Okay, we are now recording. Great. Thank you, Stephanie. And welcome everybody to the October. It is third. 2023. Meeting of the. 10 of Amherst solar bylaw working group. This is our. As planned, at least as our penultimate meeting. And really look forward to working together on, on. So we'll get to that in a moment. But first, Jen, are you good with the minute taking? Yes. Great. Thank you. I don't think I'll have it by next week though. Unless something. Cosmic happens. So. We'll have the recording. For me. Well, we'll need to. But you as a group. Need to vote on them. So we're going to have to have, there's another set of minutes that are outstanding too. And I think I might have to be the one to pull those together. For the, I think it was back in May. It's been a while. Or I'm sorry, August 4th, not May, August 4th. So I can, I'll pull those together. For next week, but I think we're going to need to have them. I'll try. I'll do the, I'll do my best. I just have like planning board stuff and it's like a busy week. Okay. And just logistically, Stephanie, how do we then deal with the. Meeting. I don't know. It's our last meeting. So I think we have to have those minutes approved. About the minutes for the last meeting. Oh. I don't know. I don't know what I'm going to do is ask. It would seem to me just based on where we're at. That we would need an additional meeting, maybe if it's only a brief meeting. Just to kind of summarize things, maybe take care of the last minutes, but you know, see if there's any loose ends, but also. I think we need to be told what's going to happen next. What's the process. That's on the agenda for next time. Disbanded, et cetera. I would suggest that we leave open a possibility for a short additional meeting, but. I agree. I don't know that you're going to get everybody. So anyway, we can try. It wasn't easy to get the corn. To get everyone. But that's the process is on the agenda for next time, Martha. That's actually part of the meeting. Oh, okay. I mean, what I would suggest is maybe if you want to make the next meeting a little longer. You could do that. Okay. Option. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So let's. Plan for one next meeting, but. Be aware that. If conditions unveil themselves that we need some additional time. For another meeting we'll, we'll work on that, but let's plan to be done at the next meeting. Okay. All right. We have an agenda for this meeting. Which is fairly standard. Agenda. The first is to review. And vote on the minutes. Again, we don't have, then it is August. Fourth. We don't have those minutes still. But we do have the minutes from nine. Fifty minutes. We do have the minutes from nine. Fifty minutes. But we do have the minutes from nine. Fifteen. That were in our packet. And anybody have any. Edits or questions on that. Bob. Yeah, they're my minutes. And I just thank you for that. Yeah. There were, I just. There's some italics in there was just to comment to Stephanie. They should be deleted. Oh yeah. Okay. I see that on the, on the first page there. Under draft by law topics for discussion. I'm sorry. We had minutes in our packet. Or this is this leftover. No, these were the minutes from our last meeting actually September 15th. Oops. Okay. Sorry. I didn't read them. Do we have enough to vote on them without me? If we have a motion. We have a moat. You could, you could have a majority of the people present. That could work. Do I hear any more comments? Bob, I see your comments. Stephanie, did you take note of that? In terms of just finalizing the minutes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, please, Jack. Like a couple of minutes just to, to skim them. Yeah. Do you want me to put them on the screen? That would help me. I've got them. Okay. You have a Stephanie. Yeah. Just give me a second. Sorry about this. I was making them bigger. So you'll actually be able to read them. Okay. Just one second. My name is McGowan, not McGuire. Define name. It's a fine name. I got a channel. Oh, this is Jack. What's the discussion of WG charges on the second page middle? You scroll past it. Right. The bottom line right there. That's working group. Charge. Okay. Okay. I can type that out. I would just, I would use the solar SBWG, I guess. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. All right, Martha. Yeah, back near the beginning in, in. It said, I mentioned a report on the town master plan. That was the Chris was going to be giving her annual report to the town council. I think is that right, Chris? That's correct. Yep. Okay. I've got that as well. Great. Any other. Suggestions or edits. Back to committee updates that. We discussed Martha's. Mention the math. There's the question marks at the end of that. Yeah, that that's the, that's the. Because it wasn't clear where it was going to be presented, I guess. Yeah, I noticed that. Yeah, I was going to be at the town council meeting. You want to know what date that was. Okay. I will tell you. That was September 18th. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I've got it. So with that, I move that we accept the minutes. Okay. I'll second it. Thank you. I'm just going to close them to get everybody on screen. Okay. And in no particular order. Yes. Brooks. Yes. Yes. Yes. And McGowan. Yes. All right. Minutes are approved. All right. Great. Thank you for that. Any staff updates. From Stephanie. No. Okay. Chris. Yes, I have an update, which is that the planning board will be receiving a presentation. About the shoots very road. Solar project tomorrow night, Wednesday. October 4th. And the meeting starts at 6 30. And most of the meeting will be devoted to that topic. So the planning board's role, just so everybody knows the planning board is not in a permitting role for that project, but they are being asked to make recommendations if they see fit. So they're receiving a presentation and if they would like to make recommendations to the zoning board of appeals, they are welcome to do so. Okay. So the meeting accessible by zoom. Yes, it is accessible by zoom. And just to let everybody know about public comment. The chair of the planning board accepts public comment at the beginning of the meeting on topics that are not related to items on the agenda. And then during the meeting, I just wanted to make sure that everybody knows about the planning board. The chair welcomes public comment. About that particular topic that was just presented. So just wanted to let people know that. Great. Would you be able to distribute the zoom link? Or is that on the website? Is that on the town website? Oh, it is on the town website. It's on, it's on the agenda for the planning board meeting, which should be on the town calendar. Yep. All right. Anything else staff update wise. Super. Any committee updates? Solar versus big split. The world supply protection committee met. And I presented what we, you know, where we're at at this point with this, with this group. So. That's it. Good. Any feedback or comments that. Are germane to. Well, I mentioned the storm water part in, you know, and. And, you know, just some of the, the, the map associated with a private well versus a, a, you know, large volume, public drinking water well with regard to the setbacks and that, which everybody, you know, was on board with. I'm probably missing something, but. All right. Thank you. Super. Yeah, nothing from ecac to report. Okay. All right. Let me just say just for the record, we have 12 attendees from the public, which is, is great. I think it's a milestone because I think that's maybe the first time that public attendees outnumber the panelists. So that's good. Thank you. Thank you. For both this and the. Committee I'm on. So great. Okay. And appreciate your attendance. Okay. The bulk of the meeting. My suggestion. Is that we really do a read through. Beginning from the top to the bottom. Recognizing that there are a couple of areas where we know. We're going to have to have some discussion. We're going to have to have some discussion. We're going to have to have some discussion. Particularly about the storage section. And then second. Probably firming up and. Any, any remaining issues. With regard to. Forest and farms, which I think we discussed. And resolve to the, to the most part. Last. Meeting. But. There may be some remaining issues there that we need to hone in on. I think it'd be best to start from the top. And. Discuss those issues as we get to them. And, um, uh, and we have basically today. And next meeting. Tuesday, if I recall, or was it Wednesday next week. Um, to, um, to get through. This as comfortably as we can. I don't want to put any misinformation for the public as well. So the next meeting is. Uh, sorry to, yeah, indeed Tuesday at 10 o'clock. Um, so how does that sound folks? Yeah, go ahead. But currently that meeting is 11 to 1. Are you wanting to start an hour earlier or extend an hour later? I know we just discussed that possibility for the next meeting, but there wasn't a decision on it. About what time that would start. Okay. Um, I apologize for that. Uh, for some reason I put down on my calendar. 10. 10 to 1, but maybe that was a mistake. I put, I put that on my calendar myself. I did it quickly. So maybe it was 11 to 1. Is that what your notice said? Yes. Yeah. If, um, so yeah, that for me, uh, just reminder, I'll be. Um, tuning in from California. Uh, from a hotel room, but it should work out. Um, and so, uh, 11 o'clock works out well for me. Um, I'd rather, if we do want, if we do want extended, I'd rather extend it at the beginning than at the end. Uh, just to get my day started. What, what day is the next meeting? Tuesday, October 10. Oh, there it is. I'm good for earlier. We'd have to confirm with, um, Laura and Dan as well. But anybody here, um, have an objection to starting at 10. No. Martha, you okay? She's on mute. Okay. And, uh, I don't think we can commit to that. Well, what's the. We need to firm this down, but I'd like to get Lauren Dan's. Input on that. I know that they're both available at least from 11 to 1. I don't know if they can be there at 10, but essentially you really just need a quorum at least to start. They can always arrive. If they can't make 10. They would certainly be able to arrive at 11. So, um, you could, as long as you have a quorum, you can start at 10. Um, but you all have to decide right now if that's doable, you might want to have a vote to see who can make it. Um, I think everybody said they could make it. I think we may be a vote that we want to make it. Hey, I just didn't hear Martha. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah, I'm okay with 10. I have a point that I'd have to leave at quarter or two. Yeah.  