Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Since there is a request that the public hearing be continued, I think we're safe to begin. So pursuant to legislation H62, Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, extending the suspension of certain provisions of the Open Meeting Law, General Law Chapter 38, Section 20, this meeting of the Bedford Planning Board will be conducted via remote participation to the greatest extent possible. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. In the event that we are unable to do so, despite best efforts, we'll post on the town's website an audio or video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. So with that, we have one item in our development session, public hearing for... I planned residential subdivision at 145 Davis Road. There's four lots off of Jeffrey Circle. Middlesex Development LLC is the applicant. And items on the agenda for the business session, outdoor lighting regulation, small clean energy facility permitting, data center permitting, residential sign regulations, and 340 Great Road, which is the Plaza Hotel. I understand that we have a request from the applicant to continue the public hearing for the 145 Davis Road subdivision. So moved.

Well, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Come on, hurry up. No, no, no. That is correct.

Okay. So before we move to... Continue the hearing to date uncertain September 22nd. The board did receive a copy of the peer review for the stormwater plan. And I just wanted to take a couple of moments to flip through that. Not an extended discussion, but I want, since Bedford TV is recording this,

I am. They're not. They're not alive. Alright, well, because they didn't have a staff person available tonight, so I will give them the video tomorrow. OK, posted tomorrow.

Alright, well, I would like to take a couple of minutes just to flip through. I'm the items I in the peer review I am. Can I share my screen? Are you able to share Tony?

I can do it. We also, because they asked to continue without testimony, we just need to be careful the extent of the discussion.

So is it more appropriate simply to continue without reviewing what?

Yeah, I think so. I think maybe. And then if members have points or questions.

It's very complex. I read through it twice. I think just straight continue, not get into details.

All right. So we had a motion to continue to September 22nd. Do we have a second? Second. All right, moved by Member Hagan, seconded by Member McLean. Member Hagan, how do you vote?

Aye.

Member McLean? Aye. Member LaFrance-London? Aye. Member Crowley? Aye. And the Chair votes aye. Five, zero, zero, move to continue. We will continue public hearing at our September 22nd meeting. So with that, onto the business session. I request from a member of the audience, Lucille Wilson, who is a member of ZBA, who has input on residential sign regulations. She has to leave by 7.30. So I thought to accommodate her, we might consider taking a residential sign regulation discussion first in the business session. Any objections?

No.

All right. So with that, I will open the floor for comments.

Hi.

Hello. Can you hear me? Absolutely, we can hear you.

Great. My name is Lucille Wilson, and in this case, I am representing the Zoning Board of Appeals. In last year, the Charter and By-law Review Committee asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to review all the signed by-law, and we did. And we did it in an open meeting and we voted to, we made changes, we reviewed them with Chris Lasky, who was the code enforcement officer at the time, and we voted to submit the proposed changes to the Charter and By-law Review Committee. The Charter and By-law Review Committee's chairman declined to take this up with the select board. However, the Zoning Board of Appeals thinks that we made some really good suggestions, not just to the residential, but also the commercial and industrial districts. And that was a pretty comprehensive set of changes that were, you know, pretty good. so uh since you guys are taking up residential time by law changes but you're doing it for special town meeting i was wondering if i could propose that uh i come on to your agenda in time for you guys to discuss um the changes to the signed bylaw for annual town meeting and also i set the changes that we proposed to the to the charter and bylaw review committee to Tony Fields. And I was wondering if he had passed those on. So if that's amenable to you, I would like to perhaps wait until annual town meeting because it's so close to special town meeting and do a review with you.

I'm agreeable to that. Other members of the committee? I see one thumbs up, two, three, four.

Yeah, definitely agreeable.

All right. I think that we're... In accord. So you propose to... Sorry? Has Tony sent the revisions to everybody? I have not received a copy of the revisions, I don't think.

Yeah, it would have been several months ago, I think. Okay.

No, Tony, I sent it last week.

Oh, last week. Yeah, so... So I will claim ignorance because I was hiding last week.

I'm so sorry. I'll send it again tomorrow.

No, I just happen to be on vacation, but it's... It's fine. I'm down to about 80 unread emails, so we're getting close.

Okay, I'll send them again tomorrow and Tony will pass it on. May I please know when the... the next scheduled time could be. You don't have to decide that tonight because you're busy doing other things. But if it could be known, then I would be willing to form a go my regular Tuesday meeting and come and see you guys.

Okay. So would you... We're not settled on... No, I know.

You can't answer.

Hold on, please. So I'm... Since this would be a general bylaw amendment, it would be the select board that would hold hearings. So we can review suggested amendments, offer our input, and then pass that along to the select board. So if I understand your comments correctly, you'd wanna do that after a special town meeting?

Yeah, I think that's better. If we did it now, the time would be too tight.

Yeah, it would be a bit of a squeeze. So then maybe we plan to put this on the agenda after special town meeting?

Okay.

Is that agreeable, or would you rather do it sooner?

No, after.

Okay.

