 Okay. So we are recording. Great. Thank you, Stephanie. And welcome everybody on a nice Friday afternoon. Or I guess it's not quite afternoon yet to the town of Amherst. A solar bylaw working group for Friday, May 12, 2023. Good to have a quorum. Thank you for the public participants that we have with us. And let me just the first order of business is typically to. Assign the note taker. I believe it was Mark the last time. Yeah, but I thought there was an out of order. Yeah. So Dan. Yeah, Dan. Are you able? Oh, great. Okay. Great. Yeah. Thank you. And then Jack, Jack will be next time. So I might email him to alert him. Okay. Let's make a note of that. All right, great. So thank you, Stephanie for putting the package together and the agenda. We do have, we're a little bit backed up on minutes to approve. And welcome, welcome, Martha, as well. And so that will be our first order of business is to see if we can review and approve the minutes that we have still outstanding. And I guess we'll work from chronological order. So the first one is from March 17. The people had time to review the minutes. And, and if so, is there any suggestions, edits or a motion to approve the minutes of March 17th. So move. Okay. Sorry, for the record, who was that. Okay, great. I'm looking around. Okay, great. Second on that. I'm happy to second that motion. Okay. So I need a voice vote. So please make sure you're unmuted so I can, we can hear you. And no particular order. Breger. Yes. McGowan. Yes. Corkin. Yes. Hannah. Yes. Peggy Arulo. Yes. The minutes are approved. Thank you. All right. And then second, we have the minutes. Of four 14 April 14th. These one through a. A discussion last meeting with some suggested revisions, which have now been made. So any. Comments on that or a motion to accept the minutes of April 14th. As amended now. I'll make that motion. Great. I can second that. Okay. And Laura with the second. Okay. And again, in no particular order. Breger. Yes. McGowan. Yes. Corkin. Yes. Hannah. Yes. Peggy Arulo. Yes. Great. Okay, which brings us essentially up to date now to review and. Accept if we can the minutes from last meeting. April 28th. Do we have any comments. Or. A motion to accept those minutes and, and I just checking at Martha. Thank you for, for preparing these minutes. Janet. Comment. I thought these were really excellent minutes. And I liked that you identified like the speaker. Yeah. I'm not sure. But I, what I really liked was when you just kind of summarize the discussion without identifying speakers. Like one point was like, there was no consensus, but here were the observations. And I found that super useful. Like, because it. It's just somehow just. I like the idea of not identifying people as much just. I just thought that worked out really well. Yeah. Thank you. It was a struggle. I, I, you know, really had to. Recording a couple of times there, but it seemed like that would be most helpful when we're trying to figure out what to do next about that section of the. Of the draft. Yeah. And I thought it would take extra time to do it that way. So I think I'm going to try that. In my. Sad efforts at the minutes, but anyway, so I moved to, to accept those. Okay. Annotated. Animated motion. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Janet. Sorry. Do we have a second for accepting these minutes? I'm probably not allowed to accept my own minutes. So I'll second them. Hey, thank you, Laura. Yeah. Okay. Great. And again, in no particular order. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. McGowan. I. Regger. I. Corcoran. I'm staying. Hannah. Yes. Peggy or Rulo. Yeah. Okay. And it's her approved. All right. Thank you for that. Next item. Is for staff updates. Again, because I'm sure. Yeah. So staff updates. Obviously we'll be hearing from Chris later on the, on the, on the drafting that she and her group has done, but first. Stephanie, any updates on. Your side of the staff. Sure. So I did meet with Adrian last week. And she is working on finalizing the report. We should probably have it within the next week or so. As far as the GIS map layering. That's taking longer because our GIS expert is working on a townwide munis. Effort and it's mainly him by himself working on this particular piece and it's very involved. So. He will get to it as soon as he can. He's, he's certainly making an effort. It's just that he's got. A pretty full plate right now. So he can only get to it when he can get to it. So, but it will be sooner. I mean, he is, he knows it's a priority. So he will be trying to get to that. I think again, also within a week or so. So as soon as that map is ready, I will schedule on our agenda, a time to review it, but I can't do it until that happens. So, but I will as soon as, and you will get the report in your packets as soon as it becomes available to me. Great. Great Martha on that. Yeah. Stephanie, I listened to the ECAC meeting this week. And I would like to ask you about a comment you made because it was rather puzzling to me. So I quote your product, your, your statement here. That the solar bylaw working group product is just a stab with no guarantee that anything they say will be in the final document. Right. So by that, that means that what you're producing is a draft document. It's not the final version of the bylaw. The bylaw has to actually go to the town council. So it's very likely that the CRC are going to take it and review it. And so you're giving them the best work that you are researching. And I think they're going to certainly take that and accept it with that in mind. But there may be additional research or comments or changes and edits that they feel they want to make or bring up because ultimately they're the regulatory body. So you're just drafting it. You're not creating the actual final language and also the planning board, I believe, is going to review it as well. Yes, understand that, that the planning department then takes it and goes through their procedures and then it goes to the town council. But your statement is really rather disparaging. And I'm really troubled when you say that our product that we're spending hours and hours on is just a stab with no guarantee that anything they say will be in the final document. I find it troubling that you are making that kind of statement as a public employee here because it would seem that we're doing more than taking a stab. We're doing our best to try to come up with a decent document that reflects the very best interests of our town that we can. And it's really troubling to hear statements like that. Well, Martha, I sincerely apologize because that is certainly not my belief in the work that this group is doing. I think you've all been incredibly committed. And it may be just in the moment when I was just sort of speaking off the cuff, it just sort of came out that way. But I certainly don't feel that way at all. And I certainly apologize if it offended you in any way, because I don't believe that. I think you're all working really hard. And I think, as I said, I think you're going to give them the best document that you can. I just, I also know that there's a bigger process and, you know, and I know that at times things do get changed. You know, I've just been through some of that with another effort that was that was being put forward that got changed and edited and a whole bunch of work that some people had done got removed. I, you know, so I think maybe I was coming from that experience. So I apologize. It's not a reflection on your work. Yeah. Okay. And I would just say, yeah, maybe a little rough on the, on the choice awards there. But nonetheless, I think we're all aware that we are drafting something for the ruling bodies of the, of the town council and the planning committee to consider in their deliberations and the finalization of the bylaw. Obviously we're going to have very much influence on that because we're giving them a draft that reflects our best work. And that's, that's what we've been called to do. But I think Stephanie's point was also that there may be some very tough things that we have a hard time grasping and coming, coming up with in terms of final decisions, final conclusions. To some extent we don't have to, we can feel some relief that there are other bodies that will be looking at this and doing some due deliberation and do considerations of those issues from, from their perspectives as well. But I think we're all aware that, that what we're doing is not legislating anything or putting anything in where we're providing our best recommendations on behalf of the, of the citizens constituents of the town. All right, thank you. Yeah, Janet, did you have something to add to that? Yeah, so I always think it's good to go back to our charge and to see what the town council asked us to do. And it says to develop a solar bylaw that will be transmitted to the town council and the planning board for review. It also says provide a solar bylaw to the town council on or before May 31, 2023, which we know we're not going to meet. So it sounds like that looks really clear to me is that we do a great draft. Hopefully we send it to the town council, we send it to the planning board, who by the way would like to see earlier drafts. And then at that point, I think the town council goes into the process where they're going to send it to the CRC and they'll send it to the planning board. And the planning board has a statutory duty under Massachusetts law to make a recommendation. And the CRC also, you know, under whatever their process is would make a recommendation or adjustments and things like that. So we are sending a draft directly to the town council. And so I think that's important to know. And just sort of stick to what we were asked to do. So a little clarification. Thank you. Okay. Stephanie anything else in terms of updates? Great. Thank you. Chris, how about you from the planning department? Any updates? Apart from the drafting. The zoning board of appeals had its first session of a public hearing on the battery storage. Facility on Sunderland road, 515 Sunderland road. And that was a couple of weeks ago. I think it was April 27th, if I'm not mistaken. They are going to have another. Session on that on May 25th. And the first session, I would say. Well, the ZBA asked a lot of good questions. Some of them had taken a site visit a few days before and became familiar with the site. And Chris Baskham from the fire department was there. And he felt that. That the plan was a good plan and that it had been explained. Well, to the zoning board of appeals. Not sure. I don't think I've told you about this before. Maybe I told you about it on the 20. All the meetings kind of tend to roam together in my head. But anyway, it was a successful meeting in my opinion. And now we're looking at May 25th as the next meeting with, with that group. So the. The applicant has a lot of questions that they need to answer, but they are providing answers and I won't actually be at that zoning board of appeals meeting on the 25th, but you might want to watch it. Great. Thank you. Yeah, Janet. I have a question. I, it's probably for the minute. So we just approved, but Chris. This battery is not get, is this battery storage facility getting energy from the arrays next, the solar arrays next to it, or is it just storing energy off the grid when it's cheaper. Holding it and then giving it back when it's more expensive or more expensive or more needed. Is it, I mean, is it connected to those arrays? May I answer that? Yeah, please. It's not directly connected to those arrays. It is storing energy from the grid. And giving it back when it's most needed. It is the intention to allow, that will allow the electricity, the utility to charge less for electricity, because if it's all, you know, being generated and needed at the same time that, you know, costs individual ratepayers more. So it's really an endeavor to capitalize on the energy that's being generated during the day, being able to store it so that it can be used, you know, five o'clock in the afternoon or whenever people are most needing of power in their home cooking and doing their laundry, et cetera. Yeah. So it's not connected directly to the solar arrays that are. Nearby. Okay. Great. Laurie, do you have