The draft solar bylaw at the heart of the meeting has been crafted by a working group over an extensive period. This group convened bi-weekly sessions, consulted with experts, and reviewed existing solar bylaws to create a proposal that would address the town’s needs while adhering to state laws. Public feedback played a role in shaping the draft, which integrated numerous community comments. Despite these efforts, questions were raised about the bylaw’s clarity and potential internal conflicts, alongside the considerable time and resources needed for further revisions. This prompted a debate about the department’s capacity to undertake such a task amidst other pressing priorities.

The committee was advised to seek additional review and commentary from various town entities, including the Building Commissioner, the wetlands administrator, the fire department, the sustainability director, the town attorney, the planning board, and the energy and climate action committee. This step is seen as crucial in ensuring the bylaw is comprehensive and enforceable.

One of the major points of contention was the bylaw’s structure, which some members felt resembled regulations more than a bylaw. The possibility of thinning out its content to streamline the bylaw was discussed. The timeline for finalizing the solar bylaw remained uncertain, with members expressing differing views on the expected duration of the process. Deliberations also touched on striking a balance between promoting solar energy and environmental protection, particularly concerning forest preservation and the need for solar project mitigation.

The conversation also acknowledged that while there is no urgent demand for large-scale solar installations in Amherst, the intricate and time-consuming review process could act as a deterrent to potential developers. The committee considered the importance of completing the solar bylaw, referring it to the planning board and Conservation Commission, and the potential separation of the bylaw from the regulations.

Reports and survey responses associated with solar assessments and the interactive mapping tool on the sustainability dashboard were discussed. The committee weighed the council’s priorities and staff time allocation against the lengthy process involved in reviewing solar projects. Comparisons to other state bylaws were made, noting the potential implications of adopting a similar solar bylaw in Amherst.

Further concerns centered on the risk of the bylaw being used to deny solar projects or to make them impractical, thereby violating regulations. The idea of incorporating battery storage regulations into the solar bylaw was proposed; however, it was suggested that a separate battery storage bylaw might be more appropriate. A more consolidated and clear draft was called for before seeking further feedback from different town committees.

The level of priority that the solar bylaw should be given was a subject of debate among the members. Some advocated for a review and consolidation of the draft before feedback from other entities, while others suggested the creation of a subcommittee to concentrate on the bylaw. However, concerns about potential violations of open meeting laws were raised in relation to formalizing a subcommittee.

The distinction between bylaws and regulations was a recurring theme, with hesitation expressed about including regulatory language within the bylaw. The possibility of staff preparing drafts for further discussion was considered. A proposal for a straw poll to gauge support for a member meeting with the planning department to discuss bylaw and regulation distinctions was made, highlighting the sensitivity regarding adherence to open meeting laws.

In addition to the solar bylaw, the committee briefly touched on future discussions surrounding the housing production plan and the Attorney General’s office’s involvement in the solar bylaw issue. The meeting adjourned without objection.