All right. I just need to know, like, approximately when, so that, you know,

So I would say December, January timeframe.

Okay, great.

Yeah, I might say if on Monday night, the select board decide not to hold special time meeting, then we might find ourselves able to deal with this starting in November, but we won't know until they meet on Monday. Okay.

And maybe we can discuss that under your staff update section? Yeah. Okay. Member McLean?

Yeah, it was just we do it in December over January because the ATM is always closer than it looks. And since they really need to talk to the select board, you know, if we're going to do something, we should do it early.

Thank you. All right, so with that, back to outdoor lighting bylaw or outdoor lighting regulation discussion. Resident Katie Durham shared... some comments last week and offered some editorial comments on the draft of the bylaw amendments presented at the August 25th meeting. I had I have an opportunity to review that input very briefly this afternoon. I have other members had an opportunity to do so, and Ms. Durham is in the audience, so I would invite her to comment on what she shared.

Okay, well, it may be that you haven't seen it yet. You sent me a draft of the proposal yesterday, and I did a rather heavy markup today. I think it's certainly just going for new and replacement lighting. I guess I'm hoping that that's a first step. But certainly with all of the new construction going on, you know, it's very timely and, you know, probably a package that's much more likely to get through town meeting. And I guess I'm really hoping this means that maybe there's potential it'd be on for November. So, you know, what I would send as far as sort of a draft, which I think was somewhat piecemeal of, you know, some other certainly cutting it back to just new and replacement, which I hope would be a pretty similar standard across the board of different uses, is certainly different in a lot of respects from the other bylaws. So there's certainly going to need to be some piecing together, I think. So I was trying to get my thoughts on that in what I sent back to you.

All right, would you be agreeable to my opening up your markup and walking through it here? Oh, absolutely. Okay. All right, can folks see that?

Yes.

And just bring attention to what I did at the top. So I was trying to basically make it clear what changes I was suggesting, that if I'm proposing a deletion in any way, that's in italics, and then red is the language I'm recommending, and green is comments of whatever nature I might have about what it's saying at the time. And my first point is that I'm hoping there's potential to get more education into the bylaws so that, you know, the reader gets some orientation as to, you know, really why, you know, they should be okay with this. And, you know, I think maybe in the form of a preamble and various things that might go in that, certainly including, you know, maybe the five principles. But I think, and again, I've been assuming that this would only be new in replacement and would have nothing to do with existing lighting. and therefore things like, you know, the concept of complaint enforcement, you know, really wouldn't apply. You know, there are things like that that would be different from the other bylaws we've seen out there. I'm also, of a long time, I've been of the opinion that shielding is the answer. And I think especially, you know, when you think in terms of You know, bulbs can be replaced. And, you know, say a new building is, you know, goes up and the developer does what you hope the developer would do. And then the new owner gets in there and doesn't realize, you know, how they're supposed to use a particular socket and starts changing bulbs or whatever. You know, that having appropriate shielding is going to be the biggest protection against that. And I'm also very much hoping that the standard is trying to eliminate any light trespass at the property line. And maybe that's not possible, but I do think some of the standards in there are still really, really bright. And I did learn, you know, since your meeting two times ago, I guess on the 11th thereabouts, that 800 lumens is really, really bright. It doesn't help me at all, and I don't think 600 helps me if it's not shielded. Again, maybe a better colored bulb would help, but bulbs can change. I'm really hoping that as much focus as possible is put on trying to keep the light from going really off the property.

And if I can jump in for a second, my recollection is that we had a quantitative standard for light trespass when considering the development, the PRD on Old Billerica Road. So I'll put that to staff. Do I remember that correctly? Or was that just information provided by the developer? You're muted, Tony.

Yeah, let me see if we can dig that up. We put some kind of conditions in there on the lighting at the request of Bedfordshire, who was worried about light shine. So I don't recall if we specified it. by a measurable number. So I will look at that.

Thank you. Sorry for the interruption. Please go ahead and let me know if I should scroll ahead in your

Yeah, so that first paragraph, top of that page, what I was doing was really trying to make the point that, you know, the luminaire is not usually set for a particular number of lumens because, again, you know, the bulbs can change. So, again, it's the shielding itself, you know, the structure that is going to be providing, you know, the protection there. Then under definitions, and again, I was trying to check what was actually in this version and where maybe it didn't seem to make sense anymore to have something or whatever. But at least, I mean, I worked most of my life as a paralegal, and I'm used to seeing definitions as being in there because it comes up somewhere later in the regulation. Right. I don't see bug rating system coming up anywhere. Although it looks so there's probably a lot of, you know, important information or points related to that. But, you know, it's pretty technical and I don't think people should be scared by, you know, technical issues that aren't even really part of the regulation. But there might be something that could be pulled from a more, you know, educational purpose, maybe. So again, I mean, there, there are a few definitions that indicated that I thought that they, you know, weren't really relevant.

I'm just skimming over here in real time.

Okay.

Am I okay to scroll down or should I leave it where it is?

