[0:00] Good evening everybody. It's Tuesday,

[0:02] December 16, 2025 for our regular

[0:06] meeting of the Weightley Planning Board.

[0:08] So, I'm officially calling the meeting

[0:10] to order at 5:34

[0:13] p.m. All right. Uh, we've just briefly

[0:18] introduced Caroline Gurich, our new

[0:20] community development administrator. I

[0:22] had a chat with her a little earlier

[0:24] today. This is her second her first full

[0:27] day. She'll be in the office on Tuesdays

[0:30] and Thursdays.

[0:32] Um, she's excited to, you know, do

[0:36] >> they change the scope of the project so

[0:38] it's not open to position? Was it

[0:40] >> I believe it is. We may I'm not sure of

[0:44] all the details because she's still in

[0:46] school.

[0:47] >> Yeah.

[0:47] >> So there may have been some negotiations

[0:49] around like some reduced hours.

[0:51] >> Sure.

[0:51] >> Versus some full 40. But I can't say I

[0:55] may be wrong about that.

[0:57] >> Okay. Very good. So, our first order of

[1:01] business is approval of minutes of our

[1:04] October 28th meeting. They were all

[1:06] circulated. Um, Gwen, and uh I assume

[1:11] you're still you're muted now, Gwen. Um,

[1:14] I assume that there were no other

[1:16] comments or changes.

[1:18] >> Um, so do we need a moment to look over

[1:21] the minutes or are we ready to make a

[1:23] motion to approve them?

[1:26] I make a motion to approve the minutes

[1:28] from our meeting in October. Right.

[1:31] >> Yeah. October.

[1:33] >> All right. Laura has made the motion.

[1:35] Mike has seconded the motion. Uh we're

[1:38] all in person so we don't have to do

[1:39] roll call. All in favor. I.

[1:43] >> Nobody's opposed. Unanimous. All right.

[1:46] There we go.

[1:47] >> Only everything was.

[1:48] >> Yes. Exactly. All right. Um, so next

[1:51] order of business about candidates for

[1:53] open seat of the planning board. So I'm

[1:55] going to, you know, just not mention any

[1:58] names at the moment, but I've met with

[2:01] uh I have been

[2:03] um trying to prioritize maintaining

[2:06] certain pre-existing gender balance on

[2:09] the board. Uh, I've spoken to two highly

[2:12] qualified women who for different

[2:15] reasons have sort of said like I haven't

[2:18] gotten a definitive

[2:20] one way or the other. Um, so I'm going

[2:23] to still reach out to them though I

[2:25] suspect that neither of them will say

[2:27] yes at this time. Um, I have some other

[2:30] leads. there is a um a well-qualified

[2:35] male candidate who actually lives too

[2:38] far from I do um who uh seemed you know

[2:43] there was a question he is this reveals

[2:46] a certain amount of personal information

[2:48] but anyway he's currently serving on the

[2:50] board of assessors uh we had to check

[2:52] with the state ethics board to just

[2:54] confirm that there are no conflicts of

[2:56] interest just Pete has been oh just

[3:00] raised that questionnaire. So, I learned

[3:02] how to submit a request to the state

[3:05] ethics board. It is super easy. There's

[3:08] an online form. Somebody called me back

[3:11] within a few hours and I had an answer

[3:14] like the next day. Like I spoke to a

[3:17] lawyer and he was

[3:19] >> you spoke to an actual person that

[3:20] >> I spoke to a human being

[3:23] >> who was knowledgeable and informative

[3:25] and funny and it was great what he said.

[3:28] "No problem." Nice.

[3:31] >> No problem. So that So, um, you know, I

[3:35] don't want to drag I mean, we can the

[3:37] four of us can continue to do business.

[3:40] I don't want this to drag on very long.

[3:43] So, I I feel like we can fill the spot

[3:47] and skew the board five to one male. Um,

[3:51] so you just might have to be

[3:54] >> Oh, that's

[3:56] >> But um, but I'm I'm I'm not quite gonna

[3:59] just give me a little bit of time to

[4:01] just

[4:02] >> pursue another couple of

[4:04] >> leads before we make a final decision,

[4:06] which I will, Alex.

[4:09] >> Uh, yes. Somebody who's on the fire

[4:10] department with Alex, he thought my

[4:12] husband thought might be interested and

[4:14] then I was like, what about his wife? Is

[4:15] she interested?

[4:17] >> Yeah. Yeah. But um I might see them on

[4:21] is it Santa Parade Saturday?

[4:22] >> Yeah.

[4:23] >> If I see that guy,

[4:24] >> I'll mention it to him.

[4:26] >> Yeah, that sounds good. Like that's all

[4:28] I mean I I I feel like I was actually

[4:32] pleasantly surprised that there seemed

[4:35] to be I I got lots of recommendations,

[4:38] you know, of people who would be

[4:40] competent and appropriate, but you seem

[4:42] to run into this thing like they're

[4:43] like, "Oh, they're super busy." one like

[4:45] really interested but then took on other

[4:47] roles in the town and it's like well

[4:49] maybe

[4:50] >> I should like not do this right away. So

[4:53] >> I do think people might be thinking that

[4:55] the time commitment is a lot more than

[4:57] it is because it's really

[4:59] >> like you know a couple meetings don't

[5:01] happen monthly, right? So it's like 10

[5:03] meetings a year. It's like 20 hours of

[5:05] your time plus maybe an additional hour

[5:08] here and there outside of the meetings.

[5:09] It's

[5:10] >> and really trying to be, you know,

[5:13] candid and honest like it's not like the

[5:15] just show for the meeting. It's not

[5:18] >> it's not another full-time job,

[5:20] >> right? still, you know, but I'm

[5:22] definitely learning the benefits. Like

[5:24] people do like to be asked like go up to

[5:28] them and like I've heard of you would

[5:31] you be they like to be pitched. Okay.

[5:34] So, uh I'm going to move to the next

[5:37] item of business unless there are any

[5:39] questions about that. Okay. Um planning

[5:42] board uh the election of planning board

[5:45] officers. I will remind you while I was

[5:46] looking back on the minutes that last

[5:50] January, January of this year, we all

[5:54] verbally agreed that we should on an

[5:56] annual basis

[5:58] have an election. So I won't do it

[6:01] today. I just want to social like remind

[6:03] you all that we'll elect a chair and a

[6:06] vice chair. And so at our next meeting

[6:08] in January, we'll do that. Currently,

[6:11] I'm the chair. JD is the vice chair. And

[6:15] um

[6:17] >> yeah.

[6:18] You know

[6:19] >> um oh um are we going to continue with

[6:22] Tuesday meetings

[6:23] >> that for my finance committee agenda?

[6:26] Tuesdays were good because we're meeting

[6:28] on Wednesdays.

[6:28] >> Okay.

[6:30] >> The whole winter spring we're meeting

[6:32] Wednesdays. That's when select board

[6:33] meets.

[6:33] >> I have no problem.

[6:35] >> Tuesdays. Tuesdays is good for me.

[6:37] >> All right. We'll get to that that back

[6:39] at the end of the agenda. But okay. So

[6:41] far I see no problems with that.

[6:43] >> Okay. So yeah, um

[6:48] I'll say I'm happy to continue on as

[6:50] chair.

[6:51] >> I was gonna ask, are either of you

[6:53] looking to step up?

[6:56] >> I don't mind being the vice chair, but

[6:58] I'll gladly step aside for that. I mean,

[7:00] all I had to do was once when you were

[7:01] out was say we're going to have a

[7:02] meeting because it wasn't anything

[7:04] >> before us. But

[7:05] >> it's very informal. We don't have to arm

[7:07] wrestle or anything.

[7:08] >> No, it's pretty much understand like the

[7:10] procedures of how you call the meeting

[7:12] to order. I lose that procedure.

[7:16] >> Okay.

[7:17] >> So, that's all right. So, um

[7:19] >> Oh, I do have a key to to this building.

[7:22] >> Yes, that's that's that's worth noting.

[7:24] >> I got Sarah's key.

[7:26] >> In fact, I was going to ask you about

[7:27] that. That's good to confirm.

[7:30] >> I Okay. Um so, the fifth item is it

[7:34] seems like this is not going to happen.

[7:36] I'll let you know that. Um, so Bay State

[7:39] Blasting,

[7:41] >> uh, is owns a parcel up off of Chestnut

[7:45] Plane.

[7:46] >> Uh, they have been there for quite some

[7:48] time,

[7:50] >> believe

[7:53] the it's been a dynamite facility for

[7:55] four because

[7:56] >> Yeah, it was

[7:57] >> I was a little kid when it started.

[7:59] >> Yeah. Been there forever.

[8:00] >> Yeah, it's been there for a while.

[8:02] >> I worked there. My brother worked there.

[8:03] My father worked there.

