 Okay, we are now recording. Great. Thank you, Stephanie. And hi, everybody. Good morning. This is the Friday, February 3rd, 2023. Meeting of the solar bylaw working group and Amherst and thank everybody for, for being here. And also for starting at 11 o'clock today. As a as a one once one only one off. And we'll plan to end it at one by one o'clock. But we'll revert back to our 1130 normal meeting time in subsequent meetings. To get started. My notes have that Dan is a minute taker today. Does that work for you Dan? Yeah, great. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you to. Is Laura here? I don't see her. Oh yeah, there you are. Okay, great. Thank you, Laura, for the minutes last. Meeting. Let me before we get going, let me just ask Stephanie if we want to. Just rearrange the agenda to have Aaron go first as she's here. Before we do the other. Any other agenda items? Any other activities? Sure. And Adrian is going to be joining us as well. So I think when she shows up, we might want to move that agenda item as well. But sure, Aaron is here and you could start now and move the other items further back. Sure. If there's no objection, I'd like to do that just to. Accommodate Aaron's time and Adrian when, if and when she gets here and we're ready. That would be great. But let me. Can we miss anybody? Just so I. Have that straight from the group. No, I think we have everybody. Well, Chris hasn't joined yet. Well, correct. Yeah, Chris. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. All right, great. I guess before we go into Aaron. And maybe I'll have you, Stephanie, introduce Aaron just to the group. But when we, when we get to that, I just want it. If you don't mind, I just wouldn't mind. I just want to make sure that we're setting the stage in terms of our, where we stand in our schedule. And our. Looming now somewhat looming deadline. For the, for the bylaw that we are. Responsible for providing. As a recommendation to the town by the end of May. And if I can just quickly share my screen, I promise Aaron this won't take long. I just wanted to get everybody sort of. Grounded on, on, on our timing and interest today to talk a little bit about. Accelerating our pace on the. Actual writing of the bylaw. Let me just quickly. Share that portion of my screen. So if you recall, you know, this was not. A perfect or ground into stone sort of timeframe, but this was a guide. For us to basically finish up the bylaw by the end of May. We still are on that schedule and need to. Have a bylaw done. The draft bylaw done to move forward to the town by the end of May. In my context, that kind of means at the end of this now, now new semester. And so that kind of puts it in perspective here. Here we are in February. And we are in the process. We have started with some language with the Chris has brought forward to us. And we've had some chance to review and move forward on that. We do have had had some opportunity to talk about some of the issues. That are confronting us in terms of water supply. Battery storage and issues with regard to safety. Associated with battery storage. We'll hear about wetlands today. I do want to, we've had opportunity to review and talk about the. Assault or assessment and the community survey and engagement. I want to kind of think about putting those things behind us and moving forward in earnest on the bylaw writing. And the deliberations amongst ourselves that go into that. So I'll talk a little bit more about that. At the end of the agenda today. But I just wanted to bring this up again as kind of a grounding for where we're at and where we need to go. I don't think we're. Behind, but we need to move in earnest here as we move forward with this bylaw. Drafting. Chris is not here yet. I don't think, but obviously we're also in a situation where. The planning department is, is. Has had some resource. Issues. And so we were, we're subject to the availability and. Opportunity for Chris to really help lead the drafting of this. But I think that we should all be prepared to. Move forward with her with her lead on the drafting to move this forward over the next couple months. So any thoughts on that before we. Get into the agenda. Great. Okay, thank you. So let's. Move to. The agenda topic on the. Discussion of the Amherst wetlands discussion with the Amherst wetlands administrator administrator Aaron. I'm just going to go back to the agenda. I'm just going to go back to the agenda. I'm just going to go back to the agenda. So Stephanie, do you want to just introduce her? As sort of her role in the town. Sure. Thank you, Dwayne. I would just like to say that. Amherst is extremely fortunate to have Aaron Jock as our wetlands. Administrator. She comes with. A lot of use of experience with. A lot of experience with her. And she's a great part on top of everything else that she's good at. One of the most amazing analysts that I know. So I'm really thankful to be working with her as a colleague and really happy to have her have an opportunity to speak with you all today. So Aaron, it's all yours. I'm going to wipe away the tears, Stephanie. You're making me cry over here. Thank goodness. Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm not. I feel a little, a little, you know, nervous sort of how. You know, you know, I don't know how to introduce what I do anytime. A permit comes through the town where there's. Development that's proposed in a jurisdictional wetland resource area or buffer zone. I would be reviewing those permits, commenting on them and sort of guiding the commission being sort of the liaison with the commission in terms of helping them to. You know, make sure that there's no violations. Making sure that sensitive resource areas are protected during, you know, from start to finish on a construction site anywhere from attending pre-construction meetings to monitoring construction to sort of closing out and making sure that projects were constructed in compliance with the permit. I also do sort of. Make sure that there's no violations that are permitting on conservation lands and making sure that the town is following the same rules that the public is for any projects that come on town conservation lands. I think that that's sort of just a general introduction, but just to make sure that it's clear we have the state wetland protection act and we also have our local wetland protection bylaw and regulations. So those are the specific regulations that I help the commission with. Great. I think we can turn it maybe more into a Q and a with Aaron, if you're, if you're so willing. And, and try to sort of talk a little bit about. Maybe the intersection and Chris, you can be helpful here too. I suspect. Sort of this intersection between. What, what goes into a zoning bylaw. And what in terms of, of. You know, for the case of solar, you know, the zoning bylaw in ways that would be protective of wetlands and so forth. What sort of covered in, in the zoning bylaw versus. What we sort of don't have to worry about because it's really covered in the wetland wetland review process. You want me to talk about that. Yeah, maybe a few star Chris and then, and then maybe you and Aaron can sort of help us sort of parse that out. Yeah. Yeah. And then as the board of appeals, we send out a transmittal to all the people on the town staff, like the fire department and the town engineer and Aaron as the wetlands administrator and others to make sure that they know about the project. And then. As the project moves forward, we seek if it's possible to get some written comments from those individuals and. We speak with them if they have any concerns about a project. So in the case of Aaron, if a project has wetlands on it, or if the project is within 100 feet of a wetlands. Of a delineated wetland, or if it's within 200 feet of a. A perennial stream. Aaron would certainly be involved and the conservation commission would be involved in the project. And so she would do an analysis of the project to see how it did or did not have an impact on wetland resource areas. And then such a project with which did have. Which the conservation did have jurisdiction over would go through a public hearing process with the conservation commission with Aaron, giving them advice and recommendations about how to look at the project. And then that information would go into the conservation commission's decision about whether the project could move forward or not, or whether it needed to be changed in order to move forward. And so both the planning board and the zoning board of appeals, if a project is subject to wetlands review, would not make any decisions about such a project until they had heard from the conservation commission. So, yeah, so we would work very closely with Aaron on that. I think that's what I have to say about our interaction on wetlands. But, you know, it's more, it's kind of like an iterative conversation. It's, you know, we would go to her to get her take on it. And then we would, as the project move forward, keep having conversations about it. It's not just a one-shot thing. So, and the project would thereby be reshaped in order to be able to be approved by the conservation commission. So I think that's all I have to say right now. Great. And would this cover both in terms of the ultimate design and layout and operation of the project as well as what in the case of solar, for example, the construction period of the project as well in terms of how that's designed and planned out in terms of the protection of the wetlands? You want Aaron or me to answer that? Either one, whoever feels comfortable answering that. Well, Aaron has an ongoing process with the conservation commission, so she could probably talk about that. And then I can talk about anything, anything subsequent to that. Yes. So to answer your question, yes, we, so there could be two permits. There could be a permit from the zoning board and a permit from the conservation commission simultaneously. And there may be a given site that's governed by two separate permitting entities, but they're both monitored by both of those parties. In some cases, there may be a permit that's just concom and zoning and planning aren't included. And or there might be a permit that's just zoning or planning and planning. But not all of these sites in concom isn't related. If there's no well and resource areas, but there are many cases where, um, there's sites that the project is governed by both bodies. So just in addition to that, may I say something? Please, yes. Aaron is going out to the site. She's making sure that the wetlands are flagged appropriately. And that has to be approved by the conservation commission. Either Aaron is out there observing the construction or the conservation commission has hired a third party to review and monitor. Or it could also require that the applicant pay money for the town to hire an outside party to review the project as it moves ahead. So there is a lot of observation that goes on during construction. Great. Okay. That's great. Thank you. Yeah, I see Janet and then we'll go with Martha. So, um, I'm the one who suggested that Aaron come here and talk to us because of her comments on the. I always get this wrong. The, the plan done by the drinking water protection committee, and she had cited a bunch of effects and impacts on forest and soils and groundwater. And I thought that was, you know, they were very detailed comments. So I thought it'd be useful if she could come here and sort of explain her comments and what she thinks the potential impacts of large scale solar arrays are