Well, the, the, um, environmental, environmentally sensitive area. Um, I believe that only comes up in the context of, uh, of loud foot candle and dark sky. Um, had the same standard for both environmentally sensitive and also residential, and they actually included residential as part of the definition. Chelmsford broke it out and had a residential standard that was half as strict as the ESA. It's going back to the comments that I originally gave you back on I guess it was September 1st, that I really don't think for purposes of what light pollution does to the environment, I don't think you can split out residential. I mean, I frankly think right now my backyard is more environmentally valuable than most of what might be considered environmentally sensitive area. Plus it's supporting as a corridor, a potential pollinator corridor, you know, what the ESA might be providing. So, so I really hope that, you know, if that even comes up and maybe it doesn't, maybe foot candle gets dropped, but if it does stay in, um, residential needs to be as strict as ESA. I don't, you know, I think we know enough at this point that there's no basis for, um, making, making ESA stricter than residential would be. Um, Okay, then under fully shielded, you do indicate a figure one. I wasn't sure that was just the figure of showing what's the horizontal plane or not. I mean, I can tell you, last year when I went through the dark sky model, which you sent me, and I don't think I even got to the appendices that had all the nice figures of the shielding.

Yeah, Chelmsford had a figure up front. Yes. So maybe this is residual from their text.

I found that when I was doing Dark Sky, even though I was fully committed conceptually, as I was reading through all this technical stuff, it just seemed overwhelming, and I thought people's reaction might be that this is really too much. But when then I saw the Chelmsford and saw so many examples of what you meant by shielding, either good or bad, that really helped me accept what was being asked. So, you know, upfront and, you know, anything like that, that you can, you know, sort of demystify what the technology is to be great. Yep. Glare, I mean, I checked, you know, Dark Sky and Chelmsford and Maynard also has a good one. You just sort of thought about it. And I think the first definition works better than the second one proposed there. Okay, I think you can scroll down. Light pollution was another where there were alternate definitions. And I may suggest this is what I thought might make it a slightly better definition in there. There's more you could say about what it might be. Yep. And probably nuisance could use a little bit of work also. And then the big thing is really when you get to the standards, you know, Chelmsford was applying standards to commercial industrial companies. And saying that, well, there are these other things we'd like for residential, but you know, that's not actually part of this, this scope here, presumably it's going to be covering everybody. And I think the easiest way to knock it out would be to say first, what applies to everyone and then break out, you know, commercial industrial versus residential. And, you know, it should be all residential. And by the way, we do also have at least one group home. in Bedford, so if you're listing types of residential, that needs to be in there. I think there was some place that had that. And then basically you get into the potential that some of the provisions that are in there really don't apply if it's just new and replacement lighting. And so I have some comments as far as what I thought might, you know, separate out into the different sections maybe. And there's certainly standards that I've really no idea what they're about. So, you know, not really sure. Under four, again, existing lighting, we're certainly not dealing with that. But if there is, my main point in there is that if there is a grace period, that with all the damage that's happened in recent decades to songbird populations and insect populations, and also the incredible, quote, improvements in LED lighting, it's all been happening so quickly that I really don't think a grace period of 10 years is at all reasonable. It would need to be much shorter than that. I think Chelmsford at their town meeting was saying that, well, 10 years was maybe the lifetime of an LED bulb, and that was somehow part of why they chose it. But 10 years, nobody's going to know what you're talking about. Okay, and then under shielding, 5A. Okay. Up at the very beginning, I think there was something, I think that's where it came in that, you know, shielding for 600 lumens or more. And here, and I think maybe someplace else, it said, you know, shielding for all structures. So that does need to be conformed. And I would really prefer that they all be shielded if it's possible to shield them. But you're going to need to decide which way you want to go on that. And also, there are places where you're looking for a cutoff at 11 p.m. or you're looking for a cutoff at midnight. It's probably because they go to bed early, but I don't really understand the point of all of that. But different lifestyle for other people, and then certainly for commercial, that's going to be an issue. But some consistency there. From a wildlife standpoint, the nocturnal insects, for instance, are most active in the early evening. So shutting things off, you know, very late in the evening doesn't actually help them. I mean, I don't expect that to be driving this in any way, but I did want it, you know, at least to be clear that that wasn't helping them. And then under light output, I mean, I'm having problems with 800 lumens next door, and I just can't imagine what 5,000 looks like, and maybe that's what commercial tends to do, or you're talking football fields or something. Again, it would be an example. It would be nice to know if there is something in town that could be looked at so you could get a sense for what that meant.

Yeah. There may be a units issue with... 5,000. Yeah. I'll, I'll look at that.

Those are examples of ones that the standard doesn't really mean anything to me. So I've been thinking more residential. Um, okay. And, um, Then under 7 on the CCT, saying shell and attic C, 2700 Kelvin. Certainly important that that be imposed any place it can be. And again, it may not stay that way, but certainly to start out. And I'm thinking an example, the cafe lighting, which is, you know, the idea is it's lights that are strung together. I can't imagine those could be shielded. certainly aren't likely to be purchased that way, but they could be perhaps purchased as a better bulb because I think otherwise those could be kind of nasty. So, so certainly in the 2700 is going to go a long ways towards cutting down on glare.

