 Yeah. Great. Okay. And I do see a little red dot. So we're good to go. Okay. Well, welcome everybody. Thanks for joining us. This is the. January 20th, 2023. Meeting of the solar bylaw working group for the town of Amherst. And thank you everybody. For joining us. Let me, let me. Pull up the one file. Sorry that I didn't, don't have open just to confirm who our note taker is today. It should be me doing because I couldn't do it last week. Okay. Yeah, that's right. That's right. So you were on, on. Okay. So Laura, if you can take notes, that would be excellent. Thank you. And then. I'm also pulling up my notes for the agenda. There we go. Okay. Great. And my. We've all received the, the packet. And the agenda. What I propose to do is to rearrange the agenda just a bit. Because we have our guest of the day. And then we have Adrian. A dunk from GZA, our consultant, the town of Amherst consultant. On the solar. Assessment and solar. Survey and. Community engagement. And she is going to provide us with an update. On the solar survey and engagement plan for, for this effort. We've all had the chance to provide comments. And we've also had a discussion. And we've had a discussion related. Through Stephanie to. GZA. And Adrian has a. A revised version of the survey and some. Discussion presentation of the engagement. Strategy more broadly. So without unless there's any. Concerns, I'd like to. I'd like to do a quick review of the agenda. Which is number four on our list. And then we'll circle back to the minutes and updates. Which hopefully can go fairly quickly. Because I'd really like to spend. A decent chunk of time in today's meeting. To bring us all up to speed. Chris to bring us all up to speed. On the. I don't know if that's been circulated to the whole group yet. It hasn't. But Chris is prepared to present. A new section on, on maintenance monitoring and maintenance. For us to start a discussion on, obviously we'll continue a discussion. On that and comment maybe at the next meeting as well. But if there's, unless there's any objection, we'll revise the agenda around that way. And head over to GZA. But before I do that, just any opening comments or thoughts or. Issues from, from any of the members. Before we go forward. Great. Okay. And let me just also acknowledge that we have. Eight members of the, of the public joining us. So really appreciate that. And. And we'll have public comments. On at the leave time for that. At the end of the meeting. Okay. Very good. So. I think we all met Adrian. At a previous meeting. Of this working group. So she's back. And. And why don't I turn it over to you, Adrian. And you can walk us through. The progress that you guys have made both on the engagement strategy and the survey itself. Great. Thank you, Dwayne. I really appreciate that. Thank you. I'm going to share my screen. I have just a couple of slides to help us. Make sure we cover the necessary topics. And then we'll have some time for more open discussion at the end. So as you all know, we're here today to talk about the. Solar survey and the community engagement. We provided the questions in. December to you, but I think we just, you know, we just gave you the survey questions themselves. And so I wanted to step back. I believe that this graphic is in your flyer. There's in your, your packet for today. But just step back and look at the whole system because Stephanie and I have been working. Closely together and also with other resources in the town of Amherst. To have. You know, a lot of information about this project that will be becoming available to the public. So we have been designing our community outreach ecosystem. Around kind of the four steps of inform consult. Involve and then collaborate. And then we also have a lot of information. So we're going to look at the four steps of inform consult. Involve and then collaborate with the public. And this should look familiar. It's the same process that was used for the Amherst car. And it's also a very. Standard documented way to. Increase and community engagement. So the survey that, that we'll be talking more about. Is in the consult. And then we're going to look at the, the city of Amherst. And then we're also going to be using engage Amherst forum. In tandem with the survey. Prior to that, we are going to go. Pretty hard on informing. So. We are setting up a project website. And that project website will have a lot of information. About you. About the town's initiative. The. The energy and climate action committee. Links to all those resources. Information about the map based assessment we're doing in town as well. There'll be email blasts to community groups. And so Stephanie and I are working on, on gathering those. And I know some of the members of this group have provided. Contact list, which is great. We'll also be using social and traditional media using that through the town of Amherst, working with. The existing infrastructure in the town. We're going to be doing some targeted flyer posting to let people know about the project, the survey. And we're going to host an informational public meeting. And so that's all going to be happening over the next several weeks. And it'll be happening both before and during the survey window. And again, that whole time will also have questions up on engage Amherst. From there, we're moving into the, the involve phase where we'll have interactive workshops. We're currently planning. Two interactive workshops that will have a series of activities where people can kind of come and go as they please and, and give us their input on what they value about. What their concerns are related to solar, what they're excited about, about solar. So that'll be a workshop that's kind of a series of boots. So people can. Like I said, come and go and provide us input kind of with the time they have instead of feeling like they really have to commit to, you know, a two hour working session. We want to make it really easy for people to participate. And then moving into that collaborate phase. All of the information and the results we gather from engage Amherst from the survey, from the workshops. It will all be collected and documented and provided to the town. Along with the results of that map based assessment. And so the town will be making that information available and hosting all of the deliverables we provide. On their website. And as always, you know, Amherst will continue to invite the public to participate in town decisions. So I just wanted to, to kind of flesh out what that whole process is. We're looking to kick it off in early February and continue through the end of February into early March, which will then provide us time to analyze the data and, and, you know, document and put together our reports and conclusions. Ahead of your timeline for issuing the bylaw. So that's the, the larger process. The survey specifically, as you all know. Sorry, one quick question. When do you, what was the marks deadline there? I'm just, I'm taking notes. So kickoff early February. Oh, kickoff early February. And then we'll, we're looking to conclude the survey and in late February, early March. Great. Thank you. The exact dates are still, you know, TBD, but that's our general timeline. So the survey questions, we receive feedback from members of your group members of the energy climate action committee and department head. Heads in Amherst. And so that feedback was really great. And we put a lot of that feedback in place. As we'll discuss. So as you know, we're here today. We talked to the energy climate action committee on Wednesday. Moving forward, we'll be finalizing the questions. The survey is going to be translated into Spanish and Cantonese. And then we'll populate the actual survey interface and we'll test it. And then we'll look at what the language is to make sure that the data is collecting properly. And then we'll be opening that survey to the public in February. So instead of going question by question, we did get high level feedback, you know, from, like I said, from your group and the ECAT group. And so we were able to incorporate a lot of the feedback in the survey itself. We were able to incorporate a lot of the feedback in making a more robust survey introduction. And in providing more context on specific questions. About, you know, why we're asking this question or what we want them to think about. We'll also be able to incorporate images and we added demographic questions. If you other feedback we got on the survey that we are going to incorporate on the website, because we think that's a more complicated question. And then we did get additional information on the mass climate roadmap, the Amherst carp and mass save as well as links to all of those. So it's kind of a one-stop shop. When they come to the website, they can get to other related resources. As well as information on upcoming workshops and additional context and background on this whole project and effort, including how the survey results will be used. So that's one of the other requests for more open-ended questions. What do you think? What do you feel? Tell us more. And we think those are really valid questions. We want to ask them. But we feel that the engage Amherst forum is the most appropriate place to be asking those questions because people can interact in real time. People can, you know, upvote or like comments so they can self aggregate around certain topics or maybe get more detail by themselves. And we can capture that and put it in the report. And so we feel that's a more appropriate and robust way to gather that data than just a box in the survey where we may need more information to understand what they're saying or their responses may be in another language. We have to have them translated. And ultimately we're hoping to have a robust participation. And I think that if we achieve that and we have many comments, we don't feel that we can really do it justice to review those comments and take them under consideration if we have, say, hundreds of comments. That would be very challenging to use them productively. But on the engage Amherst forum, like I said, there can be discussion and back and forth. We could ask somebody, like, can you clarify this? I think that's a really good use. That's a really good tool for open ended questions compared to the survey. So with that I do want to open it up. I'm going to stop sharing so you don't all have to look at yourselves talking to me. But that's really the high level changes to the survey and you've been provided with the actual text. As well. Great. Thank you, Adrian. Okay, so let's open it up for any comments or thoughts or questions for Adrian. I think ultimately what we'll be looking for are. Also comments on the, on this. I think he caught it version two Adrian of the survey questions. That reflect a fair amount of comments that have already been provided to GCA after the first round. I think that's a really good idea. Ultimately, we'll be open certainly to, to aggregate our collective. Comments. On the survey. To be. Provided. To Stephanie. Myself and Stephanie would be helpful. And we can get those back to Adrian on, on specific sort of language or issues in the survey, but. And we have. That's that. That version two was in our packet. And I think that's a really good idea. I don't want to, you know, I don't want to get