PORTSMOUTH — After a three-hour hearing in which 16 residents testified in favor of changes to Portsmouth’s current solar ordinance, the Town Council Monday night voted unanimously to prohibit all medium- and large-scale solar arrays from being located in residential zones. 

To loud applause from a full house of residents, the council also voted unanimously to approve two other amendments to the ordinance:

• The original 50-foot minimal setback was increased to 100 feet when a solar array is adjacent to commercial or light industrial property; and to 150 feet when it’s next to property zoned residential.

• No more than 20 percent of the area covered by the solar panels can be on cleared woodlands, and the total area of cleared woodland cannot exceed 20,000 square feet. 

The council’s action is intended as a stopgap measure until it sits down with the Planning Board for a workshop — most likely in January 2022 — to formally review the current ordinance approved in December 2020, and to decide whether that document needs to be amended to reflect suggestions by the nonprofit GrowSmartRI, citizens, and others. 

The changes do not, however, apply to any of the three proposed solar developments currently under town review, as they are grandfathered in. (See sidebar at left for each project’s status.)

Background

The solar ordinance was originally passed unanimously by the council in May 2020. However, because several residents claimed they were unaware of the first hearing — some charged it was improperly posted — a second hearing was conducted in December. At that meeting, the council once again approved the ordinance, but this time by a narrow 4-3 vote. 

Several council members had a change of heart after listening to comments by residents and Scott Millar, director of community assistance and conservation for GrowSmartRI. The main objection from Mr. Millar and abutters concerned the 50-foot minimal setback, which they felt was inadequate. 

They also raised concerns about the potential diminishing of property values of homes near solar arrays, the clear-cutting of trees which they said flies in the face of “green” energy, and also claimed the ordinance was in conflict with the town’s Comprehensive Community Plan. In short, medium- and large-scale solar arrays have no place in residential areas, they said.

To appease abutters, the council requested the Planning Board review the amendments proposed by GrowSmartRI and report back. After several delays, the board voted unanimously in August to recommend the Town Council not adopt any proposed amendments.

On Monday, Council President Kevin Aguiar said one of the reasons he believes the Planning Board declined to recommend any changes to the ordinance is that no one made a formal, detailed presentation of the proposed amendments. 

Council member Daniela Abbott, who ended up making all the motions on the ordinance amendments, countered that the board had a detailed letter from GrowSmartRI that adequately outlined the case for the changes. “The onus shouldn’t be on every single resident to go to a meeting to complain,” she said, noting it’s the council’s responsibility to improve the ordinance so that its rules are clear to everyone.

The roomful of abutters and other residents who turned out Monday said they’ve made their objections to the ordinance clear from the get-go, yet town officials don’t seem to be listening. 

“We are frustrated,” said Robyn Younkin of West Passage Drive. “Obviously, you didn’t hear us the last time we were here on the solar ordinance. We do not want a huge industrial solar plant right in the middle of our neighborhood. And we don’t want it in the reservoir.”

Nimali Power’s project

Younkin’s second reference was to Nimali Power RI’s proposal to build a large-scale solar project at 2340 West Main Road, north of Union Street and near the the Lawton Valley Reservoir. A group of residents along Union Street have banded together to fight the proposal, which they said would sacrifice a large old-growth forest and potentially undermine an important drinking water supply.

The Nimali project “is a poster child of everything that’s wrong with the ordinance and why we need these workshops and why we need to change it,” said Heather Olson of Union Street. “No one is going to buy my house knowing there’s going to be a huge industrial solar development behind it.” 

Another Union Street resident, Richard Munch, said Nimali’s engineers testified in July that the west side of the array cannot be screened, supposedly because it would prevent sunlight from hitting the solar panels. He urged councilors to watch one of the planning or zoning board hearings when solar developments are on the agenda. “I go to these meetings and I really feel the homeowners are having to defend themselves,” he said. 

One resident questioned why the Planning Board took an all-or-nothing approach when voting on the amendments.

David Howard, of Mariel Rose Drive, said the planners rejected a proposed minimal setback of 200 feet on the basis it would eliminate too many lots from consideration. Why then, he asked, didn’t the board consider a 150-foot or 100-foot setback?

“I can tell you as a resident, I felt like it was pre-determined,” Howard said.

David Croston, of Sweet Farm Road, said he was one of the lucky abutters, as the developers of West Main Solar 1 agreed to a 135-foot buffer, rather than just the minimum 50-foot setback. 

“Now I want to make sure every one of my neighbors has that same opportunity,” said Croston, who proposed three ordinance amendments that slightly overlapped what the council ended up approving. While also objecting to any medium- or large-scale solar projects in residential zones, he also suggested a 200-foot setback for projects that were near water protection zones, but the council did not include the restriction in its amendments.

Moratorium rejected

Both Abbott and council member Len Katzman — the latter sitting in his first meeting since being appointed to serve out the unexpired term of Mike Buddemeyer, who resigned because his job moved to Florida — suggested a temporary moratorium on new solar projects until the ordinance is formally reviewed. 

Town Solicitor Kevin Gavin, however, said a potential moratorium was not listed on the agenda, so imposing one could violate the Open Meetings Act. The council voted unanimously to place discussion and action on a proposed moratorium on the agenda for the next council meeting on Nov. 22.