Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

MasterPlan-20241015T180801

Master Plan Implementation Committee · Source year folder: 2022 · Record 81169

Saved text from 5 of 15 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original.

Master Plan Implementation Committee Meeting Minutes 
October 20, 2022, 7:00-8:30 p.m. 
Via Zoom 
Master Plan Implementation Committee Members present: Bob MacDonald (Conservation Commission), 
Emilio Mauro (Finance Committee), and Alan Rapoport (Economic Development Committee) 
Master Plan Implementation Committee Members not present: Joseph Amrhein (Planning Board), Lisa 
Lopez (Select Board), Kristian Merenda (School Committee), Mike Nourse (Historical Commission), Citizen 
at Large — vacant Community Preservation Committee or Playground and Recreation Committee 
representative — vacant 
School Committee Non -Voting Alternate: Maureen Moran — not present 
Staff: Interim Town Planner Gene Manning —present 
Guest: Tom Birmingham, Chair of the Energy Advisory Committee 
Introductions 
Chair Emilio Mauro called the Master Plan Implementation Committee (MPIC) meeting to order at 7:05 
p.m. and welcomed and introduced all those present. 
Discussion of Master Plan and Implementation Process 
E. Mauro explained that the Master Plan is a long-range vision that was developed through a committee 
(Master Plan Steering Committee) that worked for approximately eighteen months with the consulting 
firm of Horsley Witten and through the engagement of town departments and committees and other 
stakeholders in town, such as residents and businesses. He added that there are three main books of the 
Master Plan. They are the Baseline Report that presents the existing conditions at the time the plan was 
developed, the Roadmap that makes recommendations based on research by the consultants, and the 
Action Plan that lays out ways to achieve the recommendations made in the Roadmap. There are also 
appendices that have background information and data. The new Master Plan replaced the 2004 
version. The process to update the plan was initiated at the 2017 Annual Town Meeting and culminated 
in the Planning Board approving the new plan in 2020. The Master Plan Implementation Committee was 
then formed and consists of members from a cross-section of Town committees to allow it to more 
easily coordinate implementation policies. He added that a Strategic framework had been developed to 
organize goals for the early years of implementation (2020-2025) and proceeded to summarize the 
various aspects of the document including the sections, action items, responsible parties for 
implementation of each item, and the timeframe for expected implementation. He noted that the 
Master Plan while somewhat fixed is a guideline and will evolve somewhat as time passes due to 
changing conditions. He noted that the Energy Advisory Committee did not exist when the Master Plan 
was created but it can be a party that helps promote and achieve some of its goals. The entire plan is 
available online. 
T. Birmingham asked whether the Planning Board would need to approve any alterations to the Master 
Plan, as they were the board that originally adopted it. 
Page 1 of 15

E. Mauro said that the Master Plan is written in a fairly flexible way (goals and principles rather than 
very specific items), Consequently, he felt that unless a major principle or goal was being added, or 
something clearly in the Master Plan was being removed, actions supported merely needed to meet the 
spirit of the contents of the Master Plan. He also added that the MPIC has a member from the Planning 
Board on it and that the Planning Board therefore had representation. In addition, the Planning Board 
could be consulted if radical departures from the Master Plan were proposed or there was uncertainty. 
He noted that the committee staff member is the Town Planner and that the former Town Planner, 
Laura Smead, felt that it was a guideline document that was malleable. He added that as he had been a 
member of the Master Plan Steering Committee that helped develop the plan, he recalled that the 
expectation was that the Master Plan would experience some reinterpretations and some minor 
alterations within the spirit and scope of the plan. 
T. Birmingham asked if E. Mauro felt a Climate Action Plan would require a review from Planning Board 
to be considered a Master Plan item. 
E. Mauro felt that it was supported by the Master Plan because the Master Plan included the principles 
of educating the public, adapting to natural hazards and climate change, and environmental 
stewardship. He did add that MPIC could recommend things but the final action to implement 
something would have to be through another responsible party. For example, zoning changes, even If 
recommended by the MPIC, would need to be approved by Planning Board and at a Town Meeting. 
Similarly, as the MPIC cannot allocate funds and is largely designed to coordinate implementation of the 
Master Plan, infrastructure such as charging stations would need to be funded by various Town 
departments through their operating or capital budgets, for example. 
T. Birmingham asked if the MPIC reports the progress it is making toward implementation. 
E. Mauro said that the report appears in the Town's Annual Report. Last year's report was the first year 
that this was the case for the relatively new committee. He added that the MPIC meets with a wide 
range of Town departments and committees to make them aware of what is in the Master Plan and 
encourage them to use it as a guide when making decisions and promoting policies. 
Discussion of Shared Priorities with the Energy Advisory Committee 
SHARED MASTER PLAN PRIORITIES 
E. Mauro reviewed the identified shared priorities between the Master Plan and the Energy 
Advisory Committee that were included in the displayed document entitled "Canton Master 
Plan Action items & Energy Advisory Committee Shared Priorities 2020-2025", which is included 
in the Meeting Documents section of these minutes. He emphasized certain areas of the Adapt 
section of the Master Plan, including its guiding principle. He also emphasized the Master Plan 
goals of energy conservation and generation goals including building system capacity and 
reducing energy consumption and costs for the Town, businesses, and residents. This also 
included mention of electric vehicle infrastructure, solar power, generation, the municipal 
aggregation program, and zoning reforms. He also noted that it will require a lot of collaboration 
from different departments to achieve these goals. He then moved on to some shared action 
items regarding natural hazards and climate change, which included educating the community 
and promoting environmental stewardship. 
Page 2 of 15