[8:04] >> Oh, interesting. Interesting. Okay, good

[8:06] to know. Yeah. So they came when it was

[8:08] sorted.

[8:09] >> Yeah. It was it was sold

[8:12] >> and Bay State Blessing's been there

[8:14] since like

[8:17] >> 2008, 2010, something like that.

[8:19] >> The previous entity being out of

[8:20] business for some reason or another.

[8:22] >> Okay.

[8:22] >> So then it got sold to another company

[8:24] that is using the same site for the same

[8:26] as far as I understand they're using it

[8:28] for the same purposes. Yeah. It's been

[8:29] there forever. And

[8:30] >> they were using they're in the beginning

[8:32] using it for a lot less.

[8:34] >> Yeah. than what Pioneer Supply was

[8:36] doing.

[8:36] >> Yeah.

[8:37] >> You know, volumewise. So now they're before the zoning board, the ZBA

[8:42] seeking an amendment to the existing

[8:44] special permit. Yeah. and the the ZBA

[8:47] held their first public hearing on that

[8:49] and continued it to the next meeting in

[8:52] January because during the meeting and

[8:55] it was sort of an initial meeting and it

[8:59] came up

[9:00] that um the the owners would like to

[9:07] add

[9:09] apparently they they want to there's a a

[9:13] cap on the amount of explosives of

[9:15] material that can be stored on site,

[9:17] >> right?

[9:18] >> And it's solid. It's in some solid form.

[9:22] Uh, and they don't want to raise that,

[9:25] but they it seems like they want to now

[9:29] diversify to a different to include

[9:33] storage of a different kind of explosive

[9:36] that goes by a a a an abbreviation anfo.

[9:42] Anfo has been around forever.

[9:44] >> Yeah. and we stored it there when it was

[9:46] P and supply in vast quantities. So

[9:48] that's my confusion on this.

[9:49] >> Is that so?

[9:50] >> Correct. It's all about is it in bags?

[9:53] Is it in a trailer in bags?

[9:54] >> It's going to be they were proposing a

[9:57] new outdoor storage tank.

[9:59] >> They want to put it in a silo.

[10:01] >> In a silo.

[10:02] >> They want to store it differently than

[10:04] what they were storing it as. That would

[10:06] be my guess. being larger like a

[10:08] apparently their existing magazines hold

[10:12] 20,000

[10:13] pounds.

[10:14] >> You don't even have to store it in a

[10:15] magazine because it's not explosive

[10:16] until it's confined and touched off by

[10:19] something.

[10:20] >> It's been a long it's fertilizer.

[10:22] >> You can imagine a magazine somewhere

[10:23] like a a super shipping container and

[10:26] there's different areas for that. You

[10:28] have to have

[10:29] >> as I recall it was like a dynamite. You

[10:30] had to have the info and you had to have

[10:32] a cap to make the whole thing work.

[10:34] >> Yeah. The info is not even it's just

[10:36] stored in a box trailer.

[10:37] >> They were all stored in different

[10:38] places. All the like part A, part B, and

[10:40] part C were not together. But the the

[10:43] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

[10:46] heavily regulated.

[10:47] >> Yes. Yes.

[10:48] I I actually want to I'll briefly short

[10:50] circuit this actually very interesting

[10:52] conversation

[10:54] >> to say like I reached out to the

[10:57] building commissioner to find out if in

[11:00] his view whatever they were proposing to

[11:02] do there assuming it got a special

[11:05] permit amendment would need to come

[11:07] before us for a site review and and Jim

[11:11] said no and I still have no reason

[11:14] >> use changed right to to challenge that

[11:17] or so I don't think we actually have a

[11:20] stake here. So right now I'm just

[11:23] alerting you that this is going on.

[11:24] Though I would tell you um clearly

[11:28] there's a lot of lack of understanding

[11:30] about what AMO actually is. They have

[11:34] there's apparently been it's been clear

[11:35] that they are not currently it's not

[11:37] currently there

[11:39] and and

[11:41] >> really that's

[11:43] >> yeah so that Bay Blasting does pri

[11:45] primarily like site work so they do a

[11:48] seller hole for you or trenching when

[11:50] they're doing roads they don't go like

[11:52] my like Ireland yeah

[11:54] >> into like a quarry and do huge shots you

[11:58] know you put like 50,000 pounds in the

[12:00] ground they don't do that it's all very

[12:02] small and most of them even Pioneer when

[12:05] they were in their heyday like their

[12:07] info was at true in the quarry.

[12:10] >> Yeah.

[12:11] >> And like you have these big trucks that

[12:12] come and you like let someone else deal

[12:14] with all the storage of that. Like

[12:16] Pioneer always had dynamite and caps and

[12:19] boosters and and bags of Ampho, but

[12:22] never like a silo or

[12:23] >> a bulk not bulk.

[12:25] >> Yeah, the bulk silo was was in

[12:28] >> coned or something. Yeah, they blow it

[12:30] just like it's it is ammonium nitrate.

[12:33] It's fertilizer. I put it on my hay

[12:35] fields.

[12:36] >> Okay.

[12:36] >> In fact,

[12:37] >> reading Judy's email and

[12:40] >> the farmers all around the Oxford are

[12:42] also putting on their hayfield that it's

[12:44] not Yeah.

[12:45] >> So,

[12:46] >> it's it's very misunderstood.

[12:48] >> Look, so I will again this is not going

[12:52] to come before this board. my perception

[12:55] of what I when I attended the first

[12:58] public hearing just out of curiosity

[13:00] there's EBA and I'll probably go to the continuation but the the discussion of this the

[13:10] introduction of ANFO and the fact that

[13:12] it's a liquid emulsion versus a solid

[13:16] generated lots of you know hairs going

[13:20] up on people's necks about now this is a

[13:23] liquid liquid that could leak. It's over

[13:26] the aquafer protection district.

[13:29] >> Yeah. See, they're not even deter. Afo

[13:32] is not a liquid. It can't be a liquid.

[13:34] Anfo is a little tiny pellet. Emulsion

[13:36] is what you mix with ano and then it

[13:38] goes down the hole. So, the truck blends

[13:40] those two things together. So, they may

[13:43] be trying to

[13:45] slip something by for people that don't

[13:47] understand either by maybe they're

[13:49] trying to store emulsion as well. It's

[13:51] two different things.

[13:52] >> Okay. They talked about a liquid

[13:55] emulsion

[13:55] >> that is different than Anfo 100%.

[13:58] >> Okay.

[13:59] >> Yeah.

[13:59] >> Well, as you can imagine, I'm not here

[14:02] to

[14:03] >> We need to get you. Yes. We clearly have

[14:07] some explosive experts that are needed

[14:10] by the zoning board of appeals because I

[14:12] don't know how this EBA is going to go,

[14:15] "Oh, this this kind of silly went in

[14:16] before the sorry bylaws."

[14:18] >> I know. Well, I

[14:19] >> went in before the aquafer district was

[14:21] even formed. Right.

[14:22] >> I have been feeding to Deborah Carney

[14:26] like you need to find out about what

[14:30] grandfathering applies and under what

[14:32] circumstances because

[14:34] >> you may not

[14:37] you know there's the question of really

[14:39] has the use changed and and what rules

[14:43] apply and and I don't know the answer to

[14:46] that. I would say one other thing is

[14:48] like to my knowledge there's never been

[14:51] an incident there in 40 years in what

[14:54] they do there. There's never been any

[14:57] >> I mean if you have an accident it's over

[14:59] for you like you're

[15:00] >> in 40 years

[15:02] >> right

[15:03] >> and the beds are going to squish it.

[15:05] There were some comments were made along

[15:08] the lines of well there's hunting in

[15:12] those woods

[15:14] which seemed to be suggestive of what if

[15:16] a hunter happens to shoot and hit one of

[15:20] these you know

[15:20] >> bulletproof

[15:22] >> they're put you can imagine

[15:24] >> you could you could you could sit with a

[15:27] the biggest machine gun in the world and

[15:29] shoot a giant thing of anfo and it's

[15:33] just not going to do it doesn't work

[15:34] that Well, let me maybe I'll

[15:36] >> It doesn't It might if it caught on

[15:38] fire, it would just burn like it doesn't

[15:40] >> it's not going to explode like

[15:42] >> I don't know.

[15:44] I don't have any particular knowledge or

[15:47] expertise. I perceive the possibility of

[15:52] the ZBA

[15:55] possibly denying the special permit and

[15:58] I don't know whether it would be I don't

[16:01] know what to say about whether that

[16:02] would be a good decision. the court.

[16:05] >> But if you have the time and inclination

[16:09] to sit in on the next ZBA meeting um in

[16:15] January, which is already on the

[16:17] calendar, that's all they're going to do

[16:19] is continue the public hearing.

