For September 17, 2012 meeting
To:
Planning Board
Mark Boyer, Chairperson
From: Jennifer Paquet
Town Planner
Re:
Plain Lane Solar Power –Major Land Development Project: AP 30, Lot 2
179 Plain Meeting House Road (at Big John Leyden’s Christmas Tree Farm)
Preliminary Plan
Plan: Proposing to construct an 8.5 acre field of solar photovoltaic panels and associated
structures for 2.0 Megawatt renewable energy power generation. Grading and land clearing for
the project will encompass 17.1 acres total.
Zoning: RFR-2
Zoning Use Table code 482 Fuel & Power allowed in RFR-2 zone by Special Use Permit.
The project meets the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board
granted a Special Use Permit on July 17, 2012 with conditions (decision letter attached.)
Review: combined Master and Preliminary Plan Public Hearing
Notice: Notice of hearing was duly advertised in the Wednesday, August 29, 2012 edition of the
Kent County Daily Times. Notice to abutters within a 500 foot radius was sent via Certified
Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Notice was also posted in the Town Hall and in the Library.
Applicant: West Greenwich Solar LLC (c/o Con Edison) and rTerra
Owner: Big John’s, LLC
Wetlands: present on site; applicant has applied for a Request for Preliminary Determination
Wetlands Permit from RIDEM.
ISDS: not applicable Water: potable water not applicable
TRC Review: TRC review held on August 29, 2012. Comments solicited from
Building/Zoning Official, Director of Public Works, American Engineering (the Town’s
consulting engineer), and Hianloland Fire Chief. Present at the TRC were myself, along with
Planning Board member Mr. Boyer, and present for the applicant were Alan Benevides, PE from
Woodard & Curran and George Gifford, LArch from the Gifford Design Group.
TRC comments: Concern over the removal of the hedgerow, which was assumed to act as a
buffer, was discussed. George Gifford, Landscape Architect, was present to explain the
proposed 25 foot wide evergreen buffer proposed at the property line and the slope of the
landform, and how these factors will accomplish a more effective screen. It was decided to have
the Planning Board members visit the site to get a feel for what the view will be like from the
abutting residences’ property lines. Project engineer, Alan Benevides was also present to explain
the configuration of the solar field and the setbacks from the wetland area and the necessary 3:1
distance to tree height setback to prevent shading on the panels.
The Fire Chiefs comments had mostly to do with safety during an emergency (see e-mail dated
March 28, 2012, and applicant response in Narrative).
The Director of Public works had no comments.
I have not heard from the Building/Zoning Official.
1
For September 17, 2012 meeting
Awaiting written comments from American Engineering, Town’s consulting engineer, for the
traffic and stormwater reports.
Also, at the previous pre-application TRC meeting, it was discussed that underground on-site
transmission should be required. Underground transmission has been provided throughout most
of the site. It comes out of the ground close to where it has to connect to the main overhead lines
at Plain Meeting House Road. See the Narrative and the Plan for details on this.
Planner’s Comments
Prompted by concerns by the abutters regarding solar fields in other communities, I conducted an
internet search of neighbor concerns, and also contacted the Planning and Zoning department of
Dartmouth, MA regarding the changes that they are making to their solar power field policies. I
also did a review of planning guidance documents for solar power, including information from
the American Planning Association, the US Department of Energy, and the US Environmental
Protection Agency. There are no significant negative environmental or health issues with solar
power as a land use. (see attached epa.gov webpages “Non-Hydroelectric Renewable Energy”
which discusses Solar and other renewable energy options, 8 pages)
Massachusetts has strong State initiatives to create solar power fields. In Dartmouth, MA, solar
farms were allowed By Right, with only the need for a Building Permit (meaning, no Planning
Board review), as long as the project met all the requirements. I spoke with Jane Kirby, Clerk
for Board of Appeals (for Zoning) on July 20, 2012, and later that same day with Joyce Couture,
Planning Aide. They noted that there are many solar sites already in town. The issue that caused
the town to amend their bylaw was the reaction of some residents when they saw a forest across
the street suddenly clear-cut. The developer for an already approved solar field went and clear
cut the site too quickly without leaving the proper buffer, and everyone was taken aback. This
prompted the Town to revise their Solar Bylaw to require Planning Board review, so that there
would be some public notice beforehand. Dartmouth is now working on changing some of the
dimensional requirements, and possibly eliminating the use of a solar farm from residential
areas. As of the time I am writing this, this has not been approved, as it needs to go to a Town
Meeting for a vote. However, solar farms would still be allowed in Agricultural Districts in
Dartmouth. For all intents and purposes, the Big John Leyden property is over 90 acres in size
and the primary use of the property is agricultural. Regardless, it should be reiterated that in
West Greenwich, this use is allowed by Special Use Permit in the RFR-2 zoning district.
