Hello Amherst media. I understand you needed to do a sound check maybe Mr Marshall you could say something to. Certainly. This is a test. This is not the beginning of our planning board meeting. Anything else you want me to say Pam. No but I think I would suggest maybe that Chris breaststroke also say a little something so they can hear your voice. Hello a little something. Okay, I think we can go ahead and get get started. Amherst media is good. Yeah, from what I can see. All right and we're off. Welcome to the Amherst planning board meeting of December 1 2021. This meeting is being recorded and is available live stream via Amherst media and minutes are being taken pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This planning board meeting including public hearings will be conducted via remote means using the zoom platform. The zoom meeting link is available on the on the meeting agenda posted on the town websites calendar listing for this meeting or go to the planning board web page and click on the most recent agenda which lists the zoom link at the top of the page. The wind person attendance of the public is permitted. However, every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the meeting in real time via technological means. In the event we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship, or despite best efforts, we will post an audio or video recording transcript or other comprehensive record of proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the town of Amherst website.  Maria chow. President. Jack gem set. Tom long. President Andrew McDougal. President. I we know that a Janet McGowan has told us she will not be able to make it this evening due to illness. And Johannes Newman present. And I Doug Marshall and present. I would like to ask a couple of questions. If technical issues arise, we may need to pause temporarily to fix the problem, and then continue the meeting. If the discussion needs to pause, it will be noted in the minutes. Please use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. I will see your raised hand and call on you to speak after speaking. Remember to mute yourself. The public comment period is reserved for public comment regarding items that are not on tonight's agenda. Please be aware the board will not respond to comments during general public comment period. Public comment can also be heard at other times during the meeting when deemed appropriate. Please indicate if you wish to comment by clicking the raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have a meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your telephone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents can express their views for up to three minutes or at the discretion of the planning board chair. If you do not comply with these guidelines or exceeds their allotted time, their participation will be disconnected from the meeting. All right. So we're going to go right into the items on the agenda. The first item is approval of meeting minutes for previous meetings. Pam or Chris, do we have any minutes for approval this evening? We do not have minutes for approval this evening. We will have several minutes next time. Thank you. I do hope you will let us know if we're falling behind. And in fact, it might be useful to get a list of what the minutes are that are outstanding after the next meeting. So that we know where we stand at the end of the year. All right. The second item on the agenda is the public comment period. So at this time, the public is invited to speak about items not on the agenda. So the items on the agenda concern 1113 East Pleasant Street. Archipelago's request for preliminary subdivision plan. The article 16 proposal for a temporary moratorium on solar array. And I think we had a third item. I think it's the approval of signage at 534 Main Street. So if you have comments about any of those three items, please do not comment at this time. But otherwise you are invited to comment and. I see there are 15 attendees in the, in the audience this evening. Do any of you want to make a public comment about something not on the agenda this at this time? Okay. Well, maybe. We can get some comments on the agenda when that comes out. So we'll, the time is 637 and we will end the public comment period. I see the preliminary subdivision plan was advertised for 635. And so it's 637. Chris, would you like to introduce that or, or make any sort of statement? Yes, thank you. Mr. Wilson submitted a preliminary subdivision plan on behalf of Archipelago investments. He submitted it on July 12th. And this was a, an effort to freeze the zoning on the properties at 11 and 13 East Pleasant Street, pending any kind of zoning changes that would affect that property. Mr. Wilson has agreed to abide by the inclusionary zoning bylaw that was passed earlier this summer. And the item that's still pending that might affect his property would be the mixed use building bylaw. And we expect that the town council will vote on the proposed mixed use building zoning amendment at their meeting on December 6. So Mr. Wilson is requesting that the public hearing for his project for his preliminary subdivision plan be extended to December 15, which is the next planning board meeting after December 6. And he's already had had the meeting continued a number of times as you can see on your agenda, but he's asking for this one more extension to see if to see what happens with the mixed use building zoning bylaw. So you have a letter in your packet requesting this extension and let me know if Chris Chris you just muted yourself that we didn't hear the last couple of words you said, let me know if you have any questions about this. All right. So, I remind me did do we need to vote on this or do you simply need to know if there's any objections. You need to vote on this. Okay. All right so board members is there any discussion about this. Andrew. Oh I see your honor was first want to go your honor. You've got your camouflage hand up. Oh yeah. Okay, and you've got to change the color of your walls or the color of your hand. There we go. Put it on my window. Yeah, is it okay if I go ahead Doug. Sure. You know, this has been delayed a number of times at this point, but I'm trying to remember. And I don't know it offhand and Chris, I don't know if you do but you know what's currently being proposed for the mixed use is at least 30% non residential as a standard and I can't remember where 11 East pleasant comes in and whether it would be in like, whether it would jive with the new by live past or not. Do you remember it offhand. Chris wanted one. So I haven't done the calculations but just based on kind of looking at the proposal and making a kind of eyeball assessment, I think it may, may comply with 30%, but I'm not sure about that. So, Mr. Wilson would need to submit information to the building commissioner to show how he complies with the bylaw if it is passed at 30%. I think if it's past it, anything more than 30% it may not comply but then again he might be able to change his proposal to have it comply so you know either he will comply or if he doesn't comply. He has his preliminary subdivision plan or on the alternative he could change his plan to comply. Thank you. Okay, thanks Chris Andrew Europe. Okay, I may need a sec to think through this but I was just going to ask Chris if you could, in your own thoughts sort of particularly the pros and cons well, not the pros and cons of the implications of a yes versus a no vote. Tonight. Chris. So, if you vote no, then I think you're essentially needing to deny the response to the preliminary subdivision plan because he won't have an opportunity to make a presentation to you about the preliminary subdivision plan. You would be more or less denying approval of that. I'm not sure that that, you know, has a final implication and Rob Mora is here in the attendees and he may be able to answer this more completely because he's had experience with this before but I believe that the requirement is that you submit a preliminary subdivision plan and then presumably the punny word would hold a public hearing in this case it hasn't. And then within seven months you need to submit a definitive subdivision plan if you want to maintain your, your freeze on the zoning so that would mean, I think by January 12, if that's right, let's see, August, September, October, November, December, January. It would actually be February, February 12, he would need to submit a definitive subdivision plan, because that's seven months after his first submittal which would be which was July 12. So, I don't feel like a no vote is fatal but perhaps Rob Mora has a different take on this and you may want to call on him. Do you mind moving Rob Ian or letting him speak, or at least making it so he can speak if he wants to. Just ask him to come to panelists. Okay. Hey Rob. Hi. Thank you so. Yeah, I agree with Chris and I would also probably suggest that, you know, it's really difficult to reject the preliminary subdivision plan. The grounds on doing that, you know, it almost becomes routine these requests for extensions and it would have been nice for the applicant to be here just in case but my thought is that if you were not interested in grant any extension, you'd have to be prepared to start to hear the meeting on the preliminary subdivision review and start making comments and suggestions. If we can do that without the applicant we have the materials, but obviously, kind of, you know, inefficient and awkward. So it would have been better if we, you know, maybe gave the applicant an idea that maybe they wouldn't be granted this extension it should be here. And I don't know if we did that. All right, seeing Chris, wag her head that we did not do that. So if I just do may I Doug could just finish. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, it was all right so if we said, if we were to say no, there's, we're essentially putting them on the clock to have that like could we then have a public hearing at the next meeting, or Well, it sounds like we need to, we need to allow a continuation this evening, but we could. We could say we're not going to we're only going to extend it to the next meeting. And, you know, next meeting is the last extension so the applicant needs to show up ready to have a hearing. Chris I don't believe we advertise to hearing for this topic this evening right. We advertise the hearing for October, or excuse me for August 25. And then subsequent to that, you know, whoever came to that hearing would know that the hearing was continued to a date certain and then would tune in for each subsequent date. So we've, so we've met the advertisement. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, thanks Andrew. Jack. Again, I found, I sent like a funny video to about zoom meetings. Some of you, I don't know if you got it, but I'm just thinking like, this is kind of like very odd that we have a hearing without the project proponent here and it's just, it's just a non starter for me. And if you want to continue the hearing. That's fine, but I just, I don't understand the no shows is like we're, we're arguing for them or against them without their input it's just, it doesn't make sense to me. Well we haven't really started any hearing because we haven't. We haven't had a presentation on any of the material we haven't had any public comment we haven't deliberated at all. But it's on the agenda, you know, and I just, I just, I'm a little disappointed. We're wasting our time without the, you know, the project proponent being here. So. Okay. Thank you, Jack. Chris. Well we do notify the project proponent and we send him an agenda whenever this is on the agenda so he has an opportunity to come if he wishes to come. So it's been his choice not to come and to leave it up to staff to present his case. So I guess that's all I have to say. Okay. All right, well I guess one way or the other we need to vote on this this evening. Is there any public comment on this topic. I do not see any. All right, therefore, why don't we go through a roll call on on continuing this hearing for another two weeks to December 15. Do we need a time on that, Chris. I do probably let's be Pam. Are you, I should have thought about this in advance. Do you know the name, the times of this things that are on the agenda for that night. I think there's John Roblesky with he is also filing a preliminary subdivision plan, but I don't know if we have timing for anything else do we can. I don't believe so Chris. John Roblesky is probably 635 five. So you could say that this one would be 645 again if he chose to do that for seven. All right, does anybody want to make a motion for this. See Andrews hand up. Yeah, I was going to ask if you were making the motion but I will make the motion to extend this to the 14 days to the next meeting. Time I forgot the time we just said, I think it was 645. Okay, thank you, Andrew. A second. The invisible hand. I second. Okay. Thank you. All right, we'll go through the roll call. Maria. Jack. proof. Tom. Andrew. Approve. You know, Anna. Approve. And I'm going to prove as well. All right, so that's, that's item three on the agenda for this evening. The time is 649 and we'll move to item number four. Zoning bylaw for article 16. So in accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 40 a this public hearing of the embers planning board has been duly advertised. And notice there have has been posted and mailed to the Massachusetts department of housing and community development, a pioneer Valley Planning Commission and a budding town. This hearing is being held for the purpose of providing an opportunity for interest citizens to be heard regarding the proposed zoning bylaw. And the zoning bylaw concerns article 16, and is entitled temporary moratorium on the permitting and approval of large scale ground mounted solar vote photovoltaic installations. To see if the town will vote to add article 16 temporary moratorium on the permitting and approval of any newly proposed large scale ground mounted solar vote solar photovoltaic installations with a rated capacity of 250 kilowatts direct current or greater to be in effect until May 2023, or the date on which the town adopts amendments to the zoning bylaw concerning large scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installations, whichever occurs earlier. During the moratorium period the town under the direction of the town manager shall undertake a planning process to study review analyze and address revisions to the zoning bylaw relative to large scale ground mounted photovoltaic installations. All right, do we have any board member disclosures. I don't see no hands raised. All right, so with us this evening we have town counselors Lynn Griezmer and Patricia de Angelis. They, I believe are the proponents for this. This