information list of information the vendor's going to provide >> and those can be adopted.
>> You got you got to check off just kind of checks off whether they provided it. I can get a healthy what you call a circuit writer today. So >> conservation world. >> Yeah. But it's I still think it conflicts with the state ones that they shooting down left
and right. those those things in this case I would call conditions that they need to >> I'm not sure exactly restricting it in certain places >> uh anyone else like to comment so we can
move the show along here any other comments >> I just want to say thank you for putting this on your agenda >> yes thank you >> we agree thank Thank you for consulting and providing a wealth of knowledge. >> So the next step, Richard, we'll call
this information and again if you want to highlight some of your uh concerns, Southampton Planning Board@gmail.com. I I think I made a lot of notes and I know Southampton Planning Board Gmail. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm
the old one. South Planning Board. Um, >> I said planning planning board your name >> planning board at south town of southampton.org. I'm sorry. >> I sent it to you. I mean, >> well, my name is Anna, but planning board >> planning board at town of
southampton.org. >> Um, so next steps we draft with some of these uh >> provisions and stay tuned to my towngovernment.org org or I will email you and
um the clerk, the select board and hopefully it gets on um if uh I've got some of the u Jeff's email. I've got some other people to make sure that the word gets out when the hearing comes
about. So um everybody's knows it. spread the word once you get your email to friends and neighbors if you want to be on board with the hearing >> and I'll let you know if I hear anything else about a proposed future and future annual town meeting with the caveat that
I looked on the past town meetings and there have been town meetings hosted in the past few years in December. So I'm just throwing that out there as a consideration. >> All right. And hopefully we will have something in writing um
from DOER on what they're if they've addressed this issue going forward so we we can have some direction there. >> It'd be nice. Um otherwise um we're we're good to go. I we have a
couple more items here, >> but anyway. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. >> The only other agenda item I have is uh I I approved a building permit on April
9th for for Fitch Farm Way, the subdivision off of Peekquat Road that we approved years ago. But I think that might be one of the last lots available there, but it was under the under the threshold for any kind of clearing because that was done during
the subdivision. So, um, they just want to formal formally announce that I approve that. If I could have your approval on that for Fitch Farm Way. >> So, moved. >> Second.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> I >> I don't have anything else. Uh, anybody else got anything to report coming down the pipe? >> I'm glad you uh >> Yeah.
I mentioned that if I >> didn't work in town south of Hadley. >> I could be worse. You could be working in the town of South Hadley. >> He's he acted like town council here tonight saying you got to give him a warning. You can't go any further with this discussion. Your >> own good.
>> Yeah. I just don't have a um adversarial >> ad a u negative perspective right now >> on something that we don't even have in front of us. >> Yeah. So, so you predetermined you want
to deny before they even came in. So if you're going to be good, so you think you can throw something together on that law by >> I tried to >> just copy and paste. >> Yeah. By the end of the month. Yeah. >> Can you can you look into the regulation
with the >> I will mention >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. My understanding is they were that you had a bylaw that would go establish what you wanted done and that would be part of the pro the regulations. uh they
had meet your bylaw, but I do know some communities have put forth a bylaw amendment adopting the DOER regulations, which I didn't think had been finalized yet, but >> I I haven't seen. And furthermore, uh,
Chris Poles, the select board person here, contacted John Belis's office, the representative in our area here, and he said, uh, once they got it, he he has some connections there. Once he got it, he would forward the decision, but he
hadn't, as of today, he still hadn't received it. So now, if there's that much outcry in the state, the legislature has the authority, has the ability to put to provide some relief for communities, but they're not going to. This is all
Boston centric process. The thing that and and they want the soda farms and fields and best in central and western Mass to fuel Austin.
>> Yeah. >> Paul, do we want to make a motion to ajourn? >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> That's my perspective. haven't met in six months and you want to get out of here. >> Well, I you know, >> it's not you.
>> Okay. Motion by Paul. Second by Mark. >> All in favor? >> I All right. Thank you. Thank you for uh >> Now that's turned off. >> Maybe next time we'll have Jim