Mattapoisett Conservation Commission Chairman Mike King was satisfied with the plans Patrick Johnson submitted on September 23 on behalf of solar developer Next Grid Bowman, LLC for a large-scale solar project off Bowman Road, especially the part about the developer reducing the scale of the property by nearly an acre in order to provide abutters with the added wooded buffer they requested. But when it came to abutters’ concerns about stormwater, King was adamant that there was no need for a peer review engineer to assess the stormwater management system plan. After all, he asserted, that’s an issue for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
“It’s out of our jurisdiction,” said King. “It’s out of our purview,” something King said the conservation agent confirmed for him with the Department of Environmental Protection earlier that day. King was happy with Johnson’s explanation that, although the scale of the project had been downsized, the scale of the stormwater system was left alone and not reduced. Once a project six acres in size, it was now down to four with a stormwater management system designed for six.
“We don’t believe that a peer review analyses is required,” said King, kicking off the ensuing contention that drove the next hour or so of discussion. “I personally now have the benefit of three solar projects that have been before us and they were great learning experiences…”
King decided to poll the commission on how the other four members felt about requesting a peer review consultant: the result of the poll was a split commission, 3-2 against peer review. Only commission members Chris Nicolosi and John Jacobsen felt a project of this size merited a peer review.
“It’s fairly straightforward; it’s fairly simple,” said King. “I think it’s overdesigned; also, I think the applicant has done a good job trying to listen to the residents…”
Resident Becky Zora disagreed with that statement, and said there was no understanding between the engineer and her personally. She said a different engineer than the one that was present that night had displayed a degree of compassion and understanding of her feelings, “But I told him I still remain torn on the project and deeply divided.”
Zora lamented the scale of the tree clearing required for the project, and asked if the commission could define “prime forest” for her so that she could understand what would be lost as a result of the project.
“I don’t want to be grieving the loss of something that someone doesn’t consider a ‘prime forest’,” she said. She did not receive a detailed answer.
King’s eventual response was, “After we condition this project, it still has to go before the ZBA for a special permit, so our conditioning of the project is not a guarantee that the project will move forward.” King said he finds that the minimum performance standards for the project have been met and he was satisfied with the developer’s response to abutters.
“We like compromise like that. It’s a good thing that neighbors get along and all work together,” said King just before he repeatedly denied granting the abutters’ many pleas for a peer review engineer.
Mike Huguenin of the Mattapoisett Land Trust was the first to be denied the peer review request. His concern is for the 420 acres of conservation land that sits downstream from the proposed solar site. He fears the stormwater management system could fail, sending an overwhelming amount of stormwater down the stream and flooding the forested land. Huguenin displayed a map that shows at least half of the proposed solar arrays within an area shaded pink, indicating a zone that would be inundated with floodwater during a category 4 hurricane. Other parts were shaded in yellow, indicating flooding during a category 3 storm.
King said that was “not likely” to happen.
Huguenin said, despite King’s experience with the prior three solar projects, those ones were not located in a hurricane inundation zone.
King’s reply compared the scenario with the bike path, saying if any of that mattered, the bike path would never have been allowed where it is.
“This is not a bike path that were talking about,” said Huguenin. “A lot of stuff could come up with the water… What happens to a stormwater management system when you get this kind of inundation with a [solar panel] rack?” He asked whether an engineer would change the design based on potential impacts by hurricane flooding.
“If it’s not in the Wetlands Protection Act, it’s not in our purview,” said King. “I’m not looking to rewrite the Wetlands Protection Act.”
“It seems like a stupid thing to disagree about,” said Huguenin, and he asked King to reconsider the peer review engineer.
“We’re not gonna require a peer review,” said King. “I don’t think its gonna change the design plan at all – it’s a very, very simple project.
“We’re gonna have a lot bigger problems [sic] in the town of Mattapoisett if that category 3 or 4 happens,” continued King. Furthermore, considering a hurricane inundation zone would be setting a precedent for other projects, King said, and he was not interested in that. “Now we’re not going to be able to look at a project without a category 3 or category 4 map?”
“Not every project you see will be in a hurricane inundation zone,” said Huguenin. Not every project is looking at [420] acres of conservation downstream.”
King defended his stance, saying the design was for a 100-year storm endurance. He wasn’t willing to reconsider.
“I think two weeks and a little bit of money for a peer review is an easy way to let all of us sleep better at night,” said Huguenin.
“We think that we’re comfortable with the decision,” said King.
