On Monday, September 13, 2021, at 7:00 pm in Town Hall, the Town Council will have a Public Hearing and possible vote on a new Tiverton Zoning Ordinance for Solar Energy Systems. It will replace the old Solar Ordinance that was repealed in December 2018 when two industrial sized proposals were submitted that would compromise farmland and forest. The Crandall Road Solar project (at the old Wingover Farm) has been built and consists of 14.7 acres of solar panels. The Brayton Road Solar project, still before the Planning Board, will consist of 51 acres of solar panels and will clear cut 9,000 trees.
This new ordinance, meant to correct the flaws of the old one, is a disaster which will allow ground mounted arrays in every residential area in Tiverton. There are three sizes of ground mounted solar systems: Small- 1,600 SF, Medium-1,600-40,000 SF, Large-over 40,000 SF.
Picture this: 1,600 SF = 2 1/2 billboards, 40,000 SF = 14 tennis courts, over 40,000 SF = acres and acres of glass and steel solar panels as far as the eye can see.
Solar Energy Companies that were lined up to come to Tiverton were stopped in their tracks when the old solar ordinance was repealed. Once this new ordinance is approved they will be back in force. Tiverton and Little Compton are the only East Bay communities with lots of open land.
Tiverton needs to go back to the drawing board to craft a solar ordinance similar to Little Compton’s which is farm friendly yet prevents the sprawl of ground mounted arrays throughout its residential areas.
Please attend the meeting on Monday, Sept. 13, 2021, and voice your concerns to the Town Council. We need a better Solar Energy Systems Ordinance!
This new ordinance, meant to correct the flaws of the old one, is a disaster which will allow ground mounted arrays in every residential area in Tiverton. There are three sizes of ground mounted solar systems: Small- 1,600 SF, Medium-1,600-40,000 SF, Large-over 40,000 SF.
Picture this: 1,600 SF = 2 1/2 billboards, 40,000 SF = 14 tennis courts, over 40,000 SF = acres and acres of glass and steel solar panels as far as the eye can see.
Solar Energy Companies that were lined up to come to Tiverton were stopped in their tracks when the old solar ordinance was repealed. Once this new ordinance is approved they will be back in force. Tiverton and Little Compton are the only East Bay communities with lots of open land.
Tiverton needs to go back to the drawing board to craft a solar ordinance similar to Little Compton’s which is farm friendly yet prevents the sprawl of ground mounted arrays throughout its residential areas.
Please attend the meeting on Monday, Sept. 13, 2021, and voice your concerns to the Town Council. We need a better Solar Energy Systems Ordinance!
More Specifics on the Proposed Solar Ordinance and Its Shortcomings
Tiverton’s proposed solar ordinance provides limited review and, with regard to medium and large solar energy systems, it is unclear what type of review is required. For a “small” ground-mounted solar energy system, which can be up to 1,600 square feet, it seems that no review other than getting a building permit from the building official is required in all but the Village Commercial zone. For large and medium systems, Sec. 6(a) states that the review “shall follow the established process for Development Plan Review or Major Land Development,” but it doesn’t specify which type of review is required in which circumstances. Development Plan Review (DPR) in Tiverton as set forth in Art. XX, Sec. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance is only an advisory opinion from the Planning Board and doesn’t require public notice. Major Land Development (MLD) review requires public notice and gives the Planning Board binding approval authority. Medium and large projects should require MLD review, and small ground-mounted projects should require at least DPR.
Along the same lines, the ordinance states that a decommissioning surety must be provided for large and medium projects, but it doesn’t specify who sets the surety amount. The amount should be set by the Planning Board and reviewed by the Board’s consulting engineer as part of MLD review.
The ordinance should also have a much stronger restriction on clear-cutting in order to develop large- or medium-scale solar energy systems. Sec. 6(c) states, for large and medium arrays, that “clearing shall be limited to what is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.” This isn’t much of a restriction at all, as it only prohibits a developer from gratuitously removing trees. But if a developer is proposing to chop down a large forested area to put up an array there, this ordinance places no limitation whatsoever, since the clearing in that case is “necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.” In contrast, Little Compton puts a numerical limit on the amount of clear-cutting allowed, measured both as a percentage of the project size and a limit on the total area of clearcutting allowed in any given project, no matter the size. Tiverton’s ordinance needs a similar provision.
The draft ordinance doesn’t specify whether ground-mounted solar arrays may be an accessory use and, if so, under what circumstances. The ordinance hints that small-scale solar may be allowed as an accessory use, when it says that small-scale solar shall only be in the sides or rear of the lot – because a lot would only have side yards and a rear yard when there is an existing use on the parcel. But the ordinance does not spell out anything about accessory ground-mounted solar and the limits on that use. That’s an oversight that must be addressed.
The ordinance allows for solar arrays – large, medium, and small – as a principal use in all residential zones. Many solar ordinances are moving away from that, since many residential property owners see solar as inconsistent with residential uses and object when solar is placed near their home. For instance, Sec. 14-5.14(f)(1) of the Little Compton ordinance prohibits solar in that town’s residential zones. Tiverton should take a similar approach, especially with medium and large arrays.
Tiverton’s proposed solar ordinance provides limited review and, with regard to medium and large solar energy systems, it is unclear what type of review is required. For a “small” ground-mounted solar energy system, which can be up to 1,600 square feet, it seems that no review other than getting a building permit from the building official is required in all but the Village Commercial zone. For large and medium systems, Sec. 6(a) states that the review “shall follow the established process for Development Plan Review or Major Land Development,” but it doesn’t specify which type of review is required in which circumstances. Development Plan Review (DPR) in Tiverton as set forth in Art. XX, Sec. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance is only an advisory opinion from the Planning Board and doesn’t require public notice. Major Land Development (MLD) review requires public notice and gives the Planning Board binding approval authority. Medium and large projects should require MLD review, and small ground-mounted projects should require at least DPR.
Along the same lines, the ordinance states that a decommissioning surety must be provided for large and medium projects, but it doesn’t specify who sets the surety amount. The amount should be set by the Planning Board and reviewed by the Board’s consulting engineer as part of MLD review.
The ordinance should also have a much stronger restriction on clear-cutting in order to develop large- or medium-scale solar energy systems. Sec. 6(c) states, for large and medium arrays, that “clearing shall be limited to what is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.” This isn’t much of a restriction at all, as it only prohibits a developer from gratuitously removing trees. But if a developer is proposing to chop down a large forested area to put up an array there, this ordinance places no limitation whatsoever, since the clearing in that case is “necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility.” In contrast, Little Compton puts a numerical limit on the amount of clear-cutting allowed, measured both as a percentage of the project size and a limit on the total area of clearcutting allowed in any given project, no matter the size. Tiverton’s ordinance needs a similar provision.
The draft ordinance doesn’t specify whether ground-mounted solar arrays may be an accessory use and, if so, under what circumstances. The ordinance hints that small-scale solar may be allowed as an accessory use, when it says that small-scale solar shall only be in the sides or rear of the lot – because a lot would only have side yards and a rear yard when there is an existing use on the parcel. But the ordinance does not spell out anything about accessory ground-mounted solar and the limits on that use. That’s an oversight that must be addressed.
The ordinance allows for solar arrays – large, medium, and small – as a principal use in all residential zones. Many solar ordinances are moving away from that, since many residential property owners see solar as inconsistent with residential uses and object when solar is placed near their home. For instance, Sec. 14-5.14(f)(1) of the Little Compton ordinance prohibits solar in that town’s residential zones. Tiverton should take a similar approach, especially with medium and large arrays.
