Bill would let farmers separate nonproductive land from Chapter 61A to host renewable energy

A bill filed as H 3,256 would allow farmers to separate nonproductive land from the protections of Chapter 61A without first triggering a municipal right of first refusal and would eliminate a five‑year rollback or conveyance tax, supporters told the Joint Committee on Revenue.

Supporters said the measure is aimed at small‑to‑mid‑sized renewable energy projects on land adjacent to active farms — particularly cranberry operations — and is designed to provide supplemental revenue to keep farming economically viable.

Kate Daniel, Northeast regional director for the Coalition for Community Solar Access, told the committee that removing right‑of‑first‑refusal rules and rollback penalties would reduce barriers to building renewable energy on suitable farm properties. “Putting renewable energy on farm properties is a really important tool for farmers to be able to maintain control on their land and keep their land and keep it in farming operations,” Daniel said. She added that revenue from leases “can make ends meet in really tough economic situations for farmers.”

A panelist identified as Brian (last name not specified), speaking about the Cranberry Growers Task Force, said growers ran into right‑of‑first‑refusal and related problems when attempting to site arrays on adjacent, nonproductive parcels. He said cranberry operations are particularly well suited for adjacent solar because bogs remain in production and cleared ancillary land can host panels.

Committee members pressed for limits and safeguards. Representative Kasner asked whether the bill envisioned a size cap; a testifier who identified himself as “Mr. Wake” said no specific acreage was proposed and that size limits or a megawatt threshold would need technical input. Several members, including Amber Simcastner, asked whether towns should retain a right of first refusal if a site later leaves renewable use; Wake and other testifiers suggested the town’s right of first refusal ought to apply if the land is later converted to some other use.

Representatives of the cranberry sector and renewable‑energy advocates emphasized a “farm‑first” approach: arrays would be placed on adjacent, nonproducing parcels to supplement farm income rather than supplant farming activities. One panelist noted that in cranberry parcels up to roughly 50% of land held in Chapter 61A can be accessory land under existing law, and this proposal would target that accessory acreage rather than active bogs.

Testimony included practical details testifiers said matter to growers: typical commercial site leases often run 20 years with two five‑year extension options, and arrays can serve community solar projects or feed credits into utility load zones. Testifiers and committee members asked that the Farm Bureau and Massachusetts Farmland Trust be consulted as the bill moves forward to determine whether the measure should remain cranberry‑targeted or be opened to all agriculture.

The bill would make separated parcels subject to regular real estate tax and personal property tax on the installed array, proponents said. No formal committee action or vote was recorded during the hearing on H 3,256.

Supporters asked the committee to report the measure favorably so growers could use adjacent nonproductive land to add a predictable revenue stream while keeping active farmland in production.