Justin Levesque of Cumberland argued before the appeals board that his neighbor’s permit to build a 48-panel solar array should be rescinded. Eloise Goldsmith / The Forecaster

Three Cumberland homeowners last week unsuccessfully sought to block a permit for a 48-panel solar array at a residence on Tuttle Road, arguing that the array does not conform with ordinance requirements, among other objections.

Justin Levesque, Douglas Mason and Gregory Goding appeared before the Cumberland Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Aug. 8 to make the case that their neighbors, Dwight and Kevan Deckelmann, should have the permit for their array revoked.

Mason is an abutter to the Deckelmanns’ property, and Levesque and Goding are nearby neighbors.

In addition to arguing that the array violates town ordinances, the residents objected to the array because they think it will look out of place in the residential neighborhood, and could potentially decrease their property values – though these complaints were not formally considered by the appeals board.

“It’s in our front yard, and so it’s not a NIMBY issue, it’s a NIMFY issue. I’m going to be the first person to say I don’t want it in my front yard. I will go on the record saying that,” said Levesque during the hearing.

Although the solar array would not be on Levesque’s property, his property is “in clear view of the proposed structure,” according to a letter he sent to town officials in June.

NIMBY is an acronym that stands for “not in my backyard” and is often used as a shorthand to refer to homeowners’ opposition to new development.

The appeals board ruled 6-0 to uphold the Deckelmanns’ permit after hearing input from the two parties and other members of the public for roughly two hours.

The solar array – which the Cumberland Code Enforcement office gave the green light to on June 17 – will be mounted on a dual axis tracker, essentially a stand that mounts the array and has the ability to rotate the panels with the movement of the sun.

“This will meet 100% of my energy needs now and what I project (I will need),” Dwight Deckelmann told the board. The array, which is a little more than 1,100 square feet, is expected to generate about $8,000 worth of power a year.

The application for the permit lists that the tracker will stand 24 feet tall “per ordinance” – a reference to the town’s rules governing residential solar, which states that pole-mounted solar energy systems be no higher than 24 feet, as measured from the bottom of the pole to the tallest point of the structure.

William Longley, the town’s code enforcement officer, said that the permit was issued on the understanding that the trackers’ movement would be modified, preventing the panels from fully rotating and breaking the height restriction. If the tracker was allowed to move at its full capacity it would break the height restriction.

Much of the appeal hearing hinged on whether the array would violate the town’s ordinance governing height restrictions for residential solar.

During his presentation, Levesque argued that the opposing residents’ research found that it would not be possible to modify the dual axis tracker to comply with the height requirement.

He also argued that modifying the tracker so that the panels lie flat could pose a safety hazard. For example, if the panels were to lie flat and collect snow, the weight of the snow could collapse the structure, he said. He also said he was concerned the initial site plan lacked detail and the placement of the array could potentially violate setback requirements, though he said that the latest plan submitted to code enforcement had assuaged these concerns.

When he came up to speak, owner of Northeast Solar Trackers Ryan Keith, who is installing the solar array for the Deckelmanns, told the board that he could manually set the degree that the array sits at so that the height restriction isn’t broken. He said that at a lower angle the panels would still be below the height requirement and would have some slant so snow could slide off. He also said he’s confident that the array can sustain a large snow load.

On the question of overall size, Levesque also argued that the array is a commercial structure and therefore not “subordinate” to the nearby residential structures, as is required by the ordinance.

Keith responded to that point by saying that “we’ve installed 20 units in the surrounding towns. No town has balked at them, you probably don’t even know where they’re located,” indicating that they do integrate well in residential areas.

When Mason spoke, he said there was a “lack of transparency on the enormous size of the solar tracker” and said that his real estate agent advised him that the value of his home could drop.

“We were told that the real estate aesthetics value of our house and our neighbors’ houses on Hope’s Way would be negatively impacted due to potential homebuyers seeking the rural nature of the Tuttle Road area,” he said. Goding echoed this concern.

Multiple other people spoke before the board expressing support for appellants, including former Town Councilor Shirley Storey-King.

“It meets the setbacks, it meets the height restriction (requirements), it does not subordinate the residential use” said appeals board Chair Matthew Manahan.

“We can’t decide we don’t like it because it doesn’t seem to fit into this location … the board is bound by the provisions in the ordinance that were adopted by the Town Council,” he said.