into the editing of the survey, but any general questions about. For Adrian in terms of what she presented. Just now on the engagement strategy. And the survey. Status. Great. Martha. Yes. So thank you. Thank you, Adrian. For all your work on updating this. And it sounds great. All the things you're planning to do. And I also want to. Put on a couple of. Information sessions and focus groups. And also it is a good idea. I think that. There will be the space on engage Amherst for people to make. More comments. If there's that's great. Just a few comments after. Read your draft. I think the introduction needs to reflect the state's clean energy and climate action plan. That is, I think we all admit we're not going to get to absolutely zero emissions by 2050 base, you know, we're still going to be making cement that the releases CO2 or some diesel powered construction of machines or you know, and so that what's connection plans is that the remainder has to be balanced by increasing the amount of the carbon dioxide that's drawn down from the atmosphere by our forests and wetlands and natural lands and so on. So I think that point needs to be clarified and I've kind of written a some suggestions that I can send that a little better so that then it's set in context because really when we get right down to it. Our most important question in Amherst is going to be how we balance our strong need for for more solar installations with also the need for it preserving the natural lands to to sequester the carbon and trying to get that balance right is going to be, you know, a real challenge and so I think we at least ought to indicate a little of the background they are on that. Yes. Okay, and then on the. I'm sorry to interrupt. Your volume went way down. It started off fine but with hard to make out the very likely to repeat, repeat things then I was able to hear you but just maybe if you could increase your volume or. Yeah, how is it now. Okay, thank you I'll just lean closer then don't know. What's the problem I hit my volume button there. Yeah, so I'll just, you know, I've made a suggested text with with revising that to discuss the net zero from the climate action plan I spent last weekend reading the, the newest version of the states energy and climate action plan that goes to to 2050 that was just published last in this in December, don't know if you've had a chance to look at that yet. Okay. And so then the other point down when you, the introduction to the commercial solar development. I think that may have just been a typo in the wording when it said that that the size is generally four to five acres it's generally, you know, that's the minimum. But I would suggest that perhaps talking to to Chris, and, you know, whatever our group has decided as to what we're defining as the minimum size for our ground based solar installations, whether it's that we cover in the my law whether it's one acre or one megawatt which is four or five acres or whatever but put in the same consistent definition that the, that the planning board is going to use would be my suggestion there. And that just in that sentence or two. And let's see. And then I guess I was just wondering why there was going to be no question regarding whether residents in Amherst felt that there should be some maximum size to ground mounted solar arrays. I would like to suggest having a question like that in there and maybe combined. I know Dwayne you suggested a question previously of, would people rather have a few larger installations like 20 acres or whatever, or more smaller ones and I think those questions could somehow be be be combined and inserted there. So I think those are my questions I will submit then, you know, my, my comments on on the, you know, just in the survey overall but that was really the main thing or. Thank you. Yes, I just want to respond to the size one is, we decided to approach that from the question about, you know, should there be additional levels of view with larger size projects, because in my experience we work with sizes and acreages a lot. And honestly, people have a very poor conception. So you give them a reference. So you're like, okay, you know, like, like, I know you've, you've pointed out that a football field with the end zones is 1.3 acres. And if you're like, okay, but how big 10 football field. You're like, is that too big in many contexts context, it may be too big, but then in others that might be okay. And so I think asking people an acreage question, you know, is five acres too much is 13 acres too much that that people kind of lose that reference. Versus, you know, kind of like how the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act does it is it's based on, you know, the bigger the project, the more intense the review. And the smaller the project, the less intense or more routine is the review, instead of asking people to pick a, you know, one hectare or a certain size because we just don't just not good at picturing it. Yeah, I know one calculation that I had done that I used kind of for my own reference for what might be the largest size was to say that a 40 acre square means one quarter mile on each dimension. And so that can might be a possible reference for sort of our larger size. Yeah, I think, I think it helps some people I mean I work outside a lot and we're you know always looking like okay we have to be within 100 feet of this or 200 feet of that and you're like my feet from you know I. Yes, it's very, very challenging I think to get people to really meaningfully understand that. Because it's like well is that 40 acres in a square or rectangle or a circle, you know I just feel concerned that people wouldn't they'd answer the question but I don't know that they'd understand what they're answering versus saying like, yeah we want progressive review we want more opportunity to be involved on the specifics of a larger scale project. Possibly a question that could be on the engage Amherst site then. Yeah question about you know what are you know we have some existing developments in town and in the surrounding towns and there could be questions there and in the public in the workshops to about like, I feel good about this size or I feel this size is huge also together information. Yeah, I mean, or photograph based decision, then. Yeah, perhaps, I mean, in the workshops are on gate engage Amherst one could mention the size of the solar array that's on our landfill by the transfer station or something as a reference to size. Just from my thought I mean that unfortunately that unfortunately I guess or maybe it's fortunate that people don't really see that. It's really hard to see. You know I've seen some aerial shots of it but I don't think anybody has a visual of what it actually looks like because you don't really see it. Or maybe even one of those your, your photographs that you've included like maybe the one in North Amherst or wherever and then just put in the caption that the size that it was or something. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay, well thank you. Yeah, excellent and just a reminder to just because to save Gza's effort in time we really want all the comments to come forward to the funnel through Stephanie. And she's going to then work to aggregate them together as appropriate to provide to Gza. Yeah, okay but Stephanie then I do request that my suggested introduction before would it not that you'll, you know, my words are fantastic but I would like that sense to be forwarded to to Adrian. Are we talking about the survey right now, like, should we just go question by question. Well I don't know if we really want to do that, because I think to the extent that they're sort of added edits suggested edits on question by question I think that's better done just by doing a red line and sending that to us but if there are any comments or general thoughts about the, the structure or the, the, the, the efficacy of the survey to get the, the information that we need and want. Then, yes, let's, I'd rather not do that question by question if possible but what's the general sense of your. Thanks. Well, I don't want to jump ahead of Laura but I thought we were going to go over the survey in detail I think that's, I think this survey is really critical to our work, and you know it's one thing for me to send my thoughts to Stephanie and she aggregates him and passes them along to Adrian but I think it'd be good for the committee to talk about the questions and what we want to see as a group I mean I think I, I think that's sort of our job. You know, so, I, but I, is Laura, I don't want to jump ahead of Laura I thought I thought that we'd be going question by question and working through it. Yeah, I just have one quick question that's relevant to the previous conversation, which is, there are, of course, I'm sure you know size limitations in Massachusetts for solar. I think any sort of engaging the community on size would need to be kind of maxed out at what the maximum size permitted in Massachusetts and it's currently five megawatts so that's one. I'm sorry, Laura, could you say that again. Yeah, there's a maximum project size in Massachusetts as permitted by regulations and that is five megawatts. And that's how many, how many acres is that. It depends on the technology being used but you could say roughly 30 acres. Yeah, that's correct me if I'm wrong Laura that's AC right because the DC size which is really the land area can be larger with with storage. Yeah, but five megawatts is roughly five megawatts AC is roughly 30 acres. And where is that. It's in the state regulations mark that it's, there's there's a maximum size as dictated by the state. So, Laura, is that 30 acres of panels or 30 acres for the whole caboodle, getting caboodle like roughly mean brilliant panels and fence all the fenced in area. Okay. Laura, just to be clear, I mean, I do believe I've seen projects that are well in excess of five, five, you know, 1010 plus megawatts DC that then have, you know, energy storage that that is rated at five megawatts AC and releases energy, you know 24 seven more so than just when the sun shines. So, so, so, so doing it's five megawatts per parcel of land. That is the rule in Massachusetts. Five megawatts DC AC, the limitations and AC, and you could, if I had a parcel of land I want to put seven megawatts on it I would not be allowed to. We have two separate parcels of land hosting two separate five megawatt projects with different points of interconnection acceptable. Each parcel of land can can host no more than five megawatts AC of solar. And the conversion from AC to DC is never double it's like five megawatts would be depending upon the resource you know, you know 5.7 DC or whatever that is it's not, you know, it's not production. Yeah, just, I guess I'd like clarity on that because obviously if you don't if just a straight up inverter. Yes, it's only, it's only, you know, relatively smaller percentage but if you have energy storage. Then, and your, then then you know I thought you could have well in excess of five megawatts AC. Sorry, well in excess. Let me let's first recognize that DC is really the governing unit with regard to the acreage and the physical size of the array. And that arrays can be much larger than five megawatts DC may I think on the order of twice as large. And with energy