Okay. We’re good. Okay. It’s, uh, 7:03 p.m.. And I’m calling the June 2nd, 2026 Planning Board meeting to order. This meeting is being recorded by H.W. Kamm. I’ll begin by taking. So when I call your name, uh, would you please indicate that your present. Jonathan. Poor Jonathan, poor present. Bill Wheaton. Bill Wheaton, present. Emil Dahlquist.

Emil. Dahlquist. Present. Darcy. Dale. Darcy. Dale. Present. And Marney Crouch, present. And I note, um, with a minute taker, that Beth Herr and Matt Hamill and Jeff Austin. Uh, Matt Hamill is walking in as we speak. Uh, so, uh, Beth Herr and Jeff Austin are not present. Could you indicate that your present, Matt. Matt Hamill present.

Okay. Uh, the first item on our agenda is a review of the minutes from April 28th, 2026. They have been revised at our last meeting or the second to the last meeting. Um, board members did note some, uh, errors in those minutes. So, uh, have board members had an opportunity to look at the revised, uh, draft minutes?

Yes. Shall I make a motion, sir? Any discussion? Shall we approve the meeting? Minutes of April 28th, 2026? Uh, do I have a second? Second? Uh, all in favor? Aye. All right. So the minutes have been approved by a unanimous vote of the members present. So the second item on our agenda

is a continued hearing on the site. Applicant application of select Energy Development, LLC for the installation of solar canopies at the Hamilton Wenham um, uh, regional School districts. Miles River medical middle school. Um, so, uh, we’re here. There were some issues with respect to, uh, the lighting, uh, some issues with respect to landscaping. And I

think except for two, uh, potential issues, most have been resolved. Are you here for select? Yes. Uh, Bobby Bowman with select energy. Also OCP shadow. Um. Civil engineering consultant. Right. So I think, uh, we were looking for a photo. Um, metric analysis. And I don’t know that we have received that photometric plan.

That’s correct. Yeah. We’ve been working diligently with our lighting vendor. Unfortunately, it’s a new vendor for us and our lighting designer that typically does these has since retired. So we’re going directly through the lighting company. Um, and unfortunately, it’s taken much longer than expected. But we do expect to have that provided they are working. They did ask

quite a few questions on it last week, so we’re expecting that very soon. Um, and like you said, we did address the majority of the other comments. Um, so happy to address any other questions you might have. Um. I think the other, um, the other comment that you attend a potentially addressed or, um, are lighting, mounting,

installation details. So, um, I don’t know if you want to address that or any planning board members have questions about how the lighting will actually be installed under these solar canopies, which, uh, are angled. They’re not, um, parallel to the ground. I’d like to hear from the applicant first.

Sure. Um, so these this is the new proposed fixture. This comes directly from the dark Sky website. Um, so we’ve got some recommendations from the vendor, but ultimately, I went directly to the dark Sky org website with their recommended fixtures and pulled the most applicable one for our canopy.

Um, so this should meet all the baseline requirements to be dark sky compliant. Um, the mounting method would be, as you noted, the canopy is tilted, uh, five panels faced slightly to the north, and one panel faces slightly to the south. The direction to our lighting vendor is to, whenever

possible, put them on the slope that faces to the south, which is more flat. It’s one two degree slope as opposed to seven degree slope. Um, which would also point away from the butter to the north. Uh, for the fixtures on the north side of the canopy that do face slightly towards the north.

Um, our plan would be to mount those in between the purlins, uh, using to mount them flat. And those details would be noted on that final lighting photometric plan. What I would request is that all of the fixtures be mounted parallel to the ground. None of them be tilted any degrees at all. We can do that as well.

So if that could be included in the in the detail. Absolutely. And the other thing would be that they be inboard from the perimeter of the structure, not on the edge of the structure. Correct. But well inboard. Correct. It’d be underneath. Inboard from the outside. Yep. So if that could all be explicit in the, um, in the

detail or the submission. Sure. Well, I note that the color rendering index that you’re using is 70, and I don’t know how what the additional expense would be. Um, if the, uh, color rendering index was 80. Wouldn’t want you to have to spend exorbitant sums of money to achieve that. Um, because I’m hoping that these lights

aren’t operational after, you know, 11:00 at night or something like that. Um, if that’s a request, we can definitely I can have that switch made. That’s not a problem. Just one quick one question on the mounting. Again, because I noticed that you have a pendant option. So I would I guess

because of the angle on the, on the slope, it’s actually the long slope, isn’t it. The one that’s facing the, uh the butters. Correct. So you’d have more fixtures on that than you would on the very short leg. On the other, on the other slope. So, as Jonathan was saying, if it do mount it vertically, I

guess you can then level it off. But the thing is, they’re all hanging down now below the, um, below the purlins, if you’re going to mount it on a, on a. So we did there is a pendant option. I did select the one that is a surface mount.

Yeah. Um, so our plan was to not use that pendant one, but instead to go with that surface surface mount directly to a junction box on that unit, strive to keep it as high as possible. So that would be the preference. So you could level it off there. Correct. Yeah. So we would use that in between those purlins

which support the solar panels underneath. We would sort of tuck it up underneath there as much as possible and use additional bracing in between those purlins to level it off. Um. What what is the cutoff? I was looking through the literature. There it is, dark sky compliant, but is there an

indication here on the data where it is? What the cutoff angle is on the other side, because of the the LED lights itself are pretty close to the bottom of the fixture. Right. So you don’t really have a shield on it as such. So any kind of angle, you know, if the lighting fixtures are above the

ground level, above where say the house level is, you’re going to see the the lighting fixtures are fine. So there is no there is no shield on on the light. Correct. Yeah. The previous picture we had recommended did have that diffuser that that was below the, the housing essentially. So this all is tucked up underneath.

But you’re correct. And so I think it lists the type three distribution if that’s what you’re looking for. Um I think on the third or fourth page it shows roughly what that looks, what that looks like. Is there a section view of Through the Light. Maybe drop

down a couple of Mark. Go back to the other direction a little bit. Uh, one more, one more slide. Yeah. Okay. Those mounting details are those actually sections through the, uh, through the fixture itself? Correct. Yes. So I can see the pendant on the right hand side. So is the LED

actually on that small plate right below the pendant, up several inches from the bottom of the edge of the fixture. I’m looking at the drawing a second from the right. You’re looking at the pendant by others and then so it looks like it’s a section through the lighting fixture.

Sounds like a section. Yeah, I’d have to confirm that. But from this section detail, it does look like that. I would disagree on that. There’s a very explicit, 3D view elsewhere in here that shows the lenses within maybe an inch of the bottom, or even less than the bottom of the right there. Yeah, yeah.

So that’s that section is not indicative of where the, the diodes are. Okay. So to any degree that the light fixture can be tucked up inside the purlins, that would be beneficial. But you can’t really see that until you see the the installation detail. So it’s all hypothetical. Unfortunately in in this discussion.

