A group of six residents is asking the Selectboard to rescind the preferred site status the Town granted to a proposed Upper Loveland Road solar panel farm in August. The neighbors say the project violates the Town Plan. In addition, they complain the Selectboard made no specific effort to notify property owners abutting the site.
The matter is not an agenda item. The letter dated February 3 (“Letter”) is in the Selectboard packet for the February 9 meeting, at page 13, as correspondence. It is up to the Selectboard to decide whether to elevate the expressed concerns to agenda item status at a future meeting.
Below I detail the concerns of the neighbors and add a few comments of my own. A Valley News story is here. My comments relate to process and transparency. I have been critical of how the Town Plan treats preferred siting in general, as a total abdication of local land use values. Climate change is real. However, according to GMP, its energy supply is “100% carbon free and more than 68% renewable.”(H/T to S.F.)
The Proposed Solar Farm
The project is to be located off of Upper Loveland Road, near the cell tower. It is a 500 kW (AC) group net-metering solar electric generation system. To accommodate the 8.2 acre footprint, that much forest will be clear cut. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, in comments filed with the PUC on January 3, observed that this clear cut will be the “twelfth highest acreage of forest clearing per kWh” since the agency “collected forest clearing data since 2016.”
In addition, the project is located in the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Area of the Town of Norwich.
The developer of the solar farm is Norwich Technologies, Inc., a/k/a Norwich Solar, which is based in White River Junction. Further, according to the Vermont Secretary of State, Norwich Solar is also the principal of Norwich Upper Loveland Solar LLC, the owner of the project,
The LLC is seeking a certificate of public good to build the project. The CPG proceeding is pending before the PUC as case number 21-3587-NMP. In connection with that matter, the LLC is opposing the requests of some residents to intervene in the PUC case. A zoning permit from Norwich is not required.
The Neighbors Letter (with some comments by me)
As noted, the Letter is in the Selectboard packet for the February 9 meeting, at page 13. The six residents assert the Selectboard and Planning Commission review of preferred site status fell short in several respects. “We ask that you rescind the Preferred Site Letter and restart the review of this application following the Town Plan as the governing document.”
Views from public vantage points
The project is located in the Ridgeline Protection Overlay Area, requiring review of visual impact. The Letter says the Town only considered visual impact of the solar farm from public roads. However, this was an error as the 2020 Town Plan requires consideration of “visual impact from public lands and public vantage points – in addition to public roads.”
I could not find an exact reference in the Town Plan to public lands. However that document is protective of views from “public vantage points,” which presumably would include public lands.
To be fair, the existing Zoning Regulations, issued in 2009, refers only to visual impact on public roads. These include “Class I, II, and III town highways, state highways and interstate highways within the town,” under NZR section 5.08. However, if the regulations are the guide, then the “character of the area affected” at NZR section 5.04 (D)(2) might be relevant too. I don’t know.
TRORC Protocol
The group of residents also claim the Town also ignored the TRORC protocol for preferred site review. The Letter says the protocol requires consideration of a number of natural features such as wetlands, habitat connectors and forest blocks. But, the neighbors assert that Director of Planning Roderick Francis, who currently serves as Interim Town Manager, improperly “shutdown all conversation of the review standards articulated by the TRORC Preferred Site Protocol.”
To support this assertion, the letter quotes from Planning Commission minutes from July 13, 2021 and Selectboard minutes from August 11. In both sets of minutes, Mr. Francis indicates that certain matters are outside of a municipal board’s scope of review on preferred site status.
I do not understand the Planning Director’s position and hope he explains it at the Selectboard meeting. He has tremendous expertise. Nonetheless, my limited understanding is that whether a Town accords a solar project preferred site status is solely a local matter under PUC Rule 5.100 at pages 9-10. The decision is completely within a municipality’s discretion, although it should not be arbitrary or discriminatory. Maybe I am wrong, but I do not see why certain items are outside of the Town’s “jurisdiction,” as reported in the Selectboard minutes
Notice to abutters
Further, the neighbors express concern that no specific notice of the August Selectboard meeting was provided to abutters. “This is an extraordinary lack of transparency by the local government and clearly benefits developers.”
I agree. We live in a small town. Folks want an opportunity to be heard by their elected officials. Sometimes, compliance with the Open Meeting Law is not enough, even if legally sufficient. This project may specifically impact a handful of abutting homeowners. Norwich Solar knows who they are, for reasons related to the PUC case. Would it be so terrible to require the solar project developer to notify abutters a week in advance of the Selectboard meeting? Without abutters present, the Selectboard discussion is missing an important stakeholder. Moreover, without the abutters, the discussion appears weighted in the developer’s favor.