storage which is I think essentially required at this point anyhow to then have an invert inverter off of the energy storage that is no larger than five megawatts AC. And hence not putting any more than five megawatts AC on the grid at any one time. But in terms of the physical footprint of the array. The DC is the sort of the governing unit and those arrays, even on one parcel of land can be substantially larger than five megawatts. Let me talk about that doing because I know legislation is always written in AC and conversion from the commercial side is always in DC. So I've never seen mass regulation anything different than AC. So, and I understand what you're saying about the battery conversion piece. So let me, let me look at that. I haven't seen, I actually, I haven't seen that. So I would be surprised, but let me look. That'd be helpful actually Laura. Yeah, I do know in the SRAC and SRAC one program where storage wasn't really an issue. I believe the regulations were in DC but they switched over to AC and the smart program. Yeah, yeah, I mean I think this is a really important point that that we will need to both clarify and then publicize so that people understand and Okay, so Chris and then we can circle back to Janet. I just wanted to comment on the issue of size and I believe that we heard from our attorney Jonathan Murray, that if we do have a size limitation we need to link it to a particular reason why we have that size limitation so it has to be something that can be defended in court. It can't just be an arbitrary number. So that's all I wanted to say, thank you. Okay. Okay. Let's go back. Martha, did you have something, a comment just on that. Yeah, I just wanted to comment on Chris's comment that I think the survey is distinct from what we decide to do for the bylaw. I mean, so, you know, I'm curious to know say what people in Amherst think about sizes but that does not mean that's what we decide to put in our bylaw. So I think we just want to be clear that those are, you know, separate separate things we can use the all the survey results for interest and guidance and so on but then we decide what's appropriate for the bylaw does that make sense. Great. Okay, Janet. Um, so, you know, in terms of the introduction, I thought that it was a little technical. And so the first part the first paragraph work for me but I think also if we're going to talk about sources of renewable energy we should also talk about like geothermal. I use that kind of loosely because I know people are talking about ground source but I think I was I think geothermal is probably more known. And also the idea that the state plan talks about increasing the amount of farmland and forest land and wetlands that are protected and expanding it because they sequester carbon so explaining that piece of it. I would also say, I'm not particularly sure it should be here but Amherst has kind of remarkable agricultural soils in use and not in use or an increasing use. We have soil soils of statewide importance. And that might be a piece of information to present here or right when we're talking about fields and open fields and agricultural land so I think people need some content to understand. Kind of the context and so. So that was so I could add some edits to that. I would love to have some way that a few of us could work on this together and come up with a document because I thought this was a big improvement over the first one. And then, so but I do really think that this funneling process is kind of taking up more time than not but that's putting that aside. I think that the biggest problem I see with this survey is that we're supposed to, you know, do our community outreach to figure out, you know, what level of regulation or what people want us to regulate but we need to identify and prioritize locations for possible solar development, including large scale ground mounted rooftop and parking lot canopies. And the survey talks about those different things but it actually never asked people, what's the priority. And so, you know, I thought that the state survey literally goes through the whole thing like do you, how do you feel about this how do you feel about this type of thing. Do you prefer that are you worried about this, and it talks about all those different things. I think the Wendell survey questions actually really hit the nail in the head because they're saying, you know, do you want to see it here or here is this your priority would you rather see it on rooftops, would you rather see it in a, you know, a vacant field. Nowhere in the survey do we ask people to prioritize locations which I think is really the essence of the survey. And so, you know, part of and, and I know there were a lot of questions about, you know, residential, residential solar and kind of trying to dig into like why you have a panel or not. I think that's sort of interesting stuff I think it's a little bit less, maybe putting it at the back and maybe, you know, to say, people might really want it but they feel like they can't afford it. That's interesting information. You know, maybe there's a huge capacity need and desire for rooftop and we should know that. But I really think there has to be a this versus that. So that that was a big thing is like at the end of the day we would know how you felt about open fields but you wouldn't know if if the preference was, yeah put it in an open field instead of over a parking lot or parking lot, instead of cutting down and we actually never said cutting for us and so it sounded like, you know, impacts on forest link just didn't like a lot of times I thought it was, you know, you need to be more specific and so that was another one. So I'll die just we'd question nine does ask them to rank where it should go. So that gives people the explicit opportunity to say, you know, it could go on undeveloped open space, and then dual use and then agriculture then forest land so so we did incorporate that question in there that's going to be a sorting question. Eric, it's not comparing rooftops of parking lots to, you know, big rooftops to farmland to, you know, it asks people so eight question eight first asked people. Oh, it didn't get numbered. There's a question right above nine that says please rank where you would most prefer to see large solar development. And that's where they can rank, you know, the built versus unbuilt environment and then within the unbuilt environment ranking there. So I sort of got that and I just thought the window one was just sort of like, I mean the physical format is a little strange because it's not the way you've seen it but I really do think that the specifics of those questions need to be brought out here. And then in terms of, you know, describing things, I felt like undeveloped open space just left me like I, you know, I, I could think of, you know, I actually, you know, I'm an environmentalist I working environmental law. I'm on the planning board I live next to open fields I stare at wetlands every day. I know what that could be and that could be like 75 things. And it's just too broad of a category and I don't think people will be able to picture it. But, you know, would you, would you prefer to see it on a large building on a rooftop on a parking canopy and already disturbed semi disturbed landscape. You know, I'm like, okay, what does that mean, but then you actually said what it meant undeveloped open space could be someone could look at a farm and think of that a hayfield looks like undeveloped open space but it's being used. I think it just had to be much more specific about what you're looking at a lot of what I look at every day looks really static but is actually in use. I really want to know about farm lands like it even farm, you know, great farm soils that aren't being currently used are important to protect, right. And then, you know, that kind of thing and so I feel like those questions need to be more specific and I thought maybe the window thing by asking it a few times really gets a sense, because that's what we're going to be looking at like, where do you want to see it where don't you want to see it. What we write in the bylaw might not be the popular consensus but at least we have to be can come back and say, you know, people felt it was really important to not build on agricultural lands in use and, you know, agricultural lands are currently not being used or whatever. And then I did. So I thought that. So that was another point. I kind of got a little bit lost in the levels of development and site plane review I think this is question 11. In terms of, you know, strict the questions about strict regulations. I just didn't think they were like, what does that mean so is that mean a special permit that means, you know, I think for a lay person it wouldn't actually mean anything to them or they wouldn't. They might say yeah I love strict regulation but as the survey readers we don't know what they're talking about. The whole thing about mentioning site plan review I thought was like way inside or baseball like even the planning board we sort of struggle with the difference between site plan review and special permits. I, I, you know, and then in terms of like do we need to buy law I think that's actually what the town council has told us to do so I thought that section could be kind of maybe more fine tuned about what being more clear about what we're asking for what we're talking about and making sure we know what we want like do we want to, you know, when someone says we have a strict review process, and you don't know what the process is that's not going to help you. You know, are we interested in a minimum size are we interested in, you know, I don't know, but I just I thought that needed a fair amount of work. And I was it I think I'm sure I can think of some more and that we can talk. I think those are helpful, Janet. I think if any, any specific suggestions you have on on the questions and some of the details you're talking about in the questions to to pull those together to put forth for Stephanie and for Adrian via Stephanie would be would be helpful. And so would encourage that. You know I do, I do think, as we mentioned the questions, eight and nine really are the essence of what you're talking about maybe there's can be some word smithing or more details added but I think we're also an Adrian you can talk more about this, you know, trying to balance not only avoiding inside baseball, because hopefully, you know, the large majority of people that fill out the survey know vastly less about this and we do much less about zoning and permits and so forth and so it needs to be something that everybody can get a reasonable gut feeling about and response to without without being overly specific to the extent that people are a bit confused about how to answer questions appropriately. Another another thing was in question for it was always the word alteration of scenic views alteration of farmland alteration of forest land that also seems super vague to me like, you know, you know, you're not so like it's, I didn't just I didn't mean like, you know, basically, will the array block the view or you don't like to look at the an array on a view like, you know, which I know for people is people have strong healings about I and I know my feelings are constantly evolving. But, you know, like