 Steve, should I go ahead Pam usually has to do a couple of things before she's really ready for me to go. Yes, we are all set now bring up the agenda to share right now. Okay. All right, so welcome. Go ahead, Johanna. I am going to go off video for just a few minutes while I finish eating dinner. Okay. All right. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of August 2 2023. My name is Doug Marshall and as the chair of the Amherst planning board. I am calling this meeting to order at 633pm. This meeting is being recorded and is available in live stream via Amherst media. The minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This planning board meeting, including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is accessible on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting. Click on the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda, which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. No in-person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. Again, we are unable to do so. For reasons of economic hardship or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recordings, transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website. Board members I will take a roll call. When I call your name unmute yourself answer affirmatively and return to mute. Bruce Colvin. Present. Fred Hartwell. Present. Jesse Magger. Present. I Doug Marshall and present. We've been told Janet McGowan will be absent. Johanna Newman. Present. Thank you. And car in winter will also be absent. So we have five members present this evening. Board members, if technical issues arise, we may need to pause to fix the problem and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your request and call on you to speak. After speaking, remember to remute yourself. For the general public. The general public comment item is reserved for public comment regarding items not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. A comment may also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate by the planning board chair. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can typically express their views for up to three minutes, or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If a speaker does not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation may be disconnected from the meeting. All right, so time now is 636 and the first item on tonight's agenda is approval of our new minutes. The minutes for June 21st are were included in the packet and are ready for our review. So I'd like to ask for any comments at this time, Bruce, I see your hand. Yes, I tried to, oh, here we go. I tried to see them a moment ago but they didn't seem to be in the on the website, whereas they were previously. But this one thing that was mentioned in I'm talking about the the restaurant on Main Street, I can't remember the name but it was the. So if you keep going down to the next page I think it was the there we go there. The restaurant is equipped for gas. Ms. Fitzgibbon said that propane is considered a green fuel and is lead certified. I know at the time I said you've got to be joking. How on earth is propane the green fuel. And Mr. Skibbon gave a actually a reasonable answer to that question. And I thought that that should be included so I would suggest that the minutes be amended only to say miss pin services considered the green fuel was lead certified because and give that one sentence explanation that she gave, because as it stands it's like we accepted what too many people would be an absurd proposition and on question so I'd like to I'd like to have Ms. Fitzgibbons explanation of why it's a green fuel. I count it had to do with its residuals or something but I mean it's it was arguable but still. It wasn't a completely absurd statement and I'd like us to. So I would move acceptance of the minutes. With the additional sentence explaining why propane in this case is considered a green fuel. Okay, thank you Bruce does anybody want to second the motion. With with his condition. I'm calling to do that so why don't you record that I agreed to second the motion. I actually had one comment also on the minutes. On page seven under after Mr. Caldum withdrew his original motion. Yeah right there the first motion. I had two abstentions. So that what's listed as a five dash zero dash zero motion. I believe should be a five dash zero dash two motion. Yes. Thank you. All right. So, Bruce, are you okay with including that edit in your motion. Yes, I am. All right and I'm fine with that being added to my second. Are there any other comments from board members on these minutes? All right, I see one head shaking. No. Great. So in that case, we'll go ahead and do a roll call. I guess starting with you, Bruce, are you in favor of your motion. I am. All right. Fred, are you okay with the motion. Normally, I would abstain. Because I was not a member of the. Planning board. However, if Jesse and I both abstain, it will break the form. So. If nobody objects, I'll vote yes. All right. Thank you, Fred. I do appreciate that. So Jesse, I think you have a choice to. I was thinking the same, but I will abstain since Fred. All right. I will vote in favor. That's three. And Johanna. Hi. All right. We squeak by with four in favor and. One abstention and two absences. Bruce, I see your hand again. Yes. Okay. Fred didn't say it. That's for the public record, the least on the recording. As I, as I recall, because I usually keep pretty close track of the attendees. I think Fred is actually in the attendee. He attended that meeting. So he, he knows what was discussed. It's just that he wasn't a member of the board at that time. I was there for most of it. That's correct. But anyway. Okay. Well, thank you. Chris, are you fine with going back to the. Recording and adding that language that. The applicant stated about how propane was a green material. I'm fine with that. Yeah. All right. Okay. So. End of item number one. Time now is 642. And let's see about the participants we have. All right, I'm seeing six participants this evening. And I'll just read the names as I can see them in zoom. Martha Hanner. Kathleen Bridgewater. More a keen Michael Lepinsky. Ray B from white lion brewing. And Sarah Marshall. All right. So at this time we will receive public comments. On items that are not on tonight's agenda. When we get to the items on our agenda later in the meeting, we will solicit public comment on those items. So this is for items not appearing on the agenda. So I see one hand from Martha Hanner. Steve, if you could bring her over. And let her speak Martha, if you could give us your name and your street address, assuming it's in Amherst. Hello, I'm Martha Hanner. I live on a listen drive in Amherst down their station road. And I am a member of the solar bylaw working group, but I'm speaking here as an individual, not at all related to opinions of the solar bylaw working group. And I just wanted to point out to you folks. I document that was released by the state of Massachusetts in January called the resilient lands initiative. And that's an accompaniment really to our decarbonization road map and our goals for 2030 and 2050 and so on. But it clearly states a couple of principles. For the Commonwealth. One is there shall be no net loss of farms and forests. And two, the goal is to expand the amount quality and accessibility of locally grown food. There are some other things too, but I wanted to point this out because it's not just referring to solar arrays. In fact, solar is hardly mentioned. It's referring to, to all kinds of development. I mean, as I'm sure you folks know that after the 19th century farms, then forests and so on began to grow back in Massachusetts, but in recent years, then development being taken over for housing and so primarily has increased more. And again, the natural working lands are diminishing so that this is one of the goals that needs to be considered for, you know, thinking about future and possibly then in my view might suggest even they could be incorporated into our zoning bylaw in terms of if there's forest and farmland that is removed for housing development or other kinds of development, then that then a comparable amount of the forest or farmland should be then put into permanent or long-term preservation. So that's my comment for the future. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for joining us. And thank you for your work on the solar bylaw working group. Okay, Steve, we can move Martha back to the participants. And I don't see any other hands from the public for other public comments. Is there anybody else? I'll give you one more chance to raise your hand. Anybody else want to speak at this time? Okay, I don't see any. All right, so the time now is 646 we'll go on to the third item on the agenda. And that is a public hearing. All right. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended again by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This hearing is being conducted via remote means and is being held for the purpose of providing the opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding SPR 2023 dash 08 white lion Amherst LLC at 24 North Pleasant street requesting a site plan review approval for seasonal outdoor dining under section 5.041 of the zoning bylaw as an accessory use to the white lion brewery authorized by administrative approval under section 11.2113 of the zoning bylaw. It's in the BG general business zoning district on map 14 a parcel 337. So first of all, are there any board member disclosures that you want to state here at the beginning of the hearing? Okay. All right. Chris do we have anyone I believe Ray we have Ray B from the white lion brewing among the participants Steve if you could bring at least chairman. I heard someone Fred. Fred did you need to have something you wanted to say. Yeah, I think there's an error. Okay. I think that the section 11.2113 does not exist. And I think it probably should be 11.214 but maybe Chris can check that out. But there's a problem there. Okay. Thank you. May I say something? Yes, Chris. I think that unfortunately the bylaws that you were all talking about is online. So let's look online and see what that says. And we did have. Mr. Mora building commissioner check over this legal ad that we published. So I think that the. I think we're probably correct with regard to. What I just said. Okay. Well, I confess I don't have the internet bandwidth to bring up the zoning bylaw. I'm going to need to rely on someone else. Let's see. Steve, maybe Steve could do that. Sorry. How can I help? We bring up the zoning bylaw so we can look for section 11.2113. Absolutely. Just give me one moment. So Chris, we had two instances this evening where our copies are out of date. So that's correct. Is it probably a good idea for us to print new copies for the board? I think we're going to need to do that. I think we're going to need to do that. We're going to need to be printing until after July 1st, because we didn't have any money before that. But Mr. McCarthy will be printing new bylaws. Okay. He should be arriving on Friday. Actually, I just heard today. Thanks. All right. Thank you for your patience as I pulled that up. Let me bring this up here. So we're looking for a section 11.2. What was it? 113. That was a section of the bylaw that was changed in December. So we're going to need to do that. I think we're going to need to do that. I think we're going to need to do that. I think we're going to need to revise. What administrative approval is all about. There we go. This has to do with. Minor alterations to building exterior site. Building commissioner may authorize work to proceed without site plan review. Minor alterations provided the following criteria are. Identified. Chris is correct. I should have said. My copy of the bylaw didn't exist in my copy. It doesn't show up in mine either, Fred. So. Thanks for the close reading and. You know, I think we're all trying to get to the right answer here. So. That's just fine. Okay. So Steve, we don't need to have that. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. On the screen at the moment. You could probably prepare. Well, first, if you would bring Ray. Ray B over from the participants. Who's with white line. I had it must. There must have been a problem. So I will do that again. Okay. How you doing friends? I apologize. That was. No error of the town of Amherst. That was an error on my. Mac for some reason it dropped. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Every time I try to go live with a video, I apologize. Okay. Well, we've got you now. Hopefully we'll keep you. So welcome. Ray, I'm having trouble finding your last name. So whatever it is, welcome. That's fine. It's, it's a Barry B. R. Y. So it's like, it's like, it's like the truth. Okay. Thanks, Ray. So welcome to the meeting. I gather you've been in pretty, pretty close conversation with. Rob more already about the work inside the building. But if you could. Show talk to us about the work outside the building. I did see a couple of drawings. Do you want to bring those up? Or should we ask Steve to bring those up? Now that I'm on my phone, I would humbly ask Steve to bring up whatever you want to display on the screen. All right. So Steve, if you could go to the packet and. Scroll. Well, maybe, maybe we'll hold off for the moment. I don't. I've got everything here. So just let me know which doctor you'd like. The drawings that I was thinking of are really of the interior of the building. Although there is some exterior on the first floor plan. So why don't you bring up the first floor plan. In the packet. As part of that application, just so we've got a visual of the furniture layout that is being proposed. So in the case we haven't been already to that. Facility and dined at that facility. When it was under previous management. Yeah. And Steve, if you could blow up the. Sort of lower left part of that drawing. Yeah. Scroll down. The furniture. On the street. All right, that's good. That's good. Okay. So Ray, tell us what you'd like to. Highlight for us this evening. Absolutely. First, thank you. You and the board. The planning department for giving me an opportunity. To share this information with you to. To review and vet. We're very excited to be part of. As soon to be part of the ants and hers downtown landscape. We're proud to be reactivating 24 North Pleasant street. We're proud to be part of the. We're proud to be part of the. For white lion brooding second. Tap room slash kitchen. Slash brewery. In our portfolio. We're big on community and big on the town of Amherst. So we're glad to be part of the fabric. So we're looking to establish 32 seats. Outdoor. We are reactivating a space. Or seating footprint that was already in place. So we're looking to establish a space. The foot plates. And the rod iron fencing. We're all custom made. Prior to our arrival. We thought that the integrity. And the layout. Of that existing. Foot print. Was worthy to remain whole. The consumer base. The town of Amherst. The vehicle. Foot traffic. Vehicle traffic foot traffic footfall. Was very familiar with the layout. And the design. Was very familiar with the design. The design. Was very familiar with the design. Was very familiar with the design. So what we did was we refurbished all of the tops. We cleaned up the concrete. Repainted the rod iron fencing. To bring back some of the beautification. We refurbish some of the awning. String lighting. And add it. To that, which is already previously approved. Some of the white line. Physical assets and branding. And so with that being said, I also just want to make note. That there will be no. Outdoor heaters. We do have two respective. Security cameras. With. The 32 seats. It's layout. The previously approved branding. It adds some value. To the ongoing. Beautification of that may have that. North pleasant corridor. So. With that being said, I also just want to make note. That there will be no. Outdoor heaters. And then there will be no security cameras. With monitors that monitor those security cameras on the interior. Of the space. The benches are permanent. There are three. Two seat tops. That we'd be occupied by all seasonal. Indoor outdoor chairs. So when the evening is, or when we close for the evening, the chairs come inside when we open for the day, the chairs come outside. So we're pretty excited about that as well. I had also shared in the preliminary walkthrough. That. White lion in Springfield and white lion in Amherst. Does not provide table service. So people would have to come in. To the tap room. Bar area. Make their respective orders. They will be given a notification. They will be given a notification. They will be given a notification. They will be given a notification. They will be given a better instrument. Then when their food or beverage is ready, we would accompany that to their particular seat. It's worked well for us that way in Springfield. And we hope to make that work in Amherst. If an adjustment is needed to be made, we would do so quarterly to our own interior. Management plans. But other than that, to be honest with you, I think. That is it from my end. Okay. Thank you, Ray. You're very welcome. So the next item. And this conversation. Fred or Jesse, I gathered the two of you. Went to the site. Visit yesterday. To see the space. I guess if one of you would be willing to. Give us a recap of the topics discussed and any observations that you want to share. Well, I, this is Fred. You know, this is pretty low key. I didn't see anything that. Raised any concerns on my part. I have. Eaton in this space back. Before COVID. When I horse was going strong. And I. You know, the proprietor, the former proprietor. Who still is the proprietor of the moment does. In South Amherst. And. So I'm. I'm pretty familiar with this kind of an operation. And I look forward to it. Getting back off the ground again. All right. So were there any observations where the. Were the new tops there? Could you see the refurbished lighting? Yes. I mean, I'm more interested in actually what you. Saw. Both of us who were not there would, would want to know. Well, the, that's true. The, the tops have been. Refurbish the. The lighting. It has a lot more lamps. Than before it. So it'll be even brighter, which I think. Is a good thing in terms of security and. Public use. There's plenty of light. You know, just based on the number of lamps that I saw overhead. So. I think this will be an asset. All right. Good. I see Jesse. You've got your hand up too. Would you like to add anything to that? I was just going to add that basically Ray covered exactly the topics we discussed. So he showed us the refurbished tops, the repainting and the. The concrete's been scrubbed with butter paint was on there. Pretty much a good shape to me. All right. Great. Okay. So. Board board questions and conversation jump. Yohana, I see your hand. Thanks, Doug. Thanks for the report. It's exciting to hear the space getting revitalized. I had one question about the addition of lighting. So are there actually new fixtures? And if so, where are they and are they downcast light? Great question. Thank you very much. I think the existing infrastructure of lighting that is on the facade of the building remains the same. There were no additional. Or I should say there were no additions. The only lighting that we addressed. From a canopy perspective was on the undercarriage. Where we added maybe an extra 50 to 60 feet. Bulb lighting. There's a new lighting that will cast a greater illumination. Or a greater loom to the seating area outside. It will not. Abstract any of the common walkway area. Or impact any of the foot traffic or vehicle traffic. It's a direct spell down onto the seating area. I don't know if it's underneath part of the building or it's underneath the canopy that was already there. Correct. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Okay, so we don't need to worry about it shining up in any direct in any way. No. Okay, good. Jesse, I see your hand. Yeah, related question. I didn't see in any of the provisions. Good question. We're not in the business hours are listed, but Ray, when the lights stay on, they go up. Those same lights were just discussing at the end and closing business from an energy and pollution standpoint. Absolutely. Great question. So they are on a timer. And that timer will be set according to dusk dawn. So if we open up at let's say 11 in the morning. 