At one of the, uh, at the last hearing when we considered, um, this application, there was mentioned that you had, um, some deadlines in order to get tax benefits. Is that correct? Um, there are, but those, I believe have been met through, uh, the purchase of the panels in house. So this is a financed

project and that we essentially own the project. And, uh, sell the power back to the school. So we’ve done that internally. Uh, I think the the deadline for that is I’d have to confirm, but there’s nothing immediate that that is stopping us. But I think it’s end of next year, I believe. But I’d

have to confirm on that. Yes. I mean, we wouldn’t want you to lose any type of, um, tax credit that would make, um, this environmentally friendly project, uh, become economically unfeasible. Great. I would prefer to see the installation details for how this is going together. There’s so many variables. Um, and it’s

so critical, in my opinion. And we’re not talking about, uh, something that’s going to show up in the, um, in the parametric study. It’s, it’s sight line glare. It’s when you look across the property and you see the luminaire, you see the LED diodes or the lens. That’s the glare we’re talking about. And that can be

predicted and controlled in the installation details. So are you recommending that we continue this application to our next meeting so that we can get the photometric plan and the details that, um, you’re requesting? That would be my recommendation, but I’d like to hear from the rest of the board. I agree, I think we need to know.

Right. And any other discussion on that? Do you have a problem with that, sir? Uh, if you’re open to it, our preference would be to consider that as a condition of approval. Um, but we are happy to work with you, and we want it to be a successful project and everybody happy with it. If that can be conditional

approval, that would be great, and we’ll be for sure to follow up and and submit that once completed. Um, but we’ll work with you on the project. And I believe that that is the recommendation on the staff report as well, from your town planner. I said it was up to the board.

They could either continue up based on the photometric plan, or they could approve it with that condition. Do any other board members have any? Um, you on this, whether they would like to have a continued hearing to make sure that we get those, uh, plans. If we do a conditional approval? What mechanism is there. To make sure.

To make sure it happens? Would we withhold. It would fall on Mark. Uh, to, to ascertain whether what was submitted is what the planning board is seeking. And I think that might be a little difficult for you. I know that Jonathan has some real experience, as does AML, in evaluating these lighting systems. So, um, I think maybe

a continued hearing is the safest bet for you to I mean, because you wouldn’t want to have an approval and then have it retracted for some reason. Um, so, Mark, when is our next meeting? It’s in June. So two. Weeks, June, June 16th. June 16th. Uh. That’s when we have UTC as well.

Yes, okay. This would be quick. This would be. Very quick. I mean, if you get the photometric plan and show that the lighting is either up. It up. Help me here up in the purlins. Is that purlins? Yeah. That’s. It. So yeah, Jonathan was saying really? It’s a matter of

inches. So to see an actual drawing that shows the detail of the structure itself, you know, how deep of the purlins and, and what’s, what’s what is the, um, uh. The, um. The mounting height in relationship to the purlins is critical. Yeah. The rod that is the, uh, to to the level off the

fixture. I assume it’s. Let me ask you, can you do you think you’re going to have any of the photometric data at that point in two weeks? I mean, we’ve been pushing it for weeks here. Um, I yes, we’ll have it. Again. Happy to make a phone call just to see if I can,

because it’s not that complicated. No, it isn’t. Usually the lighting manufacturer will do. It, and that’s what you know. So we had a third party person that we used. He was great. Got these knocked out for us. No problem. He just retired. Tried to bring him out of retirement for this. Didn’t work. So we

are going directly through, uh, our lighting vendor, and they’re going through the lighting manufacturer, and it’s unfortunately just taking longer than expected here. Do you have any in-house engineers who can devise the mounting technique, or are you relying on the the the lighting vendor. To do that? We can come up with that if.

Okay. That makes them longer. I can definitely come up with that in-house. Because I would think that that might be something. That’s where you know what the requirement is. You could do that more effectively, probably in-house. If you have the if you have the skills. Would you say that the the actual drawings, the structural

drawings of how the lights are going to be situated in this canopy is more critical than the photometric data or they. They’re both critical. But the photometric is kind of a a simple binary thing. It’s a it’s got a performance standard, whereas the, the detail, there’s all sorts of

ways it could go right or wrong. It’s not as binary to look at. So I’m just thinking if they continue to have difficulty with getting the photometric. Data, I’d be comfortable. Um, conditioning. The condition. The photometric. But I’m less comfortable conditioning the installation detail. So. So you got that message right?

There must have been a design, uh, lighting level on the ground. You know, foot candles, whatever that. When you put the lights in, you designed it. You picked out the lighting fixture. You then had to come up with a number of lights to achieve some level of performance. So that you must

have that data already. What you designed it to meet. I know there are controls on it, and that’s the last thing I want to ask you about. But what controls are there, uh, to dim it, to turn it off on whatever. Um, but so then the photometric data is really to, uh, prove that your design was correct.

You know that. That’s what that’s for. But you have a record, then of what? That design level was for. But you must have that data. I would think. Um, and to your point, the question about the, um, control, the fixture we selected includes the daylight control. So photo photocell essentially. So it turns on

when it’s dark, turns off when it’s when it’s light outside and it has, uh, motion control as well so that it will dim, uh, when there’s no one, you know, it senses no movement. It will dim to minimize any impact on the surrounding areas. Mhm. Is there any ability to turn it off after a certain time?

We can do however you prefer. We can put it on. I mean animals running through the parking lot or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. So I’m just thinking that you could turn on those lights at like 2 a.m.. Um, so if we had I don’t know if that’s important or not, but. But it makes sense to have, like.

Have them turned off. Yeah. I have a, you know. 11:00 or something like that. Yeah. Yeah. So we can put it on a time clock and does that however you like. Right. Come on at dusk and turn off three hours after dusk. Wherever. Right. Um, and we can do manual control as well. So if there’s

a function that the school wants, no light out there, go flip a switch and turn. It off. Oh, great. Okay, well, I think I think we have a plan here. And I wish you good luck on getting your photometric plan. But we can. Work with you a little. Bit on that. But.

Uh. So close. So I will at this point entertain a motion to continue the site plan application. Uh, we, um, close the public hearing. You. Oh. We should reopen it. I think there’s someone on the zoom that wants to speak. To it. Oh, I didn’t we didn’t. We never closed the public hearing on this. I don’t believe so.

No, we didn’t. So it’s still open? Yeah. Is there someone. It’s on the chat. You have somebody asking questions on the chat. Okay. Marnie Crouch is Kathy Simons. Oh, hi, Kathy. Hi. 245 Sagamore Street, and I am part of the Hamilton Dark Sky group. And just wondered whether you had addressed the

color, uh, temperature of the lighting. Um, I and I also asked whether the issue of of timing, um, had been addressed, and it sounds like the timing just was addressed. Um, but how about the light output? Um, uh, you know, basically lumens and Kelvin. It’s 3000 Kelvin. And do you have the lumens?

