Planning Board reviews draft changes to utility-scale solar ordinance, debates 400-foot setback and stormwater rules

The Planning Board reviewed a new draft of the town's utility-scale solar facility (USSF) ordinance and discussed several substantive changes including a lower trigger size, new application requirements, larger setbacks and stricter stormwater and emergency-response provisions.

The proposal presented by planner Melanie (contract planner, KV COG) would lower the size at which a project is classified as a utility-scale facility to 0.04 megawatts from 0.10. Melanie said, "the maximum size for utility scale, it would trigger at 0.04 megawatts instead of point 10." The draft also adds or clarifies application materials: an operations and maintenance plan, a construction plan and timeline, a stormwater management plan, and a requirement that financial assurance be available before construction begins rather than tied to the end of the facility's useful life.

Board members focused much of the debate on setback language. The draft changes the minimum setback from 100 feet to 400 feet measured from existing residential dwelling structures. Several board members raised concerns about how that measurement would work in practice and whether it could be gamed by adding an accessory dwelling unit to a parcel. One proposal that drew support among members was combining the two approaches: require 400 feet from existing residential dwelling structures and a 250-foot minimum from adjacent property lines so that a future house owner could not be unduly constrained by placement of a neighboring solar array.

Members and staff also discussed other substantive technical and community-protection items in the draft: - Erosion and topsoil controls: the draft adds requirements for topsoil preservation and erosion control; board members said recent clearing at a Norwalk Avenue project underscored the need to require seeding or stabilization after construction. - Stormwater: the draft requires a licensed engineer's certification that post-construction infiltration rates equal pre-construction rates. Board members said this is a challenging standard in many local soils and suggested watershed-specific standards and geotechnical evidence; staff said they would pursue grant funding to get watershed assessments. - Emergency services: the draft adds requirements for emergency‑vehicle turnarounds and coordination with the fire department. Board members discussed whether the ordinance should require written approval from the fire chief or designee and whether developers should provide firefighting foam and training to the fire department. One board member said the developer for a recent project agreed to supply foam and training "so that is the agreement that they came up with," though that agreement was not described as a formal, written impact fee in the draft. - Construction controls and mitigation: draft language would limit on-site construction hours, cap on-site vehicle speed at 5 miles per hour to limit dust, require screening and buffering, and prefer placing on-site transmission lines underground (with a waiver available from the Planning Board). - Preservation of town character: the draft contains a proposed clause directing the board to require "reasonable efforts as determined by the planning board" to make projects consistent with town character. Several members said that phrasing is vague and could give the board broad, subjective discretion; one member recommended removing or substantially tightening the language and consulting the town attorney before adopting it. - Notification and fees: staff noted current abutter notification goes to properties within roughly 500 feet and that some visually affected property owners fall outside that radius. The board discussed expanding notification to 1,000 feet for view impacts and confirmed developers pay postage for mailed notices; staff estimated postage and ancillary costs at roughly $100'$150 on average and suggested charging a modest administrative fee for staff time to prepare mailings.

Board members agreed on process steps rather than final adoption: staff will prepare a revised draft incorporating the edits discussed, consult with the town attorney on the zoning/character language, and return to the board with a second round of edits. The board discussed soliciting input from past and prospective solar applicants and holding a public hearing after the summer to collect public comment before forwarding the ordinance to the town meeting process.

The board did not take a formal vote on the ordinance at this meeting; members directed staff to revise the draft and bring it back for additional review and a planned public hearing.

The Planning Board also asked staff to research several follow-up items before the next meeting, including: specific legal precedents on limiting site numbers and setbacks; watershed analyses and potential grant funding; and draft language for fire-department approval and for impact/maintenance funds so that any payments are designated and not simply placed in general funds.

Looking ahead, staff said they would circulate a revised text and suggested that the board consider a public hearing this fall that would also be shared directly with prior solar applicants so developers and neighbors may comment in advance.