|
One city that does distinguish solar
<br />from other power generation is San Antonio,
<br />where a photovoltaic "solar farm" use is a
<br />permitted use in agricultural and industrial
<br />zoning districts. Site plan review is required,
<br />along with setbacks and buffering if the so-
<br />lar farm abuts single-family residential uses.
<br />In Stearns County, in nonurban Minnesota,
<br />similarly defined solar farms are conditional
<br />uses in several nonindustrial districts, in-
<br />cluding agricultural districts, provided other
<br />siting standards are met. Stearns County
<br />was the location for the first solar farm in
<br />Minnesota and needed a zoning code modi-
<br />fication in order for the project to proceed.
<br />Solar installations on nonconforming
<br />structures -
<br />Many municipal ordinances limit the degree
<br />to which a nonconforming structure can be
<br />improved before needing to be brought into
<br />compliance with current zoning require-
<br />ments. Such a requirement could prevent
<br />older, nonconforming buildings from install-
<br />ing solar systems (which is sometimes the
<br />point of such requirements, but may be un-
<br />reasonable in other cases). Does the addi-
<br />tion of a solar installation to a nonconform-
<br />ing structure (nonconforming as to lot area,
<br />setback, lot coverage, or other features)
<br />constitute an improvement or expansion?
<br />Responses from Solar Cities vary. For ex-
<br />ample, in Denver, building -mounted systems
<br />are not considered an improvement to non-
<br />conforming structures unless they alter the
<br />building structure or are not considered flush -
<br />mounted and exceed height limits. Madison,
<br />Wisconsin, uses a similar interpretation.
<br />However, in Orlando, Florida, and Santa
<br />Rosa, California, building -mounted systems
<br />are considered an improvement. Minneapolis
<br />and St. Paul both consider the installation
<br />ofa solarsystem to be an improvement to
<br />the building, potentially requiring building
<br />nonconformities to be addressed, although
<br />the cities are flexible regarding mechanical
<br />system installation on nonconforming uses.
<br />Permitting and plan review
<br />Residential -scale solar installations must
<br />meet electrical and plumbing codes, and
<br />most cities require building permits, as do
<br />Minneapolis and St. Paul. Most of the cities
<br />surveyed do not require a separate zoning
<br />permit for an accessory system, although
<br />most do require zoning review within the
<br />permitting process. A number of the Solar
<br />Cities are working to expedite or streamline
<br />the building permitting process for solar
<br />•
<br />installations, particularly for residential or
<br />small commercial systems (small systems
<br />being defined as having somewhere be-
<br />tween 4 and to kW of capacity). Minneapolis
<br />and St. Paul have recently created a permit-
<br />ting guidance document for residential solar
<br />electric systems, removing uncertainty about
<br />when structural engineering is required and
<br />what information is needed to acquire a
<br />permit in a single trip.
<br />Seattle has developed a client as-
<br />sistance memo that guides the applicant
<br />through permit and land -use requirements
<br />:yS:OL=A- At -At -CESrS':-=zstr v "
<br />�.. . ?t irartfdie direct
<br />Neitherth`e sl7rvey h$@itils=article'dlrecdyr�-.-,
<br />"pd-".vuys"4s,esses.�iss' sofs ?r.acces ,>:g3-w--ice
<br />dressesissues�o a�.accessA yieww ,
<br />ogthe'li erdfureon_,r_energyland; se .,
<br />a:�' aka, <..:.... Ti... �a
<br />o tacce - db'een'" = es ed in g' . t
<br />-solar.acce5s liatl�een assessed in mul[ipfe.;=,
<br />ubhcabnss oZoning"tools to aaare`S$'solare
<br />AISY:yaccess Issue's�relatedso(ar.aecess laws a7i, dra
<br />ji".ro44isioi;is wola1design otStbdtvi—
<br />won are cored m the Apnil7oto istal
<br />o Zo_Ig Prdct(ce:(=Sof"aFAccessUsg
<br />he ER rl,onment iij, Bird n`g D ign;);a„!..,.`
<br />summary of solar tools` addressed'
<br />t�by'the SolarAmencanBoartlbf Codesan'd
<br />anda7tls{www3blaratics:ofg)���- ?;
<br />Unwfra a(LllgogLayi poew t ,
<br />_tLstRtufayzFs.ea�lssdiao sno'-snoa
<br />tzLe000l=aaeto[oralgovemmenSee
<br />uly:dyAoq Sdw,soniffeh
<br />1edra:SolarAcess i Laws m a`Dlffer--r��,h
<br />Wrc
<br />,soot Li�g"'t<-UniVerslty'of Missouri SchogL--��i
<br />awre'...f=:tddi-sitar diPe_.'