something to add to that? Yeah, no, just really briefly, like, but the laws of, so Chris is right with the laws of physics basically go that, you know, energy is going to flow to the point of nearest consumption. So if the batteries are absorbing power and the solar is right next to the batteries, you know, and let, you know, presumably the batteries are primarily going to be charged with solar. So just want to make that clarification. Yeah. But there's no contractual connections. No, but it's also, it's important to note because I know this group has also had discussions about, oh, why can't we buy power from New York and because it doesn't work like that. So I think that's the point. So I think that's the point. Whenever, wherever the solar is or any energy in general, the, the power, the electrons produced on the grid are going to go to the points of consumption. So if I had a house, I was against coal, which I am, and I had a house next to a coal plant and I was all about renewable energy, whether I like it or not the energy from the coal plants going to provide electricity to my house. So I think that the way that we can maximize grid efficiency and reduce waste is to build the, the energy producing facility as close to the end users as possible. So. Despite what we do with the state government. We can't defy the laws of physics. So. All right. Great. Thank you, Laura. Any, any other staff updates? Super. Thank you. Okay. How about committee updates from. Any of the committees we other committees we sit on. Yep, I don't have anything from ecac particularly. All right, good. Okay, great. This is helpful because we don't have any other. We don't have any other guests, guests, or any other guests, guest lecturers or anything today. So it can really spend a good amount of time on. On what we really need to get done, which is the bylaw. And so why don't I turn it over to Chris. Who. Prepared and distributed, or at least Stephanie distributed some drafts of. Of the language that Chris's has been working on. a minute to bring up the NEXUS statement that would be appreciated and this NEXUS statement is really just a first draft of trying to put some thoughts down on why are we writing this by-law the way we're writing it and in my own mind I'm believing that Amherst is not going to say you can't put solar on farmland and you can't put solar in forests we're going to try to minimize harm to farmlands and forests to the extent that we're able to do that but I'm not viewing this as that we're going to put a by-law out there that prohibits this although we may put limitations on it and in order to do that we need to describe why we're doing it we also need to tie this to health safety and welfare and I haven't really tried to do that yet but this is just some language that I that I put together just for our consideration and then the second half of this document is language that Martha put together and she sent it to me I think last night so I've put that at the end here so I think we can go over the language that I have in the language that Martha has and see if people agree with what I've written so the meaning of a NEXUS statement is just to kind of tie in what it is we're regulating with why we're regulating it and I know Janet is also going to give some language in fact she I used some of Janet's language from a recent email and document that she sent in preparing this document so I think you know it's going to be a joint effort to put this together but this is what I have so far so starting off the town of Amherst recognize the importance of natural and working lands and I should probably make a reference to the state state what are they calling it now roadmap yeah here the town also recognizes the necessity of allowing and encouraging the installation of large-scale solar installations to meet our current and future energy needs so does anyone have anything to say about that statement I'm not sure if we gonna sort of word Smith here but I would just the necessity of allowing and encouraging the installation of large-scale solar installations to meet our current and future energy needs I think also to you know make our contribute to the to contribute to the need to mitigate the impacts of climate change thank you yeah Janet I think this could go later at the end or somewhere but I think we should do sites to the town Amherst's climate action and resilience plan and then the state climate action resilience plan I think there's two there's the 2051 which is the most recent and then there's a 25 2031 which is about three months older or something like that so the roadmap is a couple of years past but the the more current plans which talk a lot about the the natural working lands I think would be good citations and I think it's like the roadmap to at the end or somewhere we cite these plans yep I also I also thought that somewhere we should talk about you know the environmental services provided by all this land and I don't know where it has to be but it's it's it'd be good to add that in because we have a really strong statement about that in our own template but I love this I mean along those lines I'm not sure if it's appropriate here later I mean I some recognition of as Janet says the importance of our natural and working lands and maybe also some reference to the efforts and successes that town has had already in conserving conserving such lands conservation lands yeah right we've already put our money where our mouth is right yes okay therefore this solar bylaw endeavors to balance these two sometimes conflicting goals the preservation of natural and working glad lands and the provision of solar power Amherst unlike towns in the eastern part of the state does not have extensive parking lots rooftops and other densely developed properties that can be used to mount solar arrays while the town can indeed prioritize placing solar arrays on rooftops parking lots and other developed properties Amherst also recognizes that installations on rooftops and parking lots will not meet all of our energy needs in addition these types of installations are more expensive to construct than installations on undeveloped lands so do you want to make comments on those three paragraphs yeah let me let me start even though I didn't get my hand up first but if something came to me and so we say that recognizes installations on rooftops parking lots will not meet all our energy needs I don't think that is our goal necessarily to have enough solar to meet all our energy needs because you know we're going to get offshore wind large-scale hydro as as will the rest of the Commonwealth from from from elsewhere so it's not really to meet all of our needs but so I would probably modify that to be more like will likely be insufficient to meet our clean energy goals or something along those lines okay and then wait a minute let me write that down yeah okay we'll likely be insufficient to meet our clean energy goals energy goals okay good okay great great I don't know who is first but I'll go with Martha sorry wouldn't mind if Janet went first but I would disagree with the statement that says in addition these types of installations are more expensive to construct that depends that has a lot of it depends as you know expensive for whom for what reason etc and I would ask to remove that sentence I don't think it's needed I would push back on that a bit I think I think it's helpful to recognize that it does cost more but for whom Dwayne I mean we've you and I have had that discussion before I think I think ultimately for the repairs of Massachusetts because we pay more incentives for those for those for those projects but but that's the point is paying incentives to do the best thing that's why we have incentives and that shouldn't be a reason not to use the incentives for that I would I would really say that that's a you know a controversial enough statement that it really doesn't belong here in our in our bylaw I think the the main point is that if you add up all the parking lots in the rooftops you don't get enough acreage I think that really is the the main point I would agree with that and you you know that was in fact what you presented to the ECAC when you were doing your calculations too well actually the GZA report will bear that out as well where we'll see if that that's boring so I think we should just been up stock with that to leave that sense out yeah that would be that would be my recommendation that it doesn't you know it's not it's just not relevant and it's would need I think a lot of qualification yeah let's any discussion on that Laura with that straight on this issue before I go to Janet yes yeah so I read this as you're not saying that solar is more expensive you're saying that rooftop and canopy installation is more expensive and that is absolutely a true statement across the board unequivocally and even with the incentives in Massachusetts you're not seeing these get done at the rate we would all like to see I mean that includes brownfields too just to be clear although I think that's more like of a case that there are no more brownfields left in this area but parking lots and canopies are quite expensive and it's pretty well understood in the state that the incentives that exist don't help offset the cost that's why you're not seeing a lot of that so the cost is for whom you mean for the developer right no I mean listen any you guys gotta I mean my opinion is this is a this is a an energy generating facility just like any other energy generating plants and in order to get any kind of energy generation plants stood up it needs to make economic sense so the rates like the revenue from any solar project that's a community solar project in the state which is the majority of them that's fixed you can't adjust that you know that is a known rate whether you're an ever source or national grid or what have you so you know the revenue from a project and then you have to look at it's kind of just balancing the scale how much does it cost to build a project and is it worth it with the revenue that you're expecting and as time goes on I mean we could write a lot more I don't think we need to but like as time goes on and I've said this a million times but the revenue from project especially in the western part of the state it's decreasing which is the reason why you know there's actually not a lot of viable solar project sites in western mass so you know so so that coupled with certainly the expansion it's been more expensive nature of developing and owning it's owning to not just developing rooftops and canopies like with a roof for example if I'm going to go build a commercial rooftop like we just did a three megawatt rooftop we worked on this in Maryland's with the Rupa's 15 years old prior to putting any solar on that roof we have to replace the full roof or in the rental agreement we need to basically say that there's a clause that says you know it gives me ability to take off all the solar panels at a certain point in time replace the roof and then put the solar panels back on the roof so it is it just more expensive I don't you know whereas a ground mount solar installation has a life right now of at least 40 years rooftops commercial rooftops don't have you know if you build a brand new roof yes 40 years but there's a lot of a lot of criteria there so but again yeah yeah I mean I agree I think everything you say I would agree with but it's still expensive for whom like we put solar panels on our roof so we had to you know invest initially and that was our cost and then we get you know recoup that cost because you know haven't had to pay ever source yet for 10 years you know so to me that means that that rooftop installation it may have been more expensive per kilowatt or something when it was first installed I mean I would agree to that but overall you know we paid the expense and we got the money back so I don't feel that expensive yeah I mean that and so that's why I question yeah I mean I think you're yeah I hear what you're saying Martha like we have rooftop solar as well but yeah pieces here when we're talking about you know first of all you and I were able to afford rooftop solar right and most people can't and when we're talking about energy generation and at a larger scale and