The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20201109 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting MinutesZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Monday, November 9, 2020 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING MINUTES Members Present: Mary Larson-Marlowe; John Coutinho; Ron Foisy; Madhu Chandrasekar; Sundar Sivaraman; Ria McNamara; Curtis Smithson; Rachel Rossin (not sworn in); Ted Barker-Hook Members Absent: None Also Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner Ms. Larson-Marlowe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Ms. Larson-Marlowe read through the opening script for the remote meeting. Ms. Larson-Marlowe briefly discussed the plan for the meeting tonight. 1.Solar Overlay District Discussion Ms. Larson-Marlowe gave a brief overview of the solar bylaw as it currently stands today. Ms. Larson-Marlowe discussed the objectives of the solar bylaw as a guide for the forthcoming discussion. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked Mr. Gelcich to discuss the maps and advice from Town Counsel. Mr. Gelcich gave an overview that Town Counsel advises the “test” (any changes meet the requirement for public health, safety, and welfare) is the first and possibly only step needed to see if changes to solar would be permissible. ZAC generally asked questions about the advice from Town Counsel. Mr. Gelcich presented the maps prepared for the meeting. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked the Committee for questions. Ms. Rossin asked about solar along I-495. Mr. Gelcich gave an overview as to why it was included. Mr. Coutinho questioned if the State could overrule zoning on I-495. Ms. Larson-Marlowe mentioned solar along the highway in Natick. She also mentioned a question about Echo Lake not being shown. Ms. Larson-Marlowe reviewed the advice from Town Counsel again, prior to discussion. Ms. Larson-Marlowe described her proposed outline for the meeting’s discussion. Mr. Foisy asked how to include objectives from the beginning of the meeting into the list. He suggested filtering the discussion points through the objectives as they discuss. The Committee generally discussed how to follow the guide. Ms. McNamara suggested adding noise pollution to the list. Mr. Sivaraman mentioned the Athol Bylaws as an example. He suggested seeing how those provisions may fit in Hopkinton. Sean Kimball, 64 Theresa Road discussed the documents from Athol (Bylaw and Tufts report) he forwarded to the Committee. The Committee generally discussed where Athol is with their bylaw and the Tufts report. Ms. McNamara said restrictions should be made for properties abutting residential areas and that can satisfy the test for public health, safety, and welfare. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked how. Ms. McNamara said nature is why people move to Hopkinton. Ms. McNamara said we need to find something simple to get through Town Meeting that covers all the restrictions wanted. Ms. Rossin suggested including a restriction of density of solar panels. Mr. Smithson said that many commercial developments have a larger setback than non-residential development. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about setbacks for solar developments, Mr. Gelcich read the section of the Zoning Bylaw that provides for larger setbacks for nonresidential uses in residential districts. Mr. Barker-Hook stated that all zoning is for the welfare of residents, even though it restricts property rights. Ms. Larson-Marlowe discussed negotiations with solar developers on the Planning Board related to the requirements of the Bylaw. She mentioned screening, setbacks, Mr. Barker-Hook said the Conservation Commission has been very firm regarding buffer zones and solar developments. Mr. Barker-Hook mentioned a provision of the Tufts study that includes Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Ms. Larson-Marlowe added it to the outline. Ms. McNamara said business districts have a maximum coverage of 60% and suggested that the solar district also include that limit. Mr. Sivaraman asked if the minimum lot size could be changed. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said yes. Mike Sullivan, 59 Theresa Road, said there were good provisions for the town with regard to requirements for professional plans and access to the site. He also mentioned in the Tufts report there are terms that are encouraging for people considering solar to see what is important to the Planning Board in terms of approval of the permit. He suggested including these terms in the Bylaw. He suggested giving the model bylaw to Town Counsel and review based on what would “meet muster.” He suggested including a requirement for year-round screening. Deb Fein-Brug, 12 Prestwick Drive, said that identifying what types of soil were acceptable and where the water table exists on site would be beneficial in restricting solar. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked Mr. Gelcich what would be covered by stormwater regulations that would apply to solar. She would like to know what protections are already in place in this regard. Ms. Larson-Marlowe began discussing the minimum and maximum lot size. Mr. Coutinho suggested making a map with the Solar Viable Parcels and Zoning. Mr. Gelcich said he would need to make that map since the layers are not available at the moment. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if a maximum would be wanted. Ms. Chandrasekar said it may be helpful to change it to allowing some by-right and some by Special Permit. Ms. McNamara said that by restricting the coverage of the land would require more land to get the same amount of power out of the land. The Committee generally discussed the pros and cons of regulating solar by lot size, both maximum and minimum. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked for other options to discourage solar in certain areas. Ms. Rossin suggested limiting the number of panels per lot. Mr. Gelcich said that may not age well since technology may change the size of the panels in the future and have a negative effect on the design of the array. Mr. Coutinho suggested encouraging solar in the parking and “wasted” areas of Industrial A. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said that would still be an accessory use of solar. Mr. Barker-Hook said that regulating the density of panels may have a negative impact by actually requiring more trees being cut. Deb Fein-Brug, 12 Prestwick Drive, asked about the industrial districts and how the Town can better utilize that land. Ms. Chandrasekar said that if a better area cannot be found, the industrial districts would fill the void. Ms. McNamara said that Industrial A is very wooded. Ms. Chandrasekar said it is like we are sacrificing one zone to save another zone. Ms. Larson-Marlowe reiterated that the solar bylaw is only for commercial solar and not accessory solar. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said that changing the minimum lot size to 5 acres or 10 acres doesn’t significantly affect where solar can be placed. She said making a maximum lot size could have strange consequences. She does like the concept of maximum coverage of the lot. She suggested 60% as a maximum since it is the same as other commercial properties. She also suggested limiting the coverage to the viable land on the lot. 2.Minutes of October 26, 2020 Ms. Larson-Marlowe suggested next meetings to take place on November 23, December 14. Mr. Coutinho moved to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Sivaraman seconded the motion. The Committee voted (8-0-1) to approve the minutes as written. Mr. Barker-Hook abstained. Mr. Sivaraman moved to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion. The Committee voted to adjourn at 9:04 PM. Approved:November 23, 2020 Documents:Minutes of October 26, 2020 1 Parcel Map - 11-05-20 2 Development Restrictions - Natural Resources - 11-05-20 3 Development Restrictions - Regulated Areas - 11-05-20 4 Solar Viable Land - 11-05-20 4a Parcels Viable for Solar Use w/ Background - 11-03-20 4b Parcels Viable for Solar Use - 11-05-20 5 Parcels Viable for Solar w/ Contours - 11-05-20 6 Development Restrictions - Slopes Over 10% - 11-05-20 A Rainy Day at a Solar Farm - Kennedy Jenks Article Solar Overlay Final - 06-01-20 (and black and white version) Discussion Outline Tufts Solar Report Athol Model Bylaw