Councilors Hanneke And Bahl-Milne Reverse Their Support Of Temporary Moratorium For Large Ground-mounted Solar Arrays

Report On The Meeting of the Amherst Town Council, February 7, 2022

This meeting was conducted over Zoom and was recorded. Because of icy roads, the venue was changed from Town Hall to remote participation.

Present:
Lynn Griesemer (President, District 2), Ellisha Walker and Mandi Jo Hanneke (at large) Cathy Schoen and Michele Miller (District 1), Pat DeAngelis (District 2), Dorothy Pam and Jennifer Taub (District 3), Pam Rooney and Anika Lopes (District 4), Shalini Bahl-Milne and Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5). Absent: Andy Steinberg (at large). Staff: Paul Bockelman, Town Manager and Athena O’Keeffe, Clerk of the Council

Discussion Of Proposed Temporary Moratorium For Large Solar Arrays Dominates Meeting
This was the first reading of the full council of Article 16 of the Zoning Bylaw, proposed by Pat DeAngelis and Lynn Griesemer (District 2) in November to prevent the permitting of large-scale (over 250 megawatts) ground-mounted solar arrays (LGSM) until a solar bylaw can be written. Last month, Ana Devlin Gauthier (District 5) also signed on as a sponsor of the measure. The proposed bylaw would expire in May 2023, but can be extended. The vote on the moratorium will most likely take place after a second reading on February 28. It will need nine council votes to pass.

Devlin Gauthier gave a brief presentation on the proposed bylaw emphasizing that the purpose of the moratorium was not to discourage solar development in Amherst, but rather to establish guidelines to mitigate unintended harm to the environment,and to be applied equitably to all projects. 

Doug Marshall, Planning Board chair, reported on the December 15, 2021 decision of the Planning Board to not recommend the moratorium by a vote of 5-2-0.
He summarized the reasoning of the majority decision saying that:

1. several “large” arrays had already been constructed under the current zoning without complaints or apparent environmental degradation. 

2. a moratorium would  delay solar development, and we need urgent action to protect the planet.

3. a moratorium would discourage development of energy conservation and subject the town to accusations of NIMBYism.

However, he also said that the board, as well as planning staff, recommended the expeditious development of a solar bylaw and have started working on its creation.

In an unusual development, Community Resources Committee Chair Mandi Jo Hanneke gave the unanimous recommendation of the Community Resources Committee (CRC) from January 27 to adopt the moratorium and then said that she would probably not support the measure. Her reasons were that the controversial proposed 45-acre LSGM solar array proposed for WD Cowls’ forested property off of Shutesbury Road would not be affected by the moratorium because the company has now filed a preliminary subdivision plan that would freeze current zoning there. She added that, upon questioning, Griesemer has indicated that she might request that the moratorium be extended beyond May 2023. Hanneke said that Amherst has been perceived as being “climate forward” in the past, but now a moratorium to develop a solar bylaw might  damage that reputation.

Devlin Gauthier replied that Amherst is not a leader in alternative energy use, that the town is five years behind other towns, and we should already have  a bylaw, and the moratorium would give us a chance to develop one. She added that the Zoning Board Of Appeals (ZBA) needs to know what questions to ask in order to evaluate proposed projects, which a bylaw would provide. In addition, she said, there are no stipulations in current zoning bylaw about decommissioning LGSM solar arrays, which typically last only 20 to 25 years.

Councilor Shalini Bahl-Milne (District 5), who has previously admitted to a friendship and partnership (see here and here with W.D. Cowls owner Cinda Jones, and for whom the appearance of  possible conflicts of interest with Jones has been raised in public forums (see e.g. here) also changed her opinion about a moratorium. (Previously, she had voted in the CRC vote for a version that had included amendments requested  by Hanneke.) In a comment exceeding the three-minute time limit for councilor comments, Bahl-Milne stated that she has “talked to 20 experts in the field,” and cited a letter (p.21)  from four members of  the yet to be launched  Energy Transition Institute (ETI) at  UMass claiming  that an 18-month delay in solar energy construction “would result in a large amount of carbon emission and natural gas consumption that could be avoided by solar energy construction.” .  The ETI letter recommended that the town revise its permitting process for solar installations. Bahl-Milne  also said that the ZBA can hire an independent consultant, paid by the developer, to do an assessment study if it wants more information about a project. 