Resident and MLT member Paul Osenkowski disagreed passionately. After a number of comments directed at King, Osenkowski stated, “What you’re doing is allowing a questionable amount of gain… in an area that we need to protect and, because you decided that we don’t need a second opinion on this, even though we got a second decision in the wetlands line, is reprehensible to me… I’m asking you to look at this here in town, protect the town.”
Osenkowski asked King to poll the commission again, which he would not, and commission member Trevor Francis asked Osenkowski, if the property was so important to him, then why didn’t he buy it?
“We tried to,” said Osenkowsi. “We made an offer; we were turned down.” Huguenin said the “solar guys” paid two times the MLT’s offer.
King acknowledged that the project’s inverters would be located right at the edge of the inundation line and thought the engineers might want to look at that, but still, no peer review.
“We evaluate every project to the extent possible and, believe me, we’ve had some pretty serious projects,” said King.
Resident Brad Hathaway took a few turns of his own at the podium. His first point was to remember Hollywoods Road.
“People demanded peer review, and they found 60 acres of wetlands that had not been marked,” said Hathaway. “Now, you tell me peer review isn’t important.”
“I’m not saying that it’s not important,” said King. The conservation agent reviewed the line with the consultant, he said.
Hathaway was angry the commission took a vote before hearing any of the residents speak about why a peer review was needed. “And then you refused to take another vote.”
After further back and forth, Hathaway stood up again and asked King to clarify something he said about several of the commission members being qualified or experienced enough in the area of stormwater to not need a peer review, and Hathaway asked to hear why the two other commission members supported a peer review.
Chapman “Chappy” Dickerson, King said doubling down, is a very successful marijuana cultivator who has experience building a large-scale grow facility. Francis operates heavy machinery for the Water Department, King said, so he is also aware of the issue of stormwater. And as a pig farmer with experience in manure management and chasing escaped pigs, King said, he was also one who knows enough about stormwater to not need a peer review.
“I don’t want to tell anyone what to do with their property,” said Dickerson, defending his reason for voting down a peer review.
That was ditto for King. “People have a right to do what they want on their property.”
Francis defended his stance, saying, “In my opinion, [this project] is not a large-scale project…”
“It wipes out eight acres,” said Osenkowski.
“I don’t think it’s gonna change anything,” said Francis.
Nicolosi defended his vote in favor of the peer review, saying, “Just because, in my opinion, it is a big project. I do do excavation, and this is a project larger than what I normally do, and I’d just like to get another [opinion].”
Jacobsen, the other commission member to favor a peer review, is an actual environmental engineer. He said with the elevations and grades involved that he favored “a second set of eyes to look at it.”
King promptly closed the public hearing.
Also during the meeting, after continuing from September 13 in order to wait for correspondence from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, the commission issued a Negative 3 determination for the Request for Determination of Applicability filed by Sara Quintal on behalf of the Buzzards Bay Coalition to install four shallow groundwater wells and up to three surface water wells to monitor fluctuations in water level elevations at its property known as “the Bogs” on Acushnet Avenue.
The NHESP letter determined the work would leave no impact on any endangered species, but it did recommend having a biologist at the site during the well diggings to watch out for any turtles.
Also continued from September 13, the hearing for the BBC’s Notice of Intent to perform invasive species control and maintenance at the Bogs was issued an Order of Conditions.
In other matters, it appears as though work taking place on the bike path extension has exceeded the limit of work boundary marked by a line of pink flags.
Conservation Agent Elizabeth Leidhold and the chairman both expressed confusion and frustration over the inability to communicate with the right person responsible.
“We’re having some real serious issues with the bike path,” King said. He plans to send a letter to Representative Bill Straus about the problem and hopes something positive will result.
“We’ll see if that prompts [MassDOT] to respond to me because they didn’t today,” said King.
The commission issued a Negative 3 determination for the RDA filed by David Duff, 98A Mattapoisett Neck Road, for a one-bedroom living space atop a new two-car garage with some grading within the 100-foot wetlands buffer zone.
The NOI filed by Debra Teperman and Lida Cavanaugh to repair 70 feet of the concrete seawall, 16-18 Ocean View Avenue, along the shore of Nasketucket Bay, was also approved. The applicant received commission approval over three years ago for this project, but the work was not done and the permit expired.
The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for October 14 at 6:30 pm at the Mattapoisett Town Hall.
Mattapoisett Conservation Commission
By Jean Perry