On March 21 the Mattapoisett Planning Board voted to establish a committee of seven to nine people to evaluate the current solar bylaw draft or start from scratch. Two Planning Board members and Administrator of Assessing Kathleen Costello, along with others yet to be named, will spearhead this latest effort to bring a new solar bylaw to the voters, possibly in the fall.
Also on March 21, the board held a public hearing on the proposed solar bylaw draft that could have been dubbed a “lame duck.” During the previous Planning Board meeting held on March 9, public input and questions raised by the town’s assessing office regarding the drafted solar bylaw found the document lacking in clarity and possibly risking future revenue growth. Desirous of additional public input, the Planning Board decided to go forward with a planned March 21 public hearing on the topic.
Once again in attendance was Russell Chase, a resident who had concerns that the drafted bylaw language would be too restrictive for those property owners wishing to construct small (less than 17,000 square feet) arrays for personal use. He also noted it might limit farmers’ abilities to subsidize their earnings. He further considered clauses mandating the planting of pollinator mixes as unnecessary and costly, a $2,000 permit too costly, and the need for monitoring of planted areas onerous.
Planning Board member Janice Robbins, who has led the way for a local solar bylaw, responded that planting areas where native plants had been removed during construction is necessary. “We have to balance the needs of solar and natural habitats,” she said, adding that most homeowners would be entitled to install residential systems but wondered “where is the cut-off” between small and medium installations.
Speaking on behalf of the town was attorney Matthew Thomas who, along with Costello, was instrumental in Mattapoisett’s Home Rule Petition (July 2020) that granted the town authority to negotiate P.I.L.O.T. programs that allow solar developers to pay a fixed fee over the life of an array in lieu of taxes. Costello’s position has been that these programs have been successful in securing new revenue for the town; Mattapoisett is more than 90-percent dependent on real estate property taxes with very little in the way of commercial venues.
Thomas stated, “I advise you to proceed with caution.” While he agreed that a solar bylaw is necessary to “protect the health and safety of the public,” Thomas said that pending decision(s) from the Supreme Judicial Court regarding zoning versus site-plan reviews could find the town defending its solar bylaw in court.
“You need a bylaw especially during decommissioning – there is a need,” Thomas said. But while noting that the current draft would not be moving forward to the Spring Town Meeting, he suggested the board, “wait for the SJC decision so you don’t run afoul … then you can craft a bylaw for the safety of Mattapoisett.”
In a follow-up with Costello, she said that state solar regulations take into consideration kilowatt hours versus square footage of array sites and that it would be important for all regulating agencies including the town to be “speaking the same language.”
Thomas also favored a bylaw based on kilowatts versus acreage. “We are going to need solar … we need to see how that fits in neighborhoods. It’s a hot topic, but solar can be good for passive reuse of some lands,” he concluded.
Speaking for the Mattapoisett Land Trust, Michael Huguenin brought up the issue of inspecting solar arrays post construction to ensure conditions imposed on the site are being upheld by the developer and operator. He also expressed concern that recent FEMA updates to flood-zone mapping did not take into consideration Category 3 and 4 hurricanes. He urged the Planning Board to consider restriction of solar arrays both medium and large being installed in flood zones. Huguenin pointed to the construction of the Bowman Road array as an example of where not to grant solar permits. Robbins noted that the recently permitted Randall Lane LLC array is at least in one location in a hurricane-impact area.
Huguenin then asked, “Have you seen any reports?” Part of the permitting process for Bowman Road was a condition that the owner/operators give an annual written report on the functioning and maintenance of various systems such as drainage. “And they should be signed and stamped by a civil engineer,” he said.
“We are concerned about ongoing operation over 20 years,” Huguenin stated. “What happens if they just stop, who maintains the drainage and vegetation? What recourse does the town have?” Continuing in this vein, Huguenin pointedly asked the board, “Have you asked for reports?” Robbins responded that there was not any administrative help for the board at the present time with Chairman Tom Tucker saying, “We are volunteers.”
The establishment of a committee will be revisited at the next meeting of the Planning Board.
In other business, the Park Lane Extension Definitive Subdivision Plan Form C owned by Andre Rieksts, Scott Atkinson and Margo Wilson-Atkinson received an extension until April 4, at which time the property owners will have the required authority from the Select Board to complete Park Lane from its current public termination into a private roadway.
The board also approved the release of one lot located in the Eldridge Estates subdivision planned by Scott Snow.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for Monday, April 4, at 7:00 pm.
Mattapoisett Planning Board
By Marilou Newell