how did they alter the farmland well most solar rays stop you from using the farmland, but not all of them but so it's like what it's, there's no picture in my mind when someone says alteration of forest land. So it's cutting down the trees and removing the topsoil and all the roots and the soil and I mean it's pretty that's a pretty radical change to the forest is, you know, and so that was too vague for me and you know, you know, you know, if you use the phrase clear cutting five acres, you know that will invoke a different response and saying oh altering it. So I think we have to be clear. I mean descriptive neutral words that actually people know what they're talking about. And then I also I thought we sort of jumped over battery storage like we should be, you know, you know, it's like are you in favor of battery storage and everybody wants a good battery but there are people associated with Barry battery storage you know that's sort of an involving technology and so I thought we could use a battery storage question specifically. Like do you want to live next to it kind of thing or maybe we don't even need to ask it we kind of know what people are, you know, no one wants to sit next to things that are exploding. And we all know that we people want to contain the risk so. Alright. Laura. I just wanted to say that having a location next to things are exploding is a is a significant exaggeration to it so I'm just saying is it just just to be clear. That's what we're the goal for all of us. Yeah, including the companies. I think that on the comment of raking ag land versus kind of bees, you know, I actually got a survey did a good job of asking people to do that but I think, going beyond that. I think everyone would always prefer that a solar facility or any development is taking your very job rooftop parking can be used round field so I don't. I'm not really, you know, yes, we'll ask the question but I don't necessarily think anyone's going to say, Oh, I prefer that you put a farm on ag land, as opposed to taking advantage of a rooftop or canopy. And in fact, if I'm, I believe there was a wasn't there a rooftop survey done already in Amherst that looked at the commercial space available for solar and it was just very limited. I'm not sure. I thought I recall that being done past but I think with any sort of, you know, this isn't really relative to you Adrian but when we become overly prescript, you know, prescriptive in the bylaws by saying, Oh, look, the public says they want to on canopies and on rooftops. Of course, that that prescriptive make sure ends up being very restrictive. And in fact, you know that just from my solar development perspective, rooftops are, you know, are much less economically attractive in a lot of ways. So, you know, I think, I think we need to strike a balance. And I'm going back to note taking. So Laura, I think asking people their preferences isn't saying that getting into the bylaw. You know what I mean. I would just a comment or maybe agree with large to the extent that absolutely, you know, I don't think we're going to find anything surprising, as Laura suggests that the people wanted on rooftops and parking lot canopies, but we have to learn that's why I like the way Adrian broke it down into the built the ranking within the built environment, or all the environments and then specifically on the unbuilt environment because the the the expect I mean certainly parking lot canopies, very expensive. It's the same but why not, but at the same time it's just relatively small, available capacity so let's do that but that you know then where do we go. And then that's why the other the other the remaining remainder of the ranking is really important and we don't want to lose sight and information about how respondents really think about, you know, to the extent that we do. need to go beyond the built environment where where where are those preferences. So I think those are very, very important to tease that out and not just to have them all accumulate down at the bottom of the list because the top of the list on the built environment may be fairly limited in terms of the capacities available. Adrian, let me just go to Adrian because she was going to comment as well. Could we look at the window questions, because they really are very granular in terms of different types of land and, you know shrub lands versus and I just thought that was kind of clever. Excuse me, I want to say something. I think Dwayne is chairing this meeting. And so people who are going to speak need to be recognized by Dwayne. Thank you. Alright, thanks. Well, I did want to recognize Adrian first because she was going to have had some feedback on what Laura said I think. Yes, thank you. Yeah, my comment was yeah right we can think you know people are going to rate rooftop canopy all above the unbuilt environment but and we may think that but we really are obligated to ask it because we don't know. People do need the opportunity to convey their, their opinion, you know, maybe they own a farm and maybe they're thinking about putting panels on it and they need the opportunity in the survey to say put it on ag land, you know, so, so it doesn't reflect my view or your view but but people need the opportunity to be able to express views that we may or may not agree with in the survey and so some of the questions are targeted to allow that type of input to be provided. And then also some of the questions in here, right they do come from what's like the energy action climate, you know the energy climate action committee and the town want to know so many of the questions drive at bylaw thoughts and concerns and but some also drive at some other priorities, including how the town may or may not be able to incentivize development, you know, by addressing rooftop concerns. So, many of the questions are kind of for the explicit use and purpose of your committee, but some have kind of dual use for other other committees or maybe more more use for other committees. So that's what some of the questions really come from like the department heads and other conversations we've had on this project. Great, thank you. Yeah, that's good for context for sure. I lost a little track of the ordering here but I'm going to go with Stephanie. I mean, and hi everyone and sorry I was late to the meeting that Adrian first I just want to thank you so much for taking a lot of. I mean I'm aware of the kind of feedback that you received from several people, and the fact that you were able to sort through it and sort of revamp the survey and incorporated so much of what people recommended and suggested. That was really great I think you did a fantastic job on that and I understand there may be additional edits what I would hope for process wise is that we take these next sets of comments and that that will be a final, a final draft of the survey and then at the next meeting. It'll get circulated to the committee and the committee can take a vote on the survey, because I don't think we can keep going back and forth I think it's going to take up too much time and at this point I think Chris is starting to move forward with language for the bylaw. And I suggest, you know, having process that sort of moves this forward. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Yeah, and I do today I do want to reserve a fair amount of time. Today still for the bylaw drafting that Chris has gotten us to so let me maybe finish up with the hands that are up. And I'll go with with Martha and then Chris and then Janet. Yes. Okay, just, just an important question to Stephanie and Adrian is what's your deadline for getting comments back from us. I guess I kind of somewhat defer to Adrian but I would say, you know, within the next, the next week before the next meeting so maybe by the end of next week. And then your, your meeting would be the following Friday so it would be time enough to get comments and hopefully turned around into a final draft that could be sent to you, but I have to defer to Adrian if that timeline works for her. Time like that. Yeah. I think Dwayne made it made a good point and there might be some way of rewarding things a little bit to say, you know, yes, the rooftops and parking lots are important but, you know, where it will probably be necessary to to also have, you know, some use of open land and you know, clarify that question a little. That's all. Okay, thank you. Great, thank you. And then Chris, I just wanted to remind everybody that this bylaw probably won't cover battery storage in any large way because battery storage is not protected so the town can say no to it the town can have special permits that are related to battery storage applications and the ZBA can say no if it's not done appropriately. Just to let everybody know there is a battery storage proposal for Sunderland Road that is that has been reviewed by the Conservation Commission they reviewed it very carefully and it will be going to the zoning Board of Appeals shortly, but that'll be a good sort of test case example and learning experience for everybody with regard to standalone battery storage. But we do need to also recognize the fact that the state is requiring that solar arrays now have battery storage associated with the array. So we can't say no to battery storage that is associated with the array because that is protected. So I just wanted to point that out. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Okay, Janet, hopefully last comment if we can wrap this section. I was hoping that I don't know people, you know, I know we had a lot of survey questions to look at but if we could just look at the last page of my modified DOER survey and look at the Wendell questions and to see if people think that would be useful. That can, can we pull that up or. I don't know that is that a good use of time right now Dwayne maybe we can circulate it and just. I think we, I mean, GZA is basically created this draft that there's thoughts that you have Janet that you would want to comment on specific questions, or additional questions and bring in some of those for GZA to consider. I think that would be, that would be welcomed. Okay, so I sounds like people didn't read them. But the other the other one a point, I think maybe in the introduction which is that Amherst doesn't have to produce all its green power or it's in Amherst and so maybe a sentence just saying Amherst can also buy green energy from Amherst's resources and other communities because it's a complicated landscape that we're in as I've learned on this committee where, you know, some of the solar arrays that we already have wouldn't be counted towards Amherst's percentage of produce power because it's actually owned by someone somewhere else and so we could do that too and so you know I as a mediator I'm also thinking like okay how do we get to net zero protect farmland, you know, do as the best we can produce as much as we can, but maybe getting to net zero is buying it from a green power source in New York State and you know Charlie Baker is buying, you know, he's buying solar field power from solar fields in New York State he's buying nuclear power from Connecticut. But it's going to be a really complicated way to get there and if Amherst wants to get there. We're going to be in this very complicated thing where it's even hard to