Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 3/8/2022
AMHERST – There will be no moratorium on large-scale, ground-mounted solar projects after the Town Council did not reach the necessary two-thirds vote to enact one during their Feb. 28 meeting.
An 8-5 final vote in favor of the moratorium marked the end of the proposed moratorium from councilors and residents alike. Any large-scale, ground-mounted solar projects will be allowed to continue under current zoning rules. The moratorium looked to prohibit the development of projects generating at least 250 kilowatts of power up to an 18-month period.
Proponents of a moratorium were seeking to halt projects of this description that are currently in the works in order to develop a comprehensive solar bylaw following submission plans for an 11-megawatt project on wooded land off Shutesbury Road. Concerns were raised about the possible impacts from the deforestation that would come from clearing out wooded lands to construct the project. This specific project has since been withdrawn.
Opponents to the moratorium felt a moratorium would hinder the efforts to combat climate change and meet the town’s aggressive climate action goals.
Many felt if the town could create the bylaw without stopping projects from coming in then it is the better option for climate action.
At-Large Councilor Mandi Jo Hanneke has been a common voice in the discussion with fellow councilors on why a moratorium may not be necessary. Hanneke brought up a 2017 resolution adopted by Town Meeting that advised town officials that Amherst should pursue clean, 100 percent renewable energy, and take no actions that might impede that goal. She added that a smart and well thought out solar bylaw was possible without pausing the incorporation of more green energy.
“Smart, sensible approaches to solar siting don’t depend on moratoriums,” said Hanneke.
Joining Hanneke in a no vote were At-Large Councilor Andy Steinberg, District 1 Councilor Michele Miller, District 4 Councilor Anika Lopes and District 5’s Shalini Bahl-Milne.
Council President Lynn Griesemer, District 2 Councilor Pat De Angelis and District 5 Councilor Ana Devlin Gauthier were the sponsors of the proposed moratorium and felt that halting town boards and committees in accepting or approving applications for large-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems was the right move to avoid potential future environmental problems or litigation issues if the bylaw did not protect in the construction of one of these projects.
Following the decision, the three sponsoring councilors released a statement on the vote and said while the moratorium had failed, they are still counting this as a win.
“As this debate moved through development, review, recommendations, and votes we heard from many residents both for and against the proposed moratorium. As sponsors of the bylaw, we want to thank our community for their engagement, and explain why we remain optimistic about the direction of large-scale solar in Amherst,” the statement writes.
The statement continues and reiterates the three sponsoring councilors’ biggest reason why the moratorium was needed was it would allow the town the time to craft a bylaw specific to these large-scale ground-mounted solar projects, something the town currently does not have. Conducting a solar siting study to determine the best siting options for these projects was also a big component of wanting the moratorium.
While debate has gone on the last few months on whether to implement the moratorium or not, town officials like Assistant Town Manager and Conservation Commission Director Dave Ziomek and Sustainability Coordinator Stephanie Ciccarello have taking the necessary steps to develop this bylaw, moratorium or not. Both had mentioned during a Community Resources Committee meeting in January that getting a solar siting bylaw done was a priority and they would be working with the Energy & Climate Action Committee (ECAC) in order to properly do so.
The ECAC’s purpose is guiding the town in meeting its climate mitigation and resilience goals. While those goals make clear solar installation is necessary for the next phase of Amherst, they also feel in order to properly create a solar bylaw, they need to have a proper solar siting study that would stretch over the course of a few months.
In the letter from sponsors, they also write that when this process began, there was not a consensus among relevant boards and committees that the town needed a specific bylaw relating to these specific solar projects despite a recommendation for one coming from the ECAC. The conversation eventually shifted to the need for that bylaw, but there was not consensus on who drafts it, or how much solar is needed for the town.
“Again, upon the recommendation of the ECAC, we have asked the town manager to include a siting study and convene a working group to create this bylaw. This is being done as we speak and we would like to thank the town staff, Planning Board, and the Energy and Climate Action Committee for their continued work towards meeting our climate action goals in this way,” the statement wrote.
After the 8-5 vote was recorded, Devlin Gauthier immediately proposed that Town Manager Paul Bockelman be tasked with writing a charge for a new solar bylaw working group that will oversee the development of the bylaw. That working group proposal will come to a vote later this month, with language of a bylaw to be developed by March 6, 2023.
Before the vote took place, the councilors who ended up voting no spoke and gave their final thoughts on the proposed moratorium. Steinberg said he was uncomfortable in using a moratorium when there is no emergency for it even if he also wants a strong solar bylaw to protect the town.
“I have an inherent dislike for moratoriums,” Steinberg said.