Yeah. 2700 is going to be pretty yellow.

Right. I mean, I think of that as, you know, pretty close to Amber probably.

Yep. Yeah, absolutely.

Right. And then under scope and applicability, and I think it was the next one, you know, where you're talking about, you know, yards and landscaping and I don't know, whatever. It just seems so there are a few terms there that it might not be really clear what you're talking about. Yeah. And I guess I can envision, and again, you know, my focus is really more residential that, you know, maybe there's a restriction on the light at the door, but then there may be a bunch of other lights for other purposes on the property, which are really negating anything that a better light at the door could have accomplished. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, then under... Yeah, 9A2? Yep. I don't understand this concept of average illumination on the ground. I understand it, say, from the standpoint of something like the moon that's so far away. Again, this seems to be where foot candles are coming up.

Yeah. So that's basically... watts per unit area in the visible wavelength range. So you could compare that with a moonless sky with full moon with twilight.

Right. But when you're talking about lighting and the lighting is at a fixed point, you know, like the back porch and then there's, you know, it's going to be lessening as you, you know, move away from that spot. Yep.

Right, so if you measured at the property line, what would be the acceptable level of trespass from the abutting parcel? Imagine having a flat piece of paper that could measure watts per unit area. In this case, they're listing it as half a foot candle. And what would be the maximum allowable incident illumination? And I think that we had a quantitative value for the old Bill Worker Road PRD. I could be mistaken, though.

I mean, I've seen calculators online that you can work out what the foot candle should be at a particular point at a particular distance. Yep. And again, applying that to my situation here, where it's currently... you know, very bright white LED lamp next door, and the lamp is 800 lumens, and I've measured the space, and based on the calculations, the foot candle measurement at the property line is really pretty low, and yet, you know, quite a distance from there, it's still really bright in my house.

Yeah, and I would say, sorry, go ahead.

Yeah, and And again, you know, sort of thinking back to, well, if a full moon, which really does light up my bedroom quite nicely, you know, it's considered 0.01 that some of these other measurements are, you know, 0.5 would be 50 times moonlight, at least at the point where that's being measured.

Right. I see, Member McLean, you have your hand up. You have a question, comment?

If I can find you on mute button. Yeah, so this was back at 2700 Kelvin. I mean, that's a magical number because it's the color temperature of a classic tungsten bulb. I do wonder if there's anything significant about 2700K from a biology point of view.

Well, there's the concept of bug lights, which is supposed to be...

Yeah, so 2700 is magic because it's what us baby boomers, or not baby boomers, Gen X and older are used to.

It makes sense from a light bulb manufacturer's perspective.

Well, yeah, I mean, it's physics. It's what tungsten does, right? As opposed to a presidential mercury bulb, which would be closer to 3,000. So that's where that number comes from, typically, is tungsten bulbs, and sort of decades and decades of history. And just as an aside, because I don't think we're going to decide anything tonight, I do wonder if 2700 has any practical significance from a protecting species or from a dark sky perspective, and if we could be a little more liberal, but I'll just leave that comment there.

Well, I may have some of that in the original comments I sent you, but it had been assumed that, you know, something closer to amber would be much better for most of the insects, but there's really no, you know, one color that's benign for all of them.

Yeah. Well, I mean, yeah.

So it might help with moss, but it's probably going to wipe out the fireflies, you know?

Yeah.

I mean,

I guess my larger point is 2,700 K is a historical accident driven by how we made the light bulbs, right? That's where that number comes from. It's not, I, I don't want us to, to, to necessarily assume it's God given, the God given color temperature.

Well, I mean, my, my understanding of it as a whole is, As far as the nocturnal instincts, the lower the number, the better it's going to be for them. Certainly for people, it seems as though it should be cutting glare the lower you go with the number. As far as the actual number, again, I don't think there's no one perfect number for that. But if not 2700, I guess I would hope for something maybe a little bit even warmer than that. Although at some point, I guess maybe people think that they can't see as well. But there are a lot of diagrams I've seen that are sort of combining the concept of both shielding and color. And in sequence, you can see just how much more pleasant it makes the light for everybody.

Yeah, I'm just not sure there is actually a strong relationship between glare and color temperature. certainly humans tend to find higher color temperature depending on task lights more harsh and I'm fine setting a threshold. I'm just not sure. 2,700 is obviously the right one. So, I mean, I don't know how we're going through this process exactly.

So I think, so I think you have a legitimate technical question, whether, uh, whether there's a better choice than 2700. And that's something that we should look into. I won't try to dive in beyond that. Is that a reasonable summary? Yeah. Okay. Just raising the flag and providing a little context. Thank you.