Um, manage a marathon. Um, maybe we'll take a break in between 10 minute break somewhere in between in the middle. Um, I'd rather. Uh, get started earlier. Um, and, um, uh, be make sure that we have enough time or plan to have enough time. So any of any, any objections to starting at 10 o'clock. All right. I'm not sure if we need to vote then Stephanie. Okay, great. So let's. Re post that or whatever if you've done. And then. And make sure that, um, you know, Dan and Laura are, um, informed about that and just fingers crossed that they can make it at 10. Yeah. All right. But could I request for that meeting that we have a more detailed agenda. I mean, like Stephanie, you've already said, we're going to discuss the, the ongoing process or, you know, we're going to discuss the agenda. And then we're going to discuss the agenda. And then we're going to discuss the agenda. There's one particular session that we really have to focus on if that could be get listed. So anything that's specific. Might be helpful to just state in the agenda. That's up to Dwayne and, um, it's already the other agenda, just because usually at the. Our current agendas have been. Pretty consistent. Dwayne's request. Um, and they always say next steps. So, um, we're going to discuss the agenda. And then we're going to discuss the agenda process. It's discussion of process. So it's so rather than. Identifying the agenda items for the next meeting. Let's just talking about what's happening next. Yep. Okay, great. Um, Unless there's any objection, I'd like to, um, move over to starting to review the bylaw sort of from top to bottom. Um, I think some of these parts we can go through fairly quickly. Um, and then we can move on. Um, So I do, I do recognize that we did receive some. Um, Comments from Bob, right? Um, I think earlier today. Um, so I look, I've looked at those and we can just deal with those edits and comments you had, Bob, as we get to those points in the, uh, in the draft. Um, so. Chris, are you prepared to sort of, um, I am prepared if someone else can share their screen though, because I'm. Yeah. Jack. Jack, you're muted. Yes. Uh, I'm wondering, uh, to say Chris, maybe one of us could each read a page and just kind of rotate through it versus Chris kind of having the. To do all the reading. I don't know if that would.  That would be helpful and especially because I've been coughing today, I don't think I'm sick, but I have been coughing. So I'll start out and then somebody else can take. Yeah. Yeah. Good. Good idea, Jack. Appreciate that. Yeah. Can I ask, are you wanting me to open the working copy? Yes, please annotated. The working copy and I'll talk about the annotated as we go along. Okay. Actually, I'll introduce the annotated. Um, but bring up the working copy. Okay. And while that's coming up, Janet has a comment. Yeah. Are we, is Chris literally going to read every line. Of this 22 page draft. Well, my recommendation. Uh, as I. Express it to Chris and Stephanie was to, um, probably some of it, like the definitions. I'm not sure if we need to read the definitions verbatim. Uh, other things, maybe, uh, we can. Just put on the screen and, and read through ourselves quickly. Um, and, and, and see if there's any comments on them. Uh, as opposed to reading it through, if we think that's quicker, I'll kind of leave that up to the group and to Chris. Um, as we get to those places, I do want to try to certainly be as efficient as possible. Um, yeah. No, I understand the balance that you're trying to strike. I had, I have like a bunch of edits. Some of them are just like little. Um, proofreading things. I just assume I would send to Chris. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I, I, um, but if it's useful for everyone to read through it, but I just, I was hoping we wouldn't have to, unless we're at that, like the newer sections are kind of rougher. So they, I would see a line by line on that. Just, just a suggestion. So, um, I have made changes to many of these sections because. As we've gone along, I've received comments from people. I received comments from Bob Brooks. Um, Martha Hanner and also from Doug Marshall, who's the chair of the planning board. So, um, I had, um, asked Stephanie to post along with the rest of your packet material. An annotated copy and that copy, the last date for that is September 12th. And that included all of the comments that I had actually had included. Um, it was September 20th. I'm sorry. Um, so as of September 20th, that annotated copy included all of the. Comments that I had received from those people and, um, some of the suggestions for edits I included in the. Working copy and some I didn't. And, um, I did. Write in the annotated copy. My response to the comments. And so if people want to read through the annotated copy on their own, I think that would be fine. And if anybody who submitted comments wants to bring up their comments while we're going through this, that's fine also, but I just wanted to state that, um, We haven't actually read this recently. So the fact that I've incorporated people's comments means that things have changed. And I agree with Dwayne. We probably don't have to reread all of the definitions and probably the next statement can wait for next time, but it probably would be a good idea to read through things like the intent and purpose because there were several lines of, um, material added to that section. So. Yeah. So that's all I have to say. Yep. All right. So let's, um, let's hear from Martha and then Jack. Uh, I think that's a physical hand up a real, a real hand. And I just wanted to request whether you could enlarge the, the copy on the screen so that we could actually read it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Jack. I just, I just want to say I'm, I really am relying on this as, as in terms of. Me. Reading my mom because I've not, I've been not been able to, to dig into it to the extent that I would like. So I appreciate us going over it and the detail that you're suggesting. Yeah. Perfect. Okay. Should I, should I start?  And then I hand it off when you're ready, hand it off to a next reader. Okay. When I start coughing. So, all right, intent and purpose. Um, the purpose of this article is to promote the health safety in general public welfare by promoting and regulating the implementation of new large scale ground mounted full photovoltaic installations. LG PI by providing standards for the placement design construction operation, monitoring, modification and removal of such installations. So this is one place where the planning board chair suggested shortening the acronym to LG PI and leaving out the word solar because he said photovoltaic implies solar. So he suggested large scale ground mounted photovoltaic installations LG PI. So that's what I've used throughout this. Okay. The town of Amherst recognizes the urgent need to convert to noncarbon energy sources to promote solar energy development and to sequester carbon to slow and reverse climate change. This bylaw aims to balance multiple needs. Can you scroll down a bit? Yeah, that's good. Um, then these are the need for noncarbon forms of energy generation and storage to meet climate action goals. The need to promote the health safety and welfare of the people of the town of Amherst and the region. The need to preserve the natural environment, protect sources of carbon sequestration and storage and minimize impacts on scenic natural and cultural resources. The need to preserve prime farmland and provide for local food production. Oh, Martha, Janet has her hand up. Go ahead, Janet. So in the, um, in the inoculation, um, purposes of inoculation from a fort challenge, I thought that, um, when you said natural and cultural resources, you could add residential neighborhoods. Cause the SJC has recognized like maintaining the integrity of neighborhoods and zoning districts is a legitimate concern of towns. I thought that would maybe address the buffer zone issue or, um, so just like a nod to that to sort of support buffer zones or whatever other things we do. Okay. Anyway. All right. Where were we? I think we were on, um, the need to implement the goals of the state's climate action plans and resilient lands initiative. The need to provide adequate financial assurance for the eventually decommissioning of such installations. The need to recognize the rights of landowners to use their land. I think Jack had his hand up. Nice muted. Sorry about that. Um, I just saw a decommissioning. And before I was, I saw removal. I'm wondering if one should be consistent in terms of, you know, we're calling the removal. Should we just say decommissioning these things throughout versus removal? Small, small thing, but I, again, I have not, I don't know how consistent it is, but to me, it seems like decommissioning is the right word. Yeah. Okay. Where did I say removal? Uh, the first paragraph. I see. Okay. So decommissioning, uh, decommissioning instead of removal. Okay. Yep. Good. Um, so the need to provide an adequate financial assurance for the eventually decommissioning of such installations. The need to recognize the rights of landowners to use their land. The need for farmland and agricultural soils to produce healthy food, food products, support farm to table dining, farmers markets, provide jobs and support the local economy. The need to protect forest resources that support the local economy, produce wood products, provide the critical ecosystem services of purifying and storing water, purifying air, producing oxygen, sequestering carbon, habitat for wildlife and plants, recreation, lower air temperature and mitigating climate change. Um, the need to implement the goals of the state's climate action plans and resilient lands initiative goals to protect and expand natural working lands and of no net loss. So that would be the goal of no net loss. Um, the need to implement Amherst climate action and resilient plans goals of streamline streamlining, permitting, facilitating emissions reductions, encouraging responsible sighting, ensuring the highest and best use values of natural lands and protecting wildlife habitat, agricultural productivity, flood storage capacity and other ecosystem services. So somewhere along the line, I think it was one up. Yeah. Can you go back to one? Um, Bob sent in a comment that he thought that, um, this last item on page one was redundant. Yeah. So we can strike that. Is that okay with everybody? Yeah. Yeah. Chris, I had sent, um, a comment, I think a few days ago where I had combined that language with the, with the language above, you know, it was redundant than I combined the two a little bit. I was out of town for a day. I went to a funeral in Cleveland and, um, so I may have missed a couple of emails. So if you want to send me that language again, I can. Yes, but it was just taking that one that was, the Bob just said was redundant and, and putting it together with the one above. Okay. So look at Martha's. Yeah. The second entry has a little bit more information. Yes. Yes. But you could just, good phrase. Yeah. I quoted the phrase of no land at law specifically from the document. Okay. That's good. So I'll look at that email. Can you send that email to me again? Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sure I'll find it. Okay. All right. And do put your hand down. I'm trying to remember to put your hand down. If you already. I don't know, Jen, if you have it up again, but, um, Jack, I know yours is no. Yeah. So, uh, with the bullet right above them, the need to protect forest resources. For me, I think we need to protect, uh, all natural resources in the town, including, you know, the wet loans and things like that. And, you know, because I, I'm looking at this and I say, but wait a minute, many other resources in the town. Uh, do these things, it's not just the force. So I'm wondering in terms of the need to protect natural resources. Uh, you know, including for us. That's locally. Me, uh, Yeah. Blah, blah, blah.  Um, So I'm just trying to make this a little more general. Yeah. So that would read then the need to protect natural, all natural resources in town, including forest resources. Yeah. Right. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Sounds good. All right. That includes the wet ones, which we know are important. Correct. Okay. So now go into page two, please. Um, this article strives to regulate solar and energy storage facilities in order to encourage solar installations to be installed on built and previously degraded environment, environments to the extent technically and economically feasible and to control negative impacts on areas such as forests and agricultural lands, natural and working lands. This article balances the critical goal of increased solar energy production with reasonable regulations, serving to promote the health, safety and general welfare of Amherst residents. This article encourages the use of solar energy systems and solar access consistent with Massachusetts general laws, chapter 40, a sections three and nine B solar access 18 and the green communities act MGL chapter 25 a section 10. This article implements the Amherst master plan, the open space and recreation plan and the climate action and adaptation resilience and resilience plan and the Massachusetts 2050 decarbonization roadmap, clean energy and climate action plan for 2025 and 2030 and clean energy and climate plan for 2050. This article strives to encourage and regulate solar and energy storage facilities in a manner that reflects the equity and justice of impacts and opportunities across all sectors of Amherst's residents with particular concern on our low income and marginalized communities. I think that should say to our low impact rather than on the provisions set forth in this article shall take precedence over all other less restrictive sections of the zoning bylaw in the regulation of LGP eyes. Okay, does anyone have any comments on that? Okay, applicability. This section applies to LGP eyes proposed to be constructed after the effective date of this section. The section also pertains to physical modifications that materially alter the type configuration or size of these installations or related equipment. The requirements of this bylaw shall apply to an LGP I regardless of whether it is the primary use of the property or an accessory use. This bylaw is not intended to regulate systems of less than 250 kilowatt direct current DC roof mounted systems or solar parking canopies. So that's a question. Is that what you mean? You mean to regulate only ones that are ground mounted, not roof mounted and not solar parking canopies, right? Just want to confirm that. Okay. Yep. I would just strike out. Parking under the can for the pan canopies. Oh, okay. Because it can be canopies over something else. Exactly. And yeah, we made that mistake at the we are. And then we had canopies that we're not over parking. So, for example, other than parking, like a walkway. Okay. Yeah. Okay. This bylaw is not intended to regulate solar panels installed on buildings. Such installations are permitted by right with a building permit. Okay. So we decided that we're going to skip over next statements for now. And so we're going to go on to page. Let's see. We're going to also skip over definitions. Yeah. I would just say Bob had, there's one. I think Bob had that was in the definitions, which we might cover. Yeah, I can look at that. Oh, he questioned. Oh, ecosystem service. Let's see. An ecosystem services any positive benefit from natural lands that can be. That can include. But not be limited to oxygen production. Air cooling air and water quality purifying water storage flood and drought mitigation. So he added the words. And not limited to oxygen production. And then he added water storage flood and drought mitigation. So he just changed the ampersand. Yeah. All right. So I'll include that. The definitions. And he also under solar energy. Which we defined. The definition somewhere radiant energy received from the sun that can be collected in the form of heat. And then the definition I found included light. Heat or light. Or converted to electric power by solar energy system. So he suggested that we eliminate the word light. I guess maybe I would. I think. Maybe correct. Page. What page is that? And you can scroll it to make sure we have seen definitions. It's page five. It's five. Yeah. And it's solar energy. The definition of solar energy. I would just maybe shorten the definition to be that can be collected. And convert it and converted to electric power. By a solar energy system. And converted. To electric power by a solar system. Okay. You said radiant energy that, that covers both heat and light. Right. The only difference between what we call heat or light is, is just the difference in wavelength. It's the same thing. It's, it's not really a difference. So. So radiant energy you see from the sun that can be. So if you just say radiant energy received from the sun. That can be converted to electrical power. By a solar energy system, right? You don't need in the form of heat or light. Yeah. Do you want to include collected though? I think collected collected and converted. Yes. Elected and converted. Yeah. Okay. It's good. So were those the only. Yeah, there was very quick one on the very first definition of the solar energy system. Yeah. So, I'm not going to put it in the agrivoltaics. He suggested, I think it's good. The simultaneous use of. Land for both solar. So scratch the words areas of. Land for both. So, okay. Yep. Yeah. All right. Any comments or thoughts? Questions on the definitions. I see Janet and then Jack. So I wondered. Later on. There's. There's reference to. Heavy rainstorms or heavy rain events or significant rain events. I forget exactly the language, but I began to wonder. I began to think we should define what that is early. And I think. I think they should define it. And certainly, I don't know if it's what we want to pick, but I felt there's a several times we're asking. People operating the facility or the owners to, to immediately check after a heavy rain event. And we're not saying what that is. And given the incredibly wide variety of heavy rain that we are been receiving in the last five years, years that could be six inches in a day or is an inch in a day so I thought somewhere like I thought early in the definition section we should figure out what that means so people know when it's triggered or we can keep repeating it in those sections but it just occurred to me like I saw different you know references and I just thought maybe it would be good to put in the definitions. I think that's a good idea and I did speak to Erin Jacques about this. She didn't she said that for Conservation Commission reviews what they say is that if there's more than a 20 than a half inch of rain that falls they require that a site be inspected so she didn't even say in a 24-hour period so more than a half inch of rain and maybe Stephanie may have a comment about that too because Stephanie used to be the wetlands administrator. There should be a time frame associated with it. Yeah so Martha Jen it was saying in a 24-hour period that's fine I can I can take that yep. At least previously that was a pretty much the time frame was within 24 hours. Okay so I'll include that all right good so do we want to go through submittal requirements or is that just two? That's two. Yeah why don't we just grow through it slowly? I mean I had my hand up I took it down. Oh yeah please sorry Jack yep. I'll read those two sections on my own I don't want to hold everybody up so. And you'll send me comments? Correct. Yeah okay and they you're talking about the two sections of definitions and submittal requirements? The nexus and the definition I'll read separately. Yeah okay and what about submittal requirements do we want to go through those there's kind of laborious. They are laborious. So I haven't add to them. I think we need to say a plant and wildlife study maybe under the first section of existing conditions or separately and I remember that was done on a project in my neighborhood unfortunately during November when it would be hard to figure out what plants and wildlife there there would be but I think that you know it's one thing to say is there an endangered species or threatened species that's been documented it's another thing to say you have like 50 acres of land and no one's ever looked and so I think we should put that onto the proponent I don't think that's uncommon and I also when I talked to Scott Jackson about this you know because we were talking about like what's there and he said well you know generally like if the state is identified it's there but it there might be important species that no one's actually seen and so you have to kind of go look. So how about if we say that that would be required for a project that's over five acres because it seems like that's you know kind of burdensome for a smaller project. I'm actually not sure how burdensome it would be just to go look because you're going to be doing a wetlands delineation anyway and then have someone go out and check the species I mean it actually might be easier and a smaller thing than larger I don't know I wonder if Stephanie might have some insight. I'd also just ask whether that's required for other development and then also I wouldn't necessarily want if a project is getting going in in November I wouldn't necessarily I to what extent would it postpone the process until even if it had to be a study that was done during the more active growing season or wildlife season. So I think so it has been required before and I think that you know if it's an endangered species on three acres of land versus 40 acres is still an important species you know I live near some dwarf wedge mussels you know I'm not you know sure what piece of you know how big the acreage is that but that's important that they're there and they're federally endangered and also like these solar projects like we're really doing is notifying people like this is what you need to do to come to us and we don't want to have a situation where there's like a there's some kind of sparrow that was on the landfill and that stopped everything for I don't know for a long time and so I think it makes sense to know get all the information you need to know at the beginning not somewhere in the middle or you know relying on someone with the set of binoculars walking around I just I just think it's a pretty reasonable requirement and it was required in my the small project in my neighborhood right Bob can somebody show me where this is the part that Jen is she's suggesting that we add it after number one here where you say existing conditions plan and then include it somehow in number one or make it another number okay well and someone who's done wildlife surveys for 40 years I think this would be impossible I mean it's a nice token thing to do to say you recognize but to do it a wildlife survey without requiring years to do it adequately it's really kind of pointless and as far as plants go like the implication was in the winter time it could be really difficult a lot with the wetlands we do can rely on the soil so we're not totally dependent on wetland we required she's requiring wetlands so I would not want to put wildlife in here especially and I would question plants thanks Bob Jack along those lines you know I feel like we have the bio map for the core and critical habitat which is a very strong zone that we eliminated solar that is tends to be contiguous land that is protective of wildlife presumed wildlife that would be there so that's strong and that and they didn't for me I think the example the landfill the old landfill where we should have had solar because of the the grasshopper sparrow which has not been spotted in years there I think is super unfortunate so I think you know some moderation with the card to you know what we're protecting and the overall public welfare of the town should be considered when we start talking about you know looking super hard for wildlife that may or may not actually exist there so along the lines of Bob or Robert so just to clarify for other projects someone asked this question we don't require that kind of study unless there's a particular concern about some wildlife or some plant it is it is not a normal thing to require that kind of study so I would recommend we do not include that language yeah okay thanks Martha yeah I guess I agree that if we have the what Jack said about we have some discussion of the bio map three already in there and you know some discussion of later of ecosystem services and so on it would seem that that