Bahl-Milne said that she felt each day a moratorium was in place preventing large-scale solar that the repercussion is more green house gas emissions. Miller added that any further delay in confronting the climate crisis would be detrimental.
Those in favor of the moratorium expressed again that it would not prohibit rooftop solar over parking lots, or projects already in progress.
The town had already permitted five large-scale ground-mounted solar projects before discussion came on the moratorium. Hampshire College, Montague Road, and Pulpit Hill Road have seen a solar array constructed already, while one is currently under construction at the capped landfill on Belchertown Road. The final project permitted before moratorium discussions ramped up is planned for the Hickory Ridge property.
While the moratorium is not going to be implemented the councilors who sponsored it seemed happy to have had the community’s focus placed on this issue.
“So, while the vote failed, we consider this to be a win. We will have a solar bylaw, and it will be informed by a siting study. Amherst will lead by responsibly siting large-scale solar installations and aggressively meeting our climate goals, with the policy to guide it,” the sponsoring councilors wrote.
Town Council Special Meeting: Update on Elementary School Building Project
The Town Council met an hour before their regular meeting to have a special meeting on the new Elementary School Building Project. Joining the Town Council was DiNisco Design, the group working with Amherst in development and design of the new school building.
Greisemer opened the meeting by saying the council’s involvement in this project will be crucial as they will have to figure out funding after the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) decides the amount they will put into the school building project, something that will be decided later this year.
Greisemer said this session was designed to help councilors understand their role in determining how to fund the project. A Proposition 2 ½ debt exclusion will be going to the voters in the spring next year. The project will need a simple majority to be approved, followed by a two-thirds vote of the council to authorize funding.
Councilor’s Cathy Schoen and Ellisha Walker, who both serve on the Elementary School Building Committee both broke down to the Town Council where they currently sit in the project. One point made early on by Walker was the need for the town to establish how much they are willing to spend on this project as in this early stage, cost estimates have varied mightily as the location for the building is decided and laid out.
“My concern is the cost of the project,” Walker said.
Walker worried that if costs become too high it could force low-income residents out of town if they cannot afford higher taxes or increased rents.
The most recent plans from DiNisco Design show a 105,750 sq. foot building with 30 classrooms and room for 575 children from kindergarten through fifth grade. The site for the school will be built either on the Wildwood School site or the Fort River School site and it is still undecided if the building will be two or three stories. Schoen added that having multiple stories could be a less expensive option because the building would have a smaller footprint and foundation costs for the building would be lower.
Schoen, who also serves as chair to the Elementary School Building Committee, made note that the MSBA has accepted the town into its funding program already but will not participate with the project if it doesn’t meet the district’s educational needs. The town won’t know what the MSBA’s share of the costs will be until at least June due to where they are in the process.
According to Griesemer, the next step is for the Finance Committee to have conversations about costs and tradeoffs that may have to be made with the project. Those decisions could include factors like deciding if there is any leeway for the town in meeting their net-zero bylaw. The bylaw says buildings must produce as much energy as they use.
Geothermal energy has been commonly mentioned during the early planning stages as the preferred means of eliminating fossil fules from heating and cooling the building. Schoen added that something like this while in good faith for creating a totally green building, would cause higher costs.
Hanneke expressed that council will need to do their homework in analyzing every aspect of the project in order to get the backing of a majority of residents who will ultimately vote on the new school building.
Steinberg who chairs the town’s Finance Committee said the town has already been setting aside money in a reserve account as a way to moderate the impact of the project on taxpayers.
“I think we need space, students need space, they need air. Yes this is going to be expensive but we have seen when there isn’t enough space and issues come up,” said District 3 Councilor Dorothy Pam.
At their Feb. 22 School Committee meeting, Superintendent Mike Morris expressed some caution with the latest trimming of the proposed square footage of the latest layout. Morris referred to Crocker Farm Elementary School’s preschool edition that was built in 2002 as an example of not having enough space for all the resources needed in today’s schooling.
Morris said the challenge at Crocker Farm right now is “wildly” insufficient for the needs of preschool students. Morris credited Crocker Farm Principal Derek Shea for working successfully in donating free rooms to pre-K students as their area of the school building is limited in space and resources and does not meet current students needs. Morris added that when he was principal of Crocker Farm over a decade ago that he never saw all the pre-K classrooms filled like they are now.
“When you under build you really do set long term implications and if Crocker Farm did not happen to be attached to a K-6 Elementary School, it would’ve needed an expansion or a different site,” Morris said on Feb. 22. “That flexibility matters because we can’t predict our students and we can’t predict their needs over time.”
More concrete cost estimates are to come in the next couple weeks, according to Walker, as the new building discussion continues.