Progress On Preservation And Solar Bylaws

Report On The Meeting Of The Amherst Planning Board February 2,2022

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded. The packet for the meeting can be viewed here.

Present: Planning Board members Doug Marshall (Chair), Maria Chao, Jack Jemsek, Thom Long, Janet McGowan, and Johanna Neumann. Absent: Andrew MacDougall

Staff: Christine Brestrup (Planning Director); Rob Morra (Building Commissioner); Pam Field-Sadler (Planning Assistant)

Public Comment
Ira Bryck said he would like the Planning Board to include more discussion of the unintended consequences of decisions and to consider what kind of development we want to attract to town. Perhaps the board could promote the creation of models of profitable buildings that contain vibrant commercial space and attractive residential units. He also said he would like to hear board members acknowledge, not ignore, what members of the public are saying, even if the majority of the board does not agree.

After the minutes for the January 19 meeting were approved by a vote of 5-0-1, Kitty Axelson-Berry thanked the board for keeping up to date with minutes, thus enabling the public to stay informed.

Revision of the Demolition Delay Bylaw (Zoning Article 13)
Historical Commission Chair Jane Wald, Historical Commission member Jan Marquardt, and Ben Breger of the Planning Department presented a proposed revision of the current Demolition Delay Bylaw, which was created in 1999 and modified in 2005 (see pages 10-22 of the packet). 

Wald said the Historical Commission, created in 1972, is the steward of Amherst’s historical assets. It maintains an inventory of the approximately 1,200 properties in town considered to have historical significance, develops interpretive materials to highlight these resources, such as the Writer’s Walk plaques, and administers Article 13, which enables the town to gain time when property owners want to modify or take down historical structures. Article 13 allows the commission to delay demolition for up to 12 months to give the commission time to work with property owners in order to preserve these structures.

However, there are shortcomings to Article 13 as it currently stands. First, the definition of demolition (or partial demolition) is vague and does not provide adequate guidance for the building commissioner. Because significant alteration of any building over 50 years old is subject to a public hearing and review by the Historical Commission, the caseload for the commission is too high. Also, the authorization of the demolition is not distinct from the awarding of a building permit, and there is no appeals process for the commission’s decision. Finally, the Historical Commission feels that the process should be part of the General Bylaws, not the Zoning Bylaw, since the determination of significance is not a zoning issue.

The Historical Commission has been working on revising the Demolition Delay Bylaw since 2015 in order to clarify the bylaw to better meet the needs of both historical preservation and property owners. To make the changes, the commission examined bylaws from comparable towns and the guidelines published by the Massachusetts Historical Society, as well as members attending workshops held by Massachusetts Historical Society staff.

The proposed new bylaw suggests changing the name from “Demolition Delay Bylaw” to “Preservation Bylaw” to emphasize the protection and preservation of historic structures, rather than focusing on demolition. Demolition is defined as any destruction of 25% or more of any façade of an historic structure or modifying or removing important architectural structures.

In the revised bylaw, when a property owner files for a permit to demolish or significantly alter a building over 50 years old, the application will be reviewed by a member of the Planning Department and a member of the Historical Commission. If they agree that the structure has no historic significance, the authorization for demolition will be issued. If they determine the structure is significant or if they disagree, the matter will be referred to the entire Historical Commission for a public hearing and determination. The original review must occur within 21 days.

If the determination is that the building should be preferentially preserved (deserving of preservation), the commission will issue a delay in demolition for 12 months, enabling the commission to work with the owner to repair, reuse, reconstruct, or move the structure if possible. Marquardt stated that there is an economic advantage to the town to preserve significant structures, especially in encouraging tourism. She cited Concord, Massachusetts as a town that has preserved its historic structures and has benefitted from the preservation.

There is a $300 per day penalty for demolishing a potentially historic building without a permit. The fine remains in effect until the structure is rebuilt.

Planning Board Discussion
Maria Chao felt that the new iteration of the bylaw addressed most of the issues raised in the 2015 discussion Although the determination of significance is still somewhat subjective, she likes the streamlined review and felt the restrictions to obtaining a permit for demolition were not an excessive burden for property owners.

Thom Long asked what would happen if a property owner could not afford to maintain historic features, such as a barn, due to the cost. Marquardt said the commission would work with the owner on moving, selling, or reconstructing the structure. There are grants that help preserve a structure, for instance replacing a porch in the historic style.

As far as the appeal process, a property owner or abutter would need to appeal a decision of the Historic Commission to the Superior Court. For a property in a local historic district, permission to alter the property is under the jurisdiction of the Local Historic District Committee (LHDC) and that group can prohibit, rather than merely delay, a proposed demolition or remodel. Appeal of a LHDC decision is handled by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission.

Janet McGowan had several suggestions for improving the wording in the draft bylaw that she will submit to the commission. The board requested an opportunity to review the final draft before it is submitted to the Town Council for discussion.