All right. Okay, I guess down section six, nuisance. Yeah. Again, I'm not entirely sure where it belongs in a bylaw that's just about approving new and replacement lighting. But the hope was that if they were properly installed, if the right standards were put in place, there shouldn't be a nuisance as a result. And unless this is some kind of enforcement for existing, I'm not quite sure how it all fits in. down under C3 on motion-activated luminaire. That's probably better for the insects. I'm not sure it helps people. A sudden light in your bedroom might be a lot more of an issue for you than a solid light that's been too bright. It should still be shielded, And I don't know how somebody came up with 10 minutes, because all I can think of is the dog that needed to be walked a little bit longer than that. And under light trespass, I'm really back at the issue that I think the standards in here are are too relaxed. And I guess I'd be concerned that the building inspector would get out there and it meets the standards, but it's still a hell of an annoyance. So where does that really leave anybody?

So what that suggests to me, what your comments suggest to me is that we need to reconcile quantitative metrics with empirical assessments of what's a nuisance.

Yeah, I mean, you know, I think somebody would have to come into my house at a certain hour of night. And, you know, seems like somebody having to do that across town is going to be kind of burdensome.

That's fair.

But I mean, of the three issues that I've had, I mean, this doesn't help me because now they're all existing conditions. But one of them had to do with a very recently constructed McMansion next door. And this bylaw could have completely taken care of that. So there should be other people helped, again, with all the new construction going up. And I'm not sure I had any other sort of major comments in here.

Thank you very much for this. This is very helpful.

I'm standing by. I really want to see something go through. And I clearly have opinions about it. So, you know, just put me to work.

Well, thank you for the invitation.

Okay.

Questions or comments from members of the board? Seeing none, I'll offer that since an outdoor lighting bylaw was originally my idea some time ago, I feel like I should take responsibility for revising the current draft. Let's see. We have Bedford Day coming up. I think having as a goal an amended draft could be shared at the planning board table would be worthwhile. Thumbs up, thumbs down to that. One thumbs up, two. All right. I'm So I can work with Ms. Durham. Member Crowley, I recall you having an interest in this. Are you interested in assisting as well? I'm thinking one board member in addition to myself so that we are short of a quorum.

Yeah, no, I could definitely help out, give some feedback and so forth. Thank you to Ms. Durham for all that work. That's very helpful. So it's awesome.

So in terms of getting a next draft together in time for Bedford Day, do other board members feel comfortable letting a subcommittee proceed with this and putting out a draft? I mean, we're We're not yet at the point of holding public hearings and just taking public comment. So it would be a draft and could market as prepared by a subcommittee. If folks would like to see and comment on a draft before Bedford Day, then let's figure out how to make that happen. Thoughts? Yeah, I have no problem with that, obviously.

Okay.

Member Hagan.

Well, I think we kind of just reviewed it again. Yeah. So I'm fine with whatever the subcommittee comes up with for Bedford Day. That's different than presented to town meeting. So please press on.

All right. Will do. So myself, Member Crowley, we will work with Ms. Durham and have something ready for Bedford Day.

And I'll just caution that a few of my comments there really have to do with some decisions you have to make as to which way you're going to go.

Certainly.

I pointed them out, but you guys have to do that.

Member Crowley and I will discuss and put something forward. Thank you again for all your work on this. This is great. All right. So looking at the agenda, we're on to small clean energy facility permitting. Staff have input there. I understand that I'm, what was it, Tewksbury? I had a project fall through because of interconnection issues.

Yeah, I can share a little bit on that. Basically, I think that's something that we've seen in a few different projects across the Commonwealth is like interconnection and a lot of these projects, not necessarily seeking community feedback in the right way before they're looking to move forward. And that's kind of creating some issues. So I just wanted to point that one out. And then also, we spoke about a little bit at the staff permitting meeting last week, just a little bit about clean energy facilities and where people were standing on it. And I guess we don't really have any new updates as of right now, but it's something that the state continues to add new information on. I feel like there's a new document every single week, but it goes into effect on October 1st, so we have to be ready for that.

So if the state's rules go into effect on October 1st and we don't have anything on the books, then how do things proceed there?

So basically, we're not required to do anything, but it would be helpful to have a bylaw amendment. My recommendation would be at least for annual town meeting. However, if we don't have something, then we just have to follow the state's guidelines. So they've kind of been clear in a few meetings that um especially for like smaller communities so um I think they're thinking a little bit smaller than Bedford um some of them probably won't have any sort of by-law amendment so um it's just something that has to happen and we have to offer the consolidated permitting process thank you very much all right uh questions or comments from members of the board

Just to give you a sense of where I am or where we are, I have a nine-page draft absent the charts and illustrations. as a starting point to cover battery energy systems, solar systems, but also we need to think about wind and geothermal in this small clean energy category. So there's a variety of topics that the local bylaws need to anticipate, which we would normally... Historically, we would have treated them under separate line items in a use table in a zoning bylaw. And we're kind of being forced into a consolidated section of the bylaw. So we are looking at it... we'll be prepared for a little bit more direct discussion at the next meeting after we have a little bit more input from both the Department of Energy Resources and the Regional Planning Agency and there's another entity that is providing input on how they would how they think they would like us to apply the new rules. And, but, you know, as Kylie notes, it's a moving, it's almost a daily moving target. So, but we're, we're, we'll be ready to move something forward if we, uh, if we have a fall town meeting and if not, we'll, we'll have even more time to, to get our act together in time for March. So, but, um, so we're getting, I'm getting closer with, with some of these details and then we'll, um, we're also going to reach out, um, I at least meeting with the energy and sustainability committee later this month, and I may or may not be able to attend that because I've also committed to go to a board of health meeting, which I believe is on the same day. So, but we will, we'll get their feedback and try to keep this moving forward.