20 afternoon, 3 in the afternoon, and they will shut down as the sun goes down or at closing, I should say. So if we close at 10 p.m., they will be shutting down around 10 p.m. accordingly. So it would mirror, to answer your question directly, they will not be on 24-7. It will mirror the operational aspect of our Monday through Sunday. Great, thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Great. Board members, are there any other questions at this point? If not, I'm gonna go to public comment and invite public comment about this application. Is there anybody in the public that would like to comment at this time? All right. Do not see any. All right. Are there any, in that case, we'll come back to the board. Are there any final comments that the board would like to make? Okay. So before we go to a motion, Bruce, I know you may be ready to make a motion. Chris, you sent out a set of draft conditions for this permit, and I thought it would be worth us going through that before we get to our vote. So that we can incorporate those into one comprehensive motion to approve presumably to impose the conditions and then close the hearing. So Steve, great. Thanks for bringing those up. All right. So Chris, I guess I wanted to ask you, you had sent an earlier email this week saying we needed to look at the previous permit for the conditions that were imposed on High Horse and so I'm thinking, I did look at those pretty briefly while I was traveling but are these entirely identical to what High Horse had or have there been any changes from that? They're very similar to what High Horse had and I did review the conditions of High Horse with regard to the outdoor dining with the building commissioner and these are the ones that he and I decided would be most appropriate for this establishment for the outdoor dining. Okay. Do you think we should go through these? We often read these. Yes, I do. Do you think it would be useful to kind of go through that other email that I sent yesterday that kind of explains how this all fits together? Yeah, I think that certainly would be good just to get that in the sort of public record for how this relates to the administrative approval that Rob Mora has done and that kind of thing. Okay, so what if with your permission why don't I go through that? Sure. So the White Lion Brewery was already approved by administrative approval by the building commissioner. Seasonal outdoor dining is permitted under section 5.041 of the zoning bylaw either by site plan review or special permit depending on the land use permit required for the principal use. And in this case, the principal use is a food and drink establishment and it's allowed by site plan review in the BG zoning district under section 3.352.0. In this case, the site plan review was waived and the project was approved by administrative approval and Mr. Hartwell has already pointed out the section of the zoning bylaw that relates to that. It's 11.2113. So that approval already went through. Outdoor dining that accompanied the previous establishment had expired and because the previous business had been closed for more than two years, the applicant needed to file a new site plan review application for permission for outdoor dining. You talked about the site visit and then the fire department issued an email commenting on the application and the one thing that seemed very relevant to the planning board was that the fire department recommended strongly against any kind of outdoor heaters or propane on site. The other thing was that I asked the building commissioner to issue a statement with regard to the fact that the outdoor dining will not block egress from the building and he did send an email to that effect and I forwarded it to the planning boards. I believe this morning. So those are things that I have provided to the planning board in addition to the conditions. Chris, I thought I heard you misspeak. That statement came from Rob Moore and not from the fire department. The, I had asked about the egress. Yes, the egress statement came from Rob Moore. That's correct. The statement with regard to the heaters and propane came from the fire department. And in terms of that full email from the fire department, they had looked like two conditions that the fire suppression systems be updated and then that there'd be no outdoor heating. Mr. Barry, you're fine with both of those? Absolutely, we're ready for a fire inspection next week. So we're getting close to having the fire department come through and take a look at those two permits that we pulled for approval. Okay, all right, good. All right, Chris, would you like to read these conditions or would you like one of us to do that? I can read them if that's okay with you. Sure. So number one is the outdoor dining area shall be configured substantially in accordance with the floor plan prepared by Cune Real Architects dated 7523 and approved by the planning board on and then we would put tonight's date in there. Any substantial changes to the approved floor plan shall be reviewed by the planning board at a public meeting and the purpose of the public meeting shall be for the planning board to determine whether any changes are substantial enough to require a new site plan review application. Is that one satisfactory? Well, I mean, the first sentence says seems to, it seems a little circular because any substantial changes shall be reviewed but we are reviewing it to find out whether, I guess whether they're substantial enough. Okay, all right. The second sentence applies to anything that occurs after tonight. Yeah, I guess I'm just wondering whether we could use a slightly different adjective like substantive or... Oh, yeah. Something that's not duplicating the third sentence. Yep. That's fine. Shall we go on? Yes, sure. Number two, the outdoor dining accessory use shall be operated in accordance with the management plan approved by the planning board on probably tonight's date. And then you wanna make the same change here any substantive changes? Any substantive changes to the management plan? Anybody else feels about that but that would be my preference. Shall be reviewed by the planning board at a public meeting and the purpose of the meeting shall be for the planning board to determine whether any changes are substantial enough to require a new site plan review application. Number three, the hours of operation shall be the same as approved in the administrative approval date of June 26, 2023 which are 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday. 11 a.m. to 12.30 a.m. on Friday and Saturday and it would be open seven days a week. Okay. Steve, can you scroll up a little? Great. Oh, Jesse has a question. Oh. Oh, yeah, Jesse. Thanks. Really, similar point was before and question for how we operate should that provision about the lights being off be in there as well with the hours of operation or is that a detail we don't need to include? We certainly can include it. And I'm wondering whether that would perhaps go on item six with the talking about when the outdoor guidance not in operation, maybe the chairs shall be removed and the lights, you know, the decorative or, you know, the light or whatever they're going to be turned off. So Chris, why don't you go ahead? Number four, at the close of business, all debris and trash shall be removed from the outdoor dining area and proper that should be properly L Y disposed of. Chris, I suppose we could put the note about the lights in here too and or instead. Okay. I mean, I think it could go either in our paragraph four or six. Okay. All right. Number five, the total occupancy shall be the same as approved in the administrative approval dated June 26, 2023, which stated the following. The total occupancy interior and exterior will increase to 135 upon completion of the design review board and site plan review processes to add the accessory use of outdoor dining. I discussed this with the building commissioner because I know that Ray had said at the site visit that he would have an occupancy of 32 outside. So you could say that the occupancy of the exterior is 32 but if you phrase it the way I've written it here it kind of gives some flexibility. So if there's more people outside and fewer people inside, then, you know, the maximum he can have is 135. Okay. Ray, are you all right with this wording? I am comfortable. Thank you for asking. Okay. I'm fine with leaving it, Chris. All right. Number six, when the outdoor dining area is not in operation, individual chairs that are not permanently affixed to the floor shall be removed and properly stored. Okay. And you thought that maybe the lights, the issue of the lights should go here or? Yeah. I mean, I think it could go either four or six. Johanna. I was almost thinking that we just have a close of business checklist. There's one, the debris and trash gets removed, the chairs go inside and the lights go off. Right. Yeah. We could just consolidate them. Okay. That's good. Yep. Thank you, Johanna. Number seven, in accordance with the email from Captain Chris Baskin of the Amherst Fire Department to Pam Field Sadler dated July 25th, 2023, there shall be no outdoor heating appliances or LPG tanks allowed on site. Okay. I assume that at some point, if they decide they would like to apply for that, they could come back and do that. Okay. Number eight, any music offered in the outdoor dining area shall be limited to a volume that does not impede normal conversation for patrons in the outdoor dining area. All right. I did want to ask Ray, have you had conversations with the Drake upstairs and whether there's any possibility of your music interfering with their operations? The Drake, it's my understanding that Drake did a sound test operating and then walking through our space to see if there was any noise that was transferred down at this point in time, there was no concern. We also installed approximately 12 sound boards to our ceiling. So if we play light music or have some sort of entertainment, we're hoping those sound boards will create a nice reflective barrier not to impede on the upstairs occupancy. All right. Ray, I guess we can go on. Nine, upon change of ownership, the new owner shall present a management plan and any changes to the floor plans to the outdoor dining area to the planning board at a public meeting. The purpose of the public meeting shall be for the planning board to determine whether any changes are substantial enough to require a new site plan review application. Okay. Johanna. So let's say management changes and they don't make substantive changes to the floor plan. Do they still need to come before us with their updated management plan? They do in order for you to see that the management plan is the same. So this is in lieu of having the permit expire upon change of ownership, which is very cumbersome. And so if we can just have the new owner to come back to the planning board to meet the planning board and present a management plan whether it's the same or different and then any possible changes to the floor plans then the planning board can determine. Yes, we're gonna approve this, this is fine or no, there are so many changes that you need to come back for a site plan review. Does that make sense? I think so. I think, Johanna, it sounds like what you might've been getting at is that we've had a couple of paragraphs above that sort of