Loading...
8816_SITE PLAN - SITE 2 - S. WEST ST. - EVERSOURCE SOLAR FACILITY,ak.� , -4 Fes� FA . 41 ORATEU MP Town of Agawam Interoffice Memorandum To: Mayor Richard A. Cohen CC: Patrick Toney, Solicitor Stephen Buoniconti, Associate Solicitor Marc Strange, Planning Director Amanda Boissonneault, Zoning Board of Appeals Mark Paleologopoulos, Planning Board From: Vincent Gioscia, Town Clerk Date: May 4, 2017 Subject: Carroll Pinette, Jr. et al v. Eversource Energy and Town of Agawam Please be advised that we have received the attached summons in the Clerks' Office. Thank You. 3" C COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS LAND COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT CIVIL ACTION NO.2017 MISC 000212 Carroll pi n a t t e r .1 r., et al plaintiff(S) V. Eversource Energy and Town of Agawam Defe t(s) AW .;� �- �•��.� GEC s. SUMMONS Town of Agawam, c/o Vincent Gioscia To the above -named Defendant: Agawam Town Clerk =' µ 36 Main Street, Agawam, MA 01001 You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiff's attorney, whose address is Horthawnton . MA 01061-0210 , an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the Clay of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You are also required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Recorder of this court at Three Pemberton Square, Room 507, Boston, MA 02108 either before service upon plaintiff's attorney or within a reasonable time thereafter. Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff's claim or you will thereafter be barred from making such claim in any other action. Witness, Judith C. Cutler, Chief Justice, at Boston, April 25, 2017 Recorder NOTES 1. This summons is issued pursuant to Rule 4 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil procedure. 2. When more than one defendant is involved, the names of all defendants should appear in the caption. If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant. 3. TO PLAINTIFF'S ATTORNEY: PLEASE CIRCLE TYPE OF ACTION INVOLVED (1) EQUITY — (2) OTHER LCS4 (01114) Part If - Uniform Counsel Certificate - to be filled out by PlWatifl(sy Counsel at the time of initial filing. All other coaasd shall file within thirty (30) days of initial entry into the case, whether by answer, motion, appearance or other pleading. FOR ALL MISCELLANEOUS CASES (EXCEPT Mortgage Foredosures under the Servicemembers Civil Relief AM) I am attorney -of -record for: Carroll Pine% Jr. et al Plaintiff ❑ Defendant in the above -entitled matter. If defendant(s) Attorney, please provide Case No. A. In accordance with Rule 5 of the Supreme Judicial ilniforin Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC Rule 1:18) which states in part:".. _ Attorneys shall: provide their clients with this information about court -connected dispute resolution; discuss with their clients the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods of dispute resolution; and certify their compliance with this requirement on the civil cover sheet or its equivalent..." B. In accordance with Land Court Standing Order 1-12, I certify that I am aware of the requirement to, "...serve a copy of the "Limited Assistance Representation (LAR) Information Sheet" upon all defendants at the same time as service of the summons, complaint, and civil cover sheet is made", and I will comply with this requirement. 1 hereby certify my compliance with these requirements. BOO# 399880 Sigftture 6f Attorney-of-Reco@— Date: Aril 14.2417_ Michael Pill Please Print Name - Exempt Cases: Tax Foreclosures, Mortgage Foreclosures under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and all cases related to original and subsequent registration under G. L. c. I §1. 09I2013 . z - (, o 3. Defendant Town of Agawam ("Agawam") is a duly organized and existing municipal corporation, established as a town on May 17, 1855 by 1855 Mass. Acts, Ch. 365, with its Town Hall located at 36 Main Street, Agawam, Massachusetts 01001. 4, Defendant Eversource Energy ("Eversource") is a Massachusetts association or trust duly organized and existing under G.L. c. 184, owning or controlling certain public utilities, including but not limited to Westem Massachusetts Electric Company. Eversource owns all 434,653 outstanding shares of common stock of Western Massachusetts Electric Company. Its principal office is at 300 Cadwell Drive, Springfield, Massachusetts 01104_ Facts 5. Defendant Eversource, by and through its wholly owned subsidiary Western Massachusetts Electric Company, owns the following real property (hereafter the "Eversource property") in Agawam: (1) Land on the westerly side of South West Street in Agawam, known as Agawam Tax Assessors Parcel 138 12, and more particularly described in the deed to it recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds at Book 18054, Page 352 ("South West Street Eversource property"); and (2) Land on the easterly side of South Westfield Street in Agawam, known as Agawam Tax Assessors Parcel E3 2 2. and more particularly described in the deed to it dated April 8, 1974 recorded in the Hampden County Land Court Records as Document No. 49682, Certificate of Title No. 16561 ("South Westfield Street Eversource property"). 6. Defendant Eversource proposes to construct, or have constructed, on both parcels of the Eversource property solar electric power generating plants ("generating plants') with an Page 2 14. The Eversource property is located in an agricultural zoning district under the Agawam Zoning Ordinance_ 15. The Agawam Zoning Ordinance states as follows in "Article VII.Agricultural Districts" at § 180-37 (underlining added for emphasis): In any Agricultural District as indicated on the Building Zone Map, no building or other structure shall be erected. altered or used and no land shall be used or occupied for a purpose except one or more of the following: § 180-37. Permitted uses. In My A cultural District as indicated on the Building Zone Map, no building or other structure shall be erected, altered or used and no land shall be a used or occupied for a purpose excett one or more of the follo'n: A. Any use permitted in a Residence A-1 or A-2 District. B. Farms, dairies, nurseries, truck gardens, greenhouses and natural ice -harvesting activities and buildings or structures accessory thereto. C. Buildings or shelters for the sale of farm products, provided that a major portion of the product offered, for sale at all times are raised on the premises and no advertising of products other than those raised on the premises shall be displayed. D. The processing of forests and wood lots by portable woodworking mills and machinery for processing wood cut on the premises, if approved by the Board of Appeals. E. Airports and landing strips and buildings or structures necessary thereto, if located west of Suffield Street. F. Off-street parking for 24 hours or less for motor vehicles when the use is an accessory to an existing conforming amusement park containing at least three acres of land adjacent to agriculturally zoned land and by special permit. [Added 2-20-2001 by TOR-2001-1 ] 16. The uses permitted in the Agawam Zoning Ordinance Residence A-1 District, set forth in Article 11 at § l SO-17 "Permitted uses," do not include an electric power generating plant or any other industrial use. The same is true of the Residence A-2 District (Article III at § 1SO- 23 "Permitted uses"). 17. Eversource set forth the following assertion in a March 2, 2017 written submission to the Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals (at pages 4-5; the Land Court decision Page 4 (* (9 22. An online news article' by Television W WLP Channel 22 News, Springfield, Massachusetts, states in the final paragraph that "Eversource is currently in the process of identifying parcels of land most suitable for the project and seeking local approval for construction. The company anticipates completing its list of proposed sites by May and expects to complete construction of all new facilities by the end of 2017." 23. if building permits are issued for the generating plants on the Eversource property, and Eversource moves forward with construction despite the pendency of this action, the Plaintiffs will need equitable relief to support and supplement the judicial determination sought in this action. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request that the Court grant a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction ordering the defendants, their employees, agents, consultants and all others acting in concert with them to do the following: A. Refrain from issuing a building permit for the generating plant before this action is finally adjudicated. B. Refrain from constructing or allowing the construction of the generating plant before this action is finally adjudicated. C. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the court deems just and proper. Plaintiffs, by their attorney, Dated April 14, 2017 Ade;ll Michaof Pill, E6q., BBQ# 399880 Green Miles Lipton, LLP 77 Pleasant Street, P.G. Box 210 Northampton, MA 01061-0210 Phone (413) 586-8218 FAX (413) 584-6278 email mpill@verizon.net 'http://wwlp.com/2017/01/1 lleversource-gets-approval-to-build-more-solar-plants-in- massachusetts/ Page 6 0 ! Town of A.2awam Planning Board 36 Main Street, Agawam, Massachusetts 01001.1801 Tel. 413.726.9737 Fax 413-786.9927 Tune 1, 2017 Eversource Energy 300 Cadwell Drive Springfield, MA 01104 Attention: William Blanchard Dear Mr. Blanchard: At its duly called meeting held on June 1, 2017 the Agawam Planning Board voted to rescind its previous approval of the Site Plan entitled "Eversource Solar Site 2 --- Agawam, MA, South West Street, Agawam, Massachusetts", prepared by Milone & MacBroom and dated December 28, 2016, Revised April 18, 2017. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, 0 0 V Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD; MRP:prk { nr^ cc: Building Inspector, ZBA, Law Dept., Engineering Dept., Town Clerk, File ru 7 Bowdztch &Dewey ATTORNEYS Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403 Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3104 Email: dviens@bowditch.com May 22, 2017 VIA EMAIL aboissonneault a awam,ma.us & U.S. MAIL Richard Maggi, Vice Chairman Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001-1801 Re: Eversource Energy -Parcel E3 Z-2, South Westfield Street, Case #1962; and Parcel B8-1 2, South West Street, Case #1963; Withdrawal of ZBA Appeals Dear Mr. Maggi: As you know, this office represents Eversource Energy ("Eversource"). Please be advised that Eversource wishes to withdraw its appeals filed on March 2, 2017 with the Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA"), Case Nos. 1962 and 1963 (collectively, the "Appeals"), concerning Applications for Site Plan Approval dated January 4, 2017 relating to two proposed solar energy projects located on South West Street and South Westfield Street. This matter was initially heard by the ZBA on April 24, 2017 and had been continued to June 12, 2017, which continued hearing will obviously no longer need to occur given Eversource's withdrawal of the Appeals. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions Yours trul , G VC/"�I David Viens cc: Doreen Prouty, Chairperson, Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals Mare Strange, Director of Planning & Community Development Mark Paleologopoulos, Chairperson, Agawam Planning Board Stephen Bouniconti, Esq. (via email) 4 Z017 Michael Pill, Esq. (via email) PLANNING BOARD ;C�li:»I Ii]ss30 ±I T�;:Elq�oAGA1'ti� 4'1'fCOFZ�O=i�}94645.DOC'?:: SOWDITCH & DEWEY. LLP 311 MAIN STREET PO BOX 15156 WORCESTER, MA 0161E-0156 T5087913511 F7667567636 www.bowditch.com Boston Framingham Worcester r' . lJ &v4tch &Devwy ATTORNEYS May 22, 2017 YM EM IL iaRAW 1'IFaID.ma.IR3 `►S• L Mark Paleologopoulos, Chairman Agawam Planning Board Agawam Town Hall 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001-1801 Direct lelepltone. (508) 926-3403 Direct laosimilc: (508) 929-3104 Email: dview@bw&disaL core Re: Eversource Energy - R>evlsed Site Plan APprovals for South West Sheet and South Westfield Street; Request to Rescind Planning Board Approwk Dear Mr. Paleologopoulos: As you know, this office represents Eversource Energy ("Eversowee"). Eversource hereby requests that the Planning Board vote to rescind its April 20, 2017 votes approving Eversource's revised Site Plans for South West Street and South Westfield Scree# during the Planning Board's next scheduled meeting on June 1, 2017. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Yours , David Viens cc: Michael Pill, Esq. (via email) Stephen Buoniconti, Esq. (via email) Marc Strange, Director Of Planning & Community Development �( 1wilt ! i1�.:'�l:i 177.,4h12�J: AtiAN AM •{;OF:E1�p�i�h5t.i)()['x:I I BOWDUCH & PEWEY, LLP 311 MAIN STREET PO BOX 15158 WORCESTER. MA 01515-0166 T5087913511 F7567557636 www.howditch.oem Bowe Fmmin ham Worcester Bowditch &Dewey ATTORNEYS Direct to i Vbow: (SOS) 926-3403 Db=1 f cWwjk (M) 929-3104 Email: dviep:s@e bowdirJLcom May 22, 2017 VIA EMAIL aboissonneau1! a awam,rlma.us & U.S. MAID Richard Maggi, Vice Chairman Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01 O01-1801 Re. Eveersour ce Energy -Parcel E3 2-2, South WestfwH Street, Case #1962; and Parcel B8-12, South West S'treei& Case #1963; Wthdharwo d of ZBA appeals Dear Mr. Maggi: As you know, this office represents Eversource Energy ("Eversource'l. Please be advised that Eversource wishes to withdraw its appeals filed on March 2, 2017 with the Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals (the "ZBA"), Case Nos. 1962 and 1963 (collectively, the "Appeals"), concerning Applications for Site Plan Approval dated January 4, 2017 relating to two proposed solar energy projects located on South West Street and South Westfield Street. This matter was initially heard by the ZBA on April 24, 2017 and had been continued to June 12, 2017, which continued hearing will obviously no longer need to occur given Eversource's withdrawal of the Appeals. Thank you for your attention to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Yours tnd , V David Viens CC.' Doreen Prouty, Chairperson, Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals Marc Strange, Director of Planning & Community Development Mark Paleologopoulos, Chairperson, Agawam Planning Board Stephen Boanioonti, Esq. (via email) Michael Pill, Esq. (via email) ;Client r i leV-3071 BOWOITCH & DEWEY, LLP n MAIN STREET PO BOX 15156 WORCESTER, MA MIS-0166 T 5067913511 F 756 756 7636 www.bowditch.com Balton Framingham Woraster -a Richard A Cohen Mayor Agawam Massachusetts Office of the Mayor 36 Main Street, Agawam, MA 01001 mayor@agawam.ma.us TO: Full Council May 19, 2017 Law Department Planning Board FROM: Mayor Richard A Cohen SUBJECT: Solar Ordinance Tel: 423-786.4520 Fax: 413-786-9927 As you are aware the City Council on Monday, May 15, 2017 defeated TOR-20174 which proposed zoning amendments for regulating Solar Photovoltaic Electric Generating Facilities. I wish to inform you that Eversource has decided not to proceed with the two solar projects planned within the Town of Agawam. There Is currently no zoning ordinance regulating the installation of solar photovoltaic electric generating facilities; as a result the Town is vulnerable to unregulated installations going up haphazardly within the community. Therefore, it is Imperative and should be a priority of the Legislative Body of the Town of Agawam to put forth and pass an Ordinance that will protect the best interest of the Town and Its Residents. My Administration and the Law department are prepared to assist and work collaboratively with the Council and Planning Board for an acceptable ordinance. Town of Agawam Interoffice Memorandum To: Mayor Richard A. Cohen CC: Patrick Toney, Associate Solicitor Marc Strange, Planning Director Amanda Boissonneault, Zoning Board of Appeals Mark Paleologopoulos, Planning Board From: Vincent Gioscia, Town Clerk Date: May 2, 2017 Subject: Pinette, Jr. et al v. Eversource et al Please be advised that we have received today in the Clerks' Office from Attorney Michael Pill, an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Eversource site plan approvals by the planning board. Thank You. 0 Pamela Kerr From: Marc Strange Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 7:24 AM To: MPaleologopoulos@baycarehealth.org; mpaleo@comcast.net; pandolfi.l.c@gmail.com; eden214@aol.com; CharlesEifman@gmail.com; mariot@alliedflooringandpaint.com Cc: Pamela Kerr, Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Fwd: Pinette et als vs. Eversource Energy and Town of Agawam, Land Court Case No. 17 MISC 000212 (Piper, J.) Attachments: DocketPinetteVsEversourceAgawam.pdf, ATT00001.htm; Pinette Civil Cover04142017.1098.pdf; ATT00002.htm; LandCtComplaint 240 14A FINAL04142017.1098.pdf; ATT00003.htm FYI --abutters asking the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent Building Inspector from issuing a building permit on the solar installations. Doesn't directly affect the Planning Board. Begin forwarded message, From: Michael Pill <muillgverizon.net> Date: April 18, 2017 at 4:15:44 PM EDT To: <SBuoniconti a awam.ma.us>, <MStrange&agawam.ma.us>, <JSMITH&bowditch.com> Subject: Pinette et als vs. Eversouree Energy and Town of Agawam, Land Court Case No. 17 MISC 000212 (Piper, J.) Stephen Buoniconti, Esq., Marc Strange, Esq. and Joshua Lee Smith, Esq. Attached are a Land Court Complaint, Civil Cover Sheet, and Docket entries with docket number for a case filed today, entitled Pinette et als vs. Eversource Energy and Town of Agawam, Land Court Case No. 17 MISC 000212 (Piper, J.) My assistant Heather Williams will be sending the attached complaint and civil sheet, together with civil summonses, to the Hampden County sheriff for service of process at the -- Eversource Energy principal office in Massachusetts at 300 Cadwell Drive, Springfield, MA 01104 -- Agawam Town Clerk's office at the Agawam Town Hall, 36 Main Street, Agawam, MA 01001 I expect to receive from the Land Court shortly a notice of judge and track assignment, and a notice of case management conference. These documents will be forwarded to you promptly upon receipt. Please let me know if there are questions or if anything more is needed in this regard. Thanks very much, Michael Pill Michael Pill, Esq. Green Miles Lipton, LLP 77 Pleasant Street, P.O. Box 210 Northampton, MA 01061-0210 Phone (413) 586-8218; FAX (413) 584-6278; mpill(cD-verizon.net www.greenmiles.com NOTE: Information in this email and any attachments is privileged and confidential. If the reader is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify this office immediately. Upon request, all costs will be reimbursed to 0 you. Thank you for your assistance. No Attorney -Client relationship can be created by this email. Nothing in this email or any attachment is intended to form a contract. 