Debate over the future of Cranston’s rules governing large-scale solar power installations heated up at City Hall last week – and Oct. 17 is now shaping up to be a pivotal date as the process moves forward.

That evening, the City Council’s Ordinance Committee is scheduled to take up two different sets of proposals related to solar power installations, along with a three-month extension of the moratorium put in place earlier this year for utility-scale solar projects.

Additionally, Council President Michael Farina has called for a special meeting of the full council act on the moratorium extension – a move he said will ensure there is enough time to address all contingencies before the moratorium’s scheduled expiration at the end of October.

“We’re going to have a special meeting, on the 17th [of October], the full council, directly after the Ordinance Committee meeting, to pass the moratorium [extension], so there will be no gap,” he said.

The solar debate returned to the forefront during two meetings last week – first at the Planning Commission’s monthly gathering on Sept. 10, and then before the Ordinance Committee’s meeting on Sept. 12. The proceedings resulted in a rare procedural outcome at the planning level and set the stage for the Oct. 17 debate.

The road to a solar review

At the heart of the solar issue has been the city’s current allowance of commercial-scale installations by right in A-80 residential zones – and the proliferation of such projects in area of Western Cranston since the adoption of the existing solar ordinance in 2015.

Over that four-year period, concerns have grown from officials and residents over the impacts of commercial-scale solar projects. Criticism has focused largely on environmental effects – including the cutting of large numbers of trees – in addition to issues of neighborhood character, property values and aesthetics.

The concerns led to the enactment of the nine-month moratorium in February. As part of the moratorium, the Planning Department was asked to conduct a review of the city’s solar guidelines and bring forward revisions.

In July, the Planning Commission hosted a joint workshop with the council to present a first draft of the planning staff’s proposals. Those were introduced as new business during the council’s meeting in August, and are set to be taken up by the Planning Commission and Ordinance Committee in October.

Two sets of proposals

The proposals from planning staff – which are outlined in a zoning ordinance amendment and corresponding amendment to the zoning schedule of uses – include a number of new features compared with the city’s current rules.

Generally, the planning recommendations would divide solar installations among three categories, including a new “major accessory” designation.

“Minor accessory” solar systems would be defined as those mounted on roofs or integrated into buildings, while “principal” solar systems would refer the commercial-scale installations that led to the moratorium.

The new “major accessory” category would allow for the placement of solar panels on a farm or other such property. It limits the solar component to 25 percent of a property’s area and includes other restrictions in terms of screening and tree disturbance.

The planning proposal would also require a special use permit for the installation of a commercial-scale solar energy system on property zoned as A-80 residential or S-1 open space. It additionally includes increased setback, buffering and screening requirements.

The moratorium extension was introduced alongside the solar ordinances from planning.

Meanwhile, in June, another pair of proposals was introduced before the council by Citywide Councilman Steve Stycos and cosponsored by Farina, Citywide Councilman Ken Hopkins and Ward 4 Councilman Edward Brady.

The first would amend the city’s Comprehensive Plan, removing language that designates the placement of solar facilities as a form of “land banking” and adding new wording focused on the land acquisition, the purchase of development rights and the placement of conservation easements as the preferred means of preserving land in Western Cranston.

The second would amend the city’s zoning ordinance to remove commercial-scale solar facilities as an allowed use in the A-80 residential and S-1 open space zones.

Split vote at planning

The council-sponsored measures went before the Planning Commission on Sept. 10, when a lengthy discussion led to the unusual outcome – 3-2 votes from a shorthanded commission to make a negative recommendation on both proposals, but which in practical terms resulted in each carrying no recommendation from the body.

As the meeting commenced, Senior Planner Joshua Berry noted that the presence of only five of the commission’s nine members – Fred Vincent, Steven Spirito, Ken Mason, Kathleen Lanphear and Ann Marie Maccarone – meant any action on a recommendation would require approval from all of the commissioners. Otherwise, the measures would be forwarded to the council with no recommendation.

Also raised was the fact that a negative recommendation from the commission would require a 6-3 vote of the council for eventual passage, rather than a simple majority.

Ultimately, Vincent, Spirito and Mason voted in favor of a motion to accept planning staff’s recommendation that the council-sponsored proposals receive a negative recommendation. Lanphear and Maccarone, however, dissented.

Lanphear said the commission “should consider” the course of providing no recommendation, either through a motion to that effect or by at least one of the present commissioners dissenting. She noted that members of the commission and planning staff have “worked very hard with the charged that the City Council gave us” through the moratorium, but “now we have before us something that is completely contrary to what is being developed at the moment.”

“[Council members have] been to the workshop, they’ve seen what we have proposed to do. They know the direction we’re going in … So, obviously, regardless of what they saw in our proposal, they felt that it was necessary to put this proposal forward,” she said. “I feel that they should go along with no recommendation from us, have no constraints … that might be the best course of action.”