Some might may say that abutters receive notice of PUC proceedings and can participate there. My opinion is that view misses the point of community and local government. Preferred site status is a local decision. In addition, a PUC proceeding is a formal legal proceeding that may be daunting to the layman. That state agencies are charged with reviewing similar criteria is not a reason to short change the local process. Democracy not technocracy.
When he served on the Selectboard, John Langhus, general counsel to a national solar company, extolled the virtues of local preferred site determinations. As quoted in a prior blog post, Mr. Langhus found the process valuable as a “tool that encourages coordination between municipalities, regional planning commissions, solar developers and landowners early on in the process.” Further, he believed that “early coordination has ultimately resulted in better projects, with greater community support.”
The benefit of community support cannot accrue if abutters do not know the Selectboard is meeting on the topic. Moreover, transparency fosters trust in government. On preferred site status, the Selectboard can and should do a better job on notice.
Fragmentation
Finally, the Letter says the solar farm is in the Resource Protection area of the Town Plan. Land within that area is discouraged from “further disturbance or fragmentation.”
The Letter does not provide further detail but it may bear on the disturbance of mapped forest blocks. Or as noted by the ANR above, the clear cutting of forest. However, I don’t know if the Town can (or should) prevent an owner from cleaning his land.
Never miss a new post on the Norwich Observer. Subscribe to my blog by submitting your email address in the subscribe box in the right column above. Thanks!
After I published this blog post, the Selectboard packet was amended to include a memorandum from the Interim Town Manager regarding the Letter.
The memo indicates there is no requirement that a town use the TRORC protocol and suggests the applicable standards for determining preferred site status are only the Norwich zoning regulations, specifically only the ridgeline criteria.
With respect to the TRORC protocol, if it is a helpful guide, why not use it?
Regarding the preferred site criteria, I don’t see anything in the PUC definition of preferred site (quoted in the blog post) that requires towns to limit preferred site review to their zoning regulations. Or for that matter, to their recent town plan. Personally, I wonder why preferred sites are not limited to areas with prime access to solar radiation, as mapped by TRORC [https://www.trorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Norwich_Energy.pdf]. In any event, all three seem to be helpful touchstones but not necessarily binding on the PC or SB, for PUC purposes. The Town Plan is also silent on the criteria. I’m no expert, just a confused thinker with too much available time.
Thanks so much Chris for highlighting and supporting this effort to hold the Select Board accountable to enforce the Town Plan.
The language in the Town Plan is clear that Ridgelines require careful review and that there should be “no visible intrusions by development as an integral component of the town’s scenic character as viewed from public lands and roads.” The proposed site is immediately adjacent to the town forest and the industrial fencing, solar panel and >8 acre clear cut will clearly be visible from trails and woods of the town forest.
Rod Francis continues to provide incorrect information even in his response. The 2020 Town Plan – not the 2009 zoning regulations – is the governing document in the PUC process, not the zoning regulations. The Objectives and Policies in the 2020 Town Plan regarding Ridgelines are clearly articulated:
Objective 1.2 of the 2020 town plan states: “Preserve ridgelines in their natural state without visible intrusions by development as an integral component of the town’s scenic character as viewed from public lands and roads.”
Policy 2-2c instructs the town to “guide development away from visually prominent locations on ridgelines and hills as viewed from the public vantage point.”
There is the language you needed re: public roads and vantage points.
Clear cutting trees to put up solar seems a bit counterintuitive, on a ridge line that already has zoning protection. On another note, have you seen the Norwich Technologies solar panels around town recently? They are covered with a foot of snow. Thanks for the GMP stats. Good to know.
Seems like yet another case of poor municipal policy making. Exceedingly bad communication and heavy handed leadership. Rumor is that the interim town manager will be the permanent town manager, albeit with a contract. Including TRORC and neighbors seems beyond fair. Further when we have an energy committee that act as lobbyists for solar companies (they went as far as to attend lister grievance hearing for this solar company and demanded to speak) they identify 3 solar companies as preferred vendors as violation of FTC and Vermont law and act as philanthropists with solar field investments when it becomes a tax credit for them. Within checks and balances, the entire town will be littered with solar panels and fields (post clear cutting). And pushed through by a non resident town manager who could be transient like previous TM (now located in Rhode Island). How hard is it to get professional leaders!