Just different from the color temperature. Can I know. It? Color temperature in. The 3000. Lumens. Yeah. How how many Marnie. 3000 lumens. And it’s 3000 Kelvin. Okay. And, um, was there a discussion about why 3000 versus 2700, which is the model, uh, dark sky bylaw, and also adopted by, um, Chelmsford and Maynard has proposed, has

adopted a 2200 um Kelvin limit. Uh, Rockport is 2750. Um, I just wondered whether that had been discussed to reduce it to 2700. Uh, there was some discussion about that in the previous meeting. Um, the request was to try to match as closely to the existing fixtures in the parking lot as well, which we

did with that fixture selection. Um, this particular fixture, the minimum Kelvin is that 3000. And again, there was sort of minimum or minimal selection selections from the dark Sky website for a fixture that would work underneath our canopy. Yes, they do say that if you can’t get 2700, that 3000, um,

is is not inappropriate. Um, so so the priority was matching the, the fixtures. I hear you say. Yeah. And they went to the dark. I don’t know if you were on earlier, but they had said that they went to the dark Sky website and they that’s where this came from.

Well, I understand, but the dark Sky website also recommends 2700. Um, so I was just asking why, um, why not 2700? And I guess what I’m hearing is that this light fixture was chosen not only to be dark sky compliant, but also to match something else in the parking lot. And and it’s it,

um, uh, can’t go lower than 3000. Is that correct? That’s correct. Thank you. What about the, um. With this light, would a dim after a certain time or be turned off at a certain time? Um, yeah. So we can. It comes with dimming capability for motion sensor. Um, it’s can also be put on a time clock so

that whatever the direction of the board is or the school, we can set it or the school can set it to come on and off whenever they like. Who’s actually. That’s a great question. Who would have control over this? Is is this a Hamilton or is it this the Hamilton one? Um, school district have responsibility.

Over property owners responsibility. Which is the district? Okay. So we’re making these recommendations, but they’re going to be the ones implementing it. Yeah. There was an issue in the future. They’d be the ones responsible to fix it. Can you can you, uh, set the lights to actually turn off, or can you just set them to dim.

Uh, with this fixture, it would have to be, uh, through the time clock. I believe. Do a time clock so you could turn it off.. With the time clock. You could turn it off. Correct. Okay. Yeah, it would be turning. Just turning off. The circuit. To that. And then it stopped.

The school district wouldn’t have to be involved. It would automatically turn out correct. Okay. Yeah. It just that they changed it. And then he also said there was the opportunity to turn them off manually. If there was another reason why they wanted. Them on. Correct. Yeah. Right. Oh I understand okay. Does that help Cathy.

Yes it does. Thanks for clarifying. Are there any other comments? Let’s see. So I think we can entertain a motion to continue this. Um. the public hearing matter until, uh. June 16th. 16th at 7 p.m.. I move that we continue this to June 16th to our next meeting. I second..

Okay, so when I call your name, please indicate your assent and and and then we’ll note that, uh, Beth Herr and Matt Hamill are here. So Jonathan, poor. Jonathan, poor. I. Bill Wheaton. Bill Wheaton. I, Amel. Dahlquist, and Will Dahlquist die. Beth her I. Darcy Dale. Darcy Dale I. Matt Hamill. , Matt Hamill I.

And Marnie Crouch I thank you sir. Thank you very much. I hope you don’t live too far away. Thank you very much. Okay. The next item on our agenda, um, are the special permit application in the site plan review application of IP Communications One, LLC. Um, known as Everest. So, uh, we

have, um, attorney Brian Grossman here representing Everest, and we have our reviewer. Yes. From isotropic is here. Yes. Right. Okay. So I’m going to just briefly summarize what I think the outstanding issues appear to be. And that would be, um, the need for, um, this. Uh. Communications tower and to as to gaps in coverage and, and

the like and also the height and so my understanding is that our, uh, peer reviewer is suggesting that we as a planning board, have to rely on the coverage maps that you produced and that were part of your PowerPoint presentation. And, uh, and he seems to suggest that there may be

other, um, other data that you could have provided. And so, I don’t know if he wants to address that first or whether you want to get ahead of it. Um, but that I think, I think those are the two issues. And I’m not saying they’re insurmountable issues, but I

think that’s what it comes down to as a layman. I’m certainly happy to to go first. But, um, it’s it’s your meeting, Madam Chair. So maybe, Mr. Lawler, if you don’t mind, could you explain exactly what you would like to see that has not yet been produced? Ten foot down.

Yes. Uh, so Michael Laughton, isotropic? Um, granulated in the report. Um, I the the applicant. So the as you say, Madam Chair, that in order to, uh, present the case or to present the need, um, the applicants provided some plots, um, the excuse me, um, and I can help you all. I’ve tried to

help you in the report. Sort of interpret those plots and come to your own understanding and belief of of the need and, um, uh, it’s I don’t think it’s my place to to make a value judgment on that. It’s the board’s place. Right. Um, and,

uh, so, uh, you can you can take a look and we can walk through the, the, the plots that are in the application. I can talk about them during the growth. We can talk about them. I think he’s got someone here also who can talk about them. Um, if you’d like more explanation of of what those

plots are showing or what they aren’t showing or what they mean or any of that, um, and uh, so that’s the and the thank you. These are the plots that I’m referring to. Um, the second part of your question was, uh, the the height, the height justification of the height. And in your bylaw it

says, um, if the if the proposed tower is over 110ft, then, then additional, um, justification is required to, uh, to support, um, a tower height above 110ft. This is not over. That it’s not. Over. However. Yeah. No, I really. The question could be asked, does it need to be as tall as

what is proposed moving? Um, and you know, that again, is that the, the applicant is responded, um, that there are some trees in the proximity that, would affect, uh, the, the, the, the need for the height. Um, obviously the other part of this is this is, uh, proposed as a tower, uh, that

Verizon would go on, um, if Verizon if this tower were to be built, permitted and built and Verizon did go at this height, um, the tower company would seek to get the other two carriers to go on, and the only space for the other two carriers to go would be below Verizon. Um, so they would be

lower than what? Um, these plots are representing for Verizon’s coverage. Um, so that’s another thing. And that’s, um, actually called out in your bylaws as well that the that the board can grant, uh, a height, um, that’s, uh, greater than proven necessary to accommodate additional, uh, potential, um, business needs on the tower. And as well, you

have your, your local public safety who is talking about moving over and they and they certainly wouldn’t want to go lower than they are today. Um, they might like to go higher. I don’t know that we have any information from them about that, but I would assume that they would want to be at least

at the same height as where they are on the little tower on the to the north of the building. Right. So there are all those factors going together to sort of talk about, you know, the plots. But if but if you want to look at specifically what we’re seeing here and graphically, um, and

if you have any questions about that, I’m, I’m happy to answer. With the board. Like to have a maybe a refresher course on what these plots mean. Sure. Sure. Okay. Do you want to do it or. Are you sure? I’m happy to do it. So there are two sets of

coverage plots. Um, so what you have there is what’s showing as the existing 700MHz LTE coverage for Verizon. Um, and I think the next one I actually think shows proposed. And then the third one would show, as we talked about, Verizon has two licenses, so they have a 700MHz license and a 21MHz license.

Those two things work together. They need to provide coverage for both. So if the site only works for one, it really doesn’t work for them from a design perspective. Um, and so what we have are two things. One, again, as we talked about last time and has gone through

in significant detail in the C squared report submitted with the application to support it, you have two things. You have a coverage gap. You heard testimony from resident, uh, last time about the the lack of coverage. I don’t think I need to tell anyone here. I mean, we’re sitting in it, right? Correct.