0 Massachusetts Trial Court httpsa/www.mass.org/eservices/search.page.3?x=te9F3aR... 17 MISC 000212 PInette, Jr., Carroll , et al. V. Eversource En er , et al. PIPER Case Type Miscellaneous Case Status Open File Date 04/1812017 DCM Track: Initiating Action: ZJA -Validity of Zoning, G. L. Status Date: 04/18/2017 Chapter 240, Sec. 14A and Chapter 185, § 10 112) Case Judge: Piper, Mon. Gordon H. Next Event: Property Address Sout Test and South Westfield Street Agawam j All information Party Docket Financial Receipt Disposition Party Information Pinette, Jr., Carroll - Plaintiff Party Attorney Attorney Pill, Esq., Michael Bar Code 399880 Address Green Miles Lipton, LLP 77 Pleasant Street P.O. Box 210 Northampton, MA 01061-0210 Phone Number (413)586-8218 More Party Information Pinette, Marsha J. - Plaintiff Party Attorney Attorney Bar Code Address Phone Number Pill, Esq., Michael 399880 Green Miles Lipton, LLP 77 Pleasant Street P.Q. Box 210 Northampton, MA 01061-0210 (413)586-8218 More Party Information Stolar, Aline - Plaintiff Party Attorney Attorney Pill, Esq., Michael Bar Code 399880 Address Green Miles Lipton, LLP 77 Pleasant Street P.O. Box 210 Northampton, MA 01061-0210 Phone Number (413)586-8218 Morg Party Information Eversource Engergy - Defendant Party Attorney More Party Information Town of Agawam - Defendant 1 of 2 4/ 18/ 17 12:52 PM Massachusetts Trial Court https://www.masts.org/eservices/search.page.3?x=te9F3aR... Party Attorney I More Party Information Docket Information Docket Date Docket Text Amount Owed 04/18/2017 Complaint filed. 0411812017 Case assigned to the Average Track per Land Court Standing Order 1:04. 04/18/2017 Land Court miscellaneous filing fee Receipt: 366261 Date: 04/18/2017 $240.00 04/18/2017 Land Court surcharge Receipt: 366261 Date: 04/18/2017 $15.00 0411812017 Land Court summons Receipt: 366251 Date: 04118/2017 $10.00 Financial Summary Cost Type Amount Owed Amount Paid Amount Dismissed Amount Outstanding Cost $265.00 $265.00 $0.00 $0.00 $265.00 $265.00 $0.00 $0.00 Receipts Receipt Number Receipt Date Received From Payment Amount 366261 04/18/2017 Pill, Esq., Michael $265.00 $265.00 Case Disposition Disposition Date Case Judge Undisposed Piper, Hon, Gordon H. 2 of 2 4/18/17 12:52 PM is • April 21, 2017 Eversource Energy 300 Cadwell Drive Springfield, MA 01104 Attention: William Blanchard Dear Mr. Blanchard: Town of Agawam Planning Board 36 Main Street, Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1801 Tel. 413-726.9737 Fax 413-786.9927 mow u7 At its duly called meeting held on April 20, 2017 the Agawam Planning Board voted to approve the Site Plan entitled "Eversource Solar Site 2 — Agawam, MA, South West Street, Agawam Massachusetts", prepared by Milone & MacBroom and dated December 28, 2016, Revised April 18, 2017. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD MRP:prk cc: Building Inspector, Law Dept., Engineering Dept., Town Clerk, File TOWN OF AGAWAM Department o, f Public Works 1000 Suffield Street Tel (413) 8210600 Christopher I Go1ba Agawam, MA aloof Fax (413) 8210631 Superintendent MEMORANDUM To: Planning Board CC: File From: Engineering Division Date: April 20, 2017 Subject: 180 South West Street ,- Eversource Solar Per your request, we have reviewed the revised Site Plans for the Eversource Solar Site 2 located at 180 South West Street, Agawam, MA; Prepared by: Milone & MacBroom, Dated: April 18, 2017. Based on our review, Engineering has no comments on these plans. Engineering resems the right to make additional comments as new information is submitted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this division. Sincerely, Michael F. A1bro, P.E. Assistant Town Engineer Jr ichelle C. Chase, P. . Town Engineer Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 3:25 PM To: mpill@verizon.net; jsmith@bowditch.com Cc: Stephen Buoniconti; 'Mark Paleologopoulos;'Mark Paleologopoulos; Pamela Kerr; Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Eversource Solar Installation Site Plan Reviews Importance: High Good afternoon, Attorney Pill and Attorney Smith. As you know, the Planning Board met last night and two of the agenda items were the (tabled) site plans. During the meeting, the Board voted to put both site plan reviews back on the table for the next meeting. So those site plans will be active items on the April 20th Planning Board agenda and the Board will be discussing each plan. Attorney Smith—Eversource's architectural and engineering team should be available that night to address questions, comments, and concerns that the Planning Board has for each site plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Marc A. Strange, Director Planning & Community Development Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 (413) 786-0400 ext. 8245 0 0 Amanda Boissonneault From: MARK PALEOLOGOPOULOS <mpaleo@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2017 11.47 AM To: Stephen Buoniconti Cc: Patrick Toney; Marc Strange; Pamela Kerr; Amanda Boissonneault; eden214@aoi.com; MarioT@AlliedFlooringAndPaint.com; nmpandolfi@gmail.com; charleselfman@gmail.com; mpaleo@comcast.net Subject: Eversource Solar Projects As you know, the Planning Board received opposing counsel's opinions regarding the two proposed solar projects for Eversource immediately prior to our Planning Board meeting of 3/16/2017. On the agenda, we discussed openly our comments and feedback on the proposed ordinance. We took comments from the public and allowed counsel for both sides to address the Board solely in regards to the ordinance. We, and consequently the public in attendance, heard counsel spar over the wording thereof, our motivation for, and the purpose of the ordinance. We did not comment on their input. The two projects remain tabled as we continue to wait for direction based on the solar ordinance being considered by the City Council. From the beginning of our involvement, we have received confusing and sometimes conflicting guidance. The solar ordinance deliberation notwithstanding, the Planning Board is in need of a judgment regarding the legitimacy of the Eversource site plans in the agricultural zone vis-a-vis the proposed use. I propose an executive session meeting in which you could provide guidance and answer questions. Short of that, I request a written adjudication from you in regards to what seems to be the crucial point, i.e. Are solar farms prohibited in an agricultural zone in the city of Agawam? Our next regularly scheduled meeting is scheduled for 4/6/2017. If an executive session prior to this meeting would be more convenient, I would ask the Planning Office to make the arrangements and we will make accommodations. Thank you once again for your attention in this matter. Mark Paleologopoulos Chairman, Agawam Planning Board 1 Town of Agawam Board of Appeals 36 Main Street, Agawam, Massachusetts 01001-1801 Tel. 413.726.9739 Fax 413-786.9927 MEMO Date: March 17, 2017 To: Building Inspector, Planning Board, Conservation Commission, Assessor, DPW Superintendent, Fire Chief, Police Chief, Health Dept., Engineering Dept. From: Board of Appeals Subject: Case # 1963 Please be advised that the Agawam Board of Appeals is in receipt of a new application: An appeal of a decision of the Agawam Planning Board by Eversource Energy as allowed under Section 2-8, Paragraph C of the Town of Agawam's Adopted Charter and Section 180-13, Paragraph C-6 of the Town of Agawam's Zoning Ordinances regarding the premises identified as "Map B08, Lot 0002" located on South West Street. A hearing date is scheduled for Monday, April 24, 2017 starting at 7:15 PM and will be held at the Agawam Public Library Community Room, 750 Cooper Street, Agawam, MA. Plans are in the Board of Appeals office for your review. Please submit any knowledge, comments or recommendations you may have concerning this application. If no information is received prior to the opening of the public bearing, it will be deemed to be lack of opposition thereto. Sincerely, Richard Maggi Vice Chair cc: 5 Board Members Mayor Town Council Town Solicitor • U Agawam Planning Board March 16, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD March 16, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman Violet E. Baldwin Charles Elfman Nicholas Pandolfi Mario Tedeschi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Amanda Boissonneault Mr. Palcologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. 1. DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE VOTE — Zoning Amendment — Commercial Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations — Planning Board Mr. Paleologopoulos stated there is a legislative sub -committee meeting and council workshop taking place in the Peirce Room that started at 6:15 pm this evening. Item 2 on that agenda, TOR-2017-3 — An Ordinance to amend the Code of the Town of Agawam Zoning ordinances Regarding Commercial Ground Mounted Photovoltaic Installations (Planning Board) (Two Readings Required) — Suggest a Public Hearing Date (Referred to the Planning Board and Legislative Committee), may pertain to item 1 on the Planning Board agenda. Mr. Paleologopoulos said that Ms. Baldwin is currently attending that meeting and will return to the Planning Board meeting when the sub -committee meeting and council workshop adjourns. Mr. Pandolfi joined the meeting at 6.33 PM. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if anyone in attendance had any questions or comments specifically about the proposed zoning amendment and not the proposed Eversource Energy projects. Elizabeth Maher, 53 Tobacco Farm Road asked if there has been any discussion about town property being exempt from the proposed bylaw. Mr. Paleologopoulos answered saying concern about town properties being exempt was expressed at the last meeting. Aline Stolar, 54 Kosak Court asked if the meeting going on next door pertained to the Planning Board's meeting. Mr. Paleologopoulos answered saying one of the items on the agenda does pertain to this meeting. Ms. Baldwin joined the meeting at 6:37 PM. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked the members of the board if they had any questions, comments or concerns about the proposed zoning amendment. 9 Agawam Planning Board March 16, 2017 Mr. Tedeschi mentioned that §180-150 section b might be too restrictive. Mr. Tedeschi is concerned about depleting industrial zoned property and eroding the tax base. Mr. Tedeschi would like a discussion on if it would be logical to allow a percentage of land in agricultural zones that would allow the owner to offset expenses and increase income while control how much of the land can be covered with solar PV panels. Mr. Tedeschi does not want to see any allowance for commercial solar projects in residential zoned areas. Ms. Baldwin spoke about the legislative sub -committee she attended that started at 6:15 PM. Ms. Baldwin informed the board there was a discussion about time constraints and when the City Council needs to schedule a public hearing. Mr. Paleologopoulos stated that at the last meeting, on March 2, 2017, the board wanted to coordinate a date and time to have a joint meeting with the City Council. Mr. Pandolfi mentioned the minimum setback in § 180-153 of the proposed bylaw should be looked at. There is a discussion that 40 feet is not enough, and that 75 feet may be more appropriate. Ms. Baldwin commented on § 180-154, stating specific language should be included, and terms such as "where feasible" and "reasonably" should be struck from the ordinance. Ms. Baldwin would like to add specific language that shields all abutting property by having all lighting directed downward. There is a discussion about how emergency services access solar compounds and how they are notified of any access or personnel updates. All board members agree that contact information should be updated annually. Mr. Tedeschi agreed with §180-154 and §180-155, that address abandonment and financial surety, which will help to protect the Town in case a site is not maintained. The Board discussed if there should be any size limitations. Ms. Baldwin suggested looking to other communities to see if their solar bylaw have any size restrictions. Mr. Strange stated the proposed bylaw was modeled after West Springfield's bylaw. Members of the board spoke with Doreen Prouty, Chairperson of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Prouty previously gave the Board members comments on the proposed bylaw, which included different project scale sizes. Ms. Prouty said a joint workshop would be beneficial so that all comments can be discussed. Mr. Paleologopoulos would like to see more specific language in regards to visual impact mitigation, which is discussed in §180-154. Mr. Pandolfi asked Carl Pinette, who is in attendance in the audience, what his opinion was on the type of plants that could be used for screening. Mr. Pinette said arborvitae and hemlock would work well, and could grow higher than 10 feet, but would need to be maintained. Mr. Pandolfi stated a minimum height of 6 feet at planting should be required, with the plantings growing to a minimum of 12-15 feet. Coniferous and deciduous plantings should both be used, and any type of hedging should be maintained annually. Mr. Pandolfi commented that screening needs to be for the abutters. 2 i �► Agawam Planning Board March 16, 2017 Elizabeth Maher, 53 Tobacco Farm Road asked why the board is worried about screening if the proposed bylaw puts any solar projects in industrial zones. Mr. Strange explained that the solar compound that is next to Route 57 is on industrial land, but directly abuts residential zoned property. The town has other industrial properties that abut residential areas. Ms. Maher also asked if the town is waiting for bylaws to be passed in regards to the proposed Eversource Energy projects or if there will be any type of grandfathering. Mr. Paleologopoulos answered by saying there is no definitive answer, and the site plans are currently tabled. All board members are in agreement that a joint subcommittee meeting needs to be scheduled to go over comments and suggestions to the proposed bylaw. The comments submitted to the board by Ms. Prouty incorporated definitions of items in the bylaw, which the board members would like to consider and incorporate into the proposed bylaw. Mr. Paleologopoulos allowed for both attorneys present to speak. Joshua Lee Smith, Attorney for Eversource Energy stated it is not clear how deadlines are being established. Attorney Smith is concerned there is motivation to stop the two Eversource Energy projects that were vetted for approximately nine months with city officials. Attorney Smith would like to see a carve out in in the proposed bylaw that would allow plans submitted by a certain date to be allowed or keep use in agricultural districts. Attorney Smith said this is not a good way to do business, Eversource Energy had talked to the Building Inspector, and that these projects need to be un-tabled and allowed site plan review. Mr. Paleologopoulos said that he is speaking for himself, and has not made a decision yet. Mr. Palcologopoulos said that professional staff has conflicting opinions, and he is waiting for a legal opinion to show the correct way to proceed. An email from Attorney Pills was received at 3:30 p.m. on March 16th and an email from Attorney Smith was received at 6:00 p.m. on March 16th, this material still needs to be fully reviewed. Michael Pill, Attorney for abutters of the proposed South West St. Eversource Energy project, apologized for the late submittal of paperwork; he said he was hired on Monday, March 13t'. Attorney Pills gave a summary of the paperwork he submitted. Attorney Pill stated that there are limited uses allowed in the Town of Agawam's agricultural and residential zones. A public utility has an industrial purpose, and is an allowed use in industrial zones, not agricultural or residential. Elizabeth Maher, 53 Tobacco Farm Road commented that it is false that neighbors were notified. She said a truck was scene going around the neighborhood in October and that the neighborhood is outraged. Ms. Maher said citizens were not consulted and that there needs to be more transparency. Ms. Maher stated the solar projects should be on industrial land, and that South West Street parcel is still being farmed. Agawam Planning Board March 16, 2017 Amy Voisin -Shea from Eversource Energy gave members of the board a copy of a notice that went out to abutters of the proposed Eversource Energy projects dated November 18, 2016. 