Cumberland council tables proposed limits on residential ground‑mounted solar after extensive public hearing

The Cumberland Town Council on Feb. 10 voted to table proposed amendments to Chapter 232 (solar energy systems) of the Cumberland Code of Ordinances after a lengthy public hearing that produced sharply divided views on height limits, setbacks and how to define “commercial” vs. “residential” solar.

The ordinance committee had drafted a sliding‑scale approach to setbacks and a 24‑foot maximum height for ground‑mounted systems. Under the draft, a system up to 10 feet tall would require a 15‑foot setback; 11–19 feet would require a 30‑foot setback; and systems 20–24 feet tall would require a 45‑foot setback. The draft also said rooftop solar may be as tall as the host building and would prohibit commercial solar as defined in the draft, limiting installations to systems devoted primarily to on‑site use.

The changes were introduced by the ordinance committee as a response to neighborhood complaints about a recently installed array. Ordinance Committee chair (name not provided in the record) told the council the committee sought a workable balance: “a sliding scale, if you will, further away from the property line, the more height you would have,” and described the draft as a working document open to revision.

Public testimony split the room. Ryan Keith, a solar project representative from Durham, urged the council to allow taller trackers, saying modern residential tracking systems require more height to function as designed: “The 24‑foot height is basically going to disallow these arrays in Cumberland. We need a 35‑foot height max, so that I can put up arrays, and these arrays can be installed by other companies in the town.” He described performance gains of some tracker systems — including examples of 24‑panel and larger 48‑panel trackers — and said some manufacturers’ recommended clearances and winter tilt angles effectively require heights near 35 feet in some site conditions.

By contrast, nearby homeowner Justin Levesque, who lives “near the tracker in question,” called the proposed language “a great compromise,” adding that the setback figures are “very generous” and that the 24‑foot cap would still allow many small‑ and mid‑sized trackers to be used by property owners.

A resident who identified his address as 135 Tuttle described installing a larger unit to meet his household needs and objected to the idea that neighbors’ dislike of a view should determine what a property owner may install. He said the single larger unit met his needs better than multiple smaller arrays and noted that surplus production flows back to the grid for use by other ratepayers.

Several council members sought more technical data before finalizing rules. Councilor Denise said she had not been at the ordinance committee meeting and called the draft “a rough draft” that needs “more research data” on common pole‑mounted heights, screening options and how other municipalities regulate trackers. Councilor Bailey Douglas and others asked for clarity on why the committee selected the particular setback and height numbers and whether the town should base limits on production or panel counts rather than a single height metric.

Town staff and other councilors pointed to practical zoning precedents and engineering tradeoffs. The town manager and staff noted that setbacks for most structures vary by zone and that the ordinance treats a solar installation as a structure for setback purposes. Proponents of stricter limits said the 24‑foot cap keeps systems low enough to reduce visual and shadow impacts to neighbors; supporters of higher limits argued that modern tracker design and the engineering needs for winter tilt and wind loads mean some residential systems function only at greater heights.

After extended discussion about technical standards, screening and whether the council should define “commercial” by output, production or use, the council voted to table the draft to allow more study. The motion to table carried unanimously; council members discussed asking the Lands and Conservation Committee (LCC) and the town’s sustainability advisers to review model language and height/production standards, and to have staff and the ordinance committee return with a revised draft.

What’s next: The council tabled the item for further study and directed staff and the ordinance committee to gather additional data, including model ordinances, manufacturer specifications, and possible screening or production‑based definitions to distinguish large commercial arrays from residential systems. The ordinance committee and interested advisory committees were asked to report back to the council for future consideration.

Votes and formal action: The council’s formal action on the item was to table the proposed amendments; the motion to table was carried by voice vote and recorded as unanimous.

Ending: The tabling preserves the current rules while the council and staff pursue more technical guidance and additional public input. If the committee returns with a revised draft, the council will schedule another public hearing before any final vote.