count what's ours, and how we get it and you might decide at the end of the day, let's cover the rooftops, let's cover some crappy fields, let's do this but maybe we just buy it from Greenfield, you know, to just make it up for a smaller town that sees this as a profitable way. All right, thanks, Jen. I will say that the ECAC committee is looking at those sort of questions as well in terms of what is the scale of development that might make sense for Amherst. We're not at all considering that Amherst should generate all of its power from renewable energy generated within its boundaries because we're all going to be getting energy from offshore wind and likely large scale hydro, which isn't on any doesn't take up any Massachusetts land. But but we all we all also recognize that there's, you know, the road map suggests 2535 gigawatts of solar that needs to make a contribution. And so we're trying to get a handle on at ECAC in terms of what does it what what does that that in other ways of looking at at this slicing up this pie. What does that mean for how that could be should be distributed around geographically and including in Amherst. So, will ECAC will be putting out something along to help conversation on the on that front in a few few more meetings. All right, let me go with Laura and then we'll wrap this up. Yeah, just one quick moment. I would say to Jen, I have a bristle a little bit at the idea of not wanting solar in our own community and instead outsourcing it to other locations as a general point, you know, you can look at this historically across the board with energy generating facilities. And the truth is, you know, whether or not you're signed up via PPA or a community solar subscription, those electrons go to the closest proximity of use. So to suggest that we're going to contract. You know what you're talking about Janet with like New York State, you know, even Massachusetts contracting with like a big hydro facility across state lines. That's, you know, that's, that's at the FERC level, much more involved I think as a community. You know, our plan can't be we're going to buy green power, renewable energy credits from a different town, because we don't like the way solar looks in our own community so I'm just very, very sensitive to that in the environmental and justice issues that that go along with that. Okay, thank you. Thank you Laura for sure. And I will take any more comments from anybody we haven't heard from yet which includes Jack so go ahead Jack. You're a mute. You're a mute Jack. That's what happens when you don't talk too much. I just wanted to state the KP law sentence in there in terms of how important it is kind of following up what Laura is hitting at. You know, again, and, you know, we have to make sure we're not harming, you know, public health safety and welfare and it seems like this survey is pretty much focused on the welfare aspect. But I just want to go back to KP law where we are obliged to follow them just going to read this sentence and codifying solar energy as a protected use under section three the legislature determined that neighborhood hostility or contrary local preferences should not dictate whether solar energy systems are constructed and sufficient quantity to meet the public need. So I just, you know, I'm just a little nervous with the litany of, you know, things that we're presenting to the community and how, you know, those, you know, make, you know, be out of proportion to what our objective is within this working group. Appreciate that Jack for sure. Okay. Very good. So appreciate all that let's let's, I would suggest we actually try to get comments on the survey to Stephanie by like the middle of next week say fed Wednesday or so. That would give Stephanie till the end of the week to accumulate everything together and provide to GCA so if we can try to meet that deadline, that would be quite helpful and appreciated so let's plan for that. And with that, let me also thank Adrian for your time and for your listening and and and for working together going forward. We look forward to to the survey the community engagement and and appreciate your, your good work for the town. Thank you, Jane. We look forward to continuing working with you as well. Thank you. Okay, and you can stay on but each obviously, okay, you're on the clock. Okay, with that, let me circle back to the agenda that we put out for today, and hopefully these these standing issues can be fairly quick. And then we can get to the bylaw drafting that Chris will walk us through. But first, we have minutes from December 16 meeting that were circulated in advance but just a short shortly before the meeting today. I'm happy to entertain any comments review and vote on that but if I'm also happy to if people haven't had a chance to review it satisfactorily. I'm happy to delay a vote on those minutes till next meeting as well in which case we might have up to three minutes worth of minutes to approve. Any thoughts on on reviewing the minutes from 1216 today. Would people be prepared I took a quick look at them I'm happy with them are people in a position to make any comments or or make a motion to to approve the minutes. Martha. There's one little thing there was a statement buried in there. I think from jack of all drinking water wells are in South Amherst, perhaps we should say all public drinking wells since we know that in North Amherst there's the private ones. That's all. I would be happy to to move that we approve the minutes with that one tiny change. Before we entertain that I see a thumbs up from Jack which is obviously important but you also had your hand up so did it was, did you have a seconding that or a different comment. I want to second Martha's approval and change as stated. All right. And so, just to be clear for the minute taker I guess who and then that can get will get to Stephanie so she can identify this place. And so I see that here in section four of the minutes. And where exactly is that language. And it was, it was a comment that Jack was making when we were talking about the, the, the water report buried in there somewhere doing I'm pretty familiar with the minute so I can find it and make the edit. Yeah, okay. Okay. This is section for public drinking water crash. Yeah, just to clarify that the reference to the South Amherst wells are for public supply, because obviously there's other private wells elsewhere. Okay, so I did hear emotion. I think it was an idea for emotion but Martha might you express your motion and more affirmatively. All right. I move that we approve the minutes from December 16 2022 with the one small correction to the public drinking wealth. Great. Thank you. Do we have a second on that. Jack, I think a hands up and a thumbs up as well as a second on that. Can we have that by voice. Sorry. Okay, Jack, could you make that by voice. Yeah, thank you. I want to second Martha's motion. Great. Okay. And, and let me ask, Stephanie, are you in a position to do a roll call vote or should I do that. I can do it for you. Okay, so in no particular order. Breaker. Yes. McGowan. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Excellent. Okay, so we're done. We're done that. Appreciate that. And then we'll. The meeting, the minutes from last meeting one six. We'll entertain. At the next meeting. Along with maybe the minutes from today. Okay. So. Any staff updates, obviously Chris will update us on the bylaw work, but let's first go to Stephanie if there's any updates from Boston there. No, other than it's kind of noisy and hectic. And I think I'm going to pass today because I don't. I think we're on task with moving things forward, at least from the solar assessment side. Yeah. Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you. Chris, any updates on your end other than the bylaw, which we'll get to in a moment. I wanted to thank Martha for coming to the planning board. I hope I'm not taking Janet's thunder away from her because she's the planning board rep. But Martha came to the planning board the other night and gave her presentation about the. Massachusetts solar policy. I'm not sure exactly what to call it, but it was very informative and I've heard from. People who attended that they found it very helpful. So thank you, Martha. Great. Thank you for that. I presume that was on the broader decarbonization roadmap. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. Not just solar, but it was essentially the same presentation that I given here and the ECAC with small updates from the 2050 plan. Yeah. Awesome. Okay. Great. Yeah. Thank you. He was awesome. People really liked it on the board. Oh, good. Okay. Okay. So are there any committee updates from, from those of us who sort of rep rep. And liaison, I guess, from committees. Um, this might tie in a little bit from the planning board after Martha gave the presentation, everybody had a comment and one of the comments that had a lot of nodding heads was the need to reduce energy use. And then, you know, which in a funny way is super obvious, but not always stated so much. And then also how transportation is this huge consumer of energy and ways that planning, you know, can, or zoning or all the things that we do can kind of help with that. And, you know, what, what can happen in terms of one member said, you know, the need for, you know, safer bike ways and paths, even separate ones. So people feel more comfortable on the road. I personally would throw in reducing speed limits. But also just in terms of where housing goes, being closer to goods and services and jobs. So people, it really got people thinking and it ties into a lot of things we work on. Interesting. Okay. Appreciate that. And that actually ties in a lot to my other committee, which is ecac. And our carp. Plan. And so. If they're, if they're. Documentation, maybe through the minutes of those comments, then that would be useful for. To, to. Make sure they get over to the ecac committee as well. And I'd be happy to, to do that. So just if, if, if people remember to, you know, maybe when those minutes become, I guess, once they're approved, I guess. I think it's. Maybe run my me or at least send me a copy of those. And I can relate the, or Stephanie. With, with the, with the note, particularly to share with the ecac, because. There's other people on ecac that work on, particularly on transportation issues. And, and energy efficiency. So it'd be good to tie that together. All right. Good. I would just say from ecac. We did have a meeting earlier this week. We had a similar conversation with Adrian on the survey. There's general consensus that the survey was much improved. And, and that we're also going to be collecting any comments. For Stephanie. To, to relate to GCA. I also will mention that we're also looking at the solar issue. I kind of mentioned this before, but also looking at. I'm trying to look at this from a perspective of, of. From various different perspectives. What is the. How can. Ecac itself as well as the town and constituents sort of get. Their heads around sort of what is the scale. Of solar that may be appropriate to think about for Amherst to host. And site itself to. To kind of meet certain objectives. Again, not to meet all of our energy. And the other thing is that we also need to, I think the, the, the, the, the. I know that I'm not, I don't