A solar farm, with 3,520 solar panels comprising four and a half acres on a six-acre parcel, off County Road, was brought before the Marion Planning Board on Monday evening. Doug Schneider of Doug Schneider & Associates, representing Dale and Laura Briggs, said he wanted to ‘get the ball rolling’ on the proposed energy project.
Chairman Jay Ryder told the applicant that Marion has no by-laws on the books that address the type of business being proposed.
“There is nothing in the ‘use table’ portion of the by-law that addresses this situation,” said Ryder.
The board agreed that the issue needs to be resolved and that a by-law proposal would be created and brought before town residents at town meeting in the fall of 2012.
Several board members were positive in their comments and said that the location was ideal for the project and that abutters were onboard with the proposal.
After much discussion, board member Ted North said that the current by-laws do address the zoning area of the proposed solar farm.
“This is an industrial project in a residential area…and we should reject the proposal based on that fact alone,” said North. Dale Briggs spoke briefly and said that cranberry bogs surrounded the area.
“Isn’t that a commercial operation?” asked Briggs. The board replied that bogs were grandfathered because they were there prior to the zoning by-laws being created in Marion.
A community member, Steve Grima said that when a town isn’t able to address the issue, the state law would prevail.
“Chapter 40A addresses this issue…if the town doesn’t have by-laws in place, the state laws could apply,” said Grima.
Schneider and the applicants expressed concern about shelving the project until the fall when a by-law proposal would be on the warrant. “We want to move forward…not stand still until October,” said Mr. Schneider.
“You need to know that if you proceed, it is at your own risk,” said Mr. North.
The board determined that Chairman Jay Ryder would meet with town counsel Jon Witten, along with the applicant and his representative and discuss the project and how Chapter 40A might come into play. Chairman Ryder suggested the town use an engineer who has experience in solar projects to represent the town in the discussions.
Ryder said that he would report to board members via e-mail about his discussions with the applicant and Jon Witten. The board agreed to put the issue on the agenda for the next meeting on June 4.
Gregory Driscoll of Holmgren Engineering presented plans for a proposed subdivision in Indian Cove.. Driscoll’s plans showed a cul-du-sac with two lots which straddle the town line between Marion and Mattapoisett. The board previously approved the subdivision of one lot into two conforming lots, which are 2.3 and 2.19 acre each.
Magauran suggested that the proposed additional cul-du-sac might not be necessary, as there is an existing cul-du-sac on the property to provide for the turnaround required for emergency vehicles such a fire truck or ambulance. It was also indicated that the Thomas Joyce, Marion’s Fire Chief would review the plans for approval regarding emergency vehicle access.
In other business, the board discussed the Johnson Family Trust, 806 Mill Street, which is the former Frigate Restaurant property on Route 6. A review of the newly submitted plans showed that the applicant has added an ice cream window.
“This isn’t the same plan that was approved earlier,” said Ryder.
The board voted to make no comment to the Zoning Board of Appeals based on the fact that the plans had been altered from the original application.
By Joan Hartnett-Barry
Are they really going to hold up the project over an ice cream window? Are you guys serious? It’s an ice cream window!!! What is wrong with you people? Why is it that everytime a business comes into town that it becomes a big debate? Why can’t business’s come into town without BS? Why is it that the these boards can’t accept change? This is the new economy that we all live in, and you guys are going to stop a revenue generating business over an ice cream window? You all should be fired!
The Rochester Planning Board is currently discussing solar panels. We have concerns about the impact of the panels should the site be abandoned. The problem is this. An economic analysis of solar panels quickly shows that there is no economic justification for these installations without substantial Government subsidization. For example, the installation currently under construction at the New Bedford Water Works site in Rochester has a payback period of 60 years. The applicant in that installation agreed that the project would not be considered without the props provided by the government.
As governments are learning, the subsidies to solar energy are not paying off. Look at the massive losses and bankruptcies in the industry, all funded by taxpayer dollars.
There is growing pressure on government to end the wasteful subsidies.
The economic justification, while a concern to all taxpayers, is not a matter for the Planning Board, but what happens to the installed solar panels when the subsidies are cancelled is a real concern. These HUGE arrays of panels are displacing natural areas. They block surface water from rainfall, may involve extensive clear cutting and if abandoned, are a mechanical hazard. Children especially will be drawn to such sites where they will be at risk of injury and laceration.
The solar installations will not operate for the sixty years required to recover the investment. Generous estimates put the life of current equipment at twenty years. If a solar installation has to fall back on private economic support, the return will not pay for the upkeep, and that may lead to abandonment.
In Rochester we are working to craft a bylaw that addresses the requirement of the owner to dismantle and remove the installation if it is decommissioned and not maintained. We are exploring the possibility of requiring a bond to cover the cost that would be born by the Town if the installation is abandoned.
Marion and all communities would be well advised to consider the potential for adverse consequences when commercial enterprises require the artificial support provided by Government subsidy. Sadly, the free market will step in to unburden these economically unjustifiable nuisances.
Furthermore, landowners who are by their own designs, or as a result of the many solicitations made by the promoters of these taxpayer funded solar schemes, should consider the wisdom and the justice of participating in an economically unfeasible enterprise by which they will be enriched at their neighbor’s expense.
Bendrix Bailey, Member, Rochester Planning Board.