amendment, and would you guys like to make your presentation. Thank you. First of all, thank you for to the planning board for scheduling this hearing in a timely manner during a busy time of the year. A little strange I feel like turn about fair play. So, we're here tonight. Let's begin by very clearly stating this proposed temporary moratorium is not about stopping solar. It's not about being smart about how we proceed. District two counselors, myself and pat de Angelis initially became aware of the issues leading to this proposed temporary moratorium on permitting and approval of large scale ground mounted solar photovoltaic installations. When a few of our constituents can contact contacted us to talk about their concerns regarding a proposed solar project off of shoots very road that would involve clear cutting of several many acres of forest. Members like a growing number of other residents are members of smart solar Amherst. In the process we learned that unlike Amherst surrounding communities, Pellum shoots very Sunderland and Belcher town as well as other communities in Massachusetts have taken the time to create and pass specific solar bylaws with what has taken Amherst so long, you know, nobody brought it up and our existing bylaws so far have been sufficient. However, as we have learned over the past three years of this Council and of this planning board, creating and passing a zoning bylaw is not fast nor easy. Research drafting revising consultation with you the planning board consultation with other town committees, more revising presentation to the town council and about to refer back to the planning board and CRC for hearings, planning board and CRC to hold those hearings and develop reports, all of that within a given timeframe, the bylaws then reviewed by GOL of the Standing Committee of the town council which includes request for legal review, and potentially reconciling and revising the bylaw with their recommendations. Finally it comes back to the town council for two readings on upon second reading of vote. Before we are proposing this moratorium bylaw to allow the town of Amherst to take the time to develop a specific solar bylaw consistent with our communities values. There is no way suggests that we stop building solar and instituting other sustainability efforts, and it is not a moratorium that will prevent rooftop solar parking lot solar, or residential solar installations, or any other creative ways that we can do them. With that I yield to Pat D'Angelo's. Thank you, and thank the board for allowing us to be here. I know it's extra work for you. Our community deeply cares about sustainability and climate mitigation. We've adopted the state's energy stretch code past zero energy bylaw and became a green community in 2012 joined the New England municipal sustainability network and in 2019 forms of energy and climate action committee. In 2020 at the request of the town niche engineering did a high level GIS analysis to identify suitable and unsuitable areas for solar siting within the town for solar farms, looking also at canopies on parking lots and installations on roofs of either municipal or affordable housing buildings. In 2021 the Climate Act action adaption, adaptation sorry and resilience plan thoughtfully created by ecac encouraged responsible local solar development, asking us to directly adopt a targeted townwide solar zoning bylaw that guides development to favorable locations and balances ecological, economic, social, cultural and other values of the community's abundant natural lands with the need for renewable energy. In the near the end of 2021 it is clear that we need to create a bylaw to facilitate and appropriately regulate the creation of ground mounted solar and this installations by providing standards for approval place replacement design, construction operation modification and removal of such installations guidelines that focus us on public health safety environmental impacts and other impacts. Without the strong and explicit guidelines for site selection and design criteria, there have been and will continue to be series of environmental failures and safety issues. Like those experience in orange where Westbrook field and Williamsburg mass where significant erosion and sediment transport altered protected wetlands affected adjacent properties and in Williamsburg affected the West Branch Mill River. We can do better. We can by giving ourselves the time we need to create regulations that will provide us with the electricity we need and the ecological benefits that we require to live healthy balanced lives I'm sorry I'm stumbling over my words this evening. I think Lynn and I are available for your questions. All right. Thank you, Lynn and Patricia. I'm sorry. I see I guess I'm, I'm wondering if we're going to have extensive public comment this evening. And so, partly because one of our members is absent and partly because I think this is likely to be continued anyway. I'm thinking that perhaps we should solicit public comment up front. We have a very brief board conversation, following that, and then continue the hearing to the next meeting where we can have a more full deliberation. So, Jack, I see your hand up. Did you want to start the deliberation or did you have another comment. Yeah, I'm just, I'm just saying I'm, you know, I have done, you know, fair amount of consulting on solar fields, and the environmental impact thing I think is a little bit of a stretch for these things.  We're not monitored and you definitely need any construction project needs to be monitored. So I get the feeling you want to start the deliberation. Well, I mean that's, yeah, I think that's what we do right, I mean, right, so I guess I'm thinking, why don't we solicit the public comment that's here this evening. Okay. And then we can have a bit of a conversation after that we do have a couple of things after this. And I guess I was anticipating that we'd have a pretty large number of public comments. So I wanted to try to get through those.  So, thanks for holding, holding for, for, for, for the public comment. All right, so I do, I do want to go to public comment at this time. And I see Pam's brought up the timer for three minutes, and I see three hands for public comment. That's far at least. So we'll call on them and you know if, and then we'll see how, how long that takes. So first up is Steve roof. Pam, if you can bring him over to speak and if you would unmute yourself, give your name and your address. My name is Steve roof. I live at 1680 southeast street South Amherst, and I'm providing all in my personal opinions tonight. On the niche study that was mentioned by Pat that only considered town lands that did not evaluate private lands for the proposed moratorium, I have two concerns and then one suggestion. First, I think the language in both the memo and in the the proposed by law itself or unnecessarily pejorative, it considers solar as a nuisance that must be regulated. It mentions none of the benefits of solar that are critical. The memo and the proposed bylaw do not at all recognize the need for solar based on our commitments for greenhouse gas reductions both commitments that Amherst is made, and also the legal requirements that Massachusetts has adopted for carbon neutrality. The solar bylaw proposal should include both the benefits of the of solar to town and not just focus on the negatives and also needs to be consistent with our commitments for greenhouse gas reductions. And so my suggestion is we've been folks have been talking about doing a solar study and that was part of the climate action plan. And I think that solar resource assessment needs to be completed before a bylaw is crafted. Not the moratorium but the bylaw itself that really needs to be informed by a solar assessment that answers a series of questions about what sort of lands are available, it has to recognize the importance and critical need for ground systems to meet our climate action goals. It needs to have some provisions to guide solar development into favorable locations, including some incentives which could be expedited review and permitting process for those preferred locations. And I think it needs to also examine those lands that are currently restricted from solar development by the smart program. Those lands those parcels that might include core habitat or bio habitats needs to address whether we may need to use some of those lands to meet our need for clean energy and climate commitments by the year 2050. So, I'd encourage you to perhaps revise the memo to be less negative about solar, and then to hold off on drafting a bylaw until the solar study solar resource assessment study can be begun and completed so thank you very much. Thank you Steve. Next, next we'll have Anna Devlin got to a. I hope I pronounced that right. Would you please give us your name your address and give us your comments. Great thing so it's Anna Devlin got there hi everybody. This is the first time I've gotten to talk to planning board I'm so excited. I am, I am a resident of District five South Amherst Bay Road, and I'm here to make public comment encouraging you to support the proposed solar moratorium. I'm also speaking on behalf of myself as a resident and not as a representative of any committee I might sit on. When the moratorium was presented to the Council the first time a number of counselors raised concerns and I want to address those here because I have yet to hear concerns you may have so I will follow up on those I promise, but here's what I've got so far. One thing folks had was that a moratorium was reactionary and that we should not on principle engage in reactionary policy making. Yes, we should have had a solar bylaw years ago. It is shocking to me that we did not, but the reality is that we didn't. So here we are. The most important part of this moratorium is the impact on any potential projects which have yet to be proposed. This moratorium is no longer really a reaction to one particular project but more to what that project uncovered, which is a fundamental gap in our policy. Unfortunately right now being reactionary is necessary because we were not proactive. I encourage you to consider the impact of the moratorium, which primarily allows us to hold future solar installations accountable to a bylaw which would be designed to protect our natural resources, while supporting the immense and immediate need for renewable energy sources in Amherst. Another concern was raised that we had other solar projects going without a bylaw so why now why bother with it now. This kind of is the same as the reactionary comment right and the response is similar. Yes, we should have had a bylaw in place for those projects we didn't that does not take away from the need to have one now. Yet another concern generally opposed the concept of a moratorium. This moratorium is different from the ones that I have seen proposed in the past year or two. Similar bylaws have become commonplace across the Commonwealth because they are imperative with the future of zoning and energy policy. Other cities and towns have been caught in the same position Amherst is in, they have utilized moratoria in similar ways, and all of those have been supported by the Attorney General as well. They're limited term that's very important key part of this it's 18 months or less right. This is not a case of we aren't done changing policy, this is a matter of a clear gap in our policy, which is providing a very large loophole for folks who might take advantage of it. Given existing support for the creation of these projects on the state and federal level, we know they will continue to be proposed they should continue to be proposed, but they could slide through this major gap in our policy and less the moratorium allows us to create a bylaw, to those proposals being submitted. The last thing I just want to address quickly I know I got to go fast sorry. Another comment was made that we should trust the Conservation Commission and the planning board. And again, if either of us, sorry, I'm speaking as behalf of a resident as a resident not on behalf of a board. If either of those groups had bylaws which addressed this, then yes that would be true. But right now, neither the Conservation Commission nor the planning board have a solar bylaw in front of them that they were eight that they are able to reference in order to set monitoring requirements in order to set installation requirements we have nothing we have no policy for these large scale installations. A key part of the creation of this bylaw is that citing study a resource study. We need an understanding of what is available to us in Amherst with regards to solar. We know there aren't enough rooftops and parking lots to meet the energy needs of our town. Yes, we will most likely I'm almost but large scale solar and agricultural or currently forested land, but without a study and without a regulation, we are flying blind and this is too big a plane to fly blind. Please think strategically please support it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Anna. Next we have Michael, they take your. Thank you. So my name is Michael big here. And I too am speaking as an individual. I'm a member of the planning board and shoots very so in a joining town. So you are. So your address is not in Amherst. That is correct. It's 56 back when we're in shoots very. I don't want to interfere with Amherst politics since I'm not a resident but I did want to share an observation or two being on the planning board and shoot spirit. We passed our solar bylaw in 2015 16 and subsequently amended it twice. And so I use as an example to say that there was a lot of thought and revision in developing our bylaw. And I would say that the city of DPC has cited it as one of the best practices in terms of a model bylaw in their solar guide. So it is something that's being held up. Doing this right for each community there's 351 towns and cities everyone's going to have a different set of values and approaches and I would say this is complex. It takes a lot of time to actually do it, you know, in addition to what Lynn said about, you know, all the procedural steps, just being thoughtful and making sure that it's appropriate for what, you know, the town of Amherst wants to see will take some time and thoughtfulness so having a moratorium place to buy the time to do that makes sense. The other two things I would say I just recently reviewed all available zoning bylaws for the 351 towns and cities which is a little crazy. The 376 have mentioned specifically of solar, large scale solar in their bylaws, and recently in the last few years at least three towns have put in moratoriums of about 18 months, so that they can actually develop them. So this is not something that is untested ground. It's actually ever surprisingly is behind