No bars in here. Right. So from that standpoint, I didn’t think there was really a question on overall need. I think there was just a question on it really more focused on on height. And when you look at the two things, one, a couple different competing factors, one is Mr.

Laughton already pointed out there’s Verizon’s need. Um, but the bylaw also requires doesn’t it’s not optional, requires that we provide co-location opportunities as well. And so providing it at the bare floor, um, in terms of whatever, the only carrier currently proposed could use, um, and then putting everyone else below the tree line isn’t going to provide a

structurally sure the capacity would be there. But from a use case, um, and that’s what we were talking about in our responses. If you look at, um, the topography of the area, if you look at the vegetation in the area, particularly kind of bringing the site, uh, to the not the bay roadside, but every

other side, um, there’s some significant tree cover of height. Um, some are well over 100ft. Most of them are over 70ft. And so if you put the third carrier in the tree line, um, they’re not going to use it. It’s not going to provide meaningful coverage. And that’s what we’re looking at.

You’ve two competing interests general height, but also providing the co-location in the the you have to balance those two. Um, I think with the height being yes, it’s 110 foot tower, the first real ten feet of that isn’t really for our use case. It’s really the separation from the municipal, uh, intent to

utilize the site. Um, and so, yes, they’ll, they’ll realize an increase of roughly 15 to 20ft or so over their existing, um, because their existing site is shorter than the proposed tower. Verizon’s antenna centerline is at 100. It’s not at 110 nine and 105. And keeping the attendance below

this, the top of the site. So really the effective use case for Verizon is 100. Um, the rest goes to providing um, co-location space for, for the town. And then you have the two carriers below it and anything below the 80 foot mark. Um, given the surrounding vegetation just isn’t going to be isn’t going to be useful.

Uh, one of the things that that matters, also is in reference to the tree height is proximity. The closer those obstructions are, the more damage they do in terms of propagation. So I once had it explained to me, you know, if you take a pencil, a pen and hold it out here, you can see

most of that screen. If I put it right close, as I put it right up here, most of that screen is blocked and it’s very similar. Um, from a radio frequency perspective. it’s it’s probably the best way someone once explained obstruction to me. So from that perspective, um, we again, I

think overall the photo seems to bear out. It’s it’s a fairly unobtrusive site. Um, the heights appropriate to provide both opportunity for Verizon to provide coverage to the significant gap that it has in meaningful co-location opportunities should the other carriers come along. The other thing I point out to is that they have their own different,

you know, network development. Verizon is in a church steeple to the south, um, which helps them bridge this gap. The other carriers may not be that close. Um, and so again, having even that additional ten feet or so may be significant and material in helping reach further further south towards one of.

Did you want to ask a question about 60? I have a question for the city planner. The most common complaint I always hear is the downtown gap in the shopping center. And are we not fixing that gap with the pole at the corner of Walnut Street? And one A, there was a there was a

we approved that a while back. And I would have thought, I think the whole argument on that, that was going to fix the downtown gap. And if that was the case, then the I mean, there may be other reasons to go with this tower, but fixing the downtown gap isn’t one of

them, because it’s already going to be fixed with this pole. Is that is that correct? So that’s just one carrier. That’s AT&T. So there’s those that’s the utility poles are coming into one at a time. So um, when that application went through I told him we were expecting this to come along.

But he’s still AT&T is still wanted that tower. So okay. So that was a carrier specific tower. Yes. Yes. It’s not even a tower. It’s it’s a it’s going on an existing. Existing antenna on a telephone pole. Right. It’s going to be another. Operates much differently, provides a much different level

of coverage. And again it’s only provides a solution for ATM. I understand that, but I was just wondering whether that was going to fix the down. The very specific local down downtown problem, but only if you were an AT&T customer. That’s the answer. Okay. I’ve got a question. Uh, if you what is the difference in terms

of, uh, 5G and 4G in terms of the height of the pole? I. I. Yeah. So there’s two factors. Um, two things to talk about when you talk about the technology. There’s the frequency band and the technology. And, um, when you talk about 4G, 3G, 5G, six G that’s the technology.

And that technology can operate on any of the frequency bands. Um, but but what determines the effective range of coverage is the frequency band, not the technology. So Verizon has provided plots at 700MHz and at 2100MHz. They also have licenses at 850MHz, 1900MHz and 3.5GHz. And, um, some other

ones at higher bands than that even. Um, and what you would see when you look at those, either the composite plot, if you bring that back up for the composite plot, uh, before or after the the blobs would be as you go up in frequency, the blobs would shrink. Um, and essentially you’d get this this

is showing, uh, 700MHz existing coverage. And you can see that the colors, uh. The the the density of color that you see there would, would get larger, um, at 700MHz. But if you flip down two plots, Mark. Um, now, this is 2100MHz, same sites, same location, same antennas. Um, uh, the only difference here is it’s a higher

frequency. So the higher frequency propagates less. Well, and that’s that’s what I’m trying to draw out is that, that that’s a function of the frequency, not of the technology. Um, um, so 2100MHz, this coverage is for LTE. You can see there on the right, but it would be very similar for,

uh, 5G. It would be this very similar for any of the technologies operating on that band. So what is the difference between 4G and 5G in terms of data transmitted information? More efficient 5G, uh, requires, um, fiber fiber optic to the site. So it provides so the backhaul is across the

board, much more robust. And as a result, uh, the 5G is able to, through some things that that it also takes advantage of in the radio link is able to provide faster data rates. Right. Um, on the same band. Uh, so what you’re what you’re seeing here is strictly signal

coverage, not data rate. There would be another way to plot this and show effective data rate. And that would be that would take into account more of the technology. So that so if it was a it was a 5G plot. The data rates close to the site would be much higher than they are with the LTE site.

What would I guess it was coming down to me. What I took from this article I was reading on on a difference between the two because as we get, you know, 5G and above, whatever, uh, that means the technology is changing there. My understanding was that 5G is actually delivered at a much

lower level, the idea being that if you had it up at 110ft, uh, it would it could be overwhelmed by the by the coverage. In fact, you have too much coverage. So what they had to do was go down to a lower level to to manage it. And then

that resulting thing would be more towers at a lower level. Uh, but that was a trade off. I’m just concerned about the trend now is that. I. Think is that. I think something like that you’d see in, in a dense urban area a lot, something like downtown Boston. Okay.

Um, where I think you were talking about earlier, AT&T had put a small cell here on a telephone pole in downtown Boston. You’d see that kind of installation, you know, 30, 40ft, um, all over the city, uh, either on rooftops or lighting, lighting poles or any, any kind of structure there in Hamilton.

