Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board debates construction bond and release rules for large-scale solar projects
Summary
Readfield Planning Board discussed proposed solar-ordinance bond language, including when security must be posted, a 60‑day cure period for violations, whether release should require both planning-board signoff and a certificate of use, and setting financial security on a per‑project basis.
Readfield Planning Board members spent substantial time reviewing proposed solar‑ordinance bond language, focusing on how and when the town may draw on financial security if developers fail to meet approval conditions and on procedures for releasing bonds.
The board reviewed language making construction security a condition of approval for large and medium ground‑mounted solar installations. A primary point of debate was the timing the town should allow an applicant to remedy violations before accessing bond funds. "If the applicant doesn't do something ... they have 60 days to fix it," a member said, describing the draft's default cure period; members discussed whether the town should retain discretion to extend that timeframe in particular cases.
Why it matters: For large solar projects, bonding language defines financial assurance the town may use to ensure project completion, required plantings, screening and corrections to any plan nonconformities. Bond terms affect developer incentives, enforcement options and the town's leverage to secure final compliance.
Key points of discussion:
- Cure period and enforcement: The draft gives the applicant 60 days after written notice to correct violations; if the applicant fails, the town "may" draw on the financial security. Members favored keeping flexibility so the town can negotiate alternative remediation timeframes in appropriate cases.
- Release triggers: Members sought clarity on linking bond release to written confirmation from the code‑enforcement officer and to a planning‑board determination. One board member suggested adding certificate‑of‑use language so the bond is not released until the planning board has approved final completion and a certificate of use has been issued.
- Per‑project security: Members agreed it was appropriate for the planning board to determine the amount of financial security with respect to each project rather than setting a single universal amount.
- Decommissioning and performance: Members noted state decommissioning rules and utility agreements provide additional protections; the board debated whether to add separate performance‑bond language but concluded the state and utility requirements already create significant performance obligations.
What comes next: The presenter will incorporate the board's suggested edits to the solar bond and ordinance language and circulate a revised draft for another review; the board anticipated sending the language to the town manager and scheduling a public hearing if the board reaches consensus.