in forest over drinking water supplies and just, you know, impacts on soils and then maybe what suggestions she has in terms of things that we could put into our solar bylaw to make sure, you know, like that these impacts are minimized or prevented so. I actually, it's her comments that I'm sort of most interested in where it started on page eight of the, the comments to the Amherst water supply protection committees, white paper. So. Is this what we, is this the, I just have a quick question, is this, do we have time to go through all this was this the agenda for Aaron was for. Isn't that, I think that was the whole purpose really. I just want to make sure. Yeah, go ahead Stephanie, did you have a comment on that. Just to say that I don't think that was the whole purpose I think Aaron, because we've been bringing in expertise. I think it was to understand the potential impacts of solar in the wetland regulation process. So what I would have suggested is that maybe Aaron just sort of go through if you get a solar project that submitted to the town. What is Aaron's process of review. So, you know, specific to the water supply protection committee paper. Yeah, just just sitting on the conservation committee and Aaron does fantastic work. You know the conservation committee and Aaron's work is really just to uphold the wetlands protection so that the paper you're citing Martha is beyond that. And the wetlands protection act is very clear in terms of what the concom and Aaron is responsible for so it's up to you Dwayne, but it's, it's a bit it's different right that the paper is not part of the conservation commission. Yeah, I think if we can start with just any sort of thoughts Aaron from you with regard to, you know, if and when for example, some of the solar projects we have had ground mounted solar projects and Amherst. What was sort of the issues you looked at in terms of, and what your review kind of showed of those projects with regard to the impacts and mitigation of those impacts on on wetlands. Some of these projects have been enforced some some have been on the landfill or I'm thinking of Pickery Ridge as well. Yeah, so it's a lot to unpack sort of all the, all the questions and I've been trying to take notes. So I think there's a lot of dependent factors right and particularly with any development there's a lot of dependent factors like for example. What is the existing ground cover what is the existing slope, what is the proximity to wetlands and all those factors sort of come into play when you're reviewing a permit. I mean, I think with any project there's potential for impacts to surface and groundwater. And so, generally sort of what my review processes is to make sure that the surface and groundwater is protected in the course of the project and also that we're preventing erosion and sediment from getting from from the site into adjacent wetland resource areas. And so our large sort of component of my job is reviewing stormwater. So, when a permit comes through there's generally like a large stormwater management plan that's associated with the project. And so I'm looking at every proposed stormwater best management practice and looking at the treatment train that's associated with that stormwater management plan to make sure that the site are being water is being adequately intercepted, treated and discharged in a manner that's not going to be causing damage to resource areas. Also looking at the BMP specifically to make sure that they're designed in accordance with the BMP with this DEP best best management practice manual so a lot of times like, and this is just a general comment like you might get a permit where a stormwater BMP isn't designed in compliance with a DEP handbook and I'll have to say to folks, oh you've got to adjust this design because it's really not in accordance with the way that these structures are supposed to be designed. So that's just another example. So, I mean, in terms of like any, and I'll just talk generally any project but like if a site is like on a flat grassed area versus a sloped forested area. The impacts are going to be different. Right. And so we have to really make sure that whatever is being proposed is taking into consideration the topography the vegetation. And one of the things I look at really closely is the sequence of construction. So for example, and well, a sequence of construction and also phasing those are two, like very, very paramount issues on large sites. For example, I would around the different sections of phasing, there would be independent erosion controls around each phase, for example, there might be independent temporary stormwater management controls around each phase. And then, as each phase is developed and stabilized, then they move on to the next phase, and then once all phases are constructed and all phases are stabilized, then the permanent stormwater management system comes online. At that point, the temporary measures are no longer necessary the site is stable and it can sort of function as it's supposed to in the long term. As Chris alluded to, you know, in the course of construction we have monitors who are out on site. And I think that that is an extremely important part of the whole process is that folks are on the ground, watching what's happening to make sure if there's erosion building up behind controls or if there's rills and gullies forming on a hillside that we're putting down erosion control blankets that the erosion is being cleaned up from behind controls. Yeah. There's more I try to be holistic in my answers but if there's more specificity you want I'm happy to, you know, go in any direction. That's helpful. Thank you. Martha. Okay, thank you. Thank you that was very helpful for me. I think my questions are relevant to the section of the bylaw that we're going to be reviewing today. What sounds like much of what you just described is like what we were thinking of after, you know, based on some, what some of Jack's comments and how to monitor the construction site and I think we were putting in a sentence in the bylaw that would say that during construction there should be a weekly monitoring. Now, does that first does that seem consistent with what you would think and it sounds like that's the kind of thing you would do but would you do it only if there's already defined wetlands on that property or would that be your role as part of stormwater management or Yeah, you know, that's a really excellent question, Martha. So, and I think it's a kind of a complicated answer so on any construction site, the people who are working on the site should be trained, right because they're on the ground 24 hours a day, or, you know, during their work schedule right whatever that work schedule is from dawn till dusk or and maybe into the night who knows, but those folks should be trained so there should be sort of environmental training for people who are doing the work themselves. Then there's a secondary level which is folks who come and they're doing sort of periodic inspection sort of spot check so to speak. And in our conservation commission orders of conditions generally those inspections are done once a week. And then we get a report once a month. However, if there's a rainfall over a certain amount, for example, in some cases like an inch and a half of rain anything over that amount there would have to be an inspection to. So, because really rain is what's dictating a lot of the site stability issues. And in the section of the bylaw for today there was something about you know inspections after quote large storms and question what's the definition of a large storm so is that your definition more than an inch and a half of rain in a certain time period. What would you recommend a recommendation of what ought to be in the bylaw. Yeah, I mean, I now I'm now this is sort of an on the spot question and so I'd really love to like be able to get back to Stephanie on that, just because I want to look at our standard boilerplate conditions and see what that calls out. So I think that this is, like, it could be anything over an inch anything over an inch and a half anything over two inches, but you know, so there's a couple pieces to that so. So yes it's good to sort of nail down what that should be. But also I think it's really important that to understand that there are people who are working on the site should also be monitoring the site and that. Well, somebody comes out and doesn't inspection once a week but let's say their site conditions throughout the week and something happens the people who are on site should also be able to recognize oh we have a problem here we need to address this and kind of keep everybody in the loop about what's going on at the same time. Sometimes there's like erosion control inspections happening and also sweep inspection so that's like a separate is specific inspection that's done. So, sometimes there's multiple sort of layers of inspecting that's going on at the same time. And do you think that there should be any on the on a maximum slope then for a project that's going to be, you know. So I don't know disturbing an area and then constructing and so on or do you think there's enough safeguards that can be written in or how do you. Do I think there should be a maximum slope with regard to like if something is is greater than a certain percentage of slope then it shouldn't be allowed to be developed is that what you're getting at. Yeah, whether there's any limits or or do you do you focus requirements of how it should be handled or or something or. Yeah. So, with with other commissions I've worked for they have had limitations on slopes and in some cases like slope can dictate extending jurisdiction of the conservation commission. It depends on so many things like is it within conservation commission jurisdiction for one. And, and then to if it is in conservation commission jurisdiction, looking at the extent of the slope, what it's comprised of, you know what we can do to sort of minimize the impact because there are ways to stabilize slopes. So, you know, there's a lot of dependent factors there but I can't say like oh over a certain percentage of slope should be developed. It's more so just looking at every site individually and determining, you know, the overall sort of context of the project. Okay, well thank you helps me understand things. Thank you. Yep, Stephanie. What are you doing I just wanted to add a little bit to what Aaron was saying that first of all the storm water management is not solely the purview of the conservation commission so they're one of the bodies that review it but it's not just on the on the conservation commission to oversee that. So as Aaron said each site is specific so when you're asking about a certain rainstorm event, it may be that depending on the topography of the specific project site. You may have a different requirement for when you which rain events you want to go out and inspect the site, depending on the specifics of the conditions of that of that project site. I think it makes it a little challenging to sort of have a blanket after X storm event we will check every site may not be relevant and consistent with each site so I think you just want to have, you know, that might be something that the conservation commission might be more inclined to sort of oversee or dictate then the the bylaw might say specifically if that if that makes sense. Okay. Great, Janet. So, um, anyway, I am interested in like your thoughts on the impacts of large scale solar arrays in forest and on you know obviously the forest also