Applicants Terry Buckley and Gail Cullen were denied in their attempt to gain approval for a ground-mounted solar array reaching up to 10 feet high at their 6 Derby Lane home.
Their request for a variance at the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals’ May 25 public meeting was deliberated and rejected with votes from members Margie Baldwin, Dana Nilson, Will Tifft and Chairperson Cynthia Callow. Associate member Danielle Engwert’s was the lone dissenting vote in a 4-1 decision.
Theoretically, a variance could have be granted pursuant to Section 230-2.2 of the Zoning Bylaws had the following four conditions been met as laid out by Callow prior to the public hearing: owing to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of land or structures, affecting those land or structures but generally not affecting the zone in which the project is located; that enforcement would result in substantial hardship financial or otherwise; that desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good; and without nullifying from the intent or purpose of the ordinance or bylaw.
In presenting the case remotely via Zoom, the applicant’s representative, Christina D’Alessandro, project manager at SunVolt Solar, told the board that the 10-foot height is recommended for optimum solar production. A change to 6 feet, she said, would cause between 10% and 20% decrease in solar production over the next 10 years.
Nilson sought a more thorough explanation of the science calling for 10 feet in height rather than 6 feet. D’Alessandro explained that the applicant’s property is vulnerable to flooding.
The property owner told the board that the greenhouse at the site has not been flooded but that water congregates from surrounding properties especially in early spring. Later in the meeting, she would show board members photos of her yard.
After clarifying that the solar array is planned for ground approximating the same grade as the land where the greenhouse sits, Nilson said he is baffled by the need for 4 feet of flood protection. The issue of flooding gave way to the challenge of tree obstruction.
Building Commissioner Bob Grillo, in attendance at the meeting, said he has not permitted a ground-mounted solar project since his hire in Marion, but he said the project being vetted on May 25 was among five that he had received phone calls to discuss variances for height.
“So I think that the 6 feet is an issue because none of the other ones got built,” he said. “The same specific question was posed: ‘Can we go higher than 6 feet?’ And I said it would require a variance.”
Baldwin said there are many ground-mounted installations in town built only to the 6-foot maximum. “It makes me a little ill at ease to just say, ‘You need more solar so raise it?'”
“If there’s a problem with the bylaw, that’s a separate issue,” said Nilson.
“I don’t think that’s for us to decide,” said Baldwin, who asked if the array could be placed in the middle of the lot to alleviate angular obstructions from the sun. D’Alessandro said that would not solve the problem.
Tifft said, “I don’t think it’s our place, the Zoning Board of Appeals, to overturn what the town has voted on and what the advisory of the laws are there to do, particularly if this looks like the first of what is going to be an onslaught. The precedence here really worries me. We are in effect taking on a role that is not our role in this case.”
Callow countered that point by rhetorically asking why have a ZBA.
ZBA associate member Tucker Burr, whose vote would not be needed on this case, said the solar bylaw, revised in 2021, was “not super well written.” Nonetheless, he insisted that the fact the 6-foot maximum was voted by two-thirds majority at Town Meeting is the only relevant fact for the application of the bylaw. Otherwise, he asserted, the dissenting voters could join the ZBA and nullify that vote.
Engwert said the board could theoretically override the bylaw by granting a variance. She suggested the board concentrate on the four requirements for the variance sought.
The applicant noted that the neighbors expressed no issues with the plan, but the membership at large felt that the case for a variance was not compelling.
The next meeting of the Marion Zoning Board of Appeals was not announced at adjournment.
Marion Zoning Board of Appeals
By Mick Colageo