The city’s year-long review of its rules governing solar energy installations is set to reach a conclusion in the coming days – and while officials are poised to adopt changes that would bar large, commercial-scale projects in a pair of key zoning districts, the clock is ticking.

Multiple ordinance amendments related to the solar review appear on the Jan. 16 agenda of the City Council’s Ordinance Committee, while a special meeting of the City Council has been called for Jan. 21 to take up the measures for planned final approval.

Council President Michael Farina said Tuesday that the special meeting was called to “close the 10-day loophole” – providing time for another meeting, if necessary, to override a veto from Mayor Allan Fung.

Preparing for that contingency is needed because a moratorium currently in place for commercial-scale solar projects expires Jan. 31. The mayor previously said he will decide whether to sign the solar ordinance amendments once they reach his desk in their final form.

“Solar is important for renewable energy, but our residents’ quality of life also matters,” Farina said Tuesday. “Removing A-80 and open space from solar will stop the proliferation in Western Cranston and protect our important open space. I am happy we’re at the finish line and also proud the council worked together in a bipartisan way to support our city.”

The commercial solar issue has drawn significant scrutiny from residents and officials in the years since the city adopted its current solar ordinance in 2015.

The subsequent spread of commercial-scale projects in Western Cranston – and particularly in A-80 zoning districts – was the driving force behind the push for the moratorium and the associated review of the city’s guidelines Many residents and officials say the large solar projects have brought a host of negative effects, including the clearing of trees, the changing of neighborhood character and other issues.

Procedurally, the solar review process – which began in February 2019 – has been complex and, at times, unusual.

Through a series of 6-0 votes in November, the Ordinance Committee amended versions of the Planning Department’s recommended zoning solar ordinance amendment and a related change to the zoning schedule of uses.

The planning proposals – which divide solar installations among three categories, including a new “major accessory” designation – initially sought to allow commercial-scale solar in A-80 residential and S-1 open space zones through a required special use permit. Currently, commercial projects are allowed in those zones by right.

The Ordinance Committee’s November amendments would essentially result in the prohibition of commercial-scale solar projects in A-80 and S-1 zones. The amendments would also bar the “major accessory” systems in those zones and require a special use permit for “minor accessory” solar systems.

Given the vote at the committee level, it appears virtually certain that the support exists on the council to pass the more restrictive solar rules and withstand a mayoral veto.

The November meeting generated a significant new issue, however – a realization on the part of officials that the ordinance amendments would need to be accompanied by a corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendment.

If the language included in the ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan were to become incongruous, officials suggested, the city would be open to legal challenges from solar developers.

The Ordinance Committee’s November docket did include such an amendment – a measure submitted by Citywide Councilman Steve Stycos and sponsored by other council members, which seeks to remove language that designates the placement of solar facilities as a form of “land banking.”

It was accompanied by a separate council-sponsored zoning amendment meant to serve as a safeguard in case any unexpected setbacks were experienced during development of the Planning Department’s proposals.

The Planning Commission considered both of the council-sponsored measures in September, but only five commission members were present during the discussion and vote. That led to a highly unusual procedural outcome – a pair of 3-2 votes against recommending the proposals to the council, which, in effect, meant they carried no formal recommendation.

At the November meeting, the Ordinance Committee voted to send the Comprehensive Plan amendment – and the council-sponsored zoning amendment – back to the Planning Commission.

Farina sought the commission’s new review of proposals, saying he felt having the opinion of the full commission would be important. Additionally, in the case of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, the intent was for its language to be updated to fully reflect the amended versions of the Planning Department’s zoning ordinance and schedule of uses proposals.

The commission last week met and voted to reconsider both of the council-sponsored proposals. It subsequently voted 6-2 against accepting the planning staff’s recommendation against the Comprehensive Plan amendment – in other words, giving the measure its blessing.

Commissioners Kathleen Lanphear, Fred Vincent, Robert DiStefano, Joseph Morales, Robert Strom and Ken Mason made up the majority, while Commission Chairman Michael Smith and Commissioner Robert Coupe were the dissenting votes.

Senior Planner Joshua Berry later presented a draft representing the planning staff’s recommended changes to the Comprehensive Plan amendment – language designed to bring it fully in line with the amended zoning ordinance changes the council is poised to approve.

It was determined that the language did not require a vote, however, and it was forwarded to the council to be incorporated through an amendment at that level.

The commission voted to accept planning staff’s negative recommendation on the council-sponsored zoning amendment. That vote was 8-0.

The reconsideration process during the Planning Commission’s meeting was at times confusing, and officials acknowledged the unusual nature of the proceedings.

Smith called it a “situation that at least I have not experience in my 11 years on this board.”

“This is a first for many of us,” Berry added.