Brunswick zoning board grants variances for Cranston Road solar array despite neighbor objections

The Town of Brunswick Zoning Board of Appeals voted Aug. 18 to grant two area variances allowing a ground‑mounted solar array at 34 Cranston Road to be sited 20 feet from the side and rear property lines, five feet short of the 25‑foot setback required by the zoning code.

The applicant described a roughly 30‑by‑20‑foot, fixed ground‑mounted array supported on six posts; the installer said panels will be angled to face south with a maximum pitch height of about 11 feet. Board members said the requested reduction in the rear and side setbacks was minimal and noted the property is in a district where ground‑mounted residential solar is an allowed use, with the application seeking only setback relief.

Neighbors raised concerns about visibility, tree removal and neighborhood character. Karen Pascuchi of 2 Benberry said she opposed the array’s appearance and urged the board to require screening or placement out of view: "We don't want to see silver panels ... it devalues the property of our house," she said. The applicant and the installer said they aimed to preserve most vegetation, that two to three 30‑foot trees would likely be removed to prevent shading, and that the array will be set back roughly 50 to 100 feet from Cranston Road.

Doug McLaren, who identified himself as a solar educator with East West Electric and the project installer, told the board he prefers ground mounts to roof installations because "the ground mount, however, is the best way to put up solar panels in my opinion" and argued ground mounts reduce roof‑leak risk and can be sited to lessen visual impact.

Board attorney Andrew Gilchrist explained that the Brunswick zoning law permits residential ground‑mounted solar in the applicable zoning district and that the application requests relief only from specific setback requirements. After deliberation on the statutory variance criteria — character of the neighborhood, feasibility of alternatives, substantiality of the variance, environmental effects and self‑creation — a motion to grant the two variances was made and approved by voice vote. The motion and vote were recorded in the meeting minutes; the transcript records the action but does not provide a roll‑call tally.

The board advised the applicant to continue coordinating with the building department on permitting and site details. The applicant was also asked to update the application to reflect clarifications the board requested about array posts and the cross‑section view shown to the board.

What happens next: The variances were granted and the applicant will proceed with building‑department reviews and required permits.