Take action! Ensure towns’ ability to use local zoning bylaws for solar siting.

 A reminder to take action by Tuesday, August 5 at 5 p.m. to support a bill that ensures towns’ ability to use local zoning bylaws for solar siting. Our lawmakers need to hear from us! 

 Please send in written testimony in support of bill H.2312 – An Act Regarding Municipal Zoning Powers  

 Background, talking points, and sample letter:

The problem/history:
The solar language in the Massachusetts Zoning Act, the “Dover Amendment”, was passed in 1985 in order to make it easier for individuals to pursue home-based roof-top solar.

The large-scale solar development we are seeing now is completely unrelated to the intent of that law since there was no large-scale solar at the time the law was written.

However, the Dover Amendment is sited by the Attorney General (AG) to decide that local bylaws that regulate solar siting are “unnreasonable” and “too restrictive”.

The AG has also declared that large-scale stand-alone lithium ion battery storage facilities are “solar,” which prevents the towns from enacting and enforcing local bylaws for reasonable public health or safety concerns.

Cash-strapped towns are on the frontlines to protect our natural resources and many communities are currently going through expensive court appeals to fight inappropriate project siting.

What the proposed bill does:

Bill H.2312 would amend Section 3 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws by striking the following language from the Dover Amendment: “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.”

Potential talking points (See fact sheet here):

• This bill is not pro-solar or anti-solar. It is about local control for siting solar.
• The 1985 solar law was never intended to weaken zoning for the industrial ground mounted solar systems, which were unknown in 1985. 
• Large industrial solar projects have clear-cut over 5,000 acres of forest so far, with about 140,000 more acres of forest and open space planned. 
• State solar siting guidelines and federal environmental laws do not adequately protect drinking water, rivers, wetlands and forests — we need municipal zoning too. 
• Every acre of forest destroyed is a huge loss for birds and other wildlife, clean air and water, natural beauty, and recreation. But most importantly, cutting forests and developing farmlands to build solar energy doesn’t make sense for the climate: natural ecosystems and farm soils absorb 10% of Massachusetts’ greenhouse gas emissions every year. Both nature conservation and solar energy must be treated as essential strategies in our response to the climate crisis. 
• Massachusetts’ rooftops and parking lots alone could support up to 30 Gigawatts of solar, and sites with low-impacts to nature and farms could support another 25 Gigawatts. 
• Cities, towns, and non-profits own or manage many of the best sites for low-impact solar, creating a huge opportunity for solar development by mission-driven organizations. 
• By updating the state’s zoning law on solar energy systems, solar can still be built and municipalities will still be bound by current legal standards for reasonable zoning regulation. 
• Describe the specific concerns in your town/community.
   

Sample Email:

Send to: Becca.Rausch@masenate.gov, Jack.Lewis@mahouse.gov               cc: John.Keenan@masenate.gov,  lindsay.sabadosa@mahouse.gov, edward.kennedy@masenate.gov, Michael.Moore@masenate.gov,  Mike.Rush@masenate.gov, peter.durant@masenate.gov,  Homar.Gomez@mahouse.gov, Samantha.Montano@mahouse.gov,  Kristin.Kassner@mahouse.gov, Mike.Connolly@mahouse.gov,  carmine.gentile@mahouse.gov ,  Joshua.Tarsky@mahouse.gov, 

Richard.Wells@mahouse.gov, Michael.Chaisson@mahouse.gov,  norman.orrall@mahouse.gov 

Recommended Subject line: Support H.3212

Dear Chairs Rausch and Lewis and Members of the Committee,

 I am writing in support of  H.2312, An Act Regarding Municipal Zoning Powers. The bill would amend Section 3 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws by striking the following language from the Dover Amendment: “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.”

 I  support solar energy. But I believe these energy installations should be sited in ways that reflect local community values and considerations including size, location, the natural environment as well and public health and safety concerns.

 The “Dover Amendment” language for solar made sense when it was enacted in the 1985. But it was never intended to be used for what we are seeing now– large-scale projects that can include hundreds of acres of solar panels in our towns on productive farmland and clear-cut forests. 

 This section of the law is being used by the Attorney General (AG) and the courts to disable our communities from using the long standing tradition of local control that stems from an understanding that the towns are the best decision makers for  local conditions. 

 The AG’s Office too often rejects zoning bylaws that are deemed “unreasonable” or “overly restrictive,” even though there is no established definition in the law for these terms. This means our towns are no longer able to effectively zone to protect important natural resources such as forests, farmland, and wetlands, or indigenous cultural resources.

 The amendment is being used by solar energy companies to pressure local municipal officials to approve unwanted solar developments that violate local zoning bylaws, and then sue the towns when their projects are not approved.  This is causing serious financial hardship for towns who choose to go to court to get their bylaws upheld, only to have judges use the Dover Amendment to say they must allow almost any and all solar development.

 Removing this problematic language from Section 3 of Chapter 40A, would return at least some measure of solar siting to communities, where it is most appropriate.

 Please ensure the passage of this bill. 

 Thank you for your consideration.

[Your name] 

[Your address]