I’m surprised they put a small cell. I don’t know, maybe they had a very particular need to put AT&T had a very particular need. I’m surprised that you’re seeing small cells in that densification of coverage in Hamilton. Um, usually in the smaller towns, it’s, it’s it’s not there yet. And I and

there’s nothing specific about 5G that, uh, that drives the need for smaller sites. What what what happens is as, as data is more effectively used, um, more of it becomes used and as more of it is becoming used, the frequencies or the spectrum is more congested and as a result, um, the, the carriers

have to instead of having large sites which with large footprints for efficiency, they have to shrink their. Yeah, their sites. Right. Uh, that’s what I was reading. Yeah, yeah. And, and and I mean, that’s, that’s a function of the fact that, you know, post iPhone and even now people

are working from home and stuff like that. People are using their phones in their homes a lot. Um, yeah. You know, they in buildings, we’re trying to use it here. Um, used to be that cell cell networks only worked on the on the roads, and nobody cared about using a cell phone in here. And if it didn’t

work, you just go outside. But people expect something a little bit more. So I mean, that’s that’s so really what I mean, I think this is, this is if you go back up to the, the, the earlier plots, I mean, what that what they’re showing is at

700MHz, it’s, it’s pretty good right now here. But, but if you go down to the 2100MHz, that’s where they’re, there’s some challenges. Um, and not all their spectrum is. Not all their spectrum is capable of providing the level of service that they’re trying to provide in South Hamilton and in that

area. And that’s that’s the reason for this. Um, would be the best explanation I could give. So just going back to Marnie’s initial question, what comment would you have about the what you’ve seen on these slides? I mean, with any of these, with any and I you know, I do a lot

of this kind of thing with any of these three questions. Always is the the need, the location and the height. Right. And the things that the board of board has to be comfortable with is the need is there. The location is the right location and appropriate location, and the height is appropriate.

Um, I think the need I’m not going to make that decision, but this is what they’re presenting is the need. Um, and you all can look at that and see whether you think and, and as well, the testimony of the people who have said, yeah, you know, they have problems making phone calls and, you know, um, that

sort of thing. Um, so that’s the need for location is really off the table on this one because it’s a municipal location that’s great for the town. The town gets the money. Um, there’s the public safety is potentially going to move over. So it’s a good it’s a really good location. It’s not

somebody putting something up on private property. Um, that that, you know, they’re going to make they’re going to make the money. The town’s going to make the money. So it’s a good location. Um, and it went through an RFP. Um, and the, the select board was authorized to execute a lease. So the town

thinks it’s a good location to. And then that just leaves the height. And, you know, the height. You can. I mean, I think what we have to talk about with the height is, is really the, the, the effectiveness for this, this site, uh, both for the town, for Verizon and for potential future tenants. Um, and, and

you know, if it was just the town and Verizon, you might ask more questions about, you know, why does it need to be this high? But yeah, given the fact that there are two other national carriers that probably want to provide a similar level of coverage in South Hamilton, and they can’t do it today. Yeah. You know.

Okay. I think in. Some the. And the board can tell me if I’m wrong. The benefits seem to outweigh the burdens. Yeah. And that’s the decision you. That’s. Your decision that we have to make. But based on the presentation that we received from Everest, the few comments that we’ve received from the public are personal

experiences. Uh, the position that the Select board has taken, which is pretty indicative of what they think is should happen here. They’re not opining on the specific height or anything, but, um, I think the benefits outweigh the burdens. And does anyone here want to contest that, uh, conclusion? Any discussion from the board? Nope.

Nope. So, uh, with that said, I believe that our last hearing, I thought that Everest in its materials centrally provided us with, um, legally an offer of proof as to each and every element of our, um, bylaws. Section 7.2 of our bylaw, uh, and then there are aspects of that bylaw that require conditions. And I believe that

our planning director has given you, um, proposed conditions. And that includes the height of the fence. And you’ve agreed, essentially, if we make it a condition that the fence will be eight feet tall, it’ll be chain link, but it will have slats. And there are other conditions about performance guarantees and.

And. Those types of things. And all that information is available as part of the planning boards meeting packet. And I don’t think it’s really worth anyone’s time for us to go through our bylaw point by point by point. Um, so, uh, I have actually looked at the materials and I think, Mr.

Lawler, you did a commendable job helping us go through and identify what are potential issues, but you also indicated that a lot of the provisions, bylaw provisions have essentially been satisfied. So, um, I leave it to the board whether you want to, to, to. Uh. Go through each bylaw provision. But if you go to,

uh, Mr. Lawler’s, uh, materials and it has isotope. Um. As a heading on page 13, um, he, he very thoughtfully provided us with a review of the findings that we need to make. And I think that, as I’ve said, based on the weight of the materials and the, uh, the, the presentations made by our

peer reviewer and, and, uh, uh, Attorney Grossman, uh, we’re in a position to make those findings, uh, that start on page 13. So if you all take a moment to review them, uh, uh, I will then entertain a motion to approve the special permit and the site plan. Uh, review application subject to the

conditions that, uh, Mark has drafted for us. And I don’t know if you have seen the conditions you’ve assisted in developing them. Did you have any problems with these conditions? Um, I saw them like this afternoon. I think for the most part, um, there were a couple clarification points that Mark

and I emailed about. And as long as those are included, uh, that makes sense. As far as the utility pole and the the privacy slats, I would say the only thing, um, frankly, a number five with the agreement, I, um, my client was a little bit more, more generous than I was in terms of, in terms of

comment. So, um, they’re used to having sites on restricted access properties. The only thing they ask is that the agreement, you know, you know, the reasonable discretion of the, uh, fire chief and the police chief and, um, beyond that, other than the, you know, other couple minor comments,

Mark, that I had sent to you by email. Um, that’s it. I did have a question as to the amount of the performance guarantee. Um, $27,750 seemed very reasonable to me. I mean, is that something that’s. Yep. Industry. Industry standard. Uh, to you’re talking about a removal bond. Well, potentially we have.

A performance guarantee. Is that equivalent to a removal bond in the audience of. Yeah, yeah. And yeah, I think that’s a reasonable cost. I mean, it’s not a we’re not talking about a 200 foot tower here. It’s a relatively small tower. And, you know, they can they can get it, take it down and carted away pretty easily.

And you have insurance on all these towers, right. You know absolutely. That there’s some. Right. But the performance guarantee wouldn’t, wouldn’t be that. Anyway.. That wouldn’t address that. No. But they of course they carry commercial liability. Insurance hypothetically if, if you, if some, uh, steel was delivered to you, that somehow was defective and the thing

fell down, you would the town would be the beneficiary of your insurance policies. And I’m sure when these lease leases are negotiated, that those are the types of things that town council should be looking at to make sure that, you know, in the event of some type of catastrophe like that, the town is.

Protected. I do have a question on the lease. Um, in fact, Mark did did the town manager ever get back to you on that point where, um, there was something in the lease that I had read whereby if there’s any repairs or damage done that you will not be paying rent until the until you fixed the tower or

component of the tower. Did you. Did comment? Yeah. Did Joe discuss that with you at all? No, this is the first time I’m hearing of it. Um, but I think, Chris, my client is saying in regard to the condemnation, if there’s if there. You want to describe briefly.

Uh. I had read that there was an item, um, whereby if there were any repairs that had to be made that you would stop paying rent until it was fixed. I think it’s, um, it’s it’s probably the damage is caused by the town, right? No, I don’t specific to if the. Yeah. Don’t speak. Just tell me. This is.

