|
A solar energy professional in Utah decided to
<br />walk the talk and install a photovoltaic system on
<br />his property. Trees on his and surrounding lots limited rea-
<br />sonable solar access to the front yard. The home owner checked with
<br />his local permitting officials and determined that accessory structures were
<br />not allowed in front yards, but small structures associated with gardens, such as a
<br />pergola or similar decorative structures, were allowed in front yards provided the footprint was
<br />less than 1.2o square feet and the structure no more than one story in height.
<br />The home owner designed a pergola structure with high efficiency panets flush -mounted on
<br />the sloped rafter to meet aesthetic standards. He submitted the application, which was rejected
<br />as a violation of the land devetopment zoning code. Because the pergola was connected to the
<br />house via an underground electric circuit, the structure was now considered to be accessory to
<br />the primary use, and therefore not allowed in the front yard, even though its appearance was
<br />identical to an allowed pergola.
<br />Tucson's Solar America Cities program worked with the city's zoning department to ensure
<br />that solar accessory structures were allowed in the zoning code. When, however, they developed
<br />a proposal to use closed landfill sites within the city as "solar farms," they discovered that the
<br />zoning code required a rezoning to industrial, because the solar system was a primary use and
<br />under the code was defined as a generating system (grouped with combustion electric generat-
<br />ing plants). Developers were unwilling to move ahead with this scenario, fearing that neighbors
<br />to the site would adamantly oppose the rezoning, effectively preventing the use of these sites for
<br />solar energy production. Ultimatety Tucson defined a new primary land use (renewable energy
<br />generation), modified its previous definition of"generating system" to exclude most renewable
<br />fuels, modified its zoning ordinance to identify where renewable energy generation was a permit-
<br />ted primary use, and established procedures for notice and hearings to allow for development of
<br />such systems in most zones.
<br />St. John's College in Stearns County, Minnesota, entered into an agreement with Best
<br />Power International to build and operate a 40o kW solar farm on cropland adjacent to college.
<br />The college approached the county for zoning approval. The county zoning code was silent on
<br />solar energy as a land use. County officials, while enthusiastic about the innovation in their
<br />county, could not approve the project without a rezoning process that defined solar as an al-
<br />lowed land use in the zoning district and set performance and submittal requirements. A new
<br />ordinance was adopted that defines solar farms as a conditional use in several districts and
<br />sets design and performance standards. The plant is up and running.
<br />The City of Rosevitle, Minnesota, zoning code was silent regarding how solar installations
<br />are treated as either accessory or primary uses. A home owner hired an installer to put a solar
<br />electric system on the backyard side of his roof. A few blocks away, an unpermitted solar instal-
<br />tation on a rack that was higher than the roof peak has generated a number of complaints from
<br />neighbors. The city denied the building permit for the new system because solar systems were
<br />not permitted under the current zoning code, and a new code would not be completed until next
<br />year's building season. The solar installer was able to work with the city to develop and adopt an
<br />interim poticy so that the installation could proceed.
<br />permitting guides, while others —generally
<br />the smaller cities —simply provide the name
<br />of a contact person. In some cases, solar
<br />project assistance is provided largely by the
<br />local utility or a nonprofit organization. For
<br />example, Austin, Texas, is partnering with
<br />Austin Energy, the local utility, white Mil-
<br />waukee is working with the Midwest Renew-
<br />able Energy Association.
<br />Of the 24 cities in the program, about
<br />half responded in some manner, and to
<br />cities provided detailed responses. Many
<br />are focusing on market transformation ef-
<br />forts, such as training assistance to solar
<br />installers, support of solar manufacturing
<br />businesses, direct design assistance to
<br />home owners, and various financing mecha-
<br />nisms, rather than examining permitting or
<br />administrative barriers. As described below,
<br />some cities have made substantial progress
<br />toward removing regulatory barriers and
<br />creating incentives within the permitting
<br />process.
<br />SURVEY FINDINGS
<br />As of the time of the survey (zoo9) we found
<br />that only about a quarter of the cities had
<br />updated their ordinances to explicitly rec-
<br />ognize solar equipment as a specific type
<br />of accessory structure or to recognize free-
<br />standing installations as a use. Even fewer
<br />cities provided any regulatory exceptions or
<br />incentives for solar installations.
<br />We reviewed each city's ordinances
<br />and asked the renewable energy program
<br />manager or zoning administrator how they
<br />regulated the following types of systems:
<br />• Building -mounted systems, either photo-
<br />voltaic or thermal (hot water) panels
<br />• Building -integrated systems, usually thin
<br />film photovoltaic applications such as solar
<br />shingles
<br />• Pole- or ground -mount solar systems
<br />• Large-scale pole- or ground -mount sys-
<br />tems (solar farms) where solar is the primary
<br />land use rather than an accessory use ora
<br />component of the primary use
<br />The first three types of uses are usu-
<br />ally accessory to the principal use on the
<br />property, whether that use is a house, a
<br />commercial building, or a parking lot. The
<br />management of accessory uses and struc-
<br />tures can be general ("no incursion into
<br />required yards") or specific to the use or
<br />structure. We asked the cities whether they
<br />treated solar systems as an accessory use,
<br />as mechanical equipment, as a separate
<br />permitted use, or as some other land -use
<br />classification.
<br />Placement of equipment: setbacks, height
<br />limits, and tot coverage
<br />Most of the cities surveyed treat solar equip-
<br />ment as a nonspecified accessory use or as
<br />a type of mechanical equipment. While this
<br />approach may not pose problems, some
<br />ordinances require screening of mechani-
<br />cal equipment, which could impede solar
<br />access. Requiring pole- or ground -mount
<br />systems to meet building setbacks could
<br />restrict their placement from locations that
<br />might offer the best solar access. Lot cover-
<br />age ratios could similarly prevent or limit
<br />pole- or ground -mount installations if such
<br />installations were treated as simply another
<br />accessory structure, or could result in instal-
<br />lations out of scale with the other structures
<br />if simply exempted from coverage ratios.
<br />Berkeley's zoning code allows solar
<br />energy equipment to project into required
<br />yard setbacks with an administrative use
<br />permit, if the zoning office finds that the
<br />modification is necessary for the effective
<br />use of the equipment and that the principal
<br />building meets city standards for energy.
<br />conservation. In Portland, Oregon, solar in-
<br />70
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE n.10
<br />AMERICAN PUNNING AssOCW110N Ip°2e4
<br />
|