MEMORANDUM TO: NORWICH SELECTBOARD FROM: STEPHEN N. FLANDERS SUBJECT ADDENDUM TO MEMO: PREFERRED SITES FOR LARGE-SCALE SOLAR PROJECTS DATE: MARCH 21,2021 CC: TOWN MANAGER, PLANNING DIRECTOR 1 . Summary - In his March l8 memo responding to my earlier memo on this topic, the Norwich Planning Director explains that the current way the Norwich Town Plan handles the question of siting of solar projects is legally supportable. The legality of the approach is not at issue; I questioned the odvisability of that approach. The current approach is broadly permissive about siting solar projects, making most of Norwich a "preferred site". My memo suggested that the town would be better served by identifying specific, preferred sites for solar projects, as is recommended in guidance under Act 174 and in Vermont Deputy Planning Director Anne Margolis's correspondence appended to the March 18 memo and to this memo. 2. Act 174 guidance - In its March 2,2017 "Guidance for municipal enhanced energy planning standards" (P.20),1 the Vermont Department of Public Service states: Municipalities are strongly encouraged to identify preferred locations for the siting of renewable energy generation facilities. By clearly identifying types of locations that are preferred (for example rooftops (and other structures), parking lots, previously developed sites, brownfields, gravelpits, quarries, and Superfund sites) and especially by mapping specific such locations, municipalities are sending a message to potential developers that these are the locations where they would like to see development occur. In her July 23,2019 email to Rod Francis (see Appendix), Margolis cites the same page in the same guidance and says, "Generally, the more specific, descriptive, and directive you can be in your plan, the more guidance you will be giving to the PUC in interpreting its land conservation measures under the orderly development criterion during a siting case." This was in response to a query about making much of the town a "preferred site". https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/Pubs:Plans Reports/Act:174 /Municipal%20Guidance Final.pdf Pp. 20-21 The above underscores the concern that in not adopting Margolis's advice, the current plan lacks the specificity, descriptiveness, and direction needed to guide the appropriate siting of such facilities. 3. Valid premise? -The communication with Margolis contains two good-faith premises for not pursuing an enhanced energy plan, one about wind, the second about iolar. The second premise was, "the community is broadly supportive of solar generation projects, and thus is unlikely to seek more of a role in the issuance of a ÒPG.2" Some examples of past town-wide controversies illustrate why that may be a faulty premise: o Townspeople were widely alarmed about the prospect of a locator-outer marker tower on Beaver Meadow Road that would support a new instrument landing system. This packed meeting rooms on the subject. o A controversy about the width of the new Ledyard Bridge led to a referendum vote that in turn caused Governor Dean to narrow the bridge design by four feet. o The planned installation of a communications tower at DPW caused town-wide controversy and two separate bond votes. These examples suggest that it would be prudent to identify preferred sites as part of a plan, rather than to arouse public emotions when a project is proposed unexpectedly for a scenic meadow or a wooded tract. 4. Replies to expressed concerns - Here are replies to some concerns addressed in the cited March l8 memo: a. Mechanism for revision - It correctly says that a selectboard cannot instruct a planning commission to amend a duly adopted plan. My memo said (my cmphasis), "This is to recommend that the selectboard request that the planning commission identify specific sites...." No instruction was implied. 24 V.S.A. $ 4334 permits the planning commission to honor that request. b. Enhanced energt planZ - It avers that in not opting for an enhanced energy plan, Norwich need not conform to Rule 5.100. Margolis's memo makes it clear that the equivalent language provides valuable guidance to the PUC, even without an enhanced energy plan. c. Definition of "large-scale"? - Although I was clear about the 150-kw definition provided in Rule 5.100, this question distracts from the central question that "Guidance for municipal enhanced energy planning standards" (P. 20) encourages defining and identifying preferred sites for projects of any size. 2 Certificate of Public Good 2 Appendix: Correspondence between Norwich Planning Director Francis and Vermont Deputy Planning Director Margolis Rod troml Margolir, ARne <Anne.Margolir@vermonl'gov: Srnt: Tue$dåy, Iuly 23, å019 3151 PM ïo: Rod Fr¡neir Cc: [email protected] 3ubþt: RÉ,: pref*rred site ctatul undcr Act I 74 energy plan, there mey nol ba rp€cific Hcllo Rod * I don,t lee whv d0t, th0ußh w¡thout havinç an apBroved enhanced pot€ntial, preferred, un¡uitablel, 6€ner¡lly, lhe beñefil fo $tili¡ing thë term¡nõlsgy oiRet 174 and íts siandards 1e,8. you will be giving to thë pUC in more rpecific. dercfiptave, and diieaive you can be in your plan, the more 6uidance during a siting case' int€rpreting its l¡nd conrervat¡on measures under the orderly developñ¡ent cfiterion guidanee we put togsther miçht be of use or at least Even if yos're *õt pursütng an enhanced energy plan, some of the interest: Fir! httog:/lpubn*ervtce,vermont,sovls,ite$,/do$ffiles/doeumentglPubr Plan¡ RePortll&t X74lMu{icit'llt6?06uidan-ee p. åB!! {see dí¡eussion of preferred rite* on 10}" RPC, a5 they've been working Happy to t¡lk more - you mtght ôlso reach out to Dee 6ish ¡t Two Rivers"Ottauquechee more directly w¡th townr o0 th€ir plans and miSht have some w¡sdom to ¡mpart' Best regards, Anne Fromr Rod Francis <RFranc¡s@norwich'vt'us> Scnt: Monday, JulY 22. 2019 3:38 PM 1o: Margohs, Anne <[email protected]: Cc: [email protected] tubþc* preferred sate stðtus r¡nder Acl X74 H¡ Anne, and others on a new Energy Plan lor Norwich' t have been working with Linda 6ray of the Noruich Ênergy committee energy plan that would confer "substantial One key decision made early on har beeo to NOT pursue an enhanced deferenee" on Norwieh {as laid out in Açl t741. phYsical reåsons ñlorwich ir unlikely to become the We had somewhet contrad¡ctory rearons for deciding tbir. First, for lssuance of a CPG appeðrs to be of location for a large*cale wind developm€nt. so the a¡ded local invoivement ¡n the generet¡on pro¡ect5, and thus is unlikely to seek more llttle b€nefit. Second, th€ commünity ¡s broadly ¡upportive of solar of ¿ role in the ísruance of a CPG. goals it âs |tid out in the lâteet CEP, we don't feelthe need to So, wh¡le ñlorwich ir comûrtç*d to achieving the set lor obtä¡n'$ubståntial deference'' as possible' our small group Meanwhile, we wguld like to make obtaining a cFG for solar generat¡on ås stfa¡ghtfofw¿rd excepÌ for å thort líst of known örea¡/sites has been contemplatlng hâv¡ñg the entire tõwn declared a'pieferred ¡ite' - lrail, the Ridgeline Overlay' the V¡llâge where that would be inapproÑiate {e.6' lândr adl¡cent to the Appalachian Ðistri{t etc"}. whät do you th¡nk of thir idea? t5 th¡s somelhing thät would b¿ posrible under *xirting regulationr? 1 -l Miranda Berqmeier From: Jacqueline Springwater <[email protected] > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2021 1:12 PM To: Miranda Bergmeier Subject: REF:The Town of Norwich's Policing Needs Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To: The Select Boord ond Town Monoger From: Jocg ueline Springwater 81 Koch Rd, Norwich, VT 05055 (802) 649 2824 At this moment in the notion andhere in Vermont cruciol iSSUeS Concefn¡ng police policy ond ref orms sre rightly being díscussed. f strongly urge you to deloy filling the vacant position of Norwich Police Chief unt¡l we have abetter idea of how to best set"ve our community. Theref ore, I support o town -widel selectboord discussion ond re- evoluotion of our town's policing needs. This re-evaluotion f suggest should include: a on ossessment of post police octivities (9Il doto) in order to design o community Policing Policy f or the f uture; a possible strategies and olternotives in order to transf er responsibility from ormed, uniformed, police off tcers to unormed civilions ond other agencies in the oreos of trsffic conTrol,inlerpersonol violence, mentol ond physicol wellness; 1 ft is f ar better to move slowly ond to come up with o plon thot is humone ond oppropriote to our Town's needs ond budget rother thon rushing to do som ething bef ore caref ul study. Thonk you f or the work you do on our beholf . Jocguel ine Springwoter 2 Miranda Berqmeier From: Paul D. Manganiello <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2021 9:38 AM lo: Miranda Bergmeier Cc: wendy.manganiello@g mail.com Subject: Policing Dear Members of the Select Board I am writing to ask that you delay hiring a new Chief of Police for Nonruich until you carry out a comprehensive study to determine the health and safety needs for the town. Last summer, I had written concerning an individual who was acting erratically on Turnpike Rd. That episode, for me, and the broader discussion about community policing as it relates to people of color is forcing us to re-imagine the role of our police departments https ://www.washinqtonpost.