have wetlands and so I checked my notes I think I actually was the note taker for that meeting and so that was, you know, one thing that I could said was that your comments had gone beyond like the purview of the white paper and so I I'm hoping that you could say, talk a little bit, talk about like what you think the impacts are on forest, their soils, and all those things like that and so on in your concerns about that because I know, you know, large scale solar, you know, is anywhere from, you know, an acre of panels to, you know, 49 or 50 acres of panels or stuff and so it's I just really I'm looking for you to sort of elaborate and explain your comments to the on the white paper on that. And I think I'm the person who had asked that you come in and talk about that. And I'm hoping that we'll do that. Yeah, I mean, so to be totally honest, I feel like my comments on the white paper kind of speak for themselves. But I think, generally speaking, any project that comes before the conservation commission. I review thoroughly. And, you know, I'm not going to talk about any project in particular, or single out any project in particular. Some of the things that I might be looking for is sort of the extent of clearing and proximity to a resource area so, for example, if they were clear cutting within 10 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland or a vernal pool, then I might raise concerns about, you know, the impacts of heat and sunlight interfering with the function of the wetland and, you know, harming the wildlife that are utilizing that resource. So that's that's one example of how I might review that is to basically figure out where the impacts are relative to a specific resource and then saying how can we minimize that can we increase the buffer. And, and generally speaking, I've had a lot of success in reviewing projects with getting people to revise limits so that they're staying out of buffer zones are moving further away from from wetlands. Because as soon as we can say, well, this work is going to cause an alteration to a resource area. Then it's caused for us to sort of look at alternatives and what can we do to adjust or similar to what Chris was saying how a lot of times when plans come to us they're in one form. And sometimes as with any development, a plan might be in sort of like a max build out scenario when it first comes to the Conservation Commission and what we're looking to do is say well what alternatives have been explored. Are there any other options are there any ways to reduce the scope or reduce the footprint to minimize resource area impacts. So with any project that's kind of my protocol for reviewing it. I try to look at projects holistically in terms of the overall impacts but generally I'm looking at the general performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act and our local wetland bylaw regulations to say, is this project meeting the performance standards under the regulations and if it's not then I'm basically saying how can the project be adjusted to to meet those performance standards. Yeah, I'm, yeah. Thank you, Aaron. Let me go to Jack. Hi, Aaron. Again, thanks for your your contribution. The white paper was was really good to get something as thorough as that for us to look at something you said kind of struck me with regard to, you know, wetlands. Within forested areas and in alterations with regard to light and temperature and things like that. And I know, you know, we're going to have, we recommend that the minimum buffers that are suggested within the conservation commission obviously they have to be in place. I'm just thinking that they're definitely, you know, could be changes with regard to temperature and light but with the size of the buffer that are typically, you know, requested to well ends. I'm just wondering if it's if the changes would be measurable or not to that particular wetland. But in theory, I agree that things change. But I'm just wondering if it's if it rises a level of something that that is, you know, we're protecting the wetlands as it is that it really should be no change, you know, pre production during construction, post construction to the wetlands with regard to the runoff impact on the wetlands. And the whole idea is my understanding of the Wetland Protection Act. So, you know, those things are sort of in place or should be in place through the purview of the conservation commission. Is that correct? Well, yes and no. So it and really the answer is it depends. And that's that's my answer to almost everything is it depends. So we have a, for example, 50 foot no disturb around bordering vegetated wetlands to give you an example. We have 100 foot no disturb around vernal pools. Now we know that wildlife that use vernal pools travel up to 400 feet away from a vernal pool. So to your comment, Jack. Yeah, the permit could allow clearing up to 100 feet of a vernal pool. Does that mean that there's zero impact on the vernal pool? It depends are you clear cutting completely around the entire boundary of the vernal pool and if so, that limits basically what the organisms within that vernal pool have for upland foraging habitat. So it's a case by case situation, and it really depends on the specifics of a site, and we're not just looking at runoff. We're also charged with protecting wildlife and making sure there's not adverse impacts to wildlife. So, you know, yes, we are looking at runoff issues we're also looking at habitat values as well, and many other things. There's, you know, there's eight interests to the Wetlands Protection Act and if I had to hone in on them right away I probably could but you know surface and groundwater protection, protection from storm damage protection of wildlife habitat. Yeah, now you guys are really testing me. You have good good examples of where, you know, a buffer may not be enough. So, yeah, so I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, let's try to close out Erin's time and appreciate her time but we'll go with Martha and then try to wrap this up. I think this is really helping it sounds like you do very thorough jobs. Just my only question then is, how is the border of a wetland defined I mean doesn't depend on whether we have a year of drought or a year of heavy rainfall or something that the that's a great that's another great question Martha. So every resource area has its own definition for what makes it a resource area and also how it's delineated. So, just to give you an example, bordering vegetated wetlands which is what we commonly refer to when we say wetlands. It can be over 50% of dominant wetland species and also evidence of hydrology on the site which can be hydrology visible on the site or it can be hydrologic indicators and soils or hydroxyls. So there's, there's multiple ways and, and, and sometimes with wetlands. It's not always a clear. That's where the wetland begins and you know here's where the upland begins sometimes there are areas in between that are questionable and it takes a lot of people sometimes going out there and making judgment calls as to where that boundary line will actually be flagged. But we try to use sort of sound judgment to incorporate all areas where those indicators exist. That's just one example but it's it's like for bank. It's a different definition mean annual high water, first observable break and slope so it might be like if you're looking at a river. You can see where the scour is in the bed of a river and you can see where the wetland begin or where the vegetation begins so you can kind of see where that line of the bank is located. So there's different definitions depending on the resource and again it's not always clear cut sometimes there's gray area and we have to use judgment in terms of where that boundaries is actually flagged or mapped. Great. Okay, Dan, since we haven't heard from you. Hi Erin. I was wondering if you could change the conservation emission bylaws that you work under in any way to make it easier for you to protect the sensitive resources. What kind of changes would you make. Well that's a really great question. You guys are really doing great with the questions. So, I recently did update the violation pretty substantially and made a ton of changes I mean just before I even got here there was over 800 changes that had been marked up by previous folks who had done review and at all told I was an unrecognizable document at the end. But a couple of the things that the conservation commission established were limitations on the percentage of buffer in on a given property that could be altered so they placed a 20% sort of allowance. And I'm, please don't pick apart my semantics but basically that in some cases they may have the discretion to allow up to 20% alteration of a buffer on a given site. Well, it's, it's not perfect where we're trying to come up with something but basically what that's saying is that if you alter anything greater than 20% you need to mitigate by doing something habitat improvement restoration replication or offsite mitigation. So we've tried to sort of put the pieces in place to encourage people to do that. And I've recently come up as discussion points which I think are really important, particularly for a wildlife habitat protection, like time of year restrictions is a big one. And, and that's something that we've been talking. And this is just forestry in general like there's a federal migratory bird treaty act and what and there's a couple members of the conservation commission who are really experts on the subject but it's basically that for like a 45 day window during the year. When migratory birds are nesting, basically to try to protect them from getting killed or their nests destroyed and so it's one of the things we've been talking about on permits is. And we tell them during this 45 day window to protect the habitat of birds that they can't, you know, cut trees during that window for example. That's just like one example but you know, we also have the, and this is an important piece too is that whenever there's a project that falls within natural heritage, estimated or priority habitat. The project would go to review by the state and that the state would put conditions on the permit as well so they would put additional conditions that might require a specific protection plan for the given species that utilizes the property. And so there's additional sort of protections that come into place if any of those critical habitats are impacted by a given project. Okay. Great, Janet I'll give you one more opportunity here and then we're going to close close this out with Aaron. So I do feel a little cross examining for you Aaron. So, Aaron, I appreciate because I'm trying to get. So, you basically in your comments, you said, you think that cutting in the forest, combined with, you know, increased rain and increased drought is going to have an adverse effect. Should will have an adverse effect on the quality of our drinking water and so that that was kind of the point where you disagreed with or a Jack disagreed with you but you weren't here and so I just want that's that's what I thought was interesting or alarming or you know and you had very specific studies that you cited so it just. Yeah, so I just, I, I totally hear what you're saying Janet I totally get your concern that I want to just make something super clear. The paper was not my personal opinion that paper was me citing research that had been done on the subject matter to basically present that as sort of food for thought for the water quality protection committee. Because