Planning Board Recommends Revised Historic Preservation Bylaw. WD Cowls Withdraws Subdivision Plan For Proposed Solar Array

This meeting was conducted over Zoom and was recorded. The meeting packet can be viewed here.

Present: Present: Doug Marshall (Chair), Maria Chao, Jack Jemsek, Thom Long, Janet McGowan, Andrew MacDougall, and Johanna Neumann. Neumann was absent for parts of the meeting

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

Twelve members of the public were in attendance

Preliminary Subdivision Plan For Proposed Shutesbury Road Solar Project Withdrawn
With the defeat of the temporary moratorium on large-scale ground-mounted solar [LSGMS] installations at the February 28 Town Council meeting, Tom Reidy, attorney for WD Cowls withdrew the proposal for the preliminary subdivision plan. The preliminary subdivision plan would have frozen the zoning for the 45-acre Shutesbury Road project at the current requirements for a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, instead of having to comply with any new bylaws that might have been passed. State regulations require that the plan be reviewed within 45 days, which would be on or before March 24. Since the moratorium failed to pass by a 2/3 vote of the council, Reidy withdrew the request for an extension.

In public comment, Jenny Kallick expressed concern that abutters were not notified that this topic would be on the agenda 14 days in advance. She also questioned why a determination about the plan was not being made in the 45-day window as required by Mass. General Law. In addition, she noted that the maps attached to the extension requests do not accurately represent the four parcels in question.

Planning Director Chris Brestrup explained that the meeting was not posted 14 days in advance and abutters were not notified because no public hearing had been scheduled. Had the moratorium passed, the matter would have been discussed at the March 16 Planning Board meeting and would have been posted in the newspaper and on the town website two weeks prior. Since a legal ad costs the town about $2,000, Reidy agreed to wait until after the moratorium vote at the council meeting before requesting the public hearing. (corrected and updated 3/5/22).

Board Approves Changes To The Demolition Delay Bylaw (Article 3)
Planning Board member Janet McGowan met with members of the Historical Commission to suggest additional changes to the draft of the Demolition Delay Bylaw, which had previously received a generally favorable review by the Planning Board. The Historical Commission has been working on revising the 2005 bylaw since 2018. Historical Commission Chair Jane Wald and Planner Ben Breger were present to answer questions from the board.

Key changes involve moving the bylaw from the Zoning Bylaw to the General Bylaws, and retitling it the “Historical Preservation Plan.” Also, the new bylaw separates the determination of a structure’s historical significance from the public hearing needed for the Historical Commission to decide whether  to require a delay for the proposed alterations. Representatives of the Historical Commission and Planning Department will review each application for either demolition or significant alteration of a building over 50 years old to determine if it is considered a significant structure. If it is not deemed to be significant, the regular process for a building permit will apply. If it is significant, the proposed plan will be brought to the entire commission in a public hearing. The commission can issue a delay on the work for 12 months to allow the applicant to find means to preserve  the original structure.

This two-step process should reduce the number of hearings the commission must have and will expedite the permitting process for applicants. Any total demolition, demolition of at least 25% of a side of a building, or proposed alteration of a significant feature such as a cupola or porch, might be subject to review and possible delay. Not abiding by the commission’s ruling results in a fine of $300 per day until the building is restored.

The commission will use the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System (MACRIS) database as a basis for determining which buildings are historically significant, but might augment and update the list. The commission will post   MACRIS-identified properties on the town website, so that  homeowners planning renovations can see whether work they want to do might need clearance from the Historical Commission. There are 1,000 to 1,300 Amherst buildings in the MACRIS database.

Planning Board members were satisfied with the draft bylaw and were ready to recommend it to the Town Council. However, Brestrup said that the Community Resources Committee (CRC) wants to review it as well. She agreed to bring the bylaw back to the Planning Board if the CRC suggests significant changes.

Brief Discussion Of The BID’s “Rapid Recovery Plan” (RRP) For Downtown
Sometime last year, the BID received a state grant to develop a revitalization plan for downtown Amherst post- COVID-19. The plan, dated October 8, 2021, was presented to the Planning Board at this meeting. The BID had worked with consultants from Civic Moxie, as well as Dodson and Flinker of Florence, Massachusetts, and the Stantech Corporation with feedback from several business owners, developers, and officials to produce a glossy, 151 page report. When asked about the town’s role in creating this plan, Brestrup said the town was only peripherally involved and that  the Planning Department was not involved at all.

Board members Janet McGowan, Doug Marshall, and Maria Chao expressed interest in exploring the changes in downtown zoning recommended in the report (pages 86-92).  They requested that these zoning suggestions be discussed at a future Planning Board meeting and that the BID’s Executive Director Gabrielle Gould be invited to participate. 

McGowan was especially gratified to see that the report recommends (page 34) that the town “undertake a consensus building process to enable adoption of zoning revisions for downtown Amherst to strengthen local businesses, especially arts and cultural activities, expand housing, and improve permitting predictability and built outcomes.”

