To the Editor:
The Planning Board (PB) will be voting soon on new solar bylaws in preparation of the Annual Town Meeting. We urge the Board to incorporate major changes and encourage townspeople to attend the hearing on March 8th at 7 p.m.
While the intention is a good one, the proposed bylaw would allow solar installations of unlimited size in many parts of town including residential neighborhoods. This could change the entire character of the Town, conflicting with the Master Plan.
Regarding renewable energy, the Master Plan states:
“But energy production occupies land and thus competes with housing, businesses, agricultural, and open space and recreational uses. Objectors…cite concerns about aesthetics, compensation, property values, property rights, public health and safety. A balance must be struck between these concerns and costs and benefits to the property owner, to the tax base, and to meeting regional energy needs.”
- If we want to be self-sufficient in renewable energy, then we have already achieved about 70 percent of our goal. (Existing solar installations in town currently generate approximately 5 megawatts of the 7 solar megawatts needed to cover our 3,500 homes.)
- We should consider other factors such as the effect on the character of residential neighborhoods, historic areas, rural landscapes, farmland and forestland as well as on property values.
- We should limit the number and size of installations.
It is not sufficient to limit solar proposals by giving the Planning Board broad discretion to allow or deny any proposal under a special permit application. Allowing the Board to grant a special permit to an industrial scale solar project, especially in residential zones, would set a terrible precedent. This authority would create unnecessary uncertainty for current and future residents.
The broad and balanced goals reflected in our current zoning bylaws should determine what should be allowed in any new solar bylaw. We SHOULD NOT use the discretionary “Special Permit” mechanism as the main method for determining how our neighborhoods should be shaped.
Technology is rapidly changing. Powerful solar roof tiles are expected to be commercially available within two years. They would be indistinguishable from conventional tiles. Thus, technology displacement and abandonment should be addressed.
Attorney Ira Kaplan, who attended the last meeting, read guidelines for model solar bylaws from the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources Department that encourage placement of solar arrays on roofs, over parking lots and on distressed lands such as Brownfields and NOT on fertile farmland or forests.
The proposed guidelines do not reflect these State guidelines.
We applaud the decision of the Planning Board to reconsider the effects of the solar bylaw but have not yet seen the revisions. As of February 23rd, the proposal allows the following in residential areas, and recommendations are noted below:
- Solar Roof-mounted (any size). Would be allowed “by right”. 
- INDIVIDUAL scale (currently defined as anything up to 1,750 sq. ft.), “by right”. 
- SMALL scale (up to 4,000 sq. ft.). Allowed at the discretion of the PB. 
- MEDIUM scale (up to 40,000 sq. ft. which is 1 acre). Can be installed at the discretion of the PB in the R3 and R4 areas and on any lot larger than 5 acres. 
- LARGE scale (larger than 1 acre) can be installed at the discretion of PB in the R2 and R4 areas and on any lot larger than 5 acres. There is no limit on the maximum size of these industrial solar installations. 
 Reasonable, but a size limitation should be considered.
 Ground-mounted panels should NOT be allowed in residential zones as 1,750 square feet is the size of a house.
 This should be reviewed with a cautious eye as they conflict with open space, aesthetics, property values and agricultural resources. We could inadvertently convert our residential communities into industrial zones.
Consideration beyond solar power generation should be reflected in any new solar bylaw so that the largest installations are limited to industrial zones.
Sharon Gregory, Patricia Ryan, and Gabrielle Senza