[16:22] >> I know you can't go up there and like

[16:23] buy Dynamite like you're like, "Oh, you

[16:25] can't go.

[16:26] >> They have no farm stand."

[16:27] >> Oh, no. You cannot buy it. you know,

[16:30] >> post 911 at, you know, totally different

[16:34] ballgame.

[16:34] >> Also could be helpful, quite frankly, if

[16:37] you have particular relevant knowledge

[16:40] to just email Deborah and just say that

[16:44] because she might talk to you, you know,

[16:48] offline at a time of your at her

[16:51] convenience.

[16:51] >> And Mike, I mean, you could be a

[16:53] potential expert.

[16:57] I'd be interested in what they're

[16:58] actually asking.

[16:59] >> You don't have a you don't have a decent

[17:00] game because you don't work there

[17:01] anymore at your company, but you have a

[17:03] lot of knowledge.

[17:04] >> Yeah.

[17:05] >> I mean, truthfully, the burden is on the

[17:09] applicant,

[17:10] >> but we understand that applicants, you

[17:12] know, we're all citizens without

[17:15] necessarily the right expertise. And

[17:18] citizens, rightly or wrongly, come to

[17:21] maybe they don't make the best

[17:22] decisions. So the the more that we can

[17:26] help get the right outcome, the better.

[17:28] But we have no dog. As far as I know, we

[17:31] have no dog in this fight.

[17:32] >> Interesting.

[17:33] >> But that's all about base day blasting.

[17:36] Okay. So, um, oh well, I mean, I guess

[17:40] before I move off the basically blast of

[17:43] the topic, so Judy Parkland did

[17:46] circulate an email to all of us. Um, and

[17:50] which,

[17:52] um, you know, and I'm privately

[17:54] communicated with Judy. She seems to

[17:57] feel like if I think if she were in

[18:00] charge, she would just deny the request

[18:03] and shut down the whole business. Um,

[18:07] but she made a recommendation that I put

[18:11] out a request on a lift serve asking

[18:14] about this. And um, I mean, again,

[18:19] I mean, I'll probably do that just to be

[18:22] helpful. This is kind of out of scope of

[18:25] our board, but I'm trying to help the

[18:27] ZBA. So,

[18:29] >> um, so anyway, you got that email. You

[18:33] can feel free if you want to reply to

[18:35] Judy. Be careful about replying all

[18:38] because open meeting law still applies

[18:40] for the four of us. But if you want to

[18:42] comment to

[18:44] >> not just hit the button.

[18:45] >> I know. I know. I like to just remind

[18:47] you all about that.

[18:49] >> Um and I did forward you the message

[18:50] about the conflict of interest training

[18:52] and all that other stuff. So you're good with that.

[18:55] >> So that's that. So

[18:57] >> was Judy a past board member? Correct.

[18:59] So, um, is there any reason why Judy

[19:01] shouldn't just be the other?

[19:03] >> She's a female. She seems to be

[19:05] interested.

[19:06] >> Worked for 11 years and that she's I

[19:08] think appropriately decided it's time to

[19:11] attend a little bit.

[19:13] >> She seems to, you know, wants that she's

[19:16] staying more engaged than I thought she

[19:18] would want to, but she

[19:20] >> is it maybe just the best thing she's

[19:22] quite concerned about and that

[19:24] >> she's on the committee for the

[19:28] >> That's right.

[19:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. And she

[19:30] >> I was just wondering

[19:31] >> and she's co-chair of or chair co-chair

[19:33] of the historical commission. I mean she

[19:34] has

[19:34] >> she's still very much involved.

[19:36] >> She's got and she's got long roots but

[19:39] um

[19:40] >> she's very helpful in teaching how to

[19:41] write legal.

[19:42] >> I certainly think to write illegal ads.

[19:45] >> Yeah. Once she's gone to she's very

[19:48] helpful that

[19:49] >> okay

[19:49] >> we don't always see eye to eye but I

[19:51] greatly respect her.

[19:52] >> Okay. So, um

[19:55] I I don't know and I know George I see

[19:59] George is on the call. So, I'll make

[20:02] sure to give George an opportunity if he

[20:05] wants to make any comments. Uh really

[20:09] all I wanted to do tonight because I

[20:11] only got this draft. I just want to sort

[20:14] of give you the verbal and sort of go on

[20:16] the record about like more than my email

[20:19] so everyone knows like what I did. So

[20:21] I've since our last meeting in October,

[20:24] I took the state model bylaw. Um I

[20:28] essentially first I did this in multiple

[20:31] steps. I just basically copied the

[20:33] original language. Then I went through

[20:36] it and using my best judgment and

[20:39] knowledge of our zoning made certain

[20:42] changes to it to um align with things

[20:47] that we've talked about and um and just

[20:52] like take generic language like the

[20:55] model used the term like the special

[20:59] permit granting authority and I would

[21:01] replace that with the zoning board of

[21:03] appeals which is our threshold permit

[21:05] branding. So, I made certain changes

[21:07] like that and maybe I don't know that I

[21:09] really deleted anything. Um, I may have

[21:14] like I used highlighter when I made

[21:16] certain just

[21:18] editorial changes to the to the model

[21:21] Bible. Having completed that step, um

[21:26] then I went back

[21:28] comparing it to the more or less final

[21:33] draft bylaw that came out of the energy

[21:36] storage system study committee and and

[21:39] kind of went and pulled in provisions

[21:42] and put them in the parts of the the new

[21:45] draft

[21:47] where it seemed like they went like when

[21:49] I saw like here's a seemingly again just

[21:52] using my best judgment like when this

[21:55] here's a provision didn't seem to be

[21:57] addressed or covered in the model,

[22:00] >> I just kind of pulled it in.

[22:04] Um, and that was really all I had time

[22:06] like to complete one full draft with

[22:10] some inclusions

[22:12] from the storage committee. Um and then

[22:16] documenting what I my best sense of what

[22:21] still needs to be done kind of open

[22:24] unresolved issues.

[22:26] Uh I've said that I've left out for now

[22:31] the language about a licensing board. if

[22:35] I can say more about that

[22:38] ask. But um what I was what I wanted to

[22:44] accomplish tonight was just

[22:48] state where I sort of make sure we have

[22:51] an agreement that I my goal is to get a

[22:56] final bylaw through all the wickets. We

[22:58] have to get it through in time to go on

[23:02] to a town meeting warrant in this coming

[23:05] I assume June. And I think what that

[23:08] probably would mean at the latest is

[23:11] that we would do a public hearing. We'd

[23:13] over like January, February come to some

[23:16] agreement on final language,

[23:20] have a public hearing in March.

[23:24] Um and and then and I'm going to I think

[23:28] there's always a risk here that town

[23:29] meeting could be April because it keeps

[23:33] last year it seemed like I got an early

[23:35] indication like town meeting.

[23:37] >> It was always April and then it got the

[23:38] last couple years we bumped it.

[23:40] >> Yeah.

[23:40] >> Because we're waiting for figures to

[23:41] come in and we don't get the elementary

[23:43] school figures until like March.

[23:44] >> Yeah.

[23:45] >> There's not enough time. So it's been

[23:46] bumped permanently which is for the

[23:48] better. And I just so I'm going to I

[23:50] have the uncertainty means I kind of

[23:52] have to initially plan on like till

[23:56] April and then we might get the

[23:59] breathing room to have some extra time.

[24:01] >> They did permanently move it to J.

[24:03] >> They've changed it. Yeah, it is June.

[24:05] That is it.

[24:06] >> Okay.

[24:07] >> And from now on it's

[24:08] >> I wasn't aware of that.

[24:09] >> Yeah, they have moved it to J.

[24:10] >> Okay. And by the way, as an aside, I

[24:14] don't know if I learned this at the

[24:17] you probably all know more about this

[24:20] now than I do, which is fine. No, no

[24:22] harm no harm to foul, but um I went to

[24:25] the Weightley scoop folding event at

[24:30] Joyce's house, which is a fun like there

[24:33] was some box wine. I mean, it was like

[24:35] if you Anyway, but I learned that Joyce

[24:38] is stepping down at the end of her

[24:40] current term from the select board.

[24:42] They're looking to

[24:44] >> replace, you know, recruit somebody new

[24:46] to the select board and that Nat is

[24:48] going to also step down as town

[24:49] moderator. So, there's going to be some

[24:51] changes in town leadership to sharing

[24:55] that.

[24:56] >> I think we see like the national level

[24:59] people having been on boards for way too

[25:01] long. This is a good thing has to change

[25:04] order. I mean I don't know I don't know

[25:07] that other names.

[25:08] >> Although I I must say I don't want Scott

[25:10] Jackson to have retired but the mission

[25:12] commission. He's amazing.

[25:13] >> He's an expert.

[25:16] >> He was one of my professors.

