The Marion Planning Board tackled two tough topics on November 19, which was reflected in the late hour of the meeting’s adjournment.

The board first met with Sherman Briggs to continue the discussion about the Residence E project Briggs has proposed for his Spring Street property. At issue is the ability of the board to be flexible in the setback requirements for a portion of the property, where Briggs proposes reducing the setback from the required 20 feet to 10 feet.

Chairman Will Saltonstall posed the question to town counsel whose opinion was that it was not in the discretion of the Planning Board to negotiate reduced setbacks. If the board did give Briggs the consideration in a Special Permit, it could be grounds for the building department to turn down a building permit.

Saltonstall lamented that the board has been working hard to find a solution to the problem, and wondered if the solution lay in a conservation subdivision or with an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

While member Norm Hills acknowledged a conservation subdivision was a viable option to pursue for Briggs, he noted there was some risk to that avenue.

Member Chris Collings urged the board to “get this thing over the end zone.

“[This is the] kind of project we say we want to have,” Collings said. “No developer is going to come here if this is how it is.”

Despite being in favor of the project, many board members could not see a way to get over the hurdle of the setback requirement without going to the ZBA. Hills noted the Planning Board cannot make the decision and has no idea how the ZBA will rule.

Briggs, clearly frustrated, asked the board to articulate what hardship the ZBA can use to vote on the project. His hardship is the need for a 10-foot setback on the affordable component of his 27-unit project.

There are few abutters to the project, with a parking lot and the bike path on two sides, and Baldwin Brothers on the third side. Briggs asserted that he could put 42 units ‘by right’ on the site, and may need to return to that concept if he couldn’t get the number of units he is requesting.

Collings explained that the board was elected “because we make good decisions.” He continued, “[You] don’t need a board to follow the letter of the bylaw with inflexibility…”

Hills said the board must work within the framework of the bylaw, and town counsel should be consulted to help determine a solution.

Vice Chairman Steve Kokkins added, “Fortunately, or unfortunately, we don’t have the right to make up the law.”

The discussion was a bit heated as Saltonstall pushed back on the idea that 42 units were “set in stone” on this parcel, and observed that it takes movement from all sides to get a complex project done. Briggs responded, “The more you drive the 27 down: the closer I get to 42 units.”

The group agreed that Saltonstall should reach out to town counsel and the ZBA to discuss the issue. Collings closed by saying, “If we can’t work with this developer, I defy you to find one we can.”

At the continued public hearing for the 21-acre solar project at 78 Wareham Street, the representatives from ZPT Energy reviewed the information they had provided at the last meeting.

Brendan Gove, president of ZPT, reiterated to the board that if the town decided to enter into a community shared solar program, each town resident would receive a floating 10 percent reduction in their entire energy bill each month. This would be in addition to any reduction the town residents receive from the municipal aggregation program in which the town is already participating.

Residents would enter into a one-year contract with ZPT, which would automatically renew annually for 20 years, and from which a resident could opt out anytime with a six-month notice. Gove also reminded the board that ZPT would enter into a PILOT (Payment in lieu of taxes) program of $1,155,000.00, which could be paid in a lump sum (net present cash value) or be spread out over the 20-year period.

When asked by Collings what happens to the panels at year 21, Gove said he didn’t know – the panels lose 0.5 percent annual reduction in energy productivity. They may stay in production or be removed. Either way, there will be a bonded decommission plan.

Gove intends to retain ownership of the parcel for the 20 years, to which Collings acknowledged that the land would be very valuable by then. Gove noted that in the past four years, solar technology has increased by 40 percent the power production of panels. Gove explained his company’s business model as part of the reason he was interested in owning the land and possibly developing the town’s landfill solar array.

While town residents may enter into a contract with ZPT for energy generated by solar at other sites, the solar company does not have to sell to the town the energy it generates.

Hills acceded, though the board may have “dollar signs in our eyes,” the requirement of the bylaw was a major hurdle.

Member Andrew Daniel said he agreed with Hills that the bylaw, approved by Town Meeting, which prohibits large-scale tree clearing for a solar array, would be violated by this project.

“I don’t think we have the ability to override the Town,” said Daniel. “The people in town are from border to border. There are areas of the solar bylaw that we could work on.”

Kokkins wondered if it was the best use of the property, which is situated near a scenic waterway. He said he has heard from residents that the key to their voting for the solar bylaw was the prohibition for large-scale tree clearing for that purpose. Member Kristen Saint Don-Campbell agreed that without changing the bylaw, this project couldn’t move forward.

Collings commented that the bylaw was well intended, but flawed. He described the Town’s renewable energy efforts with electric cars and other small projects as “the small end of what we should be doing as a Green Community.”