be a beautiful world if everyone can have rooftop solar but uh when we're talking about energy generation at scale the economics have to make sense so anyways yeah let me just add that it has to make sense obviously for the investor but also part of that making sense is the fact that Massachusetts ratepayers are helping to incentivize the program and you know if we pay six cents extra for parking lot canopies that may be worthwhile and many people would say yes let's do that but it does pay it does cost Massachusetts ratepayers more because they're paying six cents extra on this incentive whether that's a good a good thing to do or not I think is somewhat of a personal opinion but it's still it still would suggest that it's more expensive and it does I think it does get to the issue of public welfare to some extent in terms of the economic cost of electricity especially as we bring solar to scale and you know for paying additional amount for more expensive solar siting that might be worthwhile it's going to be more expensive yeah maybe it's maybe what would make you feel better Martha if we said these types of installations are more expensive to construct on a per watt basis like to clarify because obviously you know I mean we could philosophize you know I mean the actual expense of natural gas and coal is far more than what we actually pay because of the environmental economics associated with that but maybe if we just say on a on a to construct install and manage on a per watt basis does that would that make you feel better that sound like more I don't know that certainly makes me feel makes me feel better but I would also say that you know we have value judgments that are you know not that are in all this anyway you know our van we have a value judgment on the one hand that we urgently need solar in order to help with the with the climate mitigation but there's also a value judgment that's come out very strongly say in our Amherst survey of preserving forests and you preserve forests the more you can put solar on rooftops and parking lots you know so that there's value judgments on both sides and that's why it's a it seems like it's a statement that's kind of you know controversial so so I agree with with your your clarification mitigating the statement but I still would have the preference for leaving that statement out completely all right Janet did you have input on this as well yeah I think I was this is going to be my third point I think we should drop the whole sentence because it's a quagmire and the purpose of this statement is to justify regulating or prohibiting or you know whatever what the what the bylaw is doing we don't need to wade into the financing of solar we don't want to I don't want to talk about rec so the state program the kilowatt hours you know how much comes out that that's going to be something that's constantly changing I don't think it has anything to do with the nexus statement we don't have to talk about it and so I would just delete the sentence and you know you know I could put solar on my roof as part of a lease and have no money down right that's achievable you know from my observation there's a market for a rooftop solar a company came into my neighborhood trinity and five people put it on their roof because this guy went door to door and there's a market for canopies because you look at UMass and what they're doing someone's making money on that and there's a probably cheapest and easiest always is to take undeveloped land and you know it's cheapest and easiest for the developer there's a market for that and that's what the market that Laura's involved in and so I don't know why we're talking about the different markets you know we can you know so I just I just think it's a quagmire statement and I would just pull it it doesn't help explain you know whatever we wind up doing in the unless we say our preference is for undeveloped land and we want to justify that I don't know so I would just get rid of it but getting back to the second paragraph I'm trying to think of things that are sort of not going to create controversy but I think the first sentence therefore the solar bylaw endeavors to balance I would say balance and achieve these two apparently these two goals just say two goals because these are the goals that are in the state plan it's a goal in our action plan we need to say the word balance because the SJC is going to see that we're balancing things it's going to balance our restrictions against the the goal so I would just put that in as modifying language saying hey this is what we're trying to do we're trying to achieve protection of natural working lands and also solar power so I would just put that in there it doesn't have to be conflicting I hope the second paragraph I was kind of a little concerned about because I sort of agree with it and disagree with it Amherst unlike towns in the eastern part of the state does not have extensive parking lots rooftops and other densely developed properties that can be used to mount solar arrays definitely we don't look like Newton or Somerville but at the same time we do have a lot of parking lots rooftops and densely developed properties but it's mostly on university or college lands and so Amherst includes those things I'm not sure I would say that um so I'm not sure you know so that I'm not sure that sentence needs to be said but I think we do have a you know UMass is incredibly densely developed um you know Hampshire College is not so much so but they have lots of rooftops and parking lots that aren't covered and things like that so I'm always including the colleges and universities in the town because they're in our town um and then um so I would just keep the second the third paragraph but just drop any kind of discussion about the economic things I also don't think that we're looking to solar to meet all of our energy needs so I'm not sure we need to say that um you know you know the wind won't meet our energy leaves and maybe a nuclear power plant would but so it's like no one's asking solar to meet all of Amherst energy needs so I just I just thought factually that didn't make sense and so maybe it could make that sentence a little like um I think we modified that one already yeah but I think it's like did we say all our energy needs like it should just be I mean the other thing is that we said what we said was um that it will be will likely be insufficient to meet our clean energy goal that's what um Dwayne said yeah except that we're not looking to solar to do that and so the other thing is is that trying to I think sort of flexibility because we have this crazy shifting future ahead of us so we have this state action plan that says 40 wind 35 solar 15 percent is natural working lands and then it kind of just fudges the other pieces but now we have hydro coming in either through either through New Hampshire and Vermont are now talking about using existing lines Maine looks like they're going to have that coming in and you know we also have an increasing use of geothermal by large institutions so I kind of I feel like this is like a very shifting like in 20 years we're going to look back and say well that was interesting but look at what actually happened and so I just I don't want that sentence to say solar isn't is insufficient to meet our energy needs because we everything is or everything's not so I don't know um I mean we I think it's obvious that we need solar if you could just say that I think it's so we need solar to meet our clean energy goals to help me to be that's good yeah it's a funny mixed picture you know sorry hey let's move on um so let me just ask Dan if he has um oh sorry some thoughts yeah I think it's really important for us to acknowledge um the economic impacts of our policy decisions um you know there's two ways to create an effective to create a ban on new solar developments one is to outright ban it and the other one is to ignore economics and create policies that are so economically burdensome that nobody wants to come in and put in new solar installations so by ignoring economics we run the risk of creating an effective ban thanks Dan yeah I think you were waving your hand a bit too so go ahead I was sorry no I'm one thing I want to say is I I completely support what Dan's saying and I I do not support removing the economic statement um from that first paragraph at all because in addition I mean I I think if we ignore the economics like it's just it's fast and if we said that canopies and rooftops and green fields are all created the same from an economic perspective that's incorrect um so that's that that's the first piece I think you know our personal preferences are one thing but that's that's the that's the economic environment that we live in and if there's if the group wants supporting information stating that I'm happy to provide it it's it's well known across the board and then the second piece is um what was the item in the second paragraph I'm not seeing the document oh yeah um the canopies you know um Amherst versus Newton comparison was made um I you know I think if we want to if we want to get it you know if we want to discuss that and I think it's important the the truth is on a you know on a per square footage per capita basis however you want to look at it we do not have um the same amount of parking garages rooftops and so for so we are certainly more limited I'm not quite following why there's a reluctance to include that in there um and I also thought that UMass was out of you know was we couldn't consider the colleges and universities for this bylaw because they as much as we want them to put in canopies and rooftops they're kind of out of our purview they get that right I don't I don't know if they're out of our purview I mean they're okay can someone I thought that that's what I thought that that was what was said in the beginning in terms of impacting the university yeah Jen I thought you had the statement about the difference between UMass and and the private colleges in that sense well so so I'm not sure how to answer the question Laura but we first the no one looked in terms of the solar assessment we did not or the consultant did not look at college owned lands by UMass and Hampshire college and Amherst college um so that's but they do they do have all those surfaces and as Jack said can't we work with UMass or big Y about having canopies on their land you know so we can sure oh yeah we can really work and we can't require anybody to put solar unless we do a zoning bylaw that way um in terms of the zoning itself we have as a zone like as in terms of the bylaw we can you state owned land is exempt from the local zoning but Hampshire college and Amherst college are in the educational district the ed district and then they also own lands outside of that as far as I can tell and so our bylaw could cover those lands it could encompass those lands I mean let me just also point out that UMass could cover all of its parking lots with solar and still not have close to enough energy for its own needs um and so but it is and it's going to cover its needs with geothermal solar and buying solar from others off site so um well a lot more than solar would be offshore wind uh be hydro I mean could be the electric grid eventually which is just going to be clean uh per the the roadmap uh but um but yeah a small fraction would be available on campus um and so I'm just saying that um you know I would be inclined I think it is appropriate to point out that we're limited in our roof roof roof capacity and parking lot capacity you know big big why strikes me as as one potentially promising parking lot but um there's not too too much more okay let's carry on I think you know I my my thought in terms of including the economic statement about these projects being limited but but also more expensive is appropriate uh because uh this nexa statement is is supposed to touch on things that relate to public health safety and welfare and public welfare part of public welfare is what we pay for energy prices um uh and and how much we we pay as a society for um the solar that we need and all the clean energy that we need um and so um I think it has some applicability to this section all right chris do you want to sure okay so we're now we're on