Solar energy developer Clean Energy Collective received approval for a number of waivers pertaining to stormwater management on August 11, after resubmitting the request to the Rochester Planning Board and thus satisfying the board’s request for additional details beyond the initial request. After some discussion, the board granted the waivers, save for one of them regarding the decommissioning, removal, and surety of the project.
Bob Rogers of G.A.F. Engineering ran through the changes since the last Planning Board meeting when the board asked the developer to withdraw the waiver request without prejudice and resubmit it for review by the board’s engineer, Ken Motta.
Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson said he spent nearly an hour talking with Motta about the waiver requests, to which Motta found no exception when it came to the stormwater management request. The decommissioning waiver request, however, is still an important matter for the board, said Johnson.
“We want to make sure that, if we felt … that the decommissioning bond needed to be used … in the event of abandonment, that we would be able to act alone and not have to have Marion sign on it or vice versa.”
The solar farm, slated for the Clemishaw property that straddles the town line between Rochester and Marion, would predominantly be located in Marion along Perry’s Lane, with the access to the site off Tucker Lane in Rochester. The Rochester Planning Board from the start insisted that whatever plans were filed with Marion were filed with Rochester as well, regardless of the fact that the solar farm site itself would be under Marion jurisdiction.
Issues of access and screening were and still are concerns of the Rochester Planning Board, which is why decommissioning remains an issue.
Johnson’s solution was to alter the language in the decommission and surety agreement that would allow Rochester to act independently of Marion, which Clean Energy Collective’s attorney John Serkey found agreeable, as did Project Manager for Clean Energy Collection, Jay Myrto.
Myrto said he found the board’s request reasonable.
“As we did with the other solar facility in Rochester in the north … we’ll probably hold a small bond or surety on the arborvitaes,” said Johnson. “That’s probably what we’ll be looking for … replacement for two growing seasons.”
Myrto said he found this request agreeable as well.
Eventually, a dollar amount for the surety will be assigned and an escrow agreement that is equally enforceable in both Rochester and Marion will be devised.
The board also went through the details of proposed vegetation and screening for the site with Rogers, eventually coming to an agreement on a slight change in the type of screening proposed.
Since the developer’s last meeting with the Marion Planning Board on August 3, Rogers revised some details of the last plan submitted in Rochester, which addressed Rochester’s concerns over screening.
The revised plan featured an additional row of 6-foot tall deer-resistant arborvitae with 8 feet of separation. In other areas around the perimeter of the site, the plan proposed a chain-link fence with hedge slats for screening in lieu of live vegetation.
Rochester Planning Board member Gary Florindo asked where the shrubs would be located, since the last plan Rogers submitted, according to Florindo, featured both vegetation and hedge slat fencing for one area in question.
“[I thought] the preference of the board was vegetation,” said Rogers. “The hedge fence slats are 20 bucks a [square] foot, so it is an expense to do both.
Rogers said, from the distance to any abutters’ vantage point, either the hedge fence or the arborvitae would adequately shield the solar arrays. Both, said Rogers, are not necessary to screen the solar facility.
“I’m with Gary,” said Johnson. “I thought at the last meeting it would be both. That was our intent.”
Planning Board member John DeMaggio suggested Rogers stagger two rows of the arborvitaes instead of both the shrubs and the hedge fence, an idea Johnson seemed to warm up to. Johnson was vocally opposed to using just the hedge fencing. He argued that the hedge fencing was only warrantied for up to 10 years – the solar project lease is for two-and-a-half times that length of time, Johnson pointed out.
“What happens when this stuff (the hedge fencing) starts falling apart?” asked Johnson.
Myrto had no answer.
“Exactly,” stated Johnson.
Myrto shifted toward the staggering of the arborvitaes instead of the hedge fencing.
“We’re talking six- to seven-foot trees at planting time,” said Myrto. “Would that be acceptable?”
Johnson looked to Florindo for a response.
“I think it’s a reasonable compromise,” Myrto said. He added that the arborvitae would go from 8-foot spacing to 6-foot spacing, which he said would be more economical than both fencing and shrubs. Myrto also added that the chain-link fence would be pushed back another 10 feet to accommodate the arborvitaes.
“Economically speaking,” said Myrto, “this array keeps shrinking smaller than we really want it to be. But if I have to give up ten feet and it makes everybody happy, then OK.”
Rogers seemed concerned about existing setback issues with Marion and how the 10-foot encroachment on the arrays would affect it, but Myrto said, even with the 10-foot change, the issue could still be worked out.
“I appreciate that,” said Johnson. “That was a good solution.”
As for the stormwater management waivers that were approved that evening, Johnson pointed out that the drainage waivers Rogers requested pertained more to subdivision drainage issues, not solar energy facilities. Also, a traffic study waiver request was granted, since the matter does not apply to the solar farm.
“And Marion is overseeing everything, so we are safe,” said Florindo.
In other business, the board briefly discussed its next upcoming meeting, which will be the first pubic hearing for the solar energy facility proposed for the Center of Rochester between New Bedford Road and Dexter Lane.
Johnson pointed out that two members of the board have been identified as abutters – Chris Silveira and Lee Carr – and, since the project requires a Special Permit, the vote to approve needs a supermajority. That supermajority will be the five remaining Planning Board members who can vote on the matter, meaning the project will need a positive vote from each of the five members to receive approval.
“So it’s really imperative that we stay in touch … to make sure that we’re all going to be there,” said Johnson.
The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for August 25 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Senior Center since the Rochester Town Hall meeting hall will be undergoing maintenance repairs.
By Jean Perry