“[I haven’t heard] alternatives how to get this revenue – $1.8 million to the town balanced against the conflict with the bylaw,” said Collings.

Saltonstall agreed with Daniel that the clearing on this project was large scale, and then opened the hearing up to the residents. Joseph Kairys, an abutter to the project, described to the board his concern that the project would disrupt the tranquility he enjoyed on his 10-acre parcel off Delano Road. His house would be located approximately 350 feet from the lithium ion storage batteries used to store energy from the solar array.

Kairys said he was told the sound from the batteries would be constant with a maximum of 85 decibels, equivalent to the sound of an idling bulldozer. Kairys believes this will disrupt his quality of life considerably.

Collings assured him that the board does not want this project to be a “downgrade” for anyone. Gove offered to take Kairys to their solar array in Mattapoisett to experience the sound of the batteries on that site.

Resident Ted North had presented a number of documents for the board’s review, and highlighted portions of them. He described the solar project as the “largest industrial project in town,” but it was located in a residential zone. Responding to the offer made by ZPT as part of the proposal to donate $10,000 to the town for tree planting, North exclaimed, “[There’s] nothing in the bylaw for tree-trading!” He reminded the board, “We are not here to solve their problem.”

The discussion returned to the question of “large-scale clearing,” with Gove pushing the board to articulate its definition. The board members surmised how they might define it, but were decidedly inconclusive on this issue. Despite Gove’s clear frustration, the board decided to continue the public hearing so that they may research the question and return with a more distinct explanation of the bylaw.

In other business, the board approved the Approval Not Required application for Julia E. Love at 387 County Road to create a two-lot subdivision on a 12.71-acre parcel, with frontage on Tucker Lane.

The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for December 3 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.

Marion Planning Board

By Sarah French Storer

The three Green Communities Act zoning articles on Rochester’s Special Town Meeting warrant all passed on November 19, which means Rochester is now ready to proceed towards Green Community designation.

Board of Selectmen Chairman Greenwood “Woody” Hartley was sure he had a presentation that would eliminate any doubt that Rochester should meet the requirements of a Green Community, having Planning Board Chairman Arnie Johnson and Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon prime the voters first on the basics of Article 2, the Ground-Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations Overlay District. This new overlay bylaw designates the Ryder Road capped town landfill as a by-right solar array farm district and downgrades the application process from a Special Permit to a Site Review Plan, while still holding the solar developer to the Town’s Solar Bylaw in all other areas, including screening, drainage, and decommissioning bonds.

Farinon described the financial benefits to the town, including funding for energy-related projects and infrastructure upgrades, which Farinon and a small committee that included Hartley, Johnson, Building Commissioner Jim Buckles, and Facilities Manager Andrew Daniel decided was worth exploring further.

“We do feel that it’s worthy of your consideration this evening,” Farinon said.

Hartley described the immediate financial benefits of the other 210 Massachusetts municipalities that sought and received a Green Community status and got their share of the $14,798,596 the governor has awarded to Green Community cities and towns as of July 2018.

“Every single department in this town benefits from this program,” said Hartley, listing off items like energy efficient water boilers and insulated windows. “We would be improving our infrastructure before it fails us,” while using less electricity, “And that’s a big thing,” he continued. Rochester Memorial School, for example, uses roughly $120,000 in electricity every year, and spends about $60,000 in heating alone.

“All of us will benefit if we are able to get access to this money,” said Hartley. “You are in fact putting money into this right now.”

As Hartley explained, Eversource customers pay a small tax on their bill that goes towards a fund the state in turn uses to fund Green Community grants.

“So if we don’t take our share, our neighbors will enjoy it,” said Hartley. “I’d just like to see us get out money back and put it back into our town.”

The article received the 2/3 vote required to pass, while a scant two or three voters voted ‘nay’.

Article 3 was similar, only this new bylaw, the Renewable or Alternative Energy Research and development facilities, or manufacturing Facilities Overlay District Bylaw, designated the existing Industrial Zone as an “as of right” site for clean energy research, excluding wind power. The bylaw also relaxes the permitting process from a Special Permit to a Site Plan review with the Planning Board.

The article easily passed, with one lonely ‘nay’.

Article 4, the Stretch Energy Code Bylaw, was referred to as “the third leg of the stool” by Planning Board member Ben Bailey before an impassioned speech that, although he recommended the bylaw, at times sounded ambiguous, especially while he chastised the state for the “overreach of the government.”

The article, as Hartley introduced it, “Is very, very close to what our current building codes are now.”

“Not a stretch to meet anymore,” Hartley continued. “Many of the homes being built in Rochester are already being built to this code.”