suggested we're likely to have a new site plan review anyway. Is that, I mean, we're here tonight because there was this gap of more than two years and the previous permit expires if it's not in use for more than two years, right? It did expire, yes. But that was because of the interruption of operation, right? Yes, and so the building commissioner feels that if this had continued to operate and then Ray came in and took over from High Horse and was going to have an establishment, then Ray would need to come and meet with you to present his management plan and you would determine is this management plan satisfactory and compare it to the previous management plan or not. And that conversation would simply be an item on the agenda that was not a public hearing. It's not a public hearing, no. Okay, all right. Well, Johanna, I mean, I guess it is. That's fine, you know, there's part of me, this is probably neither the time nor the place but there's part of me that feels like this could be an administrative review type decision down the road rather than having to bubble up to the planning board. Right. So, but again. Maybe that'll be the next board. Jesse. Thanks, backing up slightly. I'm wondering about that point seven about the outdoor heating. And I guess it's probably a question for Ray and probably a question for the board. If Ray were to decide that would be nice because to me that's a little limiting time seasonal limitation. Is it very onerous to then get that approval and does that have to come back to the board? And is there a way we can word it so that it's just a fire approval issue rather than coming back to the board? Chris, what's your understanding? I think it's important enough for the fire department that they put it in their memo. And actually it was Mr. Mora, the building commissioner who recommended putting it into the conditions. So I think it would require them coming back to the planning board if they wanted to use outdoor heating appliances. So that would simply ensure say that we have touched base with both the fire department and the building commissioner. And so this is sort of a higher level of scrutiny, I guess. Okay, Bruce, your thoughts? I agree. I think what this is saying is that there won't be any the owner Ray has indicated that he's not intending to do so. And so basically this is just saying that we are not we haven't yet gone through the process of trying to figure out all of the ins and outs and so forth associated with these appliances. My guess is that it would be a job of work. And I don't think we would want to do it as a contingency. We'd want to know that they wanted to do it. And then we would take go through the process of deciding whether it's possible or not what the pros and cons are. But at the moment, this is just saying, we haven't gone. We haven't gone there. And so no heating appliances are allowed. And but they can come back if they choose and we can go through that process which may be elaborate and lengthy and contentious or it may not, but it's we're not doing it now. Yeah, I guess if there weren't probably combustible canopy over this area, it might be a different conversation. But I think it's the canopy that's really prompting the fire department to want to be really clear about this. Okay, Jesse, are you all right with that? Okay, all right. All right, Chris, I think we were through this page. Steve, can you scroll up a little to the second page, right? No, second page. Okay, all right, that's it. Okay, all right, Bruce, now we'll come back to you. I was actually going to ask that we look at this, but in addition, do we know that there are specific waivers or that we should mention in a motion to approve? Well, I know that Rob had waivers in his let's see, didn't, I thought I saw waivers somewhere, Chris. I thought I did too. I saw the, I mean, the legal notice and the public hearings were waived on Rob's administrative approval decision. It's usually things like landscape plan, sign plan. Yeah. Erosion control plan, traffic impact statement. You know, maybe I saw that on the previous conditions report from High Horse. I wonder, I wonder. Well, I'll inquisit in the motion to approve, I guess. I mean, are we ready to approve? I don't know if Johanna wants to say something else or she was ready to second your motion. Johanna, do you want to say something? I've been drafting a motion too. Oh, Johanna, why don't you make the motion? Okay, I'll take a crack. I move that we determine that this project meets the conditions of section 11.24 with the conditions and that we close the public hearing. With the conditions that have been drafted by Chris here? Yeah, I had the, with the conditions in there. So if that. Okay. And I would, I will second that and possibly we should add in to the motion that the all waivers, the usual waivers. The usual waivers, yes, whatever. This project that is a pretty limited site. Yeah. And it's really not. So just to complete it, yes, I second the motion. Okay. All right, any other comments from the board before we go through the vote? All right, I only see your hand, Bruce. So do you want to vote? I approve. All right, Fred. I approve. All right. Thank you, Jesse. I approve. Thank you, Johanna. I. And I'm an I as well. So that's a five in favor and two abstentions. So thank you all. And thank you, Mr. Berry and thank all of you. We look forward to being a responsible business in downtown and being part of the community fabric. All right. And I look forward to dining at your establishment. Appreciate you all. Probably drinking too. That's okay. Thank you. Take care. Bye bye. Okay. So the time is 726. We can move on. Next item, the draft solar bylaw article 17. Large scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installations. A presentation of the draft bylaw from the solar bylaw working group appointed by the town manager. And I gather this is just a really an introductory conversation and a prompt for all of us to read through the draft that you shared, Chris. And I know you shared another draft that Janet had marked up. So do you have anything you want to say to introduce this? Yeah, I have a little statement I'd like to read. Okay. And then we can go through the draft if you're so inclined. So good evening. My name is Christine Brestrup and I'm the planning director. The general manager of the city of Amherst. In March of 2022, the town manager created a solar bylaw working group to work on drafting a solar bylaw for the town of Amherst. And to, and to create a map to show feasible or suitable locations in Amherst for where solar installations could be built. The solar bylaw working group was created and began work in the proposed of seven residents of Amherst representing the following boards and committees. The planning board of whom Janet McGowan is the representative. The energy and climate action committee. The conservation commission. The water supply protection committee. And Jack Jemsick is the representative of that group. Two residents with solar and or forestry or other relevant experience. The group was supposed to have someone from the board of health, but for some reason they don't have that representative. But anyway, so they have their, their group and they meet every roughly every two weeks. And as part of the group's work that town hired GCA environmental to create a map that identifies and prioritizes locations for solar installations. And GCA conducted a community survey to find out what people thought about solar development and how they viewed different locations for solar developments. And GCA then created a map using criteria that they helped to develop. They, in doing the map they eliminated lands that are owned by the colleges and university because we don't really have any control over them. They eliminated known wetlands and waterways. They eliminated lands that have been designated as conservation areas or lands with conservation restrictions. They eliminated lands that have been designated as a PR or agriculture preservation restrictions. And they also eliminated roadways and rail, railroads. This left behind about a third of the area of the town to evaluate for feasibility. They added the remaining third of the town into 30 by 30 foot squares and used criteria to give them a ranking as to feasibility for solar development. The criteria included the slope of the land, the aspect of the land in other words what direction does it face. The distance to face three transmission lines and the capacity of face three transmission lines to accept more electricity. They gave the squares ranking from zero to 10 that showed whether they are highly feasible or not feasible at all. This study and mapping are available for viewing on the engage Amherst website. In case you'd like to take a look at that. At the same time this mapping was occurring the solar by the working group has been, excuse me. We've been drafting a solar biola that's meant to become part of our zoning bylaw. And the solar biola is based on work of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. The DOER which is the Department of Energy Resources, the Cape Cod Commission, as well as bylaws of various cities and towns throughout Massachusetts. We've also been consulting with our town attorney at KP law about what a solar biola should contain. And how much we can regulate about solar installations. Chapter 40 a of mass general laws governs zoning. And section three of chapter 40 a has certain limitations on the regulation of various types of development, including religious and educational institutions and solar installations. With regard to solar installations chapter 40 a section three states that no zoning ordinance or bylaw. Shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems, or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health safety or welfare. Within these limitations, the solar biola working group has been drafting a solar biola. And I'd like to just run through a brief introduction of that with you. Keeping in mind that this is just a draft and that it's your first look. We have a goal to deliver to the town manager by the end of August a draft, but this it may take a little longer than that. And right now we have most of the solar biola drafted. However, we're currently wrestling with issues having to do with regulating solar on farmland and forest. The survey conducted by GCA showed that most people who took the survey preferred preferred to see solar on the built environment such as rooftops and parking lots, or on brown fields. However, other than university land embers does not have a lot of rooftops or parking lots. They