===OCR macOS Vision===
===PAGE 1===
TOWN OF LUNENBURG
Office of the Planning Board
NEMBURG,
MAS.
Gregory Bittner, Chair
Matthew Allison, Vice Chair
Kenneth Chenis, Clerk
David Prokowiew, Mbi.
Michael-Ray Jeffreys, Mbr
RECEIVED & FILED
NOV 1: 2017
LUNENBURG TOWN
CLERK OFFICE
Tel: (978) 582-4147, ext 5
Fax: (978) 582-4353
960 Massachusetts Avenue
Lunenburg, MA 01462
218
Adam R. Burney
Land Use Director
Minutes
Public Hearing (cont d)
994 Northfield Road
September 25, 2017
Meeting Posted: Yes
Place: Town Hali, 17 Main Street, Lunenburg, MA
Time: 6:50 PM
Present: Gregory Bittner, Matthew Allison, Kenneth Chenis, David Prokowiew, Michael-Ray Jeffreys, Adam R. Burney
The Hearing continuation was to hear and discuss an application for a Special Permit and Site Plan Approval under Sections
4.15. and 8.4. of the Protective Bylaw of the Town of Lunenburg for construction of a 6MW large-scale ground-mounted
photovoltaic installation at 994 Northfield Road (Map 037, Parcel 0013).
The Applicant, Settlers Solar, LLC, was represented by Robert Oliva, David E. Ross Associates (DER); Attorney Robert Bowen;
and Alan Clapp, PE, Development Director, NEXAMP.
Attorney Bowen noted to the Board that a meeting was held on-site with immediate abutters. He wants the Board to focus on the
fact that the property owner is a Town resident operating a recreational business (golf course) and the solar field would give him
the opportunity to use 25% of his land to ensure the future economic viability of the remaining 75% of his land.
A. Clapp noted to the Board that the takeaway from the September 11t on-site meeting was that abutters are looking for
additional plantings for screening. The PILOT is still an ongoing process with Chris Clark, NEXAMP, and Regional Assessor
Haraid Scheid. Unitil has informed the Applicant there is plenty of capacity for a residential program. As part of the September
19,2017 supplemental material packet, a letter was submitted from DER regarding a decommissioning surety.
The Plan has been revised as a result of peer review comments. Cross country underground drains have been eliminated in
favor of swales. The access point to the project has been shifted to the existing driveway up to a cart path (which will be
widened for access). Aiso, additional screening with evergreens and evergreen shrubs has been provided to the rear of the
Smith property, to the northwest corner, southerly along the property line, and then westerly along the southern boundary. Some
areas proposed to be graded for the array have been eliminated. A turnaround area for emergency vehicles has been added to
the driveway at the fence at the main gate, where the driveway comes into the array. Some of the panels have been relocated
from the westerly edge to the easterly edge; this is due to the Conservation Commission requesting the fence line be moved out
of the buffer zone.
There was Board discussion on buffering. It was noted that there is as little as 50 feet of buffering for some residents, but up to
180 feet on the golf course side. R. Oliva responded that some of the houses on New West Townsend Road are located up to
almost 600 feet away. G. Bitter inquired as to height of the plantings.
R. Oliva responded they are evergreens that will grow
within the existing tree line. R. Oliva noted that the panels are sited in a way that makes sense for the site; it was not the
intention to provide buffering more advantageous to the golf course, K. Chenis noted that evergreens provide good screening,
but will take years to fill in. M. Jeffreys opined that the Applicant has not provided the Board with the necessary information. The
aerial views provided to the Board were not sufficient; views need to be submitted as to what the site will look like from ground
level and also
===PAGE 2===
Minutes 09.25.17
994 Northfield Road Public Hearing
Page 2
takes into account the topography. He inquired as to whom had prepared the decommissioning plan. The decommissioning
plan was prepared by NEXAMP and reviewed by DER. M. Jeffreys asked if the Applicant had any discussions with the Fire
Chief, as the array is, in his opinion, a fire hazard. A. Burney noted the Fire Department does not have a foam tanker. The Fire
Chief noted to A. Burney that the amount of foam required to blanket a system of the size proposed would be next to impossible
to have on-site. The Fire Department has received training in response procedures. The Fire Department would treat this
similar to a brush fire. G. Bitter would like to see a plan from a fire suppression team that details NEXAMP containing the fire
and ensuring the safety of the residents.
A. Clapp took exception to the array being referred to as a fire hazard, noting that everything is built to code. He opined that
what is more likely is a grass fire. The system is shut down in the event of a fire. M. Jeffreys asked what mechanism is in place.
A. Clapp noted an emergency response plan has been submitted and emergency response training is provided.
Board members continued discussion on buffering, referring to Protective Bylaw of the Town of Lunenburg Section 4.15.4.7.
which states All Ground-mounted installations shall be surrounded by a buffer strip which shall be two hundred (200) feet in
and also Section 4.15.4.9.F. Visual Impact. G. Bittner feels leaving the natural buffer is the best way to screen. M.