Jack Jemsek noted that this recovery plan did not consider  possible contributions of the colleges and university to the town. Brestrup said the Town Manager and Assistant Town Manager have  ongoing talks with these institutions. She also pointed out that the topic was broached at the March 1 Finance Committee meeting. Jemsek said he would be very interested to know  how much other educational institutions across the state contribute financially to the towns in which they are located. Brestrup said that Town Assessor Kim Mew might have that information.

LeDuc said that Palmer had been inundated by applications for solar arrays, which at the time required only site plan review for approval. Over a short period of time, the town had approved 12 projects, and there were problems with all 12.

Work Continues On Solar Bylaw
McGowan reported that she spoke to Linda LeDuc, senior planner in Palmer, after the Planning Board reviewed Palmer’s solar bylaw at its last meeting (see pages 47-48 of the packet). LeDuc said that Palmer had been inundated by applications for solar arrays, which at the time required only site plan review for approval. Over a short period of time, the town had approved 12 projects, and there were problems with all 12. For example, she said, developers did not comply with the boundaries on their permits. Also, there were problems with water run-off and soil erosion. Palmer residents were also upset by the increased number of utility poles needed to carry the electricity from the ground-mounted sites. As a result, Palmer passed a six-month moratorium and used that time to draft a solar bylaw based on the state’s plan.

The Palmer bylaw determines areas where no solar installations can be built, such as near water resources. It also prohibits them in business or industrial areas, unless the arrays provide ancillary use for the building. Rooftop and parking lot canopies still require site plan reviews but all larger installations require a special permit. The Palmer bylaw limits arrays to five megawatts (the Shutesbury Road project is for an 11-megawatt array) and requires not only a 100-foot set back from the road and a 25-foot green buffer. No dirt can be removed or added to a site. All of Palmer’s electrical needs are met by one solar installation built on the capped landfill.

“[Large-scale ground-mounted solar is] a fairly simple concept—” and the majority of issues that arise are due to a lack of oversight”.

Jack Jemsek

Jemsek remarked that ground mounted solar is a “fairly simple concept,” and the majority of issues that arise are due to a lack of oversight. Thus, he said, oversight should be a large part of Amherst’s solar bylaw. Brestrup stated that the Conservation Commission and conservation staff are very good at monitoring work on a site. For instance,the Conservation Department hired a third party to monitor the work being done at South East Common (now under construction) because of the extensive abutting wetlands. The consultant is being paid by the developer. She added that some towns require that LSGM solar projects be built in phases so that the town can make sure the ground is stable.

Jemsek added that the key to effective solar energy is the interconnection to the grid. He said that some projects he has worked on have been stalled for years because they have been unable to  obtain this interconnection. He believes that much of this problem is due to political factors involving power companies and grid operators. He suggested that the proposed town working group have a representative from the utility or the grid.

Board member Johanna Neumann suggested that a town survey [for large-scale ground-mounted solar developments] might be unnecessary because it might duplicate a statewide survey under discussion…but Brestrup explained that the state survey would be somewhat general whereas the local counterpart would be detailed and site-specific—and that it would take less time than the state’s.

Johanna Neumann noted an article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette about the state’s Department of Energy Resources plan to conduct a statewide survey to try to identify appropriate sites for solar. She asked if the town’s survey might be unnecessary because it might duplicate  this effort. But Brestrup explained  that the state survey would be more general than the detailed local survey, and that the local survey would be completed sooner.

Jemsek then said that he thought the town’s solar assessment would be “a waste of time” because there are so few parcels in Amherst that can lend themselves to large solar arrays. “Let the developers do the assessments [of their land] and have the ZBA evaluate the proposals.” (Later, after Steve Roof’s comment, below, Jemsek recanted this objection.) Thom Long agreed, saying the town can’t determine where solar can go, unless it is proposed for public property. “We are not in control of where solar gets built, unless the town incentivizes it,” he said. He added that we won’t meet our energy goals if we are “too strict” in where solar is allowed. Marshall said that we ought to have a bylaw that identifies “where we absolutely don’t want solar—no wetlands, no endangered species habitats, etc.  But everything else is OK.”

In public comment, Steve Roof, who is a member of the town’s Energy and Climate Action Committee, said that he feels a solar assessment study is worth doing. He also said that the Planning Department should hold off on drafting a solar bylaw until after it hears from the working group that will be established soon, since many of the questions raised at the Planning Board meetings might be answered by the working group. 

Kathleen Bridgewater of Smart Solar Amherst said that her organization has been working on these issues for a couple of years and has collected significant amount of data, including data on companies that install large arrays. She said that what Palmer has experienced is “more common than not.” She emphasized that the working group will have a fiduciary responsibility to the town, not to the developers, who seem to be  it to make money, not to save the planet.

Staff Announcements
Brestrup said that the Planning Department received a grant from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission to develop permits for breweries and for events such as weddings. The town manager has also been asked to task  the planning department with researching the ramifications of 5G on communications.

Senior Planner Nate Malloy will present the new floodplain maps and proposed bylaw associated with them at the March 16 meeting. Brestrup also said that the department would like to raise the fees it charges for legal ads from $75 to $200, but needs approval from the Planning Board.

Pam Rooney (District 4) is the liaison from the Town Council to the lanning Board.

The meeting adjourned at 10:09. The next Planning Board meeting will be on March 16.