“It is easy for white people with money (i.e. developers) to say, ‘this is the right way and we should do it now.’ But we need to take into account the critical nature of forests, which do many things to protect the planet.”

Town Councilor Pat DeAngelis

Michele Miller (District 1) worried that Amherst, as a relatively wealthy, largely white town, has the privilege to be able to slow things down in an effort to reduce fossil fuel use in contrast to less affluent populations which are more at risk from climate change. 

To this concern, DeAngelis replied that “Amherst believes itself to be progressive, but there are limits to this progressiveness. It is easy for white people with money (i.e. developers) to say, ‘this is the right way and we should do it now.’ But we need to take into account the critical nature of forests, which do many things to protect the planet.” She noted that the Energy and Climate Action Committee (ECAC) integrated social justice into its Climate Action and Resiliency Report, and that while the solar bylaw is being developed, the town can undertake other climate-change mitigating actions, such as retrofitting older homes to be more energy efficient.

Jennifer Taub (District 3) noted that many town members who are experts in climate change have spoken in favor of the temporary moratorium, and the general opinions of these experts seem to be fairly evenly split. 

Several councilors asked about the preliminary subdivision plan filed on February 3 by the developers of the proposed LSGM solar array off of Shutesbury Road. Planning Director Chris Brestrup said that a provision of state law allows a landowner to avoid potentially adverse effects of zoning changes by enabling a project to conform to the zoning provisions existing at the time of the submission of the plan. She said that landowners have seven months to develop definitive plans and then eight years to act on them.  She postulated that this provision is a “vestigial aspect of land use law to allow landowners to protect their land from zoning changes.”

DeAngelis remarked that it was “too bad that the preliminary subdivision plans were filed because the person who filed them was afraid that something bad [for them] was going to happen.” She noted that the provision allowing preliminary subdivision plans to freeze zoning solely benefits developers and does nothing for communities. 

In response to Bahl-Milne’s repeated remarks that under the current bylaw, the ZBA can require a developer to hire an independent consultant to answer any concerns the town has, Brestrup said the board cannot actually go to a consultant with an open-ended request to evaluate a project.  Specific concerns have to be outlined for the consultant to answer.

Ellisha Walker (District 5) said she realizes that the climate crisis is real and urgent, but she doesn’t see the temporary moratorium as slowing things down and in fact is more worried about the unintended consequences of not doing things right—and having to mitigate serious problems in the future. Dorothy Pam (District 3) said she is committed to renewable energy but is also committed to preserving our water system, which can be affected by developing LSGM solar in what are now forests.

Public Comment
There were over 40 people in the audience for the meeting. Of the 12 who spoke regarding the temporary moratorium, 10 voiced strong support for it and stressed the need to develop a solar bylaw that will  protect the natural resources of the town. Those speaking in favor of the moratorium were Ira Bryck, Sharon Weizenbaum, Ira Addes, John Reiff, Kathleen Bridgewater, Lenore Bryck, Sharon MacDonald, Martha Hanner, Jenny Kallick, and Eric Bachrach. Michael Lipinski noted the fallacy in the oft-quoted “requirement” for Amherst to devote over 300 acres of solar in order to meet “its obligation” to replace fossil fuel use. Responding to Lipinski’s comment, ECAC chair Laura Drauker said that the 300-acre figure had been used as an example by an ECAC member, Steve Roof, about how Amherst could mitigate climate change and that it had not been meant literally. Rather, it had been meant as a reason to do a solar siting study.

Eilisa Campbell was the only attendee who spoke against the temporary moratorium.

The council will hold a second reading on the temporary moratorium at its February 28 meeting. The sponsors of the measure, Griesemer, DeAngelis, and Devlin Gauthier, invited councilors and members of the public to direct any questions to one of them.