Under 1 - a…

   Under 1 - a.

  Wording eliminates any inlay technologies for, Walkways, etc.

  1 - b.

  Does this eliminate panels being used for carports gazebos and as integrated fencing structures?

  1 - c.

  Would like to discuss raising limit to 20 kWh and a definition potentially for Pole mounted systems that use a buried ballasted system and an adjusted panel that allows for a vertical setting and turning on the pole for harvesting

  land footprint is the diameter of the pole and air space footprint  less than 2000 sq feet.

  1- d.

  same as above

  2. This will add $1,000 expense min. and many weeks to completion of work and this will still probably not meet the true goal, not seeing ground mount systems in subdivisions.

  If this is the goal write it that way. No Ground mount systems in subdivisions or on properties that have less than an acre of land. This will support the set back without requiring a surveyor every time.

  3. the problem with "prime agricultural" it does not deal with the actual condition of the property. If farming activities cease, the land is reclaimed by nature quickly, after 5 yrs. fields are over grown with saplings and brush, 10 yrs trees, 20 years forests.

  Is there a mechanism that could be incorporated for a site review that does not require full variance base on actual condition of the agricultural value?

[Original Comment ID: 211906]