[25:19] >> Very very

[25:22] um so then just because again now Judy

[25:26] sent this message related to the best

[25:28] buy. I think

[25:30] what I wanted to happen

[25:34] with among all of us over the next month

[25:37] to our next meeting is that you have a

[25:40] chance to now go through the draft. I'm

[25:44] going to continue to work and refine it

[25:46] and try to get it into a form where I

[25:49] think, you know, it's good enough. I

[25:51] keep telling myself the perfect is the

[25:54] enemy of the good enough. I want to get

[25:57] something that I think covers what we

[26:00] needs to get covered and has minimal

[26:03] chance of getting rejected by the

[26:04] attorney's office.

[26:06] >> Which leads me also sort of I want to

[26:08] catch you up on a few things

[26:11] >> about the DOER office hours that I

[26:14] attended. So in October, I said there's

[26:16] this upcoming opportunity in November to

[26:20] attend an office hour of the women's

[26:22] bylaws and interact with state people

[26:25] about it. And I did that. Uh it it was

[26:31] good. It it wasn't as much as I'd hoped

[26:33] for for the thought. There was like a

[26:36] lawyer there. Apparently, as is typical

[26:39] these days in governments, this kind of

[26:41] work is largely outsourced to technical

[26:45] experts. And there's like one company

[26:47] that is involved in doing the work

[26:50] related to solar electric generation and

[26:53] a different company dealing with battery

[26:56] storage. The people dealing with solar

[26:59] were at the office hours. The battery

[27:01] storage people were not. a particular

[27:03] one that I had and solar people like

[27:06] they did their best to

[27:09] answer my questions. But basically I

[27:11] wanted to know things like if we you

[27:14] know to what extent if we adopt the

[27:17] model bylaw is does this just mean that

[27:20] the attorney general will approve it?

[27:23] And they said they're they're actively

[27:25] meeting with the attorney general's

[27:27] office to make sure that yes indeed that

[27:29] if you basically follow the model that will be deemed compliant. But they

[27:35] also said that you don't have to

[27:38] ultimately the attorney general is going

[27:40] to be reviewing these sorts of bylaws

[27:44] and making judgments about compliance

[27:47] with you know constitutionality. There

[27:50] will always be difference given to towns

[27:53] with a proviso that you might do

[27:57] something, put something in your bylaw

[28:00] that

[28:02] as far as the state can tell seems okay,

[28:05] isn't an unreasonable burden on

[28:07] applicants,

[28:09] but the state will not say that

[28:13] >> you couldn't be challenged in court.

[28:15] Right? So a a knowledgeable applicant

[28:18] could say, "Wow, that's clearly

[28:20] unreasonable, and we're going to take

[28:22] you to court over this." And then the

[28:23] town would have to either defend or just

[28:26] to say, "Okay,

[28:28] >> try to settle somehow out."

[28:29] >> Right. Right. And of course, we as a

[28:31] planning board don't want to end up for

[28:35] unnecessary lawsuits.

[28:37] Um, so they also didn't say that if you

[28:42] already have a battery storage bylaw

[28:45] that it'll state law will invalidate

[28:49] yours.

[28:52] But they it they did say it'll be kind

[28:54] of like what happened with accessory

[28:56] dwelling grants that if your local

[29:00] bylaws are inconsistent with state the

[29:04] new state regulations then a developer

[29:07] can simply

[29:09] >> follow state regulations and is more

[29:11] >> the state regulations supersedes

[29:12] whatever town

[29:13] >> exactly and that doesn't involve

[29:15] lawsuits or anything like that but that

[29:17] could lead a town to not have the best

[29:20] outcome for the town and I've said, you

[29:23] know, hopefully maybe in 2026 we'll deal

[29:26] with our AD, you know, revise our bylaws

[29:30] with respect to accessory dwelling.

[29:33] Right now, ours are inconsistent with

[29:35] state law. Uh we I asked about the

[29:39] exclusion

[29:40] of of battery storage beyond a certain

[29:44] size within the aquifer protection

[29:46] district. Would that be considered an

[29:49] unreasonable restriction? And they said,

[29:51] "Well, it depends." Of course, they were

[29:54] very careful to say, "We can't give you

[29:56] legal guidance, right? That's what your

[29:58] town council is for." So, they said,

[30:00] "But like

[30:03] what I heard was like if you have vast

[30:05] amounts of your town in an aquifer

[30:08] protection district and you're

[30:09] effectively excluding vast amounts of

[30:12] your town, then that might be

[30:14] considered."

[30:16] But I said, "Well, you know, I showed

[30:17] them the map. It's like our agriculture

[30:19] protection district. It's not that big.

[30:21] And you know, so they probably you'd be

[30:25] okay there. Uh we had a discussion about

[30:29] um then we had a discussion about

[30:32] private wells,

[30:34] >> right? Like there had been a proposal in

[30:37] the original draft of like setting these

[30:39] setbacks from private wells. And I and I

[30:44] will

[30:46] haven't done this yet. I did have an

[30:48] interaction by email. I don't know if I

[30:51] forward this to you with with the board

[30:53] of health about the Yeah, I didn't want

[30:56] to I didn't I didn't want to make you

[30:58] crazy, but I I I had an interaction like

[31:02] couple three months ago with the board

[31:04] of health

[31:05] >> on this very issue. Like I wanted to

[31:08] know how accessible or publicly

[31:11] available are the locations of all the

[31:14] private wells. Like if you're an

[31:17] applicant, can you go to a GIS?

[31:20] >> Yeah,

[31:21] >> like and I don't think so.

[31:23] >> I would doubt it. Yeah, I don't.

[31:25] >> And there I

[31:27] the the I got a copy of Wheatley's water

[31:31] regulations which has been very useful.

[31:33] Like they have setbacks like they want

[31:36] to make sure private wells are not to

[31:40] too close to septic systems and other

[31:42] sources of contamination. And so I've

[31:45] been looking those over

[31:48] um to sort of form an an opinion based

[31:52] on existing regulation. But in the

[31:55] office hours they asked these kinds of

[31:58] questions. They said, "Well, that could

[32:00] be an issue." Like if you're putting an

[32:03] unreasonable burden on applicants to

[32:06] have to get access to information that's

[32:09] not easily accessible, is costly to

[32:12] obtain, is kind of a deterrent,

[32:14] >> then that's the kind of thing that could

[32:18] at least invalidate that provision.

[32:22] I've separately asked Pete this question

[32:25] of about this notion of severability. If

[32:27] you sort of wonder like and I'd like to

[32:30] get state guidance or town council

[32:32] guidance like if we were to pass a bylaw

[32:36] then it was basically fine but had

[32:39] certain provisions that were

[32:42] unreasonable like a big setback from

[32:45] private wells.

[32:48] Would a state respond by just projecting

[32:51] the whole thing

[32:53] >> or might they just sort of do like a

[32:54] line item detail like

[32:56] >> this is okay but not that

[33:00] >> just to go backwards

[33:02] does this rel to this so we haven't

[33:05] special time meeting

[33:06] >> correct

[33:08] October special town meeting it passed

[33:11] our actual protection

[33:12] >> best and Brian made the amendment to 250

[33:16] instead of 800 right

[33:17] >> has the How the clerk certified and

[33:19] submitted that to the attorney general

[33:21] but got any feedback from them?

[33:22] >> Well, we wouldn't get feedback for 90

[33:24] days. It

[33:26] >> they have up to 90 days.

[33:27] And what I have

[33:30] done as of

[33:32] we got all the documentation to our town

[33:36] clerk this past Friday for the form

[33:39] seven. She needs to submit to submitted

[33:43] to the attorney general.

[33:43] >> They may not or have may have to

[33:47] attorney general.

[33:48] >> Remember when I did I got my um zoning

[33:52] change on Egypt road like oh 90 days

[33:54] from the meeting though was like 120

[33:56] days from the meeting because there's a

[33:58] period that goes by after special

[33:59] meeting or meeting just processes stuff.

[34:03] So we have real feedback from the state

[34:05] because if we had some feedback from

[34:07] that that might guide us here and that

[34:09] might not arrive until around the time

[34:11] we might be doing a public hearing on

[34:13] this right but so these are some of the

[34:16] issues I'm trying to worry about like

[34:18] because what I don't want to if there's

[34:20] a risk that the attorney general would

[34:22] just strike down the whole thing

[34:25] >> versus just a bad provision like then I

[34:28] want to be very cautious about what we

[34:30] put

[34:31] >> because I just don't want all this work

[34:33] to go to waste.