the curve on this but you know, I guess I would just say it's worth buying the time to do it right. I'll leave it there. Thank you for the opportunity. Okay. Thank you, Michael. Next we have Laura Draupker. We lose Laura. I think we lost. I think we, we lost Laura I gave her permission to speak and. There she is, she's there she is. Okay, hold on. Why don't we try it again. Hi Laura, can you unmute yourself. There you go. Yes, sorry the little box didn't come up last time I don't know why. Hi everyone large rocker 1157 Rosemary Lane and district two. I'm also speaking for myself and not any committee I may be on. Um, I want to echo. I want to say I am in generally in support of this moratorium. I do think we need a strong smart bylaw that's based that helps drive us towards responsible solar development. In line with the goals both Massachusetts and Amherst has to meet to increase renewable energy and meet our climate goals. I am a little concerned by the length of time, but I will heed to the recommendations that that's how much time it needs. I will say I would really appreciate a clear process timeline for how the bylaw the bylaw will be developed where the inputs will be and how that can be developed hopefully somewhat in parallel but ultimately after the solar resource study is done because we have to be able to we're going to have to develop some some forested land and some agricultural land to meet our needs this is this is this is pretty clear and so and we need to do that right and that's why we need a bylaw. But what we don't want the bylaw to do is be a nice to have and then ultimately reduce the amount of land that we can use so much that we need to update the bylaw in two years to be able to meet our goals. So I really think the solar resource study is going to really help us understand how much we can actually put on rooftops and parking lots and how much land we need to use and then we can actually think smart about where we want that land to be developed and try to think think equitably about where that land should be developed. In addition to all of the important environmental issue, you know, considerations that need to be included in the bylaw. And Steve's point earlier that I I feel like why I appreciate both Lynn and Pat's opening statements in this meeting, I agree that the more the language within the more moratorium memo and bylaw don't do not highlight the climate goals of the town or the need for solar. And I do think it would be helpful to put that in writing. I also just wanted to note that that a bylaw alone is not going to solve our problems I think shoots Barry has a great bylaw I think they're having a lot of. There's, there's a lot of debate still about solar being developed there so what can the town of Amherst do and ecac potentially in other groups within Amherst to help bring our community along together during this, hopefully less than 18 month process. So that when we're ready to develop solar, we have a clear understanding of where that's going to go and how to expedite that so we can meet our goals. I think that's it. All right. Thank you very much, Laura. And finally, we have Sharon whites and bomb. If you could move her over. Your name and your address. Thank you. Hi, thank you. I'm sharing wise and bound 86 Henry Street. Amherst, and I, I just wanted to comment on what Steve group said, because I was at the planning board meeting last week, and he gave a presentation that was a plan for Massachusetts for industrial solar with a focus on energy production.  And this is what we need to make our goals so he was saying that the moratorium isn't really emphasizing the positive aspects of solar. But I just want to point out that his presentation didn't emphasize anything about the negative impact of only having a focus on the, how much energy, we can produce so it has to really go both ways and so I just want to encourage us all to really think about the benefits and I really applaud the last speaker, you know, felt that felt very even handed. And so I think we really have to think about that and I also want to say that on December 12 there's a forum in shoots very that will look at like other ways that we can produce solar other than this other thing, the forest so anyway I'm in total support of the moratorium to give us some time to think carefully about these issues. Thank you. All right, thank you Sharon. All right, so that was actually a pretty small number of public comments. So, I think we could go ahead and have some deliberation. Since we have Patricia and Lynn with us this evening. I would like to just pose a couple of specific questions to them in case they're not able to join us next at our next meeting. The questions come from the questions that we compiled from the various planning board members in advance of this meeting we knew we needed to get up to speed with it and and solicited questions from all the board members. So, the first question was to what are the current deficiencies with the current process to approve large solar arrays in Amherst from your perspective or from the perspective of your constituents. Pat, do you want to go. No. Okay. No, that's fine. Any bylaws and first of all, I want to just recognize Chris and Rob more and the rest of the planning staff, rather than have people flounder around with the expertise needed to really look at a good bylaw. We actually went to the town manager and said, maybe talk to the planning staff. And they agreed. And the upshot is that many of the issues that you've raised have been addressed in their responses back to you. I like working with the experts. I'm not a solar expert. I appreciate the fact that others of you may be a solar expert on the other hand, when my husband and I had the opportunity to install enough solar on the back of our lot to run all our entire household, we did. And we're still paying for it. So, I'm not again sore in any way shape or form. I am however also for the environment so going back to this, what I think was so shocking to me is Amherst thinks of itself as this wonderful progressive with a town. And yet we found when we started really looking at this is, we don't have a solar bylaw. We have a bylaw that talks about this and a bylaw that talks about that, but we don't have anything that pulls it all together. And so that's what this is about. It's trying to do thinking it's trying to do planning it's trying to be careful about how we go forward and how we do it so we do it right. Yeah, I was wondering if Rob, would you like to share anything about the current bylaw that is on the books is not directly about solar but it's about. Oh, possibility. Go ahead Rob. Yeah, so our current bylaw, you know, isn't really specifically designed for solar installations itself. So it's a more general category for energy generating facilities. And we really have to rely on the 10.38 findings in the special permit review process. And you know a lot of these things are some of these things could be tied or connected to those findings. But it isn't it isn't readily available and in clear view to the permit granting board to follow through a bylaw criteria so they really have to be either educated or prompt to to address some of these issues that we're hoping that a future solar bylaw will be able to that the current bylaw does not. Thank you. All right, so the second question was why are you, why are you proposing this now rather than you know at the beginning of your term two or three years ago we've obviously been had a smattering of solar arrays installed in Amherst prior to this. Bluntly I was focused on too many other things like getting a new form of government up and running. So that's my biggest excuse but the reality is I didn't become aware until my own neighbors and my own district felt residents called attention to the fact that we didn't have this. Recognize the fact that we've got residents in Amherst who are in fact quite smart about some of these things. And as they began looking at this and looking at what could happen to the woods right behind their house. They realized we had nothing out there in the way of a solar bylaw. So we came forward, we met with them and we said, I think we need to look at this seriously. I make no excuses for the fact that we didn't do this three years ago, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now. Okay, thank you. And then the next one was why is a moratorium needed rather than having town council simply direct planning board to make and staff to make this a priority for the creation of the new bylaw. I think that's been answered by several people including some of the public comment from we do need the time to understand what it is that we need to do. What, what are the, you know, looking at shoots varies bylaw and looking at all the different bylaws that I've been looking at, and trying to figure out how to work this. I've come to realize that Amherst is different than each one of these communities yet there are elements from each of the towns that we can use. So I'm really trying to figure out the ways to collaborate with the conservation committee with the planning department to really and ecac, you know, to really understand what we need and that's why a solar study is important. What we want is time. I think that when we're looking at the, we're specifically talking about the shoots very road and, and that development that pushed Lynn and I over. Well pushed us forward because for me, I really want to address what will happen if there is damage to wells if the water table is affected. I want to know whether or not the developer would be responsible for that for cleaning that up just like they are would be responsible for decommissioning. So I think what we're trying to look at all we're asking for is time. Believe me, I believe that we need to go green and Amherst I've done in deep energy retrofit on my house. I have solar panels. So it's not something that's new in that sense. I think we Lynn said it more simply we've been sidelined by a lot of issues including racial injustice and other things that have got the community apart and is also bringing the community together. So this got put pushed off. It did get pushed off on my part anyway. So we need the moratorium to give us space to do it well to do it in a style that Amherst can be really proud of. Thank you. I think the last question I'm going to just skip. I think a couple of the public commenters brought up the points that were raised in that last question. Since that was a question from your honor, do you have any objection to that. You're muted. I know what you're saying, which is that a handful of the public comments alluded to the fact that the bylaw treats solar as like a noisome trade rather than something that actually has a lot of societal benefits. And it. So yeah, I'm okay. Holding on that. Okay. All right. All right, so we have, let's see Chris, actually, Lynn, I see your hand. Yeah. I have no problem looking for more encouraging and positive language that we can weave into the moratorium. Not at all. If it comes across to people as being anti solar. That is not the intention. It is in no way the intention. One of the recommendations or one of the requirements from the planning board is that we create other language that states that in a better way. I think that's a great suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. Chris. Sorry, I was muted. So I just wanted to say a few things. So to date, our bylaw has sufficed. I think that the installations that we've seen have been not as large as the one that was proposed that shoots very road and so I think the zoning board of appeals and the planning board have done a really good job in answering the right questions and we have not had the problems with our solar installation that have been described by Pat. The fact that this proposal on shoots very road was much bigger than things that we've seen in the past may, you know, be supportive of a moratorium although I'm not personally going to make a declaration about how I, I stand in that regard because it gives us all time to learn about, you know, some of the issues and I'm particularly interested in asking a question, which since we have Laura Drucker here and Steve Roof, if they could briefly describe what is a solar assessment and point us in the direction of the types of consultants who might be helpful in that regard or resources that might be helpful and, you know, doesn't necessarily have to answer that question now but if they could email me that you know, send a question or give it to Stephanie Chickarello and she could forward it to us, you know, so we're, we're sort of in a learning curve right now, and I'm just expressing a willingness to learn and to work with everybody to make this a good effort. Thank you. Okay. All right, so, Steve and Laura, since you are in the attendees. If you want to make a comment in response to Chris's question. If so, you can raise your hand. And if not, you can just do your communication offline. So I see Steve's hand. Can we bring him over. Thank you. I'm speaking as a member of ECAC now we just earlier this evening talked about this and our plan is to do exactly that. Hopefully, at our next meeting we will have will approve a letter that will forward to you with our recommendations for a solar assessment study or solar study, and Stephanie is also exploring how we might do that through a consultant so yes we're doing that stay tuned. Great. So, and I don't see Laura responding so I think that's probably the response we'll get for this, this conversation. Jack at long last. What do you want to tell us. Well now. So, I heard Pat talk about groundwater that's what I do. And I've done that, you know, I have done a detailed study of a site. Actually, I think it was an Oxford mass. And I would not, you know, raise the flag with regard to solar developments, you know, degrading groundwater and actuality. You know, when you have all that vegetation for us all that you lose a lot of groundwater through evapotranspiration.  You know within that within that area.   