Since the last public hearing for the proposed solar farm slated for the center of Rochester, Planning Board Chairman Arnold Johnson said on October 13 that subsequent talks between lawyers for both the developer and the town have led to this: The town cannot tell solar developer NextSun Energy that it cannot cut trees within the 20-foot buffer zone around the perimeter of the project. The Planning Board’s only option now when it comes to trees, said Johnson, is to negotiate with the developer and try to compromise the best it can.
According to the Limited Commercial District Zoning Bylaw adopted by Town Meeting, said Johnson, language pertaining to the 20-foot buffer simply states that a 20-foot vegetated buffer must remain – which means, said Johnson, that a vegetated buffer could literally be a 20-foot field of grass or brush – not necessarily trees.
The main concerns of most board members and abutters to the project remain the cutting down of taller historic trees within the 20-foot buffer, as well as the view from roads and points around town such as the library and police station. But as Johnson stated after about an hour of discussion, “Right now they can go in there and they can chop them down. We can’t stop them from doing it.”
What the board can do, however, is consider NextSun President Jacob Laskin’s suggestion that if the board were to approve of some tree cutting into the 20-foot buffer on the west side of the site, then the taller historic trees by the cemetery could remain. Laskin’s main concern for the project is exposure of the sun on the panels for maximum energy production; however, some trees to the west would cast shade onto the panels and reduce energy production.
According to a study provided and explained by engineer Bill Madden of G.A.F. Engineering, the prime hours would be 9:00 am to 3:00 pm, based on a December 21 sun, the shortest day with the weakest sunlight as a worst case scenario, which Laskin said is the standard for study in the solar industry.
“But if we could get out ten to two (o’clock), that would be a significant compromise for us,” said Laskin.
Planning Board member Ben Bailey, who said meanwhile he had been searching online for information about peak production time, argued that the information he encountered contradicted Laskin’s statement about 9:00 to 3:00, to which Laskin replied, “No it doesn’t,” before clarifying the matter for Bailey.
Johnson lauded some changes to plan since the last meeting, such as the relocation of the inverter, but urged the developer to address the “sensitive aspects of the project.”
“From the heart,” board member Gary Florindo spoke of the personal importance of the historic cemetery and how loved ones who visit their dearly departed should not have to see “solar fields,” while resident Dave Watling questioned why the board would prefer to be “negotiating dead people for live people.”
Sure, people go to visit their deceased loved ones, “But these people are here,” said Watling motioning to the roughly 15 residents present. “They live there and they need screening,” preferring that the focus be aimed at screening for abutters over screening for the cemetery.
Abutter Stephanie Riccardi sobbed as she described how she specifically sought out a historic property like the one she owns and did not want to lose it.
“As somebody who sought out a small town,” said Riccardi, “I don’t want to see solar panels behind my house.”
But the board maintains some control over screening, and the board tossed around some ideas in the spirit of compromise, such as replacing 6- to 8-foot trees for planting with 8- to 10-foot ones and perhaps appropriately staggered wall installations instead of calling for an entire wall for screening.
“We don’t want to see it from day one,” said Johnson, reiterating the board’s insistence on complete screening from sight.
Some board members took issue with the renderings of six different transects depicting the visual standpoint of six different locations looking at the solar farm, with Bailey calling assertions that certain viewpoints would be intersected by trees and fencing “disingenuous” when the renderings appeared to show otherwise.
“Well, there is a cone of vision, absolutely,” said Madden, eliciting some mock laughter from some residents in attendance.
Madden stated that the renderings, although perhaps not in the format the board had hoped for, were a “snapshot in time,” and not the permanent view after vegetation matures.
“I think you really need to try to envision the transect line … with the aerial photograph,” said Madden, again flipping to the overhead photo of the site he provided.
Eventually the board will have to discuss a decommissioning agreement with the developer, and the two parties will continue to come up with ways to satisfy the needs of the project and of abutters and townspeople.
“What I see here is a project … that has … multiple viewpoints in it and it’s not uniform,” said Johnson. “I think we need to treat it like that.…” He later continued, “It’s not a cookie cutter project in my mind.”
Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Richard Cutler who was in attendance said that if the solar arrays can be seen from the road, then he believes the Historic District Commission would come into play and hold a public hearing on the matter.
“They shouldn’t be seen from the road,” Cutler said.
The hearing was continued until October 27.
Also during the meeting, the board told Clean Energy Collective, developers of the proposed solar farm in Marion that would be accessed via Perry’s Lane in Rochester, that the board would draft a decision to approve the project and take the vote at the next meeting.
The project went through months of public hearings with both Marion and Rochester and, after finally reaching a decommissioning escrow account number, got the nod from Marion.
In other matters, the board held an informal meeting with yet another solar farm developer interested in building a solar energy facility off Snipatuit Road and along Quaker Lane. The board issued a number of requested waivers, such as a traffic study waiver, maintenance plan waiver, and a partial waiver for underground utilities. There is no formal application for a site plan review for this project yet.
The next meeting of the Rochester Planning Board is scheduled for October 27 at 7:00 pm at the Rochester Senior Center.
By Jean Perry
