Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 6 energy facilities were allowed by special penu&it in the "general business district" ("GB District"); and (4) because the Bylaws prohibited uses and structures not specifically allowed either by right or special permit in the Town's zoning districts, the development of a commercial solar energy facilities was prohibited in the Town's residential zoning districts. The Briggs appealed the ZBA decision to court. They argued that because solar energy systems did not fall in a principle use category provided by the Bylaws, the only allowed use of solar energy systems was as an accessory use. More specifically, they argued that neither the LI District nor the GB District allowed solar energy systems because such systems were not listed in the use table and because solar energy collection did not fall under the Bylaws'. definition of "light manufacturing." They argued such restriction on solar energy systems was an "unreasonable regulation" on solar energy systems in violation of Massachusetts statutory law, G.L. c. 40A, § 3. That statute provides as follows: "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facili- tate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare." (G.L. c. 40A, § 3.) The ZBA countered that a commercial nonaccessory solar farm, such as that proposed by the Briggs, was a "light manufacturing" use under the Bylaws, which although not allowed in a residential district, was al- lowed as of right in a LI District and allowed by special permit in a GB District. Therefore, the ZBA argued that, since solar energy systems were allowed in designated commercial districts, and as accessory uses in residential districts, it could not be said that solar energy systems had been unreasonably regulated in violation of G.L. 40A, § 3. DECISION: Matter remanded. The Massachusetts Land Court, Department of the Trial Court, found that the ZBA, in its decision on the Briggs' Application, had failed to make findings that solar energy systems could be categorized as "light manufacturing" for zoning purposes. Although the ZBA decision had stated that the Bylaw provided for: the development of solar energy facil- ities as a permitted use within the LI Di,strict and by special peiiuit in the GB District, the ZBA had failed to niake.a specific finding "as to why solar energy systems [were] an allowed use in either the GB District . . . or the LI District." Although in court the ZBA had raised the argument of solar energy facilities amounting to "light manufacturing," the court found that nowhere in the ZBA's decision did the term "light manufactur- ing" appear. The court concluded that the ZBA had failed to make a de- termination of a solar energy system as "light manufacturing," and that the ZBA should be extended an opportunity to make such findings. Ac- cordingly, the court remanded the case to the ZBA to make findings on that issue. ©2014 Thomson Reuters 5