2. SITE PLAN — 470 Shoemaker Lane — LTM LLC An email was submitted by Mr. Robinson asking for a continuance to address 8 outstanding comments submitted by the Engineering Department in a memo dated March 16, 2017. Motion made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded Mr. Pandolfi to table the Site Plan for LTM, LLC on 470 Shoemaker Lane until the next meeting. VOTE 5-0 3. FORM A — Southwick Street — Koulik This plan shows the creation of three building lots out of an existing parcel with frontage on Southwick Street. Motion made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the plan for Koulik on Southwick Street under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required." VOTE 5-0 FORM A — James Street — Fini This plan shows the creation of three building lots out of an existing parcel with frontage on James Street. Motion made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to approve the plan for Fini on James Street under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required." VOTE 5-0 4. SIGN MYLARS, EASEMENTS & PERF. AGREEMENT — D'amato Way Mylars were submitted and were reviewed by the Engineering Department. Easements have not yet been submitted and the developer has not yet signed the Performance Agreement. Motion made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to table the signing of easement paperwork and Performance Agreement until the next meeting. VOTE 5-0 Motion made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to sign the mylars for the D'amato Way Definitive Plan. VOTE 5-0 BOND SETTING — Windermere Estates 4 LJ Agawam Planning Board March 16, 2017 The Engineering Department came up with a bond amount of S3950.00 per lot for vacant lots in the Windermere Estates Subdivision. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to set the bond for lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Windermere Estates at $3950.00 per lot as recommended by the Engineering Department. VOTE — 5-0 6. RELEASE OF COVENANT & PERF. AGREEMENT - Windermere Est. Lots 4 & 8 Mr. Thomas Bretta, the developer for Windermere Estates, will be posting the bond for lots 4 and 8 as soon as possible. The board members agreed to vote to release the Covenant for both lots pending receipt of the bond. Motion made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to approve the Release of Covenant pending the receipt of $7900.00 ($3950.00 per lot) for lot 4 and 8 Windermere Estates. VOTE 5-0 Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to sign new Performance Agreements for Lots 4 and 8 Windermere Estates to reflect the bond VOTE 5-0 7. VOTE TO APPOINT — CPA Representative Motion was made by Mr. Pandolft and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to nominate Vi Baldwin to remain as the Planning Board representative to the CPA. VOTE 5-0 SITE PLAN — South West Street — Eversource Energy (Tabled) 9. SITE PLAN — South Westfield Street — Eversource Energy (Tabled) 10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 5, February 2 & February 16, 2017 Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the March 2, 2017 minutes as written. VOTE 5-1 Motion was made by Mr. Elfman and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to approve the February 2, 2017 minutes as written. VOTE 4-0-1 (Baldwin abstained) 5 Agawam Planning Board March 16, 2017 Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to approve the February 16, 2017 minutes with the addition of one comment by Mr. Baldwin. VOTE 5-0 11. Correspondences — None The meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM. no Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 5:58 PM To: MPaleologopoulos@baycarehealth.org; mpaleo@comcast.net; mariot@alliedflooringandpaint.com; CharlesElfman@gmail.com; pandolfi.l.c@gmail.com; eden214@aol.com Cc: Amanda Boissonneault; Pamela Kerr; Stephen Buoniconti Subject: Fwd: Zoning Amendment - Solar Ordinance Attachments: LT - Agawam Planning Board 3-16-17 (04029616x7ABD9).pdf; ATT00001.htm Begin forwarded message: From: "Bauer, Paul C." <PBAUER2bowditch.com> To: "barbara bard" <Board a awam.ma.us>, "Marc Strange" <MStrange@agawam.ma.us> Cc: "Smith, Joshua Lee" <JSMITH@bowditch.com> Subject: Zoning Amendment - Solar Ordinance To Barbara Bard and Marc Strange: This firm represents Eversource Energy. Attached please find our letter to the Agawam City Council with respect to the Proposed Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Ordinance. Paul Bauer Paul C. Bauer Practice Area Leader for Real Estate & Environmental Group Bowditch & Dewey, LLP I T 617-757-6535 1 C 617-755-9225 Boston I Framingham I Washington, DC I Worcester www.bowditch.com I Pbauer@bowditch.com I Bio An invitation to read our blogs: • At the Bar with Bowditch: A Legal Blog for the Craft Brewing Community • Campus Counsel • Commercial Real Estate insight & News • Don't Tax Yourself • LGBTQ Legal issues This email message is generated from the law firm of Bowditch & Dewey, LLP and contains information that is confidential and may be privileged as an attorney/client communication or as attorney work product. The information is intended to be disclosed solely to the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of 0 0 the contents of this email information is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by return email and delete it from your computer system. For more information about Bowditch & Dewey, please visit our web site at www.bowditch.com 0 Bowditeh ATTORNEYS y Joshua Lee Smith Direct telephone: 508-920-3464 Dum facsimile: 50&929-3064 Email: jsmith@bowduch.com March 16, 2017 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Bard a awam.ma.us Agawam City Council Agawam Town Hall 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 Re: Proposed Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Ordinance Dear Council Members: This firm represents Eversource Energy ("Eversource") in connection with the development of two ground -mounted solar photovoltaic development projects in Agawam, Massachusetts: a 4.8 megawatt solar facility located at 0 Rear South West Street on an 80 f acre site which is further identified as Assessor's Map B8, Block 1, Lot 2 and a 1 megawatt solar facility located at 180 South Westfield Street on a 37f acre site which is fiirther identified as Assessor's Map E3, Block 2, Lot 2 (collectively, the "Projects"), The Agawam City Council is currently considering an amendment of the Agawam Zoning Ordinance that would, if approved, adopt a new section of the Zoning Ordinance entitled "Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations" (the "Solar Ordinance"), of which the Agawam Planning Board voted to act as petitioner. The purpose of this letter is to request that the petition for adoption of the Solar Ordinance be withdrawn by the Planning Board, or, if not withdrawn, that the City Council either vote (1) against the adoption of the Solar Ordinance in its entirety; or, in the alternative, (2) to approve the Solar Ordinance with a provision that expressly exempts all solar projects that have been filed for site plan review prior to the adoption of the Solar Ordinance or permits solar projects in the Agricultural district. A. Proiect Description and Back ound. Eversource had numerous pre -filing meetings with City officials concerning the Projects, the first of which was on September 21, 2016. At that first meeting and several meetings thereafter, Eversource worked diligently and in good faith in revising its project plans to incorporate the City's many comments and requests, including, but not limited to, adding more (Client FIIes130717810029/AGA WAM/04027178.DOCX;6) BOWDITCH & DEWEY. LLP 311 MAIN STREET PO BOX 15156 WORCESTER, MA 01615-0156 T 508 7913511 F 756 756 7636 www,bowditch.com Boston Framingham Worcester 0 0 Agawam City Council March 16, 2017 Page 2 visual screening and preparing photosimulations. On November 18, 2016 Eversource seat outreach letters and pamphlets to the abutters of the 0 Rear South West Street site which described that Project, a copy of which is attached. Finally, on January 4, 2017, Eversource filed site plan review applications (the "Applications") for the Projects with the Planning Board. On January 17 and 20, 2017, Eversource filed applications for special permits for the Projects; however, on February 2, 2017, the Agawam Inspector of Buildings (the "Building Inspector's issued a written determination confirming that the use under the Projects is permitted by right under the current Zoning Ordinance, and, therefore, does not require a special permit, but, rather, only requires site plan review by the Planning Board. Rather than holding an initial meeting on the Applications as required under the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board delayed holding a timely meeting on the Applications until February 2, 2017. Unbeknownst to Eversource, the City was drafting the proposed Solar Ordinance during this delay period, which was presented to the Planning Board as a separate agenda item at the February 2nd Planning Board meeting. At the February 2°d meeting, the Planning Board swiftly voted in favor of serving as petitioner of the Solar Ordinance, yet continued its sluggish and deliberate pace with respect to the site plan review Applications by voting to continue both meetings for the same in order to conduct "site visits". The site visits were scheduled with certain members of the Planning Board, only to be cancelled by them later. At the Planning Board's meeting on February 16, 2017, the Planning Board issued a decision to "table the approval of the Site Plan for Eversource Energy South West Street (Site #2) until the City Council has been able to review and vote on the proposed Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Bylaw".' The Planning Board held what it referred to on its agenda as a public hearing on March 2, 2017 to discuss the Solar Ordinance, at which the Planning Board heard various comments from the public and City officials, and the Planning Board voted to close the public hearing and to form a workshop among the Planning Board the Zoning Board of Appeals and legislative subcommittee, to discuss the Solar Ordinance. The Solar Ordinance was first brought before the City Council at its meeting held on March 6, 2017, during which the City Council voted to refer the matter to a legislative subcommittee. B. Arguments Aggiot the Solar Ordinance. For the following reasons, the petition for adoption of the Solar Ordinance should be withdrawn by the Planning Board, or if not withdrawn, the City Council should either vote (1) against the adoption of the Solar Ordinance in its entirety; or, in the alternative, (2) to approve the Solar Ordinance with a provision that expressly exempts all solar projects that have been filed for site plan review prior to the adoption of the Solar Ordinance or permits solar projects in the Agricultural district. 1. The Solar Ordinance is unlawful as it attempts to unreasonably regulate a statutorily -protected use. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 3 provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar 1 See Minutes from Planning Board Meeting held on February 16, 2017. (Client Files O717M29/AGAWAMAM27178.AOCx;6) Agawam City Council March 16, 2017 Page 3 energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare." Massachusetts courts have construed this statute to mandate allowances of solar energy projects as an exempt use, not subject to local zoning restrictions, where the local zoning bylaws do not otherwise expressly permit the proposed solar use anywhere in the locality.2 Accordingly, the Building Inspector confirmed that the use under the Projects is permitted by right under the current Zoning Ordinance because solar energy systems use is not expressly permitted thereunder. Furthermore, while a municipality may reasonably regulate solar energy systems, it cannot prohibit them outright.3 The Solar Ordinance, as currently drafted, prohibits ground - mounted solar photovoltaic use in all zoning districts except for the Industrial zoning district. The Industrial zoning district in Agawam is a relatively small geographic area that is largely developed, and there are no readily available sites within the Industrial district that are suitable for the Projects. Therefore, the Solar Ordinance's restriction on solar use to only Industrial districts is tantamount to a city-wide ban on solar use because there are few, if any, available sites that are suitable for solar use. Even if industrial -zoned land were available to be developed for solar energy system use, Agawam's industrial properties would be better served with the development of higher tax -generating industrial buildings and equipment used in connection therewith, along with actual industrial -related uses that create and maintain jobs, as opposed to a multi -acre solar farm. Eversource is currently working on similar permitting solar projects at over thirty sites throughout Massachusetts. While municipalities have different approaches to solar ordinances, Agawam's proposed Solar Ordinance is one of the most restrictive. The Solar Ordinance is not well -tailored for Agawam's diverse mix of land use types, and should not outright prohibit solar energy system use in other districts that other municipalities similar to Agawam commonly permit, such as agriculture and business districts. Simply banning the use in all but one zoning district ignores other factors that could be considered in other districts such as the system size and type (e.g., ground or roof -mounted, carports), soil types (i.e., prime farmland) or increased visual screening for certain areas or whether a special permit should be required. At the March 2"d Planning Board meeting, there were several comments from the public, the Planning Board and members of other City boards suggesting that the Solar Ordinance was not well - thought -out and overly restrictive, and described the Solar Ordinance as "Draconian" and "boilerplate." Others pointed out that owners of agricultural land wishing to supplement their income by developing portions of their land for solar energy will be prohibited under the proposed amendment. Based on the foregoing, the Solar Ordinance is an unreasonable, and, therefore, unlawful, regulation of solar energy systems, and should be withdrawn from consideration or otherwise not be approved by the City Council. 2. Imposition of the Solar Ordinance on the Projects would not be equitable, and would go against vublic ppoliqyp 3 See, Dtseau v. Uawlowski Realty, Inc., 2015 WL 54500, "I, 6-7 (Cutler, CJ.) (Jan, 2, 2015). See, Id. at •7. {Client Filesl307178/0024/AGAWAM104027I78.DOCX;61 11 Agawam City Council March 16, 2017 Page 4 Over a period of nine months leading up to the filing of the Applications for the Projects, Eversource, in good faith and as a matter of its routine practice, met several times with city officials to discuss the Projects, including conducting site visits, and incorporated numerous comments into its plans and design layouts, including providing increased visual screening. Eversource reached out to, and communicated with, neighbors to inform them of the Projects well in advance of even filing the Applications with the City. Eversource's pre -filing activities were indicative of what a responsible and principled property owner and developer is supposed to do with respect to the development process. As a result, an enormous amount of time and energy was expended by not only Eversource and its employees, engineers and consultants, but also City officials and their resources. Unfortunately, other City officials responded with an I Ph hour, Hail Mary -attempt to extinguish the Projects by slapping together a narrowly -tailored, boilerplate Solar Ordinance that will not benefit the citizens of Agawam in any way whatsoever. After the Applications were formally filed, the Planning Board was ill-advised in its multiple delays and ultimate "tabling" of the Projects. The City's actions have been unfair, unlawful, reckless and unprofessional, and set a bad precedent for any future developers (solar or non -solar) who go through all of the proper development steps, work in good faith with City officials and neighbors and expend time, effort and expense on engineering, studies, plans and consultants, only to have the rug pulled out from under them by virtue of a discriminatory zoning amendment aimed squarely at prohibiting the proposed use. This is simply not the way business should be conducted by any municipality. Based on the foregoing, imposition of the Solar Ordinance on the Projects would not be equitable and would go against public policy. At the very least, the proposed Solar Ordinance should include a provision that exempts projects filed for site plan review prior to the adoption of the amendment or permits solar projects in the Agricultural district. 