Laserfiche WebLink
" vrrrrrr fa <br /> NTown otMasdvee Aanninq Board <br /> '•...,(E721J11A4T� <br /> c <br /> 16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br /> :Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 <br /> Mr. Phelan doesn't see a problem with Mr. Lehrer submitting a letter. <br /> Mr. Lehrer will inquire if the Commission accepted this, and what else have they asked the Commons to <br /> provide to substantiate the numbers in that filling? He is happy to submit a letter. He is also unsure what <br /> those markers are around the rotary. <br /> Ms. Waygan would like to also know if the traffic study is happening now. <br /> Mr. Balzarini mentioned MA is redoing the rotary layout. <br /> TOWN PLANNER REPORT <br /> Solar Energy Systems Overlay Petition zoning articles. <br /> Property owner submitted petition articles forthe deployment of medium and large scale energy systems. <br /> This is based on the draft proposed to the Board that then goes to Selectmen and to warrant for Town <br /> Meeting. Petition articles have been resubmitted as they were inaccurate previously. Selectmen have <br /> asked Mr. Lehrer to be present at their meeting on the 9t". He has prepared a memo relative to petition <br /> articles. Next meeting he will ask Chairman to add to the agenda to set a Public Hearing for the submitted <br /> articles. They are seemingly accurate as to form this time, and will be on the warrant. The Board will hold <br /> its mandatory Public Hearing relative to solar zoning articles in September. <br /> Ms. Waygan asked if that was the only zoning article on the warrant. The answer was yes. <br /> Mr. Phelan asked if there were any changes they need to be aware of. <br /> Mr. Lehrer mentioned some changes not relative to creation of solar energy systems overlay district, but <br /> in recognition of some limitations that are defined in structure and lot coverage, limitations of deployment <br /> car port solar. Roof mantled panels are allowed in all districts. What the petitioner proposes, lot coverage <br /> in Mashpee is measured by the cross section of structures on a lot. If you had a building that covered <br /> 15% of the lot, there is 5% lot coverage remaining with a massive approved parking area. Panels cannot <br /> be deployed across the entire parking area because of the lot coverage limitations. They proposed to <br /> exempt roof mounted panels for car ports from that lot coverage maximum. Proposed giving Planning <br /> Board authority to set a site specific lot coverage maximum forsolar panels. Same lot coverage maximum <br /> applies on all lots, on a massive parcel you can only have 20% coverage with structures. The language <br /> includes the ability for the Board to consider site specific issues to maximize energy production of the <br /> panels while not being detrimental to sensitive areas. <br /> Mr. Hansen mentions 20% of the lot is buildable, impervious to underlying land. Solar farm that he has <br /> seen at the landfill basically allows rain to hit the ground, to him it's a different classification of a building. <br /> Mr. Lehrer explained the way the language is written, the whole area of the panel contributes to the <br /> structure not just the pieces in the ground. That is a limitation to deploy certain types of solar. If you don't <br /> have any available lot coverage or additional areas to place structures you can't deploy a use, unless <br /> 4 <br />