04/06/2022 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

16 Great .Neck Road.North Mashpee, Massachusetts 02649 weigh the pros and cons for each site. Why is solar appropriate for one site verses another? They are developer driven. This is not being developed on a community level trying to identify where the most appropriate location would be to put this in town. Ms. Barbee elaborated that when she drafted this Article she hadn't paid any attention to who owned what land. Then she started looking deeper at all these plots and started looking them up individually. She is confused on who has the right to sell the land. She referenced to the packet she provided the Board. It adds required performing standards, it does not negate previous, and she is not in opposition to a solar project. She wants to address the property itself. She looked at the property zoned R-5 and C-2, on the map there is a yellow sticker, that's the land in question. To the west of Old Barnstable Road is the Childs River. With the Childs River Restoration, why wouldn't the town want to continue the restoration north of Old Barnstable Road? The land adjacent to the river should be protected. That's why number 13 of the Article discusses setbacks from water bodies and wetlands, in order to protect that part of the river. In the color map you see the sand pit, and you can see its wooded land. In the previous year NextGrid provided documentation that stated half the site is over portions of former sand pit, while remaining portions are wooded. The sand pit is the smaller part. Why would we cut down trees to put in solar? The CCC does address the needs for open space and solar. The Commission might require a 3:1 ratio of protected space. There is an even higher standard set in her bylaw, and obviously the CCC has much higher demands than she. We can protect some land with designated conservation as well as open space in this town. She would like an environmental impact study. She believes NextGrid will still make profitable investments if the area of the panels were smaller. She would like to see conservation and wetland protection with solar. Her Article also addresses issues with watershed. She hopes NextGrid gets this job, in her opinion they seem like a good company, she might prefer housing, but she like solar. What is important to her, is the protection of open space and water. Daniel Serber would like to make a statement. His issue lies within the language. They have done a wetlands delineation of two water features, one by Nathan Ellis and the other abutting the sand pit on the western side. When setting back hundreds of feet, this actually prevents them from highest and best use of the land. Sand pits are a perfect location for solar, this looks as if you are actually pushing solar farther into trees. That language is counterintuitive, and there are other parts that are unclear. Wooded buffers add up to five acres. Is buffer land counting towards that ratio? What happens if a conservation group doesn't want to take on buffered zones? Further, they hope it can still be a viable development. With that ratio and keeping 300 feet from wetlands will kill the project. He just wants to ensure the language makes sense for everyone. Ms. Barbee commented that it's possible to accommodate everyone. She does not want to be stuck at this point of you get what I want or I get what I want. What she wants and what he wants are both good for the town. Conservation and setbacks from wetlands for protection is what she is after. Mr. Phelan confirmed the CCC has a 3:1, and this is suggesting 2:1, which is more restrictive. For four acres, there will be two acres set aside. The problem with a conservation restriction, now there will be land that cannot be used for housing that could have been potentially used. The use of a solar wont impact the land, he has no concerns with setbacks, but that requirement would now cut all those woods m