The concerns as expressed by the residents of Dartmouth included: manufacture of panels in
China, hazardous material to dispose of, hazardous run off from broken panels, type of mounting
structures difficult to remove for restoration, stockpiles of farmland topsoil being ruined over the
years, and effect on property values. For our purposes, we already know that the type of panel
being used in the Leyden project is not the one with cadmium in it. To address disposal, we can
require that disposal of all solid and hazardous waste be in accordance with State and Federal
waste disposal regulations. The site is privately owned property, and the landowner has already
made arrangements with the developer for restoration of the land. I could not find any scientific
studies addressing effect of solar panel fields on property values. Clearly, this has to do with
different people’s perceptions, which would determine the sliding scale of desirability to
undesirability of choosing to live in a certain house, and considering the multiple factors
involved in making that decision. Think of the questions that would go through someone’s mind
when making such a decision, and then think about how different people have different
perspectives. For example, some people would not buy a house if their view was of a solar field
because they think it is ugly, whereas other people would buy such a house because they know
2
For September 17, 2012 meeting
the land is being used for a quiet use and don’t mind what a field of panels looks like. Some
people would buy such a house because they feel strongly in favor of renewable energy. Other
people would buy such a house as long as the view was screened, etc.
I spoke again with Ms. Couture on September 7, 2012 to get a status of the revisions to the
bylaw. The Planning Board is still working on final changes before it goes to Town Meeting in
the fall for a vote. In the meantime, Dartmouth is still waiting to hear the verdict from the
Attorney General on a bylaw amendment passed by Town Meeting this past Spring banning solar
farms from residential zoning districts. (The process for amending zoning in Massachusetts is
very different from Rhode Island.) If the Attorney General rejects the amendment, then the
original bylaw, allowing solar farms By Right in any district, without public notice, would hold.
At the July 16, 2012 West Greenwich Planning Board meeting for the Pre-application plan for
this project, a resident requested that an impact study be done, equating solar farms with wind
warms. A solar panel field is a passive use of land and is different from a wind turbine field.
Wind turbines are very tall structures which make them visible for larger distances than solar
panels, as they often exceed the height of native trees. Wind turbines also have relatively large
moving parts which pose considerations to abutting properties not associated with solar panels,
such as noise, shadow-flicker, and possible ice throw and structure collapse. The Planning
Board had been actively researching wind power as a land use in the recent past, and is familiar
with the considerations of wind turbines as a land use. The applicant has provided a
Development Impact Statement for the proposed solar project, dated August, 2012.
The Preliminary Plan
The layout of the project has changed slightly since the pre-application plan. The project will
still meet all the required setbacks from the property lines and the wetland and stream. It will
still be over 100 feet away from an existing neighborhood. This project is not expected to have
any significant negative affect to the surrounding area. This site is still an appropriate location
for this use.
As discussed in the TRC notes above, a change from the pre-application plan is that the
hedgerow is now proposed to be cut down in order to grade the hill and eliminate shading on the
panels. It will be up to the Planning Board to determine whether the proposed evergreen buffer
and the topography of the land will be sufficient to screen the panels from the neighboring
properties. By the time of the Public Hearing, most of the Planning Board members will have
visited the property to better understand the visual effect. The panel field will be over 100 feet
away from the property line, and varying about 20 to 30 feet lower in elevation from most of the
residential properties.
You can see from the below aerial image, that the hedgerow is made up of deciduous and
sparsely located evergreens. You can also see that right along the property line to the abutting
residential lots there is an existing solid evergreen row. This row of pine trees has a good height
to it (15 to 20 feet tall?), and exists partway on the Leyden property in some areas, and partway
only on the residential lots in other areas. I do not recommend that any of the trees making up
this existing buffer be cut down on the Leyden side just to install a new buffer on the Leyden
property, but rather, plant around them. Also, I recommend that the applicant tighten up the
proposed limit of disturbance to what is absolutely necessary only, and try to refine some of the
proposed grading to avoid impacting some of the existing trees that may not be posing a potential
shading effect.
3
For September 17, 2012 meeting
Existing Pine
Tree Row
Hedgerow
I also recommend that the Planning Board evaluate the effectiveness of any buffer during Final
Review of the project.
Stormwater Drainage
Drainage infrastructure has been designed to accommodate the additional runoff volume and
water quality, and is under review by RIDEM and the Town’s consulting engineer. The design
consists of crushed stone channels for infiltration between the rows of panels.
Lighting
Lighting was marked ‘not applicable’ on the application checklist and no lighting plan was
submitted. The narrative states that, “no new lighting is proposed as part of this project.”
Traffic
There will not be any noticeable traffic from this project once it is up and running. There will be
construction traffic while the site is being prepared and the panels are being installed. The
Town’s consulting engineer will review the traffic statement prepared by Criterium Lockatong
Engineers.
4
For September 17, 2012 meeting
Decommissioning
Many ordinances regulating solar panel fields include requirements for removal of the structures
when they cease to be used, including bonding for such. I don’t think the Town needs to hold a
bond for removal, as the Town will not likely want the responsibility of removing the structures
from private property, however the Board should check with the Solicitor whether you should
require a bond for removal. (UPDATE: it is the Solicitor’s opinion that a bond need not be
required by the Town). At the pre-application meeting, the land owner noted that in their
agreement with the solar power developer, there is such a provision for removal of the structures.