Spirito offered a sharply different take.

“I feel very strongly that we can do solar responsibly, and people have done an extensive amount of work … I don’t want to make it any easier on the Ordinance Committee to overturn the work that we’ve done,” he said.

Berry, in presenting the staff recommendation, said the council-sponsored proposals – which he referred to as the “September ordinances” – were “a little bit premature.” He said the measures were delayed in coming before the Planning Commission due to the expense and requirements involved in advertising a change to the Comprehensive Plan.

Berry also said that approving the council-sponsored proposals would “undermine” the work competed on the planning side, and noted that the moratorium had specifically asked for the department to develop new solar rules for consideration.

“Without publicly hearing [the planning-sponsored] ordinance, we will not fulfill the task required,” he said.

Ordinance panel delays action

Two days later, the council’s Ordinance Committee voted 7-0 to continue discussion of both council-sponsored solar measures until its Oct. 17 meeting.

Farina made the motion to continue, saying he had co-sponsored the measures to provide a “backstop if for some reason planning didn’t act in the time needed.”

“I think to act on this either tonight either way would really not respect the work that we as a council asked them to do in passing the solar moratorium … To hear them all on the same night makes the most sense,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to enact an outright ban until we actually have had a chance to debate and talk about the ordinance that planning has put together. We may decide to amend that ordinance, make it stricter, change it, augment it in some way.”

Stycos agreed that it “makes sense to talk about [the various solar proposals] all at once,” but reiterated points he has made previously – including during the Planning Commission’s meeting – about what he saw as the potential risks of delayed action.

He said based on the current schedule and without an extension of the moratorium, the council would effectively be unable to amend the Planning Department’s proposals during its regular Oct. 28 meeting without risking a window in which commercial-scale solar developers could bring new projects forward.

“The reason that I put [the council-sponsored measures] in with co-sponsors in June was that I was worried about a scenario where the council’s power to revise the solar regulations would be limited by the timing. The solar moratorium ends on Oct. 31 … If you want to continue these two proposals, then you really need to agree that there’s going to be a moratorium extension,” he said.

At that point, Farina – saying Stycos had “very eloquently” expressed his concerns during the Planning Commission meeting – said he was calling for the special meeting of the full council on Oct. 17 to take up the moratorium extension.

“It’s probably going to be a lengthy evening. Extending the moratorium is probably the first goal, getting that extended to ensure we don’t have the issue that Councilman Stycos brought up … We know this is an important issue. That’s why we enacted a moratorium in the first place,” he said.

Ward 4 Councilman Ed Brady said he is “confident” that the moratorium extension will be approved.

It was also noted during the Ordinance Committee’s meeting that the city’s moratorium remains the focus of a legal challenge from the developers of a proposed solar facility in Cranston’s Fiskeville section. A master plan submission for that project was denied a certificate of completeness by planning staff shortly before the moratorium’s enactment. Earlier this year, a Superior Court judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order preventing the city from enforcing the moratorium.

Assistant Solicitor John Verdecchia additionally told council members a legal decision from earlier this year in a case involving a similar moratorium in Exeter could prove instructive. He said he would prepare a memorandum for the council about the case.

Opposition remains

During both the Planning Commission and Ordinance Committee meetings, a number of residents reiterated their ongoing concerns over the spread of large solar projects in residential areas of Western Cranston.

At the planning level, several speakers urged the commission to reject the staff recommendation and support the council-sponsored ordinances.

“You should all be very well aware where the residents stand on this issue,” Jessica Marino told the Ordinance Committee. “The current allowance of large-scale solar by right in residential [zoning] has no place in the city and, frankly, no place in the state … It’s time to take a conscientious approach, take pause, and enact an ordinance where it is not allowable in A-80.”

Drake Patten called the spread of solar projects a “gold rush.” She told council members that an outright prohibition on such developments in residential zones is the only way to truly ensure the desired outcome is achieved.

She said while the Planning Department’s research has found that only a handful of sites in A-80 zones could accommodate commercial-scale solar projects, that could quickly change if properties are acquired and reconfigured.

“We cannot freeze time. We cannot assume that eight sites today will be eight sites tomorrow … It makes an assumption that we cannot make,” she said.

Sonya Hanson urged council members to give the council-sponsored proposals as a “safeguard to protect the city and the residents of Western Cranston.”

“I’ve listened to my neighbors. I’ve seen the destruction … The city is not good at managing solar projects. It's not in our wheelhouse,” she said.

Doug Doe noted that during a May workshop hosted by the Planning Commission, the vast majority of speakers favored a full prohibition of large-scale solar projects in A-80 zoning.

“That’s the consensus,” he said.