But despite that, Bailey fixated on the “principle involved here,” as the energy utilities are “forced to pay tariffs” on the “supposedly bad carbon-based” energy they produce. He criticized the state’s practice of “skimming” off the tax and redistributing the money as it sees fit.

During his diatribe, Bailey went on a tangent about a tax on red meat (an idea only recently raised in the result of a UK study performed by the University of Oxford) and likened it to the tax on electricity that funds the Green Communities grants.

“I want to fight back, and I want to stop it,” said Bailey. But, he continued, “If you kick this leg out from under the stool, we don’t become a Green Community. And I don’t think we should [kick the leg out]. I think we should send the state a message.”

Next, Bailey asked what the townspeople would be “putting on the line” if they didn’t adopt the Stretch Code. His answer: $45.45 per person in Rochester ($249,975).

“If you vote to do this yet you disagree with the principle of the government taxing us on what we must do (buy electricity),” Bailey continued, identifying himself as a man from Lexington, Mass., where the American Revolution started, “Then for $45.45 you’ve done less than those people in Lexington did with their lives.”

“It’s great to make a statement,” said Hartley, “it’s great to make a point. I don’t think we’re going to start a revolution tonight.”

Town Clerk and former selectman Naida Parker said she appreciated Bailey’s position about taxation, but added, “But the place to fight the battle is in the legislature. …To turn this down is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. If we choose to not participate in the program, then that money will go to other communities.”

Resident Amy Johnson said, “The thing to realize is that is tax goes for the energy that we use, and I think a lot of us realize that climate change – we’re in the middle of climate change. [The Green Communities program] is beneficial to us, not only to get our taxes back … but to try to maintain a cleaner, safer environment.”

The article passed, with six or seven ‘nays’ that followed one loud collective ‘aye’.

Other articles that passed:

Article 1 to amend the zoning bylaws by re-numbering the headings sections and amend certain non-zoning bylaw sections by re-numbering them.

Article 5 to amend the Zoning Bylaws Multi-Family to allow new constructions and conversions of multi-family houses without a Special Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as long as they conform to lot size, setbacks, and frontage designated for two-, three-, and other multi-family houses.

Article 6 to amend the Accessory Structure Dimensional table. This article generated some confusion amongst voters, especially those who have multiple “sheds” and chicken coops on their properties. Language that read “no more than two structures per lot” as it pertains to not being used for animals was struck via an amendment to the article. Some voters were concerned about how residents might house animals and chickens if these structures were not allowed, and an article to amend the bylaw very well could appear on the warrant of the next Annual Town Meeting.

Article 7 to amend the Zoning Bylaw to insert a definition of “Temporary Storage Unit” and regulations that restrict front yard temporary structures to no more than seven consecutive days, not to exceed three times per year.

Article 8 to amend the zoning bylaw by adding a section “A” titled “Guiding Principle” that reads: “Preserve the rural nature of Rochester while maintaining residential growth and value in a manner that is consistent with the Town’s Master Plan and Right to Farm By-law.”

A part “B” was also added titled “Specific Objectives” that reads: “1. Encourage and protect the agricultural interests; 2. Maintain residential housing growth consistent with a rural environment; 3. Accommodate in-home family businesses; 4. Allow diverse options that can promote open space; 5. Protect wildlife habitats.

Article 9 to amend the General Regulations Section XI H. Boats by inserting “A temporary waiver may be issued to allow use of combustion engine boats for scientific or environmental purposes as approved by the Board of Selectmen provided appropriate safeguards are in place,” on Snows Pond and Mary’s Pond.

Article 10 to appropriate $18,000 to fund the update of VISION software, hardware, and/or storage services for the ongoing valuation of property.

Article 11 to appropriate $10,000 to hire a grant writer/consultant to provide grant-writing services to the Town.

Rochester Special Town Meeting

By Jean Perry

Developers of a proposed solar energy project on Sarah Sherman Road will have to abide by the 100-foot property setbacks of the solar bylaw and reconfigure its placement of solar arrays after the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals on November 8 denied Clean Energy Collective’s request for setback relief.

According to Greg Carey from CEC, the variance would have allowed the 7-acre project to be built on the 21-acre parcel at a location less visible to nearby residences along Sarah Sherman Road and Alley Road. It would also scale down the area of solar arrays by about 25 percent as opposed to siting the solar field in another area with more visibility requiring more extensive screening.

Carey described CEC’s proposed 1-megawatt “community solar” project as an opportunity to offer a renewable energy option to residents in the community that for any given reason are unable to access renewable energy such as solar. The project he said, has been in the planning stage for over a year now, producing several layout options with this one resulting in a more financially feasible plan along with the benefit of mitigating the visual impact on the neighborhood.