does cover our concerns and and that this you know describing you know how do you do this careful survey that would take a year or years it does seem you know not too practical all right I tend to agree with these comments and I do see the bio map and other things are a submission in number 25 we haven't looked at yet okay so do we want to go through these submittal requirements then if I read through them quickly why don't you just kind of scroll through them yeah that's what I would be okay yeah okay so number 25 does talk about natural and endangered species program estimated and priority habitats bio map three and critical natural landscape and core habitat mm-hmm yeah it seems that that kind of covers there covers it then the importance of core habitat okay anything else on the submittal requirements I assume that when we discuss battery storage either this time or next time there's any submittal requirements related to that would be and separately in that section is that right well the the bylaw that I sent you yesterday did have special submittal requirements for battery storage that was the whereby law so we could include what they include if that's adequate so on number 30 Bob submitted a comment number 30 is a mitigation plan for noise loss of farmland or agricultural soils loss of forest loss of carbon sequestration loss of environmental services other losses necessary and he asked is this required for any other development of similar impact and it is not required often noise is required if there's a concern about noise but the other things well the other things are not required so what do you want to do about that one well my understanding is from our last meeting when we discussed this that we did settle that there would be a mitigation plan I think we said for 10 acres or greater but we're there's some subsequent questions about whether everybody would use 9.9 acres but that we would recognizing that this was a ask or a mitigation requirement that was at this point unique to solar development that we would express our interest and and recognition that this was unique to solar development in that our recommendation would be that the council consider applying such mitigation requirements for any developments over this acreage with the idea that we wouldn't necessarily want to incentivize development of other types of development instead of solar because of this mitigation requirement okay but let's hear I didn't catch you order but Jack Janet Martha yeah I'm I'm trying to catch up on the mitigation plan is this something that's elaborated further within the bylaws yes is yeah and what were we saying about noise that there's a concern about noise because of some of the equipment that produces noise in some instances like the humming I think humming okay well just address it when it shows up I guess later in the bylaw yeah who did I say was next yeah Janet muted so I think there's also a requirement of like scenic impacts mitigation I would add that and leave that in but I think if I was a project proponent I wouldn't be clear what would be required of me you know I mean I mean but actually but it would be it's kind of telling the project proponent you know we want you to mitigate these problems in some way and so I've been reading through the shoots very proposal I'm kind of just beginning to do that and you can see them addressing issues like that so in a way it's a heads up to the proponent this is what we want you to work look at work at it's a heads up to the ZBA who's been begging for more guidance about whether the concerns with solar and what what needs to be done so I would leave it in and just add the scenic impacts too because that comes up later in the yeah I would let me just let me just add you know I'm not next that this this number 30 here seems to be broader than what I had stated before about replacing forest land or farmland with with some other land that's in sequestrate or in perpetuity this also we would want a developer proponent a project proponent for example to say okay I've looked at this parcel and it's it's it's farmland or product or good soils agricultural soils but I purposefully and are mitigating the impact on on the good agricultural soils by citing the project over here on the parcel as opposed to over the agricultural soils so that's the kind of response that we usually get and then if the board wants more than that then they ask for more so I think that's a reasonable response all right good Martha and then Bob yeah I mean my initial reaction was to think that the that this statement under number 30 was kind of general and vague and you know we're pretty specific I think in the other sections about what we define as mitigation for specific things like forest or farmland or and so on so I questioned whether to have that in at all but Chris if you're saying that this is kind of typical to make this general statement up front in a bylaw maybe we could say you know we first was say that we refer specifically to the following sections to explain them or something you know so I'm it seems a little bit too general to me to be to be very clear but some of these are going to be important as we go through the rest of the bylaw I think some of them are important and some of them are not applicable depending on what kind of situation you're in so this is saying to the applicant we want this information if you think it's not applicable or if you think you've already compensated for it or mitigated for it tell us about that and then it's up to the board to decide has the applicant given us enough information so that we can make a decision or not but the fact that it's in here means that the board expects some somehow that the applicant address the this issue whichever one of it or two of it or three is applicable okay Bob yeah maybe I guess after what Chris says maybe I'm not as opposed but I how do you write a mitigation plan for the loss of environmental services I'm sorry you know as a professional environmentalist I don't know what that means it's just like Martha said it's just too big I can't why are we going to require something and no one knows how to do well Dwayne did define environmental services for us and we have a paragraph about it or two later on in that in the text here yeah it's not that they have to eliminate these impacts they have to mitigate them to a reasonable extent I think the the idea is that it assures and requires that the proponent has given these some due diligent thought to how to mitigate and then is a and then the town is able to engage in a conversation on these issues with the applicant to understand what they are proposing in terms of these issues and then have some back and forth on trying to make sure that they've mitigated to a to a reasonable extent you could change the word loss to impact the medication for impact to these various things and that would be similar to a mini environmental impact report and then the applicant would you know write a paragraph or a page or whatever about each of these things about why it didn't apply or why it did apply and here's how we're dealing with it so maybe we should change the word loss to impact because we don't necessarily have a loss in each of the cases in each of the bullets yeah yeah I like that makes sense all right Jack yeah I suggest environmental services totally throws me off at me because that's I'm a consultant can we say like something like ecosystem functions or something that is not so broadly used for things I see environmental ecosystem services later on the report that can we use something other than services like functions or processes ecosystem processes is that apparently environmental services oh ecosystem services in the definitions I see yeah that's a you know human activity broadly speaking it definitely throws me so what are you suggesting Jack that we substitute ecosystem service or ecosystem function what ecosystem processes or ecosystem functions or something like that if you ain't agree because that that so I was going to suggest just putting ecosystem services and I think we should mull this because I understand what Jack's saying but I'm not sure it actually makes it more narrow to say ecosystem functions versus services but I see his point processes I mean the thing is there's just so many and you know and that's actually sort of inside the ecosystem services to I don't know let's just maybe we should just put it there and just mull it for our next meeting yeah okay let's do that and move move forward okay but Bob did that a new hand yeah just real quickly to me this is just an opportunity for a lawyer to sue to stop something because this mitigation plan is inadequate to accommodate for the loss of and then you pick your poison yeah that's a legitimate concern it makes Bob feel any better it's really hard to sue on these things it's not hard to sue it's hard to it's almost it's very difficult to win yeah yeah but yeah it's a process first part is right but it's also very expensive to sue to that's another problem too so ecosystem services okay let's I think I think if we say impact instead of loss that that would that helps because then it's harder to sue I should think I don't know I don't know if it really makes a difference I mean I like the idea of like you're losing farmland and soils that's a that's kind of more of a picture in your head but I you know impacts is kind of a little more general I guess I'm not I'm not gonna die on that sword though I had to go yell at my dog okay let's proceed yeah let's proceed and maybe put this section yellow or something to come back to go back to design standards access roads roads and public access access roads shall be planned and constructed in consultation with the town engineer fire department and department of public works and shall be planned and constructed to minimize grading storm water runoff removal of stone walls and trees and to minimize impact to natural and cultural or cultural resources at the discretion of the PGA permit granting authority roads should be curved to the extent possible to limit direct views into the project especially from scenic roads and to slow down storm water runoff so as to limit or prevent erosion and Martha had a comment that she thought those two things should be reversed in order that erosion was more important than or more of a concern I guess then impact to scenic so I would say limit to and instead of having to limit direct views into the prod project we would have to slow down storm water runoff so as to limit or prevent erosion and then we would say and to limit direct views into the project especially from scenic roads okay yeah alright the applicant shall be required to repair damage to public roads that result from construction the existing farm roads shall be maintained in a stable condition existing public access to trails shall be maintained or the applicant shall reroute the trails with approval from the permit granting authority now some of these I'm not sure about this one because some of these trails are not really public trails there trails across private property and the landowner has granted the public access but the landowner owner can take back that grant of public access so I don't know if we should say shall be or are encouraged to be maintained I know for a fact that Coles lumber has a lot of trails across their property that they're happy and willing to let the public go across but they have every right to stop that access if they want to so how about saying shall be encouraged to be maintained okay this is a sticky wicket legally because when you say public access you know it's sort of you know I understand what you're saying about because I know that there was a Coles solar array and it cut off a trail and so they did reroute