want to go into the loads because we're getting. But, but something that's in line with the. With the state decarbonization plan and in line with the, with the Amherst. Clean energy and climate goals. For the town. So we'll report more on that later. Once it becomes sort of a. and sort of the toolkit or tool that we're providing for people to think about that issue. We also have an update sort of on the status of current solar installations in Amherst and we can report out on that as well. But we do have substantial solar installations already in Amherst. We're not starting from scratch at all, but we do have a decent start. But there's some interesting outcomes from the data in terms of where we're getting our solar energy from. And I think maybe I'll, once that's sort of more finalized, we can report that out to this committee once ECAC has sort of finalized it. Okay, great. Martha? Yeah, I listened to a week on Wednesday because I was wanting a sneak preview of what Adrian had to say about the survey. So I thought, Dwayne, that your plots were very interesting. And I wondered if it would be possible to share them sooner rather than later with this committee about, you know, the solar that exists already in Amherst and, you know, your bar graph of the possible ranges that we could consider. Yeah, I'm actually happy to share the former, which is how much solar we currently have in Amherst and where that's coming from. The latter I'm waiting, I would really want to wait until that tool is finalized with the inputs and assumptions that ECAC is comfortable with and with the recommendation or whatever we're going to call it from ECAC before I share that. But I'd happy to maybe at the next meeting spend just a brief period of time providing this group with an update of where we currently stand with solar in Amherst. Yeah, thank you. I think that would be interesting and helpful. Yeah, great. Okay, great. All right, Janet, and then we'll hopefully move forward. I just have a question because I listened to that discussion and I had a long chat with Andrew Rose. And so when we're doing the count on like what's being produced in Amherst, you were looking at these two state programs that people have part, you know, and but, you know, so people who had done it earlier, those like hippies in the 70s, they're not being counted. But it also like if we have solar farms now that we don't count because the energy isn't going to be credited to us, but it goes somewhere else. And so how does that figure in because, you know, my head begins to spin when I look at this all over the state, you know, like, you know what I mean? Like you're saying Amherst, like if ECAC says, hey, we should produce 30% of our energy from solar produced in Amherst or 15% or whatever, how does, how do you count that if some of it is already sent off somewhere else? Is that? Yeah, I would, first of all, any solar, the three programs that this data combines SREC, SREC2 and the SMART program, anything prior to SREC, the original SREC program, your quote unquote hippie days, is minutiae in terms of kilowatts, if any. And I presume there may be some, but minutiae compared to where we're at now and data, which is not really available. So I wouldn't really worry about that. Second, this is really to your question, this and I think our solar, our site, our bylaw is really not about who are the off takers and ultimate owners of RECs or SRECs, but more about siting, the siting of solar, not where the attributes associated through the RECs end up. This is really about about siting solar, certainly the bylaw doesn't really speak or need to speak about the ultimate end of the attributes. When it comes to the town of Amherst taking credit from a greenhouse gas reduction perspective, then those issues become more important. I would tend to say, as we're generally looking more at a longer time frame in terms of what we're doing in ECAC and in this effort to look at sort of where we want, may want to be in terms of solar development by say 2050, a time in which 100% of our electricity should be coming from renewables. Then I think it actually becomes less important in terms of where all these attributes go and we may not even have attributes at that point because while one project may be going, attributes may be going somewhere else, collectively as a commonwealth, we're producing all the attributes that we need collectively. So I think it does become a little bit less important as we get greener and greener and greener. But yeah, your head spinning is not the first head spinning in this domain of attributes and claims to those attributes. But I think importantly, at least what ECAC is doing and what we're doing here is really about siting solar, not so much about claims with regard to the attributes associated with it. Okay, excellent. So let us spend the last 30 minutes or the next 30 minutes on with Chris, going through Chris's updates and new information. And then we will try to end promptly at 120 to have time for some public comment. So what Chris has, I think there's, if we can play it as maybe as Chris thinks helpful, we do have a number of things now from Chris. We have the, let me pull out my notes, we have the purpose and intent section, which we've, I think looked at a few times, but we're trying to finalize as well. We have the applicability and definition section, which was disseminated a couple of meetings ago. I don't know if we've actually had time to comment on that. But then also importantly, maybe a first section of some really more meaty stuff with regard to stuff for us to discuss is what Chris can present to us today, at least as a first look, which is the monitoring and maintenance section. And so I guess what I'd like to do, given the shortage of time or the limited time we have, Chris, maybe a little bit different than what I suggest in the email is to for you to present the new section on monitoring and maintenance. And then we can next meeting, maybe deliberately carve out sufficient time to catch up on comments and finalize, quote, unquote, the previous sections on applicability and the purpose intent, as well as digging some more comments on the new section of monitoring and maintenance. Does that sound okay, Chris? That sounds fine. Great. Yeah. So shall I start or? Yep. And I was just going to say, I will share my screen with Chris's new section that she's going to review with us. So you can start, Chris, but I'll pull that up now. Okay. I just wanted to say that I've started with the easy things. I think they're relatively easy. The beginning, you remember that we had an outline that we looked at in October. And the beginning of it was purpose and intent, which you've talked about, then applicability, the fact that this is applying to the large scale solar, ground mounted solar, and then definitions, which are relatively uncontroversial, I would say, in terms of, we have to include the definitions most cities and towns have similar definitions. So then after that, I skipped over the middle of the outline that we looked at. And I went right to the end because I think there are some good examples of the things at the end, monitoring, maintenance and reporting, abandonment and decommissioning, abandonment by itself, transfer of ownership, leaps of approval and enforcement. So those things are also kind of boilerplate, if you will. I know there are more things that we want to add here. And some of them will result from my careful reading of the Watershed Protection Committee's report. But just to give you a kind of basic draft here, and this is based on the Cape Cod Commission's draft that is a model bylaw. It's probably not as up to date as some of the other drafts that we've seen. So again, you know, this is a draft, it's got to be modified and added to, but it's a starting place. So I'll start off by talking about monitoring and maintenance. So first there's construction monitoring. So we know that there has to be a lot of monitoring during construction. And this is pretty typical of all construction that happens in Amherst. The inspection services, you know, watches carefully over things. But when there are wetlands involved, the wetlands administrator monitors and sometimes third parties are required to monitor maintenance. And the third party would be something that would be written into a permit that would be required to be paid for by the applicant. So what this is, there's a section of the state law that allows the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board to require that a third party inspector or a third party be engaged in really any portion of a permitting process, but also construction monitoring. And one of the things we've heard from people who are cautious and have concerns about solar installations, particularly these large scale ground mounted ones, is that there is potential for bad things to happen. And we've learned about, you know, what happened in Williamsburg and we've heard about other problems that have occurred across the state. So we want to be careful about that. So anyway, I'll just read this paragraph by paragraph. And if people have things that they want to add or questions that they want to ask, they can do that. And then if people want to send me comments, actually send them to Stephanie. And then she'll send, she'll forward them to me about this. And I'm sorry that I didn't get this out too sooner. I did send it out last Friday, but there's been so much happening here that it didn't actually get to Dwayne until today. So in any event, construction monitoring. The PGA, okay, the PGA is the Permit Granting Authority. That's written into our Zoning By-law right now. So the Permit Granting Authority is the Zoning Board of Appeals or the Planning Board or the Building Commissioner, depending on how something is permitted in town. And that's another thing that we're going to tackle later on. We may want to allow certain solar arrays that are in say, you know, Professional Research Park to be reviewed by the Planning Board with Site Plan Review because those areas are kind of geared for large scale projects to happen already. But in residential areas, we may want to have the Zoning Board of Appeals review any installation. But that's not what we're talking about today. I'm just trying to get across what is the PGA. So that's the Permit Granting Authority. So the PGA, or Permit Granting Authority, may require a third-party inspector selected by and acting under the direction of the Building Commissioner to be employed to monitor compliance with all approvals and conditions during the large scale, ground-mounted solar voltaic installations construction at the applicant's expense. We probably want to make reference to, I think it's Chapter 53G in here, but I haven't gotten that far yet. But do people have any comments about this first paragraph here? Okay. So the second paragraph, the large scale, ground-mounted solar voltaic installation owner or operator shall maintain the facility in good condition. Maintenance shall include but not be limited to painting, structural repairs, and integrity of security measures. Site access shall be maintained to a level acceptable to the local fire chief and emergency medical services. So in other words, we want the fire department to be able to get into this place to provide fire