00:03One notable issue discussed was the amendment of the town’s zoning bylaw to establish a BESS bylaw. The public hearing commenced with an introduction by the chair, Madison Pixley. Concerns about water safety, potential fires, and chemical leaks associated with battery storage units were raised by a member of the public, Donald. He urged the board to draft a comprehensive cover letter explaining the necessity of the bylaw for the upcoming town meeting. The discussion included the specifics of the proposed zoning bylaw, particularly the limits on battery sizes for residential, commercial, and industrial settings. Tier one was defined for residential settings with energy capacities of 250 kilowatts or less, while tiers two, three, and four applied to commercial and industrial uses with higher capacity allowances.

16:32A significant portion of the debate centered on the legal aspects of the proposed bylaw, especially in light of the Dover Amendment, which restricts communities from prohibiting or unreasonably regulating solar and battery energy storage systems. It was noted that the town of Hadley is currently facing litigation due to its restrictive measures on BESS, which could impact Hampden’s future regulatory decisions. Concerns were voiced about the town council’s feedback, which suggested that the current bylaw might be rejected by the attorney general’s office. The board grappled with balancing local governance against state regulations, striving to reflect Hampden’s unique environmental considerations, particularly regarding water resources and endangered species.

14:53Safety issues, especially fire risks, were also a focal point, with the board acknowledging their limitations in expertise but striving to incorporate adequate safety measures into the bylaw. There were discussions on ventilation standards and other safety protocols, with a commitment to refining the bylaw to balance energy needs with community safety and environmental protection.

10:07In conjunction with the BESS bylaw, the board also touched on the town’s existing solar energy commitment, noting nine active solar farms and many homes with solar panels. The necessity of balancing solar energy promotion with preserving water supply and town aesthetics was emphasized. The board recognized the need for documented statistics to support bylaw claims, particularly regarding the impact of lithium batteries compared to solar energy systems.

The meeting also addressed potential outcomes if the bylaw is denied by the attorney general, including the possibility of partial approvals, which could leave some regulations intact. The board acknowledged the litigious nature of society and the potential for developers to challenge the town in court, regardless of the attorney general’s approval.

24:32Setbacks and the revocation of special permits and site plan approvals were also discussed, with the board considering aligning solar energy system setbacks with those of limited industrial requirements. Adjustments in bylaw language were debated, particularly regarding operations, maintenance plans, and vegetative buffer requirements for battery energy storage systems. The board agreed that public hearings would be necessary to address these changes.

39:08The meeting also covered scheduling and procedural matters, specifically an upcoming meeting critical for preparing warrant articles for the town meeting. A special planning board meeting was set to finalize recommendations within a specified timeframe.

54:58Another topic was the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) bylaw. The discussion focused on state regulations requiring modifications to the local bylaw. Members debated the definitions and implications of zoning terms, particularly concerning the classification of dwellings and ADU size limitations. The importance of adhering to state guidelines, which prohibit local bylaws from being more restrictive, was highlighted. Concerns about maintaining the residential character of neighborhoods while allowing ADUs were raised, with discussions on height regulations and the number of external entrances.

01:03:59Finally, the acceptance of the master plan was introduced, highlighting a 15-month planning process involving community engagement and a budget of $133,000. The plan focuses on critical components like water, air, open space, and energy independence. Discussions on whether a short-term or long-term plan would be more beneficial ensued, with members weighing adaptability against long-term vision. The plan was presented as a guide with specific goals and actions, with an emphasis on hiring a professional planner for effective implementation. A motion to accept the master plan was moved forward to the select board for presentation at the town meeting.