[34:34] >> Um so but but so the main piece of

[34:38] feedback was like the issue of like the

[34:41] aquifer protection district exclusion

[34:44] seemed like it would be okay. It was

[34:47] more questionable about a general

[34:49] provision away from private wells unless

[34:52] it we could basically demonstrate that

[34:55] it was not burdensome on applicants. I

[34:57] wonder if it would be um maybe a way to

[35:01] solve that problem could be like if we

[35:04] just take into account whatever the

[35:06] property line setback is make it 100 ft

[35:09] or whatever is that enough to make

[35:12] somebody's well like to really reduce

[35:14] the risk of well contamination because

[35:16] that is an easy way to maybe to solve

[35:18] the problem. Well, brilliant minds

[35:22] Laura. Um, I will draw your attention to

[35:24] there's a note that I stuck in the

[35:26] document where I

[35:28] >> there are in the well in weight's well

[35:31] regulations. There's a a seg a section

[35:34] about setbacks

[35:36] >> and I've included all of that because

[35:38] there are setbacks in our regs from

[35:42] septic systems, property lines and other

[35:44] things

[35:45] >> and those are fairly low like 50 feet

[35:49] from property lines and I think with

[35:52] maybe even only 50 feet from septic

[35:54] systems. I I may not be remembering but

[35:56] it's in a note.

[35:57] >> Yeah. But I was thinking the same idea

[35:59] that if if a well a private well needs

[36:03] to be set back at least 50 feet from a

[36:06] septic tank and also 50 ft from our

[36:09] property line,

[36:11] >> you know, we might just be able to solve

[36:13] the connection of private wells.

[36:17] >> Mike, do you have to feed um your cattle

[36:22] portable water?

[36:24] No, but the well that we did for the

[36:27] building,

[36:29] it's a long story, but they have

[36:31] portable water.

[36:31] >> They have portable water, but there's no

[36:33] requirement because there's agricultural

[36:35] wells that not a portable well isn't fit

[36:38] for human consumption. Yes. There's

[36:40] agricultural wells in town. They're just

[36:42] >> If someone's going to drill you up,

[36:45] they're going to it's going to be

[36:46] they're going to get it tested. Yeah.

[36:47] Does that make sense? Okay. If you're

[36:49] putting in like something yourself, then

[36:52] the animals don't. But like h can drill

[36:55] a well, they just go through the

[36:56] motions.

[36:57] >> But if you have a cows and use weight

[36:59] and you want to put a well point in to

[37:00] feed your cows,

[37:02] >> yeah, you can just

[37:03] >> you don't have the wall water. You're

[37:07] >> cows can drink water that beavers are in

[37:10] without

[37:11] >> gardia and anything.

[37:12] >> Okay, that that was that's what I was

[37:14] getting at.

[37:14] >> No.

[37:15] >> Okay. There's no requirement that the

[37:17] water's poor will feed last time.

[37:18] >> I know because I mean, think about all

[37:20] the people who you get a pond on your

[37:22] property that's stagnant water.

[37:23] >> All the animals that lived before we

[37:25] were here, right?

[37:25] >> Somehow they made it.

[37:26] >> Well, especially in other parts of the

[37:28] >> Well, I have a well at my house for

[37:30] irrigation.

[37:31] >> Yeah. Yeah. And I know a lot of people

[37:33] in in our my development have wells just

[37:36] for irrigation that are not considered

[37:38] portable. But maybe what we need to do

[37:40] then is talk about a portable water well

[37:44] for private usage or something.

[37:45] >> I believe the Wly

[37:48] >> drinking water rags only apply to well

[37:51] drink.

[37:53] >> I don't know. I I'm not sure whether you

[37:56] can just drill a well deliberately

[37:59] saying it's not going to be for portable

[38:02] for drinking water. But I I'm not sure.

[38:05] >> Yeah. I mean I think if you're doing it

[38:06] yourself, you can probably drink water.

[38:08] Yeah. Right. Or then you're if you're

[38:11] drink and you die then which you can

[38:14] drill a well to feed a pivot to for

[38:17] irrigating a field. Anyway, I don't want

[38:20] to go on too much about this, right? Um

[38:23] so that's I think where we are. Judy

[38:26] brought up this point about um that I

[38:30] still

[38:32] it's there's a valid point in her

[38:36] message that

[38:38] whatever we want to make sure that our

[38:40] bylaw does not place

[38:44] um

[38:47] you know inappropriate or infeasible

[38:50] expectations on our shared building

[38:53] spect.

[38:53] >> Yes.

[38:54] >> All right. Um, and I

[38:57] she may have Okay, I just sent this

[39:01] around a few days ago. It's easy to skim

[39:02] it, but I believe I I attempted to have

[39:06] a provision in the draft

[39:09] >> that would say that the planning board

[39:12] andor the zoning board can hire experts

[39:17] to support site plan reviews and or

[39:22] special permanent evaluations. that

[39:24] there is no need for the building

[39:26] inspector to have any specialized

[39:28] expertise. Let me just remind you of a a

[39:31] construct that

[39:33] >> Yeah, I was going to say that prior to

[39:35] my time on the board, there was some

[39:37] conflict with the building inspector and

[39:40] maybe the board felt that the building

[39:42] inspector was not as confident as it

[39:44] should be in handling issues and stuff

[39:47] like that. So, there's some history with

[39:48] building inspector and what he did. I'm

[39:51] obviously a little bit biased the

[39:52] builder. I have to work with them all

[39:53] the time. I have great faith in the

[39:54] building inspector and what they do.

[39:56] Yeah. So I have they have my full

[39:57] support for their capital

[39:59] >> and they're but they're not Yeah. They I

[40:02] wouldn't expect the building inspector

[40:04] to make assessments about what's the

[40:05] appropriate financial shy in the event

[40:08] of

[40:09] >> that's your area of expertise. All the

[40:11] building the fast CMR calls out when the

[40:15] building inspector needs help or

[40:17] assistance or stuff like that. It always

[40:20] gets deferred to hiring a specialist or

[40:22] an engineer to consult or stuff like

[40:23] that. In anything like this, there's got

[40:26] to be a consulting engineer that submits

[40:28] a plan that's stamped for it, right?

[40:29] >> Pretty much the only thing you don't

[40:30] need it for is doing a war two family

[40:32] toiling under 30,000 feet. Everything is

[40:36] filter engineer involved for all this

[40:38] stuff. Anyway, I just wanted to, you

[40:39] know, like acknowledge you got her

[40:42] feedback.

[40:43] >> I think I wanted to reiterate that there

[40:46] were these like three permitting

[40:49] scenarios I'm trying to build into this

[40:51] bylaw. The first scenario is the use is

[40:55] just allowed by right. These are small.

[40:58] There's minimal risk. You can do it like

[41:00] at my house, right? Up to a certain

[41:02] size. Then the next higher tier is

[41:08] site plan review. You know it's by right

[41:13] >> right with

[41:14] >> but site plan review site what that does

[41:17] and I'll just reiterate so everyone's

[41:19] aware what site plan review would mean

[41:21] is that we have insight into what's

[41:24] being done. We can see the plans. We can

[41:29] wave, you know, there's a whole lot of

[41:31] requirements for what needs to be

[41:33] submitted for a site plan review, but we

[41:36] explicitly will have discretion to wave

[41:40] certain things if we feel it's

[41:42] unnecessary. Like if something is just

[41:44] above the threshold, we might say, well,

[41:48] we don't really need this, we don't

[41:49] really need that. we have discretion,

[41:51] but there's and then if something

[41:55] doesn't comply to our bylaws

[41:57] or like we could the only time we could

[42:01] deny site plan approval is if something

[42:05] were not conformant with zoning

[42:09] otherwise approval is nondiscretionary

[42:12] and we can put in conditions to you know

[42:16] in our area of responsibility for

[42:18] screening and noise and things like that

[42:22] because it could be a concern that some

[42:24] of these storage facilities they have

[42:26] HVAC systems they can generate noise. So

[42:30] they're reasonable things where at the

[42:33] at site plan review we might intervene.

[42:37] The next tier is site plan review and

[42:41] special permits. special permits being

[42:43] discretionary where we might in those

[42:46] situations

[42:48] be

[42:49] um sequencing the permitting where

[42:52] because if the ZBA were to deny a

[42:55] special permit for whatever reason,

[42:57] there's no point in doing the site plan.

[42:59] >> Yeah.

[43:00] >> However, the other thing that I'm still

[43:02] trying to wrap my head around and for us

[43:04] to be aware of for when these things go

[43:06] into effect is the state the new state

[43:09] rules are going to require what they

[43:11] call comprehensive

[43:14] permitting

[43:15] and there's going to be like a 12month

[43:19] start to finish deadline for cities and

[43:23] towns to provide, you know, a yes or no.

[43:27] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[43:28] >> And so

[43:29] >> if we can't get through it, they get it

[43:31] >> right. And so I think now it could be

[43:35] like if the ZBA were able to sort of

[43:38] sort this out over a few short months

[43:40] and then we pick up the ball and sort it

[43:42] out over a few short months, we're

[43:44] within the 12 month time. But we might

[43:46] end up start finding ourselves where we

[43:49] kind of want to be doing like joint

[43:50] public hearings. So we're moving both

[43:53] processes along

[43:56] >> and not putting them.