So that that I just don't think that applies. And I think I had some other ideas but I'll leave it at that for now. Okay. Thank you. I guess I feel like I want to say, you know, the last question we asked had to do with why do we need a moratorium rather than just having town council direct planning staff and the planning department board to make this a priority. And the answer I expected was that there's a risk that one or two more projects might happen, and that they might be a disaster. And we said that. And, and I guess, if that were the worthy answer that there's a risk that something bad might happen before we get our bylaw completed. Well, you know, given our track record of not having problems. You know, I guess I just wonder how big a risk that really is. I guess I wanted to just say that. And then I guess I want to ask the board. This afternoon you did receive a PDF copy of the questions that we've asked the staff and and along with the staff answers and I want to first thank Chris and anybody that gave her a hand with answering those questions. Obviously given the marathon town council meeting you set through on Monday night. I can imagine you weren't at your best yesterday or today. So thank you very much for that. I guess I wanted to know if any of the count if any of the board members wanted us to go through those questions. And Chris, were they in anybody's, were they part of the packet that will be available to the public or not. I can ask Pam and I'll ask her right now to post the questions on as an adjunct to the packet for tonight and I'm sure she'd be happy to do that. Okay, because I do, you know, if we don't actually go through all of them tonight. So we do want to make sure the public is able to see how you guys answered that. I think we all have a task to educate ourselves about this whole area. Pat I see your hand. Thank you. I just briefly wanted to respond to Jack a little bit who you certainly know much more than I do about groundwater and things but what you spoke about we're monitoring issues and mitigation issues. That's why we need to create the bylaw and that's why we need the moratorium. We're really looking for a balance. And when we say that risk is minimal. There are, I think, I would love to see no risk. We really need to look we're talking about projects that in the shoots very well they're talking about 45 acres of forest being gone. What's the balance there and I need to do more work to research what is the balance what it what effect will that have on wells in that area what effect will it have because those trees are sequestering carbon, which is incredibly important, but they're also producing oxygen. So, we're talking about 45 acres that's larger than the whole of the amethyst book conservation area. So all we're saying honestly is we need to look at this carefully and look at it together. And really create a bylaw that's going to protect us so that we can really minimize risk. And so, so me as a, that as a lay person, I can trust what you're saying that I can, and so I would love to learn from you and and build together with that so I want the time for that. And I hope you'll help us get it. Thank you. Johanna. Since you were the principal collaborator with me on the questions, how do you feel about whether we should go through them or whether we should just leave them for everyone to read on their own and you know we could certainly refer to them next time or, you know, since they just came out this afternoon it might be a little bit of a short window for people to start to digest them. Honestly, I could go either way I imagine it will like if we go through them I think it will prompt other people to have their questions or like to have questions arise so. Okay. It might be a valuable exercise doing it as a group. Okay, good. Well, you know we obviously have a little more time than I expected this evening. Chris. And maybe after Jack, maybe after Chris and Jack will just start through the questions. I think it would be a good idea to go through the questions because it would educate people about the way we deal with it now. And, and how, you know how Amherst deals with these things now I think that would be informative. And we did not answer all the questions and we're still working on a map. And I think we may also be working on sizes of projects that have already been approved so there'll be more that will come out. So if you have issues to continue your public hearing to the next planning board meeting. We'll have more information for you but I think it would be a good idea to go through the questions. Okay, thank you. Jack. I just, I just want to say that solo developments are have so many impendments to, you know, their permitting process as is the interconnective or interconnection agreement that you need. And of course, or national grid, it's just, it's above mom abomination sorry. So, so this moratorium is this I feel like is more on top of the difficulty for solar development already.  They drill down deep and I just feel like they do their job. And that's why the the the projects, you know, within Amherst that have, you know, gone through that process have been, you know, adequately vetted so this, again, I'm not a real fan of the moratorium. You know, for those, for those reasons. All right, thank you. And Tom, do you want to say anything before we start the questions. So just first to thank you both for all these questions which I realized I would have had, if I had your questions in front of me they would have been my question so I appreciate your insight on that. What I actually found really interesting and why I think it's worth it to go through this is for people to recognize that through your questions you, you illuminated the fact that there is a process. There are ways in which we can put conditions on things. There's a timeline for those things. And that there are projects that have already been realized and and and approved and and to see the landscape of the process through which these projects go I think is really valuable for this, just because you want to put up a giant solar field doesn't mean that everyone's just going to approve it and it's going to happen. There's actually a process, people are looking at it and scrutinizing it and they can put conditions on it however they want to. And that the, if you go back and look at some of those previously approved projects, there's there's a lot of discussion there and they do drill down and so I think it's important to recognize that isn't a free pass, no matter what. And so, you know, my question in terms of this, which I'll get to later if we have more time for discussion is really about why a moratorium to stop all things, rather than, you know, put some criteria in place for people to consider during the process that is going on right now while we develop a set of criteria and a new zoning amendment in the future so maybe both and I guess is what I would be looking for so anyway I do think it's worthwhile to go through these because I think I found value in understanding the process a little bit. Okay, so I thank you. Okay, Maria. Thanks and I totally agree with what you were just saying Tom and I actually submitted a couple questions laws at parent pick up at high school right before break and I sent them to you Doug and they were mainly because I understood the moratorium as you know let's kind of refine the process, but then I thought okay so I kind of took a step back kind of like the question you asked Doug like why now, and what's wrong with the process we have now and so then my question for where are the failures have we had failures and Amherst and that's probably in the list I'd love to go. Actually, I mean you're reminding me I need to give you credit to. I did, I did get your questions, and, and hopefully as we go through these you'll see how I, I think yours were very close to some of the other ones that that you know Hannah and I had. You know I tried to just meld them into one question, and, and cover every kind of the nuances that everybody had. Okay, yeah and I really appreciate the staff taking time to answer them. Thank you for reminding me. So, yeah, it'd be great to go to that list. Okay, so I guess for Pam, do you have these questions available to put on the screen. And if so, could you go ahead and do that. Are you seeing it. Okay. All right, so I guess that we'll just kind of slog through these and as people see things they want to ask just raise your hand. And I'll try to make sure I keep looking for for hands. So which section of the bylaw currently controls large solar arrays. It would be helpful for you to, to read this or should I at least read the questions and you can talk about the answers. That sounds like a good idea. Alright, so, so there's question one, you know, how do we currently control these types of arrays. In most cases we control them via section 3.340.0, which is called transformer station or other energy facility or use. So that's for projects that are standalone solar arrays, such as the project at Hill or the one that's between Sunderland Road and Montague Road. And it would have been the case for the upcoming project on Shootsbury Road. There are other projects like the one at Hampshire College and the one at Atkins Farm, where we control them because we consider them accessory to the use that is primary on the site so Atkins Farm was using the solar power that they generated to power their facility they weren't selling it to anybody and the same is true of Hampshire College. So those two arrays were approved as accessory uses to the primary use. They were considered by the planning board, rather than the zoning board of appeals. So that's a little bit of a nuance to the answer to the first question. All right, and Johanna I see your hand. Thank you very much Doug. It's interesting because I heard a couple of times tonight. Various people say that we don't have a solar bylaw, but it sounds like we have an energy facility bylaw, which extends to solar so it's, you know, I don't know like I feel like not having an saying that we don't have a solar bylaw makes it sound like solar is unregulated and immersed and that's just not true under current roles. So, just elucidating that and kind of bringing that to the fore which I think it's cool. And Chris am I right if someone wanted to put up a, you know, a wind turbine, would that be under the same section. Okay. All right, great. So then question to in which zoning districts are large solar arrays allowed by right and by and which by site plan review or special permit. They're not allowed by right anywhere other than if you consider site plan review by right, which some people do by right with site plan review by the planning board. So solar arrays standalone large solar arrays are permitted in the commercial district and the light industrial district with site plan review from the planning board but as I said previously, if it's an accessory use to a primary use. It can also be approved by the planning board depending on which board is controlling over the primary use. These installations are controlled by special permit in most zoning districts and you can see all of the zoning districts that are listed there, where it is possible to have a solar array, and have it be by special permit with the zoning board of appeals. I think state law says that you can't, you know, unjustly or unduly I don't know exactly unreasonably regulate solar installations because the state has a big stake in making solar possible and trying to encourage it. When we bring it to the zoning board of appeals, we're assuming that the zoning board of appeals won't deny the request for a special permit if the proposal meets the dimensional and other regulations in the bylaw and meets wetlands regulations etc. So if it fits, it wouldn't be denied for a for a reason that wasn't clearly associated with some regulation in the zoning bylaw. Okay. But it looks like the general answer is these things are allowed anywhere in town. And depending on the zone, they either have to go through site plan review or they have to go through special permit. And there's never a situation where they don't have to do one or the other of those two processes. That's correct. And most of the time there's some wetland component or some component that brings the Conservation Commission in as well we didn't mention that here but if. Yeah, yeah, that was then 100 feet then that goes to the Conservation Commission. Yeah, and so obviously if it's a site that is not within 100 feet of a of a wetland resource. The Conservation Commission is not automatically involved. Is that right. Probably not unless there's, I think they may have jurisdiction over environmental, you know areas where there's a special kind of animal or plant or something like those would be viewed either by this, the town or the state. I forget exactly what that's called but I'm sure there's someone in the audience who can bring that up if you need to know it. Let's see. I am. Whoops, I was seeing a hand from Anna. Yeah, do you want to make a comment from the audience. Pam, are you able to bring on a gout here over. I'm not sure Doug because I'm sharing my screen. Are you able to give her permission to speak. Let's see. Thank you to the co host. I bet I didn't make the co host. Yes. I just get. So I believe you should be able to speak now. Yeah, hi, so just really briefly I am on the Conservation Commission, just really briefly.  