there are there are there is published data and research on all of the subject matter that has findings that have certain findings that are relevant to the discussion and so what I was doing was basically presenting those peer reviewed research papers that have findings that are relevant to the discussion. I did not intend to have to say, you know, Aaron Jock is stating that she believes x, y and z it's more so here is yours published research that shows x, y and z, and to present that to you in that fashion so my goal was to do it without having an opinion to say, this is what the research shows. Yes, I guess I'm not, I'm not asking, I understand what you're saying I appreciate that. Thank you. Of course. Great and yeah I think that that that paper is in our packet as a resource and when we get to those issues. I think it's important. I think we did look at someone that paper and there's was is how applicable is that was that study to immerse conditions versus to the national conditions that they were looking at but but yeah it's an important resource amongst others that we should should have under consideration. Laura, just one final comment I would say that, you know, having worked there for the past three years and just overall the conservation commission. I really want to stay away from any blanket statements because one thing that I've certainly learned and, and I'm sure you'll support this is that everything is on a case by case basis. There's not one size fits all it's the particular resource it's, you know, there's, I have not seen one permit or one, one item coming from the conservation commission that's like, Oh, this is exactly the same as someone was on the floor. They were staying away from them. Yeah, and to piggyback on what Laura said, I completely agree and there was a comment in the white paper that said something to the effect of solar development is less impactful than subdivision development and my comment in response to that was it's you're not comparing apples to apples right there are different types of development it's different infrastructure. It's always dangerous to generalize and say one thing is better than another. So that's why every project is looked at with a fresh set of eyes and it's not to necessarily judge a given project. It's good or bad or, you know, worse than another it's looking at the project to see where it complies and sort of where there are issues for site specific conditions and I think that's really what it comes down to is looking at site specific conditions for every single project and figuring where are the vulnerabilities and how do we put conditions and our powers really in conditioning the project. How do we develop conditions to protect the resource areas. So that's a big part of I think the overall process. Excellent. Yeah, and thank you and that's thank you Aaron for your time and your expertise in this area. As we move forward we may have some more questions for you but but this has been really educational for me and I think others. And as Stephanie says we're lucky to have you so thank you for your time and we'll we'll move on to the next agenda item you're welcome to stay with us but no need as well. Thank you very much. Nice to see everyone. Thank you. Okay, so we'll also go move move the discussion on the solar survey and the final draft with Adrian at GZA again who is joining us to to help us through this discussion. Basically, at this point we need to move on for two reasons one is because we have a lot more to do and to focus on with regard to the bylaw itself. And then second because the survey needs to go out and the public engagement needs to basically start within within the week or two. And so we have had several rounds of opportunities to provide feedback and comments to Stephanie and to to GZA on the survey. I applaud both Stephanie and GZA for substantial upgrades to the survey that reflect comments from from this body as well as other bodies. And I think the survey now is in the version three, and maybe that's 3.1 because there was an additional some additional edits that came out of the ECAC committee that have been incorporated and Well, no survey is perfect. We're here today to basically give not approval, but to vote. Ultimately, after we sort of talk a little bit about the survey that it is complete and we're ready to move forward from from here. So, Stephanie, did you want to just quickly introduce Adrian again and then is the idea is Adrian it's going to sort of introduce the new version. I think Adrian is just going to summarize her most recent edits. Great. Okay, I'm not sure she needs an introduction. No, I don't think I need to introduce her. Adrian who needs no introduction. Yeah, exactly. Great. Well, thank you. I'm happy to be here. As Wayne said, I did receive comments from members of the ECAC and this group on version two. Those comments were largely integrated in the form of they primarily were kind of text language changes versus you know wholesale question addition and removals. So they were largely integrated. And bigger picture changes was there was a reduction in the total type of questions asked so simplified to fewer types of you know dragging and sorting and multiple choice. But you know, ranking from agree to disagree, we added some additional statements where so sometimes agreeing is more regulations and sometimes agreeing is less regulations so that people can really think about it and not. So, you know, okay, yeah, agree, agree, agree, agree. It'll hopefully make them think a little bit more about what they are agreeing to. And then, so those were kind of the, the larger holistic changes other than that there were a lot of text revisions to clarify things, simplify language so that the survey is very approachable to the public. And then I did receive this week a couple of revisions from the ECAC and those were also integrated in again they were kind of a couple of tweaks on some options. And I did receive a comment from Martha about adding in some definition of net zero which was done. So that those are the update one outstanding item that will require a little bit of discussion in this group is that on question, and I believe there's a statement. About. Sorry, I'm just scrolling to it to make sure I don't miss the. Could we see the questions on the screen, please. Um, yeah, I can do you want to or or agent do you have the agent Kim but we're not. I don't think we're going through these question by question. So, if you could just scroll to that one question. The bars in the way. We go. All right, question 10. This option. So the question asks the participant to rank the statements about where they would like to see solar constructed within the unbuilt environment. And the option of no solar development should occur on open land. I received one piece of feedback that added the statement, even if this means a stab missing establish renewable energy targets. Between versions two and three. And then I also received feedback saying to remove that statement. And so because that conflict that that feedback directly in conflict. I bring that to the committee to clarify which piece of feedback to implement. Great. Okay, so any comments on that specific question number. And particularly with regard to that last or that added phrase at the end. I mean, Martha has her hand raised. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay, Martha. And then we'll go with Martha. I didn't see the order. So we'll go with Martha Lauren and Janet. I was one of the ones who flagged that statement. Trouble is, I don't have a really brilliant idea of how to rephrase it, but it seems that it's too extreme because established renewable energy targets from our state climate action plan. I don't mean having to balance it only legitimately need for lots of solar with also the legitimate need for the carbon sequestration. And so that it seems too extreme, you know, it seems to me that you might want to say something more more like a solar development on an open land is too extreme because it could include anything from gravel pits to pristine forest or something. Say something more along the lines that only limited solar development on, you know, pristine lands or forests and wetlands or something or rather in, you know, even along the lines of trying to balance the solar and the, and the carbon sequestration or just leave that whole bill, little bullet out. Yeah, I'm sorry to say I couldn't come up with a brilliant wording but I certainly think that this is not appropriate here. It should say more something more like limited solar development and then define what you mean by open land and say even if this calls into question or something the balance between, you know, solar and land preservation or something. Sorry, can't be better. Yeah, go ahead, Laura. No, my question was just to you, Adrienne, you know, we, you know, I want to defer to you in terms of what language you think it's going to help with the creation of these questions not necessarily to write them. So I'm curious, your feedback on the best way to reconcile this matter. Um, I, you know, I support removing that statement but leaving, you know, this question is asking, where in the unbuilt environment should it go. And so I think people should have the option to say nowhere. Be in rooftop only. And that's what this option, you know, allows is them to say nowhere not for us, not ag. No built environment, no unbuilt environment and some people may feel that way and they should have the opportunity to, to make that their top ranked location. I think that there is always a trade off, you know, if they only on the built environment means less solar overall. But I do think there should be an option of, you know, no, no unbuilt environment. And I think that, you know, we could remove that even if this myth means missing established renewable targets, but we should leave the option for people to flat out say no solar, you know, over Earth, only solar over pavement building, which was the intent. I'm sorry to go out of order but I should have had my hand up in my mind at least. I guess I put there isn't the option you can say no solar development anywhere, but but you have to recognize that that it may may come at the expense of not meeting some some some goals. And so I just just that the extra phrase in my mind at least provoke people, not to just jumping that to conclude because I think you know generally, why wouldn't you not want solar development, you know, unless you know if there wasn't any if there wasn't any reason that there wasn't any recognized trade off. I'm a little bit concerned about people just going for that option, because it's the, it's the easiest and most maybe most obvious option if you're not thinking about the reason why we need to try to support solar, generally for the for the climate but I'll, I'll see here what other people have to say. Daniel. Yeah. It's thinking if it's really important that people consider the trade off when thinking about the answer this question, what if we moved that statement up into the question instead of the answer. I would just say something to the fact of like with the understanding that any limits on solar development may impact time and ever stability to achieve establishing renewable energy targets. Where would you, yeah, or do you must prefer. Like, you were not, I guess we're not kind of guiding people away from one specific answer. Yeah, notwithstanding my last comment, I support that approach. But I think it should be in there, it should be in there, just to when people think