suppression, but potentially also to provide emergency medical services to anybody who might get hurt in there. So that's an important aspect of this. Any questions, comments? Third paragraph, the owner or operator shall be responsible for the cost of maintaining the solar voltaic installation and any access roads unless these roads have been accepted as a public way. As much as possible, consideration should be given to performing operations and maintenance using electric vehicles and equipment to decrease noise and air pollution. Okay. So that's construction monitoring. Reporting, the owner or operator of a large scale ground-mounted solar voltaic installation shall submit an annual report and we could require, you know, semi-annual report but in this case we're saying annual report demonstrating and certifying compliance with the operation and maintenance plan. The requirements of this bylaw and approvals granted here under, including but not limited to continued management and maintenance of vegetation, compliance with the approved plans and any permit conditions, continuation of liability insurance, adequacy of road access, and functionality of stormwater management systems. The annual report shall also provide information on the maintenance completed during the year and the amount of electricity generated by the facility. The report shall be submitted to the town council, permit granting authority, fire chief, building commissioner, board of health, and conservation commission if a wetlands permit was issued no later than 45 days after the end of the calendar year. Any questions about that? I see Martha and then Janet. Yeah, just to clarify, is this section is about the construction phase or about the general maintenance after construction and in operation? Reporting is I think both. I think both during construction and during operation but we should make that clear, okay? Yeah, I mean because it seems to me the whole section reads like, you know, a really good description of the ongoing maintenance but Yes, I think it should be both. Yeah, because the construction, you know, at some point the construction I guess in some section has to go into some of the things we talked about during the water report and about, you know, all the work of grading and, you know, the whole nine yards but I guess that's in a separate section, right? That may be in a separate section but I'll have to read the water supply protection committee's report pretty carefully and pull out what I think belongs here. Some things belong in the zoning bylaw and some things belong elsewhere and may be covered by other regulations either the state regulations or town regulations. In other words, we have a stormwater bylaw that's part of the general bylaw so some of those things may be covered by that bylaw so we have to be kind of careful about what we can actually put into the zoning bylaw. Thank you. Great. Janet, yep. I remember a comment by Jack I think a few meetings ago about the need for inspection and reporting after large, you know, storm events and so I'm actually, I don't, I'm my computer I can't see what the title of this section is and so I don't know is this for, is this just construction or is it like all monitoring and maintenance? I have like the words are cut off on my screen. It's both. Oh, okay. So it's monitoring during construction and maintenance during construction and then the same after the, after the arrays in place. So you're asking about reporting after large storm events. Yeah, that's a good thing to put in. Yeah, so maybe we could have like this is like a thing about construction, you know, regular maintenance and then storm events, you know, because that seemed like that could we have a bad impact on the profound impact on the vegetation and you know about that sooner rather than later from what Jack said. Okay, thank you. Good and Jack? Yeah, that's a good point, Janet. Frequency is important. I think we spelled that out a bit and then I'm just thinking about the annual reports and you know, we don't want to reinvent the wheel, but this all kind of points to NPDs. To what? The national point. Points are discharged. And discharge the elimination system. But that's for construction sites and I think that has a lifespan but we're kind of asking for annual reports beyond what might be required by NPDs. So that's just something to check and reference. Yeah, right. As well. Thanks and that's referred to in the stormwater by law. Yeah, okay. All right, great. Good. Okay, Martha, is that a new hand? Sorry. Just a quick question. What was the name of that group? The national what? It's a point. Point source discharge elimination system. National point source discharge elimination and the S I think is system. Is that right Jack? Yeah, great. Yeah, it's a new hand. Left hand, right hand. I'm recalling that when we had the discussion and Jack about the construction and Williamsburg and all that, it seems there was the suggestion that during construction, you know, when they're really digging up and grading and all that, the suggestion was for weekly inspections. Yeah, Jack seems to be nodding there. Yeah, yeah, I think there would be a substantial difference in reporting during construction versus after construction operation. Yeah, in terms of frequency. Yep. All right, good. Thanks, Chris. Let's continue. We probably just just a heads up. I'd like to maybe do about 115. We got to sort of think about the next meeting and then I do want to have time for public comment. So let's get as far as we can, Chris, and then we'll take this up at the next meeting. Okay, so modifications, all material modifications to a large scale ground mounted solar voltaic installation made after site plan review or special permit approval or issuance of the required building permit shall require approval by the permit granting authority. In other words, if they're going back in making modifications, they have to go back to their permitting source and review what they're proposing to modify and get approval for that. Okay, that's kind of standard. Transfer of ownership. If the large scale ground mounted solar voltaic installation is sold, all municipal permits, conditions and associated documentation shall remain in effect, provided that the successor owner or operator assumes in writing all the obligations of the site plan approval or special permit and shall be provided in both digital and hard copy format to the new owner, including and then you add whatever the documents are. In our case, it would probably be a special permit in most cases, but there may be other documents as well. So that needs to be filled in. Yep, let me just pause for Jack and I think it might have related to the earlier section. Yeah, for the modifications, Chris, I'm just thinking how the building commissioner would review certain changes of small importance, maybe they're using a different wire or slightly different barrel of depth of a conduit or something that's not rise to the level of the permit granting authority. So I'm wondering, can we maybe dovetail the building commissioner in there as like a filter for what would come in front of the board? Isn't he normally the filter to begin under normal permits? And I know a few times he's kicked things up to us. He thought we're just too big. What we probably need is the word substantial. You have material and I'm not sure that's a word of word of the art for this type of thing. So maybe we replace the word material with substantial and then also make reference to the building commissioner deciding whether something is unanimous or not. Okay, and then Janet, did you have a separate comment? Yeah, in terms of the special permit, I just read this section and unfortunately not remembering it. I thought that anytime there's a transfer, is it true that when you have a special permit and there's a change in ownership, you have to come back to the board or there's something about a two year requirement with a special permit. I'm not remembering that, but I was wondering, is this language different from what's in the bylaw in article 10? So what is normal? What is usually written into permits in Amherst is that if there is a transfer of ownership that the new owner needs to come back and meet with the permitting board, the PGA and tell them if there are any changes to their management plan. So that's probably something that should be written in here. I don't think it is written in here. And I think the two year thing is if you don't implement your special permit, it just sort of dies. Right, that's right. Okay, that's it. All right. Okay, let's try to get through the transfer of ownership section and then we'll table the rest for next meeting. Okay. All right, a new owner or operator of the installation shall notify the permit granting authority and the building commissioner of such change in ownership or operator within 30 days of the ownership change. Fairly to notify the permit granting authority and building commissioner within 30 days of the transfer of ownership shall be considered in accordance with the abandonment section of this bylaw. I was just dead. I would add in writing because yeah, the site plan approval or special permit and all other local approvals for the installation would be buoyed if a new owner or operator fails to provide written notification to the permit granting authority and the building commissioner and the required timeframe. So that kind of takes care of what Jenna was just commenting about. Reinstatement of a site plan approval or avoided special permit and any other local approvals will be subject to the same review and approval processes for new applications under the town of Amherst bylaws and regulations. Next, the permit granting authority must be provided with updated contact information for the new owner, including name, address, telephone number, and email address. And I think I should add building commissioner there too. And then the last paragraph, authorities having jurisdiction, including local emergency personnel, must be provided with updated emergency contact information, including an emergency contact number that is staffed 24 hours a day. The new owner must abide by all conditions as detailed in the final permit. Any proposed changes to the project shall require approval, as described in the modification section of this zoning bylaw. Okay. So if you have any concerns or questions or comments that you want to make, please send them to Stephanie and she'll forward them to me, and we'll try to incorporate them into the next draft. Great. And I would like to maybe continue the reading through this at the next meeting. But to the extent that people have a chance to read through it ahead of time, that is obviously helpful as well and have some prethought out. Suggestions. Okay. And then I'd like to also maybe go back and sort of tie up, again, nothing's being tied up until the end. So we're always circled back on all the sections as we sort of see things come together. And before we sort of tied together as a final recommendation from the working group. But I'd also like to, I don't think we have any special presentations next meeting. So I'd like to sort of spend the bulk of time on the bylaw drafting that's, we have to date, which includes maybe just quickly circling back on the previous sections for any final or penultimate comments, I guess, before we circle back at the end. And then and finish this section as well as anything else that Chris may have available for us by the next meeting. So great. Let me, Stephanie. Sorry, Dwayne. I think you did actually request that Aaron Shock come to the next meeting. Yeah. So she is. Is that was that the way? Yes. Yeah. Okay. She's the wetlands administrator. Okay. And she was asked to come speak to the committee. