HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210111 - Zoning Advisory Committee - Meeting MinutesZONING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, January 11, 2021
7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING
MINUTES
Members Present: Mary Larson-Marlowe, Ron Foisy, Ted Barker-Hook, Ria
McNamara, Madhu Chandrasekar, Sundar Sivaraman, Curtis Smithson, Rachel
Rossin, John Coutinho
Members Absent:
Also Present: John Gelcich, Principal Planner; Bryan Bertram, Town Counsel; Ethan
Dively, Town Counsel
Ms. Larson-Marlowe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Ms. Larson-Marlowe
read the remote meeting script.
1.Solar Bylaw/Overlay District Discussion
Ms. Larson-Marlowe introduced the discussion for the proposed changes to the
solar bylaw.
Ms. Rossin gave an overview of her research relative to the BioMap2 habitat
designations and revised Massachusetts regulations.
Mr. Barker-Hook gave an overview of the prime farmland designation in Hopkinton
and his conversations with the Conservation Commission’s consultant. Mr.
Barker-Hook discussed the definition of distruebd in relation to Riverfront Area.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe shared the map showing prime farmland soils.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked Mr. Bertram if it were allowed to restrict development of
solar related to soils. Mr. Bertram said it would be an issue unless there is a very
specific reason for prohibiting solar versus other developments. If not, then it
shouldn’t be prohibited.
Mr. Barker-Hook asked if Athol’s bylaw was challenged in court if they would lose.
Mr. Bertram said he can’t answer specifically, but that he wouldn’t be surprised if
the change was approved by the Attorney General, which doesn’t mean it would
hold up in court.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if anyone wanted to share research. No one
volunteered any new information.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe reviewed the discussion from the last meeting.
Mr. Barker-Hook asked questions about screening and how removing trees would
affect noise from highways.
John Coutinho arrived at this time.
Mr. Barker-Hook asked if the solar developer would need to mitigate new noise
from highways due to tree clearing. Ms. Larson-Marlowe said she believes that to
be true.
Mr. Coutinho said he likes adding the language referencing the DOER guidance for
a rationale.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe continued reviewing the proposed changes of the bylaw.
ZAC generally discussed the accessory use of solar.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe continued reviewing the changes that were advised against by
Town Counsel.
Mr. Bertram discussed the potential to develop a bylaw, such as a tree protection
bylaw, to mitigate the impacts of developments such as solar.
ZAC generally discussed the effects of a tree protection bylaw.
Ms. McNamara asked if solar could be limited to a commercial district and set a
maximum lot size. Mr. Bertram said that it is unclear as to whether a town can
restrict solar to a specific zoning district/overlay district. Mr. Bertram gave some
background on recent court cases relating to this subject.
ZAC generally discussed the location of solar arrays based on zoning districts and
the issues associated with that. ZAC discussed whether IA and IB districts together
would be sufficient to mitigate risks of prohibiting elsewhere. Mr. Bertram said he
doesn’t believe it would be sufficient.
Mr. Bertram said the previous iteration of the bylaw changes focusing on sight lines
and glare would be more defensible than restricting to an area.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked Mr. Bertram about limiting the size of the array to have
a maximum. Mr. Bertram said the analysis is similar to the other proposed
changes, in that other developments wouldn't be restricted in a similar way.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe reviewed the screening changes proposed in the recent
proposed language.
Mr. Barker-Hook asked if there could be an audio impact assessment included in
the proposed changes for review of projects.
ZAC generally discussed changes to the screening requirements and the
requirements associated with discontinuance.
ZAC generally discussed landscaping of the array after discontinuation. ZAC
discussed whether a plan should be prepared at the time of issuance of the permit
or prior to decommissioning of the facility.
Ms. Larson-Marlowe discussed noise impact regulations she found from the Athol
model bylaw.
ZAC went through the previous “Option 4” or the “rewrite” and reviewed the
proposed changes. ZAC determined to hold another meeting on January 19th to
review final changes to the proposed “rewrite” for recommendation to the Planning
Board.
Mr. Smithson asked if it would be possible to classify the solar use as an industrial
use and restrict it to industrial districts. Mr. Bertram said he doesn’t see that as a
realistic possibility.
Mr. Barker-Hook suggested pushing forward two sets of bylaws, being the solar
bylaw and a tree protection bylaw to accomplish the two goals of screening solar
and protecting forested areas.
2.Minutes of December 14, 2020; December 28, 2020
Mr. Barker-Hook moved to approve the minutes of December 14, 2020 as written,
seconded by Mr. Coutinho, ZAC approved unanimously.
Mr. Smithson moved to approve the minutes of December 28, 2020 as written,
seconded by Mr. Foisy, ZAC approved unanimously.
Mr. Coutinho moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Sivaraman, ZAC approved
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 PM.
Approved:September 20, 2021
Documents: Proposed Solar Bylaw, dated December 15, 2020