ENERGY AGGRIGATION and SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLAN 
T. Birmingham then shared a detailed presentation that was designed to update the MPIC on 
the progress of the Canton Energy Aggregation Program and his suggestion for a 
climate/sustainability action plan (the slides are included in the "Meeting Documents" section of 
these minutes). He mentioned that, in addition to chairing the Energy Advisory Committee, he is 
also on the Conservation Commission and is board member of the Canton Farmers Market. He 
has a significant background in climate change, energy consumption, and other environmental 
impact issues. He also favored the term "sustainability action plan" rather than a "climate 
action plan", although the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, because the term 
"sustainability" allows for broader topics of environmental stewardship to be included in the 
plan rather than just specific climate and energy issues alone. 
T Birmingham reminded the MPIC members that the Canton Energy Aggregation Program was 
approved at the 2021 Annual Town Meeting to approve the assessment and potential 
implementation of energy aggregation for businesses and residents. The goal would be to 
reduce the price and improve the terms of purchasing energy as a result of a demand pool of 
consumers. The energy purchased would favor renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro, bioenergy, 
et cetera). The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (MA DPU) would need to approve 
the proposed plan and the Select Board would have the option of accepting the plan or rejecting 
it. Informing the public will be important regarding options under the plan that would be 
offered. He then described the ongoing phased process to establish a specific Energy 
Aggregation Plan. Phase one has been completed. That phase included developing the program 
logo and name (Canton Electricity Choice Program) that have now been selected, a three -tiered 
option plan was chosen, and an operational adder has been approved. The program is now in 
the second phase where there is public outreach and education about the program, this will also 
culminate with a Select Board decision on the plan and MA DPU approval. The third stage would 
be an automatic enrollment notification for the public and the final stage would be completing 
the electricity supply agreement. Proposed options were shown. 
G. Manning acknowledged T. Birmingham's great effort on this work and asked if the businesses 
would be included in this program along with the residents. 
T. Birmingham confirmed that businesses would be included. 
G. Manning noted how Eversource currently sources for the energy grid (mostly non-renewable) 
and he asked about the availability of renewable energy and he noted that some projects like 
Cape Wind take many years to develop and come on line. 
T. Birmingham noted that there were three tiers of renewable power sources. Class One is from 
New England, Class Two comes from outside New England but through the connecting grid 
(examples: New York or some parts of Canada). Class Three is beyond that grid (example: 
Colorado). The goal of this program Is to encourage the development of renewable energy 
sources in New England as much as possible. He noted the land -intensive nature of some 
renewable energy infrastructure, such as a solar power facility that could produce similar BTUs 
compared to nonrenewable energy sources. There is growing demand for these aggregation 
programs using significant renewable energy. 
Page 3 of 15