one two three four the fifth paragraph in order to meet our energy goals the town acknowledges that there will be a need to place solar installations on some of our natural and working lands do we agree with that statement no we've got change to say in order to help meet clean energy goals right no we haven't gotten to this paragraph yet this is um I think you're referring to a paragraph above so now we're on paragraph number five four five six maybe some of them are a bit repetitive but paragraph number five in order to meet our energy goals the town acknowledges that there will be a need to place solar installations on some of our natural and working lands I don't see how we can not do that um but I think that's a statement that we need to talk about uh go ahead janet so just for looking for fuzzy or language I would say it is likely that it will need to or may need because I don't we don't have specific targets in terms of solar numbers or wind or geothermal or hydro we our action plan doesn't call for that doesn't doesn't say that in fact says to it actually says not to put it on natural and working lands so I don't know that we have you know specific targets but I could say likely or may just to put some like fuzzy language in I would agree with that yeah I think that's a good idea yeah okay um anybody else okay um next paragraph number six this bylaw endeavors to regulate such installations so that they result in the least amount of harm to the natural and working lands and so that these lands are able to recover their former status as natural and working lands when the solar installations are eventually decommissioned and removed is that a statement we can all get in support of janet so I I like that statement I wonder if we could also put in before um to regulate them so the lands are able can continue to provide critical environmental services and are able to recover their former status because some of some of the things that you're suggesting later like with dual use are so that the land can continue to produce food and then if we do a mitigation thing for forest land part of the justification be like okay we gave x amount of acres to solar but we protected x amount of acres so the forest can continue to provide its services so where would you put that I think I put it before um so that these lands can continue to provide critical environmental services and are also able to recover okay ready um anybody else all right so moving down I I didn't write anything about forests but I did um write something about farmland I picked up a lot of janet's language that she had sent in a an email recently or in another document I don't remember which and this part is not it doesn't read as smoothly but it's got a lot of ideas in it so I think we should look at what it says and decide whether we agree with it or not um so farmland farmland is a finite resource and should be treated accordingly emerson has a need to prioritize the protection of productive farmland for future food security and soil soil carbon sequestration any problems with that okay next paragraph it is important to reduce our reliance on unsustainably grown crops and unreliable distant supply chains through local or I guess we could drop the organic but through local crop production um whether it's organic or not doesn't uh in my opinion it's not important in this arena this is an important aspect of reducing carbon emissions so let's read that again it is important to reduce our reliance on unsustainably grown crops and unreliably unreliable distant supply chains through local crop production this is an important aspect of reducing carbon emissions everybody agree with that um I have a couple questions I guess I guess what is rely unsustainably grown crops I wasn't clear on what what we were trying to express there this was language I got from janet so maybe she has some ideas about that I would say the central valley of California I think having seen that in action so um you know like most of you know like people would say probably production you know you know using pesticides monocropping and you know I mean the pretty much how is that is that there's something wrong with your something breaking up I'm actually can you hear me or you're kind of breaking up to me also I don't know it's very choppy and it's like there's an echo maybe should I leave the meeting and come back do you think actually you're sounding that sounded okay so I was just I was just saying that you know basically America's industrial farming practices are unsustainable they use a tremendous amount of oil and fertilizer and you know pesticides and you know okay I just okay yeah um yeah I guess I'm a little bit um I guess I won't let's hear what Martha has to say yeah well you know after I saw Chris's draft here at nine o'clock last night when I finished my other meetings you know I tried to you know rewrite some words just for alternatives and so in in some cases I just tried to rewrite the same thoughts and different words so I don't know whether you want to look at what I said at all I think we're going to get to that afterwards it's part of this um document so I wanted to go through what I had written and then we can go through what you had written and then okay you know I'll make an effort to put them together it's in future yeah okay but I mean without dubbing to word smith every word as we go through that was all I think it would be confusing to jump back and forth between two two that's fine whatever so is everybody okay with that sentence yeah I'm not sure if I'm fully comfortable with it just um a couple things one is I it says this is an important aspect of reducing carbon emissions that kind of needs in my mind needs a little bit of um scaling of like um you know how does that how is that amount relative to um other other things um you know my understanding generally of of um as as hard as it sounds trucking um produce from California here actually you know has carbon emissions no doubt about it but they're not um they're um uh not as as as great as people uh think they might be so I just don't want to um I it'd be better to be a little bit more precise there in my mind uh in terms of this this important aspect of carbon emissions um in terms of how important is that relative to everything else we're talking about okay up Dan yeah I'd like to agree with you on that Dwayne that these are some pretty bold claims that might not be shared by you know all by all researchers for sure maybe not by all residents of Amherst so um I think it would be a good idea to sharpen the focus on what our stated goals are without bringing in references to sustainability in this in this specific case well I think the reason that the references here is because the um the claim is that we don't want to use all of our farmland for solar we need to use our farmland for other things so I think that's why Janet wrote this um sentence yeah but it's I think it's I think it's bold to assume that uh any kind of agriculture in Amherst this can be more sustainable than agriculture from outside of Amherst I don't see any regulations that require Amherst farmers to use more sustainable practices so again I think it's just a bold assumption I think that there's there there's we could turn around a bit more positive to say yeah we want to increase our our availability of local food food resources and not that not not so much um talk about external things um yes yeah I much prefer that Blaine this language comes from the Amherst climate action and resilience plan which the town has adopted and it was written by ecac um so I don't think it's like an ununthought of idea it also comes from the state climate action plans too and the state's plan is to increase the amount of farmland um even marginal farmlands and also to increase the amount of forest cover because of the environmental services they provide and so I don't know it you know this this to me just seems obvious that you haven't gone to the central valley California you know watching looking at hundreds of acres of almond trees with no weeds underneath them whatsoever um in a desert that that is not a sustainable farming practice and then it gets shipped over here versus someone growing local nuts I don't know but I don't think this is this is this language has already been kind of approved by our town and by the ecac so I think you know we could argue like okay the corn so-and-so is growing is not as sustainable as you know x y and z but I think these are sort of general statements to support some sort of regulation um I would also add to this is the idea of economic development um because you know public welfare is also the economy and so you know providing in its public health is like having local fresh foods that's more nutritious a lot of these local produce get go to the mobile market which hits social justice communities we have people coming into farmers markets we have you know the local colleges and universities buying local produce that keeps the money in in our local economy so I think there's a lot of really positive things from this what we have is a growing agricultural base which is sort of astonishing and most of it is organic but not all of it and you know and I know not everybody has a regenerative farm practices but there's a lot of that going on too that keeps more carbon in the soil Martha uh yeah and so in the version that I submitted my I had emphasized more the importance of locally grown field food for our health safety and welfare emphasizing that much of our local farmland is devoted to raising vegetables and other food crops that we have a thriving farmers market and the subscription services and that farmers often donate their excess produce to the survival center for serving low income peoples and so I had stressed more the value of the local food sources and the fact that would that much of the farmland is devoted to vegetables and other food crops here and then Janet's statement now about supporting our local economy and so on could go into that too but I thought that that might be the the point to emphasize and then can say that uh you know you go on to say that locally food reduces our reliance on distance supply sources and and so on and reduces uh you know the you know gas emissions from transportation but the emphasis more on the importance of local food for our health safety and welfare and and then the support for the local economy can we wait till we get to your section of this yeah but I mean before we argued too much over the exact wording of the sentence where we're on here right now you know so you feel that you have better wording for this we'll get to it maybe the wording and also the egotistic or anything I just thought I think it it's both the wording and maybe more the focus on the importance of local food production as opposed to the focus on um cutting ties with distant food production okay Dan uh yeah sorry you basically just stepped out of my hand up for it I really liked the idea of staying positive focusing on how important local food production is without not taking a dig at Hadley right they're not in the town of Amherst they're still local but you know so yeah it's kind of you could read it as where we're saying Hadley doesn't doesn't have sustainable farming practices yeah it's just you know and it's a long truck ride yeah let's let's focus on how important local crop production is all right yeah good and also that you know uh we're um I mean there are many vendors obviously at the Amherst farm market that are from outside of Amherst and we welcome them and they're important to our local food supply but um it's not it's not just about Amherst farms all right um okay so moving along the next paragraph the town of Amherst recognizes the need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions and one method to achieve such reduction is through sequestering atmospheric carbon in the soil through healthy soil practices is that something everyone can agree with yeah I mean in my mind yeah I mean I can definitely live with it um it's sort of an embellishment yeah I think it's important to point out I just it is similarly to some of the other statements it doesn't sort of put it in perspective of of um uh of our emission mitigation needs of what