I see hands from board members, a member McLean, then member Crowley.

You did Tony. I dropped you a note about this, um, after the magic meeting, but there is some, some small pool of funds for technical or some small pool of technical assistance from it, from, from MAPC and this whole morass.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We got, I got your note and, um, We'll look at that. We've also had some preliminary discussions with Newtown Council on this topic, and they're poised to assist as well.

Member Crowley? Just confirming, this isn't for residential, right? This is only for above residential? like commercial or industrial?

Well, we intend to make distinctions between what I'll call accessory energy production for the building on the premises, whether it's residential or commercial versus energy systems that are intended to feed the grid. So we are not intending to prevent homeowners or even commercial property owners from having rooftop solar or parking lot solar or any of the newer technologies that are coming out. Same with battery. We think there's going to be literally battery systems for homeowner use. And then there is one geothermal installation in town that we're aware of. And it just feeds a particular house. But there are a handful of larger systems being installed, testing the abilities of that technology to work. And Bedford's not really – we are not located in a sustained wind location, so wind power is not really logical here, or at least under current known technologies. But we need to think about if somebody wanted to put a small – windmill in their yard, what are the criteria that might go with that?

Thanks, Tony. Kind of a secondary question, but I just might not have understood completely. I know it's a moving target, but if the state has their ducks in a row and gets the bylaws done in October, then we have to follow those until we have our own, which could be next March. Like, is there any issues with this or, you know,

you foresee any issues in terms of like oh people can just jump on and yeah no i don't i don't see uh you know a few months delay i do not see that being an issue locally there is one interested party who i think i've told you that uh has been looking to do a um a battery facility at Bedford Marketplace because that particular battery company works with that landlord who owns shopping centers throughout the region in multiple states. And they've been trying to put facilities on their properties across their holdings. We interpret our current bylaw as prohibiting that use in the business districts and therefore where our current position is you can't do it uh until we change the rules and even then would there's no guarantee you know given the we may or may not control the size of the facility and therefore we don't know until we put something in front of the voters but um and and town council agrees with that opinion uh they are yeah they're looking at that but okay but yes no in other words the argument would be like in towns where they have tried to say you know we've we've set aside this five percent or ten percent of the town's land area to allow for clean energy storage uh clean energy clean and small clean energy facilities that is likely to be deemed to be effectively prohibitive. In our case, the four business districts where we interpret that we don't allow this at the moment constitutes only 2% of Bedford. So since we otherwise allow this use on 98% of the land in town, that prohibition in the business districts would not be deemed to be prohibitive.

All right. Anything else here on to data center permitting?

Yeah, so interesting earlier today, the governor issued Yeah, so earlier today, the governor signed an executive order saying data centers can't be installed without local approval, if that's helpful. And we are preparing We are also preparing some draft guidance, some draft regulations to deal with how to regulate data centers and the various land use and infrastructure impacts they have. So we are, that's still evolving. We have some some changing ideas about how to address certain features and then as, as Kylie noted, was it for this, that the ability to connect to the, electrical supplier can be a difficult process so we're we're taking a look at the governor's order and we're taking a look at what our neighbors are doing and thinking about as a means to regulate this so but the goal is to make sure that if if there is energy infrastructure needed The traditional method for the power companies to get reimbursed for the expense of new infrastructure is to put a surcharge on all customers' utility bills in the region, or in the town. So having worked in two of the neighboring towns where we were trying to put utilities underground in the town centers, the utility company said, we can do that, but the cost offset bearing the utility lines is going to be a 3% surcharge on all the, all the utility customers in town. So is it a, so that leaves, you know, local elected officials with the dilemma of, is it, is it really feasible to have everybody's bill go up because we want to benefit a small section of the town? And, um, But so here we want to make sure that if a data center is proposed and they need to build any kind of new electrical infrastructure, that actually that the company absorbs the cost of that infrastructure, that it not be passed on to especially our residential ratepayers. So we want to make sure that that is addressed in whatever bylaw we create. We also want to make sure we look at cooling mechanisms that don't divert unnecessary amounts of clean drinking water. So we want to make sure they look at gray water systems and recycling systems that can be used to cool the facilities because in other parts of the country, the water supply they were hoping would spur economic development and other growth in the town suddenly isn't available because it's all been diverted to a very large data center. So we want to make sure that the water supply is not unduly lost to data centers. Those are two of the bigger ones. There's a variety of other things about data centers don't create jobs per square foot in the building. It's not very high. Whether or not the equipment inside generates high business tax revenue is maybe a positive feature, but... But there's other issues related to noise, ambient heat, and emergency generators and when they're tested and other things. So there's a variety of aspects to it that we're still trying to make sure we have them in a draft that we unveil for the next meeting.

