Planning Board Discussion On Solar Bylaw Continues

Report On The Meeting Of The Amherst Planning Board, February 16, 2022

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

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

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

Public Comment: Why Are Residents Not Protected From Development?
In regard to the proposed 45-acre solar project proposed for Shutesbury Road, Jack Hirsch wondered how a landowner was able to prevent having to comply with a possible moratorium on ground mounted solar installations or a solar bylaw just by filing a preliminary subdivision plan, while nearby homeowners in a residential zone are not protected against industrial development. Planner Christine Brestrup replied that state law protects a landowner’s ability to develop their land, despite changes in zoning. But Hirsch countered by asking, “Isn’t zoning supposed to protect the public good?” Although Brestrup and Chairperson Doug Marshall expressed agreement with that view, they pointed out that state law allows the exemption for subdivision plans. With the preliminary subdivision plan, the landowner has seven months to submit a final plan which, if accepted, is in effect for eight years and shields the developer from any zoning changes passed after the preliminary plan was submitted.

Thoughts On A Solar Bylaw
The Planning Department and Planning Board continue to work on developing a zoning bylaw for large solar installations. Brestrup and Sustainability Coordinator Stephanie Ciccarello are working with Town Manager Paul Bockelman and Director of Conservation and Development Dave Ziomek to establish a temporary committee composed of representatives of the Energy and Climate Action Committee (ECAC), Planning Board, Conservation Commission, and Water Resources Protection Committee, as well as a forest ecologist and an attorney, to do a solar resource study and develop a solar bylaw. The committee might also have a member of the Board of Health and someone from the solar installation industry. Janet McGowan suggested that a farmer also be on the committee. Ciccarello is working on the solar assessment study, and Brestrup is heading the bylaw development. There is money allocated to hire a consultant for the assessment study. The Town Council will need to approve the creation of the ad hoc committee. 

The Planning Board members then gave their thoughts on what a solar bylaw should contain, using a framework of topics based on nearby Palmer’s bylaw. Unlike several bylaws from nearby towns, Planning Board members did not think solar arrays in Amherst should be limited in size, but rather should be evaluated individually, taking the characteristics of the parcel of land into consideration. Brestrup thought it might be more reasonable to limit the amount of forest clearing or use of prime farmland, rather than the size of the array itself. Palmer limits ground mounted solar arrays to 10 acres, Shutesbury and Pelham to 15 acres, and Belchertown to 20 acres. (The aforementioned Shutesbury Road proposal was for 45 acres of land owned by W D Cowls, headed up by Cinda Jones.) McGowan said she would inquire as to how and why those towns arrived at their size limits.

Marshall asked whether it is preferable to have one large array or several smaller ones. He said that he was informed in a conversation with a forester at the Harvard Forest that there is no clear answer to the question, but a large installation might be less disruptive to the environment because each array needs an access road and fencing.

McGowan said the bylaw needs to take into account the community’s value for forests and farmland and the Master Plan. Brestrup said Ciccarello has said that some forests are more valuable than others in terms of wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, and maintaining water resources. This distinction could be made by the solar assessment study. The study would include outreach to determine what is important to residents.

”We’re talking about people’s private property, and we’re putting on a new level of regulations above what we usually evaluate. What is a private property owner’s right, especially with the end result being solar energy which is such a necessity.”

Maria Chao

Marshall noted that a landowner can cut down trees to make a subdivision, so by limiting solar, we could make it more profitable to create housing. Forests would be lost either way. Maria Chao said, ”We’re talking about people’s private property, and we’re putting on a new level of regulations above what we usually evaluate.” She added, “What is a private property owner’s right—especially with the end result being solar energy, which is such a necessity? We should be careful about placing limitations on development.” She said she looks forward to hearing from experts. 

Johanna Neumann wanted to know how much forest Amherst has and how much of it is protected from development. Marshall wondered if the town would be open to using some conservation land for solar development. 

