patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Westborough Appeals Board Questions Nature of Solar Farm at Harvey's

The board requests a lists of similar projects in other communities.

 

The Westborough Board of Appeals on Monday night heard Harvey's Farm's solar farm proposal, and now want a list of similar projects in other communities.

Member Ken Gagnon also asked to visit Harvey's proposed site, at 7 Maple Ave.

The board Monday night opened and continued to Oct. 1 at 8 p.m. its public hearing on Harvey's Farm LLC's variance request for a ground-mounted photovoltaic farm. The session was held in the Forbes Municipal Building.

The photovoltaic farm's nature as it relates to farming and to Westborough's zoning was at the core of Monday night's discussion.

"Somehow, I find solar panels not to be an agricultural use," which is allowed everywhere in town, Chairman Jim Johnson said.

Johnson asked if Harvey had applied to remove the proposed solar farm site from Chapter 61A. Land designated under 61A is deemed farm property and assessed at a lower tax rate than residential land, Johnson explained.

Attorney Adam Braillard said Harvey would apply for 61A removal if necessary.

Johnson said the board granted Harvey a variance not long ago for that same land, to "allow him to keep it as open space" and farm land.

Harvey said he could pay the debt from his farm improvements over the photovoltaic farm's 20-year lifespan.

The photovoltaic farm would occupy a site that's "probably the least productive of my land," he said.

Solar panels are part of farming's evolution, "just as the tractor took over from the horse," he said.

"We still want to farm the land," Harvey said.

"I don't want to change the zoning. I want it to remain a farm, with solar panels."

However, Gagnon called the site "not zoned for this."

The roughly three megawatt -- about 12,000 to 13,000 solar panels -- project would occupt about 15 acres of Harvey's Farm's estimated 42.5-acres, Braillard said.

The panels would "totally be movable," said Project Manager Charles Jenkins, who showed the board a photograph of one example.

"This type of racking minimizes the disturbance to the ground," said engineer Steve Poole.

Johnson expressed concern about another solar farm in Westborough, on Fisher Street.

"It's an eyesore, in my opinion," he said.

Jenkins said the project at Harvey's Farm has been "thoughtfully planned," and could be "a shining example of what could be."

Jenkins said such a solar farm "stays green almost year-round, and has very limited maintenance requirements."

Harvey said a state pilot program is looking at growing crops under solar panels. He is looking at growing ornamentals and other plants that way if the solar farm is built.

Braillard said any electricity generated beyond the farm's needs would return to the grid, where National Grid is required to accept it. The utility then asks the owner where it wants these energy credits allocated.

"Municipalities have been able to take advantage of those credits" to receive "electricity at a significantly reduced rate," Braillard said.

Harvey's Farm could have credits allocated to anywhere from "the 495 beltway west, as long as it's National Grid territory," he said.

Braillard said he has spoken with Town Manager Jim Malloy about this project, but has not negotiated a price.

"But we're interested in having that conversation," Jenkins said.

"However, there are other towns that would be interested if Westborough determines it is something it would not like to do," he said.

Related Topics: Solar Farms, Westborough Board of Appeals, and harvey's farm

Peter McLaughlin

9:40 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

I think that provided the plan is well thought out, the Harvey's should be allowed to march forward on the plan. I think it would be short sighted if the Town of Westborough doesnt take advantage of the potential energy credits/savings that could be negotiated with the Harvey's and the power company. It will be interesting if they are actually able to grow crops under the panels. If they are and do, I dont for see a need to change the tax status of the land. If they were unsuccessful growing crops under the panels then the town should have the option to re-evaluate and reclassify the area where the panels are for tax purposes.

Reply

Jon McGrath

10:48 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The guy's putting in solar panels, not a casino with an adjoining strip joint. As long as he doesn't have a sign with a few pink letters like Fruitti Cup, he should be able to do it.

Reply
Comment_arrow

TBH

12:10 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Haha, you totally beat me to it...my thoughts exactly. Here's hoping the panels are historically appropriate colors.

Bill Schimikowski

10:48 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The town should let Harvey do what he wants and take the credits to reduce taxes for the good of the entire town. This is a win-win situation and I hope the town does not get in the way.
Also, if the town takes the credits, I don't think they should be allowed to re-classify the land. It is still a farm after all.
Lastly, the Fisher Street solar farm is an eye sore, but they let it happen. This is a better situation, but they are thinking about blocking it?

Reply

Andy Koenigsberg

10:48 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

This is a different situation from Fischer Street, where the property was already zoned industrial. In that case, whether that project was an eyesore or not is besides the point - as a whole host of other projects far more disruptive could have legally been sited there - such as a distribution warehouse with attendant tractor trailer rigs.

I won't comment on the Chapter 61A status, but this installation, way in the back of the fields, will not be visible from the street.

I would guess that we will see more of these proposals come our way, so it is best if we establish rules governing their review and approval.

Reply

Brian Wilkinson

3:48 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

L. Solar Energy Systems: No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.

Source: http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S01019

Section 23C. Any provision in an instrument relative to the ownership or use of real property which purports to forbid or unreasonably restrict the installation or use of a solar energy system as defined in section one A of chapter forty A or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy shall be void.

Source: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleI/Chapter184/Section23c

Stories:

Solar panel installations protected by state law
http://www.gazettenet.com/2012/05/11/solar-panel-installations-protected-by-state-law?SESS63f5807cb0f362f91cd4d49f6d355f03=gnews

Reply
Comment_arrow

Andy Koenigsberg

4:56 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Well, that about settles it I guess. ZBA - take note.

Leave a comment