don't have a lot of brown fields in Amherst. So it may be necessary to locate solar installations on farmland or on forested land. The working group has been studying ways to regulate solar on farmland. And one option is to require that solar installations on farmland be built as agrivoltaics, which involves sharing of land between solar and farming. This type of installation is in an early stage of development, and it has been used a lot throughout Europe, but it hasn't been used as much in this country. So we're studying that. I just want to walk you through the solar biola that we have to date and to point out as Doug did that Janet McGowan, who's the representative on the solar biola for the planning board. She wasn't able to be here tonight. And so we probably should save an in-depth discussion of this biola for a time when she can be here, but she did send in some edits to the solar biola. So let's just begin to look at the solar biola and, you know, notice what sections are in it. And then, as I said, probably postpone an in-depth discussion, but you may have questions if you have had a chance to go through it to date. So Steve, can you bring up a copy of the solar biola? Are we going to look at the version that was prior to Janet's comments? Yes, look at the version that's prior to Janet's comments because I haven't had a chance to incorporate Janet's comments. But I wanted to make sure that you saw that. Her comments arrive did prompt me to wonder who is actually doing the drafting of this. Is it GZA? Is it you? Is it the committee as it meets every two weeks? Or because it seemed like her comments, you know, are they just automatically going to go into the draft or kind of what's the process? No, her comments aren't automatically going to go into the draft. She's offering her own take on things and other people have different ideas. It's an interesting group because there are wide-ranging opinions about how solar should be regulated in Amherst. Martha is here. Martha Hanner is a member of the group and she may be able to explain the different types of points of view, but there are certainly different points of view. And what we've got here is what I've created. I'm the one who's essentially drafting this. And so I listened to what goes on at the solar by the working group and I listened to the questions that people have and I try to come up with answers. But it's going to take a lot of discussion to get to a final draft, I would say. Okay. But as in all bylaws, we had to have an intent and purpose. I see, I see Fred's got his hand up. Did you have a question before we get into it, Fred? Well, I think I just figured it out, which is why I lowered my hand. The version of this that I got had edits in yellow shading. I was wondering if that was what that was, but now I know. I see CB, I assume that's Christine Brestrup. So that's Chris's edition. Yeah. And not Ms. McGowans. Correct. My edition is the one that's on the screen right now. It's dated July 19, 2023. And then Jen, it's, I believe it's dated July 27. But I haven't had a chance to read it showed up with track changes in red. Yeah. And I wanted to make sure that you saw that because Janet couldn't be here. But I haven't had a chance to really read those in depth or incorporate them. Okay. Fred, you're still have your hand up. Are you all set for now? Well, I. When, when we're ready, I do have, I did flag one of these things that I wanted to alert people to, but I'll wait until we get a little further along, I guess. All right, so let's see, can we. Great. Okay. Go ahead, Chris. I want to read all of this multi page document. What is it 18 pages or something, but I think it is worthwhile to read the intent and purpose that we have here. Because it is, it only deals with large scale ground mounted solar installations, it's not dealing with rooftop installations and it's not dealing with smaller installations. But we're trying to balance a lot of different things. So why don't I go ahead and read the intent and purpose and then we can kind of skim through the rest of it. So the purpose and Janet did have several additions that she wanted to make to this list of things that we have here but as I said I haven't incorporated those yet. The purpose of this article is to promote the health safety and general public welfare by promoting and regulating the creation of new large scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installations by providing standards for the placement design construction operation monitoring modification and removal of such installations. The Amherst recognizes the urgent need to convert to non carbon energy sources to promote solar energy development and to sequester carbon to slow and reverse climate change. This by law aims to balance multiple needs, the need for non carbon forms of energy generation and storage to meet climate action goals, the need to promote the health safety and welfare of the people of the town of Amherst and the region. To preserve the natural environment protect sources of carbon sequestration and storage and minimize impacts on scenic natural and cultural resources. The need to provide adequate financial assurance for the eventual decommissioning of such installations, and the need to recognize recognize the rights of landowners to use their land. If you could scroll down a bit Steve so that we can look at the bottom of this page. If this article strives to regulate solar and energy storage facilities in order to encourage solar installations to be installed on built and previously degraded environments to the extent technically and economically feasible. And to control negative impacts on areas such as forests and agricultural lands, otherwise known as natural and working lands. This balances the critical goal of increased solar energy production with reasonable regulations, thus serving to promote the health safety and general welfare of Amherst residents. This article encourages the use of solar energy systems and protect solar access consistent with Massachusetts general laws chapter 40 sections three and nine be which is solar access 18 and green communities act. Chapter 25 a section 10. And this article is also supported of supportive of the mess of the Amherst master plan, the open space and recreation plan, the climate action, adaptation and resilience plan. And the Massachusetts clean energy and climate action plan for 2025 and 2030 and Massachusetts decarbonization roadmap. This article strives to encourage and regulate solar and energy facilities in a manner that reflects the equity and justice of impacts and opportunities across all sectors of Amherst residents with particular concern on our low income and marginalized communities. The provisions set forth in this article shall take precedence over all other less restrictive sections of the zoning bylaw and the regulation of these entities, we're calling them LSS PIS right now. We have to think of a short version of large scale so ground mount to solar photovoltaic installations, but we haven't come up with that yet. Anyway, so we also have applicability in other words what does this apply to. Then we have a list of definitions. We want to keep scrolling through Steve keeps growing. I'm not going to read all of that. Submittal requirements. And this is an important thing. The planning board and the zoning board of appeals already have submittal requirements in their rules and regulations but we determined that it was useful to put special submittal requirements in this solar bylaw. So, scroll down Steve, you can see there are a lot of submittal requirements you can keep scrolling until you get to the next section that has a bold. Excuse me design standards so we have sections on certain things access roads lighting signage Steve you want to scroll down utility connections and glare visual impact and visual impact is something that's kind of controversial whether you should regulate visual impact or not. Keep scrolling. Fencing fencing is a big deal it's needed for to keep the public safe it's also needed to protect the equipment that's in a solar array. There's also a need for screening and planting. Did you have a comment. Well Chris, Fred has his hand up. Maybe we've got to the part where he wanted to come in. Fred, you are muted. No, I clicked it once and it didn't work. Okay, do you scroll up to page four please. Yeah, item four at the bottom of the page. Just be aware that the reference to the national electrical code is incorrect. And this is a very, very complicated subject. This is going to be the national electrical safety code which is a totally different code. And I'm happy to work with the committee on this, but this is not a simple reference. It may look like it but trust me, it is not simple at all. While I mentioned this. I didn't want to do this without kind of the, you know, the permission of the board. I would like to forward this draft to one of my colleagues who has his career. The last 20, 30 years of his career was with a as a engineer for Massachusetts Electric and their systems, and about the last 15 years, he left Massachusetts Electric and what he does now is do engineering on large scale solar. We hire on a first name basis we both sit on the Massachusetts code committee, and I can't think of anybody who would be in terms of electrical would be in a better position to to look at this. I didn't want to do it without, you know, mentioning it at this meeting. Okay, why don't we, why don't we maybe come back to that. You know, after Chris after you get your. Go through. Okay, let's see signage glare visual impact fencing screening and planting slope control of vegetation, whether we're going to require dual use or not. And then there's this thing called maximization of ecosystem services that's been somewhat of a discussion item for us can you go back up a little bit Steve. Yeah. I had never heard of ecosystem services before I became engaged in this project, but this was brought to my attention by Dwayne Breger who works for the for you mass for the extension service dealing with issues related to solar. And he is, you know, he's very aware or familiar with this term but essentially it is kind of an overarching way of looking at. Protecting the land and allowing the plants and animals to, you know, survive and thrive and trying to keep the ecosystem working even though you are installing something there in its midst that, you know, is potentially disruptive so that's what this is about. So you can scroll on further. Did you want to comment on that. Yes, I come across that term as well and my sense of it is that it's it's