So if you, if natural heritage does deem that there is a species of concern or interest, then we are involved. I will just say the concom truly any project that extends past the buffer we have no say in anything that's past the buffer zone of the wetland or vernal pool so you know when you look at I guess to use the example of the proposal on shoots very road. You can see the wetlands were carved out or the vernal pool was carved out in the middle if you look at the site plan. And we can't, we can't touch pretty much anything beyond that we can ask about phasing of plans and things like that jack to get at your point. There's significant concern with the phasing of these projects for groundwater. In terms of how the runoff happens and there's ways that the projects are phased that can minimize that but there's nowhere that there's no bylaw that states how that phasing should be done right there's nothing there's no regulation on that. So, by the, by the phasing you mean the sequence of clearing the land and installing the new panels, installing the the pads the towers, not the towers the pads the panels etc etc. So it that that phasing really does matter because if you leave ground exposed it gets compacted and that impacts the runoff right so we can't, there's nothing in our bylaw right now about that. And so we, and these, you know the engineers are, they're smart they hold us to our bylaw and don't let us go past it and so they, which is the well within their rights and so. Yes, we are we are limited to that scope of wetlands and vernal pools and rivers and streams pretty much anything wet, wet or endangered that's our purview. Okay, thank you. Chris, did you raise your hand again or is that a legacy legacy sorry. Alright so Pam why don't we scroll down to the third question. Alright, what is the process for review and approval. And Chris do you want to talk about that. Sure. So the process involves submitted submission of an application and the staff, you know, thoroughly reviews the application. It involves notification of a butters and property owners within 300 feet. There's a publication of a legal notice in a local newspaper. Whichever board is reviewing the application would hold a public hearing and the decision would be rendered by the board with jurisdiction. All right. See any hands so we go down to the fourth question. There's a second part to the third. Okay, what are the roles of the planning board and the zoning board and we may have already covered that. But it's pretty much, you know, the planning board holds a public hearing for those things that require site plan review, the zoning board of appeals holds a public hearing for things that require a special permit. And in both cases, the planning department sends out transmittals to town departments such as the health department and Department of Public Works which includes the town engineer and police and fire and inspection services, etc. So we do have comments and prior to the public hearing, and the board holds site visits prior to the public hearing. All right. All right. Question four. Can you provide a list of the arrays approved to in Amherst to date with their acreage and date of approval or installation. We don't have a list here we don't have the acreage or date of approval or installation but we do have whether they were actually built or if they were just proposed. So as I said we have Atkins Farm Market has a small solar array at the corner of their property on Bay Road. Hampshire College has a rather large solar array along Bay Road which is I believe visible from this from the road. The Montague Road solar is a big array that is between Sunderland Road and Montague Road and you can see it from certainly from Sunderland Road. I think I've also heard that someone who lives on Montague Road can see it from her home but it's kind of down in a valley. And then there's a solar array at Hobbit Hill Road which is kind of hidden by by the forest to to a large degree but there is a trail that goes right by it so you can see it from the trail. That's one that's called Dave Wasenda. He's the former owner of Hickory Ridge Golf Course so there is a proposed array on Hickory Ridge Golf Course at the very northern end of it where it abuts the Mill Valley apartments and some of the other apartments that also abut East Hadley Road. So that is expected to be built. The town is hoping to purchase the Hickory Ridge Golf Course and part of the town's acquisition will include an agreement to go ahead and have that solar array built. We have a town of Amherst solar array which is due to be built on the landfill which is on the north side of Belcher Town Road. There was one proposed for the south side but that ran into a lot of problems so we moved to the north side and that was permitted by the planning board. It's where the transfer station is essentially on that big mound. Great. All right and then the fifth question has to do with what what kind of conditions typically have been imposed on the arrays construct or approved to date. These are mostly conditions that the zoning board of appeals has imposed. I'm not sure if they include planning board conditions but they would be very similar. So if there are changes to the plan, the applicant is required to come back to the board to get those changes approved. There's an operations and maintenance plan which needs to be submitted and approved by the board. There's a requirement for installation of safety and warning signage along the fence to alert people that there's electricity in there. There's always a fence requirement. The site can't be used for storage of vehicles and equipment. In other words, we don't want it to look poorly. We wanted to just have the solar array there and not be used as a storage place. That's the other thing other than the solar array itself. It can't be constructed until the utility company confirms the interconnection agreement and that's what Jack was speaking about earlier it is kind of a long process to get that interconnection agreement so we don't want the solar array to be in place and then not have anybody who's willing to take the power from it. The construction logistics plan and this is something that the building commissioner is very clear about and insistent about and it goes through a lot of, you know, where do the contractors park and when can they actually do their work and, you know, how what kind of inspections have to go on as far as, you know, setting up the site with erosion control and all of those things as long list of things that go into the construction plan. And then the fire department is involved because there may be a fire on the site and we want to make sure that the fire department can get in there and be notified. And so that is an important aspect as well. And then there are also landscaping requirements, so there's screening from Jason properties. And the plants have to be installed and continually maintained snow in other words if they die they have to be replaced. All of the disturbed areas has to have to be loamed and seated or planted with something that will keep the soil from eroding. The tree removal follows the approved site plan so we're clear on the site plan of which trees have to be removed or which areas of trees and trees that are removed are replaced at the end of the solar energy system when it is removed and that I remember was particularly an issue on Hickory Ridge because I think they were there are going to be 191 trees removed there and the permit was explicit that 191 trees need to be put back at the end when the solar system is removed. There's a prohibition against use of pesticides and herbicides. It's a decommissioning plan. So the applicant needs to provide the town specifically the building commissioner with a plan for decommissioning the project when it's done using it. Everything has to be removed within a year of the cease and abuse and the building commissioner requires a bond that is prorated based on inflation to a point where we know that in 20 years when they remove this we're going to have enough money to remove it ourselves if the applicant is not able to remove it so we don't want to be stuck with something that's been installed and the applicant has disappeared and we want to be able to go in and and remove it. So what else do we have. We require the applicant to adhere to the approved permit with the conditions imposed by the conservation commission, and we require public online access to power and energy reporting for the Amherst solar landfill project. And they have to report to the Amherst energy and climate action committee. All right, great. So the next question relates back to the tree. Oh, go ahead. Thanks. Thanks. I did have a. Thank you, Doug. I did have a couple of quick questions on this. So, it sounds like, you know, just based on some of the questions we had earlier there are concerns around the overall, you know, maintenance of the plan. Is there any expected difference in how the maintenance plan would be enforced via special permit versus through a modified bylaw, which is to say like, would we have more protection. If a bylaw were in place or or would these conditions as part of the special permit essentially provide us the same level of protection. How about Rob, would Rob be the right one to answer that Chris. Yeah, sure. I think the difference would be that the bylaw might might be more specific on the criteria that's being expected to be provided by the applicant. But as far as enforcement goes, if it's a clear condition of the special permit, whether it's written as a condition of the permit or referencing the maintenance plan that's provided by the applicant, they are both equally enforced by inspection services staff. So in that regard, there wouldn't be any difference. Okay, and then a really quick fast follow Doug is, does anybody know the expected life of a solar array.  Sorry, my kids just brought me dinner. I think that is evolving, but I think 25 years is a like decent ballpark. Let's see what Anna has to say. Yeah, well she she put her hand down. When I saw Johanna's hand I put my hand down sorry I was going to say 30 so yep same same ballpark. Okay. And I assume these things slowly decline in the output. They don't just one day decide we're done. They, you know, they kind of degrade over time the. So they're at peak on the first, you know, zero like zero to 10 years and then slowly that they degrade and then you know, so they don't produce quite as much energy in the latter part of their life cycle as they do early on. Okay. Well, I guess it also occurs to me. What do you do with an old solar panel, is it recyclable. I mean there's a lot of glass in it. Johanna, any ideas. There are definitely companies that are exploring this but it's, you know, like, kind of like anything some things get recycled and repurpose and some of them end up in the way stream and, maybe we get to a place where there's a closed loop and we can recycle all the components but I don't think that that industry is like fully up and running yet. Okay. Thank you. All right, Pam, why don't we scroll down the next question. All right so this question had to do with the trees and I one of those conditions we had earlier about replacing trees that are cut down and maybe requiring some sort of buffer. So, in districts where solar arrays are allowed, is there any restriction on a landowner's ability to cut down trees? In other words, could a landowner cut down their tree right now, they're, you know, clear cut their land, regardless of what they intend to do with their land next year. And in general landowners are allowed to cut trees on their property. There are some restrictions with regard to scenic roads where you can't cut trees along a scenic road unless you get permission from the planning board and the tree warden. There are also restrictions having to do with conservation commission, but in general landowners are allowed to cut their trees. There's also a reference here to the stormwater bylaw that the town council adopted in May. Other than that, if there aren't any conditions from the conservation commission, and I'm also noting that there could be a conservation restriction on the property, which might have language that says you can't cut trees but in general landowners are allowed to cut trees. Okay. All right, the next. All right, had to do with whether we've had any complaints or negative impacts as a result of any of the arrays installed and approved around town, you know, or any surrounding towns if we know of any and would that include runoff problems as seen in Hopkinson and Williamsburg. So we don't keep track of what happens in other towns we're certainly willing to learn about that but we're, you know, we're not in the position of keeping track of that. But we do know that there have been some complaints about the solar arrays particularly there was one landowner on Montague Road, who complain about the solar panels glinting into her office which is on the second floor of her home, especially in the winter when the leaves are off the trees and she really was uncomfortable about that. There was another, there was a butter and a butter to the pulpit Hill Road project who complained about standing water on the ground. There was a belcher town road. There were concerns about the exposure to electromagnetic fields expressed by in a butter. I believe that was to the east of the of the proposed project. And I'm not sure what this last had to do with the magnetic fields. So there, so there were some studies that were submitted regarding magnetic fields and we have that information available if anybody is interested in looking at it. All right. Okay, so, and then specifically has the town engineer or the Department of Public Works received any calls or complaints about wealth issues septic system issues in the vicinity of these installations. We've reached out to the DPW and we haven't heard back from them, the DPW and an engineer. All right. Number nine, how much electricity is produced in Amherst and how much electricity do we consume. What percentage of our overall use is locally harness renewable energy. And I'm sure that's a little bit complicated by the presence of you mass and their. You know, their power system and their central central plant. But to the extent you can find answers for that that'd be great. So you'd like us to delve into what you mass has. I mean, I see your, your, your statement here municipal and electricity use with 6.5 megawatts and I assume that means that's what the town offices used. That's a good question. We should have information on what residential property owners use as well. So maybe we will ask the question of Stephanie Chickarello who was the sustainability coordinator. So exactly what does number nine what does the answer to that include right is.   Okay, my rationale in asking this is that, you know, Amherst believe it was in 2016. We town meeting passed a bylaw basically setting a goal of Amherst meeting it's 100% of its electricity needs with clean renewable energy. And I imagine I don't quite know where we are on that journey. I imagine we're not at 100% yet, I think statewide for Massachusetts were around 25%. And, you know, I think in the spirit of sustainability we want some, you know, we don't want to just import all of that clean energy from other towns right we don't want to be a. I don't know, like burden other communities with all of our energy production we want to produce some of that locally. So I'm just trying to get a sense of like, where are we now. Steve roof may be able to answer that or Laura Drucker if they're still here. Well, I believe Steve, Steve's gone. Oh no he isn't go ahead Steve. Yeah, thank you. I think your best source will be Stephanie the town did have a greenhouse gas inventory report completed a couple of years ago, and that did look at total town use by the municipality. I think that residential and institutional use UMass and the different colleges. That was several years ago it has changed. And yes I think that's going to be a very complicated answer a question to answer, given the differences. I don't know how good the data were from UMass. And then I know at Hampshire College we use a lot of that behind the meter so it's hard to exactly account for the total generation and the contribution to the town but but yeah that the greenhouse gas inventory report will probably be your best source. All right thank you Steve Andrew. Thanks to maybe piling on would you know what a solar array built on private property with the town count that towards you know the output of that would they count that towards our goal of having the zero sustainability regardless of who actually consumes that power. I don't know how it's on how we measure that. I don't have the answer to that question maybe one of the other participants does have that answer. Oh boy. Um, can you tell you can see me yeah yeah that's a tough one. Normally when any solar project gets approved by the state, the under the old program the srex or solar renewable energy credits go are sold by the owner of the project that help finance the project and then they count towards this Massachusetts renewable portfolio standard, which gives us right now I think it's close to 20% of our renewable energy. So that renewable energy kind of gets counted for the state goal, and then it's kind of inappropriate to count it a second time as achieving for Amherst school, but almost every solar project. And in fact with the new system the smart system there aren't srex, the renewable credits go straight to the state. So all solar helps the renewable energy that's used in Massachusetts. You know of course it's all distributed out through the grid so you don't know where the electrons are going but any solar project will help advance the goal both for Amherst and for the state of meeting its climate action goals. Yeah, I mean I understand it's, it's a positive and it really doesn't matter where it goes as long as we're making it but I was again here like how will we know we did it right is like ultimately the question. And I understand people we can't answer that now that's fine just. Yeah, I think I think we Chris maybe if you guys can think a little more about that. You know, I think the gist of the question is, if we put up a fence around Amherst and counted every electron that is imported.  