Jonathan Murray from KP Law presented on solar permitting, emphasizing the legislative changes and case law impacting solar energy systems. He highlighted Chapter 483, which restricts municipalities from unreasonably regulating solar installations, except for public health, safety, or welfare considerations. Murray referenced the “Tracer Lane” case, a ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in 2022, which determined that bylaws must promote solar energy instead of restricting it. This ruling arose from a situation where a developer intended to build a solar project in Lexington through Waltham, but Waltham’s zoning bylaws limited solar installations to only 2% of the town, which the court found unreasonable.

Murray’s presentation clarified that while municipalities can impose reasonable restrictions on solar installations, they must ensure that these regulations align with the legislative goal of promoting solar energy. He noted that large-scale solar systems are important for Massachusetts’ solar energy promotion, contrasting earlier assumptions that the statute primarily supported smaller installations. This evolving landscape of solar regulation requires municipalities to adapt their zoning bylaws accordingly.

The board’s discussion on solar energy regulations also touched on the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in interpreting existing bylaws rather than creating new ones. It was mentioned that a solar bylaw working group had drafted a solar bylaw under review by the Community Resources Committee (CRC) and would seek feedback from various boards, including the ZBA. Further inquiries were made about promoting solar panels on residential properties and the potential for municipalities to mandate solar installations over new parking lots and commercial buildings.

A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to the continued hearing on the University Lodge, focusing on updates since the previous session on August 8th. The applicant, represented by Mr. Rey, provided an updated lease agreement and site plan, addressing the board’s inquiries about lighting, trash enclosures, and unit dimensions. The site plan detailed parking spaces, ADA compliance, and added lighting, with utility poles on the property belonging to Eversource. The lease modifications included limits on overnight guests, with a maximum of one guest for studios and two for one-bedroom units, and a three-night stay limit.

Concerns were raised about occupancy limits, particularly regarding the sanitary code, which restricts studio apartments to two occupants. Mr. Mora explained that the code does not permit four unrelated individuals to occupy a 280-square-foot dwelling, prompting a need to align the lease terms with the sanitary code. The board discussed potential conditions for approval, emphasizing the need for clarification on the trash enclosure and the practicality of having a resident manager.

The board also deliberated on a special permit application from YG Chestnut 161 LLC, which sought to change the land use classification of a property from owner-occupied to non-owner-occupied duplex. The property, located on Chestnut Street, included a garage, driveway, and a pool at the rear. The applicant proposed renting the first unit with three bedrooms to students and the second one-bedroom unit to related individuals. Concerns about parking allocation, tenant arrangements, and the management of shared amenities like the pool were discussed.

Significant concerns were raised about the lease’s current state and parking allocation, especially given the property’s location at a busy intersection near a school. Public comments from residents highlighted issues with student rentals in the neighborhood, citing noise, disturbances, and parking challenges. Board members echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for a finalized lease and clarity on tenant responsibilities.

The board ultimately voted against the application, with members expressing discomfort with the incomplete information and the potential adverse impact on the neighborhood. The applicant was informed that they could return with a revised application addressing the board’s feedback.