G. Manning noted some solar panel structures over parking lots in town. He suggested that 
there are opportunities to issue permit fee waivers and then tapping into some of the energy 
when they are operational. 
T. Birmingham supports innovative ways to incentivize renewable energy generation 
E. Mauro asked if, given the fixed costs of supply and delivery of energy, the number of 
businesses or residents that chose a specific energy option would dramatically impact the price 
for that option. 
T. Birmingham said that there was a lot of data to model prices on because other towns have 
already enacted aggregation plans. Prices during the contract negotiations would be based on 
all opting into the program. Power suppliers have experience in modeling the amount of energy 
required and they can meet demand requirements. 
E. Mauro noted that the Town government already aggregates its energy supply and wondered 
how this aggregation program would affect that aggregation contract. 
T. Birmingham agreed that this was an important consideration that required more research. 
SUSTAINABILITY ACTION PLAN PROPOSAL 
T. Birmingham noted that a sustainability action plan is currently not fully in the scope of the 
Energy Advisory Committee but he would like to expand the role of the committee to consider 
these items as related to energy. He supported the concept of a "three -sided pyramid" of 
energy, climate, and environment as related topics and linked them to the Master Plan. 
Approaching the three together would allow better coordination and develop "holistic" policies 
to address these linked issues. Such a plan would likely also develop more funding sources for 
these purposes. He believed this linkage of the three items and the development of a plan of 
this kind is important. He added that local action and know-how with state and federal funding 
will be key to solving some of these problems. He felt that energy aggregation efforts could be 
linked to energy efficiency programs, building codes, renewable energy, green transportation, 
vulnerability assessment, hazard mitigation, emergency response, and land use and zoning in a 
sustainability action plan. He mentioned the complexity of coordinating outreach to such a wide 
range of stakeholders. He also showed relevant questions that he wanted members to think 
about when considering a future sustainability action plan, which included thoughts related to 
the purpose of the plan, what steps are needed, and what could the Energy Advisory Committee 
and stakeholders do to determine whether such a plan would be beneficial. He also pointed out 
that to reach net -zero emissions by 2050, as currently mandated by the state, would require 
solutions for many types of emission producing sectors (examples: electricity, transportation, 
buildings, and industrial facilities). 
QUESTIONS and DISCUSSION 
E. Mauro added that regarding emissions, in addition to renewable clean energy sources and 
green technologies, there should also be some consideration to preserving the town's tree 
canopy as trees help absorb COzand can cool and clean the air. 
Page 4 of 15

E. Mauro said that regional and state action plans for sustainability are very helpful, as one town 
alone cannot solve these broader environmental issues. He added that a sustainability action 
plan could be supported by the Master Plan because he felt, in concept, it met the principles 
and goals of the aforementioned parts of the Master Plan. Essentially, he added, the Master 
Plan is goals and principles that are fulfilled by actions, plans, policies, and laws. He also 
emphasized that funding plans and studies also help support efforts to get funding and grants. 
E. Mauro also noted to T. Birmingham that as chair of MPIC he would be happy to have the 
committee consider recommending or supporting any specific actions or plans that the Energy 
Advisory Committee, or even the Sustainability Committee, have going forward. 
B. MacDonald, while supporting renewable energy, observed that so many of these solutions 
are linked to funding in order to implement. He also mentioned the "not in my back yard" 
problem and was concerned whether there would be sufficient local support to establish 
renewable energy facilities. 
T. Birmingham said that it was a valid point and he reiterated that these renewable energy 
facilities are land intensive. 
B. MacDonald also added that the cost of renewable vehicles, for example, make cost 
effectiveness difficult and they sometimes still have reduced range compared to gas powered 
vehicles. 
E. Mauro observed that a lot of these emerging technologies have startup costs and lack of 
supporting infrastructure, which makes them difficult to grow at first. He was hopeful that as 
time passed and the industries became better established, costs would decrease. He also 
emphasized the importance of federal, state, and local support (grants, subsidies, seeding, et 
cetera) to help make these cost ineffective consumer decisions viable. He also added that zoning 
and other laws are needed to help develop the infrastructure and make it more standard (using 
the example of the lack of charging infrastructure as a hurdle for electric vehicles). It is a long 
process to build new infrastructure that will support these new technologies. 
B. MacDonald also pointed out government hurdles at federal, state, and local levels to 
advancing renewable energy projects (such as solar and wind) and noted how higher levels of 
government have more power than others to advance projects. He asked G. Manning when the 
renewable energy farms on the South Coast and Cape Cod area would be completed. 
G. Manning said that land was being acquired in New Bedford and Dartmouth to be a staging 
ground for the construction of the wind turbines and that construction is scheduled to begin in 
2025 and be completed in 2027. 
A. Rapoport raised the emerging technology of solar panel roofing shingles/tiles (such as those 
made by Tesla) as a possible way to expand solar power generation without significant land use 
He thought that these technologies could be worked into zoning policy for new construction. 
T. Birmingham noted that codes are developing for this starting with at the state level. He 
praised Tesla for developing an innovative closed loop system that would allow the home and 
connected cars to potentially be charged using the battery linked to the house rooftop solar 
Page 5 of 15