From: Mike Pazdon Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 12:25 PM To: Michael Behrendt; Karen Edwards Cc: Todd Selig; Durham Town Council Subject: Public Hearing on Proposed Solar Array Ordinance I submit this material to be added to the public record on Wednesday concerning the proposed ordinance on placement of Solar Arrays. I could not readily find a general email for the planning board, if you have one please send it to me? Thanks, Mike I have read the material concerning the proposed ordinance to regulate placement of solar arrays. I am against this ordinance as written as it does not adhere to the law as written and referenced. RSA 672 states III. Proper regulations enhance the public health, safety and general welfare and encourage the appropriate and wise use of land; III-a. Proper regulations encourage energy efficient patterns of development, the use of solar energy, including adequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy uses, and the use of other renewable forms of energy, and energy conservation. Therefore, the installation of solar, wind, or other renewable energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of renewable energy shall not be unreasonably limited by use of municipal zoning powers or by the unreasonable interpretation of such powers except where necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; The dust-up from the installation of a free standing array on Packers Falls Road has little to do with these criteria, it is a matter of taste and with this ordinance Durham will be forcing a land owner to comply to the “likes” of whoever does not like the looking at something on the owners property. I can understand the objections, but there are no health, safety or welfare concerns. My objections to the passage of the ordinance as written is it will not, as the chair of the energy committee states -“notify abutters in advance, and protect the large investment of the homeowner from becoming a source of legal or neighborhood strife, as much as possible.” but rather create a legal battle for the town and we will probably lose, resulting in extra legal fees for the Town and if the owner pursues it, reimbursement of their legal fees (I reference the Sprint Tower as an example). As well, there is no logic in such an ordinance; are we to also prevent placement of swings, pools, horseshoe pits etc. on the road side of a lot because someone does not like to look at them? I would suggest a solution that does not require a special exception, but like all appliance installations, a permitting process that can come before the board and then on a case by case basis be decided using criteria allowed in the existing statute, RSA 674 part I: I. Every zoning ordinance shall be made with reasonable consideration to, among other things, the character of the area involved and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, as well as with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality. For the array in question, it could have been a civil discussion with the Planning Board about location and not the unnecessary added burden of a special exception with flies in the face of RSA 672. I appreciate your attention to this matter, Mike 163 Dame Road Mike Pazdon 603-770-9414