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