member mclean so understanding that that may be too early to ask this question but but the governor's executive order does it specify a mechanism in which towns get to block things or it just says that we could block things if we pass an appropriate zoning bylaw um so on yeah so with the

It's going to depend upon this, I think, on the size of the facility, because it looks like she's saying large facilities need to have some kind of a local community benefits agreement, similar to the terminology they use with cannabis facilities.

So there's some sort of positive approval loop based on size, potentially.

Yeah. Other comments? Are we good to move on to 340 Great Road? For which I have nothing to report. Staff have any information there?

We don't really have any new update. We were led to believe that there is potential that the hotel owner might be selling to a party who is not the resident who appeared before you recently. But I have not heard that any sale or even a purchase and sale has been achieved.

Thank you. So with that, moving on to reports from liaisons to other boards and committees.

Member McLean. So I went to the... So magic meetings have restarted, although there was nothing particularly of note besides water is important to a lot of our neighboring magic communities. Most of them are not on MWRA, so... I also went to the select board meeting. There is a new appointee to the ZBA, Mark Rubin, and he's going to actually be a full member, non-associate member, because the associate ZBA member didn't want to be promoted, if that's the right term. So there was no real discussion on zoning issues as part of that interview, but... something to note. Um, we had our audit, the audit went well. Um, like Tony mentioned, we may not have a, uh, a STM this year. The, uh, warrant, the proposed warrant only had nine articles in it and people were sort of including, you know, some things like the rules. Um, Related to that, if we did have a STM, one of the warrants was going to be changing the mode of the CPA article. So right now we reauthorize it every year and actually switch to not doing that. Can you explain that further? Maybe. So when so this is before my time in town. Right. But Bedford, I think, was the first community to adopt a CPA surtax and sort of part of the deal, for lack of a better word, between then town government and the town was we would reapprove it every year. Right. And we've been doing this, what, for more than a decade now.

Yeah, it's 20 years or more.

Yeah, so two decades. So I think part of the feeling is, is that really necessary? Because it does take up time every year. The other thing is, as a practical matter, we can't just pull out. We need to at least assess something to pay off the current debt. So, you know, it's a little... So it carries on. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, um, but you know, if there's no, uh, STM, that won't happen this year. Um, the, the, the select board is generally trying to move away from their liaisons attending all sorts of meetings and said, just touching base with the chair. Um, every month or so Sean and Paul are probably going to split planning board liaison roles or the planning board liaison role. Um, and I think that's it for, for a select board.

I just, um, question about the appointee to ZBA. You said there was no discussion of zoning issues?

Not particularly. I was a little bit surprised, but the note I have, little or no commentary on zoning issues. I mean, they tried to get a little bit at his philosophy, but didn't really... Okay.

I mean, it's been a long time since I was interviewed for the ZBA by the select board, but I don't recall... much sort of this zoning discussion either um partly because i mean i had never been on zoning board before so i was trying to learn on the job i guess um but yeah uh that was my experience as well okay all right thank you exchange i remember hagan um i i had three three reports only um

Conscon meets tomorrow, nothing of significance. Wilson Park met extensively with the architect who came in with, I'd have to say, five different proposals on what to do about Wilson Park. These are all architectural drawings, basically from a light to two different flavors of roundabouts, traffic circles, and others. So, lots of comments happen. They're going to go away for two months now and try to factor that in and come back with another set of proposals. So, we'll skip a month while they're working. Depot Park, there will be, of all times, a meeting on the 22nd of September at Depot Park. This is, as we know, there's a grass area there now. And so the proposal is what to do about it. So there's been an architect's come up with three proposals, two which seem more popular. But We have to have a public meeting for people to see this and make comments on it. So the meeting will be at the same time as Select Board's next meeting at Depot Park, starting at 6 a.m. So you can walk around there and people will explain stuff. Seven would meet in the car, you know, the bud rail car there. It'll hold about 35 people. Why that date? That's the date the architect can be there. Yeah, we had all picked different dates, but he said, well, that date I can be there at 7. So he'll be there in the railroad car to go over those, depending on whoever shows up. So I will have to announce in advance, likely I won't be here. This is after about a year's worth of work, and this is the public meeting. We'll get some comments. I suspect I know what the final decision will be. Then we take it to the select board, and then it goes and gets done. Nothing traumatic here. This is just different ways to have a few numbered trees, some benches, and maybe a two-foot stone wall to sit on. That's all. But we have to do it officially. And so if we hold it there, those that don't realize how small the area is actually, we can go see it, look at it, then get a decision made, we hope, later that night. That's my news. Any questions on that? It's going to be hard for you guys to go to the meeting. Indeed.