it around the array you know which is and but there's a sticky wicket to me is the word existing public access so there's a whole series of cases that go back to like the time of medieval kings that in English common law about rights of public access and on trails and so I wonder I understand what you're saying but I wonder I'd like to ponder a way to say to protect a public right of access versus public access if that makes sense I'd like to brood on that a little bit so you'll come back with him wording yeah okay lighting lighting of LGP eyes shall be consistent with local state and federal law lighting of other parts of the installation such as appurtenant structures shall be limited to that required for safety and operational purposes and shall be reasonably shielded from abutting properties lighting of these installations shall be directed downwards and shall incorporate full cut off big fixtures to reduce light pollution unless otherwise approved by the PGA lighting of these installations shall be limited to nighttime maintenance and inspections by authorized personnel lighting controls shall be available to emergency personnel to turn on at their discretion during an emergency all lighting shall comply with international dark sky standard fixed standard fixtures seal of approval certification requirements there shall be no illumination when personnel are not on the site okay sign signage signs on LGP eyes shall comply with the town of Amherst zoning bylaw article 8 a sign consistent with the town of Amherst zoning bylaw article H shall be required to identify the owner and provide a 24 hour emergency contact phone number of the installation owner or operator LGP eyes shall not be used for displaying any advertising except for reasonable identification of the manufacturer or operator of the solar photovoltaic installation maybe we could take out the word solar there in addition to identification signs the PGA shall permit signs for safety such as no trespassing signs and signs required to warn of danger emergency signage for battery energy storage facilities associated with LGP eyes including signs for emergency shut off procedures and signs related to fire management and fire suppression shall be required at the discretion of the PGA exceptions may also be made for educational signs that provide information about the project the PGA shall determine the appropriate size material materials and placement of such educational signs to the extent possible signs should be grouped together to reduce sign clutter any comments Janet has her hand up yeah I think that's an old one but I'm sorry that is old okay okay utility connections where technically and economically feasible reasonable efforts as determined by the PGA shall be made to place all utility connections from the solar from the photovoltaic installation underground depending on appropriate soil conditions shape and topography of the site and any requirements of the utility provider that is not usually a problem we haven't run into any issues with that glare solar panels to the extent feasible shall be positioned and screened so as not to create glare and minimize glare on surrounding occupied structures and roadways the LGP I shall be positioned to minimize glare on any residents or public way the applicant should submit ratings and technical specifications for the solar panels to ensure minimal reflectivity the design of the installation shall prevent reflected solar radiation or glare from becoming a public nuisance or hazard to adjacent buildings roadways or properties design efforts may include but not be limited to deliberate placement and arrangement on the site anti- reflective materials solar glare modeling and screening in addition to required landscaping okay okay visual impact a visual impact assessment shall be conducted the follows established protocols such assessment is preferred to include the following a design narrative narrative that describes how the project has been configured or located and how it avoids or minimizes visual impacts maps and documentation of the analysis conducted shall accompany the narrative and be used to generally describe the anticipated visibility of the project the narrative should provide details concerning alternative configurations or sites that were evaluated in the design process and design mitigation strategies employed to reduce any visual impact to sensitive resources to inventory and inventory and description of the cultural and scenic resources located within the viewshed of the proposed activity including historic structures and historic districts scenic roads cultural landscapes and vistas open areas that are visible from public roads and recreational areas information on these resources may be found by searching macros and by reviewing the town of Amherst masterplan open space and recreation plan historic preservation plan and other local plans three visualization and simulation simulation with input from the PGA the applicant shall utilize tools such as photo simulations or viewshed analyses through renderings line-of-sight studies and or two or three-dimensional visualizations such as photo montage video montage animation produced through spatial information systems and geographic information systems to assess the visual impacts and describe the anticipated effect of the proposed project on the regions scenic and cultural resources the number of simulations required will depend on the anticipated impact and the sensitivity of the resources present the visual impact assessment should include consideration of all parts of the project including all associated infrastructure in the event or then one alternative is being considered the visual impact of all alternatives should be evaluated by the applicant the assessment should map locations along local public ways where the solar installation is visible above the visual horizon and anticipate locations such as high elevation points or across water bodies where distant views are possible confer with town of Amherst staff to identify points of view of particular interest or concern to be documented at the time of visual impact assessment visual mitigation proposed mitigation measures as applicable mitigation may include careful sighting sighting away from scenic resources and key viewsheds curvil linear access roads and screening any questions or comments on that. Yeah, Janet. So Chris, I can intuit from this what the design standard is but I'm not sure if I was the ZBA or the planning board I would know what the rule is like what's the standard because you're sort of saying it's like all these different things are saying you know it's you know minimize impacts or move your project away or cover up but it doesn't sort of say the applicant shall you know carefully cite its solar array as to you know avoid negative impacts on scenic views and resources or you know and as an alternative mitigate as much as possible or something so I feel like the design standard itself kind of it's implied but it's not said. Well I think that's up to the board to decide whether the impact to a particular thing or area is significant enough and then they can work with the applicant to develop a mitigation. I don't think that we need to be you know detailed in the description of what those mitigations might be. I think this is this is actually pretty broad and pretty well written in my opinion when I first saw it I was worried that it was too strict but having read through it several times I think it's reasonable and you know people who are doing these large scale solar installations are working with designers and engineers who do impact assessments all the time visual impact assessments so they know what to do and they know how to compensate for problems and in all cases we're not going to be able to solve the problem but in many cases we will be so it's really a kind of back and forth back and forth process it's not a definitive process that this is what you have to do when you confront this situation it's more like well here's a problem with what is being impacted visually how are we going to solve that problem and the board and the applicant work together so I really don't think you need more than what's described here but maybe others do. That's your any thoughts on that but we'll go to Martha. Yeah well I mean my naive reading was that the whole thing seemed like a lot like kind of overkill but I think Chris you just explained that this is sort of more or less standard then it's not really something excessive then for a developer to do I don't think it's excessive and we do have similar requirements for what do you call them wireless telecommunication devices you know when someone wants to come in and put a big pole somewhere we require them to do visual studies now they're not going to be able to hide something that's 180 feet tall but they can place it in a way that makes it not as obtrusive from ground level or they can screen it you know there there are things that can be done to mitigate so I don't I don't think it's you know out of whack or excessive although maybe Laura will have other thoughts about that when she has an opportunity to you know comment. Yeah I mean as long as you're comfortable with it then I think that that's fine. So I might send you a sentence that sort of captures that I'll look at the wireless one because I think what's good about this is it really outlines like the way to do it and look at it and to like look at options and things like that but I'm not sure the board would understand its power to say you know I was one sentence I was thinking the project shall avoid significant negative impacts on x y and z and you know whatever you avoid and mitigate significant negative impacts on x y and z it might just be as simple as that and then this whole section is sort of saying how you do it and I'll but I could just send that in and then desperately look around for this on wireless thing on page 34 which I don't seem to have in my thing. You don't have it in your bylaw huh? I think oh I see it's in the it's in the use chart so I just like to I could send that around maybe later to talk about but I just don't I'm not sure the board would understand its power or what it's able to say yay or nay to or what it's looking to achieve but it's implied in everything you've said so they've mixed feelings. All right good okay okay Chris just one I think in the the paragraph before the four uh the confer I'm not sure if that's a sentence sentence so it might be just oh shall confer yeah applicant shall confer yeah uh fencing there shall be a fence built surrounding the solar array and ancillary equipment the fence shall be knuckled salvage chain link fence unless determined otherwise by the pga the bottom of the fence shall be at least six to eight inches above the ground to allow for wildlife crossing under the fence fencing shall not include barbed wire it is acknowledged that appropriate measures shall be taken to prevent the solar array from being damaged or tampered with by individuals trying to access the area of the installation the method of securing the site shall be subject to the approval of the pga the need for fencing shall be determined by the applicant unless such fencing is needed to comply with town bylaws and or as required per national electric code now we have um had Fred Hartwell who's a member of the planning board has questioned this reference to the national electric code so I need to um confirm which reference we should have here and some of this may be redundant um I think you know we're saying it shall be there shall be a fence and then we're saying the need for a fence shall be determined by the applicant so I think there should be a fence I don't think we should let it be determined by the applicant