something that people have been aware of for a long time it's just kind of gets differently branded and I think it's in my understanding is that it's a it's a it's trying to leverage environmental understandings and benefits in a kind of a, you know, a more conventional economic landscape so that we're talking about, just as they, you know, the utility company provides services of providing energy and so forth. Ecosystems do all sorts of things. And they do phenomenal things and people have started trying to put values on those things. And I think it's a good idea. But that seems to me that what this is what this should be trying to do is just to say well, you know, there are services that will be the natural world provides in terms of, you know, filtration and pollinations and all of those things and we I guess this is trying to encourage us to look at it in those terms because we're looking at PV systems going on the land and we're saying we need those because they provide electricity and my guess is that the ecosystem ecosystem services side of it is saying the ecosystem is providing services as well. And we have to balance those and it's trying to level the playing field if you like I think between what man made stuff does because we've always imagined that that was super important and and that the environment stuff just kind of happens and we don't notice it but nowadays we're trying to put them on an equal footing. That's a good explanation. Thank you. So we've been talking about dimensional standards and setbacks and this is also kind of a sticky wicket because some people really want things to be set back pretty far from roadways and from residences. On the other hand, you know, people, other people want to maximize the extent of a solar array to be able to use up as much of the property as possible to gain the most solar benefit. So we've been kind of going back and forth with regard to this some of you may be familiar with the Hampshire College solar array on Bay Road. I think it has a setback of 30 feet from the front property line. And I think it has a setback of 25 feet from the from the sidelines anyway that gives you like a visual reference to what does it mean to have a 30 foot setback. So we're still working on this. We have to deal with scenic roads. So Steve, if you just stay on page 11 for a minute. I just wanted to explain that for scenic roads. There is a scenic roads map that we have on our website. I think it's on the planning planning department website, or maybe it's on the planning board website but anyway, there have been a factor in Amherst since 1974. There are certain roads that have been designated as scenic roads and we wanted to be able to treat them specially with regard to setbacks. So we're suggesting a setback of 100 feet here, but again, that hasn't been voted on or decided on by the solar by the working group. So this is kind of just a placeholder if you will. So you can keep scrolling. So side and rear setbacks again I used Amherst College as an example with their 25 foot setback from the sideline. But some people may feel that if you have, you know, a residential neighborhood or even just one house next to a solar array that the setback should be larger than that. So, again, where this is something we're still working on. And Steve, if you'd keep scrolling. Chris, when you say the array. Are you talking about the panels with their support, or are you talking about the fence, or are you talking about the service road that needs to go around the array inside the fence. I think it would be the fence. Okay. But that's a good question we haven't been specific about that. We talked about natural and working lands, particularly with regard to agricultural land and people on the solar by the working group have varying opinions about this so Steve if you'd stay at the top of that page that would be helpful. You know, there's the idea that you, there are various options as to how to treat agricultural land. You could prohibit solar arrays on prime farland or farmland of state importance. However, large portions of Amherst are containing prime farmland and farmland of state importance. So that would really do away with quite a bit of our land as far as, you know, putting solar arrays on it. You could limit the size of a solar array on this type of land. So that would be option to. You could allow solar arrays on prime farmland and farmland of state importance only if agrivoltaics is used, and then another option would be to treat it in a way that if you use a certain amount of prime farmland or farmland of state that you would then set aside an equal amount somewhere else either in Amherst or in an adjacent town and put a deed restriction on that property to to, you know, preserve that land during the life of the solar array. And then the fifth option is not to have any restrictions on use of on installations on farmland. So that's, that's at one end of the spectrum of people on the solar by the working group, or people in the audience who don't want any restrictions and the other end of the spectrum is to not allow it at all. So that's kind of the playing field that we're on here. So it's an interesting conversation. In regard to someone have a comment. To the category as determined by the US Department of Agriculture, not irregardless of whether the land is actually being far. True. Well, we're working on that there's a new wording of this that's been proposed by one of the members of the solar by law working group that would say, you know, this is true for active farmland because as you said, or as I said before, most of Amherst is either prime farmland or farmland of state importance. So, you know, making it a category of active farmland might make more sense. Then with regard to forest cutting, this is treated in different towns differently. Some towns have very strict requirements with regard to fire a forest cutting such as, I think, built your town doesn't allow more than 10 acres of forest to be cut for a solar array. There are other towns that have, you know, other limitations. So, in theory has a requirement that if you cut a certain amount of forest, then you have to somewhere else preserve four times as much forest in another location so that's kind of a one end of the spectrum with regard to this topic. So what we've suggested here is that for forest cutting that if you were to cut an acre of forest, then you would preserve an acre of forest elsewhere either in Amherst or inland in a town of budding Amherst. And that would be shown on a map that would be filed at the registry of deeds and there would be a deed restriction placed on that land for the life of the solar array. Yes, so the question to Chris on this shoots free a four to one ratio, which suggests that forest four times as valuable and one to one in other places. We've heard discussions on this particularly recently. A friend of mine Bill Mooma. Speaking about the, well, the ecosystem services related to forest. And, and similarly, the benefits of of solar arrays. The question is, is there work that is where has a broad consensus yet been achieved between the relative value of forests and PV arrays, these would be the kind of things that are important to the future of society. Or does that four to one difference represent a substantial disagreement, or thirdly, is it simply arbitrary, but such shoots free as that border one and someone else has said one to one. Is there is there any run the reason to those proportions. I don't know how shoots very came up with that four to one ratio, but we have heard the solar by the working group has heard, you know, fairly different takes on whether solar is more beneficial or forests or more beneficial we have heard people present information and one member of the solar by the working group presented information to us that was vastly different. And so I would say it depends on who you're listening to as to which thing is more beneficial and how you how shoots very achieved the four to one ratio I really don't know. They have a very strong. What should I say support, we call it a nexus statement for having that ratio, and they're, you know, they report that forests are very important to the life and shoots very with regard to water erosion control and water supply and a lot of different things so they are different from Amherst in terms of many things they're much more rural town they don't have a really a downtown area they don't have much commerce they have very sparse housing. So, I would not say that we should necessarily look to them for our model but I'm pointing out that that is one way of, you know, protecting forests when you also on and will allow a solar development. I could also point out that shoots berries by lies being challenged by a solar developer. So, you may have heard about that. No real consensus. And so I was wondering if that's the case that any proportion that's put in might have a writer that says that that would be reviewed in five years because it may be. It could get agreement more rapidly if it was. If it was an if it was a proportion that was established with a five year sunset or a five year review and then people might not need to go to the matter of it, because in five years they would be a scientific consensus I'm sure. And so just to point out another way of dealing with this the way we deal with the requirement for affordable housing in certain instances that we could require a payment in lieu. In other words, if you're going to clear cut a certain amount of forest that you pay the town a certain amount of money to allow you to do that and then the town would put that money into a fund and that fund could be used for land conservation or, you know, something related to keeping ecosystem services running properly and it looks like you want to have a moment. I was just thinking this could finally fund our shade tree program. Yep. I think that was one of the suggestions. And I guess. Chris I, it's it touch since you've mentioned conservation land and you know that the payment and Lou might fund more conservation. This whole thing is kind of raised in my mind. Conservation for what. You know, by taking by excluding conservation land from the survey that Gza did. It may be actually missing an opportunity to at least be aware that some of the conservation lands the town owns are really great for solar and don't have huge, you know, ecosystem detriments. You know, I could imagine the town saying, gee, we're not getting enough solar from private developers. Here's a couple of parcels that the town would put out an RFP and say who would like to put solar on it. So