Not seeing any questions from members of the board. I attended the housing trust meeting last week. The major discussion point was... Financial assistance related to capital improvements at the Shawsheen Ridge condominiums. There's a write-up in the Bedford Citizen today. Long story short... there's a $4,000 a year, uh, limit for applications for financial assistance for improvements. If you live in, in an affordable, uh, unit and a lifetime cap of $10,000. Um, so there was discussion and subsequently a vote to waive the cap, um, for this round of improvements at Shawshank Ridge. Um, It was a fairly lengthy discussion. I'll refer you to the Bedford Citizen article. The other matter, more zoning related, is on the development at 210 Springs Road and affordable units there, potential use of funds to buy down deed limits and create more affordable units there. There was a question of how many units to support at the site. And a question in my mind is what the appropriate role for planning board was given that it was a select board that was asked to weigh in with recommendations for how many units per acre, sizing, and density bonus for keeping units smaller. Member Crowley.

Well, did you guys just hear the explosion? Nope. Wow. It was very loud over... Yeah, over that way. Behind you, yeah.

You're pointing to the airport?

Yeah. Well, I'm pointing more towards the fire, the new fire station, but. Yeah, but it was beyond that, I think. Yeah.

Because I'm outside, so.

I mean, with Don, we should be able to triangulate this.

Sorry, just a small thing. I've been talking with the town manager's office a little bit, and they're at least researching other towns that have – change their bylaws that would force certain regulatory boards, if they are in person, to force them to allow a hybrid option. So the time there's left is at least researching it. Don't know if anything will come of it, but I've been working with them setting up information, so FYI. Great.

All right. I'm seeing no other hands. Staff updates.

I guess I'm not sure I have one to give other than the discussion today with the town manager about the potential of not holding a town meeting. So otherwise... Yeah, as noted, the proposal for 210 Great Road is in the works. Maybe staff is meeting with them later this week to review a revised proposal that's more in keeping with our guidelines, because in my mind, the selected developer, based on the six top summaries they hadn't allowed us to peek at a couple months ago. This was not the bidder I would have picked, but this bidder has been more than amenable to make adjustments to meet the select board and planning board comments that were made before the RFP went out. So I think... I think we'll get to a reasonable proposal given what they are looking at. We don't have an update on, for those of you who keep asking, I don't have an update on 310 Great Road. We are about to nudge them if we can because We've waited the whole summer for them to connect the water and sewer because they got locked out during last winter's moratorium. And all of a sudden, we're in September, and if they don't do that work before Thanksgiving, they're going to be locked out for another winter. But the bigger push there is that we're interested in getting the bus stop done. up and running for the, um, disabled veterans that use that bus stop to get to and from the VA to the stop and shop. So, um, so we're going to try to get that. Um, we're going to try to get them. They are obligated to install the pad. We will install the shelter and, um, we want to get that. We want to get that underway. And then, uh, Other projects are moving forward, although you may or may not know that the project at 277 Great Road was given a stop work order because of some noncompliance with construction staging requirements. So the inspector of buildings is trying to work that out. And we'll see what happens.

And I add to that, I saw a post on social media from an abutter to one of the Luma Street developments. I'm documenting pretty egregious disrespect for the abutter's property. Not a violation that you would say, oops, honest mistake. So between that and 277, is there anything that we might do in project conditions to... motivate developers to conduct themselves in a more considerate manner? Or is that really all on the inspector of buildings and for neighbors to call that in when someone's not respecting their property?

Well, part of me says we always learn from the previous project, so we might be able to be more specific on certain details going forward, but also in some cases where there's a disagreement between the developer and the neighbor, and we ask the developer to work things out, and... I can cite examples where the developers made an honest effort to resolve the issue, and the neighbor has... Sometimes it's the neighbor who's less cooperative, but without knowing the details of the situation.

I would say for the photos shared, it was an example of inadequate oversight. People working on site really did not... Did not appear to honor property boundaries.

Yeah. Yeah, that could, that does happen from time to time. So, yeah.

Regarding special time meeting, after you gave us a heads up about that this afternoon, I did have a brief correspondence with Select Board Member Hannigan and just let him know that there wasn't anything on our to-do list that had... A critical deadline that we needed to meet at special town that special time meeting would allow us to to meet. But if everything got pushed off to annual town meeting, we could be bringing a lot of things. Yes, exactly. So how much do you want to spread the spread the load? I am. So I shared that thought with him. And I did promise him a list of of things on our to do list so that he would be able to to take that to select board. I don't have anything further.

Move to adjourn.

All right. I'm going to give it to Steve. Everybody's being shy. Second by Todd. Member Hagan, how do you vote? Good night. Bye. Member Crowley. Bye. Member LaFrance Linden. Bye.

I had forgotten that we needed to move. Aye.

And the chair votes aye. So thank you for a very productive meeting.