about their answer, have that trade off in mind. Thank you Dan. I don't know who is first Martha. Yeah, I think I could support sort of what Dan was saying or Dwayne what you were saying, you know, if the wording was changed. I would say, even if it means missing established renewable energy targets say even if it means, you know, not meeting our Amherst's goals for for solar or something, something like that. Instead of saying established renewable energy goals make it specifically refer to the goals that Amherst had set for our solar. Does that make sense. Maybe Stephanie correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think we've set solar goals particularly we've set greenhouse gas mitigation goals. Correct. You're also setting solar goals according to the last meeting you had. It's recommended it's not setting goals it's it's just recommended. It's a recommended portion of what that might look like in view of the state's bigger goals but it is not a target it is just a recommended or identified threshold that we might want to consider but it's not a goal. Well you could say if you use the word recommended I could accept that instead of saying established for whatever the wording is. I'm not sure whether the public taking the survey would at the point that they're taking the survey would know anything about this recommendation yet is one issue. Okay. Janet. I think that by putting that clause on that option it's putting your finger on the scale. You can put that clause on anything, you know, including rooftop solar, you know, small and things like that so I don't think it's, I think by putting it there. It's, it's just kind of pushing people away from that position. And the goal of the survey is to figure out what are people residents and Amherst think what do they support where do they support it. And I think that that should just be deleted. I have, I don't know that the town council is going to set up priorities or goals for solar so I don't think that's kind of our job to say that you know they will adopt that. And I mean, to me it seems sort of obvious that if we don't build solar, we're going to and we need to, you know, reduce greenhouse gases we have to get it from others some other source or something like that there's a trade off. But I wouldn't just put the trade off point on one factor it doesn't make sense. I also am very concerned about the ranking questions because we want to know what people think, and where they support solar, not. And then you're by ranking you're forcing people to pick one over the other. And so somebody could easily say, I, I strongly support, you know, seeing, you know, I most I don't know but most prefer to see large scale solar. I guess actually I would probably do least prefer but I just think that we have these, you know, just ask them what they think of each type of use, you know where solar is like strongly agree agree neutral, you know, disagree strongly disagree. No opinion. This is what the professionals have said, you're asking people to, they might strongly support it in two of the spots but not against each other and so I have no idea. I didn't see any surveys that had ranking questions. And then also sometimes the ranking questions put in two factors or two ideas, and you're kind of assuming the person supports one or the other or both. I just don't think we get a lot from that I think what you should just stick with the question the strongly agree agree, you know disagree whatever that we see in the deal we are we see it in the new mass extension recommendations. I just, I'm just. That's a, you know, I don't know what we get from this. I also don't understand why lakes and ponds is that a place that we could put solar, given our state laws. So I'll join, can I respond. Yes, please. Okay, so lakes and ponds is coming. You know, so in, in under the state wetland law, what is protected in terms of a lake or a pond is the land under the water and the land around the water. So, just like you're allowed to permit aerators in ponds that have, you know, limited impacts on the land under the water. In terms of running the utilities to them solar could be permitted that way and floating solar is. It is coming. And it's highly effective I've seen other projects proposed in other states. So that's not really on the table right this moment but it is on the horizon of solar development. So I do think it's worth leaving that in there. I've also gone with these ranking statements so that people are thinking about trade off, and they are making decisions about where they support it and where they don't support it. Instead of asking a long series of, you know, what about for us agree disagree. What about farmland agree disagree, because we can get at the heart of the issue of the trade off of. Would you rather have it in a forest or would you rather have it on haggling, would you rather have it here or there makes people think critically about those trade off and about the land use and about what they want to see. Versus asking a whole series you could say, you know, I don't want it in for us I don't want it on a land I don't want it on meadows. And at the end of the day. I just thought about them each discreetly. But what your conclusion is that you maybe didn't intend is, as you've selected that you would like to see it nowhere on the unbuilt environment. And here, you can still make that preference known. But I think that but it's a, it's a more active choice to make it known, instead of a series of more passive choices coming to a conclusion. There's also evidence on having those, you know, agree disagree neutral. A lot of people do like to disagree. And that was actually a comment that was really great from the AC AC about this acquiescence bias that people agree more often than they disagree. And so, again, by putting the choices. You know, by making you rank there's that tension between the choices and it's a really active decision about where you want to see it. And really considering the town holistically instead of just one kind of resource area or land use at a time. You have to think about all the land uses kind of in tandem and make that decision. I had another issue about the undeveloped open space language versus open land. One of the things is we have a lot of fields and open land, you know, and most of that is prime agricultural soils, or soils of statewide concern. And a lot of that has been converted to farmland since I've moved here 20 years ago. So, a meadow in a field also is very, very likely in Amherst to have some of the best soils in the state and so I wondered if you could put a quite like maybe say open fields or meadows with prime farm soils or better to say, you know, because I think maybe putting those mines that these are future agricultural fields and very, you know, my experience kind of very likely given all the new farming that has happened in the last 20 years so you know, maybe a separate category for that because let me let me appreciate that, Janet, what I would suggest. Again, I don't we kind of there's sort of a trade off of too many options and so forth and parsing different options you have open lands with good soils open lands without good soils and it kind of gets a little bit maybe overwhelming and I'm not sure whether the public, the general public we're looking at really can understand the nuances and the and sort of the future uses of these different types of land I think we're kind of getting for sort of primary and sort of thoughts from from the public more more generally, I would suggest that we with these comments, which I've been helpful, leave it to the expertise of Adrian and GZA to take these under account under into account and and finalize the survey at this point. One little addition to the, to the small issues is I, I would consider maybe taking lakes and ponds out, only because it may be confusing to people I, if I, I don't know Amherst in its complete entirety but I have not. I'm struggling except for puffers pond where I don't think alarm people to think we're going to put a solar on puffers pond. I don't know if we have any other lakes or ponds that would be appropriate. I do know Adrian, following the literature there is interest in this there's actually in work around the world that is pretty advanced California is very interested for for to reduce evaporation so forth. My sense is it's not really applicable or necessary to have listed. It may screw up some of the rankings in Amherst just my my thought, but I think we'll leave all that to you as a and to to to wrap this up. And with that we'd really like to move forward. We're going to survey and leave it up to Gza and Stephanie to advance the survey and get it out there and orchestrate it. What we would like to do, and Stephanie would like us to do is as a body to vote on the survey. And as we've seen it as this last version subject to some modifications based on the conversation today and the expertise of Gza that we take a vote on this survey that we are considered to be complete and ready to move forward. We're not giving it that's not our job. But we are just wanting to put it to bed if you will call it complete and pass it on to the to the town. Stephanie, do you want to add to that, or, or any other comments. What I wanted to say is that this is the third version of the survey that's gone out and that members were given the opportunity for comment and there were multiple comments from from this body, especially from from Martha and Janet that were incorporated into the third version also Dwayne. I think we submitted comments, I think for each draft as well. So, and I think maybe Jack might have had some at the earlier first version. So I do want to say that there has been ample opportunity for people to weigh in and give comment and, and it's really strengthened the survey. So, you know, I think both, you know, Martha and Janet especially had very extensive comments that got incorporated. It's really been a, it's a stronger survey because of their input. But I mean, as the project manager for the assessment and working with the consultant. I need to keep this moving forward now. You know, we only have a certain budget. We only have a certain amount of time. This is the third version and we really need to wrap this up and move it forward. Great. Thanks, Stephanie. Yep, agreed. Okay. Again, I'll give you one more, one more quick comment and then I want to see if there's a motion to accept these, except this last version. You know, I appreciate that there have been adjustments to the survey. I still think it's confusing. I think it's, it's, there's sort of a bias in certain questions and particularly in the regulatory section and the project review. I think there's like entire things that should be taken out like, you know, the, the first one in 11, this, this zoning bylaws should create strict regulations where solar can be constructed and existing, in addition to existing laws and regulations, I current zoning wetlands and environmental regulations, I didn't even know what environmental regulations I don't know what strict I, you know, I didn't even know what the purpose of that is because we've been asked to write a bylaw by the town council. And, you know, that sounds like we're doing an honorous addition. And then there's a similar question about, you know, you know, treat it like anything else or not worse than anything else. And it, and it just, just from being very intimately aware from the zoning bylaw. I don't see how that's going to help because the zoning bylaws 200 pages long it regulates