3. The Planning Board's deliberate delayin its review of the Applications is unlawful, and the Plannine Board is obligated to approve the Applications „with only reasonable conditions. Section 180-13(C) of the Zoning Ordinance provides for a procedure that imposes time limits on the review of applications for site plan review. After receiving an application and a site plan, the Building Inspector "shall, within five days of receipt, transmit to the Planning Board [...1 the application and site plan." Within 21 days of receipt of the application and site plan from the Building Inspector, the Planning Board must hold a public meeting. Subsequently, the Planning Board "shall within 35 days of receipt approve the site plan, approve it with modifications or return it for changes and additional information." Although this time -flame may be extended in certain cases if in writing and for good reason, the review period may not exceed 90 days. In this matter, Eversource submitted the Applications on January 4, 2017. This is not a situation where "for good reason" the Planning Board may extend the review time period. Here, the use under the Projects is permitted by right under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Planning Board does not need to extend the review period to make its determination. Rather, the Planning Board is deliberately delaying the review procedures for the Applications until such (Client Filesn0717M29/AGAWAM104027178.DOCX,6) Agawam City Council March 16, 2017 Page 5 time that the proposed zoning amendment may be passed, so that it may then deny site plan approval on the basis of the newly prohibited use. A municipality may not unnecessarily delay a site plan approval process. Delaying such review until a zoning amendment prohibiting the project has been passed amounts to a denial of an as -of -right use, which is contrary to Massachusetts case law.4 A planning board may only apply substantive criteria where the proposed use is one permitted by right. Although a planning board may impose reasonable terms and conditions on the proposed use, it does not have discretionary power to deny approval of the site plan.6 Here, the use under the Projects is permitted by right. Therefore, the Planning Board may not unnecessarily delay the approval process, but, rather, is obligated to approve the Applications with only reasonable conditions.? If given the chance, Eversource has been, and will continue to be, willing to work with the City and abutters, including providing reasonable visual screening. 4. Additional considerations. Eversource is permitted and encouraged to develop alternative energy infrastructure pursuant to various Massachusetts energy reforms. The Solar Ordinance effectively precludes any solar development in Agawam. Adopting this amendment would be contrary to applicable renewable energy laws, including the Renewable Portfolio Energy Standards, the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Green Communities Act. The restrictive nature of the Solar Ordinance is also inconsistent with Agawam's recent designation as a "Green Community", which is aimed at assisting cities and towns with clean -energy solutions that reduce long-term energy costs through grants and other initiatives. Eversource has had a good, long-standing relationship with the City and its citizenry, and has served as a good corporate citizen by not only providing reliable electric service which is vital to the social and economic vitality of the City, but also by giving back to the community through Energy Efficiency (EE) Incentives, both public and private, totaling over $2.5 million for projects such as the construction and rehabilitation of the Public Library, the Middle School, Public Housing Authority and the Senior Center. In addition, Eversource provided grant funds for the establishment of the Agawam Small Business Center. Moreover, Eversource is one of the largest taxpayers in the City, and its investment in the Projects will be approximately $10- $12 million for both sites combined,. resulting in even more tax revenues to the City. C. Reguest. Based on all of the reasons stated herein, Eversource requests that the petition for adoption of the Solar Ordinance be withdrawn by the Planning Board, or if not withdrawn, that the Agawam City Council either vote (1) against the adoption of the Solar Ordinance in its See, Y.D. Dugout v. Board of Appeals of Canton, 357 Mass. 25, 31 (1970) (noting that the site pleat approval process should be a "regulation of use rather than its prohibition [... ] contemplating primarily the imposition, for the public protection, of reasonable terms and conditions ° Sec, Quincy v. Planning Bd_ of Tewksbury, 39 Mass. App, Ct. 17, 21 (1995). 6 See, Prudential Ins. Co., 23 Mass. App. Ct. at 281. 7 See, Prudential Ins. Co., 23 Mass. App. Ct. at 281; see, also, Castle Hill Apartments Ltd. P'ship v. Planning Bd. of Holyoke, 65 Mass. App. Ct 840, 845-46 (2006). (Client Files1307178/OO29/AGAWAM/04027178.DOCX;6) 0 0 Agawam City Council March l 6, 2017 Page 6 entirety; or, in the alternative, (2) to approve the Solar Ordinance with a provision that expressly exempts all solar projects that have been filed for site plan review prior to the adoption of the Solar Ordinance or permits solar projects in the Agricultural district. Very truly yours, 51hosh feeS JLS:db cc: Agawam Planning Board Project Team {Client Files1307I 78/0029/AGAWAMU0d027178.DOCX;6} 0 EVERS;URCE ENERGY November 18, 2016 anbjmt: EverIpArce E Dear Neighbor, P.O. Box M HwOb L CT 06141-MM This letter is to let you know that Eversource is looking to install a solar energy project on land we own near your property. This project involves preparing the land, installing perimeter fencing and ground mounted solar panels, along with associated electrical equipment. We will be participating in the following public Town of Agawam permitting processes, Special Permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals, Site Plan review by the Planning Board and a Conservation Commission hearing for activities regulated under the Wetlands Protection Act. Construction on the project would start in the second quarter of 2017 and continue through the fall of 2017. The schedule is subject to change due to permit requirements or weather conditions. Work hours would be approidmatei~y lam to 5pm Monday through Friday throughout oonstruction. There is the potential for some electrical wiring work to occur on Saturdayy& toward the end of the project, however this work does not involve the use of any heavy equipment and would occur between the hours of gam to 4pm. Field preparation activities may include removing vegetation, grading, installing new access roads where needed and fencing. After that solar panels would be installed along with associated electrical equipment and poles, followed by restoration of the disturbed areas and installation of landscaping. The attached pamphlet provides additional details on the location of the solar energy project, the construction and operation details and the benefits of solar energy. Keeping the lines of communication open is an important part of our work in your community. If you have questions about this project please call your Community Relations Representative Edgar Alejandro at (413-787-9333) or myself at (8W-665-2301), or email us at edaar.alejandeversource.com or v isine- he ver urm.cam. Sincerely, EVERSOURCE ENERGY Amy ne-Shea MA Solar Siting & Permitting Specialist i GREEN MILES LIPTON, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN J, GREEN, JR. 77 PLEASANT STREET. P.O. BOX 210 HARRY L. MILES NORTHAMPTON, MA 01061-0210 ROGER P. LIPTON PHONE (413) 5 86-82 18 JOHN M. MCLAUGHLIN* FAX (4131 584-6278 MICHAEL PILL www.grecumiles.com BRAD A. SHIMEL SUSAN L. MILES NICOUF S. BERCUME** W FSTFIELD OFFICE: LEVI ROMAN 48 EAST SILVER STREET, SUITE 5 DAVID C. KUZMFSKI, OF COUNSEL WESTFIELD, MA 01085 RAYMOND W. ZENKI;RT, .TR., OF COUNSEL PHONE (413) 642-8367 BRIAN L. BLACKBURN (Dec.) FAX (413) 579-5357 *ALSO ADMITTED IN CONNECTICUT **ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA March 16, 2017 VIA email attachment To: Agawam Planning Board (submitted on behalf of residents of Kosak Court) Re: As a matter of law, the Eversource Site Plan for South West Street cannot be approved because the proposed solar electric generating plant is an industrial use, allowed in industrial zoning districts, but not in residential or agricultural zoning districts. Executive Summary and Table of Contents As a matter of law, the Planning Board cannot approve the Eversource Site Plan for a solar farm in an agricultural zoning district off South West Street,for the following reasons. (1) The proposed solar electric generating plant is an industrial use. Page 2 (2) Agawam's zoning ordinance (§ 180-55.13) is "permissive" for Industrial Districts A & B, meaning it allows "Any industrial purpose, except those contained in the following list, which may be allowed, by special permit, only after a public hearing before the Board of Appeals:...." Page 8 (3) Solar farms are currently allowed in Industrial Districts because they are not listed as prohibited by § 180.55B, although the proposed "Solar Farm" zoning amendment should be adopted to provide specific detailed regulation of this use. Page 9 (4) Agawam's zoning ordinance is "prohibitive" for residential and agricultural zoning districts, meaning industrial uses such as solar farms are currently prohibited there because they are not listed as being allowed (§§ 180-17, 180-23 & 180-37). Page 10 (5) The limited partial zoning exemption for solar energy facilities in Mass. General Laws, eh 40A, § 3, 9, does not override the Agawam Zoning Ordinance in this case because: (a) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) requires that state law zoning exemptions must be narrowly construed; and (b) even without the "Solar Farm" zoning amendment, the current Agawam Zoning Ordinance (allowing solar farms as an industrial use in Industrial Districts but not in residential or agricultural zoning districts), is reasonable regulation within the meaning of G.L. c. 40A, §3, ¶ 9. That paragraph states, "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare." Page I 1 Page 1 (1) The proposed solar electric generating plant is an industrial use. An "electric power generating plant" is an industrial use that can be located as a matter of right in an Agawam industrial zoning district. Berkshire Power Development, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals ofAgawam, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 828, 828 (1997) ("The plaintiff (Berkshire) seeks to construct and operate a 252 megawatt, gas -fired electric power generating plant on approximaely forty acres of land located in Agawam in a zoning district permitting industrial use."). In that case the project developer needed a special permit under Agawam Zoning Ordinance, § 180-63, because the plant building was over forty feet in height. 43 Mass, App. Ct. at 828-829. My understanding is that the proposed ground -mounted solar panels are nowhere near that height, so Eversource would not need a special permit to locate its solar electric generating plant in an Industrial District as a matter of right.' The court stated in Pellegrino v. City Council of Springfield, 22 Mass. App. Ct. 459, 465 (1986), that "an electric generating and steam power plant, standing alone, would ordinarily constitute an industrial use for zoning purposes."' See, Dufault v. Millennium Power Partners, LP, 49 Mass. App. Ct. 137, 138 (2000) ("Section 3.2.2 of Charlton's zoning by-law permits an electric generating facility as of right in an `Industrial eneral' area."). The Massachusetts cases cited above are consistent with cases from other states. For example, the court stated as follows in Wetlands America Trust, Inc. v. White Cloud Nine Ventures, .L.P., 88 Va Cir. 341, 2014 WL 8239927 at *9 (Cir. Ct. Va. 2014): [A] farm is "a tract of land on which an industrial function is carried out, as the drilling or storage of oil or the generation of electricity by solar power." Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 699 (2001). The same dictionary defines "manufacture" as "the making of goods or wares by manual labor or by machinery" and "the making or producing of anything." Id. at 1172. 1 If Eversource cannot find a suitable location in an Agawam Industrial District, then it should modify its project to fit the available land. Alternatively, the company could ask the City Council to expand the Industrial District, although seeking rezoning of only one or two parcels of land solely for construction of an electric generating plan would be illegal spot zoning. 2 My understanding is that Eversource proposes a stand-alone solar electric generating plant that will generate electricity that the utility company plans to sell to its customers. This is unlike the situation in Boston Edison Co. v. Boston Redevelopment Auth., 374 Mass. 37, 39, 65 (1977) where the court rejected Boston Edison's contention that a "proposed power plant constitutes an industrial use." There the proposal was "for the construction of an electric generating and steam power plant, an office building, and related facilities as an urban renewal project." That power plant was held to be an "institutional use" because it was to be "a total energy plant which would provide electricity, steam, chilled water, and solid waste incineration for the MASCO member institutions." 374 Mass. at 40. The Court explained "MASCO (Medical Area Service Corporation) is a charitable corporation established by twelve institutions engaged in medical, educational, and charitable functions. MASCO's purpose is to assist its members in performing these functions more efficiently." (Id.) The Court distinguished Boston Edison power plants because that utility (like Eversource in the present case) "is a public corporation which is obliged to sell electric power to the community at large." 374 Mass. at 58. Page 2 i 0 See also, Peoples Energy Resources, Corp., 136 N.M. 79, 82-83, 87, 94 P.3d 822, 825-826, 830 (2004) (Electric generating plant held to be a permitted use in an industrial zoning although not specifically listed as such.); Kepo'o v. Watson, 87 Hawai'i 91, 93, 952 P.2d 379, 381 (1998) ("the master plan included use of a portion of the lands for industrial purposes, including a power generating facility."); Information Please, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Morgan County, 42 Colo. App. 392, 394, 398, 600 P.2d 86, 87-88, 91 (1979) (Affirming trial court judgment upholding rezoning of land to "heavy industrial" so a "coal-fired, 500 megawatt electric generating plant" could be constructed there.); State ex rel. Christopher v. Matthews, 362 Mo. 242, 244, 245, 248, 240 S.W.2d 934, 935, 936, 938 (1951) (Land "rezoned for heaving industrial purposes ... to construct a steam electric generating plan on this property ... ,"). The term "Industrial" is not defined by the Agawam Zoning Ordinance (§ 180-2.0 "Definitions"). The Ordinance does state as follows in § 180-2.B: Terms and words not defined herein but defined in the Building Code or Subdivision Regulations shall have the meanings given therein unless a contrary intention clearly appears. Words not defined in either place shall have the meanings given in the most recent edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. The Merriam-Webser Unabridged Dictionary (Online ed. 2017 unabridged.merriatn- webster.com) definition of "industrial" states that its origin is "partly from French industriel of or belonging to industry (especially manufacturing)." The legal authorities set forth above make it clear than a public utility company's electric generating ulant is an industrial use ner se. In addition, the Dronosed solar Mower plant is also an industrial use because it will "manufacture" electricity. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) explained it this way in Boston & M.R.R. v. Town of Billerica, 262 Mass. 439, 444-445, 449 (1928), The question to be decided is whether the machinery thus described was `employed in any branch of manufacture' or was `used in manufacture' within the meaning of the governing statutes already quoted. In the interpretation of statutes, the natural import of words according to the ordinary and approved usage of the language when applied to the subject -matter of the act, is to be considered as expressing the intention of the Legislature. Hittinger v. Westford, 135 Mass. 258, 259; Duggan v. Bay State St. R. Co., 230 Mass. 370, 374, L. R. A. 1918E, 680. The dominant statutory word in this connection is `manufacture.' Involved in the conception of manufacture is the implication of change wrought through the application of forces directed by the human mind, which results in the transformation of some pre-existing substance or element into something different, with a new name, nature or use. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association v. United States, 207 U. S. 556, 562, 28 S. Ct. 204, 52 L. Ed. 336. `The verb `manufacture' is synonymous with make. To manufacture is to make wares or Page 3 �J other products by hand, machinery or other agency. It may also be defined to work, as raw or partly wrought materials into suitable forms for use.' This may be accepted as a working description of manufacture for the present case. It has not been argued that machinery used in the development of electricity was not employed in some branch of manufacture. We are of opinion that machinery used in the generation of electricity, as described by the commissioner, constituted employment in some branch of manufacture. Duncan v. New England Power Co., 225 Mass. 155; Bates Machine Co. v. Trenton & N. B. R. Co., 70 N. J. Law, 684, 58 A. 935, 103 Am. St. Rep. 811; People v. Wemple, 129 N. Y. 543, 29 N. E_ 808, 14 L_ R. A. 708; In re Charles Town Light Co. (D. C.) 183 F. 160, affirmed in (C. C. A.) 184 F. 986. To the same effect are the more recent decisions in Board of Assessors of Holyoke v. State Tax Commission., 355 Mass. 223, 226 (1969) (Holyoke Water Power Company "is engaged in manufacturing and selling electricity and steam, as the assessors correctly concede. [Citations omitted.]"), and Board of Gas and Elec. Com'rs of Middleborough v. Board of Assessors of Lakeville, 355 Mass. 387, 387-388 (1969) ("Taunton [municipal light] plant manufactures and sells electric power to the citizens of Taunton; to some seventy-five customers in the town of Lakeville, who are serviced directly by Taunton plant; and to the Middleborough municipal Iight plant which sells electric power at retail to residents of Middleborough and to residents of Lakeville, and has about 1,600 customers in Lakeville."). By 1996, the SJC considered it settled law that "we have held the production of electricity to involve `manufacture.' Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 565 (1956)." Commissioner of Revenue v. Houghton APfflin Co., 423 Mass. 42, 48 (1996). This statement was made in the context of the following detailed discussion of what is meant by the term "manufacturing": Our past cases in this area have focused on whether the processes under study "effect[ed] the kind of change and cause [d] a correlative degree of refinement to the source material" sufficient to qualify as "manufacturing." William F. Sullivan & Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, supra [413 Mass. 576] at 581 [(1992)]. Accord York Steak House Sys., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 393 Mass. 424, 426 (1994); Hopkinton LNG Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 372 Mass. 286, 287, 288 (1977). Although the activity at issue must constitute more than merely providing raw materials to another to be processed, see Tilcon-Warren Quarries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, supra at 674, processes which do not in themselves produce a finished product are nonetheless "manufacturing" if they comprise an "essential and integral part of a total manufacturing process." William F. Sullivan & Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, supra at 580, quoting Joseph T. Rossi Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, supra at 181-182.[FN5] FN5. Of similar import is the commissioner's regulation, 830 Code Mass.Regs. § 58.2.1(6)(h) 8 (1993), which states: "A process which does not produce a finished product, but constitutes an essential and integral part of a total manufacturing process, is manufacturing. A process which is a practical and necessary step in the production of a Page 4 1] finished article for sale is an essential and integral part of a total manufacturing process." In William F. Sullivan & Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, supra at 581, we held that the taxpayer's business of converting cast off pipe, boilers, plumbing fixtures, automobile parts, refrigerators, and other metal items into compressed and baled scrap metal of various grades involved sufficient change and refinement to constitute manufacturing. Similarly, we have held the scouring of raw waste wool into wool ready to be spun into thread, cloth, or rugs to be an essential and integral part of the manufacturing of textiles, Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, supra at 748, 84 N.E.2d 129, as was the processing of raw wood into cut lumber, "a product more refined and specialized in use than the raw material." Joseph T. Rossi Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, supra at 182. Further, we have held the production of electricity to involve "manufacture." Boston Gas Co. v. Assessors of Boston, 334 Mass. 549, 56562 (1956). In Tilcon-Warren Quarries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 392 Mass. 670, 673 (1984), on the other hand, we held that the taxpayer's business of extracting pieces of rock from the ground and crushing them into usable sizes was not manufacturing, because the process did not transform the source material " `into an article or a product of substantially different character ... even though the processing increase[d] the value [and] usefulness of the product.' " Id_, quoting Solite Corp. v. County of King George, 220 Va. 661, 665, 261 S.E.2d 535 (1980). We have also held that a computer time-sharing system, whereby information provided by a customer is manipulated by computer software, is "the transmission or manipulation of knowledge or intelligence," and properly classified as a service rather than a manufacturing process. First Data Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 371 Mass. 444, 448 (1976). Similarly, the transformation of sound waves over telephone lines, Assessors of Sprineteld v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 321 Mass. 186, 191 (1947), and light waves to television transmitters, Westinghouse Broadcasting Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 382 Mass. 354, 357 (1981), does not constitute "manufacturing." 423 Mass. at 47-48. Although the cases cited just above involve taxation, the SJC stated in College v. Town of Weston, 462 Mass. 280, 289-290 n. 12 (2012), that to resolve zoning cases, "we have often looked to decisions addressing tax exemptions."3 For other purposes, the SJC has considered generation of electricity to be a manufacturing process since the nineteenth century. Citizens' Gaslight Co. of Reading, South Reading & Stoneham v. Inhahitants of Wakefield, 161 Mass. 432, 433-434 (1894) (Dispute over whether town meeting votes were "equivalent to a vote that the town decides to establish a plant for the manufacture and 3 The complete sentence from which the quotation is taken states "In construing the educational exemption to the Dover Amendment, we have often looked to decisions addressing tax exemptions. [Citations omitted.]" Page 5 i 0 distribution of gas and electricity ....");4 Opinion of the Justices In re Public Lighting, 150 Mass. 592, 594 (1890) ("The fundamental question is whether the manufacture and distribution of gas or electricity to be used by cities and towns for illuminating purposes is a public service.'). The same approach was followed consistently in the twentieth century. Donohue v. City of Newhuryport, 211 Mass. 561, 567 (1912) ("Even where cities and towns are authorized to enter the field of business enterprises, like the manufacture of gas and electricity, they do it not under the laws relating to private corporations set forth in R. L. c. 121, but under the special provisions contained in R. L. c. 34."), and Barker v. Boston Elec. Light Co.,178 Mass. 503, 504-505 (1901) ("The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and supply of electricity for light and power throughout the city ....").5 The fact that the source of power is renewable (e.g. wind, water or sunlight) does not change the nature of electricity production as "manufacturing." For example, in Duncan v. New England Power Co., 225 Mass. 155, 156, 158-159 (1916), the SJC held that "a mill operated by water power to generate electricity" is a manufacturing facility, in these words: The pleas in bar filed in this case present this question: Is a mill operated by water power to generate electricity to be transmitted and sold a water mill within R. L. c. 196, § 1? By the practice of a hundred years a water mill within what is now R. L. c. 196, § 1, includes mills for the manufacture of goods and the rolling of iron as well as for the grinding of corn. See for example Wolcott Woolen Mfg. Co. v. Upham, 5 Pick. 292; Fiske v. Framingham Mfg. Co., 12 Pick. 68; Palmer Co. v. Ferrill, 17 Pick. 58; Charles v. M & B. Mfg. Co., 17 Pick_ 70; Bates v. Weymouth Iron Co., 8 Cush. 548; Howard v. Props. of Locks & Canals, 12 Cush. 259; Stetson v. E. Carver Co., 97 Mass. 402; Drake v. Hamilton Woolen Co., 99 Mass. 574. The last contention of the petitioners is that the generation of electrical power to be transmitted and sold for operating machinery could not have been within the contemplation of the legislators when the original act was enacted in 1713-14, and for that reason this water mill is 4 The complete sentence from which the quotation is taken states as follows (161 Mass. at 433-434): It is contended that the two votes passed by the town pursuant to St. 1891, c. 370, § 3, to the effect "that it is expedient for the town to exercise the authority conferred upon towns under the provisions of chapter 370 of the acts of the year 1891," are not, but that an additional vote, to the effect that the town decides to establish such a plant, is required before the town becomes subject to the obligations imposed by the statute. See sections 12 and 13. 5 The complete sentence from which the quotation is taken reads as follows (178 Mass. at 504-505): The defendant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and supply of electricity for light and power throughout the city, and for its transmission and distribution maintains lines of wires of which some are attached to cross -arms upon poles in the public streets, some are carried in conduits under streets, some are attached to various kinds of support on roofs of buildings, and in a few instances some, as in this case, are attached to poles upon property of the city. Page 6 not within R. L. c. 196, § 1. But what is manufactured in a mill is not the test of its being or not being a water mill within R. L. c. 196, § 1. The thing which makes or does not make the mill a water mill within that act depends upon the power which drives its machinery. A mill to grind corn, to saw boards, to roll iron, to manufacture goods, to generate electricity or to make any other article or thing is a water mill within R. L. c. 196, § 1, provided the motive power which drives its machinery is in whole or in part water power. A cogeneration plant also "manufactures" electricity. Turners Falls Ltd. Partnership v. Board of Assessors of Montague, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 732, 733 (2002) ("The real property in question is a cogeneration plant designed to manufacture steam (for a paper company) and electricity.") One might argue that photovoltaic energy production is not "manufacturing" because sunlight may not be a "material" or a "substance," but that would create an unrealistic distinction based on the source of power used to produce electricity. A federal case states "Electricity is a product manufactured from other forms of energy, whether physical (as in the case of hydroelectric power), chemical (as in power produced from burning fossil fuels), solar, or nuclear." City of Gainesville v. Florida Power & Light Co., 458 F.Supp. 1258, 1281-1282 (D.C. Fla. 1980).6 For example, is electricity production "manufacturing" only if the raw material is coal, oil, natural gas, or wood (the latter being the fuel for a biomass electric plant)? What about nuclear power, which uses heat from radioactive fuel to produce steam which powers turbines connected to electric generators? Would electricity produced with either wind or sunlight not be considered "manufacturing" because the power sources might not be considered "materials" or "substances"? Would hydroelectric power be included in the definition of manufacturing because the falling water that powers hydroelectric machinery is a "material" or "substance"? Are such distinctions sensible where, regardless of the raw material, the manufactured end product is electricity? On this point the SJC has adopted the following rule of statutory construction: A literal construction of statutory language will not be adopted when such a construction will lead to an absurd and unreasonable conclusion and the language to be construed "is fairly 6 In Duseau v. Szawlowski Realty, Inc., 2015 WL 59500 at *7 n. 9 (Mass. Land Ct. 2015) (Cutler, C.J.), the Land Court noted the definition of "manufacturing" in the Hatfield Zoning Bylaw limited that term to "manufacture of physical products or equipment ...." There is no such limiting definition in the Agawam Zoning Ordinance, where "manufacturing" is not defined, although "Light manufacturing" is defined in § 180-2.0 as "Fabrication, assembly, processing, finishing work or packaging." Referring to the Merriam -Webster Unabridged Dictionary (Online ed. 2017 unabridged.merriam- webster.com) as required by Agawam Zoning Ordinance § 180-2.B, one finds "manufacturing" defined as "engaged in manufacture . _ . of or relating to manufacture ...." The same dictionary defines the noun "manufacture" as "something made from raw materials by hand or machinery" which can be either "the process or operation of making wares or other material products by hand or by machinery" or "the act or process of making, inventing, devising, or fashioning: production, creation". Page 7 • 0 susceptible to a construction that would lead to a logical and sensible result." Bell v. Treasurer of Cambridge, 310 Mass. 484, 489 (1941), and cases cited. Moreover, a literal construction will not be adopted when that construction would be inconsistent with other material provisions of the statute and would defeat the aim and object of the legislation. Cullen v. Mayor of Newton, 308 Mass. 578, 583-584 (1941). Frye v. School Comm. of Leicester, 300 Mass. 537 (1938). Town of Lexington v. Town of Bedford, 378 Mass. 562, 570 (1979). Therefore, in addition to being an industrial use per se, production of electricity also is a manufacturing process. Either way, it is an industrial use that belongs in Agawam's Industrial District under the A swam Zoning Ordinance. (2) Agawam's zoning ordinance (§180-55.B) is "permissive" for Industrial Districts A & B, meaning it allows "Any industrial purpose, except those contained in the following list, which may be allowed, by special permit, only after a public hearing before the Board of Appeals:...." A leading legal treatise on municipal law explains that "Zoning ordinances may be permissive or prohibitive in form, either enumerating permitted uses and prohibiting all others or enumerating prohibited uses and permitting all others; or the ordinance may combine these two methods." 8 McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 25:56 (3rd ed. 2006 & Supp. 2017). Massachusetts case laws is consistent with this approach. The S.1C stated as follows in Town of Harvard v. Maxant, 360 Mass. 432, 436 (1971): There is no requirement that zoning by-laws or ordinances follow any particular pattern or structure. They may take the form of prescribing uses permitted or prescribing uses prohibited, or a combination of the two. The town adopted a by-law which combines the two. It prohibits certain uses from all zoning districts of the town, and it also prescribes and limits the uses permitted in each district. This by-law is `both permissive and prohibitive in form_' Building Inspector of Chelmsford v. Belleville, 342 Mass. 216, 217, To the same effect is the case cited in the above quotation, Building Inspector of Chelmsford V. Belleville, 342 Mass. 216, 217 (1961) ("A zoning by-law need not be both permissive and prohibitive in form. It may utilize one or the other, or both forms."). Agawam has the latter type of ordinance described in the preceding paragraph. It is permissive for industrial uses because it allows "any industrial purpose," and prohibitive for agricultural and residential uses because in those zoning districts it permits only those uses specifically enumerated as being allowed. The Agawam Zoning Ordinance states as follows in "Article X. Industrial District A" at § 180- 55 (underlining added for emphasis): § 180-55. Permitted uses. [Amended 11-9-1994 by TOR-94-7 101 In any Industrial District A as indicated on the Building Zone Map, no building or other Page 8 0 0 structure shall be erected, altered or used and no land shall he used or occupied for any purpose except one of the following: A. Any business or agricultural use permitted in an Agricultural, Business A or Business B District. B. Any industrial purpose, except those contained in the following list, which may be allowed, by special permit, only after a public hearing before the Board of Appeals: [Amended 5-5- 2014 by TOR-2014-1 ] "[T]he following list" does not require a special permit for an electric power generating plant. The Ordinance states in "Article XI. Industrial District B" as follows at § 180-61: § 180-61. Boundaries. Industrial B Districts shall be that area bounded by Suffield Street, Silver Street and Shoemaker Lane zoned Industrial at the Town Meeting of December 10, 1957, and those areas zoned Industrial B on or after the Town Meeting of December 10, 1957. § 180-62. Permitted uses. Permitted uses shall be all uses permitted in Industrial District A. In other words, because a solar electric generating plant is for "industrial purpose"as set forth in detail above in section (1) of this memorandum, it is presently allowed as a matter of right in Industrial District A or B. (3) Solar farms are currently allowed in Industrial Districts because they are not listed as prohibited by §180.55B, although the proposed "Solar Farm" zoning amendment should be adopted to provide specific detailed regulation of this use. As discussed above in sections (1) & (2) of this memorandum, the proposed Eversource solar electric generating plant is currently allowed in an Agawam industrial zoning district as a matter of right because it is not expressly prohibited or listed as requiring a special permit. Nevertheless, the proposed Agawam Solar Farm ordinance should be adopted to provide essential specific regulation for this particular land use. The Solar Farm Ordinance is carefully limited in its application only to "commercial