[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

News Watch Home

Sutton voters say no to solar amendment 

Credit:  www.telegram.com 28 February 2012 ~~

SUTTON – Voters at a special town meeting last night rejected a proposed zoning bylaw amendment that would have allowed large-scale photovoltaic solar installations of more than 250 kilowatts on residential property of 100 acres or more.

By a vote of 25 in favor and 46 opposed, the article submitted by Robert Maki as a citizen’s petition fell far short of the two-thirds majority vote necessary for approval.

Scott Paul, chairman of the Planning Board, said the board didn’t support changing a photovoltaic-installation zoning bylaw, adopted at town meeting in October, before it had been used. That bylaw allows solar panels producing up to 250 kilowatts to be installed on residential property. Larger installations may only be installed, by special permit, on industrial, commercial or business-zoned property.

Mr. and Mrs. Maki would like to lease roughly 40 acres of their 150-acre Star of the East Christmas Tree Farm, 15 Dewitt Road, to a developer for a 4- to 5-megawatt solar farm. They contend the revenue would allow them to maintain their farm and its setting would be unobtrusive.

“This scale of a project is really very industrial,” said Planning Board associate member Jonathan Anderson. “It’s like a land grab here in Massachusetts because of the (solar) incentives. The last thing I want to see is our farmland getting taken up and used for large-scale solar panels.”

Others said that while they were in favor of solar energy, the proposed amendment to the new bylaw was “too thin” and opened the town to potential unintended consequences.

Planning Director Jennifer S. Hager said that proponents would have to revise the proposal substantially to bring the issue back to town meeting in the spring.

Source:  www.telegram.com 28 February 2012

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


e-mail X FB LI TG TG Share

News Watch Home

Get the Facts
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook

Wind Watch on Linked In Wind Watch on Mastodon