what do you all think I would like to hear what Laura would have to say about whether um solar project generally always have fencing uh and whether the solar developers actually want fencing um but um so I'd be curious to know if there's sort of reasons why there wouldn't be fencing yeah I would think that it would be important to um protect the equipment but yeah yeah okay so then what uh if installed such fencing such fencing shall be no more than eight feet tall unless otherwise permitted by the pga the fence shall be consistent with the character of surrounding properties set back from roadway frontage and public areas and screened by vegetation okay screening and planting should I keep going yep yeah yep the lgpi shall be designed to minimize its visibility including preserving natural vegetation to the maximum extent possible adding vegetative buffers and or fencing to provide an effective visual barrier from adjacent roads and driveways and from abutting dwellings the installation shall be screened year round from public and private ways and from adjacent residential lots to the extent that is feasible the pga may alter or waive this requirement if such screening would have a detrimental impact on the design operation or performance of the array the pga may consider the provision of screening and buffers when reviewing the proposed lgpi to protect scenic vistas and view sheds and to protect views from residential uses public streets and any waterways or water bodies where existing vegetation in the setbacks is insufficient to achieve year round screening additional screening shall be provided including but not limited to planting of dense vegetative screening fencing berms use of natural ground elevations and or land contouring all depending on specific site specific conditions tree cutting within the required setback area shall not be permitted if it would reduce to any degree the effectiveness of the year round screening however if there are trees within the screening area that cast shade on the solar panels they may be removed if additional plantings are required for screening a planting plan shall be submitted to the pga showing the types sizes and locations of material to be used using a diversity of plant species native native to new england and shall be subject to the approval of the pga plantings shall include a variety of native trees and shrubs of varying heights stagger stagger to effectively screen the installation from view during construction and operations the depth of the vegetative screening shall be a minimum of 50 feet unless otherwise approved by the pga at least 75 percent of the planting shall consist of evergreens and shall be evenly spaced throughout the setback area additional planting should include native plants to provide food pollen and or shelter for native wildlife and or follow a food forest model integrating trees shrubs perennial plants and and ground covers to mimic a native woodland that creates habitat for local wildlife and provides food for humans and wildlife someone questioned about the food forest and the providing of food for humans i think that's sort of a suggestion um it should include these things but i don't think if this screening didn't include food for humans i don't think the pga would be objecting to that would it be permissible to produce food for humans i mean if it's not a farm i mean who's yeah i don't i don't remember who suggested that i think it might have been janet who um asked to have this language put in here and i can't remember who objected to it so well let's finish this section then we'll uh i know janet had her hand up but let's finish this section yeah okay use of invasive plants as identified by the most recent version of the massachusetts prohibited plant list maintained by the massachusetts department of agricultural resources is prohibited cultivars of native plants may be acceptable if sourcing of native species is not possible applicants shall install plantings within the array include including native species and pollinator friendly species and species that are supportive of wildlife rather than installing non-vegetative materials such as stone mulch unless otherwise permitted by the pga or unless the project is operated as an agrivoltaics project in which case the plant materials shall be appropriate to the agricultural purposes planting of the vegetative screening shall be completed prior to the connection of the installation plants shall be maintained and replaced if unhealthy by the owner operator of the installation for the life of the installation okay that's a lot to talk about all right uh very good yeah thank you chris um janet um actually that is a lot to talk about so working backwards i don't remember the food forest model idea but i remember saying it'd be nice if that um the plantings could be have food for that can be shelter and habitat and food for um the wildlife yeah i i wonder 50 feet is too big because when i was looking at other local towns it was 30 feet um i mean it seems like a 30 foot you know evergreen barrier that actually does screen it is seems a sufficient i wonder if we're just taking up too much space but i so that's one another comment um and then what i really um that popped out of me is in the second paragraph um when it's requiring um you know being screened year round from public or private ways um from adjacent lots to extent feasible so the next sentence kind of popped out of me is being like too broad and too vague and sort of too much of a um a kind of an out the pj may alter a wave this requirement if such screening would have a detrimental impact on the design operation and or performance of the array and that phrase a detrimental impact i don't know it just seems to like anybody could say well this you know this requirement of screening is having a detrimental impact on my design because i am not able to get the panels where i want to or as many as i want to or as much energy as i want it from them so i think that has to be kind of narrowed more or um you know it's just it's just too wide of an exception because and it's like it's too vague a detrimental impact like a significant impact or something to kind of make it a little more narrow significant detrimental impact kind of better um i don't i don't know it doesn't i just worried about being too much of an exception but at least significant or i don't know that'd be better you don't want to tie people up into knots but you don't want to like have the ropes so loose there is no real incentive to you know anyone could say oh this is having a digital impact on performance because i have to screen instead of putting more panels in and i think the screening and the planting is important because it helps public buy in like that's one thing that people are you know don't like about it um and instead of we're trying to take that away but i also think that i'm thinking the 50 foot you know vegetative screen might be too thick or unnecessary okay even shootsberry had 30 feet and they were they were trying to buffer make sure the forest areas still look forested yeah i don't okay and martha has a comment on that yeah just to follow up on janet was questioning about the we we have somewhere a rule about setbacks right we have we say you know 50 feet setback or 100 feet from a from a scenic road so there's already the setback and so i guess the janet's question is how much of that setback has to be devoted to screening do you have to plant the shrubs and evergreens all the way or not and so i guess i would join with with questioning whether you had to have you know the screening you know shrubs be you know quite that extensive all you need is enough to be an effective screen as long as you've got the setback so do we want to make a change here to say that the screen should be 30 feet instead of 50 feet as long as that doesn't override the setback requirement no you'd still need the setback yeah i would support that um are there any um anybody who would not be in favor of that change all right thanks yeah let's do that anything else on this section no okay um slope and soils all lgpi's shall not be installed on slopes greater than 15 percent which means three feet and 20 feet that's just sort of for the layman to understand um all soils must be kept on site control of vegetation synthetic herbicides pesticides and fertilizers may not be used to control vegetation or animals except as otherwise approved by the pga the reason this is here is because sometimes you need to use an an herbicide pesticide to get rid of the material that's there already so you can plant the pollinator habitat and i think that um the state recognizes that now whether synthetic um material should be allowed or whether it has to be you know natural organic i i don't know enough about this to understand this i think i did get some comment from scott cation about so um he's in the audience maybe he has something to say about that but um anyway okay moving on and we just got on this martha yeah i did the question about the statement all soils must be kept on site i think somewhere we elaborate a little more i mean there's a difference um or whether we also need to say anything about soils not being imported without pga approval or i think we said something about that later on but i will check it imported okay just flag it for checking then okay sorry jenna yep um i have this thing in the back of my head that jonathan murray said that we can't regulate pesticide use because it's been preempted by the state act and i kind of look through my memos on him and i know maybe he said that during the presentation but i think we need to double check that because this issue comes up a bunch of times um and so there's this i issue in the law like where there's if the state or the federal government have covered so many aspects of an issue they effectively preempted but sometimes they just say we're preempting it and so i think he should have the answer to that it just kept on it just i have this memory of this can you find out from him who said that jonathan murray i think said oh i would have to find out for a minute yeah i thought you said jonathan thompson i'm sorry there's a lot of jonathan's floating around yeah okay okay dual use the pga shall look positively or favorably on solar installations that include agrivoltaics or dual use um okay let's let me pause here for a second because i want to note the time we have 25 minutes left and i do want to allow for the public um to have any comments uh for 10 minutes um and so i'm wondering what we we're sort of entering the special sections um forest and then i think farms after that there is going to be a section here on storage as well uh do we want to um just continue running through uh and uh or the the bigger area that we haven't really fully discussed yet is storage um that we do have a model if you will from where it was aware sorry palmer it's where yes okay where yep um that we could uh i looked at it quickly and i didn't really have any time to digest it fully uh we could discuss our over overarching ideas uh and then leave it to chris to draft something for our review on next week on tuesday um or we could um just ask chris to take use her best um thoughts um and expertise to to um work with the way or language and provide us with something to review on tuesday um is there any sense from the group uh in terms whether we want to have a discussion on storage first or wait for the drafting next time martha yeah i had uh sent to to chris a few days ago um my proposals thoughts for that section i read the where document the shootsbury document and the um national uh fire protection document what is it eight five five or something that has all the specifics in it and sort of made a list of requirements