The denial of a Special Permit for a solar array field at 78 Wareham Street still stands, but on December 10 the Marion Planning Board gathered to review the language of a draft decision letter while two dissenting board members (and one Finance Committee member) voiced their disappointment with the decision.
Although Planning Board member Chris Collings was absent for the final vote on December 3 that resulted on a 5-1 denial, Collings wanted the record to reflect his regret that, not only did the Town walk away from what he said was $600,000 in solar power income, but also an offer from solar developer ZPT Energy Solutions to have a connection to the grid installed for a future solar energy project at the Town’s capped landfill as a courtesy.
“For the record, this was a miss for the Town,” Collings said at one point during the meeting.
Planning Board member Eileen Marum, the one dissenting vote last Monday, argued that some language contained in the decision was inappropriate, such as where it states that it is the Planning Board’s “opinion” that the proposed 86 percent of the lot “is decidedly ‘large scale.’”
“An opinion is not based on something that is absolute certainty or positive knowledge, it’s just something that’s possible,” said Marum.
Where Marum differs from the rest of the board is in the interpretation of the phrase “large scale” clearing of a forested area contained within Marion’s solar bylaw.
“There’s no way to quantify large scale,” Marum said. “We don’t have anything that quantifies that.”
Planning Board member Norm Hills, who is also chairman of the Board of Selectmen, suggested using “consensus” instead of opinion, while Planning Board member Stephen Kokkins suggested further clarification by replacing where the decision stated “the proposed clearing of 86 percent of a lot is decidedly ‘large scale’” with “the proposed clearing of 86 percent of a 22-acre lot is decidedly ‘large scale.’”
The board further debated striking other words, such as “social” as suggested by Hills where the decision referenced the “social, economic, or community benefits” which are served by the proposal. Hills suggested omitting other words, but Chairman Will Saltonstall preferred that each finding in the decision echo the language of the solar bylaw, which does mention economic and community benefits.
Finance Committee member Alan Minard raised his hand to speak and was at first denied the chance because the meeting was not a public hearing, but was eventually allowed to address the board. He lamented the denial of the solar farm, saying, “The economic benefit of a solar farm … is the school bus does not pull up next to it.” He called having a solar farm at the site “a major economic benefit by avoiding lots of houses, 40Bs, condos, whatever ends up being there.”
Board member Andrew Daniel argued that solar farms might not actually be helping some towns, rather some towns might feel solar farms are hurting them.
Throughout the meeting, Collings silently shook his head as other members made comments, biding his time as the board suggested edits until after when he could speak his mind.
Hills asked to reword the phrase environmental “assessment” in the findings section pertaining to the project’s impacts on the natural environment because the assessment ZPT provided fell short of what Hills considers a comprehensive environmental assessment. The board quibbled over the wording, with some suggesting environmental “discussion” or “report;” however, Saltonstall preferred to leave the language as it was since ZPT did submit in its Site Plan Review application a document titled “environmental assessment report;” although, because of the board’s denial of the Special Permit, the project did not advance to the Site Plan Review stage.
As the board reached the decision section of the draft document, Marum objected to the statement that says the project “is in direct conflict with the intent of Section 230-16.3, which is to protect the character of the residential neighborhoods from the large scale clearing of forested areas for the installation of solar farms.”
“Intent,” Marum emphasized. “This has not been strongly resolved, in my opinion, because we do not have a definition of ‘large scale.’” Furthermore, she added, “[The site] is far from being a ‘forested area,’” which, to her, would be a “dense growth of trees and underbrush.” Marum said the site was more like a place where older trees had fallen during prior winter storms.
Collings found this to be a good time to speak out.
“I don’t know what it is,” said Collings. “I don’t look at it as a forested area: I certainly don’t look at is as valuable.” Collings continued, “I’m sorry I missed the meeting. … I’m frustrated here because we’ve been picking way at specific details … and there’s an absolute refusal to acknowledge that they (ZPT) were … willing to provide a solar connection for the dump…”
Was Marum correct, Collings challenged the board. “Was it actually in our purview to look at our definition of ‘forest?’”
A debate ensued, with Daniel arguing that it was not the board’s job to look past sections of the bylaw, rather to determine if a project fits within them. Saltonstall told Collings he should propose changes to the solar bylaw if he saw it appropriate.
In the end, Kokkins appreciated Marum’s objection to the word “intent,” and Marum liked Kokkins’ suggestion of eliminating it and rewording “in direct conflict” to simply “in conflict.”
Town Planner cautioned the board that the decision, as written, should result in a decision that could be “defensible” if appealed, and Kokkins included his own caution, saying, “We’re starting to inject a lot of extremes of which we’re not all in agreement with.”
Daniel made the motion to accept the decision with edits, resulting in a 5-2 vote to accept, with Collings and Marum maintaining their dissent.
“I’m sorry that this decision has come down this way,” said Collings. “There are troubles with this bylaw.” He waved away the decision that was passed to him for his signature, saying, “I’m not gonna put my name on that.” He further lamented, “It’s not really about the solar farm itself: it’s about the opportunities in the other side of town that were presented to us, and I’m sorry that it didn’t have more sway when it was presented to us.”
Daniel agreed that the bylaw should be revisited, and Marum added that she supported the bylaw as it was written, but she would support adding a definition for “forest.”
“Because that is absolutely not a forest,” said Marum.
The special meeting was held in order to have the final draft of the decision ready, signed, and sent to the applicant by deadline. ZPT will then have 20 days to file an appeal.
The next regular meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for December 17 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.
Marion Planning Board
By Jean Perry