Conclusion
The proposed project is an allowed use by Special Use Permit in the Rural, Farming, Residential,
two- acre minimum lot size (RFR-2) Zoning District, meets the zoning dimensional requirements
of the Zoning Ordinance, and has received a Special Use Permit from the Zoning Board. The
site location has been thoughtfully chosen, taking advantage of the slope of the land and
topography in order to minimize visual affects to the community, and further proposing a solid
evergreen buffer adjacent to abutting residential properties. The use has been perceived by
residents at the Pre-application meeting as an industrial use, however a solar panel field is a
relatively passive land use which is not comparable to the characteristic ‘industrial’ uses—there
will be no traffic, no truck traffic, no noise, no vibration, no air emissions, no additional lighting,
no use of water for processing or cooling, and no waste effluent.
Comments and concerns that arise during the public hearing should be addressed by the applicant
and weighed in your decision, along with the comments from the town’s consulting engineer.
The below draft motion is offered for the Board’s consideration:
Motion to approve to the Plan entitled, “Master/Preliminary Plans Plain Lane Power I” at Plat
30, Lot 23, prepared by Woodard & Curran, dated August 2012 consisting of 5 sheets, and the
Landscaping Plan prepared by The Gifford Design Group, Inc. dated August 16, 2012 consisting
of 2 sheets, with the following conditions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
That the Final plan be reviewed by the Planning Board after the project has been
constructed and after the required vegetation has been planted.
(Any condition with regard to the buffer?)
The applicant shall maintain the drainage system in accordance with the approved
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (included within the Stormwater Management
Report).
There shall be no additional lighting provided on site for the solar project. If lighting is
proposed in the future, a plan shall be submitted to the Town for review and approval and
shall meet the requirements that lighting be limited to that needed for safety and
operational purposes, and shall be directed downward and shall be full cut off fixtures.
The solar panel field and all related structures, equipment, and utility lines shall be
removed from the site by the operator or owner of the solar power development at the end
of its use or upon discontinuation of its use, within 180 days after the date of
discontinued operations. Removal and Disposal of all solid and hazardous material shall
be in accordance with State and Federal waste transportation and disposal regulations.
(Removal bond requirement?)
Submit proof of liability insurance.
5
For September 17, 2012 meeting
This motion is based on the following findings of fact:
1.
The property consists of over 90 acres of land, half of which is currently used as a
Christmas Tree Farm and seasonal entertainment as a Halloween attraction.
2. The proposed use of a solar power generation field will occupy approximately 9 acres of
the property; and the total limit of disturbance to construct the project will encompass
approximately 17.1 acres, including site grading and vegetation clearing.
3. The proposed location of the solar panel field is surrounded by a natural wooded buffer
and wetland to the west and south west, the existing Christmas tree farm to the south and
east, an existing residential neighborhood farther to the east, and a wooded lot to the
north owned by the applicant.
4. The location of the solar field meets the zoning rear, front, and side yard setback
requirements, and meets the required setback from a wetland and water body.
5. The electrical line will run underground, to a point where it will connect to poles as
shown on the approved plan.
6. The solar panel field will not be visible from the town road.
7. The topography of the land together with the existing and proposed vegetation will
minimize the view of the panels from abutting properties.
8. The use will be environmentally compatible with neighboring properties and the
protection of property values, particularly the use will not emit any odors, sound, light, or
vibration to the abutting properties, nor will it be visibly intrusive to any abutting
property owners, as the panels will be below grade from the residential area and there
will be an evergreen buffer planted as a condition of the approval.
9. The use is compatible with the orderly growth and development of the Town of West
Greenwich, and will not be environmentally detrimental therewith. Specifically, the use
of generating clean, renewable solar energy, without causing negative affect to the
surrounding area, is an environmental benefit which will enhance quality of life.
10. There will be no significant negative environmental impacts from the proposed
development as shown on the Preliminary Plan. The required review by the Planning
Board has ensured that the best practices and procedures will minimize the possibility of
any adverse effects on neighboring property, the Town of West Greenwich, and the
environment, specifically with respect to drainage, soil erosion, water supply protection,
septic disposal, wetland protection, and traffic safety and circulation.
11. The design of the drainage will minimize flooding.
12. The proposed use has adequate and permanent physical access to Plain Meeting House
Road, a public street.
13. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, specifically that the use
is allowed by Special Use Permit in the RFR-2 zoning district, and that the use will not
affect the scenic rural quality of the community. The proposed renewable energy solar
photovoltaic project is consistent with the rural character of West Greenwich and will
retain and enhance the quality of life, including an increasingly secure, more healthful,
self-reliant and attractive rural community environment by virtue of being a clean,
domestic, distributed energy source and producer.
14. The proposed development provides for preservation of natural, historical, or cultural
features that contribute to the attractiveness of the community, as the project is located to
the rear of the property which has been used since the 1970/1980’s as a tree farm, and
will not be visible from town roads.
6