Zoning Board of Adjustment
Wednesday, October 19, 2022
Meeting Minutes
The Harrisville ZBA met on Wednesday, October 19, 2022 at town offices, 705 Chesham Road.
Members present: Charles Sorenson, Chair; Rex Baker, Vice Chair; Jeff Trudelle; Andrew Maneval; Pegg Monahan; and Hal Grant. Members absent: Patrick Gagne. Members of the public: none
Vice Chair Rex Baker called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Chairman Sorenson recused himself from the first order of business. Mr. Baker noted that, for this matter, the voting members would be himself, Jeff Trudelle, Hal Grant, Pegg Monahan and Andrew Maneval.
The board proceeded with the following:
Charles and Cathy Sorenson, 365 Chesham Road (Map 40 – Lot 129) – Public Hearing on application for a Special Exception under Article 9.1.6., Article 30 and Article 20.1.2. of the Harrisville Zoning Ordinances to install a 13.5 x 28-foot ground mounted fixed solar array within 75 feet of the shore of Chesham Pond.
Mr. Baker asked Mr. Sorenson to present his application. Mr. Sorenson displayed on screen his application paperwork, including a memo of intent addressing the pertinent ordinance provisions, a plot plan denoting the location of the proposed solar array in relation to the subject property, abutting properties, Chesham Road and Chesham Pond, aerial images of the project location and surrounding property, and technical images and specifications of the associated equipment for the array.
The applicant noted that the property is a 1.75-acre parcel and the solar array measures 28-feet x 13.5 feet, with 16 panels. The property is surrounded by trees and brush, and the nearest abutter is at a 40’ distance. The array would be at least 400’ from the road. No trees would be removed to install it.
Describing the equipment, MR. Sorenson noted there would be no mechanical movement, though the angle of the panels could be adjusted to maximize solar power. They would be affixed to metal, above-ground racks, and anchored with an underground cable. The system is designed to withstand 150-mph winds and will generate 7600 watts with DC current. The electrical components are subject to inspection by both the power company and the town building inspector.
Mr. Sorenson then addressed the relevant zoning ordinance provisions, explaining his case for how the proposal meets the required criteria. He began with Article 9.1.6, which states, “No dwelling or structure other than docks or fences shall be erected closer than seventy- five (75) feet from the high-water mark…Accessory buildings such as storage sheds and gazebos but excluding automobile garages may be located within the seventy-five (75) feet setback as a special exception provided:
9.1.6.1. The location and construction of the structure is consistent with the intent of the ordinance to maintain a vegetated buffer, which would meet the requirements of 15.8.1.
9.1.6.2. The structure is required as a shelter either for humans, equipment, or firewood.
9.1.6.3. The structure is customary or incidental to residential and recreational use.
9.1.6.4. Building placement: Buildings shall be placed in such a manner as to minimize impact on habitat and at such a location as to have the least impact on the watershed.
The applicant noted he believes the solar equipment is similar to storage sheds and gazebos in that the use is passive activity. It also is equipment, which is allowed, and is customary to residential use and necessary to supply electricity to the home. It is low profile and, under the town ordinances, it is considered pervious and thus is not considered toward the impervious cover threshold, which would easily be met even if it were considered impervious under the ordinances.
Mr. Sorenson added that the array would not increase any storm water runoff toward the lake but would direct it away from the shoreline. He will file a Shoreland application with DES, as required.
Recommending that the board first deal with Article 9.1.6, Andrew Maneval subsequently moved that the ZBA approve the application under 9.1.6. for the erection of a structure as defined in 9.1.6.2. within the 75’ distance of the highwater mark of Chesham Pond. The motion was seconded by Jeff Trudelle.
The board then reviewed the five special exception criteria outlined in Article XX, as follows:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board agreed the proposed location was most appropriate for a solar array, as it is isolated and screened and the only place on the property that will allow the system to be functional.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. Members agreed it would have no negative impact, including that there would be no pile-driving and no concrete pad. The activity is passive and does not require human operation or mechanical motion.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Members agreed, noting the road is more than 400’ away and shielded from vehicles and pedestrians.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The system is well designed, standard for the solar industry and for this application, and it will be inspected before it goes online.
20.1.2.5. The proposed use shall comply with all the frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, sanitary protection, signs, and parking requirements for itself or its most similar use, except where specifically waived by the board, the reasons for such waiver to be set forth in writing by the board. Members agreed that the only waiver is the 75’ setback requirement from the lake; otherwise the solar array complies with all zoning requirements.
The board then voted unanimously, 5-0 in favor, to approve the special exception under 9.1.6. It then addressed Article XXX Solar Energy Systems, asking if the ZBA should grant a special exception for a ground-mounted unit that is larger than 15 feet. The proposed array measures 28’ in length. The array complies with all other provisions under Article XXX, including setbacks from property lines, height limitations and screening considerations. Given no foundation is involved, the panels are exempt from the lot’s impervious cover calculation.
Again addressing the individual special exception criteria, the board considered the following:
20.1.2.1. The specific site is an appropriate location for such use. The board noted the proposed location is large, open and well-buffered.
20.1.2.2. The use as developed will not adversely affect the adjacent area. The board reiterated that the system is well-shielded, distant from abutters and the road, and is passive in nature.
20.1.2.3. There will be no nuisance or serious hazard to vehicles or pedestrians. Members affirmed its location removes any threat.
20.1.2.4. Adequate and appropriate facilities will be provided for the proper operation of the proposed use. The board reiterated the system meets industry standards and is subject to inspection and therefore adequate and appropriate.
20.1.2.5. The proposed use shall comply with all the frontage, setbacks, minimum land area, sanitary protection, signs, and parking requirements for itself or its most similar use, except where specifically waived by the board, the reasons for such waiver to be set forth in writing by the board. The only waivers involved are setback from the lake, addressed under Article 9.1.6. above, and for measuring greater than 15 feet, criteria for which have been addressed.
Andrew Maneval then moved that ZBA approve a special exception under Article XXX relative to the size of the installation larger than 15’. Rex Baker seconded. The board voted unanimously in favor, 5-0.
Vice Chair Baker will issue the Notice of Decision based on the findings.
ZBA Rules of Procedure – The board took up proposed amendments to its Rules of Procedure in response to updated state-level changes to planning and zoning regulations. Andrew Maneval offered several suggestions and additions, which all agreed should be incorporated. The board voted in favor to adopt as amended. Final, edited copy will go to the Chair for signature.
ZBA Application Fees – In light of the Select Board’s request to the town’s land use boards to consider adjustments to permitting fees to bring fees in line with current expenses for newspaper noticing, postage fees and administrative costs, the ZBA recommended a separate fee for newspaper noticing, as well as an adjustment based on administrative costs for application processing and review. The current ZBA application fee is $35 plus $10 per abutter notice.
Minutes of previous meeting – The board approved the minutes of the September meeting.
Adjournment – The board adjourned at 8:15 pm.