portion this and I don't think we want to go into that detail but it doesn't give a sense of how how large of an impact this is relative to other things that we're talking about but not a reason to take it out um or is it a reason to well not not in my mind yet at least um go ahead Martha yeah it seems that actually it's a more general statement that could refer to forested land and other land too uh you know it may be relevant like when we come to uh the part of the bylaw where we might be discussing uh the actual practices during discussion during construction at a site and removal of topsoil etc etc and so that this may be a good uh statement to have somewhere in the in the nexus place but it may go with the more general introduction of all natural and working lands not just farmland would be my thought okay yeah I guess that's the one of the points I was gonna uh that was raised is like okay so what um what are in the in replacing you know be it in a forest in an open land in an agricultural land putting solar on that um what is the impact of that on carbon on soil carbon um and I and um that's not clear it this sentence would seem to suggest that um solar does not allow or disturbs the solar carbon sequestration it may but um it's not clear go ahead Janet so I just I want to keep reiterating that none of this is you know new is this is what the state is saying is trying to encourage healthy soils practices it also is trying to encourage um for sequestration to improve it as well as wood production forestry practices that increase the cutting of the forest but also in a way that increases sequestration and so I don't know these all seem to me to be kind of like yeah that's that's what everybody's saying I don't know you know it's and it's not like we're pitting one goal against the other is that healthy soils practices do sequester more carbon so you know you know and the USDA is starting to pay farmers for that and so I don't know that any of these things are really controversial but just you know you know hayfield is probably sequestering more carbon than a vegetable field that's open continuously but maybe not if they're you know moving animals across and keeping the soil very healthy but this is what the state is saying and and the USDA and you know our action plan says so okay move along um next paragraph there is enormous value in local food production and residents of Amherst don't want to sacrifice local food security for energy security yeah any comments on that Janet I'm not sure that we could say that because we really didn't ask them that um so I think um I you know I kind of support the idea that we don't I think we can do both you know what I mean and I wonder um you could say residents of Amherst recognize the importance of you know local food production for food security you know what I mean I'm not sure I like the beginning of the sentence there's enormous value in local food production and they you know and that's supported by Amherst residents or something like that enough we have to say I don't think we voted on that do do people feel the same way that was my reaction was I didn't feel like we had the um data to to um make that statement so what Janet said is there's enormous value in local food production and residents of Amherst recognize and the value of local production for local food security is that right that sounds pretty it sounds pretty good I'm sure it'll be wordsmithing later okay all right and then we have a paragraph about agrivoltaics um agrivoltaics have the theoretical potential to generate renewable energy and provide additional income for farmers without taking agricultural land out of production um then this sentence I don't know if we need this more research is needed as well as technical support regarding crops and livestock that integrate with dual use to determine best practices for agrivoltaics in massachusetts we could probably leave that second sentence out but I think the first sentence is important the town of Amherst does not encourage or support large-scale solar photovoltaic installations or agrivoltaic installations that result in the long-term loss of prime agricultural land is that something that we can all get behind yeah I mean I would say that the um the state yeah the state does neither I mean the you can't get the incentive at least for the agrivoltaic installations if you're taking your farmland out of farming okay um to the extent possible the town supports the use of inferior agricultural lands for large-scale solar photovoltaic installations and dual use agrivoltaics with grazing animals keeping prime soils to produce crops is that something that we agree with there was something that I think janet sent out something from cisa that made this point that they that we shouldn't use prime agricultural soils for large-scale solar photovoltaics yeah I think that's what I understood is that okay um I might want to circle back on that um after I check the state regulations okay on that um the next sentence the town of Amherst acknowledges that dual use agrivoltaics is preferable to solar arrays that permanently displace farmland in other words I guess people would prefer so I'm reading everybody's mind but the sense I get from talking to people is that they'd prefer not to use farmland for solar but if you have to use it then dual use is preferable to taking farmland out of production and only using it for solar is that correct I would generally say that's correct I mean my mind um you know I've heard of and I know there's some situations in Hadley where there is farmland but some of it is quite marginal or prone to some degree of flooding that really takes it out of ability of practical farming and so then the farmers would potentially want to put solar on those marginal marginal areas or areas that are still within farmland but not really practical for farming so um you know and again we're not writing the bylaw here these are just general statements we want to make uh but maybe um something about um is it permanently displace productive farmland thank you yep okay and sorry um Martha yeah I guess I was just a little uneasy about this and it goes back to the above statement that based on the season that uh agrivolvol tags may be preferable then arrays that permanently displace farmland but if you've taken something that was you know growing vegetables and crops and you change it into sheep grazing in order to fit under your solar arrays you're certainly reducing the the value of what you're doing with the with the agricultural land and so I'm just a little uncomfortable with that statement of whether there should be any qualification uh to it I will say the state recognize that and change their rules for agrivoltaics uh to not allow that to happen uh that to continue similar farming to what you were doing before uh that being said you know this this it doesn't um state regulations are subject to change and if we're trying to make this evergreen um then we might want to have some statement on our own but that that is a recognized uh uh situation that the state has addressed at least in their current plans and their guidelines so maybe this paragraph needs to be looked at carefully yeah is there a way that we could look at the what the wording is in in these the most recent state guidelines and see if we could come up with a wording that was sort of generally consistent with it yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah those guidelines are I don't have them available with me right now but yeah those guidelines are uh are uh posted yep okay a question yeah Janet I've sort of lost the thread a little bit in terms of the concern here because it seems like these um three paragraphs are just like we could pretty much I mean the state plan but definitely it comes right out of our survey it's just saying to the extent proper possible this is preferable the town and you know it's like that's pretty much what our our survey said so but what's the concern I'm the kind of lost in what people are concerned about in this language agrivolcatex can be something that's very very broad and you know what what it says earlier is that there's a lot of research going on and certainly five years from now there'll be much much better designs of what works with solar and how do you space it and etc etc then there is right now but right now the fear is that if you say agrivolcatex somebody might say okay we'll we'll stop raising crops we'll just use it for sheep grazing or something to fit with agrivolcatex I heard a lot of just sheep from the farmers like the poor sheep are getting maligned a lot we're all being a lot more sheep in the future in Amherst I mean to that extent we might put in the definition section what we mean by agrivolcatex if we if we define agrivolcatex to be in line with the state rules and regulate the definition of agrivolcatex and I think we avoid some of this you know I would agree that knowing a lot about what's going on around the country and the world on agrivolcatex it comes in very different shapes and forms and much of which is not eligible in massachusetts at least for the for the incentive but if we if we sort of tie it to the state definition then that might be helpful here I feel like we definitely need a lot more information about what it means and like what percentages are recommended and things like that in terms of what land is kept open and so I would I would bookmark this whole area for a good session or so okay if anyone can send me a good definition of agrivolcatex I would appreciate that I did put a definition into the section on applicability and definitions but it was just a quick grab from the internet so I mean I would suggest maybe again it may not be evergreen because who knows how state rules will change but you know to define it to reference what are called agrivolcatex agricultural solar tariff generation units ASTG use in the smart program there's a definition there and a whole independent set of guidelines on eligibility requirements for agrivolcatex in massachusetts which are by far the most robust in the country and you know I think if we can all you know have reference that and think of that is what we mean by agrivolcatex then we will avoid the need for a lot of additional rules and regulations as long as the the projects meet the guidelines and the rules eligibility at the state level Lorraine is it possible to send us a link to that yeah I'll send that to Stephanie and then she can send that on yeah it's what you say sounds like a sensible way to approach it yeah I think so um so then the last paragraph that I wrote is if a solar project is proposed for actively farmed land that is prime unique or of statewide importance then dual use agrivolcatex is preferable to using it all for solar so that primary agricultural activities can continue simultaneously on that farmland so I guess this this may be changed later on if we say we don't want to use prime agricultural land for solar at all so that would be one way of doing it or if you're going to use prime agricultural land or these other categories for for solar then you have to or if this says it's preferable um to have dual use so that's kind of a conversation that we need to have which we haven't had yet but um anyway what do you think about this statement so we need to hold off maybe until we've had the other conversation and read the state definitions maybe I'm back to this okay all right now you want to go through Martha's what Martha wrote I haven't actually had time to read it because I was in a meeting until 9 30 last night yeah okay yeah you beat me Chris Chris by half an hour okay so um and we'll go through Martha's and then in the next couple weeks I'll try to put these two things together all right so Martha Amherst is home to some of the most fertile farmland in Massachusetts the map of Massachusetts natural and working lands shows that cropland grassland occupies only seven percent of the commonwealth's land primarily concentrated in our neighborhood of the Connecticut river valley and then she gives a reference so that's seems like a reasonable important statement I agree with the last one I thought the gza or maybe was um zomac um when when he went over the maps I thought it turned out that