Laserfiche WebLink
16 Great Neck RoadNorth <br />wlashyee, -Massachusetts oz649 <br />of solar energy would need an access road, which would be within the law. Judgement acted in <br />favor of the developer. The developer further argued even though solar facilities were allowed <br />in the industrial zone, the regulation was unreasonable because they only had 2% industrial <br />land in Waltham. Waltham lost in Land Court and took it to the Appellate Court and they <br />bumped it right up to the Supreme Court. The access road was deemed necessary and <br />protected under Ch40. The Court held that the municipality had greater discretion to regulate <br />solar where necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare, and there was no showing in <br />this case. The court did not say solar must be allowed in every zone or the town needing to <br />have a certain percentage to be deemed reasonable. Preservation of residential character of <br />neighborhoods is legitimate. The Court did not show any limitation to preservation of character. <br />Ms. Faulkner argued they can restrict solar in residential if it interferes with any of those three <br />things: health, safety, or welfare. Our citizen's welfare can be defined as overall wellbeing, <br />comfort, happiness, and quiet enjoyment. Having a comfortable place to live is important. We <br />have limited residential land left, as well as an affordable housing shortage. We shouldn't take <br />residential land away from people to build solar farms. She is advocating for C1, C2, C3, and I. <br />Mr. Balzarini does not want solar in residential. <br />Ms. Waygan asked if anyone was comfortable with medium and large scale in R3 and R5. <br />Mr. Fulone wanted the Town Planner's opinion. He noted part of his argument last time was by <br />not including residential could exacerbate some of the housing issues. <br />Mr. Lehrer's point he was trying to make was some of the adequate acreage for the use is in <br />the residential districts where there is enough land area for the form to be functional. There is <br />enough land area for 100 ft. buffers and large setbacks from water and wetlands. There would <br />be competing interests for redevelopment in the commercial districts. A point of interest that <br />Ms. Faulkner pointed out was the silence about restrictions being reasonable in for the <br />purpose of respecting health, safety, and welfare. Mashpee zoning is also silent in that regard. <br />He is intrigued about crafting an argument and maintaining the restriction as it currently is. <br />Case law changes all the time and it would take an appeal to determine reasonability. The only <br />other thing he has been considering is the approximately 400 +/- building lots divisible in the <br />R3 and R5 where cluster subdivisions could occur and get open space. Although we are <br />making investments in sewer, that's also 400 septic systems in the ground. There could be an <br />opportunity to consider those parcels as an overlay district for solar to be consistent with <br />criteria for developing a cluster subdivision. Our zoning currently incentivizes land for houses <br />we could encourage solar use with no additional single family dwelling with nitrogen septics. <br />He is hesitant to recommend a particular pathway. He would like to understand where the <br />community wants to go. He is not married to any particular pathway but would like an <br />education and engagement opportunity. <br />0 <br />