<br />ofraw gPest i Resea,ch Pzper_t fl
<br />zoogz$ imiversityo Airiois Law Review
<br />(the setback and height requirements
<br />mentioned above), design and installation
<br />considerations, interconnection require-
<br />ments, choosing a contractor, and financial
<br />incentives.
<br />Portland offers a program guide for
<br />solar water heating and photovoltaic electric
<br />generators installed on one- or two-family
<br />dwellings that outlines permitting require-
<br />ments and identifies situations in which
<br />additional design review may be required.
<br />San Francisco has established ex-
<br />pedited permitting requirements for solar
<br />photovoltaic systems; planning department
<br />review is waived except when the system cre-
<br />ates or is part of a vertical or horizontal build-
<br />ing addition. Electrical permits are the only
<br />ones required; building permits, building per-
<br />mit fees, and building inspections are waived
<br />in most cases. Site plans are only required for
<br />systems producing over four kW output.
<br />Tucson has established a credit incen-
<br />tive program that will waive a portion or all
<br />of the permit fees on a new building or when
<br />retrofitting existing buildings with a qualify-
<br />ing solar energy system, up to a maximum
<br />of $i,000 or the actual amount of the permit
<br />fee, whichever is less.
<br />Sacramento waives permit fees for
<br />solar photovoltaic systems and solar water
<br />heaters installed on existing residential
<br />buildings.
<br />PREEMPTIVE STATE LEGISLATION
<br />Several states have adopted legislation that
<br />preempts the ability of local governments to
<br />regulate solar and wind energy facilities. The
<br />Solar Cities in California have the greatest
<br />number of installations and the most de-
<br />veloped solar energy markets in the nation,
<br />but have addressed many of the potential
<br />land -use issues via state legislation rather
<br />than local decision making. For instance, the
<br />California Solar Rights Act (Calif. Civil Code
<br />714) limits local government restrictions on
<br />solar installations to "reasonable restrictions
<br />.. that do not significantly increase the cost
<br />of the system or significantly decrease its
<br />efficiency of specified performance, or that
<br />allow for an alternative system of compa-
<br />rable cost, efficiency, and energy conserva-
<br />tion benefits." The act also requires local
<br />governments to use a ministerial or adminis-
<br />trative application review, such as Berkeley's
<br />administrative use permit referenced above,
<br />instead of a discretionary process.
<br />Wisconsin is closer to Minnesota in re-
<br />gard to the size and maturity of the solar en-
<br />ergy market. Wisconsin has also established
<br />several taws that constrain local government
<br />authority to regulate solar and wind energy
<br />installations unless the restriction:
<br />• serves to preserve or protect public health
<br />or safety,
<br />• does not significantly increase the cost of
<br />the system or decrease its efficiency, and
<br />• allows for an alternative system of compa-
<br />rable cost and efficiency.
<br />State taws like Wisconsin's can create
<br />unintended consequences because of their
<br />broad scope. For instance, the Wisconsin law
<br />makes it difficult if not impossible for local
<br />72
<br />ZONINGPRACTICE n.ao
<br />AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIAnONIpage 6
<br />
|