Yeah, I don't even mean that so much as as how much is produced within the town, regardless of where it's consumed just, you know, are we producing an amount that's equal to the amount that we're using doesn't matter where the electron is actually going, but thanks. Okay. All right, well, you know, Chris, see what you can come up with. Thank you. Yeah. Well, down to number 10. All right, so now we're getting into electricity and how much area takes to generate it. What is the typical power generating capacity of a of an array per acre in Amherst. And from talking to actually from our town attorney that a typical solar array that's 250 kilowatts takes up about an acre of land. That's what we've learned from a considered large scale. Doesn't sound very large scale this so this moratorium would be affecting anything that's roughly an acre in size. Or greater at larger. Okay. All right, so then number 11 what is, which is more effective at reducing or slowing the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, an acre of woodland, or an acre of solar panels. In other words, how does the carbon sequestration capacity of an acre of forest compare to the fossil fuel carbon emissions avoided by generating the same amount of electricity from an acre of an array. So this is a complicated question, and we need to seek consultants to help us to answer it and in fact I put in a request today to get some consultation, one to help us create our solar bylaw, and two to help us answer this question, because I think it's an important question but I also think that you may get different answers to this. Well it's probably like one of the usual answers which is it depends, but I see Steve's hand, maybe you have a comment about that. Yes, I have looked into this, and I can tell you since I managed the solar fields at Hampshire College, and I know exactly how much energy they've generated. They've avoided 133 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year, the 133 metric tons of CO2 avoided per acre per year. That's by offsetting fossil fuel electricity. And then, and I looked up in the Massachusetts decarbonization roadmap report. They note that there are 5 million acres of forest in Massachusetts that sequester. I'm scrolling to find that number sequester 3.3 million acres, 3.3 million tons of carbon dioxide per year. So by 5 million acres of forest 3.3 million tons of CO2 works out to 1.5 tons of CO2 per year sequestered by a forest. So it's about 100 times solar fields sequester or avoid the emission of CO2 about a factor of 100 times more than a Massachusetts forest. Okay, and you will get different answers from different people, but it's still roughly two orders of magnitude. Okay. I mean I will say I did, I did Google that kind of question and you know you do find a lot of different answers but in most cases it did seem like the solar solar array was had a much bigger impact than the forest area. Okay, so Chris will see what comes from the inquiries you made for a consultant. Number 12. How much of Amherst's total land mass is forests. How much is solar. What percentage of those forests could potentially be converted to a solar array under current rules and what percentage is conservation land, aka forest forever land that cannot be touched. Chris you are muted. Yeah, there you go. Oh, yeah, one of our staff members Ben Breger who's very clever at figuring out mapping is going to figure this out. He's working on it now I think he actually had an answer, but he wanted to check it with a few people. Okay, you know, put me to public. All right I'm seeing a couple of hands in the public so Steve did you have a comment. Okay you took your hand down. All right, so I'm going to call on Lenore brick. You should be able to speak if you would give us your address. This is the first time you've spoken tonight. Hi, my name is Lenore brick, and I live in Amherst. I just, I just want to speak very briefly just to I mean there's a lot of things but just very briefly to the carbon metrics comparing carbon sequestration of a forest to to solar to a forest. It's the wrong question, even though it's, it seems so obvious like that's what we would be looking at. But that kind of reductionist thinking that's what human beings do to nature's technology because we don't understand the complexity that is a forest we don't understand the echo services that it provides we don't understand how it regulates the water cycle we don't understand how it how land with vegetation, basically stabilize the climate for millions of years, until we deforested the planet until we started doing what we started doing, because humans think that we know better than nature and so even though it seems like a very logical question. It's not it doesn't cover all of the complexity and the echo services that a forest or any kind of complete ecosystem serves and and keep in that we don't actually have any more complete ecosystems or even our forests aren't.  So there there this kind of this kind of mathematics doesn't cover what let's say a forest ecologist could explain to us we we need solar experts to answer these questions but we also need forest ecologists and climate scientists who understand about the ecology of the planet to give us these answers and we actually have people in Massachusetts that that are experts on this that can call on that do understand the complexity of the ecosystem and can answer these questions about solar versus forest which should not even be, you know, this this force choice. There's no reason that we can't have both. I just I just want to make a point that there's some flawed thinking that even the climate movement itself we have taken a lot of the ideology from the climate movement about reducing, you know, fossil fuel emissions and all of that, but even the climate movement itself has been flawed in its strategies until now it's finally kind of catching up in its strategies and looking at the whole picture. So this is, it's it's very different when we're talking about clear cutting forest for solar, then we're talking about other kinds of installations it's very different when we're talking about large industrial solar installations, then when we're looking at our past a lot of your questions here. That's the process about three minutes we don't have the stopwatch going but it has has been about three minutes so okay. Yes, I'm trying to. So, so what I'm saying is, you can't, you don't have enough information here to talk about the future implications of these projects from the past experiences that you're that you're citing. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right, so question 12 Chris it sounds like Ben Ben will be getting us an answer for that. Question 13 how many parcels of land could be affected by the implications of this bylaw and who owns them. That's another question. I'm glad you made to work on the answer that we've given here relates to, you know how much solar power could come out of an acre of land but I think that we need a better answer for that question so we'll work on that. Okay, all right well I mean it's clearly. It's not difficult to own an acre of land in Amherst so you know if this turns out to be a list of everybody who owns property in town, you probably don't need to go there. Question 14. If any effect would the proposed bylaw have on the plan solar farm on hickory Ridge golf course, doesn't the town's ability to purchase that property depend on being able to build a solar farm on some of that land. The goals for that land do include building a solar farm on that land. But what we've determined is that that solar array already has a special permit, and it is a valid special permit and the way the solar moratorium is presented. That includes an exemption for for projects that already have a special permit and also includes the prospect for extension of or renewal of those existing special permits so it wouldn't affect the project at hickory Ridge golf course. Okay, great. And then question 15. If this moratorium is enacted it will throw a wet blanket on the development of renewable energy in Amherst exactly at the time when we need it most climate models suggest that this is the decade where we have to rapidly decarbonized stand any chance of stopping the worst impacts of global warming. If this bylaw of 2022 would put Amherst, a leadership community on clean energy back on its heels with potentially contagious effects in the region. If this bylaws enacted what pro solar policies is the town considering to mitigate the negative effects on solar growth. So the options could include launching a new solarized program to help homeowners install solar, a new community solar program, actually completing the solar project on the new landfill, passing a new building code mandates solar on all new commercial and residential construction, a plan to install solar on parking lots, brokering an agreement with local colleges and universities to put solar on the built environment, and more. So I think it affects seems to already be in action given that amp has withdrawn their proposal after the town council voted to continue to pursue the moratorium. Chris. So, there was a question in there. Yeah. So, you know what has there been any discussion that you know of to try to, you know, tout the solar progress that we're been that we are making. That is a topic that we need to grab hold of and do something about but we haven't done anything about it yet. And the planning department will be exploring answers to that question, but I wanted to say a little bit about amp. What we understood from amp when they withdrew their proposal was that they had questions from the conservation commission that they needed to answer and it would have taken them a while to get those answers that involves, you know, doing further the wetlands that exist on the site, potentially doing some soil analysis and other things that they couldn't really do in the wintertime so they have have said that even though they've withdrawn they withdrawn without prejudice or that's their request. They'll be back, you know, once they have answers to the questions that have been asked by the conservation commission and others there, they're going to come back with a refined proposal so I think it hasn't. I know dampened amp's enthusiasm to install a solar array in Amherst. And as far as the other questions answered asked here I think that those are all really good questions and we have two members of town council here. You know, reading these questions reading these suggestions and so you know we can all work together on making some of these things happen. Thank you Chris. Hey Jack I see your hand. I just wanted to say that I'm looking at my rooftop solar. We have generated 73, you know, megawatts over the last five years.  I feel like we're reinventing the wheel here but I just, you know, ideally, you would want to install solar farms on like brownfields and in that but we don't have enough brownfields to really to do that sort of thing.  You know, we have supply chain issues that everyone is aware of. But again, I just feel like we're going backwards and we're not like following the science here. Well, I mean we also have farmland that already has the trees removed. And, you know, if you put a solar farm on that, I know people have been studying whether you can actually grow agricultural crops under solar farms. I gather it's, you know, there's mixed reviews, there's some crops that do better and some that don't. But, you know, we need food too. Okay, so I mean, let's go to scroll down to the first of the questions that we asked for the of the proponents because I there was a response from the town staff to this question, which had to do with what are the deficiencies of the current process to approve large solar arrays in Amherst. And Chris I don't know if you or Rob would prefer to answer this. Rob started to answer it before and I think his answer was that our bylaw doesn't have specific criteria and standards for dealing with solar arrays so there may be things like, you know, Belcher town has a solar bylaw which says things like the solar bylaw are more than 20 acres altogether. And it says you can't clear more than 10 acres of forested land so there may be things like that that we want to include I'm not sure what other kinds of things, those would be but we don't have those specifically in our administration or other energy facility or use, although we do abide by, you know, the stormwater management regulations, and we reach out to the conservation commission so we have a whole array of things that we use for all kinds of projects but we don't have specific standards and criteria for solar arrays so having a solar bylaw would give us the opportunity to put those specifics in the bylaw together. So I'm going to interject a sort of a related question that came to mind earlier. And Chris and Rob this is for you, and I understand that you may not want to answer it, but I'm going to just ask, would you, would you support the town, creating a solar bylaw, whether it's under a moratorium period or not. On the outside, but do you think our current bylaw regulations that apply to solar arrays could be improved by the creation of a solar bylaw. I think our regulations could be improved by a solar bylaw. Okay. All right, and Rob did you want to say anything or not. I'll just say that I agree with that. Very good. I see Lenore Brick's hand again. Is that a legacy hand or do you want