PORTSMOUTH — After a six-month delay, the Planning Board voted unanimously last week to recommend the Town Council not adopt amendments to the solar ordinance that had been proposed by GrowSmartRI.

According to Town Solicitor Kevin Gavin, that means the matter heads back to the council, which will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments.

For many abutters to proposed commercial solar facilities on West Main Road, the biggest sticking point is the current 50-foot minimum setback requirement in the ordinance. They agree with Scott Millar, director of community assistance and conservation for the nonprofit GrowSmartRI, that the minimum requirement is not enough of a buffer when it comes to medium and large solar developments. Mr. Millar recommended a 200-foot setback.

Several abutters last week urged the Planning Board to recommend the proposed amendments to the solar ordinance, which was originally passed unanimously by the council in May 2020. However, because several residents claimed they were unaware of the first hearing — with some saying it was improperly posted — a second hearing was conducted in December. 

At that hearing, the council once again approved the ordinance, but this time by a narrow 4-3 vote because several members had a change of heart after listening to comments by residents and Mr. Millar. The council also requested the Planning Board review the amendments proposed by GrowSmartRI and report back. The Planning Board originally took the matter up back in February, but took time to digest the changes before voting last week.

Among those speaking last week was David Croston of Portsmouth Residents for Responsible Solar, a group made up of about 40 residents of the Hilltop Road area, which filed in R.I. Superior Court an appeal of the council’s December vote. Mr. Croston said the ordinance as it now stands flies in the face of the town’s Comprehensive Community Plan.

“By no means do we want large or medium solar arrays in residential developments, unrestricted. That is untenable and I would challenge that this is not compliant to the Comprehensive Community Plan.” Mr. Croston said.

Things got testy when Mr. Croston accused the board, which he called the “experts” on the zoning ordinance, of failing to do its job because abutters should be allowed to bring in experts so a “proper review of our solar ordinance” could be conducted. Residents were not aware that developers of the proposed solar facilities would be present during the discussion, he said.

Guy Bissonnette, board chairman, replied that the agenda item was, in fact, a public hearing. In any event, the Town Council will have the final say over any proposed changes, he added.

“We sit here for hours and hours and hours, and you stand there and insult me,” Mr. Bissonnette told Mr. Croston.

Mr. Gavin added that Mr. Croston’s remarks were inappropriate in light of the pending litigation. 

Mr. Croston replied that abutters merely want a vehicle to voice their concerns before any other large-scale solar facilities are approved under the current ordinance, which they say is profoundly flawed. 

He noted the Zoning Board of Review has already approved one such facility since the solar ordinance was enacted. In May, the board approved West Main Solar 2’s 3.1-megawatt array between Freeborn Street and Lehigh Terrace. The project site is about 24 acres in total, with the actual solar array taking up about 7.5 acres The project required a special-use permit because it’s located in a residential (R-20) zone. 

David Howard, of Mariel Rose Drive, agreed with Mr. Croston that large facilities don’t belong on property zoned residential, and that a minimum setback of 200 feet should be instituted. 

Mr. Howard also read an e-mail from a woman who lives on Sweet Farm Road, who strongly objected to solar facilities that displace wildlife and replace healthy forest land, thereby speeding climate change. All large-scale solar projects should be on hold until the ordinance is no longer contested, she said.

Robyn Younkin, of West Passage Drive, said she’s not against solar energy but that large-scale projects don’t belong in residential areas. Ms. Younkin said she doesn’t want to look out her window one morning and see a “sea of glass and metal.” 

Portsmouth, she said, is for sale. “It’s a weak ordinance and the companies are coming because they know (the town) is a pushover,” said Ms. Younkin.

Lark Roderiques, of West Passage Drive, agreed. “If I were a solar company, I would think about coming here,” she said. “I just don’t think 50 feet is enough.” 

Bruce Fay, of Sweet Farm Road, said large solar facilities are not for green energy, “they’re for making money.” He also accused the Town Council of passing an ordinance that was written by an attorney representing solar developers.

“It doesn’t smell right at all,” Mr. Fay said.

Developer’s attorney responds

The attorney in question, Cort Chappell, acknowledged that he approached the council after a client asked him how he could “get in the game.” That request came after a Superior Court-ordered moratorium on large-scale facilities in Portsmouth because the town had no solar ordinance at the time, he said.

However, Mr. Chappell noted, he used a model ordinance that had been provided by the state, and the proposal was based on research of what 16 other Rhode Island cities and towns were doing. 

“It’s not my ordinance,” he said.

As he’s pointed out in previous board meetings, Mr. Chappell stressed that the 50-foot setback is a bare minimum, and that natural vegetation and screening between a commercial solar development and a residential home is required. The ordinance gives the zoning and planning boards discretion to be more restrictive, Mr. Chappell said.

“You get to decide whether 50 feet … is adequate. It can be less than that, and it can be unlimited,” he said.

Certain properties that are ideal spots for commercial solar would automatically be disqualified if a 200-foot minimum setback were enacted, he said. “One size doesn’t fit all,” he said, adding that the ordinance is not “cart blanche” and already provides protections for abutters, wildlife, the environment, health and safety.

“Solar energy is more restricted than any use in the history of Portsmouth, by 40-fold,” Mr. Chappell said.