but i i think i'd suggest that unless we have anything burning that we should just wait until next week to run through it because it seems like it's efficient for it makes efficient sense for us to run through a draft that um chris yep put together okay it sends mine to stephanie if you if you wanted to look at it now yes i will um i'll find that email that you sent me martha thank you and i will um try to incorporate those comments along with the where i wanted to suggest along with um public comment that we might want to look at that chart that i made up of um the requirements for the permit type yeah yep okay okay that's uh yep that was on my list as well so good um why don't we turn after we hear from jack and jan if that's a new hand why don't we turn to that chris okay yeah i just wanted to say that the um worst uh supply protection committee uh we spent as much time on the battery storage as we did in the solar so i encourage everybody on the in the group to revisit the white paper yep yeah good all right good um janet is that a new one or uh it is new i'm not sure i mean it seems like we have a lot you know as you know we've gone over those earlier sections many times and we have small edits and i'm concerned that the there's more we're getting to like the heavy issues that we that you know it's just it's a lot of it is new drafting and we haven't really made decisions on and it's hard for me to see like that we could read one draft of a best a battery storage thing and say oh that's fine for by the next meeting so i just i'm not sure i'm not disc i have nothing to say about the where thing or not having not looked at it but it just seems kind of rushed to me and i'd rather really focus on a really strong solar bylaw and maybe defer the best to a different group or a different process i'm not sure i could sit there and say oh i read one bylaw and i think it looks good well let's um what i would suggest is that we um if chris can try to get us a draft which he has generally a few days ahead of time which would be almost like towards the end of this week if at all possible uh that we come with um with that reviewed pretty carefully uh so that we can um try to be reach some comfort level uh with the draft um on on our last day on tuesday okay uh great thanks chris do you want to um jack go ahead i've always wondered um is my am i looking really really uh red in my yes you look like you're i'm not on fire i just want to say i'm not on market right now you gotta work on your bronzing a little bit that's better we have the chart queued up that'd be great okay and um chris maybe you can put sort of the context of this for those that are not as familiar with this permitting and and how this fits in with zoning uh and then and then go through your suggestion here yeah so currently um our zoning bylaw regulates um solar development under a section that's called energy generation and something else and it's pretty much special permit all the way across the board and we have been regulating solar installations by special permit and we've had pretty good luck with it the only one that i remember that was reviewed by site plan review was the one at hamshire college and the one at hamshire college was an accessory used to hamshire college and accessory uses are governed by the principal use so the principal use of hamshire college if it were not in the ed zoning district since it's an educational use would be allowed by site plan review so that solar installation was allowed by site plan review but all the other ones the one on the landfill and the one up on i think it's sunderland road and there's another one i think that exists on pulpit hill road and um anyway those have all been by special permit and there haven't really been any issues with those and i think the review process has been good and so um i would recommend that we continue to require a special permit from the zoning board of appeals for large-scale ground mounted solar installations just because it's it's worked really well but if we wanted to potentially encourage it to go in a certain location you know um rather than other locations we could consider the professional research park which is um it is a zoning district in three different locations and i'm sorry i don't have the ability to bring the maps up and maybe i will try to do that next time but um the three locations are where enroute nine where green leaves is located and where the new um building aspen heights that's an apartment building is located that is all professional research park and the original idea of professional research park was that it would be um an economic development generator and people would want to put you know office buildings and maybe some small manufacturing and things like that similar to the industrial park over in north hampton but maybe not having is heavy industry as they have um but it hasn't really worked that way so the one not the prp enroute nine is mostly housing right now it's green leaves and it's aspen heights um the one on um belcher town road it's a very large prp zoning district and it has um um the old stavros building and it has uh that yellow farmhouse that's right on route nine and it has round the vertiers development of uh atkins atkinson you know kate atkinson's medical practice and then there's another one heart and paterson financial group and there's a small oh and um what used to be what is it now spga or something like that anyway there's an environmental company there it used to be northeast environment environmental consultants so some of that land has been used for its you know its purpose the environmental consultants and heart and paterson but there are pretty big areas there that haven't been used for anything so i guess what i'm saying is prp hasn't been successful being used for what it was intended to be used for so why don't we think about using the prp as a place where we might like large-scale solar to go and therefore we might approve it by site plan review rather than special permit so that's all i have to say here so these could all be by special permit which would be fine with me but if we wanted to look at a place where we think solar would be pretty good then it might be the prp zoning district so i don't know if people have anything to say about that and next time i will bring bring maps i do have that map available if you want me to share the screen that would be helpful yep so i think the three areas christ you were referring to is in north amherst this area right here yes that's right it's olive color area up there and then we have one along belcher town road here belcher town road yes then there's one along route nine by green leaves yes so those three areas now obviously where green leaves is there's no more land available except a very small piece so we're not really talking about that the prp in north amherst actually does have quite a lot of land available and one of the parcels was going to be developed for i don't know if you remember that um gosh what was it called it was sort of an academic eruptor right yeah it's the eruptor yes so that was that didn't happen but that you know where that is and then the other one is down on belcher town road where kate atkinson is but there is um also you know more land available there's a lot of wetland there and some of it is owned by the town some of it is the old landfill but there is also vacant land available that could be used for something so that was just a suggestion um and then everywhere else i think it should be by special permit and obviously we know that there are a lot of constraints based on the map that we had produced by gza so solar developers aren't going to want to put solar everywhere else because either it's been already developed or it's ap r land or it's conservation land um or it's not appropriately sized so what do people think yeah go ahead jan and then i do want to move to the public so part of it you know part of it this seems like the two other prps it's not going to have we can't put step there unless people are taking down buildings i think the problem with the north amherst site is it's a lot of his flood prone prone conservancy a lot of it is farmland there's like the brooks go through it and i think it's probably a very that's like a really sensitive area that you'd want to do some special concern for siding i think hickory ridge shows the pitfalls of putting things in flood flooding areas and um you know maybe if we had to do that again i don't think those decisions of the the permit would look the way it does now um and so i don't know you know i think that i mean partly i think there'd be neighborhood opposition to it but i also think this is a pretty sensitive area that wouldn't be so you wouldn't want to have looser requirements the other thing is i think we need to have looser requirements somewhere and so i i think actually i've sort of talked myself into that the educational districts we have you know we we aren't requiring you know there's the the college the colleges have a lot of open land on their um and the university have you know open land um the university does its own thing because it's state land but the other the two colleges have open land that they could put large-scale arrays on and we have no permitting requirements on them and so if we needed a rationale for saying hey we're not putting special permit anywhere but we always had the ed districts where we just sort of let the schools do what they want so i'm not i'm not super in favor of the north amherst location i think it will get opposition but i also think it's a really sensitive area that we'd want to think about how to put arrays in well i would say that i would be comfortable with special permit across the board so i'm not promoting site plan review i'm just offering it as a possibility if somebody thought that it we need one place where it can go by right so i sort of talked myself out of that position because i was because i thought the ed districts are wide open so yeah i would tend to agree that you know leave it as the site plan uh review review you know the special permits uh everywhere except the that the edu district does cover a lot of land area in amherst and i think as long as it's clear in the legal sense that here's all this land area that we are allowing of solar panels if the you know it's amherston and hampshire college are private landowners just like everyone else and so if we're saying that that would be you know by right or or you know open and so on i think we're we're doing our part to make uh some land available without special permit okay all right good um sorry so do you feel like you have some feedback on that chris mm-hmm thank you great okay so that teases up for next time to really uh come prepared provide edits ahead of time if possible uh but uh for discussion but to get through the remainder of the um of the of the bylaw we'll have three hours okay so let me um ask stefanie to open it up for any comments from the public or so if anyone from the public would like to make a comment please raise your hand and i will unmute you and allow you to speak uh steve roof you can go ahead and unmute hi there um thank you i had a question about the topic just discussed about the educational educational land hampshire college has a pv array designed to produce 100 of its electricity needs for the core campus um and that was permitted as part of the educational use if we were to try to build more hampshire would not be using the electricity somebody else would be using it would that still fall under the educational use and therefore fall under the um the the less restrictive permitting process that is a question for the building commissioner um if somehow you could tie it to the life of hampshire college in other