everything differently and has special regulations and so a lot of these questions seem to be sort of creating like a kind of a boogeyman thing of like, oh, there's going to be more regulations or shouldn't be anything in addition to, you know, state act zoning bylaw and the mysterious environmental regulations I don't know what that refers to and so I would love to support this survey. I would love to have had, you know, more kind of comments or criticisms or changes put into it and I would have loved that this group could have sit down and looked at questions and do what we just did with the previous question because it's a better question because we just discussed it so I'm just kind of upset. I just don't understand, like, there's still so much wrong, really with the questions that we're really focused on what we're going to be doing which is writing a bylaw and trying to understand what people's preferences are. All right, thank you for that. Laura. Yeah, just really quickly. My, you know, the way I look at this and I feel like this group has had ample time to comment on these survey questions. And the town has worked diligently to find a third party consultant to the trade to draft these types of questions. And we need to get this survey out. In fact, I was looking at the timeline articulated in the last meeting and it should have already been completed by now. And so, you know, our role here based on my read of the charter was that we were going to help with the survey we were going to draft the survey. So given that I am ready to, you know, to move on and go and hopefully pass this so we can get on with the rest of our work. Thank you, Laura. That sounded almost like a motion, but I would entertain a motion to make a motion to it. Okay, can you articulate the motion? Yes, make a motion to pass the survey version three. As approved. Great. Okay. Jack. Great, thank you. All right, and Stephanie, do you want to take the vote. Sure. And in no particular order. Gem sec. Approved. So it's a vote yes. Yes. No or abstain. Sorry. Corcoran. Yes. Hannah. Abstain. McGowan. Like you're muted. I'm going to abstain also. I don't think it's ready. Okay. Breger. Yes. Yes. Brooks. Yes. Agliarulo. Yes. Okay. The motion passes. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Stephanie for shepherding this through with us and Adrian. Great. Thank you for all your work on it. And we look forward to. Thank you for coming out and, and taking a look at maybe responding ourselves, but also taking a look at the results when they become available in a while. Thank you. Thank you all for your input and time. Great. Okay. Okay. And then we'll move on to the agenda. And go to the top of the agenda and do some of the. Administrative things first and then we'll move on to. The bylaw. And what I can. Or I'm not sure about promise, but really encourage moving forward now that. Is to really start focusing the bulk of our meeting each week on the bylaw. And we may not be able to accomplish that this week, because it's already. What do we have about 40 minutes left and we say half an hour left and we want to get to some public input. Okay, but we do have these administrative things we need to get done. So we do have. 20 minutes to approve to review and approve. We have the, the January 20 minutes. My understanding Stephanie is this. Now somewhat historic minutes of January 6 or still in work and we'll hopefully get to that next meeting. Correct. Yeah, great. But do we have any. Discussion on the. Minutes as drafted for January 20th. Or a motion to approve. Martha. I move that we approve the minutes. From the January 20th meeting as submitted. Thank you. Is there a second for that? I didn't read them. So I'm not going to participate. Okay. I did and I'll second if I'm able to do that. Okay. So, um, in no apparent order. Gem sec. Jack, can you unmute? Are you there? Corcoran. Speak for yourself. Hannah. Approve. McGowan. Stain. Breger. Yes. Brooks. Yes. Peg Learulo. Yes. And Jim sec. I think we've lost Jack. Going to the sunflowers. I mean, they. They pass anyhow. They pass as they stand, but I, but we do need Jack to vote. Okay. Well, maybe we'll, we'll come back to that table it for a second. And move to staff. Updates. Um, anything on your end, Stephanie. And then Chris, obviously we'll get to the bylaw in a moment. I think, you know, the next steps are that Adrian and I will meet to schedule. We'll be scheduling the community outreach sessions. Soon and we'll share the dates and locations with you all. Great. Yeah. So, and Jack is back. Yeah. Jack, you want to add your vote to. The approval of the minutes from 120. Yes. Yes. Sorry about that. I had a call because it's the dangers of doing that. Sorry. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anything from the planning department. Chris. It doesn't to do with the bylaw that we'll get to in a moment. I don't have any updates. No. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. How about any from any of the committees that we liaise from? I'll have one from me. Maybe I'll start with that. So the ECAC energy and climate action committee meeting. On Wednesday. The. Committee did approve a memo. That will be forthcoming to. The solar working soda bylaw working group. I suspect in the packet for next meeting. That provides a, as was referenced by Stephanie, I think earlier does provide a, an, an, an analysis of. To help. A conversation with regard to the scale of ground mounted solar energy that we might look to accommodate. In Amherst. In Amherst. At least with. As it pertains to a metric. That looks at our quote unquote fair share. Of ground mounted solar compared to what this Commonwealth as a whole. Is anticipating as the projection. And the range of projections for the need for. Ground mounted solar. Not. In a built environment, but what is really going to be. Likely necessary for ground mounted solar. By 2050. Again, in their 20 from their 2050. Decarbonization roadmap. We took a look at that and do some basic analysis on that with regard to. Our fair share. With regard to strictly our percentage of land. That is in Amherst compared to the entire Commonwealth. And scaling that to, to that Commonwealth need to Amherst needs. And so there was some useful outcomes on that with regard to ultimately what sort of scale. Of not only megawatts, but acreage of land. We might try to think about. As we develop these, these zoning bylaws. That we should keep in mind or that we might keep in mind as we. Move the move the, the, the, the bylaw conversation going forward. I won't get into the results of that because that will be in the, in the forthcoming memo. But I think it'll be, can be part of a helpful conversation. Any other. Chris, you have a comment. Thank you. Thank you. I wondered to whom will you send that will you send that to the solar bylaw working group. Yeah, the memo as we approved it was, it was addressed to, or to this, this working group. And to the town council and to the town manager. And so my guess is it'll be distributed via Stephanie. To those bodies. Thank you. Great. Any other. Updates from any of the other committees. Super. Okay, great. Let's then move on to. The presentation and review of the, of the draft. Drafting that Chris has. Provided from the planning department. And what I'd like to. Introduce, and this, this came up. I forget where this came up before, but it seemed like a good suggestion. In, as, as. Chris and her department come up, come forward with, with draft language for us to, to work from. I think maybe as, as a, as a goal for scheduling going forward. It would be. My proposal, I guess, is to have Chris each week. Or sorry, each meeting. To the extent that she's has the ability to do so. Is that we have sort of look at each. Draft language in two steps. First is what we might call a first reading. And we sort of have been doing this so far. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Is that even though us as a, as a working group may not have had. Too much time to review the draft yet. Maybe just a few days, maybe, maybe more, depending on when the, when, when the packet becomes available. But that we would spend time at each meeting. To do a first reading. I actually appreciate Chris reading through the document. And we do that as a first reading. We. Allows us to digest it, make some initial provide some initial thoughts on it. But also we don't want to think about that as our one and only opportunity to. Really provide discussion and comment on, on the, on the drafting. So the idea would be each week to have. Some new section of the bylaw again, to the extent that Chris is able to provide some additional drafting. We'd have that section as a first reading. And then we would return. To the. Drafting that was first read at the previous meeting. And we've all had a chance to digest it, think about it. And, and, and potentially even. Do some track changes or, or edits to that. To then, or some discussion questions on it. That we can then spend. A decent chunk of time. Discussing that is maybe what we would call a second reading. Or review second or review. Of that. Drafting and then try to sort of finalize it. And move, move, move on and sequence to the next, to the next section. And then obviously once everything starts coming together towards the end, have a review of the, of it in its tire in its entirety. So that's my proposal to try to stick with that type of approach as we go forward now in earnest with the drafting. Does that sound first. Like reasonable to you, Chris. And then. And whether there's precedence for doing this and other. Venues, but then other, any other people's thoughts in terms of this approach. I think it sounds reasonable to me and I will be able to put more time into drafting in the future. But when I, when I have my turn to start talking about this, I wanted to report on some research that I've done. So yes, that sounds reasonable. Great. Thank you. Yep. Any other thoughts. Yeah, I see Janet. Actually I have to a thought, but I wanted to ask Chris, when you're doing these sections, are you like looking at different bylaws and then trying to like do the best language or are you just, you know, basing it mostly on Cape Cod or. Because what would be helpful to me would be sort of like alternatives. Like I know you picked this, but if I knew, you know, Cape Cod was saying we're not Cape Cod because it's not, it's not a town like Cape Cod says this, but Belcher town has something much more specific or shoots, Barry has, you know, much more specific stuff on slopes. Like, so in a way, like what am I looking at? I wonder, like compared to what could be there. So are you, you know, do you know what I'm saying? Yes, I'm doing that. I just don't know if I'm going to have time to, you know, provide that information or describe it to everyone. I can tell you the bylaws that I've looked at. And maybe that is something that I can do, but I don't really feel like I have the time to pick out, you know, what's different about this, what's different about that, I can refer you to sections of different towns bylaws. Yeah, because some people are very detailed, some bylaws are very detailed on certain points and others are very general. And so, you know, like I would want to know like what's out there kind of thing. So that's just one comment. The second comment is doing, I think your thing sounds logical, but it actually, I'm struggling with these drafts and how they all relate together. And so one of my questions were, you know, is this reporting and monitoring like where's the section