Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan Commission reviews SolSmart zoning review; staff to pursue draft solar zoning language
Summary
Monona received a SolSmart zoning review that finds the city code silent on solar and recommends adding clear definitions and standards; commissioners supported limited, careful code language to clarify rooftop rules and to protect neighbors while asking staff to work with SolSmart on draft amendments.
City staff and a SolSmart technical advisor presented a zoning review to the Monona Plan Commission finding that the city’s zoning code does not currently address solar development and offering model ordinance language and recommendations to increase clarity for residents and developers.
Thor (city staff) summarized the memo: “Our zoning code currently doesn’t address solar development, at all,” and said the SolSmart review recommends adding a solar purpose statement, definitions that distinguish roof-mounted and ground-mounted systems, and clear, proportionate development standards. Thor said the work responds to a City Council resolution directing Monona to pursue SolSmart designation.
Zach Wyman, SolSmart technical advisor with Cadmus, described SolSmart as a Department of Energy-funded designation program that provides no-cost technical assistance and guidance. Wyman emphasized that SolSmart focuses on lowering soft costs by improving permitting, planning and inspection processes and said, “I will never send over an invoice for anything that we do through the SolSmart program.” He noted the program’s bronze prerequisite for planning and zoning (the PZ-1 zoning review) requires a community to review the zoning checklist and return a signed acknowledgement; that acknowledgement is informational rather than a commitment to change code.
The zoning review’s central finding is that Monona’s code is silent on solar: it contains no solar definitions and does not explicitly allow roof- or ground-mounted systems by right. That silence can reduce uncertainty for applicants in some cases, Wyman said, but it also creates unpredictability because staff and applicants lack calibrated standards for common scenarios such as small rooftop installations. SolSmart’s recommended topics include a purpose statement, tailored definitions for accessory roof-mounted systems versus larger ground-mounted or primary-use solar, predictable height and setback rules, and permit/inspection checklists.
Commissioners said they broadly support clarifying standards while avoiding overregulation. Several members asked that rooftop solar remain straightforward for homeowners and that any height allowances not create adverse impacts for neighbors. Chair Moore and others referenced an earlier legal determination discussed at the meeting that, in single- and two-family zoning districts, rooftop solar is not counted in the city’s maximum building height calculation; staff said they would confirm and provide the formal opinion text (Attorney Cole’s determination) as follow-up.
Commissioners also discussed ground-mounted systems, parking-lot-mounted solar and the city’s limited municipal parcels. Some members favored adding modest protections (for example, finish/color requirements for visible arrays or rules about array height adjacent to neighbors), while others said ground-mounted primary-use solar arrays are unlikely in Monona and would require targeted review.
The commission asked staff to work with SolSmart to prepare draft zoning-language options that reflect the commission’s feedback (clarify rooftop allowances, address neighbor impacts, and include guidance on small ground-mounted arrays where appropriate). Zach said SolSmart can review draft language, suggest edits and provide templates (the Dane County model ordinance was provided as an attachment). Thor said staff will coordinate with Zach to prepare draft options for future commission review.
What the presentation does and does not do: SolSmart technical assistance is free to the city and focused on municipal processes and code clarity; SolSmart does not provide property-level accreditation or financial incentives. The PZ-1 review is a bronze-level prerequisite in the SolSmart framework and signing the PZ-1 acknowledgement documents that the review was received, not that Monona is legally committed to adopt every recommended change.
Next steps: Planning staff will work with the SolSmart advisor to draft targeted zoning amendments or a stand-alone solar ordinance for commission review. Staff will also confirm the Attorney Cole building-height determination referenced during the meeting and provide that memorandum to the commission.