words the financial stability of hampshire college needed to you know have an energy producing property you might be able to convince him that it was an accessory use but um you know so that's the that's the link between hampshire college and the solar array that it has to be an accessory use that's supportive of the mission of hampshire college okay great thank you chris yep okay great and i think uh janet had had can i say two things illegal review on that yeah it could be taxed on that federally and possibly by the state because it's not you know you're just selling energy right you're not doing anything else um and then the other thing i i this is a totally sort of related thing is i i noticed a battery storage system i think on your educational land right by the eric carl in the array but it was really close to trees and so i i began to wonder if we might want to do you need yourself okay whatever so i just thought we might when we're looking at battery storage maybe saying in ed we do want to make sure it's not near buildings or trees and things like that that's all yeah the batteries are not near trees they're well inside the center of each of the array in the array it's hundreds of feet to trees from the battery i don't know what i was looking at then so i'll have to correct myself yeah okay great martha yes i mean i think an answer to to steve a little bit let me just say i think it would be really cool if steve you and dwayne teamed up together and made like a special agrivoltaics study on your open land it would be great for the students both at hampshire college that could could study it and it would be great for you masses research if you can get data and so on all you have to do is flip a coin and decide which one of you has to be the one to write the proposal for financing hint uh but it seems to me that that could be you know something something positive that would that would make a contribution and still could be called an educational use that that would fit the the definition so i'd love to see that okay any other comments from the attendees we do have nine in attendance the norbert you can go ahead and unmute yourself guys really this is like have been a witnessing this steadfast commitment and endurance and attention to detail during this whole process has been amazing um but well what i've seen i have a couple of questions um with regard to being in sync with the current and and let's name evolving state climate goals and plans as you mentioned the resilient resilient lands initiatives and others um i think it's also important to include things are changing like quickly and dramatically on the state level in the executive office the ea with climate chief melissa hopper who's meeting with people all over the state around these solar siting issues and how to protect natural resources at the same time with um at the state house because there's a lot of new legislation that's being um presented and being heard right now um so some of my question is what happens um if and when state laws and state policy changes because you said at the beginning you know to be this includes that or you have to be in sync with that um for example the exemption the solar exemption and the dover amendment is being challenged right now across the state and so like what if that changes like what if um as as the studies are coming out the doer study the the study that just came out between mass autobahn and harvard forest the report that was just presented that basically concludes similarly with the doer study that there's no good reason to put solar installations on any green land on forest land or farmland that we have more than enough built and disturbed landscape throughout massachusetts to meet our goals what what happens then as the state is changing right now really quickly and you're putting this draft bylaw together and then it's there i don't i don't really know how that works i have that question then appreciate that lennor and i'm not sure if we have all the answers i think just from my perspective the two things i guess one is town bylaws are amendable as as circumstance and change so this is not necessarily um committed committing the town to a certain bylaw um impurity at all um i think the other thing that i'm kind of looking forward to is is the state policy being an incentive structure associated with solar uh to really help direct the market to where we want solar on the built environment and so forth by providing the incentives necessary to move the markets there despite the additional barriers and so to the extent that there is sufficient resources of built the built environment um the market to get the market to go there is going to uh need the market incentives to to make that attractive to developers and and i think that's where i suspect the state is looking at in terms of of looking at the incentive structure to try to get more and i would not say all but more of the solar developments on the built environment where there's challenges and extra costs and looking at obviously this from an equity lens as well in terms of the extra cost associated with putting it on the built environment and the impacts on all of our rates um and and low income in particular yeah i'm with you dwayne about and and that's and and of course the reps and everybody are looking at that right incentive structure for the market to go there totally totally you know but also we the the math is tricky i mean jonathan thompson gave that um presentation at the solar forum thank you very much that you helped put together um at that talked about those hidden costs right the or at least indicated that we think we think it costs more to build on the build landscape and disturb landscape but we don't we don't understand like we don't actually pay nature for its services right and and we're not going to be able to get back those services that we're going to shoot ourselves on the foot basically um so so that math is a different kind of math that that uh usually policy and legislation doesn't look at carefully because we don't we don't have that kind of math we have like an abacus you know nature uses you know beyond quantum physics and we're using a little abacus um but okay so there's that the other thing is with your dual use section i i haven't really i mean i haven't been here a lot because i i have class during most of the meetings but um i haven't really heard from uh farmers informing you about their experience and their perspective the ag commission cisa you know groups like that because all the farmers i'm in touch with in in my organizing work uh very few of them actually favor agrovoltaics it's not it's not most most statements that i've read most people that i'm that i'm talking to across the state but here here too um really don't don't want that except in certain cases where they they have to have that um because they're you know they're they're struggling so much um and and most of the farmers don't own their land anyway so uh and they're not even benefiting from it so that that's something i i'm just wondering about sort kind of that blanket statement about supporting agrovoltaics i don't really hear that support from that agricultural community so i was i was wondering about that um if if you've heard something from them at meetings i haven't been to that i don't know about all right let me um appreciate that linor um i think the the notion there was that if it's voluntary if a if a farm a land landowner an agricultural landowner is pursuing solar we would rather than go with a dual use array than not a dual use array uh right and we wouldn't stand in there i see what you're saying that they're they're seeking it out it's not that you are you are marketing to developers like oh here we are hey take our farms it's not that no no all right that's i i get sorry that was obvious no appreciate that thank you um uh we're out of time but we'll continue a little bit for scott i think has a comment but jack did you have a feedback on linor's comment what yeah um yeah i think like i have two but i think with the agrovoltaics that you know i i would see that's a way of getting some potential farmland back into agricultural uh production uh you know because we have a lot of fellow land that should be could be farmed potentially and the agrovoltaics is certainly an option that might facilitate the increase uh you know of farming in the area and the other the other thing is is and i agree there's a lot of information coming in but one thing that bothers me and i actually was talking to steve uh roof about this is that uh again when we're talking about carbon sequestration um forest you know best case situation we all agree and then you know there's the built environment but for me i feel like the calculations are always missing uh the important component that that grassland has which is essentially what's beneath the solar panel and and the soil there it's it's not negligible it's it's not as much as forest but it's not negligible it's actually a lot and i just never see that being accounted for uh in these state documents and it just it kind of bothers me um i don't know if steve roof has anything to add on that effect i have i have a lot of articles on grassland pasture and their potential for carbon sequestration um so i just i just want to throw that out there because you know that that is definitely always a strong argument for forest but i think pastures get the short end of the stuff with regard to the benefit that they uh provide good yeah thanks jack on that um scott if you can let scott and stephanie and then um we'll go ahead and unmute yep okay hi um i had a couple comments on the the draft bylaw that you all just went over i'm not seeing um i did not see that online is am i just missing it or or where would i find a copy of the document that the most recent version so if you go to the solar bylaw working groups page web page on the town's website yep there's a resources folder yeah and when you click on the resources folder there's meeting packets and you go to today's date and it's in there and if you have any trouble scott you can reach out to me directly and i'll help you and i'll make sure you get it okay great thank you you're welcome awesome okay um thanks everybody for the hard work uh today thank you chris i regret we didn't relieve your voice throughout that but you're a very good reader uh and so appreciate that um and uh let's come prepared we have three hours to wrap this up on tuesday morning uh and um look forward to to um to doing that um at that point we'll decide whether we need to figure out another meeting or not but we're going to try to wrap things up um janet a final thought unmute i forgot to mention this earlier but um this thursday at one o'clock we've rescheduled the jake marley field trip to um will use site um which is off of i think hawkins road i think maybe stefanie can send that around again it's apparently like you have to get in on the hadley side and things like that and we don't have to bring boots because it won't be muddy because it's going to be beautiful so i'd be interested to know whether any of the rest of you are interested in going to that that's now thursday night janet there's you yeah okay i can't really make that i've been to the site before but not since the array was i'll get there but i can't okay do it this thursday i might be there yeah yeah gotta see how the broccoli's doing right yeah maybe maybe some take-home gifts okay all right okay very good um thanks everybody uh janet if you can possibly get the minutes drafted to stefanie ahead of time that would be super but i'll work on them okay awesome okay all right thanks everybody have a good rest of the week weekend and uh see you on tuesday morning goodbye thank you bye bye bye y'all