Palmer prohibits ground mounted solar arrays on prime agricultural soils, unless there is dual use for solar and agriculture. Brestrup said she didn’t think solar arrays negatively impact the soil unless there is erosion or removal of topsoil. McGowan thought farmland should be preserved for local food production, but Neumann pointed out that there is currently some farmland that is not being farmed  and could be sites for solar arrays. The board was not clear if land belonging to UMass or the colleges should be included in the solar assessment study and regulated by the new bylaw. Currently, the town does not regulate development in the educational districts.

For setbacks of solar arrays, Shutesbury and Pelham require 100 feet, and Palmer requires 250 feet. In the past, Amherst has used the setbacks required for a property’s zoning district for solar projects. The solar array at Hampshire College is 25 feet from Bay Road. Marshall recalled  that Hampshire is proud of its array and wants it to be visible. Neumann said that perhaps a larger development should have more setbacks. Marshall pointed out that Hadley allows a small setback for most arrays, but requires a larger setback on Route 47, which is a scenic corridor.

Palmer mandates a 100-foot vegetative buffer, in addition to the fencing required for safety. McGowan thought that a thick screen of trees would not only sequester carbon, but also provide a habitat for squirrels and birds. She added that adequate screening vegetation might make residents more amenable to ground mounted solar arrays in their neighborhoods. 

However, Chao said she finds the arrays “quite beautiful,” and did not see a need for excessive screening. Andrew MacDougall noted that it seemed that much of the objection to the Shutesbury Road project had come from nearby homeowners and suggested that they might be more receptive to the project if it were not visible from their homes and roads.

Other factors to be considered in developing a bylaw are the need for open space around arrays, minimization of glare from the panels, the need to set aside land to offset development (Shutesbury mandates four acres of undeveloped forest for every acre of solar development), and maximum slopes for projects (Palmer limits slopes to less than 15%). In Conway, there has been a problem with the noise originating from a solar array, although this has not been an issue with other installations. 

Brestrup also said it was important to consider impervious containment of hazardous materials such as those found in storage batteries and to be sure the fire department is equipped to handle any electrical fires that may occur. The Planning Board will continue to review progress on the solar bylaw at future meetings.

Zoning Priorities For 2022
Brestrup again reviewed which of the priorities for 2021 were completed, which were in process, and which were set aside for future consideration (see page 37 of the packet). With a new Town Council, the priorities for the coming year might change. 

The Planning Department has set as its goals for the near future:

•  the finalization of the flood maps;
• the creation of the solar bylaw;
• hiring a consultant to advise on design standards for the downtown area;
• continuing some of the expedited permitting processes that were initiated, under Article 14, for the pandemic beyond their December 31 expiration date; and 
• finishing the preservation (currently “demolition delay”) bylaw. 

The department would also like to look into allowing temporary use of private property for one-day festivals, beer tastings, weddings, etc. Another priority is to evaluate parking in the downtown area, including a reassessment of the municipal parking district. Options might be to require developers of housing downtown to provide a minimum number of parking spaces for their residents or perhaps pay a fee-in-lieu-of-parking to the town. The Planning Department also plans a structural engineering study of the Boltwood garage to see if it could support another story or two and a study of other possible locations for a parking garage. In addition, it would like to speak to owners of private parking lots about opening spaces to the public during off hours.

Longer range projects include examining regulations for different types of dwellings, such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhouses, and allowing permits for breweries, wineries, and distilleries in town, as well as considering establishing a student housing district. Building Commissioner Rob Morra is working with several town councilors to revise the rental bylaw to make it more robust, and the town has received requests to reexamine the marijuana use guidelines to decrease buffer zones around schools and churches, and permit delivery services as well as on-site consumption.

Chao said she would like to see more work on revising the zoning regulations for the limited business district in order to permit more housing to be built there. She thought form-based design might help enable this, and  added that she will be stepping down from the board in June, so she thought the board should follow the lead of the Planning Department. The rest of the Planning Board also expressed a desire to concentrate on adding more housing in town.

Marshall said he was interested in having the Planning Board meet in person at least once per quarter. Brestrup said that, with the exception of the Town Council, no in-person meetings are allowed before April 1. She will check with the Town Manager as to what is anticipated after April 1.

The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. The Planning Board will next meet on March 2.