The meaning of “stick-to-itive-ness” was on full display when the April 6 meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board took place via Go-To-Meeting. After a bit of a slow start as each board member adjusted microphones, learned how to navigate the internet platform including muting and unmuting functions, the board opened the hearing of NextGrid, a solar development company headquartered in San Francisco. It took over three hours before the exhausted board members agreed to continue the hearing until May 4.
Daniel Serber, NextGrid, first presented the proposed solar array project back in November in the form of a Special Permit application before the Zoning Board of Appeals. After long presentations and abutter comment, primarily voicing strong opposition to a solar project in a residential neighborhood, that application was denied. NextGrid filed an appeal with the Massachusetts Land Court.
Jonathan Silverstein of KP Law, Mattapoisett’s legal representative, provided clarification on how the applicant, after being denied permitting by the ZBA could file an application for consideration by the Planning Board.
It was determined by the Town of Mattapoisett that a possible solution might be reached by allowing the project to be filed with the Planning Board. The town’s legal representatives met with the applicant’s legal team, it was learned in a follow-up with Mattapoisett’s Director of Inspectional Services Andy Bobola. He said that, given the possibility of a long and expensive legal process at land court with the possibility of the decision coming down on the side of the applicant, the town wanted to be able to have some oversight of the project.
“We can have site-plan review and input and the ability to condition the project,” Bobola told The Wanderer. He said that if the applicant won in land court, the town would have forfeited that option.
Silverstein said that previous solar projects sought and received permitting through the granting of special permits issued by the ZBA absent site-plan review by the Planning Board. He said that the appeal by NextGrid is pending in land court. The applicant’s appeal states, in part, that because the town does not have a solar bylaw, there is no method available to grant special permits.
“The Planning Board has more experience with engineering specifications… it was agreed between the parties that the appeal process would quit and the applicant would come before the Planning Board,” he said.
Silverstein also explained that state statutes grant special consideration when proposed projects in residential areas fall into categories such as religious structures, schools, and solar arrays. “Zoning bylaws may not prohibit solar,” he said. But he added Mattapoisett’s bylaw don’t speak to solar at all.
During the hours-long hearing, various technical aspects of the project were heard with opportunities for the board members to ask questions of any of the three members of the NextGrid team. Serber was joined at the virtual conference table by Chris King of the architectural firm Atlantic Design, Sandwich, and NextGrid’s attorney, Joseph Pacella.
The topics touched on stormwater drainage, scope of clearing, concerns around heavy equipment on the dirt roadway, Bowman Road, MSDS requirements for transformers, emergency-equipment ingress and egress capabilities, fencing, screening, and set-backs. Also discussed was the applicant’s willingness to post bonds for decommissioning and maintenance. Sums were not set at this time.
Serber stated that extra care and consideration for abutters had been taken.
”We have spent time getting to know the abutters,” he said. “They have been kind and invited us into their homes. We wanted to keep the project palatable to the community.” Serber said that turtles and other migrating animals would be able to traverse the property freely and that landscaping would include the use of pollinating mixtures.
King pointed out that earlier plans had been modified to allow greater distances between private residences and the two solar-array fields, and that one of the two areas planned for development had been reduced by several acres. He also said that comments by the Mattapoisett Land Trust’s peer-review consultant, G.A.F. Engineering, would be included in future plan modifications.
Public comment was taken in the form of written missives, but Planning Board member Nathan Ketchel said that continuances would allow for public comment in the public meeting format. King felt all public comment should be in written form versus verbal participation, saying in this way the applicant could respond in kind. King feared by allowing verbal comment at the next meeting a decision would be delayed. Ketchel disagreed, saying, “I don’t think we can put any kind of timeline on it.
“I’m not going to come in on May 4 and say (the public) can’t comment. There was a pandemic. I didn’t write this into how this year was going to go. Under current statute, we can go 45 days beyond the emergency order of May 4.”
Earlier in the meeting, letters submitted to the Planning Board by Aucoot Road resident Brad Hathaway and his daughter Jane Hathaway dated April 2 and April 3 included questions of the appropriateness of a solar array in a residential district, consideration of drainage and stormwater management in light of the downstream location of the project, intent of 1965 Master Plans that indicated development should be compatible with residential areas, and large investments on the part of the Mattapoisett Land Trust in partnership with donors, the municipality and other investors to conserve more than 400 areas abutting the proposed solar array property, a point that according to Hathaway, “defeated the purpose” of conservation efforts.
Comments from the Mattapoisett Land Trust were recorded in the public hearing but not read aloud during this meeting.
Also present at the meeting was Becky Zora, an abutter who said that due to audio difficulties she had not been able to clearly hear Silverstein and wished to fully understand how the project was being heard by the Planning Board before commenting. She was directed to the town’s website for full access.
Other agenda items including review of a new solar bylaw and language modifications to flood-zone bylaws were suspended until further notice pending town meeting’s scheduling.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Planning Board is scheduled for May 4 at 7:00 pm, venue to be announced.
Mattapoisett Planning Board
By Marilou Newell