[43:57] >> It'd be more efficient.

[43:58] >> It would be more efficient. Have we had

[44:00] that discussion with the ZBA yet? No.

[44:02] Right. But something to be aware of. Um,

[44:06] so I I take her point. Uh, I think it's

[44:10] already addressed in the draft that

[44:13] we're not expecting them that things

[44:16] like shity would be decided by

[44:21] I think by us. Again, these are things I

[44:23] have to clarify, but I wanted to make

[44:25] this clear that

[44:28] whenever there is whenever something is

[44:31] not by right, there will always be site

[44:34] plan. Will be site plan review and no

[44:37] special permit or it'll be site plan

[44:40] review and special permit. So in a way

[44:44] if we say if something requires site

[44:47] plan review

[44:49] that's like then it might also need a

[44:52] special permit but we'll always be we'll

[44:55] like be at the table to review first.

[44:58] reissue order of conditions or something

[45:00] for site plan review. Those get attached

[45:03] to register third street deeds, right?

[45:05] >> I think I think site plan approval

[45:10] documents are attached to the registry

[45:13] of deeds. There are certainly dating

[45:15] conditions for issuance of a building

[45:18] permit.

[45:19] >> So there's you could have a developer

[45:21] developing something and then as soon as

[45:23] suddenly sell it to another organization

[45:25] sells it to another organization. just

[45:26] want to make sure that these grow to the

[45:29] successor society.

[45:30] >> I believe that's the way that's the

[45:32] case. Whoever is the new party coming in

[45:34] to take control is bound by the rules

[45:36] that we set water.

[45:37] >> Yes.

[45:38] And that's really for a special

[45:40] purpose.

[45:40] >> We want to make sure that's the case.

[45:42] >> Yeah.

[45:43] >> Look at

[45:49] so my that's my sum of where we are. my

[45:53] your homework to the next meeting is to

[45:56] look at the draft.

[45:57] >> I'm going to continue to work on the

[45:59] open issues. If you have I mean to the

[46:02] extent that you can do this sooner

[46:04] rather than later and send me any

[46:05] comments or questions that gives me an

[46:07] opportunity to like deal with it before

[46:09] our next meeting, but my goal would be

[46:12] to have a new updated draft by our next

[46:16] meeting.

[46:16] >> Is there anything else on our horizon

[46:18] for special town meeting or for annual

[46:20] town meeting? Well, that's a great Let's

[46:23] take that up. Okay.

[46:25] >> Before tonight is over,

[46:27] >> I'd like to move off battery storage,

[46:30] but I want to see George, I think, has

[46:32] come off mute. George, do you have any

[46:34] comments or questions?

[46:36] >> I do. Can Can you folks hear me? Okay.

[46:39] >> We hear you. Great. Please.

[46:40] >> Okay. Uh, I I think the draft as I was

[46:44] able to skim it, uh, looks looks great

[46:47] so far. I think you're on target with

[46:49] that, Brent. Um, I do agree with the

[46:53] clarification that Judy asked for around

[46:55] the um around the shity and and who who

[46:59] hires the engineer to do that and and

[47:01] where that falls. Um, I did want to just

[47:04] mention licensing and why that has come

[47:06] up. Um, the outputs of the study

[47:10] committee were two major components. One

[47:13] is the zoning bylaw which you're working

[47:16] on through multiple iterations. we did,

[47:20] I think, have a little influence on the

[47:21] state uh in the back and forth there and I I think we're in a good place with

[47:26] that and where it's coming. Um the other

[47:29] issue we tried to address was what

[47:31] happens after these things are

[47:35] um cited, they're built, they're

[47:37] installed. And what we're seeing

[47:39] nationally and we looked into quite a

[47:41] lot of this is that uh in a lot of cases

[47:44] it's it's large investment firms coming

[47:46] in and building these and these things

[47:48] changing hands to private equity shortly

[47:51] after. Um, so how do we build in any

[47:56] long-term accountability and inspections

[47:59] on these things to make sure that

[48:00] they're being maintained, which which is

[48:03] crucial for these, especially the fire

[48:05] suppression systems where we've seen

[48:09] um cat catastrophic fires nationally.

[48:13] um the huge one in California just a

[48:15] year or so ago, the the one with

[48:17] fatalities in uh Arizona before that,

[48:21] there are indications that the fire

[48:23] suppression systems either were not

[48:26] maintained adequately or the technology

[48:28] was old and had not had not been updated

[48:31] to current protections, especially in

[48:34] the California case. So

[48:38] what we had uh thought to do in

[48:41] addressing that was to come up with a

[48:42] licensing provision under a general

[48:44] bylaw which would not be a zoning bylaw

[48:47] and which went to the select board um to

[48:51] address that because right now we're

[48:52] seeing no provisions for ongoing

[48:56] inspections and oversight of maintenance

[48:58] of these things

[49:00] um by the state. some something like um

[49:04] base blasting, you know, we can rest

[49:06] assured there that we have the state

[49:08] fire marshall coming in there to do

[49:10] regular inspections. ATF makes regular

[49:12] inspections and then there are

[49:16] um kind of authorizing agencies there

[49:19] who can help assure us as a town that

[49:22] we're protected in those situations

[49:25] um and then then we can have confidence

[49:27] in that. So, you know, the question is

[49:30] to have in your minds looking forward,

[49:32] how do we maintain protection for the

[49:34] town after these have been permitted and

[49:37] built and change hands uh two or three

[49:41] or four times over over the expected

[49:43] what 20 25 year potential lifetime of

[49:46] these.

[49:48] So,

[49:50] that's all I wanted to add to uh to kind

[49:52] of keep that in mind and and see how

[49:54] that can tie into this zoning bylaw.

[49:59] Very good. Thank you, George. So, so

[50:01] noted. And you know, again, I'll remind

[50:03] everyone that a a draft of that general

[50:07] bylaw for a weight licensing board did

[50:10] go to the select board. Um, they haven't

[50:14] I I gather they they were positive

[50:19] towards it. they it hasn't it hasn't

[50:25] really been voted on because we haven't

[50:27] done our part that makes it necessary.

[50:30] I'll be candid that I have my own, you

[50:32] know, objections and reservations to

[50:34] that and I want to follow up with town

[50:36] council to make sure that this is not

[50:38] another one of those things where,

[50:42] you know, the argument is that I mean

[50:44] there's a clear argument in favor of it

[50:47] like this ongoing inspection thing. Um

[50:52] the potential push back is that it

[50:57] creates this deterrent risk for an

[51:00] applicant. Meaning that if there could

[51:03] be sort of a a relatively arbitrary

[51:06] termination or shutdown of their project

[51:11] by a set say a you know citizen

[51:15] licensing but I'm like sort of playing

[51:17] devil's advocate here. Right. So I I'm I

[51:22] want to just investigate that it's to

[51:24] what I see is it's it's easy to put in a

[51:28] line in the bylaw that says, you know,

[51:32] you also need a a license from the

[51:34] weight licensing and then have the the town pass their general file. Both

[51:42] of course again both have to pass that

[51:44] sort of thing. Um, and I might be okay

[51:47] with that and not sweat it too much if I

[51:51] could feel confident if town council

[51:53] said this would be okay. I've not asked.

[51:56] Town council reviewed a draft of the the

[52:00] ES3C

[52:01] and didn't raise any flags but wasn't

[52:04] specifically asked about the the pros

[52:07] and cons about that. And if my concerns

[52:11] are swaged by town council, I might be

[52:14] fine with just putting that in there.

[52:16] Um, like I said, my number one is like

[52:19] under no circumstance I do I want all

[52:21] this work to go to waste. So if if it

[52:24] could be if I knew that things that the AGO the attorney general objected to

[52:30] could just be struck out and retain the

[52:32] rest of everything. I could be good with

[52:34] putting in a few nice to haves.

[52:37] >> Right. or I mean and I don't want to say

[52:39] like I don't necessarily mean it's a

[52:41] nice town. I think there's a logical

[52:43] argument for a licensing report

[52:48] but

[52:48] >> but certain things aren't hills we're

[52:49] going to die on with this.

[52:51] >> Correct. Correct. You know and I and

[52:54] I've not seen any other you know the

[52:56] model doesn't make any provisions for

[52:58] this. I've not seen any other bylaws

[53:00] that do these kinds of things. Again,

[53:01] not to say that we are not like leading

[53:04] the way, like we're innovative and we've

[53:06] got a brilliant idea, but it may also be

[53:09] possible. Another question is when

[53:11] special permits are given or uh or site

[53:14] plan reviews are completed, could there

[53:17] just be boilerplate conditions that

[53:21] allow us to conduct annual inspections

[53:24] with with a you know and it with an

[53:29] expert,

[53:31] you know, paid for by the applicant.

