Planning Commission Advises Against Developer’s Ordinance For Utility Scale Solar
At their February 26 meeting, the Charlestown Planning Commission voted unanimously to send an advisory against the proposed ordinance for utility scale solar development to the Charlestown Town Council.
State law mandates that a town’s zoning ordinance allow developers to make proposals to amend the town’s zoning ordinance or zoning map. On January 27, Freepoint Solar LLC submitted a zoning text amendment to the Charlestown Town Council. State law requires that the Town Council hold a public hearing on the text amendment within 45 days and that they request an advisory opinion from the Planning Commission before that hearing. The Town Council will open that public hearing at their March 9th meeting.
Commercial production of electricity is currently a prohibited use in Charlestown and will require changes to the Comprehensive Plan to support this type of land use and then changes to the Zoning Ordinance in compliance with those Comprehensive Plan changes.
After reviewing the zoning text amendment to allow utility scale solar development across the northern section of Charlestown, members of the Planning Commission made the following observations:
- The current Charlestown Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate commercial solar energy development and would have to be amended before a zoning ordinance for solar can be written.
- The current Charlestown Comprehensive Plan does have many policies dealing with protection of forest and farmland, the distinction of zoning districts, and maintaining different densities of development and these are not addressed in the zoning text amendment.
- The proposed 2020 Comprehensive Plan has not been approved or even discussed yet, but this text amendment also does not comply with the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
- The proposed Comprehensive Plan does contemplate commercial solar, but only allows limits of disturbance for solar which are not greater than what would occur under residential development on the same parcel. This ordinance would allow greater environmental and land clearing impacts than development under the current zoning allows.
- The area where the ordinance places all utility scale solar is an area identified by DEM as being especially rich in important wildlife habitats and corridors.
- The Conservation Opportunity maps produced by DEM illustrate the complexity of the different conservation values of the area this ordinance targets for utility scale solar development. None of that environmental complexity or any plan to address it is proposed in the ordinance.
- Having a one size fits all percentage of land clearing doesn’t take into account the constraints to development on a particular parcel or the conservation value of a particular parcel.
- The subdivision regulations are tied to environmental constraints and the underlying zoning. When the town adds new alternative uses to zoning districts, those new uses shouldn’t result in greater environmental impacts than the currently allowed uses.
- The text amendment would increase regulations for homeowners who install solar to provide their home or business energy needs. They currently only need a building permit. This ordinance would subject them to development review.
- For utility scale solar, the ordinance requires a Special Use Permit, but doesn’t contain any performance standards for the Special Use Permit.
Some of these and other issues were incorporated into a letter to the Town Council which they will receive in advance of their public hearing on this zoning text amendment. That Town Council public hearing will take place on March 9 at 7 p.m. at Charlestown Town Hall.
Ralph
March 2, 2020 @ 3:44 pm
I believe that these alternative methods for electricity (solar/wind) are still too new to be sure of their potential to harm the environment. I do not know the reason that Charlestown seems to attract these enterprises? The last debacle was the cooling of a large electric producing plant in Gloucester and trucking water to the facility, now this. In 1978 everyone was happy and enthusiastic about how great nuclear power was, and wanted to construct one on the Naval base, now Ninigret park, thankfully that got voted out after long debates and demonstrations. If you think that solar and wind are so great, take a look at the environmental mess that Block Island is experiencing right now!! No way I like Charlestown just like it is and hope it stays that way!!!!
Christopher D. Fee
March 2, 2020 @ 10:52 pm
Your point about nuclear power in the late 70s is well taken. Remember Musicians United for Safe Energy and the concert they did at Madison Square Garden? Then you all elected Reagan and he ripped the solar panels off the White House, the ones Jimmy Carter had installed.
With respect, you are completely incorrect about the safety of wind and solar. The technology for both has been around since at LEAST the 70s. The only reason they haven’t been put to greater use is because the energy companies don’t want them to be.
If the lords of petroleum had been investing in wind and solar since the 70s instead of destroying the gulf of Mexico and devastating the Alaskan shoreline, we could conceivable all be driving affordable Teslas.
Kate f
March 2, 2020 @ 1:44 pm
I love the idea of covering parking lots with roofs of solar panels, and parking under them out of sun, rain and snow-much better than cutting down trees for solar or even covering existing turf that could be farmed with plants that remove CO2 and at least provide some habitat for bugs and animals and birds.
Roy Jacobsen
March 2, 2020 @ 12:42 pm
Today An average 80% of our land is forested in the 19th century it was 20% forested. Much of our present forested areas in town were pastures or farmed. I am for the development of solar farms with sensible safeguards. Including careful land management or set aside areas that are environmentally sensitive or unique and deserve protection. Roy Jacobsen
Christopher D. Fee
March 2, 2020 @ 12:16 pm
An excellent idea. Should have been implemented long ago. How about also mandating all new construction incorporate some sort of solar energy collection?
Still, in the long run, it’s not enough. And the run isn’t going to be very long if we don’t take measures considered drastic by many. We are simply running out of time.
CHARLIE WRIGHT
March 2, 2020 @ 11:28 am
Why not use the old land fill site for commercial solar generation?
Christopher D. Fee
March 1, 2020 @ 4:17 pm
Trees grow back. Planets don’t. If we don’t begin building large scale solar projects yesterday, our kids and their kids are done.
David A Iacovelli
March 1, 2020 @ 1:57 pm
All you folks commenting in favor of solar….have you seen what is happening in our neighboring towns? As far as the person commenting about turf farms, turf farms have been around for many years and most were potato farms before that.
Brad Dawson
March 1, 2020 @ 10:18 am
Hopefully the town on Charlestown will contact ISO New England and research the need and public good of a solar project of this size. Most third party solar projects of this type are 100% reliant on the current level subsidies to remain viable. Future changes in those laws are sure to result in many projects of this type becoming insolvent and shutting down. Solar power in New England makes little sense even at the current level of government support. Output is typically about 10% of nameplate rating due to the climate. The entire purpose of this project is a quick buck for the developer the impact on the environment or climate impact is minimal.
maloios
March 1, 2020 @ 6:45 am
Then what about all the trees cleared for *just* turf farms? Those remove far less CO2 than a forest biome. Why are we not clamoring against agriculture of opposition to solar is based on environmental concerns?
Robin W
March 2, 2020 @ 10:26 am
True but for one thing the turf farms have been a sustainable part of R.I. business and URI education for many decades…. and at least it’s turf, not concrete!
Robin W
February 29, 2020 @ 5:43 pm
As much as I love the idea of sustainable energy, I’m concerned about all the trees cleared in Richmond for “ just” solar. We are removing CO2 absorbing trees to lessen CO2 levels from fossil fuels. There has to be a sensible way of doing this, for instance on top of large buildings like warehouses, apartments, industrial buildings, factories or hydroponics buildings. I don’t blame the people in Richmond for being upset! Why can’t we do things that make sense in a sensible way that doesn’t wreck our land? I’m glad they said No.