Amherst didn't have as much of the of the best and best in class soils some in north Amherst I think it was so I guess I would just not so much question the last maybe the question the first statement or at least ask a clarification on that yeah um well I didn't you know as I say I didn't have time after my nine o'clock meeting but I was thinking that perhaps one could add a geology statement there because I think it's the north north Amherst land that has more the prime agricultural land whether the south Amherst doesn't as much and it's based on where Lake Hitchcock was and all that do you think that it would be possible to add some kind of a statement or or or if we have the the map of where the prime of farmland soils are we could we could have a statement in there about the part of Amherst in particular that had the prime soils I mean maybe just leaving it to the second sentence and then when we get to the the bylaw themselves um have language to the extent that we we want in terms of restricting or or guiding the use of of those lands for solar could I jump in so most of the most if you look at the map of Amherst in terms of the soil map most of it is prime soils I think Dave was saying the best soil right in terms of is is kind of on the other side of 116 towards Hadley in north Amherst but you know on Mitchell farm which is on the other side of 116 they have like you know prime soils and then soils of statewide importance and then the rest of Amherst is pretty much prime soils from the soil map um there's going to be issues in terms of you know clay or you know he was saying how Brookfield farm you know which does produce a tremendous amount of food didn't have the greatest soils and I know from talking to one of the founders of Brookfield farm the soils were really depleted and so they did a lot of effort to enrich the soils and they do regenerative farming which they rotate animals across you know the different fields and things like that so basically when you look at the soils map for Amherst it's prime soils and you know um you know I think we have lots of really good examples in south Amherst are very productive lands and wetlands too buggy lands so so I would suggest that maybe we somehow add a sentence or replace that first sentence with a sentence that references the soil maps again then you have data yeah yeah I think that I guess it's the credit um make a little bit more science based or database yeah yeah okay um second paragraph um access to locally grown food is important for the health safety and welfare of our residents much of our local farmland is devoted to raising vegetables and other food crops Amherst boasts a thriving farmers market as well as subscription services for weekly produce farmers frequently donate excess produce to Amherst survival center serving low income families with healthy foods and that's mainly comes from our carp report I didn't have time as I say since last night to find literally the page to reference from there but the carp report does talk in the sort of in those terms and praises the values of local food and so on so that perhaps we could reference it there what's carp is that that's the what is it climate action are the Amherst one climate action is these or whatever whatever climate action and resiliency yeah okay report something yeah sorry that's the Amherst one yeah it has a it has a lovely section about this but I that I read this week but okay okay I would just um just a tweak just maybe change the the reference to the Amherst survival center to be the Amherst survival center not oh yes the possessive of the town okay that's right it's not it obviously it's not a a town thing okay more comments about this paragraph I go ahead Dan yeah I just wanted to say Martha I really like this paragraph the only thing it's just grammatical Amherst possessive thriving farmers market and there's a period maybe take that period out oh yeah oh yeah might help yeah Janet and Martha have something to say sorry yep Janet you're muted that was a legacy hand sorry okay sorry okay moving on moreover locally grown food reduces reliance on distant supply chains and significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions from transportation and that was just my rewording of what Chris had already said so it's only a choice of whose whose words you like no issues with that um yeah I guess I mean technically it significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions from transportation I'm not sure whether that transportation is significant compared to all our other emissions yeah well you know transportation is what 40 percent of our emissions in Massachusetts something like that so you could leave out the word significantly and just yes you have reduces yeah okay a number of is that it yeah a number of local farmers rent the land they are using and it is important to protect their livelihood from deployment of large-scale solar installations I so in other words yeah yeah I put that in because there is a concern on the part of some of the farmers and I think Janet could could talk more about this that gosh what happens if the landowner wherever they are suddenly decides to in you know use the land for solar instead of running it to the farmers and that was so I thought that I was just putting that in to kind of flag that particular issue I'm not sure we could do about that but yeah it's true it's one more reason to to be concerned about the size of the solar arrays and on prime farm lands I think it's an economic issue in a sense okay well consequently it is critical to preserve our productive farmland and keep it in active production of food crops okay no comments on that one and then the last paragraph is well dual use agrivol agrivoltaics may be applicable in some cases substitution of other agricultural uses instead of growing food crops in order to accommodate dual use solar installations should be discouraged and again that just goes back to the previous discussion we had and probably should you know wait until we see what we decide on how to handle the wording for agrivoltaics okay I don't know what you think about that all right so I'll make some attempt at putting these two sections together for next time I'm not sure I'll be here next time but anyway um all right so let me just uh was there a hand up no okay sorry go ahead so let's see what was the next one that I wanted to look at I think I said applicability and definitions is that right Stephanie we haven't looked at this for a long time yes let me just update let's go for like 10 more minutes and then I want to have time for public input okay so applicability and definitions um so Janet sent me many comments on this a while ago and we haven't had a chance to review what she sent so I thought this would be a good opportunity okay applicability that's about what is what is being talked about in this section of the bylaw so this section applies to large-scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installations proposed to be constructed after the effective date of this section in other words things that happened previously it doesn't apply to this section also pertains to physical modifications that materially alter the type configuration or size of these installations or related equipment the requirements of this bylaw shall apply to large-scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installations regardless of whether it is the primary use of the property or an accessory use this bylaw is not intended to regulate systems of less than 250 kilowatt kilowatts direct current roof mounted systems or solar parking canopies and Janet commented that she questioned whether we wanted to talk about the size of the arrays since increases in panel efficiency could lead to regulation of smaller arrays and I answered that the currently accepted description of a large-scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installation is 250 kilowatts direct current which equals approximately one acre in size that's that that's what is being used by the state to describe this type of installation so I think for now I would prefer to use the state description rather than kind of go off and have our own description but what do people think about that go ahead Dan okay good yeah yeah so jennison are you saying that basically you're more concerned about the footprint of the installation and the amount of energy that it produces is that what you're getting at with that yeah I was I was just thinking that I thought that I thought that was kind of the issue is more the size of it than the current the amount of energy produced but I might be wrong I also realized that if we just go with the state description and we have a remarkable leap in efficiency for panels we can just go to town council and say well we said 250 kilowatts now we're saying 500 so that might just be that might be easier just to track the state thing okay yeah another thought that I have is we could just explicitly say like it was this installation is larger than one acre in size and then I think is that the acre refers to the the num the the panels right not just the the entire facility because I don't even think you can get anything on an acre if you have a setback and buffers and stuff like that I think it just refers to the panels yes okay so maybe we should stick with the kilowatts and not get I think the acreage is a bit more problematic because you don't want you don't want to pack things in too densely to get around that and with dual use you want to spread them apart and it's much easier to measure for certain the kilowatts but agreed but agreed if efficiency changes radically which is not really that anticipated then there can be a change yeah I think the reason for putting in this one acre is just to give people a visual sense of how big that is and that's why it says which equals approximately one acre in size well actually I said that didn't I yeah I don't know I mean it's to me it's just a helpful way of describing it but we don't have to say that we can just say that 250 kilowatts okay all right then under definitions I added this definition that I found online which is very short agra voltaics agra photovoltaics agra solar reduced solar is the simultaneous use of areas of land for both solar photovoltaic power generation and agriculture so that's very simple definition if we have some more you know some more descriptive definitions I'd be happy to include those but that's what I've got for now okay okay I can share with you what the how the state defines it and we might want to just reference that again yep which would encompass all the the regulations and guidelines associated with eligibility all right okay let's see then as of right siding that was a something that came from some of the model bylaws that I was looking at and Janet suggested that we wouldn't really have as of right siding we would either require site plan review or special permit so I agreed with that and I think we can leave out as of right siding as of right siding means it's you just get a building permit but I think in all cases where we have large scale ground mounted solar arrays we want to have control either through the planning board with site plan review or through the cba with special permit and we haven't really talked about that my inclination would be to make most of them special permit but anyway that's not something we need to talk about right now so I'm happy to delete that paragraph well can I just ask a little bit just to prep some of our thinking for future conversations about this because this actually did come up at the ecac meeting as well with regard to obviously the zoning is more about you know setting restrictions and so forth but to the extent that we want to potentially with the recognition as we set up in the in the section that we just reviewed I forget what we call that about that we're going to have to look at use of some some natural working lands and so forth we want to be able to not just restrict but also try to encourage development into that those areas that provide least harm and it was just brought up sort of at the ecac meeting are there ways in which zoning can incentivize that through as of right citing zoning I'm not sure if that's the right or citing