[53:33] That was the other issue,

[53:34] >> right? that now you start to impose

[53:37] these open-ended costs

[53:40] on like every year we're going to do an

[53:42] inspection like when these inspections

[53:45] the ATF does an inspection of Bay State

[53:47] blasting I mean I guess they

[53:49] >> they have to pay for it right it's not

[53:51] >> ATF's paid for it by us all of us

[53:53] sitting here

[53:54] >> okay but it's not like Bayate blasting

[53:56] has to pay a fee

[53:59] >> not unless they find something they can

[54:01] get fined

[54:02] >> they can get

[54:02] >> which usually they're going to find

[54:04] They're probably put to inspection

[54:07] >> because every piece has a barcode and

[54:09] number on the tracking of where it went.

[54:11] Yeah.

[54:11] >> Who's handled it? Where it's being

[54:13] stored at night. Like

[54:15] >> well my dad worked there. So they

[54:16] couldn't even leave in a trunk

[54:17] overnight. Like if if these pieces went

[54:20] out at the end of the day, whatever get

[54:21] used to get back in the

[54:24] thing like as a builder, JD, like if

[54:27] >> if a town said you can do your you can

[54:30] have your property or whatever your

[54:33] thing on Egypt Road, but once a year

[54:36] we're going to conduct an inspection

[54:40] and you're going to have to pay. We're

[54:42] going to choose

[54:43] >> There are inspections, okay? And it's

[54:46] not so much for me because I'm not open

[54:47] to the public.

[54:48] >> Okay.

[54:48] >> And there's a number for it and I forget

[54:51] what the number Chief Kennedy could tell

[54:53] you, but the fire department, the fire

[54:55] chief and the building inspector do

[54:57] these inspections of public places,

[54:59] congregation places annually or

[55:01] bianually and they have to pay for it.

[55:04] Like I would

[55:05] >> I guarantee that we

[55:08] >> any like in Northampton all the

[55:09] restaurants, all the Smith College

[55:11] dorms,

[55:12] >> all those places they have to do those.

[55:14] So, Mike, there's a there's a there's a

[55:17] name for it and they paid for it. I

[55:19] there's a there's a something there's a code number they do. Chief

[55:23] Kenny could tell you like that is

[55:26] to pay for it. George.

[55:27] >> Yeah. Go ahead,

[55:28] >> George. Have you seen any other states

[55:31] in your research,

[55:33] you know, having oversight on,

[55:36] you know, after these are built? Are

[55:39] there any other states that are going in

[55:41] and making sure that they're being run

[55:43] properly and up to date, etc.?

[55:49] » Good question.

[55:50] I know that uh Arizona in particular

[55:54] after the fatalities there, there were several um fire captains and a lieutenant I think killed and and

[56:02] some others severely burned that the

[56:05] state did institute more oversight. And

[56:07] this may be a question, Brad, for DOER

[56:10] in your conversations. Is there any any

[56:13] discussion at the state level of regular

[56:15] inspections

[56:16] um by either DO DOE or the state fire

[56:20] marshall?

[56:21] >> Yeah.

[56:21] >> That are required for these facilities.

[56:23] I I haven't seen anything about that.

[56:25] my my concern is

[56:29] >> I would just say my concern is

[56:32] we can say that we want them to be run

[56:33] properly and but who's going to like I'm

[56:36] not going to go there know what's

[56:38] >> no no no

[56:39] >> there has to be an expert and

[56:41] >> there has to be an expert yes

[56:44] >> the concept was that there'd be a a

[56:47] license a weightly licensing board which

[56:49] ultimately came down to being just the

[56:51] members of the select board and they

[56:54] would presumably

[56:55] hire or have on retainer somebody to do

[56:59] this.

[57:00] >> Yeah. It seems to me that like the state

[57:04] in some ways is pushing these best

[57:07] things in the first place.

[57:08] >> Yeah.

[57:09] >> They should really be the ones to

[57:10] regulate, you know.

[57:11] >> Yeah.

[57:12] >> It's

[57:12] >> I mean, if they regulate explosives

[57:14] going on this,

[57:16] >> right? I mean, the the federal

[57:17] government regulates the explosives, but

[57:19] >> Yeah. Okay.

[57:19] >> But but yeah, you're right.

[57:21] Department of Energy. Are they going to

[57:24] >> I don't know. Step in and host that.

[57:27] >> Okay.

[57:30] » Yeah, that's good. I just want I'm glad.

[57:33] So, we're making progress. Thank you,

[57:35] George. Um, and so what I'd like to do

[57:40] is move

[57:41] >> Yeah.

[57:42] >> move on. Uh, you got your homework. So,

[57:46] uh, the the next is like topics not

[57:49] reasonably anticipated. And until I was

[57:53] just waiting for you guys to arrive,

[57:55] there was nothing. And now there's

[57:57] something. So, um, so I'm going to just

[58:01] basically read an email that arrived

[58:04] minutes before our meeting tonight.

[58:07] >> It's a 110 inspection.

[58:08] >> A 110 inspection.

[58:10] >> A 110.

[58:11] >> Okay.

[58:12] >> Yeah. I mean, mostly my concerns back to

[58:14] that thing was just like open-ended

[58:17] inspections with un known costs. Like if

[58:21] I'm a business and I don't know how much

[58:23] I might have to pay,

[58:25] >> right,

[58:26] >> you know, and I don't have any say in

[58:28] who's going to do it and their

[58:29] expertise. I don't know.

[58:31] >> Here's what they say. The Massachusetts

[58:33] State Building Code 780 CMR which is our

[58:35] building code chapter 1 section 110

[58:37] requires that certain commercial use

[58:38] buildings or spaces be periodically

[58:41] inspected and certified by the local

[58:42] building official. These inspections are

[58:44] required intervals from substance to

[58:46] table and they do it with the building

[58:49] inspector and the zoning enforcement

[58:51] officer. Okay. The building inspector

[58:52] and the zoning if they're different and

[58:54] the fire chief.

[58:54] >> Okay. the onetime inspection,

[58:56] >> but it's the I'm only was I was only

[58:58] posing on the fee part, right? When but

[59:02] if it's like a standard posted fee

[59:05] that's kind of like reasonable business,

[59:07] >> the comprehensiveness of it like the fee

[59:09] to inspect the Wly would be far

[59:11] different than inspecting a toler.

[59:15] >> Yeah.

[59:15] I don't know. Anyway, it was it it

[59:18] still just bears a little looking into

[59:19] it. All right. So, here's the email I

[59:22] got. And I initially freaked and then

[59:24] when I rere reread it, okay, that's not

[59:26] so bad. So, um,

[59:29] good afternoon. My name, and I'll

[59:31] circulate this to all of you. I'll do a

[59:33] dramatic reading here for the meeting.

[59:35] Um, so Gwen, you don't have to like copy

[59:38] this down. Um, now my name is Michael

[59:42] Keilty. I'm a civil engineer with the

[59:44] Dennis Group. We are in the process of

[59:46] preparing a definitive change for the

[59:49] construction of a building expansion for

[59:52] Chang Farms located at 301 River Road

[59:56] Weightley. I understand that the town of

[59:58] Weightley has a presubmission review

[1:00:00] process where we could send in our

[1:00:02] preliminary site plan and other related

[1:00:05] preliminary plans for the project such

[1:00:07] as grading, utility, etc. and obtain

[1:00:09] feedback from the town of Wavely that we

[1:00:12] can use during our detailed design phase

[1:00:14] of the project to avoid potential delays

[1:00:17] with our definitive plan submission.

[1:00:19] Would it be possible for our team to

[1:00:21] have an in-person meeting with someone

[1:00:24] from the planning board or the town

[1:00:25] engineer engineer um to present our

[1:00:28] preliminary site plan and discuss

[1:00:30] potential permitting obstacles and the

[1:00:33] permitting process so we can obtain a

[1:00:35] better understanding of it and what we

[1:00:37] will need from our team. It would most

[1:00:40] likely be myself attending and a couple

[1:00:42] of architects. We're currently planning

[1:00:44] to submit our definitive plan sometime

[1:00:46] in February 2026 and we'll love to

[1:00:49] obtain feedback and discuss the process

[1:00:51] and our ideas in person. We were able to

[1:00:54] meet in person with Jim Hawkins, the

[1:00:56] project manager, blah blah blah and talk

[1:00:58] him through it with him. So, he is aware

[1:01:00] of the project as well. Mhm. And I

[1:01:02] initially freaked because I saw words

[1:01:06] like um preliminary

[1:01:10] review and definitive plan which I

[1:01:12] associated with subdivisions.

[1:01:15] This does not seem to be a subdivision.