Chris. Davis from Everest Infrastructure Partners. Um, I believe it’s related to the condemnation clause. So if there is, um, act of God or something, the tower comes down where it’s actually condemned and it needs to be repaired. That’s the point where there would be a pause in the rents. If there’s a delay in our ability to.

You know. Be able to use the tower. Is that what. You’re saying? Yeah. It’s use the what? But still you’re you’re still occupying the space. And I have to interrupt though, because those types of contract negotiations, they’re really not within the purview of the planning board. Okay. We can’t interject ourselves into the

contract negotiations between you and the town manager and his attorneys. I mean, we’re dealing with zoning bylaws, and it’s an excellent point, but it’s not one that we could impose a condition or something like that. So I, I would defer to my counsel, but I believe that’s

the case. It is also the same language. It’s in the agreement related to the site behind Town Hall. Um, so I do was a point that’s typical. It’s a fairly standard provision in the agreements, mostly around condemnation. If the if the tower is ever condemned to prevent them from our ability

to use it, uh, it wouldn’t have to do with things like there was damage to the fence or, um, you know, carriers equipment went offline. It’s specific to a damage to the, you know, the physical property being the tower itself, which is extraordinarily rare. Um, maybe more on guyed towers and in

larger facilities. You hear about if they ever do come down, it’s usually guyed towers and areas. This type of pole, it’s very rare that you would have that type of damage. Over to it. And if it did come down, it would be a significant gap in. Coverage.

So. Um, yeah. I mean, to Chris’s point, you were happy to answer a clarifying question, but, uh, to the to the chairman’s point, it’s a contractual matter that’s beyond the purview of the board. But if we could answer a question for you, we were happy to do it. I can I can briefly summarize where it left off, though.

Darcy was I asked Joe about it, I think, last week, and he said he hadn’t heard back from Cape Lock’s. The issue was this contract and negotiated under a different town manager. Um, a different town council. different blackbaud all of that. Um, he did commit, though, that he, he wants to offer an opinion if it’s sort

of typical language, if it’s atypical. He said he would ask Everest. Yeah, I’d hate to see the town lose out on, uh, rental or lease income. Revenue. But but. I, I promise we will follow up with that. But as Marty said, it kind of is in the slight pause. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion or questions?

I just have a procedural question. Should we vote on the four individual findings? We can certainly do that. Before you do. I don’t think we close the public hearing. We have not. So any other comments? Are you going to ask for public comment? Any public comment. And any comments on. My comment? Here we go. Be brief.

And just reiterate. Uh, I live. At 60. Identify. Ben Rivet, 61 Union Street South, Hamilton, mass. Uh, I live right down the street and, uh, lost a call on the way here. So the coverage gap is real. Uh, I would just point out that this is a win for the MBTA commuters, the shoppers,

the people that use the electric vehicle charger. You have to use an app to do it. The app doesn’t work. You can’t charge. Um, and also for the residents, uh, it’s a safety issue. It’s a convenience issue. Yeah. Um, just really, we need coverage in this area. I do encourage the, uh, the three carriers. It’s good to

bring all three in. Not everyone has Verizon, so just encourage, uh, approval of this. Thank you. Everybody online. Okay. Um, if if pursuant to Jonathan’s suggestion, uh, we can go ahead and, uh. Do we need to close the public. Hearing. Move to close the public hearing, and then we will consider some of these findings.

So you just moved to close book because. I’ll. Say you did. Okay. So consider it. Second to close. Yeah. Move to close the. Public second. Okay. Um, all in favor? Aye aye. Okay. Thank you. For your input. It was very helpful. So, uh, if you all

would like to go to page 13 of isotopes, um, materials, we can look at each of the, uh, uh, the findings. Now, these are summary findings. They’re not each they’re not pertinent to each bylaw provision. So when we go to draft the decision, we will essentially be, uh, taking the bulk of what was presented

to us by Everest and incorporating that into the decision as to our specific findings as to each bylaw provision. But this just seems like we could summarize the findings. Yes, this is a good direction for Mark. Uh, you know, if he is the drafter of the decision.

So, um, would you like me to read them? Or should we just go one by one? And do we need a motion for each one? We we do. Or we could do a motion for all four. It’s up to the board. Why don’t you review them? And, uh, comment. Mm. That sounds good.

So actually. So the first, um, the first finding would be that the applicant has documented the need for the facilities. We’ll cut to the chase. And so, uh, that would be the first finding. Um, the second one is that the applicant has proven that this location is the correct location to address the

need or gap as defined above. Yep. Okay. The third finding is the applicants have demonstrated that the proposed height is necessary and supported by evidence. They have. Uh, there is the opportunity for, um, other carriers to, uh, use this, uh, pole. And also, importantly for the public safety officials to, uh, uh,

make the decision to use the pole as well. And then finally, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all sections of the Hamilton bylaws and other pertinent laws. And I think that they have. So I’ll, I’ll entertain a motion to approve these generalized findings, and then we can move on. So moved. Second. All in favor. Aye I.

Okay. So now we can, uh, address the. Um. The special permit. So we need a motion to approve the special permit. Um, I move to a vote on the special, the site plan and the special permit, subject to the conditions as listed. Right. I think we should. Do one. At a time.

One at a time. Let’s do this. Special permit. Yeah. Subject to the conditions as listed. Uh, do I have a second? Second? All in favor? Aye. And now the site plan review. And the site plan. I mean, the site is eminently reasonable, and it’ll have no effect On traffic and. , uh. Right. And it’s basically.

Yeah. Ideal location for this and has has is not something that will cause concern about this. The site itself. I move that we vote on the site plan subject to conditions as listed. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Well, thank you all for your contribution here. You made it

pretty easy for us, and I appreciate that. Thank you. I think that. First is like. Okay, the next item on our agenda is the one stop for growth grant application. And I think Mark has put in front of you. Is this the final mark that you will be. Submitting? Yeah.

I don’t know if you have. This wasn’t part of the meeting package, am I correct, Mark? It didn’t make it to. The meeting. This was a morning email that kind of took what I had done and made some edits to it. So, uh, thank you to you both for

making some, uh, for doing some thorough work on this. And, uh, so I think it has had a lot of eyes on it, at least. Um, thank you. Thank you. thank you, you. thank you. We plan would be to submit this as it’s written. I am..

Unless you want to speak to the changes you made. I made very minor changes to what you would put together. Mostly grammatical things. Um, Mostly. But grammatical. Oh, okay. Yep. So? So Mark really did a real workmanlike job, uh, with respect to this. And so I went through it and made some edits. And then Emma

went through and made edits, and then able and I what I did is I put Mark’s version, my version and Amy’s version all on one page and sent it to Amel, and Amel came back. Uh, with bullet points. And I think the bullet points really do, uh, or hopefully will, uh, set our application, um, apart from

others because I think. it’s really. a really great. And I think they’re gone. Oh, no. You’re sharing this one. It’s this one. It’s right here. This one. Okay. Yeah. This one has. The bolt. Okay, great. This one. Okay. This was the first one. This was my first one. Okay okay.