for ongoing monitoring. And so I'm having trouble. I think the first reading makes sense and our questions make sense and Chris could write those in, but it's hard for me to understand what we're talking about. I feel like I have like the nose of the camel and it's right flank, but I'm not really sure how it's all fitting together. And so I don't, I'd hate to vote and say, yeah, this is great when I really don't know what the rest looks like. And I think Chris is laughing because I think it makes sense to her. I would just say that I don't think that we're going to necessarily vote on this, but we did. There is an outline that's been drafted and shared with us. I think Chris put together. Maybe we should take some time to sort of everybody make sure that they're kind of aware of the, of the entire camel, if you will. And sort of where and sort of each week sort of, okay, here now we're in this section and so forth just to add that context. If that, if that might be, might be helpful. But let me go to Jack. Yes, thank you. I guess my approach would be that I think it's incumbent on all of us to what we're going to have some knowledge of what other towns are doing, what other, you know, regional commissions have down the Cape Cod, Pioneer Valley. And that's on each of us to take that information. And I think what we get is it is, it is what it is. And we judge it on, you know, what, you know, Chris has done quite a bit of this in her, in her, you know, experience as a planner. And then we just, we just take it at pace value, but I don't really care about the details of this and that unless there's a question. I'm sure Chris can come up with the explanation. But, you know, I mean, I, I don't want to make this a science project, basically, you know, I just feel like it's a bylaw. It's going to be good. And I, you know, some town, you know, in Massachusetts has this, I, I'm not sure I really care. Unless, you know, someone else in the group, you know, brings it to light that, hey, should we think about this. That's fine. But I just, I think we're going to get real clunky here if we're trying to like, take everything available to us, all the information that's out there and try to consider all of it in our, you know, local bylaw for this. I just think that's, that's, we're not going to get anywhere doing that. And I have a lot of confidence in Chris. And in this, you know, committee, this work group. That we'll figure it out and get the best bylaw we can. Thanks, Jack. Chris, did you have a comment on that? I just wanted to say that different towns are different. And I think we've come across this before. We want a bylaw that's relative to Amherst. And, you know, I read, and this would be part of my update, which is that I read like 10 or 12 bylaws in the last week. And many of them are very simple and very bare bones and were written, you know, 10 years ago or 15 years ago. Some of them are very detailed and specific and were just adopted last week or two weeks ago. And each of them is specific to the types of things that are happening in their town, the type of land cover they have, the type of development they have, the amount of solar that they already have on their land. And so each town is dealing with this in its own way. And I think Amherst should deal with it in its own way. And Shootsbury, for instance, is a great bylaw for Shootsbury, but Shootsbury is primarily on wells. Almost the whole town is on wells. Almost the whole town is forested. They have very little agricultural land. It's really a different environment from Amherst. So I think although we can read through these other bylaws and take what we can from them, we really have to look specifically at our town. So that's what I have to say. Thank you, Chris. Martha and then Laura. I'm just going to agree basically with Jack. I mean, it's our responsibility as members of the committee, if we want to study all the other bylaws and compare them and think about it and so on. But Chris is, you know, she's doing the research. She's real experienced. She's going to give us a great, great draft of everything that there'll just be, I think a few specific questions again that are relevant to Amherst. So I think that Dwayne, I think the question of we make an eventually two passes through it is fine. Great. Thank you, Laura. No, I was just going to say basically echoing what Martha and Jack had said, which was, I agree with that approach. I think I have total trust in Chris. She's a professional. She's been doing this for years. And then also equal faith in this group to review the language and make sure everything seems reasonable and it's reflective of, you know, what we think and sort of what we've heard from the community. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Janet, I presume an echo again, right? Actually not. So I'm interested in like knowing what, what bylaws Chris is looking to like, what does she think is most like us? And then I would need more time. And so these, these meetings are on my planning board weeks. And so I often only have like a day to look at something. And so I'm happy to do the work and look at, you know, other bylaws. I'm not going to look at 90, but I, I, I have, you know, I have a bunch of bylaws that I have been looking at. So I need more time to, to that, you know, and, but Chris, are there specific towns that you think are like us, that, you know, we have farms. We have some forests. We have, um, you know, lots of conserved land and, you know, a crazy amount of students and some village centers. Is there someone like us? I can send you a list of towns that I've looked at. And some of them were chosen because they were like us. And some of them were chosen because I thought they would be more, um, perhaps sophisticated in their approach to this or, um, more, you know, Have more progress in their approach or whatever, but I can send you a list. Great. And we're all struggling with time to, to, uh, review, uh, what, what Chris provides. And I think with this first reading and then second reading gives everybody a week between, sorry, two weeks, uh, uh, uh, between the first reading and, and then to really dig into some conversation about it in the second, at two weeks later. Uh, so we're all going to have to, um, Uh, we're all going to have to, you know, review, review these on, uh, in that timeframe, uh, as well as do our own research, as Jack suggested or others, um, that, um, you know, if we want to, uh, sort of research a certain area and get our own, uh, sort of review of what other bylaws have said about specific issues that's, that's on, on, on us, um, uh, to bring that to, to the, to the group at that second reading. Okay. Um, let me move, move to Stephanie and then we're going to move forward, um, uh, to, to Chris to introduce us. I suspect we're going to start this process of first reading and second reading next time, Chris. Uh, but maybe, um, uh, you can get us started with, uh, with sort of the, um, discussion you wanted to, to introduce us, um, introduce us to, but that's Stephanie, did you still very quick? Well, I was going to suggest is that, um, Chris, the list go to everyone so that everyone can have an opportunity to look at that. And I'm happy to, to get that out if it's yet. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. Challenging. So, okay. Great. Um, with, with, um, really the need to, to, to, and promptly at one, uh, with the need to, or, or, or desired to have, uh, stop at 1250, uh, for a public comment. Um, let's move on to Chris. Um, uh, and Chris, you sort of indicated that you had some, some sort of thoughts to provide before jumping into the, into the drafting. Um, I sort of shared my thoughts already that, um, I've looked at, you know, 10 or 12 bylaws in the last week or so, and that they're all different and they're all, you know, different towns. I used, um, Shoot'sbury as an example, but I also want to use Athol as an example. So, Athol is very eager to get, um, more tourists into town. That was a way that they think that they can boost their economy. And so they've geared their bylaw, um, in that direction. And you know, Amherst has a lot of other things going on. So, you know, we have other considerations. So, I think that we really need to think about, well, what is important to Amherst and what things do we want to protect and what is our responsibility to participate in having solar arrays in our town. And all of those things are going to come into, um, into play when we're talking about our bylaw. So, um, that's really all I wanted to say that we can't really mirror somebody else's bylaw in our town because we're different. So, um, if you want to, we can start where we left off last time, which was the, um, the section on, well, it starts out with monitoring and maintenance. And we did get through monitoring and maintenance and we got through modifications and we got through transfer of ownership. And we stopped right after transfer of ownership. So following the pattern that Dwayne suggested, we could start today with abandonment or decommissioning if that would be suitable. I think that would be great. And maybe we can get through this, through this, um, section, which is a few more, a few more, well, more than a few more paragraphs, but a read through that, a first read through that. And then we can bring this up for a second review and discussion next time. And to the extent that you have additional drafting, we can do a first read on that next time. So thank you, Chris. Yep. And you have the other thing I wanted to say was that I will be, um, talking to Aaron and, um, my team here in the planning department and the building commissioner, I haven't shown these things to them, but I want to get their input. So as, as this moves along, Aaron will be particularly, um, useful in this, um, monitoring and maintenance section. So I want to get her input on that, but I will be tapping into the building commissioner and senior planner, Nate Malloy, on the rest of the bylaw. So starting with page two of this document, um, sort of two thirds of the way down the page, um, that's where abandonment or decommissioning starts. And this is a typical section, uh, for, from many of our bylaws that I've looked at, um, so abandoning or decommissioning is important because you don't want to be left with, um, a big solar array and then kind of have it there and have it stop, uh, producing power and then the town has to deal with, uh, taking it apart. So, um, and this is typical of what we've been doing so far. The Zoning Board of Appeals has been putting conditions on, uh, solar arrays that have been installed to date to require, um, decommissioning, a decommissioning plan and then also to require that the, uh, applicant put up a bond or, or some type of, um, financial security to make sure that the town is able to, uh, take it apart if the, uh, applicant is no longer able to do that. So anyway, starting off removal requirements, um, and I'll go through each paragraph and you can make comments on it and I'll write down what you, what you say. Any large-scale ground-mounted solar voltaic installation or any substantial part thereof, not used in the production of electricity for a period of one continuous year or more without written permission from the permit granting authority or is operating at less than 25% of its nameplate capacity or that has reached the end of its useful life or has been abandoned or has been assisted with the abandonment section of this bylaw shall be considered discontinued and shall be removed. Does anyone have any comments