[1:01:18] It just seems like uh building expansion

[1:01:22] that could be just a normal site plan

[1:01:25] review. So, I want to clarify that

[1:01:27] because if

[1:01:29] I have no experience doing the planning

[1:01:33] board work on subdivision work, so I'm

[1:01:36] hoping that's not it. Okay.

[1:01:37] >> And if it's just a site review then so

[1:01:40] I'm going to give you a heads up that we

[1:01:42] I'll talk to him. Obviously, none none

[1:01:45] of us can have an in-person meeting on

[1:01:47] these sort of things. So, they've come

[1:01:48] to our next I would invite them to come

[1:01:51] to our next meeting, which would

[1:01:53] normally be at the end of January, which

[1:01:55] we'll talk about in just a moment. Um,

[1:01:57] unless for some reason they're like, "Oh

[1:02:00] my god, we need to do this much sooner."

[1:02:02] But if they just want a preliminary

[1:02:04] meeting and then we do their we we

[1:02:08] potentially have another discussion in

[1:02:10] February and a site review in March,

[1:02:13] this could all be fine.

[1:02:15] I ask was any of you heard any thing

[1:02:17] through your little grape vines about

[1:02:19] any of this? Okay. At one point I've

[1:02:22] heard that

[1:02:23] >> anything from a

[1:02:26] last meeting, but

[1:02:26] >> as long as they're landed,

[1:02:29] >> that's what I was just looking up. It's

[1:02:30] 301 River Road was the average.

[1:02:32] >> 301 River Road.

[1:02:34] >> Well, that's silly because it doesn't

[1:02:35] come up on Masser. Um

[1:02:39] but I don't

[1:02:39] >> even APR, you can still build on it. You

[1:02:42] just have to ask it.

[1:02:43] >> Yeah.

[1:02:44] Yeah, but they're going to have

[1:02:45] stricter regulations about what like

[1:02:46] they couldn't do, but they just

[1:02:48] >> No, I can build another

[1:02:50] >> a new Right. Right.

[1:02:51] >> I'm assuming that that's what this is.

[1:02:53] >> Yeah.

[1:02:54] >> I'm guessing they're expanding the It's

[1:02:56] kind of a factory building or package or

[1:02:58] whatever you want to call it.

[1:03:01] >> Like

[1:03:03] I don't know,

[1:03:05] >> sprouts of some kind. There's a name for

[1:03:07] them. Okay.

[1:03:09] >> No, it's a it's a special a very very

[1:03:13] like hyper specialized site.

[1:03:15] >> Okay. Okay.

[1:03:16] >> Well, um so I'm going to reach out to

[1:03:20] Jim just to say like are you directing

[1:03:23] them to the planning board for a site

[1:03:24] review because always in theory all this

[1:03:28] stuff should be at the direction of the

[1:03:30] zoning enforcement officer.

[1:03:32] >> You're right%.

[1:03:33] >> So um yeah. So that's that's that was

[1:03:38] the only new thing and then I was going

[1:03:41] to just discuss what I believe is the

[1:03:44] date for our next meeting.

[1:03:45] >> I have nothing to add about the exit 35

[1:03:47] committee.

[1:03:48] >> Okay. And apparently Caroline didn't

[1:03:51] even know she was now going to be

[1:03:52] heading it up.

[1:03:54] >> Good for her. Um so are on the calendar

[1:03:59] are regularly scheduled. I see no reason

[1:04:04] to

[1:04:06] have an early meeting in January. I

[1:04:08] think

[1:04:08] >> Oh, I wanted to just bring up and I

[1:04:11] should probably I don't know that should

[1:04:13] be part of this, but you've got to come

[1:04:14] before the finance committee for our

[1:04:16] budget for the coming year and setting

[1:04:18] our budget. Is you think do you have any

[1:04:19] comments on that for them here? Because

[1:04:21] I'm on the finance committee.

[1:04:23] >> Yeah, I mean I can I've I've attended

[1:04:25] those meetings. If you do I could just

[1:04:29] tell you and you could

[1:04:30] >> No, I'm like what? Just let them know

[1:04:32] what you're presenting what the budget

[1:04:34] is what we are.

[1:04:35] >> Yeah. I've submitted my bud. Oh. Oh. To my fellow board members. Yes. Um and

[1:04:41] >> I and that's another Thank you. So, um,

[1:04:45] so I made sure I worked with Gwen to

[1:04:49] make sure we've planned for her support

[1:04:52] because they're basically two buckets,

[1:04:54] which is support from our land use

[1:04:57] assistant and then general expenses

[1:04:59] where I make sure we've got money to pay

[1:05:02] for um, ads in the green field recorder

[1:05:06] if we're doing bylaw amendments, which

[1:05:09] we will likely do at least twice. And we were good this year where we got we

[1:05:14] spent we just used one meeting. We

[1:05:18] didn't have to do multiple public

[1:05:19] hearings. And if we're effective and

[1:05:22] efficient that way and we can get

[1:05:24] whatever we're going to do for 2026 done

[1:05:26] in one public hearing, we don't. So I've

[1:05:28] got money set aside for Greenfield

[1:05:31] Reporter, which is unavoidable by the

[1:05:34] way. You know, it's like as long as

[1:05:36] state law says public hearings have to

[1:05:39] be advertised. there might be a little

[1:05:40] movement on that that

[1:05:42] >> still hasn't happened but for the moment

[1:05:44] I planned for that and there is a little

[1:05:46] budget for training so I again remind

[1:05:49] you that

[1:05:51] >> I really do encourage I just got a

[1:05:54] training I went to a training webinar

[1:05:57] it's after working hours I went on like

[1:05:59] the I learned about the 40B because I'm

[1:06:03] also on the housing committee but

[1:06:05] there's

[1:06:07] you know it would be helpful if more

[1:06:10] than one of us had some training in

[1:06:13] things like there's an upcoming workshop

[1:06:16] on

[1:06:17] um drafting zoning amendments.

[1:06:21] It's scheduled for Wednesday, January

[1:06:24] 14th at 5:30 p.m.

[1:06:26] >> Call us.

[1:06:29] >> Yeah. No, that would be great.

[1:06:30] >> I will do that.

[1:06:32] >> I And then periodically going off the

[1:06:35] Zoom.

[1:06:35] >> Yes.

[1:06:36] >> Um lucky you. I've had two of those. Um,

[1:06:40] uh, it's only we've got budget to it's

[1:06:43] $35 to register. You and then you can't

[1:06:48] get reimbursed until after the webinar.

[1:06:52] There's you don't really have to prove

[1:06:53] that you were there and just say you

[1:06:55] were, but and then they pay you a check.

[1:06:58] So, so you you put out your own money,

[1:07:01] 35 bucks. So, it would be great. uh to

[1:07:07] the more of us know how to like

[1:07:10] >> draft zoning amendments like I would

[1:07:12] think the vice chair at least should

[1:07:16] know about drafting is to try to get

[1:07:18] more

[1:07:19] >> um there's another one

[1:07:21] >> try

[1:07:22] >> coming up on January 15th

[1:07:25] >> about introduction to the subdivision

[1:07:27] control law in ANR

[1:07:31] someday we've got to update our

[1:07:33] subdivision control laws because one day

[1:07:36] somebody's going to show up like an

[1:07:37] email like that's going to be they're

[1:07:38] going to do a subdivision and I am going

[1:07:40] to soil myself cuz like that's terrain

[1:07:44] incognito right so I think I I may have

[1:07:48] signed up for that but more the marrier and I think those were

[1:07:52] >> okay

[1:07:53] >> there were those were like the two and I

[1:07:56] would really strongly it's on Zoom you know and then you get

[1:08:03] slides afterwards that you can circulate

[1:08:05] to all of us. I wish it were on demand

[1:08:07] and you could just pay and watch a video

[1:08:09] at your own time, but anyways.

[1:08:13] >> So that's um so our next

[1:08:17] meeting is to occur on Tuesday the 27th

[1:08:21] of January starting at 5:30. That's

[1:08:25] still

[1:08:25] >> Yes.

[1:08:26] >> Good for everybody. Yeah. Um I see no

[1:08:29] reason to there's no no other urgent

[1:08:32] business that would motivate us to have

[1:08:34] an earlier meeting in the calendar.

[1:08:38] >> Cool.

[1:08:39] >> And so is there anything else that's on

[1:08:41] anyone else's mind?

[1:08:45] » Then one of you could feel free to make

[1:08:49] a motion to adjurnn.

[1:08:50] >> I make a motion to adjourn.

[1:08:52] >> Mike moves to adjourn. Does anyone want

[1:08:55] to sign off? So we have Mike and Laura.

[1:09:00] So all in favor of adjourning

[1:09:03] and unanimous we are adjourned at 6:43.

Whately Planning Board - December 16, 2025

Transcript