Planning Board meeting minutes Thursday October 11, 2012
Larry Klein reported that he has invited Steve Nelson, an independent solar contractor, to our Planning Board meeting on Thursday October 25, 2012. Klein is also trying to contact an engineer from Weston and Simpson the contractors involved with the Pittsfield solar facility. Regarding information on the Pittsfield solar facility; the photovoltaic array is situated on 8 acres of land and produces 1.8 megawatts of electricity. Klein reported that to produce one mega watt of electricity you need to have photovoltaics on 5-7 acres of land or 100,000 roof-mounted panels. Klein also wants to contact Alteris Renewables who installed the 4000 ground and roof mounted panels at Hancock Shaker Village.
Members present: Stephen Enoch co-chair, Alan Salamon, Larry Klein, Roger Tryon, Barry Karson, Maggie Leonard co-chair.
The meeting opened at 7:18 p.m.
Since board member and clerk Bridget Krans was absent co-chair Leonard requested that Enoch chair the meeting so she could take the minutes.
Enoch reported that his wife Mari, who is on the Zoning Board of Appeals, informed him that she understood from ZBA proceedings that the town is supposed to proceed “as if” the zoning bylaw revisions have been approved by the Attorney General’ office.
The board discussed the solar bylaw they are working on to regulate the installation of Large-scale Ground-mounted Solar Photovoltaic’s (LGSP). Barry Karson stated that he heard that it takes approximately 25 kilowatts to run one house (per day? Per wk? per year?).
Alan Salamon stated that he finds it difficult to create regulations for LGSP’s in the absence of any technical knowledge. The board has discussed inviting engineers or solar power contractors to answer questions from board members. As per above, Klein is working on getting us some consultants.
Karson proposed a regulation that would limit solar development to a certain percentage of a piece of land. There was some discussion. The board is at the discussion stage in all matters relating to the LGSP bylaw and no votes have been taken and no decisions have been made.
Enoch said that the board could choose a number of acres, say one acre, where anything larger than that the Site Plan Review process would kick in.
Klein reported that in his investigations he found re: Green Communities, that there is a cap on the amount of electricity that either the State or National Grid will agree to purchase. Any electricity produced after that amount will not be reimbursed. Klein also stated that since the town of Monterey voted to become a Municipal Lighting Plant at the last town meeting, the town would be exempt from any regulations with regard to solar power.
The board discussed setbacks for LGSP’s. Enoch stated that, in his opinion, the setbacks should be at least what the current minimum setbacks are in the zoning bylaws. Karson said “They should definitely be that much if not more. Possibly 200 or 100 feet.”
Salamon stated that the law states the regulations “must be reasonable” and that “unless it’s a threat to health, safety and welfare” we must be reasonable.
Enoch noted that the cell tower bylaw requires a 100’ vegetated buffer.
Roger Tryon stated, “People who live in Monterey love the natural beauty (that’s why they live here) and when that is disturbed people get upset.” Tryon also stated that roads to LGSP’s are an important concern and that the slope of the roads are a major concern. Tryon referred to the current cell tower project underway at 31 Main Rd and the problems with the retention pond and concerns about water on Route 23 pooling and freezing in winter.
Enoch noted that he is not opposed to reiterating regulations or citing sections to direct applicants to the required standards for road construction as well as other aspects of a project.
Karson said that once the zoning bylaw revisions are approved by the AG we can look at the zoning bylaws and make similar recommendations to the ones that have already passed muster with the AG.
There was more discussion about setbacks and no sense of agreement amongst the board members. Klein stated, “I want regulations that make sense and are based on scientific facts and not on emotion.” Karson noted that properties with greater slope may need larger setbacks due to storm water runoff and erosion.
Discussion continued regarding setbacks from residences with some members favoring larger setbacks and some members in favor of smaller setbacks and less regulation in general. Klein requested that board members consider not just the regulations themselves but how those regulations may hinder projects that would be beneficial. The board questioned what the footprint would be for a 250 kw installation. (250 kw installation appears repeatedly in the various sample bylaws. Karson is going to follow up and see if he can find the statute.)
Enoch asked if board members wanted to add general language about the “rural character of the neighborhood?” Salamon noted that the Berkshire Regional Planning Commission (BRPC) advised against adding such language.
Enoch asked about height restrictions. The board has read about 15’ height restrictions in other bylaws and sample bylaws. The Monterey zoning bylaws restrict roof heights to 35 feet. Enoch asked if board members wanted to start there? Salamon replied, “No, too high.”
Salamon (or was it Klein) thought that it would be beneficial to invite Rob Hoogs to a meeting. Hoogs worked with Great Barrington on their zoning bylaw revision, he has a land surveying company, and has expertise in all things land/zoning. Klein agreed to contact Hoogs to see if he would be willing to attend a Planning Board meeting.
The board opened the mail. There was a notice of a public hearing in Great Barrington to grant permission for Project Native to erect a freestanding sign in the AG/Res district. There was also a letter from the Building Inspector to AT&T warning them that their building permit expired and their special permit was about to expire.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maggie Leonard
| 