on that one? Yeah, go ahead. Janet, is that a new hand? I don't. Yeah, it's a new hand. Um, I have a few questions. One of them is I wondered, um, about the one year is it, and maybe Laura could help on this. Is it possible that somebody wouldn't operate a facility for more than a year and a half? Would somebody come in and, you know, started up a year and a half later? Um, and then the other question I had was in terms of the nameplate, like if it's operating at less than 25%, will they, I don't know if this isn't a different part of the camel, but will they be reporting, will the project be reporting to the town, like what it's actually producing versus its nameplate? Like how would we know if they're reporting to the town? Is that somewhere else in the reporting requirements or part of the bylaw? I think the answer to that is that they're required to, um, produce a report, and this is elsewhere in the bylaw, but they need to produce a report for the town every year. And that would be reporting on things that have happened on site and how they've been operating. So I believe that would be covered there, but Laura may have a question. Yeah, so just to be clear, like the amount of like equity that's been invested in the farm and the amount of tax equity that's been invested in the farm, um, we're going to be, you know, I don't say the least concerned, but people are going to be far more concerned than us if operations go below the 25% nameplate nameplate capacity, because these are not, you know, hundreds of dollars. These are millions of dollars, the total investment. So I think that's the first piece. And then, no, I have never seen a farm, um, you know, delay. I think your question was like, you know, pause operations for a year. Um, I've never seen both of me, even in the case of bankruptcy of like PG&E, for example, um, the farms continued to operate. Um, electricity was continued to be produced and the farms continued to be maintained because the rule of solar is if you do not maintain the land where you're hosting the farm if you're in violation of, you know, whatever the operating, um, you know, lease size, you'll be kicked off and nobody wants that. And in fact, it has never happened. Um, so, yeah. So I don't think that's a real concern. Yeah, go ahead, Jack. Yeah, I just, in the nitpicky thing, I just wanted to know about the terminology of continuous, um, you know, one continuous year, I'm wondering if maybe there's something, um, that is, uh, not as definitive as, you know, it was operating 24-7 for 365 days, something less than that, you know, to account for the real world. Um, and I don't know what the word is, but maybe not, I don't know. Yeah, maybe Laura has a suggestion for that, but, um, I understand. That's interesting because I think Jack brings up a good point. Let's say that a, you know, a storm comes through, a micro, you know, whatever tornado, and the farm needs to be rebuilt or parts of it need to be rebuilt. And, um, we don't want that to be an issue of abandonment or decommissioning. It's a matter of repairing and restoring. Um, so I think I see what you're talking about. Um, Jack, um, Yeah, maybe there's like 90%, you know, or operated, you know, continuously 90% of the year or something just to let some minor repairs take place. Yeah. So maybe it's just some down time for temporary cessation for repair. Yeah. All right. I'll try to incorporate some language there. Okay. And just to just, I think the group probably knows that but every single ground lease, there is a section on abandonment and decommissioning. Um, so every lease defines abandonment differently. It's pretty consistent for what you would see in every, every lease. Okay. And while we continue on with a couple more paragraphs, Chris, but I apologize. I have a hard really hard stop at one. And want to have the public at least a quick opportunity to put in some comments. You want to give the public an opportunity to comment now and then I can go back to this if there's time. Yeah, let's let's do that. But yeah, let's do that. Thank you. Go ahead, Stephanie, do you, I see Steve's hand up but you monitor Steve, you can go ahead. Hello, thank you. This is Steve roof. I live in South Amherst. I have a question for myself here a question about the decommissioning provision for solar facilities in this bylaw. I'm curious if they're the town zoning requires decommissions, decommissioning requirements for other sorts of development on lands, other kinds of development project houses, probably not. So, are there other buildings not sure. So are there other cases where decommissioning plans and a bond is required before a project is approved. Yes, it's true for wireless telecommunication. You know, those big stanchions that have all the antennae on them. There's a section in the bylaw about that and that does require decommissioning. It also is incorporated into the zoning board or whatever board is reviewing one of those things. The decommissioning is also a condition of that. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else from the public who would like to make a comment or ask a question of the committee. Not seeing any hands. All right, I'll talk fast. Yeah, excellent. The next paragraph is, you want to bring it up stuff upon written request from the building commissioner address to the contact address provided and maintained by the owner or operator as required above. The owner or operator shall provide evidence to the building commissioner demonstrating continued use of the installation failure to provide such evidence within 30 days of such written request. She'll be conclusive evidence that the installation has been discontinued. So in other words, if the building commissioner hears or observes that the installation is not working anymore, then he would reach out to the contract contact address and seek confirmation that it is either is has been stopped or isn't operating anymore or that it is indeed operating and that there's some kind of false information. So he sends a letter to that individual. And then if he doesn't hear back from 30 in 30 days, then he assumes that it has been discontinued. Is that okay. All right. The next one, the owner or operator or landowner shall physically remove the installation no more than 150 days after the date of discontinued operations. So that's almost half a year. The owner or operator or landowner shall notify the town clerk, the PGA or permit granting authority and the building commissioner by certified mail of the proposed date of discontinued operations and plans for removal. Just a question there. I don't know of a scenario where the landowner, unless they're also simultaneously the owner operator would be responsible for physically removing a system. I will check on that. Okay. Next paragraph, removal shall consist of a physical removal of all large scale ground mounted solar voltaic installation structures, equipment, security barriers and transmission lines from the site. The recycling of all possible materials and removal of all remaining solid and hazardous waste in accordance with the local state and federal waste disposal regulations. See stabilization or re vegetation of the site as necessary to minimize erosion and prevent impacts to wetlands or water bodies. The permit granting authority or PGA may allow the owner or operator to leave landscaping or designated below grade foundations provided they are filled in to minimize erosion and disruption to vegetation. This requirement may be waived if the landowner submits a plan for reuse of the site. D any site that was deforested for the installation shall be restored to encourage native tree growth, including the planting of seedlings if necessary to establish growth. The cost of plant replacement shall be incorporated into the financial surety. So I just wanted to mention as an aside that for the Hickory Ridge solar installation. To remove a certain number of trees in order to establish their installation and part of the special permit that was given to them requires that they replant the same number of trees that they remove. So, do you have any comments on this paragraph. I would just have one comment on the on the requirement to encourage to including the planting of seedlings if necessary. There's a there's a science associated with restoring a forest. I'm just wondering whether there should be some requirement for some approval by by the town forester town or state forester with regard to the plan. That's being a stamp to redo the forest. Can I just jump in that sometimes with the conservation commission they actually specify a particular DBH or size of the of the mitigated planting. Yeah, and species are very important to in terms of what types of trees. Stephanie what's the DBH. I'm sorry diameter breast height. It's just basically how you identify the circumference of the tree. Yeah, I'm just thinking Hickory Ridge, and, you know, talk about, you know, reuse. Maybe that that probably certainly could be agricultural. So, you know, what if the sign owner has other intentions for reuse of the land subsequent to the solar installation. That's a good question. And I guess maybe if you know to the extent that a land was forested before. If the land owner wants to, you know, at the end of the lifetime farm farm the land, instead of forcing the land. I'm not sure if we would want to not allow that to move forward. So I'm not, I'm not sure if it necessarily needs needs to require that it goes back to forest. Let's, let's put a bookmark here after Jack and then Janet, because I need to close out Dan also has his hand raised. Okay, hasn't spoken doing so. Yeah okay where's Dan and back. Hey yeah I'm sorry I was just, I was just saying there's this clause in there about this requirement may be waived the winners and that's a plan for the reuse of the site. You could just apply that to the entire just section C that would maybe cover that issue. Great, and I think. Janet will wrap us up. I would just quickly. I'd love to come back and talk about this a little bit more I was wondering about like agricultural soils, you know in terms of keeping them on site or restoring them and then, you know, does that need to be considered separately and how does mitigation if you're cutting, you know the forest, I know built your time requires you to sort of protect for us so is it would that tie into this section or is that in a different part so I think it's going to be a little complicated here. Can I answer part of that. Yeah, please. So I think for for soils in general, the soils are not removed for a solar installation in an agricultural site. There's not really a need to do that because they're installed without using, you know, big foundations or anything. So there may be a need to remove some soil to provide access roads and things like that but generally speaking, the soils remain on a site that is an open field. So that's partly an answer to Janet's question. Great. Let's, and my apologies, I need to be at another meeting. Let's put a bookmark right here. And will, why don't we plan to do continue the first reading of the remainder here but then also circle back to dig in a little bit from the this entire section is the second reading as well, as well as any additional text you may have for next time, and we'll dedicate, you know, the bulk of the meeting to, and going on I think into the into many meetings and going forward to, to the bylaw itself. So, thank you everybody. Thank you for having me cut short. Stay warm. And we'll see you in two weeks at 1130. Okay. Thank you so much.