I think that the conservation land is controlled by I believe it's chapter 97 of the mass general laws and it makes it very hard to do anything with that land other than conserve it or have it available for people to, you know, walk through it. So it's that that is very restricted as well as the APR land is very restricted. But that idea that you're sharing. Maybe there are other lands that we could look at in terms of that. It just sounds, it was surprising to me that we really were below a third of the land. It makes me too, which makes me, and I'm sharing my own ideas here, but it makes me feel that further restrictions that we put on solar may end up, you know, kind of shooting ourselves in the foot if we have so little land available to put solar on and then to put a lot of restrictions on that land. So we're going to end up with no places to put solar so that's a conversation that this solar by the working group is having, and that the planning board may choose to have as well. Maybe not tonight but sometime in the future. Okay, Johanna. Oh, I'll share one more thought and then we should probably, you know, there's obviously a lot of interest in this topic. Chris, I was surprised to hear you say that the conservation land usage may restrict solar and the only reason I'm surprised by it and I can look into it a little bit more is that Wentworth farm is near the neighborhood that I live in and I remember when we bought our house, looking into what could that land become and learning that it's open to a farm operating on the Wentworth farm conservation area, and there are you know restrict pretty. There are restrictions on the type of farm that could operate there, but I remember being struck like imagining farming on that space. And over the past couple of years when I walk there I sometimes just like do the exercise of imagining solar there. So I'd be curious to just know. And you know the map layers probably show that but, but I was, I guess I was surprised to hear you say that your understanding is that solar would be off limits for all the conservation lands in town. So my understanding is that for town owned conservation land where there's a, you know, a state or a town amount of money that's been put into purchasing that land and Dave Zomek would be the better person to talk to about this but that those lands are generally speaking in chapter 97 which has very strict guidelines about what you can use it for, but there are other types of conservation restrictions that people put on their own land that, you know, somebody might have a big tract of forest or field, and that person would want to own this or bequeaths or something a restriction on that land to the town but doesn't actually give the land to the town. In other words, they, they say, we will, you know in perpetuity promise not to develop this land we still want to own it and develop it and we'll give the restriction to the town. So that type of conservation land may be more available probably depending on what the, the agreement is in the conservation restriction that may be more available to having solar on it and my understanding is that if there's any state money, and I believe also town money in the form of like CPA money or something like that, that those lands are very highly restricted with regard to what they can be used for. Okay. Question. Johanna, are you finished. I had one more question then I'll be quiet. Chris, you had mentioned being able to find the map that GCA had developed on the Engage Amherst site. And when I went to the Engage Amherst site and looked at all this solar bylaw stuff. There was a lot on their process and there was a their final report, but I didn't see a map. And so maybe it's embedded in the final report but you know I was kind of hoping for like a interactive map that you can do. There is an interactive map. I have also had trouble finding it I looked for the link tonight and I couldn't actually find the link so what I need to do is find the link and send it to you all. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Johanna, Fred. Yeah, Chris, the section 97. Is there anyone that the state constitution steps in and requires a two thirds vote in both houses of the state legislature in order to remove a conservation restriction. Is that is that the area that we're talking about. Yes, I think so that we had an experience with that on northeast street where someone bought a property that had a conservation restriction on it. I remember that we had to go to the state legislature to get them to vote to allow that restriction to be transferred to another property somewhere else. And so that was very complicated and arduous and time consuming. It can be done but it's not something that people want to do. Okay. So yeah, that's that's what it's all about. All right. Why don't we go with continue. Okay, can you scroll down. So then we have monitoring and maintenance of the solar array so obviously the, the owner is responsible for maintaining it but then the permit granting authority may require that a third party inspector be brought in either during construction or afterwards to make sure that you know things are kept in an orderly fashion and that there aren't problems after large storm events or different things like that so we have this section on construction monitoring and reporting. So you can read through that and read through the details of it. Keep going down. So we have this section on modifications and then transfer of ownership. What does that mean? And that happens a lot in this industry. Abandonment or decommissioning. I don't know if these things actually become abandoned. I think sometimes they do, but there certainly is going to be an issue about decommissioning in the future. And you can scroll down a little bit, Steve. And then we have a bond or some kind of surety be placed with the town so that if the town becomes responsible for the removal in the future that there's enough money to do that. So that's what that's all about. The town already requires that. So even though we don't have a solar by a lot and I should have said this in the beginning. Solar arrays are currently considered part of electric generating plants, which is a certain section in our zoning bylaw. So they are regulated by the zoning board of appeals. The zoning board of appeals has approved. I think five solar arrays one on Hickory Ridge. One on Pulpit Hill Road, one on Montague Road. Anyway, two up in that neck of the woods. One on the landfill. The planning board has reviewed one at the Hampshire College on Bay Road. So I don't know how many that is four or five. Anyway, there are a bunch of them in town that have already been approved. There haven't been problems with them as I understand, but we don't have this kind of very detailed mechanism for controlling them or we're regulating them. We just have the zoning board of appeals that is very zealous in its work and they have a list of criteria that they use for reviewing projects but this will give them more guidance once we have something like this in place. I think that that I'm going to ask one of one of many questions I had and most of which I'll just email you after the meeting. But is this intended to be a site plan review or a special permit process, or something else entirely. This is probably going to be special permit in most instances, but it could be that the solar bylaw working group decides that in some places. They really think that solar installations are a great idea and they would like the planning board to be the controlling body under a site plan review. In other words, the use is well accepted in this location, but we just need some regulation about how it is occurring. Whereas in other places they may say, we think it needs a little bit more scrutiny or discretion and that would be under a special permit with the zoning board of appeals. In the end, I think it's hard for either group to say no to a solar installation because of that chapter 40 a section three that I mentioned earlier, but the zoning board of appeals may have a little more teeth to say no, or to say, make it smaller or something. So, all right. So, I think you went through the surety and that was the last piece of this draft. Is that the last piece. Well, Steve hadn't scrolled down that far but you talked about it. So I just wanted you to make aware, make you aware of what we're working on here and the fact that this will come back to you. You can choose to have this on your agenda as we move forward with it, but once this goes to the town manager, then he will probably present it to the town council and the town council would then consider it and refer it to the planning board and the CRC for public hearings. So I didn't want this to be sprung on you without you knowing much about it. So this is an introduction. And I'm, I would like to bring it back to you before it goes to town council because I think it's a really big, big aspect, a big part of the zoning bylaw and it's very important and the planning board should have a say in how it gets put together. And when it comes back to us, maybe the next time before it goes to town council, you will be inviting board suggestions for changes before it goes to town council or, I mean, you know, it's always a question when things show up to us from town council. Is this something we're supposed to just vote up and down or up or down, or are we supposed to be thinking about how we would like to edit it on as we send it back. I think that in the next month or so I would, I would certainly welcome comments and suggestions for change but those would probably then be brought to the solar bylaw working group which is in charge of putting this thing together. And then after it goes to town council and comes back to the planning board, the planning board has, you know, kind of free range to within the scope of the of the document to make suggestions for change. Okay, and it sounds like there may be a map or a new set of, you know, overlays on the town that have certain areas it's only site plan review and certain areas, it's special permit and certain areas it's prohibited. That could be we haven't gotten that far yet. Okay. All right, any other conversation from the board I see one hand from the public. Just a comment that when I was first on the board and maybe Fred remembers the same as I do here. We had a similar kind of review, so far as cell towels were concerned. And I think a similar kind of state directive which basically said you can't say no you just have to be discreet as you can say where. And so has the structure and process of the way we went about