Some tried, but members of the Marion Planning Board were unable to agree on a reasonable escrow amount for the decommissioning condition of a requested Special Permit for the Tucker Lane solar energy facility project.
Chairman Rob Lane would not budge from his $75,000 number, forsaking the $50,000 estimate provided by the board’s engineering consultant Jonathan Novak of Coneco Engineers & Scientists.
Developer Clean Energy Collective’s representative Greg Carey said his engineer’s estimate was roughly $39,000, but, in the spirit of compromise, reluctantly offered an escrow account amount number of $60,000.
“As painful as it is,” said Carey, “we would be willing to do that.”
Lane was hopeful from the start that the board could close the public hearing that night of September 8 and possibly render a decision rather than put the matter off for another two weeks until the next meeting, but it became apparently clear at one point that a number would not be reached that night.
Members Norman Hills and Jennifer Francis both spoke out against a higher amount, questioning the reasoning behind it.
“I don’t think we should go overboard on the amount,” said Francis.
Lane said he initially thought $110,000 was a reasonable amount, according to some national comparisons he made, and the $75,000 was a compromise. He added that the requirement of a $75,000 bond would lessen the burden than a cash escrow sum.
“Under $75,000 strikes me as putting myself in a position of not doing what is responsible for the community,” said Lane. “And I’m not prepared to do that.”
Hills suggested Lane was comparing apples to oranges by looking outside the Massachusetts region for estimates on solar array decommissioning, pointing out that in Massachusetts, $40,000 to $50,000 was the average.
“Just out of curiosity,” Lane turned to Hills,” what harm is there in having too much money?”
Hills told Lane that, in cases pertaining to the Planning Board, it is the norm to rely on the advice of the hired consultants.
Board member Rico Ferrari said he thought the $75,000 was not overkill, and board member Stephen Gonsalves commented that he also agreed with the sum. Hills continued to disagree. Things got heated.
“You need to respect it (the $75,000 majority) and you need to respect us,” said Gonsalves. Hills shook his head.
Attorney for the developer Richard Serkey tried to address the board without interruption from Chairman Lane, and, save for a few interruptions from Lane, Serkey made his point that the board’s number was unreasonable, but in vain. Lane became agitated and raised his voice at Serkey when Serkey argued that part of the delay in the process was because an alleged scheduled meeting between him, Lane, and Town Counsel Jon Whitten was canceled. Lane took offense and told Serkey he was mistaken and no meeting between the three gentlemen was ever arranged.
Serkey said any delay in the process was not on his part, and he attempted to engage with Whitten to no avail.
“It’s like playing tennis,” said Serkey. “You need to have somebody on the other side of the net to hit the ball back.”
Serkey, pointing to the condition where it states that the Planning Board has the sole discretion of deciding if the site was fully decommissioned to its satisfaction should abandonment ensue, suggested that the board add the word “reasonable” after “sole” and before “discretion.” He said any attorney would not be doing their job if they did not allow for some input on behalf of the client in the language of the agreement.
“Certainly you don’t want to reserve the right to be unreasonable,” said Serkey. “That wouldn’t be reasonable.”
Gonsalves said, after serving nine years on the board, he was reelected four times because he was reasonable. Serkey suggested that if Gonsalves were reasonable, then he should have no problem adding the word “reasonable” to the language.
“It doesn’t need to be in there,” Gonsalves said elevating his voice.
“OK…” said Serkey.
“You’re welcome,” replied Gonsalves.
Serkey continued, asserting that $75,000 in escrow was simply unreasonable.
“Seventy-five thousand is more than can be logically justified,” said Serkey. “We feel that you should listen to your own consultant…”
Ferrari, not meaning to be combative as he put it, said, “But … Marion. The people of Marion … the board … do what they need to do in their process and their way…. From a Marion standpoint,” Ferrari continued, “…maybe [we] do a little bit more diligence. Some towns just roll over dead to the developer. This town isn’t. This board isn’t.” Ferrari called $75,000 “chump change” in the scope of the entire project and said he didn’t have to justify the $75,000 sum to Serkey because, “All I have to say is it is what it is.”
The board’s hired consultant, Novak, for the record, reiterated his $50,000 estimate, which would increase every seven years during review to $60,000 in 2022, and $92,000 in 2029, including the value of scrap. At the request of Lane, who stated that he does not believe in the speculative nature of salvage, Novak removed the scrap value and gave the number $70,000 as an escrow amount.
Moving on, the board began to browse through the several pages of conditions before calling it quits for the night at the prompting of Ferrari, who said it was too late to begin reading the decision at that point. The board majority also had hoped board member Michael Popitz, absent that evening, could be present for the vote.
The hearing was continued, and the board subsequently scheduled a special meeting later in the week for September 15, but canceled that meeting hours before its start.
The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for September 21 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.
By Jean Perry