to speak again and if so, you will get three minutes. The hand sorry sorry that was, I just, I forgot to put it down. Okay, fine. Thank you. Andrew. I keep a GIS system up during the planning board meeting. So I was just querying some of the stuff from the parcels perspective of one acre. This no suitability at all. This is order of magnitude. There's like 700 7300 parcels 1200 or more than an acre. 700 or more than an acre with no building on them and then 200 of those are owned by the town of Amherst. So it's just like order of magnitude. Like that doesn't even do account that, you know, some of it's to Steve Rocky all that stuff. So, there, there are a lot as. Okay, good. I'm seeing a hand from on a gas year. Thank you. Thanks for keeping on calling on me. I appreciate that I'm waiting till you just decided to cut me off. Really quickly. I just wanted to note the timing of this because I do want to make sure everyone's very aware that this is not a long term moratorium on solar we want solar and we know we need large scale solar like with it's just the reality right we know it's going to happen and we know we need it. So developers of solar projects can still start the process prior to submitting a solar application so what I mean by that is, if you look at the amp energy project for example, they were before concom in I think July or August of 2020 to get that land delineated. It took a long time to get through that process 18 months is very short that's what this is 18 months or less right so it's very short amount of time I don't think that this is actually going to stymie. For anyone, the, the concern I have personally is, is that folks have the ability to freeze their zoning and now that they know we're developing a solar bylaw, they can submit a proposal request to keep continuing it and then freeze the zoning right and so we want to. So my point is 18 months is relatively short steps can still be taken to do things like delineation to do things like species identification, and things like that without even submitting their solar plan yet so I would urge you to consider the timing of this this is not a long term moratorium by any means it's very quick. Thank you. Alright, thank you. Thank you again I see your hand. Yeah. Some of the questions, the way they've been asked tonight, make me still feel that people don't understand that this is not an anti solar bylaw or proposed bylaw. It's about clear cutting. That's it. I was very involved in a variety of efforts in Amherst. To speak to my complete commitment to sustainability and solar. The roof on the Amherst survival center, my own personal home, the rewriting of the zero energy bylaw for town buildings. And I just want to stick to the last one. The last before town meeting was dissolved, and we have yet to apply it. And so, sometimes we have to just stand back and say, What do we need to do. And if we have one opportunity that happens, and it doesn't happen in the right way, then we've made a mistake. I want to just make sure we understand this is not an anti solar bylaw. This is a get it right bylaw. Thanks. Okay, thank you Lynn. Andrew. I'll say I for one Lynn do not see it as being anti solar at all so if that gives you any comfort. It's, you know, the issue remains like. Are we able to under our current zoning, put in enough protections for the town that we feel comfortable about and I think I will just say what I've been hearing right now is very much yes. I agree with, with Chris Doug's question I agree with Chris that we do need to have a provision but I don't think this is necessarily either or I think that we can continue to manage proposals as they come in as we're developing a bylaw and I think that, you know, from what we've seen in these examples we do seem to have some really strong protections that we could put in place to keep the town's interests at heart. Thank you Andrew. Tom. Sure thanks Lynn I just wanted to clarify that I appreciate your sentiment. But this is not about clear cutting because this is about solar, because the bylaw made it about solar and not about clear cutting. There's a moratorium on clear cutting in front of us that was talking about issues about deforestation, we'd be looking at a completely different bylaw than the one that was presented to us so I just want to be clear that the way that it is framed and why people see it as anti solar. I don't necessarily say that, but I think that people see that because of the language you just used which is, hey this is about clear cutting but it's not through the bylaw doesn't talk about isn't focused on clear cutting isn't focused on deforestation per se it's focused on a particular issue of putting in solar arrays. That is the focus of this moratorium on stopping solar being built out for 18 months when there's a very short period of time to turn around our environmental, our poor environmental contributions. That was the objective with that earlier question about just can landowners clear cut their land. And the answer seems to be yes. So, you know, this moratorium would not affect that. So I see your hand pat. And you can go ahead and unmute. Thank you. Yeah, it's, it can be difficult to disagree with a colleague. It is not about I agree with Tom it's not about clear cutting. There is in the site on shoot three road there would be clear cutting of 45 acres of mature forest. That's an issue, but the bylaw is going to be addressing mitigation it's going to be addressing the kind of fencing whether or not animals are going to be set under the fencing, it's going to talk about size and it. I've been telling people over and over again who are totally anti this project that I'm not doing that I'm trying to set a size that makes sense that we can balance the intricacies of what a forest system gives us with the need for electricity. So, you know, I don't want 45 acres clear cut, but I want there to be a balance. So maybe a four to one balance. So if there are 20 acres then there needs to be another 80 acres that are open. So anyway Tom thank you for bringing that point up because this is a solar bylaw it is not about clear cutting alone it is not. All right, the time is 838. And we've missed our usual eight o'clock time for for break. I'm, I guess I'm feeling like maybe it would be smart for us to continue this hearing to the to the next meeting. You know, if people want to just decide this this evening I'm not going to stand in the way. So, board members. Has anybody got any feelings about whether they'd like to keep working talking about this this evening or, or think about it for a couple of weeks. Maria. I just want to remind postponing or good containment because there are some staff questions and serve some questions I added that weren't answered and it'd be nice to have that information to build on because the answers that we did get what I learned a lot and you know this is not my field. So it'd be great to get a little bit more information. Yeah.  And the process that they have gone through the vetting of the existing projects and I think a moratorium is always a bad look for, you know, local, you know, town of Amherst economy. I just, I'm just, I just, it just doesn't fly with me. So, you know, that's where I'm, that's, you know, where I'm at, you know, because I do agree that we should have a bylaw.  So it doesn't really matter whether we decide tonight or in two weeks you pretty much, you know where you stand. Correct. Thank you. And her. Thanks, Doug. I agree with Maria. I think there's some outstanding questions which it would, I think it would be useful to get answers to. I was curious for the sponsors, you know, Pat Lynn, having heard some of the answers to these questions is that does it change your opinion about whether we need to and I understand you, we probably wouldn't feel comfortable. Maybe answering that directly now, but I guess it's something I would ask you to, to consider. Maybe you already knew the answers to all these questions but but having heard them, you know, perhaps, perhaps you have a different perspective now. I'll just leave it as an open open comment. Thanks. Thank you, Andrew. Pam, I'm going to ask you, I don't think we need to be sharing screen anymore I think we're done with these questions. Thank you. So, would anybody like to move that we continue this hearing to December 15. I think we had them. We already have a topic for 645. What time would you suggest, Chris. I would suggest seven, you have two public hearings you have one for 635 one for 645 so you could make this one for seven. Thank you. All right, Tom. The move. And Andrew. Second. All right. Any further discussion. Seeing none. We'll do a roll call. Maria. Jack. Hi. Tom. Andrew. Hi. Johanna. Hi. And I'm an I as well. So the time is 842. Do people want to take a five minute break. Come back at 847. I'm seeing a few expressions of positive support for that so put turn off your cameras, make sure you're muted. And we'll see you back at 847. All right, it's 847. At least on my clock. Okay, it looks like most of us are back. There's Johanna. All right, so the time at least on my clock says 849. And we're now up to item five in the agenda. Which is old business. So we'll start with the plan review. 2022 dash zero six. With Christine Lindstrom. 534 Main Street. Chris. Do you know who will be presenting this this evening? I think I will be presenting it. I don't see Christine Lindstrom in the audience. Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know who for her mixed use building. And her special permit for a parking lot across the street. At 534 Main Street. And this was a few weeks ago. And you. Imposed a condition that she should come back with the designs for her signs. So she's come back to show you. I think first in your packet is feather press studio. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Feather press studio and archival matters are two. Long rectangular signs that are going to be put up on the side of the building. Unfortunately, we don't have a, we didn't include an image of that side of the building. But I think you will remember that there were two blank. Sign frames on the, I guess it's the west side of the. Building. And so Christine Lindstrom proposes to put this sign. In one of those spaces. And then if, if Pam can scroll down to the, the third sign in this. Not that one, but the next one. Yep. Archival matters. Those are the two signs that are going to go into those existing. Rectangular spaces. And that's the side of the building that faces high street. The faces high street. That's correct. And then she has a sign for fitness together, which is the middle sign in this. Array of science. So if Pam can scroll up a bit. So the middle sign is fitness together and that's going to replace the valley framework sign, which is over that door. And so that's the plan for the signs. So Christine would be looking for you to. Approve these signs so that she can. Get them installed. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chris. Andrew. Thanks Doug. Yeah, I don't really have any problems these signs, although I guess one thing I'm noticing. None of them are illuminated, right? There's no like, I don't see any goose next here. And this one at least says it's going to be aluminum. So. Like these, these won't be backlit signs or anything like that. These are just free standing painted signs. Very good. Thanks. Comment from the board. And I don't see any public hands raised. So I assume we need to vote on this. So we'll do a roll call. Unless anybody has any more comment. We want to have someone make a motion. Yes, that would be a good idea. Thank you, Chris. All right, Andrew. I'll make a motion. To to approve the signs as presented here. Thank you.  Second Andrew's motion. Oh, good. Thank you. All right. No further discussion. I don't see any hands. We'll, we'll take a roll call Maria. And Jack. Tom. I Andrew. I. Yohana. And I'm an I as well. That's unanimous. All right. The time is eight 53. And we've concluded item four. We'll go to item. I'm sorry. Item five and we'll go to item six on the agenda. New business. Topics not reasonably anticipated 48 hours prior to the meeting. Chris or Pam, do we have any new business of that type? We have no new business. All right. How about form? A and R subdivision applications. We don't have one tonight, but you will have one next time you meet. You'll have both an A and R and a site and a subdivision. The A and R has to do with. Avers college land on the west side of South pleasant street. Where they're going to be. Constructing a new building at one 97 South pleasant street. So you'll see the A and R first, and then you'll see a site plan review come in probably in January. And then. The building that we received a. Briefing on from Amherst college earlier. I think so. Yes. That's right. Yep. You did. Yeah. I think that's right. So. In addition to a historic house. Yep. Yes, exactly. So that will be coming to you. And then what was the other thing? S. U. B. Applications. So. I think I've already told. Oh. Sorry. Now we, now we do ZBA applications. Nothing new tonight. All right. Now, Chris, now we're ready for us. Okay. So. The S. U. B. application that we have that's new is John Roblesky. Wanting to freeze the zoning on his properties at. 446 and 462 Main Street. It's where he's got the building that used to be owned by Jerry. And also his. Property that he's owned for quite a while where he recently. He's owned by Jerry. So in order to. Not have to comply with the mixed use building by law, which he's. Concerned about. He's concerned about the, the, the house that's at the corner of. Great. I guess it's. That's great. That's great. Great street and Main Street. So that house that exists there. He's concerned about having to. You know, Floor and he's concerned about having two. Frontages and he just doesn't know how this mixed use. Building by-law is going to affect his ability to. Develop that property. So. Anyway, he's filed a preliminary subdivision plan. Which you will be seeing on. When will you be seeing. That's right. On the 15th. On the 15th. On the 15th. On the 15th. On the 15th. In addition to that, we've received. And I may have told you about this last time. A site plan review application for the Wagner farm. On the East side of Northeast street. The Wagner farm is where they, they do a lot of. Creating. What do you call it? Mulch. Woodchips. That's at the eastern end of strong street. That's right. Yes. They also have cattle there. So what they want to do. And I imagine that they also have other things that they grow there, but their goal is to. Have a new. Small building that they would. Use as a farm stand. And I believe it's a class one farm stand. So they're planning to sell meat that they grow on their property. And butcher on their property and sell meat there. And other things that they grow. So you'll be seeing that as a site plan review application. And I think that's coming before you on January 5th. And I. Let's see. There's one other thing that. The other thing is escaping me right now, but I'll tell you about it next time. All right. Planning board committee and liaison reports. What do we have? Let's see, Jack, do you want to go first? Yep. Pioneer. Valley planning commission. Has no. No, no info. If we met a few weeks ago, but. Nothing really to report. Hey, I would like to say that. Hey, I signed up for the chamber of commerce. Next Tuesday. I don't know where. Oh, Savannah's on university drive. So hopefully anyone. You know, hopefully I see some of you there. It'll be fun. That's, that's their holiday party. So. Okay. I've been kind of remiss in terms of doing that kind of stuff. So maybe a few of you can make it. All right. Thanks for the news. Thanks for the reminder. CPAC Andrew. Thanks to like first, Jack. What was the date of the. It's next Tuesday. Okay. Yeah. That's a noon meeting. No, no, no. It's like a, it's a happy hour sort of thing. Five, five to seven. It's a holiday party. For the chamber. Cool. