Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Interpretation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Webster zoning board interprets Montante Solar as industrial-use matter, not a residential special-use permit
Summary
After hearing legal argument and public comment, the Zoning Board of Appeals determined a large-scale solar application for the Montante project should be reviewed under industrial-use rules rather than a special-use permit required for residential districts; the board voted in favor of that interpretation and acknowledged related statute-of-limitations questions.
The Town of Webster Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday issued an interpretation that the Montante solar proposal located at 139 Caracas Drive falls under industrial-use permitting rather than the special-use permit process that applies to large-scale solar in residential districts.
An appellant—ounsel (identified in the record as Mr. Hanna) urged the board to consider whether the town—oard nnouncement or an internal email started the 60-day clock for filing appeals and whether the matter was properly classified. Mr. Hanna argued an announcement and incomplete materials do not constitute the filing that triggers the statute of limitations and asked the board to focus on the merits of the zoning interpretation.
Board members reviewed materials available on the town website, including a June 30 application and related documents, and discussed whether the application before the town board was legally sufficient. Several board members noted a partial application had been posted and that site plans and additional materials were preliminary. The board lso reviewed relevant Town Code chapters cited aloud at the meeting: chapter 155-6 (large-scale solar) and 350-22 (industrial use).
One board member summarized the interpretation motion by citing the plain language of chapter 155-6: "A large scale solar energy system are permitted through the issuance of a special use permit within all residential districts," and argued that the industrial district language does not contain the same specific special-use requirement. The motion the chair put to the board concluded that, "based on 155-6 ... a large scale solar energy system can be installed in the industrial use site without the special use permit application process." The motion passed by majority vote after a roll call.
Public comment at the meeting included neighbors who said they were concerned about proximity to the site and potential environmental risk. Jared Burchard, a resident who said his home is adjacent to the proposed panels, urged the board to require the more detailed special-use review because of concerns that part of the site is on or near contaminated ground and because extensive tree removal was proposed: "I have not heard the word toxic, which is what that industrial permit is allowing you to put a solar farm on toxic waste," he told the board. The board did not make technical factual findings about contamination during the hearing.
The board's interpretation is an administrative reading of the town code and is limited to the permitting pathway; it does not resolve any separate regulatory or environmental review that other agencies (or courts) might undertake. The matter also generated discussion about the potential for judicial review should parties challenge the board's timeliness determinations.
The board moved on to other business after the vote; the town's planning and permitting processes and any outstanding environmental determinations remain available as separate review steps.