ground -mounted solar photovoltaic (PV) installations measuring one (1) acre and larger" and does not apply to "solar PV facilities mounted on buildings or to solar PV facilities for residential use." § 180-49 "Applicability". It also states explicitly that "No commercial ground -mounted solar PV installation shall be constructed or installed in a reidential, agricultural, or business zone." Further, it provides essential "Dimension and Density Requirements" (§ 180-53), "Design, Safety, and Environmental Standards" (§ 180-54), provisions governing "Monitoring and Maintenance" (§ 180-54), and a requirement for "Financial Surety" (§180-155)_ Since the use is already allowed in the industrial zoning districts (and prohibited in agricultural and residential districts), it makes sense to add the specific regulation provided by the proposed ordinance. Page 9 9 0 Further, since solar electric generating plants already are prohibited in agricultural and residential zoning districts by the current Agawam Zoning Ordinance, any opposition by local farmers is misplaced. Any such opponents appear to have mistakenly accepted the erroneous position advocated by Eversource, which is refuted by this memorandum. (4) Agawam's zoning ordinance is "prohibitive" for residential and agricultural zoning districts, meaning industrial uses such as solar farms are currently prohibited there because they are not listed as being allowed (§§180-17,180-23 & 180-37). The Agawam zoning ordinance is `prohibitive" for residential and agricultural zoning districts because it allows in those districts only uses that are specifically listed as being permitted. APT Asset Management, Inc. v. Board of Appeals of Melrose, SO Mass. App. Ct. 133, 138 (2000) ("[T]he Land Court judge concluded that the ordinance is `prohibitive' rather than `permissive,' that is, uses not expressly authorized by its terms are prohibited."). The proposed Eversoure solar electric generating plant off South West Street is is located in an agricultural zoning district. The Agawam Zoning Ordinance states as follows in "Article VI1.Agricultural Districts" at § 180-37 (underlining added for emphasis): In any Agricultural District as indicated on the Building Zone Map, no building or other structure shall be erected, altered or used and no land shall be used or occupied for a purpose except one or more of the following: § 180-37. Permitted uses. In any A&bcultural District as indicated on the Building Zone Map, no building or other structure shall be erected, altered or used and no land shall be used or occupied for a purpose except one or more of the following A. Any use permitted in a Residence A-1 or A-2 District. B. Farms, dairies, nurseries, truck gardens, greenhouses and natural ice -harvesting activities and buildings or structures accessory thereto. C. Buildings or shelters for the sale of farm products, provided that a major portion of the product offered for sale at all times are raised on the premises and no advertising of products other than those raised on the premises shall be displayed" D. The processing of forests and wood lots by portable woodworking mills and machinery for processing wood cut on the premises, if approved by the Board of Appeals. E. Airports and landing strips and buildings or structures necessary thereto, if located west of Suffield Street. F. Off-street parking for 24 hours or less for motor vehicles when the use is an accessory to an existing conforming amusement park containing at least three acres of land adjacent to agriculturally zoned land and by special permit. [Added 2-20-2001 by TOR-2001-1] Page 10 The uses permitted in Residence A-1 District, set forth in Article II at § 180-17 "Permitted uses," do not include an electric power generating plant or any other industrial use. The same is true of the Residence A-2 District (Article III at § 180-23 "Permitted uses"). In conclusion, Eversource cannot locate its proposed solar electric generating plant in any Agawam agricultural or residential zoning district. Any claim by Eversource that it can override Agawam's zoning ordinance based on state law is discussed in detail below in section (5) of this memorandum. (5) The limited partial zoning exemption for solar energy facilities in Mass. General Laws, ch 40A, § 3, ¶ 9, does not override the Agawam Zoning Ordinance in this case because: (a) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) requires that state law zoning exemptions must be narrowly construed; and (b) even without the "Solar Farm" zoning amendment, the current Agawam Zoning Ordinance (allowing solar farms as an industrial use in Industrial Districts but not in residential or agricultural zoning districts), is reasonable regulation within the meaning of G.L. c. 40A, §3, ¶ 9. That paragraph states, "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare." 5(a). The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) requires that state law zoning exemptions must be narrowly construed. A narrow interpretation of G.L. c. 40A, § 3, T 9 was mandated by the SJC with the following statement in Regis College v. Town of Weston, 462 Mass. 280, 289-290 & n. 12 (2012): [T]he Dover Amendment represents a specific exception to the general power of municipalities to adopt and enforce zoning regulations and by-laws. See Crall v. Leominster, 362 Mass. 95, 101-102 (1972). "The whole of the Dover Amendment ... seeks to strike a balance between preventing local discrimination against an educational use,... and honoring legitimate municipal concerns that typically find expression in local zoning laws" (citation omitted). Trustees of Tufts College v. Medford, 415 Mass. 753, 757 (1993). As a practical matter, the protection afforded by the Dover Amendment can be financially advantageous to the land owner. Because the statutory purpose of preventing local discrimination against educational uses is only furthered if the intended use of the land is in fact educational, the term "educational purposes" should be construed so as to minimize the risk that Dover Amendment protection will improperly be extended to situations where form has been elevated over substance.[FN12] See Rice, Re —Evaluating the Balance Between Zoning Regulations and Religious and Educational Uses, 8 Pace L.Rev. 1, 42 (1988). FN12. In construing the educational exemption to the Dover Amendment, we have Page 11 often looked to decisions addressing tax exemptions. See Fitchburg Hous. Auth. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fitchburg, 380 Mass. 869, 873-874 (1980), citing Cummington Sch. of the Arts, Inc. v. Assessors of Cummington, 373 Mass. 597, 604 (1977); Assessors of Lancaster v. Perkins Sch., 323 Mass. 418, 422 (1948); President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Assessors of Cambridge, 175 Mass. 145, 146-147 (1900); and Trustees of Phillips Academy v. Andover, 175 Mass. 118, 125 (1900). As with the Dover Amendment exemption from zoning laws, tax exemptions have obvious financial benefits to those claiming them. The appropriate inquiry in determining whether an entity claiming exemption from Nation has satisfied its burden of proof extends well beyond "bare statutory compliance" Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer v. Assessors of Boston, 389 Mass. 298, 302 (1983). "[W]e have refused to allow form to control." Id. at 303, 450 N.E.2d 162. C£ New England Theosophical Corp. v. City of Boston, 172 Mass. 60, 64 (1898) (refusing to apply tax exemption for "literary" societies in manner that would "permit any [group of] men ... to live free from taxation, by forming a corporation" and asserting that it operated for literary and educational ends). In this case there is nothing religious or educational about the proposed solar project. It is purely a profit -making venture by an investor -owned (e.g., a private for -profit) utility company. The problem with the way Eversource is trying to misuse the zoning exemption in G.L. c. 40A, § 3, ¶ 9 was well stated by guest columnist Sandra George O'Neil, Ph.D., in the following column entitled "A Zoning Exemption Run Amok," Metrowest Daily News, March 14, 2012 (www.metrowestdailynews. com/opinion/x770708 864/ONeil-A-zoning-exemption-run- amok#ixzz2H.1KM13ss). Her words are worth setting forth in full, because she presents an excellent argument against the notion that an industrial solar plant can be located anywhere a developer wants to put it. HOLLISTON — Living in a residential neighborhood used to mean that you might have to deal with a new home on an empty lot, a development, or new septic systems or your neighbor's new shed or porch. This is all changing. Now, because of the status Massachusetts Law 40A Section 3, solar exemption, residents are arguably no longer protected by the zoning we have counted on to protect us since 1926. There are several local communities currently struggling with solar developers who wish to push large scale ground -mounted solar facilities into residential neighborhoods. Holliston is not alone, it's happening in Lunenburg, Carver, Amesbury and Belchertown to name a few. The push for green energy has translated into developers trying to take massive green landscapes, instead of using up the brown, industrial, or brownfield spaces dying for these projects. Make no mistake, these are industrial projects. The project in Holliston is almost 8 full acres of 10 foot high panels as close as 30 feet from residents' homes. The rows upon rows of panels would be hard to mask, but what makes this project even more clearly industrial, besides the fact that everyone involved including the developer calls them industrial, two massive Page 12 inverter stations that take the power from the panels and convert it. They make noise and they are big. This is industrial. If the Holliston site went online today, it would be the second largest facility in the state, second only to the Indian Orchard site in Springfield, which is a contaminated brownfield site — seems much more appropriate, no? A Lunenburg resident writes, "As sited, the little blue homes around this 20+ acre project will look out their second floor windows onto a sea of about 12,000 10' high black solar panel clusters surrounded by an 8' chain link fence and infrared video surveillance cameras. Something about this doesn't seem Residential." So why do residential neighborhoods across the commonwealth find themselves fighting to keep their neighborhoods free of industrial, large scale power facilities? Massachusetts General Law (MGL) Chapter 40A, Section 3. MGL 40A Section 3 states, "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare. The Department of Energy Resources, responsible for the Green Communities Act (MGL 25A, Section 10), states on their website, "it is not clear whether M.G.L. ch. 40A § 3 applies to the construction of large scale ground -mounted systems." In fact, the first criterion to become a Green Community is to designate locations where these facilities should be permitted. If indeed, MGL 40A Section 3 were meant to indicate that they were as -of -right everywhere, why would this even be necessary? The solar exemption was adopted in the 1980s. It's reasonable to conclude that the Legislature was attempting to make it easier to install solar on the roofs of homes and businesses for their own use, since large-scale solar wasn't in existence at the time. It was not the intent of the legislature to force towns to permit large scale industrial uses in all zoning districts. Towns are within their rights to reject these industrial facilities as it should not be considered a prohibition of solar as was intended by the Legislature. The fact that this exemption has not yet been challenged should not keep local boards from doing what is right, and protecting residential neighborhoods from industrial development. All other exemptions in MGL 40A Sec3 have been challenged, the time has come to challenge the solar exemption. Since the time of the Euclid decision in 1926 [Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926))], it has been clear that local municipalities are within their rights to restrict industrial uses in residential zones. Surely the Mass State Legislature is not trying to re- write the 1926 Euclid decision by forcing those same industrial facilities into our residential neighborhoods. In the 6-3 decision for which Justice Sutherland wrote the majority opinion he stated, "A nuisance may be merely the right thing in the wrong place — like a pig in the parlor instead of in the barnyard." That seems to be what Holliston has here, a pig in a parlor. The Page 13 project is a wonderful one that belongs in a more appropriate area; Justice Sutherland himself would certainly agree. We all wish to support alternative energy, but what is the sense of destroying acres upon acres of beautiful green spaces in the name of green when we've got plenty of rooftops and brownfields. What kind of green is that? Based on the reasoning set forth in the above -quoted column and the legal authority cited in this section, the limited zoning exemption for solar installations in G.L. c. 40A, § 3, 19 cannot be used to railroad any size solar project into every zoning district as Eversource is trying to do here. 5(b) Even without the "Solar Farm" zoning amendment, the current Aeawam Zonine Ordinance (allowing solar farms as an industrial use in Industrial Districts but not in residential or agricultural zoning districts), is reasonable regulation within the meaning of G.L. c_ 40A, V. ¶ 9. That paragraph states, "No zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar eagM systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy, except where necessary to protect the public health, safely or welfare." Comparison of the nine paragraphs of G.L. c. 40A, § 3 reveals that the limited solar exemption in ¶ 9 falls far short of an outright prohibition against any zoning regulation, such as appears elsewhere in G.L. c. 40A, § 3. Bold face paragraph numbers in brackets [ ]and underlining are added as an aid in parsing the statutory language: (1] No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the use of materials, or methods of construction of structures regulated by the state building code, nor shall any such ordinance orb -law prohibit, unreasonably regulate, or require a special permit for the use of land for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, nor prohibit, unreasonably regulate or require a special permit for the use, expansion, reconstruction or construction of structures thereon for the primary purpose of commercial agriculture, aquaculture, silviculture, horticulture, floriculture or viticulture, .... 12] No zoning ordinance or by-law shall regulate or restrict the interior area of a single family residential building nor shall any such ordinance or by-law prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of land or structures for religious purposes or for educational purposes on land owned or leased by the commonwealth or any of its agencies, subdivisions or bodies politic or by a religious sect or denomination, or by a nonprofit educational corporation; provided, however, that such land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements_ ... 13] No zoning ordinance or bylaw in any city or town shall prohibit, or require a special permit for, the use of land or structures, or the expansion of existing structures, for the primary, accessory or incidental purpose of operating a child care facility; provided, however, that such Page 14 land or structures may be subject to reasonable regulations concerning the bulk and height of structures and determining yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space, parking and building coverage requirements.... [41 Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, local land use and health and safety laws, regulations, practices, ordinances, by-laws and decisions of a city or town shall not discriminate against a disabled person.... 151 Family child care home and large family child care home, as defined in section I of chapter 15D, shall be an allowable use unless a city or town prohibits or specifically regulates such use in its zoning ordinances or by-laws. [61 No provision of a zoning ordinance or by-law shall be valid which sets apart districts by any boundary line which may be changed without adoption of an amendment to the zoning ordinance or by-law. [7] No zoning ordinance orb -law shall prohibit the owner and occupier of a residence which has been destroyed by fire or other natural holocaust from placing a manufactured home on the site of such residence and residing in such home for a period not to exceed twelve months while the residence is being rebuilt.... 181 No dimensional lot requirement of a zoning ordinance or by-law, including but not limited to, set back, front yard, side yard, rear yard and open space shall apply to handicapped access ramps on private property used solely for the purpose of facilitating ingress or egress of a physically handicapped person ... [91 No zoning ordinance or by-law shall glohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar eRM systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar eneW, except where necessary to protect the public he 1 saj= or welfare. 