HomeMy Public PortalAbout20201123 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting MinutesZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, November 23, 2020
7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING
MINUTES
Members Present: Mary Larson-Marlowe, John Coutinho, Ria McNamara, Ted Barker-Hook, Ron Foisy, Madhu Chandrasekar, Sundar Sivaraman, Curtis Smithson, Rachel Rossin (not sworn in)
Members Absent: None Also Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner
Ms. Larson-Marlowe called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM and read the script for remote meetings.
1.Solar Bylaw/Overlay District Discussion
Ms. Larson-Marlowe briefly discussed her research into the meaning of “welfare” as it pertains to zoning.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe mentioned the dimensional table sent over by Mr. Smithson prior to the meeting.
Mr. Barker-Hook discussed solar with Eric Smith, Athol’s Town Planner, about
solar. Mr. Barker-Hook gave a brief overview of his conversation with Mr. Smith. In Athol there is a 5-acre lot minimum and a 75-foot buffer. Athol then thought these regulations were insufficient. Athol then voted to approve an 18-month
moratorium on solar. After the moratorium they approved a bylaw that restricts
commercial solar to land that was previously disturbed. Mr. Sivaraman asked if the current bylaw met the criteria for not being overly
restrictive. Mr. Barker-Hook said he doesn’t know for sure, but he indicated that
there have been no legal challenges. Mr. Barker-Hook said Athol grandfathered three parcels that were already in discussion for solar.
Ms. McNamara said she thinks limiting solar to previously disturbed land is a
great idea. She said she’s found in her research that Wellesley allows solar on one parcel and Weston on three parcels. Ms. McNamara said in Westhampton there is a restriction that no solar array may exceed 1.5 acres.
Mr. Barker-Hook gave an anecdote about setbacks, specifically about what a setback of 60 feet means.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe showed pictures sent by Brian Paras of the Lumber Street solar array from the Alexander Road neighborhood.
Mr. Smithson suggested that ZAC go a little further mitigating sight impacts. Ms. Larson-Marlowe suggested adding more specifics into the screening
requirements.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe went over the outline for discussion. She reviewed the coverage allowed on the three recent solar developments.
Ms. McNamara said coverage needs to also incorporate green space like wetlands into consideration.
Mr. Sivaraman asked about requiring high walls similar to those along highways.
Mr. Smithson mentioned several types of walls that could be proposed if the requirement is left vague.
Ms. Chandrasekar said there may be a loophole related to screening in the
existing bylaw. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said this issue has been discussed in the past and acknowledges that it may still be an issue that wasn’t remedied on the last change to the Bylaw. Mr. Sivaraman said this may be used to the Town’s
advantage since the wording is relatively vague. ZAC generally discussed the
subjectivity of the language in the Bylaw and how it can be used or how it may be an issue.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe reviewed the conversation so far: no reason to change the
lot size as it will likely have no effect - may consider maximum size, but that doesn’t control where it can be located. Ms. McNamara strongly supported limiting the maximum lot size to something small to make solar economically
infeasible.
Mr. Barker-Hook mentioned there is a small lot with solar so the economic infeasibility may not hold up. He also suggested that the Town-owned Fruit
Street property would be a good option which would be excluded from
development if there was a maximum lot size. Ms. Larson-Marlowe continued reviewing the outline: maximum coverage likely
doesn’t affect solar since the recent three developments are minimal coverage;
setbacks likely won’t work since Alexander Road is a large setback and can still be seen; sufficient year-round screening may work, however. Mr. Coutinho suggested coming up with a formula to determine the height of screening
required to shield views.
Mr. Barker-Hook said there are two goals, to protect neighborhoods and protect trees. He said screening will not protect trees. ZAC generally discussed this issue.
Mr. Sivaraman asked if there could be requirements in landscape design, eg. trees selectively cleared. ZAC generally discussed this item.
Mr. Sivaraman asked if a pre-existing recreational use (eg. trail) could preclude
solar development. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said this would likely limit public access to trails on private land to avoid this issue.
Ms. Rossin asked about height restrictions for solar panels themselves. ZAC
generally discussed this question. Ms. Larson-Marlowe suggested that codifying slopes and mitigation would not
be effective as it is likely too site specific to adequately address the issue.
Mr. Smithson shared his screen showing cross-sections of a sand and gravel site showing elevation of work relative to other on-site features. Ms.
Larson-Marlowe said cross-sections are something that can certainly be
included in the application process. Ms. Larson-Marlowe continued reviewing the outline. She said ZAC has
generally decided to scrap setbacks as an option.
Mr. Sivaraman asked if it would be possible to prohibit cutting of trees larger than a certain size. Mr. Gelcich said that may not stand up to the test of not
being overly-restrictive due to location of solar panels due to trees and shading.
ZAC generally discussed restricting tree clearing. Mr. Smithson suggested putting a time limit of clearing to development of about five years.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked the ZAC members to look into the items they,
individually, would like to see in a bylaw, and specify what changes they would like to see made to the bylaw. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked Mr. Gelcich to prepare an overview of the stormwater regulations related to solar. Ms. Larson-Marlowe
will review the model bylaw and compare it to the existing bylaw to see if
anything should be further reviewed. Ms. McNamara mentioned that most of the towns with solar arrays require the
developer to remove the solar farms. Ms. Larson-Marlowe confirmed that
Hopkinton has that too. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said the next meeting is December 14th at 7:00 PM.
2.Minutes of November 9, 2020 Ms. Larson-Marlowe and Ms. Chandrasekar suggested some changes to the
minutes for clarification. Mr. Coutinho moved to approve the minutes with these
changes, Mr. Sivaraman seconded the motion. The Committee voted unanimously (8-0-0) to approve the minutes with the modifications.
Mr. Sivaraman moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Coutinho seconded the motion.
The Committee voted unanimously (8-0-0) to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.
Approved:December 14, 2020
Documents: Minutes of November 9, 2020 ZAC Outline - 11-09-20
Dimensional Table fromCurtis Smithson