Belmont planning board recommends rule changes to allow ground-mounted solar, sends amendment to council

Belmont's Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended a text amendment on Feb. 20 that would add rules for commercial ground-mounted solar energy systems and streamline permitting for rooftop panels.

Chester, the staff presenter, said the amendment (petition TA22-4.03) was filed by applicant Pisa Energy and aims "to reduce the cost of ground mounted commercial scale ground mounted solar panel installations here in Belmont." He told the board the draft updates definitions across Chapter 2, creates a new Chapter 3.1.4 establishing class levels for solar energy systems, and consolidates placement, sizing and mechanical-equipment provisions under existing mechanical and accessory-structure rules rather than adding a new building type in Chapter 4.

Under the proposed structure, class 1 and class 2 systems would be accessory uses to a primary building; class 3 systems would be treated as essential services and limited to principal use where allowed, subject to a special-use permit in the ICD, BCD, SR and RR zoning districts. Chester said accessory solar would follow the same plan-review and development-review processes that apply to the building type on the parcel.

The staff draft also includes site standards intended to limit visual and environmental impacts. Chester told the board the maximum panel height in the revised draft was lowered to about 6 feet, structured equipment would be limited to one story, and setbacks were adjusted (the draft flips the previously proposed front/rear setbacks to 30 feet front, 15 feet rear, with a minimum 10-foot side setback). The amendment adds a required perimeter Type A buffer and requires applicants to submit a decommissioning plan and a connection/utility agreement as part of review. Chester said the proposal also requires compliance with a North Carolina statute and the NCDEQ stormwater manual cited in the presentation.

Board members pressed staff to clarify screening details (whether screening is intended to shield arrays as well as support equipment and how screening height relates to panel height). Staff said Type A buffers are typically 8'— to 10 feet in height and that design will seek to avoid shading the array while providing visual mitigation. Members also raised siting and parking questions; after discussion the board agreed to remove a strict requirement that parking be located at the rear of a site so that siting can respond to topography and access needs.

The board voted to accept staff's recommendation with drafting modifications (renumbering subparagraphs and deleting the strict rear-parking location requirement) on a motion by Neil, seconded by Steve, carried 5-0. The board then moved to approve the text amendment as modified and adopted a statement that the proposal is "reasonable and in the public interest and consistent with the city's land-use goals," a motion made by Committee member Matt, seconded by Neil, and carried 5-0. The board indicated it will forward the recommendation and the statement of consistency to City Council for the required public hearing and final action, expected in March.

Other business: staff distributed updated codes of ethics for board signatures and demonstrated features of the new CodePlus drafting software, including embedded hyperlinks to referenced manuals and definitions.

What happens next: the City Council will hold the public hearing and consider the amendment at a future meeting; the board's recommendation and statement of consistency accompany the item.