So I was inspired because instead of writing out public realm standards every time and using up characters, I used, um, abbreviations. So we had more words. To use. And also added some things. Obviously, since there’s no document that I couldn’t proofread. Um, but anyhow, you’ve all take a few minutes

to to look at it and uh, um, unless it’s something that’s absolutely imperative, this has to be filed tomorrow at 1159. Correct. 11:59 p.m. so hopefully not. We’re not going to be doing that. At all. We’ll be going sooner. We want to get. It in. Where do we stand with, um, the HTC and that.

They committed they committed to, um, $5,000. We didn’t specify that amount in here. Okay. Um, but they do support this clearly. Great. Forgive me if I missed it, but is the HTC identified? And, um, defined in here? Oh, what it means? Oh, yes, I see it. Never mind, never mind, I see it.

It is the first time it’s mentioned. Got it. Great. Mark, I see something here. Um, um, on page two, the form based code is defined, but it’s it’s defined. Um, in the very first, uh, narrative under abstract. So it doesn’t need to. Be there. Um. So on page two, uh, it can just be the town center.

FBC so you got three words that you can use. Who wants to add three words. Three. Words and two characters. There you go. My only thought of that money was it if the reviewers, um, I separate the question. So there’s different people reviewing the questions, because that drives me nuts when I can’t tell what the acronym is.

Got it. That’s why I asked about the HTC. I’ll defer to you. Yeah, I support Mark’s impulse. We did define the HTC the first time we used it. I saw. It. But again, you’ve done that FBC in other places as well. So um. But it’s key right? Where it where Mark says it, it should show.

Up there. Let’s go. Yeah. Yeah. So it’s under scope of work. It’s under um, it’s under, uh, progress to date. And I note on page three, the very last line, it says implementation of the FEC code. So that word definitely has to come out. It should just be FEC. And this is what page.

On page three. Last line. It says implementation of the FEC. Okay. Code. Code. I don’t have that same copy. With. 9000. So I don’t have. Yes. I have it somewhere. Um. Out. So no. You need six two. Mark. Mark, do you have another copy of the six? I’ve got 53126, not

six two. I don’t see it here in the, in my packet. Yeah. Mine doesn’t have. FEC either. Yeah. Um. So I don’t have your, your changes. It’s a six two right. Yep. No. No please do. Let me make a copy. Is there a copy in Jeff’s pile. Oh yeah. That could be checked for his packet.

Is it true that we’re the first form based code in Essex County? Doesn’t Rockport have a form based code. That’s report. Have a form based code? They might. They have a I think they have a partial or a hybrid. Yeah. They do. You have the right one. Yeah. And they’re Essex County.

Yeah. So we should be careful of that statement. One of the first. There you go. And you got some. Do you have some extra characters. Yeah. Yeah. You could say one of them state’s first and. Yeah. Yeah. It’s just that’s a little that’s what it says is a little bit of a stretch.

Well it adopted one of the first form based code. Um. In Essex County. You need to fix that because that has to be plural. And you can change Commonwealth and change Essex County to in the Commonwealth. One of the you’re saying. One of the first form based codes. Forget the abbreviation

in the Commonwealth. I don’t know how many characters we get. There, I. Know, but we have enough. But I think we have enough because we took one word out. So we’re kind of editing in real time so I can send this out to you after the meeting. But I can give you my I’ll give you my copy.

With the. Are you tight on characters in the community? Description and engagement plan? Um, no. No, we have 84 characters. Yeah. Okay. So. Is there any desire to, um, sort of blow your horn about the public engagement that was, uh, successful in, in passing the form based code. Otherwise you’re saying there will be

there will be community and resident outreach and business engagement. Um, do you want to sort of rest on your laurels that that’s that was the foundation of success for the form based code? Didn’t we write that someplace else? Under a demonstrated capacity? Yeah, it was. One of the planning board successfully led adoption of

town center code through complex, sometimes contentious public process demonstrating strong implementation capacity right under on page four, under leadership. And that’s fine to execute. Yep. Just trying to blow some extra horns. I could I could play with it though and. Not say it the same way. Yeah. Yeah. Just to reinforce it, nail it home. You have to.

Have the characters. So it’s all good. Just keep repeating it. Yep. But I’m like, I think I read that somewhere. Reach very far around and get yourself on the back. Yeah, I can’t reach. That. You know, it could just be a word or two. Yeah, yeah. Just have a sentence or something.

Yeah. And I want to throw out, you know, the abbreviations. I think if we do it the first time, that should be enough. I’m just going to make that. That’s my position. I think it’s distracting to keep putting it in parentheses. I these applications are not that long, and I can’t imagine that the reviewers are going to

divide up different portions. Oh that’s right. Do you agree. With that? Yes I do. So I would go back and you know, we defined form based code right outside the box. And I think that that it. just it I find it more distracting than not. And if you’re going to do

it every time you refer to the form based code, then then. you are either at the risk of not doing it when you mean to do it. Yeah. So I would just, I would just if we’re going to abbreviate it, give the reviewers credit for getting what FBC means. How do you feel about that? Mark?

I mean, it’s it’s very subjective, but I can’t stand when I don’t know what the acronym is. So I agree, I don’t think it hurts anything, but I’m not gonna well, I’m not going to die on that hill. Yeah, well. It’s two for two. So we. Have other members here who can weigh in.

Yeah. I mean, I think if it’s going to potentially help, I would just leave it as it is. But. Also, I. Think the only one way or another. Yeah. I mean yeah, I don’t I don’t necessarily see a big enough reason to remove it. I don’t think we’re gonna. Yeah. There’s, there’s the grant because of it. It’s this

little. Yeah. Right. It’s just I do understand. See, here’s the thing. We defined HDC. That was the top of page four. And then in the next group of bullet points, we refer to the HDC. But if we’re going to define something in each narrative with parentheses we have to be consistent. So we’re already

not consistent in referencing the HTC. Do we have extra characters in that section to add the HTC incarnation of HTC? Yeah, yeah, and I would definitely have to here because no one, no one outside Hamilton knows what HTC. Usually means. Historic district commission. Yeah, it confuses me every time I see those letters. Yeah, yeah.

That’s that’s probably worth it. Actually more important than the. Statewide that statewide. That’s what it means. Right? Yeah. I mean. Arguably if we if we have enough words, we could take out the abbreviation for HTC in just say, Hamilton Development Corporation. Um, that. Maybe that’s better. I think that might be better.

Because HTC is a confusing set of letters. But I think. FDC form based code. Yeah, that’s fine. That’s fine, that’s fine. So now we’re we’re cutting the baby in half. How’s that. Mark. That’s that works for me. Okay. So slightly off the subject, but just one last pass of this.

Do we have any clear insight as to why the last grant that the HTC submitted didn’t succeed? Because it was for a lot of money. It was. It was actually for capital improvements. Instead of first, um, planning. Then they actually. Had plans. Yeah. Uh, so, you know, part of this whole exercise is to look at

all the plans and call what’s good. The reason I’m asking is to make sure we don’t trip over the same obstruction. Yeah, this is definitely. They were seeking millions. Yes. 3 million. Okay. And no reason was that I heard is because it’s for the big grants. They want some economic development. They want like a

project that’s going to benefit from. And they the HTC couldn’t point to like an economic development project that would come to town based on these plans. So. Okay. And there was more more money. Got it, got. It. got it. Thanks for all the work. I know. Thank you, thank you.