Update On A Bylaw For Large-Scale Solar Installations
Planning Director Chris Brestrup said that Sustainability Coordinator Stephanie Ciccarelli is developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant for a solar siting assessment to determine where ground-mounted solar in Amherst could  be built and where it should not. The aim is to develop a map of zones favorable for solar installations. 

Meanwhile, the planning department is working on drafting a solar bylaw, with input from the planning board and the public. Brestrup said she hopes the town manager will appoint a working group of five to seven members with varied relevant expertise to advise on the bylaw development. If the town council approves the moratorium on permitting large-scale ground-mounted solar installations, the moratorium would expire in May of 2023. Hopefully, a solar bylaw will be in place by then.

Doug Marshall presented a chart he prepared comparing the recommendations of the Department of Energy Resources and the requirements of the solar bylaws of Belchertown, Hadley, Pelham, and Shutesbury regarding minimum setbacks, maximum size, use of herbicides, screening vegetation, and replacement of trees as compensation for forests destroyed in the creation of solar fields. All of the towns’ bylaws included a requirement for a surety to cover  the costs of removal of the solar installations.

McGown said she liked the process that Athol took in creating its bylaw, working with Tufts University and supporting a process for the townspeople to work through what was important to them and then incorporating these values into its decisions. Marshall agreed, but expressed concern about economic implications of excluding “too much” land from large-scale solar installations. He said we have to think about the cost of electricity in the future. He added that efficiency is gained from large arrays compared to “everyone spending $25,000 to put solar on their roofs.” He asked whether Amherst should consider allowing solar arrays on conservation land.

Jack Jemsek said that the Water Supply Protection Committee met last week and plans to produce a report on the effect of solar on groundwater. Jemsek said he was “not concerned” about hazardous materials leaching from solar fields, although it is important to have third-party inspections, especially during construction. He said, “solar fields are not paved, so should still permit drainage of rainwater.”

Johanna Neumann noted that different towns have different solar bylaws, and questioned whether  these differences make it more “challenging” for companies to get permits to install solar fields. She encouraged regional regulation. Marshall wondered if energy needs could be met if every subdivision devoted one acre for every 25 houses to solar production. He also asked if Eversource would consider placing solar panels under the high voltage lines that run through town.

Brestrup said the working group would like to speak to experts in large-scale solar installation to determine what is needed to promote the most efficient operation. McGowan said that although she wants the bylaw to be welcoming to solar, she wants it look further into the future and anticipate  potential problems, such as significant soil erosion and problems with storage batteries

Public Comment
Phil Rich pointed out that there are many large-scale solar installations which are safe and present no long-term harm to the environment or abutters. He encourages “a positive, not punitive” tone in the bylaw.

Eric Bachrach said he hopes the town will consider multiple aspects of constructing large-scale ground-mounted solar installations, in addition to energy production, when developing the bylaw, such as land conservation, protection of highly sensitive habitats, and protection of critical water resources, including public water supplies and private wells.

Dorothy Pam wondered how, with all the complexity discussed that evening related to development of the bylaw, anyone could oppose a moratorium. 

Lenore Bryck said it would be a mistake to trust that no damage could result from large solar arrays and to simply trust that solar companies take these risks into consideration. She pointed out the severe damage to the environment that has recently occurred from poorly placed solar arrays. 

Renee Moss agreed that we need input not only from solar installation businesses but from forest ecologists.

Steve Roof reminded the board that the basic issue is not how to create  more solar power, but to  decrease fossil fuel use, which is driving global warming.

The planning board will continue to discuss the planning department’s progress on a solar bylaw at future meetings.

Brestrup Reviews Progress On Zoning Amendments Over The Past Year
The planning board and planning department dealt with 26 zoning amendments during the past year, many at the request of the Town Council and several as a result of initiatives in the planning department. Pages 23-24 of the packet give the status of each amendment. . 

The council passed amendments regulating permitting for mixed-use buildings, inclusionary zoning, approval for apartments in village centers, parking regulations, accessory dwelling units, temporary zoning during the pandemic, and rezoning the town parking lot on North Prospect Street to permit possible construction of a parking garage. 

Brestrup said she is working on an RFP to hire a consultant to discuss building design in the downtown area. The consultant will conduct a public process and give recommendations, hopefully by the time the current council term is over (December 2024). Several other zoning changes were begun, but tabled. Brestrup is hoping that the planning board will again discuss changes to the B-L (limited business zone). Amendments related to Demolition Delays and Flood Maps are currently under review.

She said that Town Council President Lynn Griesemer has requested a structural engineering study to see if one or two stories of parking can be added to the Boltwood garage, so the Planning Department will be developing an RFP for that study as well.

Brestrup added that she has received several requests from farmers to hold beer tastings, occasional weddings, and other events on their property. This would help the farmers as well as townwide economic development, she said. The planning department would like to work on zoning that would permit a limited number of these events, possibly with a grant from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission. She hopes the planning board will revisit pending zoning changes in May.

The meeting adjourned at 9:53. The Planning Board meets next on February 26.