I'm not sure if that's the right way or the special permits that make it sufficiently easier for the projects to be steered where we deem they would be least harmful if you will I'm just wondering if there is if that's what you're getting at here Chris not necessarily for full discussion now but is that sort of the purview of these special permits so right now the things that are as of right tend to be things like farming and building single family houses things that are expected anywhere so you just need a building permit for it or in the case of farming you don't need any kind of a permit most things that are built require either site plan review from the planning board or a special permit from the zoning board of appeals site plan review at the planning board is the planning board says or the town says we think that this thing belongs in this location but we just want to shape it we want to talk about setbacks or fencing or screening or lighting or access or whatever but we think it's good in this location and it's more more like a review of what is proposed and then there's an approval a special permit can be denied although in the case of solar I think there would be a lot of pushback and possibly appeals but a special permit is more discretionary and the zoning board of appeals can you know really cut back on a project can you know make more requirements it's it's difficult with solar though because solar is sort of under the umbrella of chapter 48 section 3 which some people call the Dover amendment and that restricts how much a town can control certain things and most of them are non-profit religious organizations educational institutions I think farming is one of them and solar is one of them so you can't be too restrictive on solar which we learned from Jonathan Murray in the fall but you can still require a special permit and all most of our solar installations now are being reviewed as special permits and nobody has challenged that I tend to think that a special permit is a good mechanism for reviewing solar but that's a discussion that we can have so does that explain what it's all about I think so it's helpful I guess I just put out there you know are there any mechanisms not for discussion right now but just as we're going through the some of the language is there opportunities to use the zoning language to specifically be able to encourage development where we want not not parcel by parcel but the types of of particularly in the natural working lands as we set up in the in the introduction that there we want to recognize that we're going to have to cite there but we want to cite where it does least harm so how do we zone right zoning bylaws to encourage developers to find that that those those areas and encourage them or incentivize them in some way through an easier one way you know maybe it's through an easier process through through the permitting and so forth and I'm not sure if that's has a place somewhere in zoning but I'm just something that I wouldn't mind keeping our eyes eyes open for okay Janet so I agree with what you're saying Dwayne and I've been thinking about like kind of the question of like where do you want it right not just like where you don't want it and one idea I had was the basalt mine on and the on the John Lane company which is solely taking apart whatever that holy oak mountain was because like the nature conservancy has been buying up a lot of rooftop coal places in West Virginia and they're putting in solar there and so I was just thinking at some point I don't know if that is an inexhaustible supply of basalt some of which sits on my driveway but that would be someplace where you're like yeah that's a perfect place to solar you know I mean we will I guess it would have visual impacts but you know it's it's never going to be used for anything else I think unless it's turns into like a swimming hall or something and so that might be a place apparently we have bare land somewhere in in Amherst I'm not sure where that is or if we have subprime land we might say that's a place we'd like to encourage it maybe that's where the overlay district goes where there's less requirements or a lower standard of view I don't know or do you know what I mean so I think we should think about where we'd like to see it and you know and then if there's some lessening of something but I'm not sure what it could be you kick it to the planning board that says the solar is the use is acceptable we're just going to regulate it you know along these lines but you know and we can't so that's that might be some idea I'm just trying to think of but I a lot of this we just have to look at the map and really like kind of comb through it I just have to mention that the guys at the transfer station would like some canopy so I told them I'd mentioned to the group all right good yeah I was also thinking that some of this might have to wait till we look at the maps and dig into that okay Dan yeah I just like to say I second that and that's a great idea I think especially like former mines things like that a great place to locate solar and I'd love to have a discussion later about the types of lands and animals that we can start encouraging solar developments thanks for that yeah great thank you Chris I'm wondering if we might stop this process and move to public comments because I really want to make sure that we have time we have I think five attendees and see if there's any any comments before we get too late great thank you okay so yeah Stephanie's back or in in the video so great now Stephanie could do open up the opportunity for public comments sure if anyone in the public would like to make a comment or ask a question please electronically raise your hand and I will unmute you Steve please unmute you can go ahead and speak good afternoon and thank you this is Steve Roof I live in South Amherst on southeast street I'm speaking here as my own person regarding the the draft nexus statement in my opinion it's it sounds more like a save the forest and farms statement than an intro or preface to a solar bylaw it seems that more than 90% of the statement is about preserving lands in their current state preserving the natural working lands is important but the nexus barely addresses and does not at all justify the absolutely critical need for us to be developing clean renewable energy to replace fossil fuel use one of things that should be referenced in that nexus is the 2019 adoption by the town council the commitments for reducing carbon emissions that's separate that's distinct from the carp so I'm asking you guys can the solar bylaw working group agree with the principle that the proposed Amherst solar bylaw should allow for sufficient development of solar in town to meet Amherst and Massachusetts climate commitment can you guys agree with that principle and maybe help use that to help shape the final bylaw and and given that less than 2% of Amherst land is likely needed for solar development and Amherst has already permanently preserved more than 30% of its land is open space and I believe that's not counting additional preserved agricultural land I do not think there needs to be a conflict what we don't want is a situation where the proposed solar bylaw is inconsistent with the commitments made by the town council in 2019 those greenhouse gas reduction targets and putting the town council in the unfortunate position of having to choose between adopting the solar bylaw and rejecting or going back on their 2019 commitments for greenhouse gas reductions so I would like you guys to take up then discuss whether the committee the working group can agree with the principle that the Amherst solar bylaw should allow for sufficient development of solar in town to meet Amherst's existing climate commitments I look forward to hearing that discussion and thank you for all the work that you're doing thank you Steve and Jenny Calak you can go ahead Jenny you're immune if you're trying to speak Jenny you need to unmute yourself how's that am I there now we can okay thank you so much I just wanted to make reference to the appointment of a new cabinet roll by the governor Melissa Hoffer who's now the climate chief she's been around I was in a meeting with her and she's looking at regional planning for the clean energy but also of great interest maybe to your group is before too long there's going to be a new commission on solar siding because the governor is so aware of how difficult it is to sort out all these different priorities and that commission will be represented by all kinds of constituents including solar companies but also communities that have different kinds of issues and uh Melissa Hoffer is her name she says it will be coming online very soon and it'll be possible for you all to interact with the commission and perhaps get some clarity about some of these issues and I'll just repeat what she said to make it a little more sticky came up in the meeting about how expensive and more expensive canopy and rooftop is compared to ground mounted and this is a member of the cabinet and the new climate chief and she said that information is not correct and that people need to look at it more carefully so obviously I can't verify or give you details about it but she is very available her name's Melissa Hoffer she gave us all her email she's happy to be in touch with anybody who would like to follow up with her and she'll be a tremendous resource for the state going on because as they say more healy feels our governor feels this is very very difficult for communities and they want to help as much as possible as communities sort out what they want to do so I hope that's helpful information thanks again everybody for great meeting and all your work and anyone else want to make a comment or ask a question of the working group please raise your hand and there look to be no more questions or comments but Dwayne if I may I just want to follow up with Jenny's comment that I'm actually attending a conference next week in which Melissa Hoffer will be speaking at the opening reception so I will certainly be listening very closely and carefully to what she has to say and hopefully we'll bring them back the same and maybe additional comments that she may have had that are relevant to this work great thank you all right any um I guess with regard to uh next meeting uh let's just double check here um which is on the 26th at 11 30 um I think our primary agenda uh will again be our someone our standing agenda continue with the with the review of the of the language that um Chris brings forward to us um and uh and I would like to you know reflect on the comments that we heard today um and um and the conversation we had today to sort of move this forward I think in two veins one is sort of the what might we be able to do with regard to language that helps to encourage solar where we where we uh uh deem it to be least harmful and most appropriate um and second um I certainly would agree with um Steve's comment that at least in their nexus statement um to to give um drive home the point that we have a climate emergency that we need to address um and uh and that is what's motivating um this as well so let me um uh let me go with um Martha and then Chris close us out yeah I mean the nexus statement is as I see it right now it's just kind of bits of thoughts that we're trying to put together it hasn't come through as coherent and clearly you know I think we all recognized all along we needed a starting paragraph that that talks about the general climate situation and so on and sets the context and so on and then we need to talk uh you know so there's quite a bit left to do I think in the nexus statement that way to make it a coherent uh statement some of the other things a few of those pending decisions that we have to make really can't be done until we've had a good session looking at the maps yeah so we can go through lots of things but I really cautioned that there are some significant decisions that that just have to wait until we can see what we're doing okay yep yep I agree the maps are going to be really helpful to us um okay great um Chris looks like she's doing something else so um Janet we'll go with you and then Chris okay I was wondering if Joanne if you could get us some dual use