It was another long night of debate when the Mattapoisett Planning Board reopened the site-plan review application for the Bowman Road solar array proposed by Next Grid., aka Next Grid Bowman LLC. Board members attending the remote meeting were acting chairman Nathan Ketchel and board administrator Mary Crain, along with members Karen Field, Arlene Figardo, and Janice Robbins. Mattapoisett Town Counsel Jonathan Silverstein was also present. Chris King of Atlantic Design and attorney Joseph Pacella represented applicant Daniel Serber, also present in the virtual meeting room.
Representing the abutter, the Mattapoisett Land Trust, were Michael Huguenin and Paul Osenkowski, the latter of whom said he would also be speaking as a private citizen. Abutter to the project present for the meeting was Becky Zora of Martha’s Way and longtime conservation advocate Brad Hathaway.
Pacella began stating first and foremost that recent Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources emergency requirements did not apply to this project. Those changes as noted on the agency website stipulate that, if a solar project can establish that it meets all permitting requirements and has an agreement with a utility for service interconnection within six months of the statue’s April 26 publication date, the project would essentially meet Smart Energy standards.
However, the document also states some exemptions would limit proposed land use for solar projects. Those lands are described as Priority Habitat, Core Habitat and/or Critical Natural Landscape. It goes on to say that lands deemed to contain such sensitive areas by 50 percent may not be used for solar projects.
This point would generate much dialog as the evening advanced into night.
Pacella said that this project was grandfathered, “…so it will be held to the prior standard.”
Silverstein, when asked if the state’s emergency order applied to the project, responded, “The short answer is whether or not the project qualifies, that is not relevant to the Planning Board.” He said that the site-plan review was “separate and apart” from their responsibilities related to site-plan review.
The discussion turned to site issues when King said that technical issues previously raised such as MSDS sheets for transformers were submitted, requirements for emergency hazardous substance containment addressed, and confirmation from the fire and police departments that the project met with their departmental oversight. Construction practices such as off-site staging of equipment and project materials and limitations to truck travel on Bowman Road were also discussed by King.
Serber added to the conversation saying, “The biggest issue of concern is Bowman Road.” He said the only large equipment delivery to the site will be the transformer, but that police would be hired to manage traffic, and notice of the approximately three-hour process would be advanced to the residents in the area.
Further discussions over potential oil spillage into sensitive wetlands and decommissioning cost estimates were brought up by Ketchel. Details of the mechanics associated with notification of a spill and emergency measures were given by King. On the issue of decommissioning cost estimates, Ketchel questioned what would be done to the site upon decommissioning such as plantings and associated costs. By the end of the evening, cost remained an open question with Serber agreeing to pay a peer review consultant to review Next Grid’s plans and decommissioning bond price. The area that would be impacted is approximately 4.5 acres, he said.
Field asked whether the developer was going to be paying property taxes. Silverstein answered that he could accept a PILOT program as other solar developers have done, a lump-sum, yearly payment in lieu of real estate taxes.
Pacella said those discussions have not taken place because of the land court case the applicant filed when he appealed the Zoning Board of Appeals decision not to grant a special permit for the project.
Subsequently, the town and the applicant agreed to have the project reviewed by the Planning Board under the site-plan process. If accepted and conditioned by the Planning Board, the court filing would be dropped, he had said during the April meeting.
With no further questions from the board members, Ketchel invited Hathaway to speak. Hathaway asked how many trees would be cut down. Serber’s team could not give an exact number but said that both grasses and tree planting would be planned during the decommissioning process. Hathaway then commented on the over $1,000,000 that various town, private and state agencies have paid to develop a “greenway” between Angelica Point and Marion, saying “…this defeats the purposes.”
Serber said that Next Grid would be giving approximately a quarter of an acre to the land trust for conservation, that the property his company now owned on Bowman Road had been for sale for years prior to their acquiring it, and that it would be returned to a treed parcel. During the April meeting Huguenin had been surprised to learn of the property gift since it had not been discussed with the land trust to his knowledge.
Serber shared that at every public hearing for solar development the issue of real estate values had been raised and that he had been able to find only one independent study out of the University of Texas that found property values were not impacted by the proximity of a solar array.
Zora spoke to her wish for a gate at the end of Next Grid access roadway off Bowman Road to discourage hunters and day-trippers from accessing her property situated more deeply in the wooded area. She also asked that portable toilets being used by the construction teams not be placed near her property. Serber agreed.
Osenkowski spoke to the land trust’s efforts to acquire the property and the limitations imposed on them making purchase impossible. He spoke to the issue of harsh storms and hurricanes that would flood the area. He called the project a “despoiling” of the forest. With each utterance Osenkowski became more passionate, finally telling Serber, “For crying out loud, wake up. You have no right to do this, to come from California… go back to California put up your solar array there!” He pleaded, “I implore the Planning Board to protect the town.”
Huguenin was the last to speak. He said that the land trust had consistently raised concerns about the site, calling the project a public utility. Now with the project receiving site-plan review he said, “We have a chance not to make a mistake.” He said that the recent emergency measures put in place by the DOER prevented the project from moving forward. He said the site was not suitable for the project and asked the Planning Board to deny review based on the state’s criteria.
Crain later told The Wanderer that Silverstein had made it clear to the Planning Board that their review of the project was not encumbered by state regulations, that those were separate and should not be part of their decision-making process.
Robbins agreed with Silverstein. “Our job under site-plan review is pretty limited. Personally, we might not like the use but we can’t reject it on use,” she said. Ketchel concurred with Robbins saying, “… it’s also not our job to play intermediary between the applicant and the state.”
Pacella asked the board to close the public hearing and vote now, stating, “There’s no public welfare issue here.”
Instead citing Governor Baker’s emergency orders that grant cities and towns extended review time before having to render a decision, up to 45 days, the site-plan review was continued until May 21 at 7:00 pm.
Mattapoisett Planning Board
By Marilou Newell