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll commentate that as well. But I don't think that should take as long as our GZA conversation today. No. All right. Excellent. Okay. Thanks for that reminder, Stephanie. So, okay, let me turn our attention. Whoops. Let me stop sharing so we don't have that. Okay. And then just in terms of the next meeting, which is scheduled for February 3, I guess, to the two main agenda items and would be the wetlands administrator, and then really focus on on the bylaw drafting to date. And I guess what I need to provide also is that I have a conflict at that next meeting at one o'clock sharp that I need to, I can't shake. So I'm available till one and I just throw it out there. I can think of three alternatives. One is to start our meeting at 11 if that can be accommodated by folks. So we have the two hours. The second would be to keep it as it is and Martha take over this critical role of facilitation. Would I have to leave at one or that we just have an hour and a half meeting? Any thoughts on that? Or let me ask first. I mean, if anybody has a conflict, that's fine. But could we possibly start the meeting at 11 on February 3? Fine with me. I might have a conflict that day. I have to look at my flights and fly back that day. Okay. Anybody else off hand? And I'm not sure, Stephanie, if you can see your calendar, but let's plan on starting at 11. But Laura, why don't you, if you can finalize my question? Great. And let us know. And if there is a conflict, we can move it back to 11 30, but we'll anticipate 11 o'clock start just a special. I don't want to change the whole calendar going forward, but just for next week. No, sorry, February 3 next meeting. And I think that's fine for me doing. Good. Thank you. All right. And Janet? That's fine with me. I have a 20 minute YouTube video by a Mount Holyoke professor, Mount Holyoke college professor on wetlands and how water moves through soils and things like that. And I'd like to send that around. And I think it'd be a great precursor to what Erin's going to say. Okay. Yeah. Isn't that to Stephanie? And then she can circulate that. That sounds okay. Great. Okay. So let's open it up for public comment. I think I know how to do this. We have a, and I can see. Oh, you can do that. Okay. Okay. So we have eight attendees. And so if anybody from the public would like to make a comment, please raise your hand virtually. Yep. And then we, and then Stephanie, you're able to allow them to speak. Yeah, great. Thank you. So Lenore has her hands up and Lenore, go ahead. You can unmute. Hi, everybody. Please forgive me if I'm missing information because I can never make it to these meetings before like 12, 15, 12, 30. But a couple of things. One is Janet, are you talking about Karen Ballentine's presentation, by the way? Are you talking about? Okay, good. Yes. That would be wonderful for you guys to listen to. I was going to send that to you, but I won't, you have that. So I'm hoping that you will stay updated on what's going on statewide because there's a lot of new input and things are in flux right now, not only because we have a new administration and a new legislative session, but also because there's a lot of revisions going on in solo bylaws all across the state with towns. And I just emailed Christine and Stephanie this morning with a lot of, with a materials packet that has that. And I wanted to highlight that for the record today that I sent you that. Also, our neighbor, Shutesbury, just approved solo bylaw revision overwhelmingly last night. That would be wonderful to look at. So before you create this template of your solo bylaw, just please be informed by things that are happening like right now all around the state. I sent a best of from the Community Land and Water Coalition that we're looking at a lot of different revisions of bylaws and there's a lot of good documentation there. I won't get into all the other things, but there's a lot of other good information in there. So I really hope that you all get a chance to look at it. And I also have access to other information and documentation from their organization, from climate scientists, academic institutions, conservation biologists, ecosystem climate advocates, all kinds of things that are part of this regional coalition of concerned citizens trying to bring a more holistic perspective to these issues. And there are knowledgeable people all across the state working on this. And I'm wondering if there's a way to present this information and have this dialogue with them because public comment certainly is not a time to do that. So I'd like to hear from you at some point if that's something that you can make time for. Besides just sending you material packets, like actually engaging in some dialogue with them and two more things. One is I'm assuming that the Solar Survey was based on the modified do or survey because there was a lot of public input reflecting flaws and concerns with the original. So I'm assuming that's the case. And I'm wondering if Amherst is also taking advantage of the data and the results that do are collected because that can be very informative. There was a lot of good dialogue statewide about that. And the very last thing I want to say is this question, this issue of environmental justice that I keep hearing about at these and other committee meetings is a much bigger conversation and requires a much more nuanced understanding. Our coalition works with environmental justice communities all the time. And none of them are asking for communities to sacrifice green lands for solar siting. They just don't want dirty energy facilities going through their towns. Again, like the biomass plants in Springfield, they don't want more gas infrastructure like the ever source pipeline. That's what they're concerned about. And it could be that a town like Amherst and towns in western masses, one of their greatest contributions to the cause could be preserving green lands. And that is part of environmental justice work. So that's what I'm saying for now. Thank you so much, everybody. Great. Thank you, Lenore. Anyone else? Okay, Jenny, I've allowed you to speak. You can unmute now. Okay. Thanks, Stephanie. Thanks, everybody. Your work is so remarkable and I appreciate it. Two small points. I didn't hear anything about how the questionnaires would be tracked as well as tabulated, namely each individual would have one chance to weigh in just so that we didn't have concerns that there was a heavy submission from an interest group of any kind. So I didn't hear about that. Perhaps it's already been addressed. I want to bring that up. And the second point also relatively small. I didn't hear mention of the master plan being linked to the engage Amherst site master plan approved by the town council in 2020 or adopted mentions a thousand citizens participated. It's a wonderful starting point for people who want to have a conversation about all of the issues regarding land use and our picture of the future for Amherst. So I'm just asking if it hasn't been thought about whether it could be part of the linking documents for engage Amherst. Thank you very much. I appreciate everything you're doing. Thank you. I think maybe that's something that both those comments in terms of the master plan but also the safeguards against biasing the survey by repeated entries are important. And Stephanie, it would be good to check in with GZA on that in terms of any ways to safeguard that. Yeah. And that would also be important for the communications manager in town too. Yeah. Who's part of the conversations. Great. Rene Moss has her hand up. Rene, I'd love you to speak. You can unmute yourself. Yes. Hi, everyone. Thanks for your hard work. I don't have much to say. Just a few things that popped up during the conversations. It's always hard not to be able to react while you're in a specific part of the agenda and then have to kind of save it for the end. But Janet kept asking about Wendell survey questions. And I have to say, I haven't read a lot of them. I'm not totally prepared. But I was just wondering, because I think we looked, I thought that the committee was identifying other towns and other surveys. And I'm wondering if any of that was really incorporated into the ones that have that that GZA has generated. And so, you know, the fact that we didn't have the time to go over the questions and, you know, for Janet to talk about the ones and the Wendell survey, etc. I'm just wondering if we've sort of not looked at them or they have they've been looked at and then incorporated. So that was one thing. And then the other thing, you know, as we we move forward and we think about the bylaw, and we think about all the things we need to consider. And we and I and, you know, I attend a lot of the ECAC meetings as well. You know, we have these four pillars and Martha keeps being complimented on her presentations. But I always feel like that fourth pillar, which is equally as important, the carbon sequestration, and, you know, the protection of the environment in that way and not releasing extra carbon from the destruction of forests and soils, etc. I just don't hear that referred to enough, I think, in the discussions, whether it be ECAC or the solar bylaw working group. So I hope we're giving that fourth pillar, the attention that we're giving to all the others, you know, to, to addressing bicycles and electric vehicles and renewable energy. And let's not forget that fourth one of the sequestration. Thank you. And thank you for all the hard work. Thank you, Renee. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? Please raise your hand. Okay, Dwayne, I'm not seeing any other hands. Okay, likewise. Okay, which is great. We're right at time basically. And so thank you everybody. I think this was a productive meeting. Really great to start making more progress on the bylaw itself. I was reminded at our ECAC meeting that we have a goal. And I'll relook at our work plan. But we have a goal to have a draft bylaw by the May timeframe, which seemed like a long time a few months ago. Now, it's, at least it's within this year in the next, for my academic sense, it's at the end of the next semester. And so great, I think we're really going to be called to sort of make progress on that front in earnest over the next few months. And great to see work on that from Chris's, Chris and her staff. And we'll really want to spend due time on that going forward. But I appreciate everybody's thoughts and comments and contributions today. And we will plan to meet again tentatively and with Stephanie will confirm this, but we'll go with 11 o'clock on February 3rd till 1. But we'll call that tentative until we hear back from Laura as well. Okay. All right. We'll very good enjoy the rest of the day and the weekend, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Joanne. Thanks. Bye. Thank you. Bye.