[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.