That’s great. And I do enjoy the bullet points. Yeah, it does help I think as people are reading an application. Yeah. Especially it makes it a little. Easier though. Yeah. Application. Yeah. I always forget the bullet. Points. So why do we have email? Nothing more tedious than just reading rambling paragraphs.

Exactly. So yeah, that was brilliant. And then I like the highlighted how it’s highlighted beginning with a little bit. Of well that the oh don’t don’t get carried away. All this will be typed into. Uh, form. Or something of form, an online form. So it’s all submitted electronically. Okay. So, you. Know, look good pretty.

I think, you know, put. It out probably. It’s weird, but you can have bullets. Oh. Yeah. When will we hear from them about any idea? I don’t know, but I will try to get more information. I want to say, um, by the end of summer, early fall. But I can I can

check on that tomorrow. I’ve been so focused on the grant itself, I haven’t really. Yeah, that. Okay. Any any further discussion about. This? It’s a nice effort. And then our second util workshop is on June 16th. Any any news about. That? Uh, about what they intend to present or.

Yeah. So they, they sent me something this afternoon. I haven’t totally reviewed it, but, um, their thought was that they would focus on non-conforming sites and, um, what the bylaw allows the board to grant a special permit for, for nonconforming. So changes in non-conforming sites that would be permissible versus what’s not permissible.

Um. And the two sites they mentioned or, um, 17 Hamilton, which is kind of or 17 Mill Street, which is that, um, that weird kind of like, uh, shopping center type. That kids where the kids. That used to be a fabric store. Yes. It was. I remember that used to be a fabric store. Yeah, right. But I wonder.

What it was. So yeah. That’s it. What was it? Was it the kids connection to at one point? No, it is. A kid. It’s still it has it’s still a like child care. Okay. I believe. In there. Has anyone. Ever seen insurance maps for Hamilton? You ever say have you ever seen insurance? Old insurance math.

Very interesting. So you, you know, Mill Street. What do you think was going on on Mill Street, huh? I wonder. What was the second. Mill Mark? What was, uh, the second one they were thinking about is a little more typical. It’s 224, um, Bay road. It’s the. Oh, yeah. This one. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. We talked.

About that. Oh, yeah. That’s a mess. It’s, um. There’s a lot there. Yeah. It doesn’t calm like the setbacks and it’s. Yeah, a lot of these types of sites on Bay road. Oh. Yeah. And that we will have video for that one. It’ll be here. It’ll be here in person. Okay, great. Oh.

Good. I just think it’s good if like, for future planning board members, that would be a good video for them to, like be able to watch. If we had you know what I’m saying. So like this. I think we only had an audio last time. That’s all I’m saying. Oh, yeah, I. Have, yeah. She became filming. You mean.

All right. Okay. Sorry. It was, um. Yeah, I know it was kind of confusing last time because you guys are going to be upstairs. Whatever. But anyways. Can we get a copy of their last? Because they made changes in their presentation? Uh, that were after the one that the copy that you sent around. the slide deck.

Slide deck? No, I haven’t received it, but I’ll ask them to send it.. And just as I just said that it would maybe be good to have like a folder of things. So when you have new planning board people, come on, if they haven’t been exposed, like,

yeah, you know, that slide deck might be helpful. And then the video that from this next meeting we have up, I’m just thinking of some of the things that as people are like stepping in if they haven’t been paying attention. Sure, sure. The board constantly changes. Exactly. Okay. Uh, one final note. Um, so Kathy Simons mentioned, you

know, this initiative for a dark sky ordinance. I mean, a dark sky, uh, ordinance can either be a general bylaw, which is a majority vote of town meeting, or it can be a zoning bylaw. Either one. Uh, but they’re becoming increasingly common in some towns. Adopted them, but there

are no antiquated because of the LED lighting. So for for our next meeting or the one in in July, not July 7th. Uh, I’d like to put on our agenda the possibility of amending our master plan so that Hamilton can start evaluating what a dark sky ordinance would look like. Um, for a community.

And in this regard, I would urge you to go to the hub cam, uh, web site. And there is that presentation that I mentioned about, uh, that was done by Kelly Beatty, who was with this Massachusetts dark Sky organization. And he’s fabulous. I mean, he spoke to the general public. I mean,

there are people out there who may have more sophisticated knowledge than what he was presenting. but. these lighting, uh, you know, the glare it has effects on humans, but insects and birds. And so there’s a lot that that can be done. Some communities Nantucket, there, there, dark sky by law, applies to residential, commercial.

I’ve lived on Nantucket. I don’t know that there’s any industrial, um, uh, businesses there, but so in other communities like Chelmsford, where, um, Kelly Beatty lives, they their dark sky bylaw was strictly applicable to industrial and commercial properties. And then there were recommendations for residential. So there are ways

of of approaching this. So I think that the, the the amending the bylaw to move toward adopting, evaluating existing, uh, dark sky bylaws and how one would work in Hamilton and essentially, you know, the the problems in Hamilton are centered around our commercial core. And the

way I look at it, most of the really, really bad lighting is in parking lots. You have parking lot lighting, big overhead light, and it’s on all the time. For what. Reason? Right? So anyhow. So that would be actually July 21st. That’s right. Cancelled. Yeah. So Mike, if you could add that to our agenda so we can

talk about it. And so I did look up uh, how you go about amending the master plan. It’s really easy. Mass general law chapter 4181 D says a planning board by majority. Vote. Can amend the master plan. So there we go. Sky’s the limit. Guys. Really? No town meeting. No town meeting. I mean, if it’s on the.

Agenda. We can get public input. And I think, you know, there is this little committee that I’m getting kind of roped into that is working toward this. I’m looking at what’s out there. So, you know. So there’s. no limit. We could rip the whole thing apart. And I could yeah. Bill’s getting amazing. You might not.

Get okay. It’s an advisory document so it doesn’t. Yeah, right. Doesn’t know. Well, it’s not policy per se. Yeah. Yeah. So you know, uh, with the master plan, some of the action items that were in those charts, we’ve actually done. Yeah, we did the form based. Code.

Right. You know, so we should go back and look at that and see where we are. And I and I. Heard from. Uh, Joe about an all boards meeting to, to look at the master plan. And I gave him dates June 2nd and June 19th, but it’s up to the select board. And, you know, he’s

trying to coordinate something. Um. So June 2nd was today. That was today. Yes. So. You know, just making sure like it wasn’t the right month or. Just hope it was not July 7th to 20th, which is like probably when it’ll be because that’s when I won’t be here. But we’ll

see. We’ll see. So anyhow, I think that our master plan, you know, the whole document might not have been what we wanted it to be, but that the that last section was pretty. Yep. Decent. So we should should look toward it. And if we need to, we can amend. It. Okay.

Darcy. You’re right. Yes. I’m going to propose I’m going to move that we adjourn. Do I have a. Second? All in. Favor? Aye, Aye aye. Not bad.