The Conservation has issued an Order of Conditions for the site in regards to its proximity to the wetlands, Carey stated, adding that this plan would potentially avoid some concerns the Planning Board has held in past solar project approvals.

Clean Energy Collective has already developed two other solar farms in Rochester on Perry’s Lane and Mattapoisett Road, both of which needed Planning Board approval.

“One of the biggest issues that we’ve faced with the Planning Board members is the visibility of the solar project, particularly from the main roads and from residential abutters,” said Carey. “So when we looked at this site, we tried to find an area of the site that was the most remote, most removed from Sarah Sherman Road and least visible, if you will. We came up with a plan that tried to move the solar array … as far away from Sarah Sherman Road as possible.”

The only abutting property owner that would be affected, Carey said, is Ed Ashley whose adjacent 150 acres consist mainly of agricultural land and bogs.

Ashley submitted a letter endorsing the variance that would allow solar arrays 40, 65, and 50 feet from the west, south, and east sides, respectively.

“I support the efforts to build clean renewable energy in Rochester and I urge the ZBA to approve CEC’s application,” Ashley wrote in the letter that ZBA Chairman Richard Cutler read aloud.

In order to receive a variance, the petitioner must satisfy the three requirements, which includes demonstrating a financial hardship. That hardship, explained Evan Watson of Prime Engineering, is that the northern section of the land – the site that would abide by the solar bylaw’s 100-foot setback minimum – is less accommodating for solar as it is sloped and more vegetated and would decrease the solar energy generating capacity because of shading, making the project less financially lucrative.

“If we use the southern area for racking, we can use less area than we would’ve used if we used the 100-foot setback throughout the whole site,” Watson stated.

Furthermore, Carey added, “Because of the issue with screening, … the more you move it east the more visible it’s going to become.”

“It’s very rare for these solar projects to come before the ZBA,” said Cutler, “because most of the time they’re very large pieces of property and there are no setback requirements.”

After some questions from board members and abutters, the board closed the pubic hearing and debated the issue. ZBA member David Arancio was the first to give his opinion, prompting other board members to agree with him.

“I think it’s pretty clear,” said Arancio. “I understand what the applicant is trying to obtain. I believe that the town has had numerous projects that have become before the Planning Board and there’s a reason why the bylaw was instituted, and I understand that the [Ashley] property … is not being used as residential, but … I believe that the intent of the bylaw was for the best intent for the town as a whole and this is a commercial venture, it is not a residential venture, and I believe that if they have the means to stay within the 100-foot setback, they should try to achieve that.”

ZBA member Kirby Gilmore concurred, saying, “I agree with David. I don’t think that … has met the standard – the second standard in respect to financial hardship. … [To] maximize profits doesn’t qualify as a substantial hardship.”

For ZBA member Tom Flynn, “I think solar projects are great, but … tonight, as a ZBA, we need to enforce the bylaw and we need to apply the standard that is the law in Massachusetts and I don’t believe that the petitioner has met the standard for substantial hardship.”

Also, added Cutler, “This is a self-created hardship that’s being presented to us, and it does look like it’s being shoehorned into the site.”

“I feel for the abutters,” said ZBA member Davis Sullivan. “As concealed as the site is, they still have concerns with access roads, rights of way, property values, so I’d be inclined to agree….”

The board denied the variance in a unanimous vote.

Also during the meeting, the public hearing for a variance for Eric and Sue Morad, 552 Snipatuit Road, was continued until December 13 so that town counsel could assist the board in drafting a decision that would satisfy all of the board’s concerns.

The Morads want to build a 1,000 square-foot accessory structure in excess of the size allowed by the zoning bylaw, which would eventually be converted into a single-family house. The original house would be demolished as no lot may contain two houses. Furthermore, the new structure would be built behind an existing barn; therefore, once the new structure was converted into a house, it would be located behind the barn, and the bylaw prohibits accessory structures to be located in front of a dwelling.

Morad explained that he needed to execute the plan in this way in order to avoid a second mortgage. He said he and his wife would move into the new structure and the current house, which is only ten feet from the road, would be removed.

“Town counsel suggests [to] put something in there about the time frame and … a time limit,” said Cutler. He later added, “In this case, I think the stipulations can be rather interesting.”

The board preferred to have town counsel draft a decision that could encompass all the relief the Morads are seeking, with Flynn stating, “I would much rather give them a decision that’s going to allow them to accomplish what they want.”

The next meeting of the Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for December 13 at 7:30 pm at the Rochester Town Hall.

Rochester Zoning Board of Appeals

By Jean Perry