Eric Las of Beals and Thomas Inc. came before the May 17 meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board to bring the board up to date on the massive 78-acre, 20,000-panel, 7.7-megawatt solar array planned for a wooded area off Randall Lane.
Las complained that communications from the peer review consultant BETA Engineering was not being passed along to his office in a timely manner, and he also questioned what he said were costly fees paid by his client for BETA’s services. Las said that some 65 peer review comments were still being reviewed, but that some site plan revisions had been completed, including pulling one corner of the array away from wetlands. He said that National Heritage is “on board” with site plan revisions. He said a PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) agreement is in the beginning stages of being drafted.
Lengthy discussions ensued on a variety of site-related concerns brought forward by board members such as protection of wetlands associated with the herring run, but the majority of the discussion centered around technical aspects of written documents posed by member Janice Robbins.
Robbins questioned how the project could be permitted before a complete survey was done and that there was no existing frontage for the landlocked site, suggesting an endorsement by the Zoning Board of Appeals might be helpful. She also advised the Beals and Thomas team members that, at the recent Town Meeting, new FEMA flood plain mapping and bylaw language that would likely impact the project was not in place.
“This project is so complex we are going to have continued questions. We are not done yet,” Robbins stated. The hearing was continued until June 21.
Things got a bit testy when Attorney Jack McGreen came to the board with information about new ownership of the Brandt Point Village subdivision. He said that of the nearly $1 million worth of work left on the project many months prior, according to the town’s peer review consultants Field Engineering, that sum is now closer to $62,000. Of those line items, McGreen said the majority belong to the homeowners’ association, not the developers.
Shaking her head, Robbins said, “I am not agreeing to any sale without a bond!” She went on to say that the agreement struck years ago with Omega Financial, a company of which one of the developers was also a trustee, was not a bond or surety against work not being completed. “We have a long and difficult history with this subdivision,” she said, noting numerous occasions when the developers neglected to meet with the board and that, moving forward, a cash surety is the only form of insurance that she is willing to accept. She also vigorously noted that for the last three years the Omega agreement has been in default.
McGreen responded with equal vigor, saying, “My client isn’t going to put up cash.” He said that the board had leverage in the form of holding up building permits if work remains incomplete. He said he would discuss the matter with his client and return at a later date.
Earlier in the proceedings, the board met with Ryan Correia to discuss an existing stone wall along scenic roadway Crystal Springs Roads. He said he had buyers for three lots, which would require at least two penetrations of the existing stone wall. Mike Gagne, Planning Board administrator, said that in discussion with Correia he was aware of the restrictions on the stone wall and had no plans to remove it in its entirety.
An Approval Not Required Form A submitted by David Monteiro caused some pushback from Robbins, who questioned if the property owners have the right to reconfigure the two lots in question located at 35 Mattapoisett Neck Road. Represented by Matt Leone of Schneider, Davignon, & Leone, Inc., the plan was to create a smaller lot A and a homestead lot B. But Robbins asked if the properties were in common ownership and, if so, they were merged; separation would not require frontage, which neither lot seems to have.
Leone said that he had conferred with the Building Department was assured that what was planned was permittable and grandfathered before zoning bylaws were implemented. Robbins said, “If they had been in separate ownership or built on, then they would be grandfathered, but now they can’t meet current frontage.”
Robbins suggested that Monteiro discuss frontage on the private way abutting the properties to the north. The application was continued until June 7.
There was also some lively discourse when the board members discussed next steps in implementing Planning Board oversight based on newly adopted FEMA bylaws.
Robbins said the board needs to develop a form and checklist as advised by FEMA in which the board would ensure that any type of modifications to property from the installation of a fence to the building of a home, work taking place in the revised FEMA flood plain mapping, meets FEMA regulations.
Douglas Schneider spoke up, saying that he believes projects already received sufficient oversight through the Conservation Commission hearing process and that the Building Department assured that FEMA regulations are being met. He contended that this new layer of governance amounts to a duplication that would end up costing property owners money and time.
Robbins said he was misunderstanding the role of the Planning Board in this matter, that the state had mandated that another governing body other than the Conservation Commission or the Building Department would perform flood plain oversight. She said, “You may object as a citizen; the debate is interesting, but that doesn’t get us anywhere.” The board will review form drafts in the coming weeks in an effort to be in front of the July 26 bylaw implementation date.
Member Karen Field again brought up the subject of stone walls, saying language needs to be amended in the special residential development rules and regulations to protect and or conserve existing stone walls. All were in agreement.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, June 7, at 7:00 pm.
Mattapoisett Planning Board
By Marilou Newell