Allison asked if a shade plan was available. Other than adding trees, M. Allison felt that Board comments from the August 28th
Hearing had not been addressed. M. Jeffreys noted that cutting the trees will impact erosion. Under Rules and Regulations
Governing the Subdivision of Land, Sections 3.4.3.9, and 3.4.3.10. he found the Environmental Impact Statement offensive and
stated there was no Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan. R. Oliva noted fuil, detailed, step by step erosion control measures are
included in the Site Plan.
Chris Valliere, 1048 Northfield Road-he is in the process of building a house and now will see fifty (50') feet of trees and then the
array instead of the recreation area he had expected when he purchased the property. The array is too large and should be built
elsewhere.
Wayne Jackson, 252 New West Townsend Road- concerned with the impact on the value of his home and concerned with a
change in the water table.
Dennis Stewart, 252 New West Townsend Road-will be able to see the complete system from his back yard.
G. Bittner noted an electronic mail he received from Jerry Wilkins, 251 Burrage Street- large power plants do not belong in this
area.
Lucy Hawkins Smith, 1026 Northfield Road-felt no concrete answers had been provided to the neighborhood. Having worked in
the chemical industry for a number of years, she stated that panels are not green and environmentally friendly. The threat of fire
is real; when the panels catch on fire, they continue to produce electricity and release toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.
Ron Smith, 1026 Northfield Road- not an opponent to the project, but concerned for his neighbors that will be adversely
impacted. The project needs to be reduced in size.
Bill Gustus (owner of subject parcel), 19 Burke Street- understands the concerns of neighbors, but wants to be allowed to use his
land as something other than a backyard of many residents. He noted that the area to be used consists of only 14.6% of the
total property, not 25% as mentioned earlier in the Hearing; Thirty-six (36) acres of the total 250 acres. He is trying to find the
least offensive way to use the land and ensure the long term financial viability of the golf course. He is also trying to maintain as
much open space as possible. It is unrealistic for residents to think that absolutely no one will see any portion of the array. He
asked the Board to be clear in what conditions it would require for the Applicant to gain approval for the proposed project.
G. Bittner wants to ensure the project will be appropriate for the site. M. Jeffreys stated that developers have to operate under
the Bylaw, and he feels the Applicant has not complied with the Bylaw. D. Prokowiew said the Board, residents, and developers
are entitled to strict interpretation of the Bylaw. K. Chenis suggested the Applicant be provided with a list of Board requirements
that need to be met. After listening to this evening's discussion, he noted that he felt the requirements went beyond the Bylaw.
M. Allison said that the Applicant did not address any of the Board's comments. He did not agree with providing the Applicant a
===PAGE 3===
Minutes 09.25.17
994 Northfield Road Public Hearing
Page 3
list of requirements. The Board is charged with protecting the Town, people and environment; right now that's not happening. G.
Bitter felt that the Board's suggestions to the Applicant are doable.
There was discussion as to K. Chenis' suggestion. K. Chenis feels that if guidance is not provided to the Applicant, this will
continue to be a lengthy back and forth process between the Board and Applicant. M. Jeffreys was opposed, stating it is not the
Board's responsibility to provide guidance; the Board's responsibility is to approve, A. Burney responded that the Board can
state items that need to be adjusted. By compiling a list, all Board members are working off the same page.
Attorney Bowen stated that the Applicant is trying to be responsive to the Board, but hearing five different voices. Any guidance
that the Board can give to the Appiicant would be helpful.
G. Bittner inquired of Attorney Costa if the Hearing can be continued only for Board discussion with no input from the Applicant.
Attorney Costa responded that at a hearing/hearing continuation, input does not have to be taken from the public and/or
Applicant. The Board can talk among themselves and provide feedback to the Applicant. He went on to note that individual
Board member input can be offered to the Applicant, outside of the hearing, through either the Board Chair or the Land Use
Director. Another option is to have a work session with one or two Board members present (not a quorum), to talk about the
project and give feedback to the Applicant. This would not be a session of the public hearing and may/may not be open to the
Applicant and the public. At the hearing continuation, the Board members present at the work session, would inform the Board
as to what had occurred at the work session.
Board consensus was to not hold a hearing continuation strictly for Board discussion in order to provide feedback to the
Applicant.
Reviewing Engineer, J. Walsh, Graves Engineering, inc., did not speak about his September 25th review letter as it was clear
more changes would be made. He did note that he felt the decommissioning surety figure provided was on the low side. As to
land views, he suggested the Applicant do wide flagging with flags at the height top of the solar panels in areas of interest to the
Board. Also possibly another row, of a different flag color, at the limit of clearing.
Attorney Bowen requested a continuation of the Hearing to October 23rd and an extension of the timeframe requirement to
October 30h, Motion, D. Prokowiew, to continue the Hearing to October 23id and extension of the deadline for approval
to October 30th, Second, M. Allison, all aye.
Hearing recessed 9:31 PM
Documents used at meeting:
Site Plan Revision dated 09.19.17
Minutes/public hearings 2017/994 Northfield Road_09.25.17