creating a bylaw around the location and decommissioning itself with the cell towels. Has that bylaw from 2025 years ago. Has that been useful in or at all relevant to the structure of this bylaw, Chris. I didn't say that we have referred to it but now that you brought it up, maybe I should refer to it. But I remember that being a sort of contentious thing that we couldn't really control it very much. And so, yes, I think I will go back and take a look at it I do understand that our bylaw with regard to wireless telecommunications is outdated. And that would probably have to be, you know, revised and brought up to date but, you know, referring back to it I think it's a good idea. All right, thanks Bruce. Okay, we'll come back for more board comments if there are any after we go to the public. So Steve if you could bring Martha Hanner of her and Martha, maybe repeat your name and your street address and we don't have our three minute timer this evening but I will try to keep track and hope you can make your comment in three minutes or less. Okay, well thank you, Martha Hanner, it's you know this some drive and Amherst, I'm a member of the solar bylaw working group. I would like to say a few things by way of background that can all order again, sort of my opinions but also statements of what we've done. I mean, first of all, I'd like to caution you that this is still a very drafty draft that we have not had the opportunity to go through the credit the draft that Chris has just showed you there have been sections of it but our last meeting got canceled for various reasons so we're a little behind so on. And so a few, a few things specifically on the agrivoltaics and so on which is very interesting if you want more information, we had a very interesting set of presentations at our meeting on June 9. So that is recorded you could listen to it but we had a local developer Jake Marley who works with farmers on dual use and other things we all learned a lot. And so this Friday we are going to go through a whole section of requirements and discuss whether this dual use of you know growing crops under solar panels is that far enough advanced that we could make that a requirement. Not yet because that's still from Massachusetts at least in an experimental stage. So that's, that's one point. Then as Chris sort of referred to the basis where we started from both our panel and Chris was the pioneer Valley planning authority had a very nice outline of what a solar bylaw should look like. The Cape Cod Association did also and that was our basis to start with and that gave a lots of information and again that's available if you wanted to review it and Chris has indeed looked at studied a number of local bylaws. In the face of shoots berry, they have a lot of dirt roads that were very concerned about erosion and as Chris said a very rural community. And so their justification for, you know, really preserving the forest at a very high level I think was unique to however, the state conservation the state roadmap of the 2030 and 2050 goals all stress the importance of natural lands of preserving ecosystems and the 2050 goals require 15% of the carbon dioxide emissions to be sequestered in order to reach net zero that just can go to that report and look at the diagram and so carbon sequestration which involves forests and wetlands becomes really a clear part of our state's requirements but you know how we deal with it in the working group is still you know questionable and let's see I wanted to say a couple of things. I am at three minutes. Yes, the map, just let me say that gza map that was done was really just a very starting point it took one of our towns it people a lot of work to then take it and make it usable, and they produce something very nice with a lot of overlays. Again, I don't have the reference in my in my head but because I think can get it for you but there, there is a nice site available to play with being able to overlay conservation lands and different things. And one final point then I'd like to say there was an arbitrary decision that was presented to the solar bylaw working group that said they were going to eliminate all the private college lands. And as you know, Hampshire College and Amherst College do have a great deal of land. And so it's partly because that got just eliminated from consideration that we got down to saying only one third of the land is available. There was a previous study done by the town, and which identified for example a 17 acre parcel of Brownfield on Route 116 that's owned by Hampshire College right across from their admissions office that would make an excellent place. It's not the Brownfield, so on. And so there are lots of possibilities I would say for cooperation on the private college lands. When you're when you're thinking about how much of Amherst is is available. Okay, try to talk fast there. I would recommend waiting till you see the next go round of the draft after we've had this meeting and the next meeting before really giving a deep consideration what would you think Chris. Yeah, that's probably a good idea but I didn't want to wait until it was all done. Exactly. Exactly. But we're we're we're doing our best to work hard on it here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Martha. Thanks for participating in that board. And for joining us. Particularly with Janet's absence, you are the person. Okay. Chris, is there anything else you wanted to get out of this evening's conversation. Absolutely. Thank you very much for listening and for giving me your thoughts and if you have any further thoughts and you want to email me. You're welcome to do that. Okay. I do see that Fred has his hand up. Yeah, just, does anybody have any heartburn with me sharing this draft with my colleague. I don't. Chris, how do you feel about it? More information we can get the better. Thank you. Thank you, Fred. Personally, if you do share it with him and you relay comments back. It would be helpful probably for him to give a little bit, a little bio of his background so that people have a sense of his perspective and where he's coming from. First thing. Okay, so it's now 821 we usually take a break at eight o'clock. However, it doesn't seem like we have a lot more on our agenda. So I'm thinking maybe we should just go ahead and finish it off. Right. Does everybody all right with that. Okay. Great. So, time now is 821, and we'll go to item five on the agenda old business item topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours in advance. I don't have any old business. How about new business of similar late breaking arrival. No, no new business. No new business. Okay, I'll turn the page. Item seven form a and our subdivision applications. None. All right, how about ZBA application. I know we talked about one last meeting and I suppose you'll bring that to us when it, when it's time. Probably on the agendas. I think it may be on the agenda already for later in August. The one that. Well, the two that come to mind. One has started already 798 800 North Pleasant Street is a project that has a duplex on it already and it's, they're proposing to build another duplex there so I told you about that project already but it is coming back before the zoning board on when the 28th of September. Then we also have the shoots Berry Road solar, which is being coming before the zoning board on August 24. We do expect that to take multiple nights to get through the permit on that. That may have been the one that we wanted to see. And we have you scheduled to have a presentation on that on August 16. That's your next meeting. Okay. And so that's it for ZBA. Upcoming SPP SPR SUB applications. I'm not aware of any right now. Okay. All right item 10 planning board committee and liaison reports. Bruce anything on PVPC. No report. Jack has been sending odd things because Jack, although he's an alternate is on the executive committee so in some respects he's not in some respects, in one specific way he's, he's closer to the wheelhouse than I am by for by sure. And then see back and DRB are vacant. Chris, may I say something about that. So the planning board needs to consider nominating a member to be on CPAC and to be on the designer view board, and you'll probably have your elections coming up. I'm thinking the first meeting in September. Does that suit everybody. That would be September 6. The alternative would be to have them have the elections on August 16th if you wanted to do it that soon, but right. I need to look at my family calendar I think I may actually be gone. September 6. I don't know if others will be I mean you can certainly have the, have the conversation and do the election without me. That's fine too. So, would it be too soon to do it on August on August 16. Or do we think all members would be present. I think we just got an email from your harness saying that she would not be present on August 16. Okay. All right. I guess the other. I guess the other the only other. I mean, the other possibility is to delay it to the one in the second one in September. Or you could do it on the September, August 30, which is when you're going to have your in person meeting. Yeah, you want to do it then. Yeah, why don't we do that then. Yes, I'll be gone at the second meeting in September I think. Okay. Elections on August 30. Okay. Good. So, thank you for reminding us of that, Chris. I'm not here to talk about the solo bylaw working group, but we've gotten a pretty thorough report, I think. And we're having a meeting on this coming Friday it's starting at 1030 in the morning and it's going to 130 in the afternoon so if you wanted to tune into that you could get a sense of what they're working on. They're meeting with the attorney from KP law to talk about what are the limits that we can regulate with in terms of solar bylaws. Do you see anything you want to share Chris. I think they're getting really close to being ready if they haven't already sent their rental registration by law to town council they're getting very close to doing that. And that's governing the process and permitting for rental units in town it's not sort of spatial item that we would be dealing with. Okay. Okay. So the time now is 827 reported the chair I have, I have no report. Report of staff Chris. Oh just thanks to the new members for joining and thanks to Steve McCarthy for helping us out tonight. Okay, yes. Yes. My pleasure. Thank you all. Good. So, unless anybody has anything else they want to say we can adjourn. I have the time still at 827. So, thank you all for joining on a, on a nice summer evening. Thank you. Bye. See you in two weeks.