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. CPAC. We're, we're. Right in the thick of our deliberations. We've had our presentation for the 18. Proposals. You know, it's, it's. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of work. You know, it's, it's, it's a lot of proposals. It's more money than we currently have. So we are. We've, we've begun by just focusing on some of the large projects. And having conversations around those will be hitting the recreation ones. Tomorrow night. I think the recreation and. Oh, I see. I'll take the budget. Like that. It's the smaller, the smaller budget, we'll talk more about tomorrow. But. Lots of great projects. I mean, like, we can't really go wrong. I think. But. There are some tough decisions we'll need to make. Okay. Design review. Tom. No updates. We have a meeting in a couple of weeks. Okay. And then Chris CRC. Um, has met, I think I've met with you recently since then, but in any event they have recommended all the four zoning amendments that went before the town council the other night, which were the article 14 temporary zoning extension to allow building commissioner to grant permission for certain things to happen because of the covert 19 emergency. So they recommended that they recommended the mixed use buildings, they recommended the parking facility district on the CVS lot and they recommended they didn't recommend. Yes they did they did recommend the parking article seven article as well and those things went before the town council on Monday and town council will be deliberating about those this coming Monday December 6, it's possible that they may not vote on the article seven parking proposal on that night because Maureen was kind of squeezed at the end of the meeting and didn't have an opportunity to really give a full presentation about about that article seven. So, but they will, they do plan to vote on the other three. All right. Thank you. All right, report of the chair. Tonight I do have something to talk about. And that is our planning reports that go to town council. You all may probably saw the emails last week from Chris with her drafts of the reports for each of those bylaw amendments and one member of our board in particular was quite upset about the pace of issuing those and the short period for their review, and in fact made a point of attending the town council meeting on Monday and and making a statement about how egregious the process was in terms of meeting state requirements. So I have, I talked to Chris earlier today about her experience with these reports. She indicated that they are custom they have customarily been written by staff. And that in the past, previous planning directors have submitted them to, you know, either the select board or town meeting or whatever the legislative body was prior to any planning board meeting happening. And that they usually did ask the chair to review them before they went out, if the time was short. Now we did send these to you all over the last week or so and have not other than one member haven't gotten any response from any of you. Complaints that was made that was that the planning board should have to vote and formally approve these reports before they go to town council and clearly that has not been Chris's experience and the practice of this town. Chris did find the section of the mass general law that talks about the requirement for the report. And the text of the language does not say the board needs to formally approve it. It simply says a report needs to come to town council with information essentially on how the planning board voted on it. So we think we have met the requirements of state law. I know Chris and, you know, staff regret that time was short. The deadline was sooner than I think she anticipated. And we're certainly going to work hard to avoid the scramble to get those done in the future. But I wanted to publicly say that. So, sorry, you guys had to listen to it if you didn't really want to hear it. But, you know, I hope that goes in the minutes and it'll be in the recording. I do want to ask you all, you know, do you, I mean, do you feel that we were remiss or are you dissatisfied with how we handled that. With the understanding that we don't plan to try to let that happen again. But, you know, are you comfortable with the way we're doing this and that Chris basically is writing these reports. It's a volunteer to write it. You know, we're going to continue to ask Chris to do that. And that it's not really necessary for us to formally vote on these, or have extensive review discussions about them prior to them going to town council. I just wanted to raise that subject, and I see Jack, and I see Andrew so Jack, when did you go at first. Yeah, I'm volunteering to write these reports but you won't get them until like 2023, if that's okay. Right after the minutes, right. Anyway, all I want to say is like, I guess, if we're doing these reports, let's have the minutes that parallel them. I think and then that'll take care of everything. You know, yeah, I guess one of the things that you know if you looked at the reports you'll see first of all that they were very long. And second of all that a great deal of the material in them was a recap of the meeting discussions that is essentially what's in the minutes. So, I do plan to talk to Lynn greasmer and about what town council really wants from us. We could substantially shorten the report itself, and then just attach the minutes of every meeting where we talked about that topic. And my hope is that that will somewhat reduce the burden on staff to be generating reports, I mean, you know between minutes and reports. I can't imagine that Chris or Pam get a whole lot else done, but I know they've got a lot of other responsibilities. So, yeah, yeah, seems to me like the reports are like even more important than the minutes and we've already, you know, had all this kind of scrutiny about our minutes. Well, mainly, you know, the scheduling and timing, but, but also kind of continue, you know, we've got to keep up with the minutes. But and I'll come back to minutes but let's let's finish this topic, Andrew. Thanks to me. Yeah, I think I mean to me like the issue is just sort of calendar management is like, I get it that there was a lot that was happening you know it felt like we've all year, like we were presented with like we needed to talk about somehow, at least to me it felt like we were always working on everything at once, like all year long and I know that's not, that's not how everybody feels about it but from my perspective like the time management made this feel more uncomfortable than it should be I think like the actual steps of the mechanics of what's produced. I don't have an issue with that I'm not, you know I'm not not a lawyer I'm not. I'm not like a professional writer, I don't think I could add any value to how those are created and I certainly trust the team to be able to do that but I think to the extent that we can manage the flow of of the calendar so that, I mean honestly to me, start with one thing get it done, start with something else get it done not keep for things going at once, because you just you can't function like brains don't aren't designed to function like that so I'd love. You can move to that space and hopefully that would alleviate some of this concern that everything's coming to a head of once. Okay, good. Any other comments about that. All right, so as Maria. Yeah, just thinking about over the years maybe Jackie remember, I don't remember ever voting on a court in fact I kind of remember Steve sort of saying Chris sent them to me and I looked it over it looks fine like when we're getting ready for town meeting so I saw Dan I think I didn't have time to read through the whole thing but I just thought I kind of scratched my head like what what vote I couldn't remember doing that ever but I honestly did not read the reports because I figured there were just some the months and months of discussions we had and it was not going to be any new information so it wasn't really something that I felt like you know, I was addressing the planning staff to you know handle just as well as you know the way they do minutes very thoroughly and way too long but but yeah I completely trust them and didn't even attempt to read them I have to say because I think they were just literally summaries of what we'd already done. But as far as the process moving forward. I'm actually very thankful for how proactive we've been because we had been sort of twiddling our thumbs for like three years while. I mean three years and a year where a town council was like coming into like understanding what was going on with all the things they had to deal with and so there's only seven committee and playing board literally like we were just sort of waiting and so when it all came to a head it was it was pretty overwhelming but I honestly I was really thankful for it because finally something was happening. And yeah it was a little hectic but we have four really great article amendments come out of it so far and I don't want to spend many many meetings discussing process I've been through all those kind of corporate workshops where we're like trying to figure out how to be efficient by taking a whole day off to do that and it's driving nuts so I love to find out a process but if there's a way we don't have like meeting after meeting about how to have meetings that would be fantastic. Thank you, Johanna. I read the reports Chris and I too I feel like they're a you know synopsis and I have no problem with the kind of quality or you know like they they're just a recap of the work that we've done and they've always been accurate so I don't feel a need to vote on them. And then I love Doug's idea of figuring out how can we make them even more concise given that they are. It seems like you lean on the minutes already so hopefully that's helpful but I think, you know, we could make that even tighter. Good. Jack. Yeah, I just want to concur, you know with Maria that we have not, you know, last five years, you know looked at these things with the scrutiny of, you know, with regard to the minutes but you know, I think in and you know, standard practice, it'd be good to have the minutes accompany them and that's just, you know, makes more sense there but again I think you know we have been very you know Amherst is blessed because of the planning department has so much expertise and all that and and we've been relying on them for what 100 years 200 years a long time but I mean it's not like we don't have it a confident staff and and and you know that requires a scrutiny of things just, you know, and that's and that's why again, like Maria said we hadn't really looked at these things in my memory of being on the board for five years so. Okay. All right, well. So I think we will continue to have, you know, Chris draft them we will we will think some and talk some about the format. And, you know, we will try to manage the calendar so that they are done in more time for people to look at it a little more leisure, but you know if time is short. We're going to produce them and meet the expectations of the town council for their schedule, and there may be times where we are at their mercy. And the other thing I wanted to come back to was our, our minutes and I know we've, you know it's too bad that Janet's not with us because I know she's this has been a topic of particular interest to her. But I have asked Chris to follow up on something I mentioned I think in the last meeting, which was to maybe send us some examples of minutes from a couple of surrounding towns me, you know I took some time and looked at some of the towns planning board minutes. You know they had three hour meetings and five pages of minutes. You know so I think we could learn from them and, and then I also asked if she could pull out some minutes from say five or 10 years ago that might show us that it's sometimes used to be different in Amherst. You know, I'm hoping, I guess the other thing that I'm thinking that is that I'm going to probably be a little less willing to support edits from planning board members. Sort of as, as a matter of course because I'd like to trust the expertise of our staff and not have them gun shy that they are going to get second guests by the planning board when they produce minutes.  Sure. But I think we need to give them a little more rain to use a metaphor and let them do what they think is necessary and you know if somebody tells us it's not legal. Maybe we can make adjustments but until we've got some serious problems. I think we should let them do it. Do what they do best and, and like you said Jack we are blessed, not only with their expertise but having them at all. There are plenty of towns that don't have a planning staff at all. And planning board members take all the minutes write all the reports. We're fortunate in that respect, or maybe we're not maybe if we didn't have the planning board doing all that work. We'd have a little more pushback on excessive minutes and reports. So, I've said my piece that's that's my report for tonight. The time is 916. Chris do you have a report of staff. My only report is this has been a heck of a year and thank you very much for all your work and I'm hoping that next year is a little bit easier and I've already put a bug in Dave Zomek's ear that maybe we could back off a little bit and not have meetings as often as we've had them. So, I'm hoping for that. All right, good. All right, so the time is 916, maybe 917. And unless anybody has anything else to say, I think we can adjourn. Good night. Thank you. We'll see you in two weeks. Thanks. Thanks. Good night. Bye everyone.