info like I was like looking at the American farmland trust which you know wants to have vegetables grown on prime land and dual use and they had like this really you know beautiful video of a farmer and he's hanging and everything and and so I just but it didn't have any like facts if that makes any sense like and so I would just love more information about the experiments that have been going on at UMass like what works what doesn't work I wonder also about the size of the farm that you would need for dual use since we don't have large farms except for maybe on Bramble Hill is probably the biggest one I can think of off the top of my head but I just wondered is there you know just can you get us some information on what's the experimentation is what the results are what the concerns are um and things like that because I just you know I'd love to read more materials on that too yeah I mean I can I can pull some stuff together what I'd say just for some quick feedback is that um there in with regard to agrivoltaics as they are defined and being developed in Massachusetts there are now probably several dozens that doesn't that have been approved but only a relative few that have been constructed and so there are not really many at all years of of outcomes yet in terms of how they're working the work that we're doing under some federal DOE funding is working with three to six depending on what gets constructed this coming year of these commercial systems to do robust research site trials to help answer those questions but we're a year and two away from from findings of scientific value but there's a lot of anecdotical evidence or outcomes as well that we might we might discuss okay Chris um I just everything is there's a lot happening here I'm going on vacation so I'm going to be missing the next two scheduled meetings the meeting on the 26th and the meeting on the 9th so perhaps you know I can possibly write something before I leave but um I don't know you might want to think about doing something else for one or both of those meetings or possibly rescheduling one of them like rescheduling the 9th to the 16th or something I won't be here on the 26th either the next meeting who is that sorry Janet okay that's right before Memorial Day so maybe other people are taking off that oh yeah maybe doing I won't be here on the ninth so you won't have any staff support I mean we could find somebody to support the meeting but I won't be here on the 9th either yeah okay yeah should we ask everybody to send in their vacation schedules to Stephanie if that's okay yeah please if you do that then we can determine when we're going to have a quorum and when we won't and also staff support as well because we'll have to coordinate getting folks here if Chris and I can't be here so if you could get those to me I'll put them together yeah okay okay and then we might want to just you know take a pause on tying to wordsmith and so on on some of these uh Chris's language if she's not going to be here and and maybe think about what's the other information we need now whether we could have that map session could be very important you see because it could be a day when we agree that we're not going to be trying to wordsmith draft sections but we're really going to discuss the maps of what can go where and maybe we could find somebody that could make a presentation somebody from you know IT staff or planning board staff or something could could do that for us and take advantage of of one of our sessions there's other possibilities that we could do you know we we've been talking around the edges quite a few times of some of the disasters that have happened on solar projects and why and where there are things that have could have been prevented by do you know somehow managing the construction process differently you know is it worthwhile to to analyze and get the facts of any more of those in detail so that when we write the section of you know how the construction oversight goes and uh what slope requirements and so on we would have a better understanding uh so those are just suggestions of things we could do to use our time uh in the meantime all right i'm i'm um for a bit over time um um um so what do you think well i know that i i strongly doubt the mapping will be ready for two weeks from now and then the uh i'd rather Stephanie be with us when we go through the mapping even if it's with the GIS the GIS person um that may be available by the ninth but that may be pushing it as well um i'll check in again um i did follow up last week to try to find out and get a better handle on when we could expect it but um i thought i would hear something by now and i haven't so i'll reach out again okay um all right i guess why don't we um and maybe Stephanie could you put an email out to everybody just because there's a few of us that are not here to get you get you their vacation schedules for the summer um and then you know i wouldn't be opposed to um rescheduling like the ninth for the 16th or the 26th for the 16th um if that works out better yeah or tutorials on on the agrivoltaire so and maybe bring in some farmers maybe do the way you know how ec has been ec ac has been having little tutorials maybe we could have a discussion that would involve some local farmers and you or some one of your colleagues giving a discussion of of some of the UMass work on the dual use you know agrivoltaire because that might be something that would be useful to everybody and in the end might help us to shape that part of the bylaw so that's again a suggestion of what we could do uh sort of during a pause yep okay um i guess i'm uh what what if what if uh chris is out next time the 26 um and i guess that is memorial day weekend or the beginning of memorial day weekend yes um and so do other people have plans to be away or not janet me yeah i'm not going to be here okay um yes that might be something to to figure out if we can if we need to reschedule that when i'm i will be available but i'm also hosting some folks that that i'd have to excuse myself from for a while which could probably work but um so well we we have um three members that are not here yeah so why don't we find out if we would have a quorum yeah and we can at least draft you know an agenda a potential agenda yeah um okay um i mean i could throw i'm not i'm not too sure how we would i mean i can i'd be happy to talk a bit more about agrivoltaics and our experience and the research we're doing um and and my general understanding of of uh agrivoltaics the other person i'm thinking about um obviously he's from a company but he knows very much about agrivoltaics particularly at on smaller farms uh he would know about the rules and regulations of agrivoltaics and that's um um uh jake marley yeah um who who um does this for a business um and is is um works works around the region but is uh located in amherst uh business located in amherst so he um i could invite him to spend some time with us to give his insights obviously he's from a private for-profit business uh but he's generally pretty um level headed and and works particularly with local farmers and smaller smaller farmers as opposed to some of the many of the other agrivoltaic companies that are very focused on on larger multi-mega watt scale projects uh which yeah that sounds interesting to me it certainly uh if we could then specifically invite our some of our local farmers to listen in well i'm not sure if our job is to be an educational outreach like ecac uh we're a little bit different in that way we can still advertise it i mean if we have that set up we can publicize that we're doing it everybody can listen i like i like the idea and i i also i know fred bettle has you know you could read from his um op-ed pieces you know really questioning the dual use but he said that he had when i talked to him a 20 minute maybe he could make it shorter um he has a slideshow of ways he thinks dual use could could work and so that might be helpful for us to look at and um you know i know jake marley very peripherally and so it'd be interesting to talk to people who have really thought about it and he's working on with small farms i think he'd be a great ad but i i do think we shouldn't be afraid to talk to farmers and have them come in and participate because you know when i talked to another amherst farmer you know he knew exactly he wanted you know he had one field that he leased that he was thinking for solar because he had already maxed out his you know twice you know twice as much you know as his use and but he also knew exactly where on his farm the bad soil was he's like if i could put more in here's where i'd put it because it's really wet and blah blah and so these are the people who really know what's going on you know and and i think that'd be useful for us to hear i'm not opposed to that i'm just always cautious about biting inviting in some quote unquote random farmers or who we happen to know and and and whether we can draw generalizations from that or should draw generalizations from that that would be that's sort of my main concern with that and and you know and whether we learn things that are applicable throughout farming and mass in amherst or or is it um you know how can how much can we extrapolate from what we hear from from uh just how else can we learn about this yeah let's see alternative dan it has an alternative okay yeah what if we brought in an advocacy advocacy organization for farmers like the american farmland trust um or some organization like that who who has you know data and and experience talking with people like us about farm issues would they be able to talk about local things they would um the person that i might reach out to there is ethan winter who sort of leads up their agrivoltaic work on a national basis but he um um uh he would certainly know massachusetts fairly well as well i matter about amherst per se but but what's going on in massachusetts yeah i mean we wouldn't want somebody who's you know used to the wheat fields of the midwest or the no i know he would recommend California or something yeah i know they have like local policy directors who are very familiar with like doing the same with issues um in in massachusetts and it doesn't necessarily have to be american farmland trust i'm sure that there's others i mean it doesn't mean that we could put together an interesting session and take advantage of while chris was away to uh you know pause and really try to understand that this this issue and well i let me let me um suggest we aim for the ninth um because i i think it might be june ninth of june yeah um and well if you could email us around a proposed you know selection or something in advance or some way we could give feedback maybe at our next meeting and and put that together with the you know that may may be our next meeting if we skip the 26th it's my concern okay um Stephanie's gonna be away on the ninth yeah but with that but that might be okay in the sense of if this was something that was not you know directly wording the but the bylaw or something right all we need is just somebody to to set up the um the uh link yeah you just need the meeting set up but you don't you won't have i mean i don't know we can try to find staff support you just won't have chris or i at the meeting is all yeah but we can certainly find somebody to um everything will be set up ahead of time all they need to do is show up and start the meeting yeah so um that might be okay because then you know the meeting is recorded so that uh well if we don't have a quorum we still couldn't we right if you don't have a quorum you can't do it so i mean in some way i need to wait until or you all need to wait until we have everyone's vacation schedule so that's why everyone should get them to me as soon as possible and i'll be sending in a reminder as soon as this meeting's over yes okay great okay but let's um unless we hear otherwise let's let's plan to meet the 26 but um but then we'll we'll um we'll i'll work with Stephanie and and chris will chris will be a waste uh but um to see um what the result is of the vacation schedules and so forth mm-hmm okay anything else all right have a nice weekend thank you enjoy the weekend yeah apparently it's like 80 degrees out okay okay bye bye bye