Adams ZBA Rules in Favor of East Road Solar Project
 The Zoning Board of Appeals voted in favor of the East Road project despite the Planning Board's previous denial. |
ADAMS, Mass. — The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the site plan of East Road Solar Project Co. LLC to install some 6,500 photovoltaic panels in a residential area.
The ZBA effectively reversed a decision made by the Planning Board on Sept. 23 to deny the group’s request for a site plan application.
According to the ZBA, its ruling does not mean the project is imminent.
"Just because the Zoning Board has voted one way or the other… anybody who disagrees with the decision, there's ways to get that overturned," alternate Zoning Board member Peter Gutmann said.
According to ZBA Chairman Michael Mach, based on town counsel, a decision notice must be filed within 14 days, after which any party that takes issue to the ZBA ruling has 20 days to file an appeal. Any appeal of the ZBA ruling would be ruled on in state court.
The board voted 3-2 against upholding the Planning Board's decision to deny the request for the solar project on East Road. This necessitated a vote to approve the developer's site plan — under the condition it is compliant with a set of 15 conditions issued by the town Community Development Office — which was granted by a vote of 4-1.
The Town Hall meeting room resembled a law school, including a series of references and quotations from state and local law documents, questions as to proper legal procedure and dialogue writhe with legal jargon.
Town Counsel Edmund St. John III detailed four separate issues concerning the correct voting procedure of the ZBA based on state and local law, including its authority to deny an applicant’s building permit; the timeliness of the applicant’s appeal; its decision made last week to vote to uphold the Building Inspector’s denial of a permit; and, finally, its decision not to vote on the Planning Board's ruling.
"This area of the law is complex and people will have differing interpretations," St. John said.
He determined that 217 East Road Solar Project submitted an appeal in a timely manner and the ZBA, indeed, has the authority to deny an applicant’s building permit. Furthermore, its vote to uphold the building inspector's decision to deny permits during last week's meeting was lawful.
The final point of concern — the board's failure to vote to uphold the Planning Board's decision to deny a building permit — needed action.
Tyler Fairbank, chief executive officer of 217 East Road Solar Project, said the ZBA tended to base much of its discussions on opinion, rather than on fact. He referenced eight other solar farms in residential areas located throughout the state with energy outputs of between 2 and 5 megawatts.
Chairman Michael Mach voted in opposition to both motions brought forth on Tuesday, saying the ZBA should not reverse months of diligent work done by the Planning Board by way of four or five hours of work done by the ZBA. Mach said he is certain that the project will reduce property values surrounding the site, which warrants a rejection of the proposal based on Chapter 40A, section 3 — that concerning the welfare of residents.
"I just don't think that it should be in this venue. I think it should be in the land courts, that we're setting precedents a little town in Adams here in Western — this should be in the land courts. Period. It shouldn’t be here," Mach said.
Vice Chairman Peter West said the applicant clearly demonstrated its compliance with the given criteria for approval of a permit and that board members should, "vote with what we have in front of us, not our emotion."
Board member Anthony Donovan, the other member to vote in favor of upholding the decision of the Planning Board, said solar panels are a great thing, though there has to be better spots than 217 East Road.
Gutmann, who took the place of regular member Brian Tenczar, said Fairbank was "100 percent correct" in his interpretation of the Zoning Board's authority on this matter and said it must interpret the law objectively.
"For the applicant, they haven’t done anything wrong. They've come here based on how the law is written. It is unfortunate that the state legislature wasn’t clearer. Because they weren't, it comes down to a rural board in Western Mass. faced with this project. The law is the law. That is the only basis that the ZBA has to merit a yes or no vote," Gutmann said.
The public was given the opportunity to address the board, to which a number of residents issued their opinions both for and against the project.
Brian Tenczar, who has a conflict of interest with this project as an abutting property owner, was forced to abstain from participating, though he offered his thoughts at the podium, saying it is important to question the legality of rulings made by both the Planning Board and the Building Inspector in denial of the applicant’s proposal in the same way as the ZBA has been questioned.
Planning Board member Barbara Ziemba is concerned with the location of the solar panels in a residential zone, saying there is a contrast between the intentions of Gov. Deval Patrick's support of solar energy and the East Road Project's intentions. She also requested that official minutes from Planning Board meetings in August and September be redrafted to include more specific documentation of her testimony. Since these minutes have not been formally approved, the town will take the proper consideration of Ziemba's request.
At the onset of Tuesday's meeting, Mach referred to the prior ZBA meeting on Nov. 12 as "a little ugly," warning that anyone acting out of order would be physically removed from the meeting. St. John prefaced his remarks by saying the personal attacks levied on town employees were "appalling and disgraceful."
"There is no place in the democratic surroundings of government for the type of hateful and uncivilized behavior that I witnessed [last Tuesday] and I hope never to see it again," St. John said.
Tags: photovoltaic, solar array, solar project, ZBA,