1101 No zoning ordinance or by-Iaw shall prohibit the construction or use of an antenna structure by a federally licensed amateur radio operator. Zoning ordinances and by-laws may reasonably regulate the location and height of such antenna structures for the purposes of health, safety, or aesthetics; provided, however, that such ordinances and by-laws reasonably allow for sufficient height of such antenna structures so as to effectively accommodate amateur radio communications by federally licensed amateur radio operators and constitute the minimum practicable regulation necessary to accomplish the legitimate purposes of the city or town enacting such ordinance or by-law. Nothing in Paragraph 9 of G.L. c. 40A, § 3 grants an unlimited right to place any solar project of any size anywhere in a municipality that Eversource chooses. The Agawam Zoning Ordinance already satisfies the requirements of the limited state zoning exemption because the Ordinance does not prohibit or unreasonably regulate solar installations, but allows them as a matter of right in both Industrial Districts. The claim by Eversource that it can put this type of large scale power plant anywhere it want is Page 15 the same position advanced by the solar project developer in Hatfield, MA, where I represented homeowners who objected to a large commercial solar power plant in a residential zoning district. The Hatfield Zoning Board of Appeals finding that "the language of G.L. c. 40A, § 3 exempts solar collection panels that are the subject of this building permit" was overruled by the court in Duseau v. Szawlowski Realty, Inc., 2015 WL 59500 at *7 (Mass. Land Ct. 2015) (Cutler, C.J.) ("The [G.L. c. 40A] § 3 Solar Provision does not provide the blanket exemption suggested by the Board's finding. Under the statutory language, a municipality may reasonably regulate solar energy systems, but cannot prohibit them outright.") Eversource's attempt to place an industrial use in an agricultural/residential zoning district directly contradicts Agawam's typical Euclidean zoning scheme. This approach to zoning, separating different uses into separate districts for residential, commercial and industrial uses, is named after the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case of Village of Euclid, Ohio v_ Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). There the court had "no difficulty in sustaining restrictions" on industrial development, based on the following reasoning: Here, however, the exclusion is in general terms of all industrial establishments, and it may thereby happen that not only offensive or dangerous industries will be excluded, but those which are neither offensive nor dangerous will share the same fate. But this is no more than happens in respect of many practice -forbidding laws which this court has upheld, although drawn in general terms so as to include individual cases that may turn out to be innocuous in themselves. Hebe Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297, 303, 39 S. Ct. 125, 63 L. Ed. 255; Pierce Oil Corp. v. City of Hope, 248 U. S. 498, 500, 39 S. Ct. 172, 63 L. Ed. 381. The inclusion of a reasonable margin, to insure effective enforcement, will not put upon a law, otherwise valid, the stamp of invalidity. 272 U.S. at 388-389, 47 S.Ct. at 119. The very definition of "Zoning" in G.L. c. 40A, § 1 A makes the underlying public policy clear in the these words: "`Zoning', ordinances and by-laws, adopted by cities and towns to regulate the use of land, buildings and structures to the full extent of the independent constitutional powers of cities and towns to protect the health, safety and general welfare of their present and future inhabitants." G.L. c. 40A, § 4 goes on to provide for separate zoning districts this way: Any zoning ordinance or by-law which divides cities and towns into districts shall be uniform within the district for each class or kind of structures or uses permitted. Districts shall be shown on a zoning snap in a manner sufficient for identification. Such maps shall be part of zoning ordinances or by-laws. Assessors' or property plans may be used as the basis for zoning maps. If more than four sheets or plates are used for a zoning map, an index map showing districts in outline shall be part of the zoning map and of the zoning ordinance or by-law. Page 16 11 For all of the reasons set forth above in this section (S) of this memorandum, the partial solar zoning exemption in G.L. c. 40A, § 3, 19, narrowly construed as the SJC requires, does not invalidate or override the Agawam Zoning Ordinance. Conclusion As a matter of law, the Eversource Site Plan for South West Street cannot be approved by the Planning Board, because the proposed solar electric generating plant is an industrial use, allowed in industrial zoning districts, but not in residential or agricultural zoning districts. Please let me know if there are questions of if anything additional is needed concerning anything set forth above in this memorandum. Very truly yours, r Michael Pill Copies by email attachment Clients Agawam Law Department, Attn: Stephen Buoniconti, Esq. SBuoniconti@agawam.ma.us Agawam Planning Department, Attn: Marc Strange, Director mstrange@agawam.ma.us Pamela Kerr, Administrative Assistant pkerr@agawam.ma.us Amanda Boissonneault, Senior Clerk aboissonneault@agawam.ma.us Joshua Lee Smith, Esq., attorney for Eversource jsmith@bowditch.com MP/csh/L 1.1095 .AgawamEversource Solar Page 17 Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:25 AM To: Pamela Kerr, Amanda Boissonneault Subject: FW: Legal review request by Planning Board Chair Attachments: Memo legal review solar- Planning Board.docx From: Stephen Buoniconti Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 11:13 AM To: mmpaleo(dcomcast.net; Patrick Toney Cc: Mayor Richard Cohen; Marc Strange; Erik Wight; rjmaggiesq( amail.com Subject: Legal review request by Planning Board Chair Mr. Chairman- attached please find a legal memorandum related to your email inquiry dated February 24, 2017. Steve Buoniconti Memo To. Agawam Planning Board- Chairman Mark Paleologopoulos Ce: Mayor Richard A. Cohen From: Stephen J. Buoniconti Date: 40�204 - 31 lQ f ! -7 Re: Request for legal review of Planning Board actions Mr. Chairman: Please treat this legal memorandum as a response to your email correspondence dated February 24, 2017. In your email you specifically ask for a legal opinion from the Law Department on the following questions: 1. Was it within the Planning Board's authority on February 16'h to table the two plans in question until City Council could review the proposed zoning amendment? 2. When is the City Council obliged to take action on the zoning amendment considering the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on March 2"a. 3. What will happen to these two projects should the City Council not take action within 90 days of application? Specifically, will the two plans be constructively approved automatically through inaction? The pertinent section of the Agawam Code for site plans is § 180-13. Below is the ordinance as a whole to avoid confusion. § 180-13. Site plans. [Added 5-7-1990 by TOR 90-26] 0 Site plans prepared and approved in accordance with this section shall be required to assist the Inspector of Buildings in the review of certain applications for building A permits and to assure compliance with all applicable requirements of chapter. A site plan shall be required and shall be submitted in each of the following situations: B. (1) Any proposed residential, business, industrial, institutional or other use of a new or renovated structure or of a parcel of land, or any change in any such use, structure or parcel, except for one -family detached dwellings and duplexes on separate lots. (2) Any nonresidential use of a one -family dwelling. (3) Any use requiring a special permit from the Board of Appeals. For this section, residences which are to be used solely for residential purposes are exempt. [Amended 1-21-2003 by TOR-2002-81 (4) Any major change in any condition or feature which is not in conformance with any feature of a previously approved site plan. Changes to parking and/or curb cuts will always necessitate site plan review. Procedure. C . (1) An applicant for site plan review under this section shall file with the Building Department 10 copies each of an application and a site plan. The site plan shall be prepared by an engineer, architect or landscape architect unless otherwise specified by the Planning Board. (2) The Inspector of Buildings shall, within five days of receipt, transmit to the Planning Board 10 copies of the application and site plan. (3) All site plans shall be prepared to scale on standard sheets of 24 inches by 36 inches to show with reasonable accuracy the following information, in addition to that required in § 180-4: (a) A title block, containing the street address, applicant's name and address, date, scale and the name of the preparer of the plan. (b) A site layout at a scale of no smaller than one inch equals 50 feet. (c) Topography of the site and adjacent lands. (d) Provision for the handling of vehicular traffic flow. All curb cuts must be clearly defined with widths and radii noted on the plan. Radii shall meet Town standards. Parking lot and site traffic flow must be clearly noted with signs or other methods if it is to be maintained as one-way. § 1 s0-13 3 § 180-13 (e) Parking areas and loading areas. (f) Drainage. The plan must be submitted to the Department of Public Works for input prior to Planning Board review. (g) All public utilities (sewer, water, gas, electric). (h) Landscaping. All landscaped areas are to be designated on the plan. These areas are to specify species type and size. (i) Sign location only. 0) Exterior lighting. (k) Rendering or elevations, including all mechanical facility support items originating from or terminating on the building exterior, or both. (1) The location and characteristics of any proposed screening, fencing or other buffers. (m) The location of any wetlands, streams, drainage swales and areas subject to flooding. (4) Within 21 days of receipt, the Planning Board shall hold a public meeting. The Planning Board shall within 35 days of receipt approve the site plan, approve it with modifications or return it for changes or additional information. When changes have been made or additional information provided, the above -specified time limits will apply. The Planning Board can in certain cases extend the review period if done so in writing and for good reason; however, the review period shall not exceed 90 days. A report containing the findings of the Board shall be submitted to the Inspector of Buildings for consideration in issuing a building permit. (5) Any application for a building permit requiring site plan approval shall not be deemed complete until such site plan is submitted. (6) Any decision pursuant to a site plan review shall be subject to the right of appeal to the Board of Appeals. • �. ANALYSIS Question 1 I have not received a copy of the minutes of the meeting where the site plan was tabled by the Board and thus I do not know the exact stated reasoning. However, please see § 180-13 C (3) and (4). C(4) provides wide latitude to the Planning Board when consideration is given for extending the review period with the term "good reason". There is no state law as guidance as to the scope of what "good reason" implies. Further, there is a lack of case law on the issue. Hence "good reason" is a subjective term that must be interpreted within the context of the ordinance. C(4) does not specifically state that "good reason" be directly related to the listed subjects under C(3) nor is it defined within the statute. Therefore, the Planning Board has wide discretion when invoking this section of the ordinance. Arguably the Planning Board's decision to table site plan review pending the outcome of an ordinance impacting the project falls within the good reason standard. The action must also be in writing as noted in C(4) per the ordinance. Question 2 The ordinance related to commercial, solar photovoltaic installations has been submitted to the Council. It was placed on the Council agenda for the meeting of March 6, 2017 as new business. The Council is required to hold a public hearing within 30 days on the matter. Thereafter, the matter is not subjected to a specific timeline once referred to old business on an agenda. Question 3 If no action is taken by the Planning Board within 90 days of the submission of the application, the plans are not constructively approved. The Agawam Town Code is silent on constructive approval. Rather, § 180-13 C (6) prohibits the approval of a building permit until site plans are submitted. Under § 180-13 C (7), the applicant has the right to appeal the Planning Board's decision, or actions, to the Zoning Board of Appeals which has the authority to either compel action by the Planning Board or render it's own decision on the matter. The plain language of C(6) states that the Inspector of Buildings is prohibited from issuing a building permit until site plans are submitted. That language coupled with the ordinance being silent on constructive approval requires the submission of site plans by a Board having jurisdiction to do so before any building permit can be issued for a project. 0 Page 4 0 0 Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2017 2:30 PM To: MARK PALEOLOGOPOULOS; mariot@alliedflooringandpaint.com; Nick Pandolfi; charleselfman@gmail.com; Vi Baldwin (eden214@aol.com) Cc: Pamela Kerr; Amanda Boissonneault Subject: RE: Planning Board - Eversource projects, South West St & South Westfield St Attachments: Eversource Solar Installations Timeline.docx Mark, et al., Per your request, attached here is a timeline for the Eversource projects. Please let us know if you need anything else. Marc A. Strange, Director Planning & Community Development Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 (413) 786-0400 ext. 8245 From: MARK PALEOLOGOPOULOS [mailto:mpaleo(a)comcast.net] Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 1.52 PM To: Marc Strange Cc: Pamela Kerr Subject: Planning Board - Eversource projects, South West St & South Westfield St February 24, 2017 Marc, I'm writing to ask for advice and clarification on the implications of the Planning Board's action to table the two Site Plan reviews for Eversource's two photovoltaic projects. As you know, the Board voted to table our decisions on approval until the outcome of the proposed solar ordinance change is determined. I have concerns that this tabling to a future uncertain date will not meet our zoning provisions, specifically 13-C which concerns the timing and time limits for site plan review. I believe the plans in question were received in January. Our first meeting to review was cancelled due to lack of quorum. At the next meeting, we voted to table in order to do a site visit. During the subsequent meeting on February 16 , we voted to table both plans again. We did discuss possible changes to the plans regarding buffering, both in terms of distance and visibility, however these were not included as reasons in the motion to table. I am asking for the City's legal counsel to review the chain of events to ascertain whether these two plans are still "on the clock", and if not, what actions the Board should take to deal with these issues. It's my understanding that the City Council will not act on our zoning provision petition in the near future. This may put our determination, based on the outcome of the petition, outside of the 90 day review period. Further, I would ask your department to provide the Board a timeline for all applications, approvals, meetings, deadlines on these two projects so that we may be informed and in agreement regarding this matter. Questions for Legal 1. Was it within the Planning Board's authority on February lb'h to table the two plans in question until City Council could review the proposed zoning amendment? 2. When is the City Council obliged to take action on the zoning amendment considering the Planning Board will hold a public hearing on March 2r'dg I What will happen to these two projects should the City Council not take action within 90 days of application? Specifically, will the two plans be constructively approved automatically through inaction? I look forward to your guidance on this matter. Mark Palcologopoulos Agawam Planning Board, Chairman Evcrsource Solar Installations Timeline November 2016: Eversource started their Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA) applications with the Conservation Commission for both properties. January 4, 2017: South West Street and South Westfield Street site plans received. January 10, 2017: Team Meeting to discuss both site plans. January 18, 2017: "Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations" proposed ordinance received from Attorney Buoniconti. January 19, 2017: Planning Board agenda with South West Street site plan. (Meeting canceled —no quorum) January 20, 2017: Revised South Westfield Street site plan received. January 25, 2017: Planning Board agenda with "Discussion and Possible Vote to be Petitioner" for proposed solar ordinance. (Meeting canceled —no quorum) February 2, 2017: Planning Board Meeting —both site plans tabled for site visits. February 16, 2017: Planning Board Meeting —both site plans tabled until City Council acts on solar ordinance. April 4, 2017: 90 days after South West Street site plan and original South Westfield Street site plan was received. April 20, 2017: 90 days after revised South Westfield Street site plan was received. Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Monday, March 06, 2017 9:36 AM To: Carl Pinette Landscaping Cc: Pamela Kerr, Amanda Boissonneault Subject: RE: solar project Hi Carl, I believe the initial meeting was in September. Please keep in mind, though, that the town regularly meets with individuals, businesses, and companies who are considering different activities, projects, etc. but we don't know whether projects are actually going forward until the town receives a formal application for whatever they want to do. In terms of site plan review, we talk to people all the time about the process but never receive applications. Further, once site plans are approved, there's still no guarantee that projects will be constructed. we have a long list of approved site plans that haven't been —and may never get —built. Now, I'm not saying that Eversource wouldn't build these solar installations if the site plans were approved. I just wanted to provide a little context from the town's end. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Marc A. Strange, Director Planning & Community Development Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 (413) 786-0400 ext. 8245 From: Carl Pinette Landscaping Imilto:pinettecarl@amail.com] Sent: Monday, March 6, 2017 9:19 AM To: Marc Strange Subject: solar project Hi Marc, Do you have a rough estimate of when Eversource began working with the city on this project? I thought I heard September in one of the meetings. Thanks, Carl 0 0 Amanda Boissonneault From: Mart Strange Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 3:41 PM To: Carl Pinette Landscaping Cc: Pamela Kerr, Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Draft Planning Board Minutes 2.2.17 Attachments: Draft Planning Board Minutes 2-2-17.docx Hi Carl, Attached here is a draft of the Planning Board minutes from February 2nd. Please note that the Planning Board has not yet formally approved these minutes. They will likely vote on them at the March 2"d meeting. Marc A. Strange, Director Planning & Community Development Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam, MA 01001 (413) 786-0400 ext. 8245 0 Agawam Planning Board March 2, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD March 2, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman Violet E. Baldwin Charles Elfman Nicholas Pandolfi Mario Tedeschi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Amanda Boissonneault Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. 0 1. Public Hearing — Zoning Amendment — Commercial Ground Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations — Planning Board Mr. Paleologopoulos opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in attendance had any questions, continents or suggestions in regards to the proposed bylaw. Jacques LaFlamme, 36 Cardinal Lane read a letter to the board that expressed his opposition to the installment of solar panels on the nearby property, and that all solar panel facilities should be built in landfill areas. Doreen Prouty, 891 S. Westfield Street spoke on behalf of the Agawam Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Prouty said the proposed bylaw is a great starting point, but believes it should be for all solar installations. Ms. Prouty had previously submitted comments and suggestions to the Planning Board for their review, and will be available for any questions they may have. Kevin Sullivan, 1005 North Street, Suffield, CT stated he has a problem with 180-150 Section b. which speaks about location. Mr. Sullivan does not want to see ground mounted solar PV installations restricted from agricultural land. Mr. Sullivan has ground mounted solar PV installations on part of his agricultural property, and believes it is the next generation of farming. Mr. Sullivan said he considers solar a 20-30 year crop that once completed, leaves usable soil behind for the next crop. Mr. Sullivan suggested that a size limit on how large the installation can be on agricultural land should be considered. Carl Pinette, 143 Kosak Ct. asked if the Planning Board has sent a positive recommendation to the City Council in regards to the bylaw. Mr. Paleologopoulos stated no, all that has been sent to the City Council is their letter to sponsor the proposed bylaw after a vote on February 2, 2017. Mr. Strange asked City Council President James Cichetti, who is in attendance, to describe the bylaw process to the audience. 0 Agawam Planning Board March 2, 2017 Aline Stolar, 54 Kosak Ct. showed the Board members a picture of the land across from her home. Ms. Stolar said the residents do not want solar panels installed near their homes. Mr. Paleologopoulos reminded the audience that the public hearing is about the proposed solar bylaw. Elizabeth Maher, 53 Tobacco Farm Road asked why a solar bylaw wasn't talked about before the Eversource Energy projects. Ms. Maher questioned transparency between City officials and abutters. Vincenzo Ronghi, 55 Avalon Place questioned 180-149 Applicability. Mr. Ronghi said he does not agree with town property being exempt and that everyone should have to abide by the same rules. Mr. Ronghi agreed with Ms. Prouty that the law should be for all solar projects. He said there are many weaknesses in the bylaw that need to be addressed. Henry Kozloski, 102 Meadow Street stated he sees a problem with 180-49 Applicability. Mr. Kozloski explained that the Town of Agawam owns the most open space in town. Tuckahoe Turf Farm alone is approximately 300 acres. Either the town wants to exclude solar panels from agricultural land or not, there should be no exemption. Edgar Alejandro, 103 Bairdcrest Road asked if the Planning Board has the authority to consider the site plan review for both Eversource Energy projects separately from the proposed bylaw. Mr. Paleologopoulos answered yes. Joshua Lee Smith, Attorney for Eversource Energy, said the proposed bylaw allowing for solar projects as an allowed use in only industrial zones is too limited. Mr. Smith quoted Chapter 40A, sec. 3, which states "no zoning ordinance or by-law shall prohibit or unreasonably regulate the installation of solar energy systems or the building of structures that facilitate the collection of solar energy..." Mr. Smith is concerned about fairness to his client because both proposed solar projects on agricultural zoned parcels. Mr. Smith stated Eversource has met with city officials numerous times and acted in good faith, and asked the board to considering carving out an exemption from the bylaw for projects that were filed prior to. Mr. Smith advised that an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Planning Board's motion on both Eversource site plans reviews has been filed. Elizabeth Maher, 53 Tobacco Farm Road questioned transparency between City officials and abutters. Joseph Mineo, Vice President of the Agawam City Council stated he had no knowledge of the project until 5-6 weeks ago. Carl Pinette, 143 Kosak Ct. spoke about Massachusetts being a time of decision State, not a time of application State, and that there is an opportunity to stop the projects. N E Agawam Planning Board March 2, 2017 Vincenzo Ronghi, 55 Avalon Place is concerned about the restriction to only industrial zones. He is concerned about eroding the tax base and depleting available industrial areas. Edgar Alejandro, 103 Bairdcrest Road stated Eversource Energy has been a business and land owner in Agawam for many years, and is the number one tax payer in town. Eversource has a commitment to the environment and a green commitment to the State. Carl Pinette, 143 Kosak Ct. asked Marc Strange if he is opposed to the proposed bylaw. Mr. Strange answered that the bylaw should be written to help protect abutters, and does not achieve that at this time. Mr. Strange mentioned the solar panels that were installed on an industrial zoned parcel off of Route 57 that has abutters. Harrison Grant, 17 Tobacco Farm Road said there may have been better results if the neighborhood was asked about the solar panel projects beforehand. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if there was any further public input, there was none. Motion made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi to close the public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment. VOTE 5-0 Mr. Paleologopoulos asked the board if any members had any comments or input. Ms. Baldwin spoke of several items she would like to see addressed, including why it is written that town owned land is exempt, putting a limit on the size of installations, reasonably shielding, lighting, emergency services, if any hazardous materials are involved or need to be handled, and who is involved with the installation process. Ms. Baldwin said that the language of the bylaw is too vague as it is and needs to be more specific. Mr. Tedeschi agreed with all of Ms. Baldwin's concerns, and asked if there can be the addition of language to grandfather in projects that have already been filed. Mr. Tedeschi asked Mr. Lee if Eversource had looked into how much industrial land was available in Agawam. Mr. Lee said there was none available at the time of application. Mr. Tedeschi also expressed concern about using up industrial property in town, creating appropriate setbacks, and the possibility of using business zoned property. Mr. Pandolfi agreed, stated more time is needed to consider what needs to be addressed in the bylaw. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if a workshop or subcommittee could be set up with the Planning Board, City Council, ZBA, Conservation Committee and Planning Office. Council President Cichetti is in the audience, and said an agenda can be set up, needs to be posted 48 hours prior. 2. SITE PLAN — 470 Shoemaker Lane — LTM LLC Mr. Pandolfi stated he was informed by the applicant that a revised site plan that addresses all the Engineering Department's comments would not be available in time for this meeting. Motion made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded Mr. Pandolfi to table the Site Plan for LTM, LLC on 470 Shoemaker Lane until the next meeting. VOTE 5-0 3 0 Agawam Planning Board March 2, 2017 3. SITE PLAN — South West Street — Eversource Energy (Tabled) 4. SITE PLAN — South Westfield Street — Eversource Energy (Tabled) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES --- January 5, February 2 & February 16, 2017 Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to approve the January 5, 2017 minutes as written. VOTE 4-0-1 (Elfman abstained) Motion was made by Mr. Elfman and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to approve the February 2, 2017 minutes as written. VOTE 4-0-1 (Baldwin abstained) Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to approve the February 16, 2017 minutes with the addition of one comment by Mr. Baldwin. VOTE 5-0 6. Correspondences — None 7. FORM A — North West Street — Brown This plan shows the creation of a building lot out of an existing parcel with frontage on North West Street. Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to approve the plan for Brown on North West Street under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required." VOTE 5-0 8. FORM A Cooper Street — Barbero This plan shows property lines being adjusted on adjoining lots to create adequate frontage on both parcels. Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve the plan for Barbero on Cooper Street under "Subdivision Control Law Not Required." VOTE 5-0 The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. 4 0 0 Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:30 AM To: Carl Pinette Landscaping Cc: Pamela Kerr; Amanda Boissonneault Subject: FW: TOA/TOD Cases Attachments: R.V.H. v. State Lottery Comm_n_ 47 Mass, App. Ct. 712.PDF; Lemansky v. Charlton Water & Sewer Comm_n_ 2005 Mass. S.PDF; Selectmen of Topsfield v. State Racing Com._ 324 Mass. 309.PDF; Thorpe v. Housing Auth. of Durham_ 393 U.S. 268.PDF Here ya go, Carl. From: Stephen Buoniconti Sent: Friday, January 20, 2017 12:23 PM To: Marc Strange Cc: Pamela Kerr Subject: FW: TOA/TOD Cases From: lawclerk Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:56 PM To: Stephen Buoniconti Subject: TOA/TOD Cases Law Clerk Law Department Town of Agawam 36 Main Street Agawam MA 01001 413-786-0400 ext. 8726 0 Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:25 AM To: Carl Pinette Landscaping Cc: Pamela Kerr, Amanda Boissonneault Subject: RE: Site Visit Carl, Essentially, Attorney Buoniconti was saying that states are typically either "time of application" or "time of approval" states. Massachusetts being a "time of approval" state, which means that applications for site plan review can be affected by the adoption of a bylaw if the law gets passed before the town approves the application. In other states, once the application is received by the town, that application is grandfathered into the "old" laws and cannot be affected by any law changes thereafter. As I said, though, the Law Department has determined that Massachusetts is not a "time of application" state but a "time of approval" state. My understanding is that this is a judicially -created rule, not legislation; so there's no statute to direct you to. If you'd like to review the case law I can probably get those cases for you and send them along. Marc From: Carl Pinette Landscaping [mailto:pinettecarl@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:15 AM To: Marc Strange Subject: RE: Site Visit Thanks. I am specifically interested in the Feb. 2 meeting when Mr. Buoniconti spoke. I am interested in the part where he said Massachusetts was one of the states that allows municipalities to pass an ordinance in the midst of a solar proposal. What state legislation was he referring to? Carl On Feb 21, 2017 9:05 AM, "Marc Strange" <MStran ena a awam.ma.us> wrote: Hi Carl, I have and will continue to support the solar bylaw in town. We need one. Also, we will try to get those minutes typed up this week. They will say "DRAFT" because nothing is official until the Planning Board votes to approve them but, again, we will try to have them for you this week. Take care, Marc From: Carl Pinette Landscaping[mai1to:pinettecarl(&gn1ai1.com] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 10:04 AM To: Marc Strange Subject: Re: Site Visit Hi Marc, Thank you for getting back to me. First I want to say I am sorry to hear Pam has not been feeling well. In regard to the planning board driving by a small section of the project I must say it is wholly inadequate. My wife and I were hoping to have them walk the proposed site with us and visit our home while envisioning the eyesore that we would be forced to live next to and to ask them if they would want something like that in their residential neighborhood. Secondly, I would like to share a little history of why I am opposed to this development in an agricultural/residential zoned neighborhood. For three years in early 2000 I ran a historical preservation advocacy group in Holyoke. From experience I can tell you what bad development and mis-guided public policy can do to a community. It is these mistakes that Holyoke has made that I am hoping the Town of Agawam stays clear of. Development should be sensitive to the needs and wants of a neighborhood while staying within the boundaries of current zoning. I and my wife are definitely for alternative sources of power being produced but most definitely in industrially zoned sections of the town. I find it interesting that even after City Solicitor Buoniconti created the proposed solar bylaw the planning board continued to hear the site plan. It is my hope that the City Council, Planning Board and other city departments come to the conclusion that it is imperative that the town protect what little agricultural/residential land remains. As an added note to that thought it would be wonderful if you as Planning Director would come out in support of the current proposed solar bylaw, especially Section 180-150 b. Location. I cannot stress enough the importance of proper development going forward. As for the minutes if you could have them ready for this coming Wednesday or Thursday I would greatly appreciate it. I have also linked this story from the Boston Globe about projects that were proposed for residential neighborhoods and the overall majority of the outcomes. htts://www.boston lobe.com/metro/re ionals/south/2013/05/04/solar-farm- roiects-hit-roadblocks-some- communities-solar- rojects-meet-resistance-locall /'UFUAxSZE K4swEcCa9hPM/sto .html I look forward to continued discussion concerning this matter and hope we can have your support. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Carl and Marsha Pinette On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Marc Strange <MStrangenagawam.ma.us> wrote: Hi Carl, ! • Thank you for your e-mail. To answer your questions, the Planning Board members who visited the solar farm locations did so on their own. Our office did not know that they were going to do that. In fact, we found out they'd done so at the meeting last week just like everyone else. Also, regarding the meeting minutes, Pam Kerr typically attends the Planning Board meetings and prepares meeting minutes in a timely fashion and does a great job with it (and has been for the past 29 years). Unfortunately, though, she is battling a serious illness, which has kept her out of the office for extended periods over the past month or two. So our process has been slowed a bit. We are hoping to have those minutes ready for the Planning Board to approve at the next meeting (3/2). If so, they will then be ready for public distribution. If you need them sooner than that, please let us know. Best, Marc Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Boissonneault <ABoissonneaultLa)agawam.ma.us> Date: February 17, 2017 at 10:26:59 AM EST To: Marc Strange <MStrange(caawam.ma ;us> Subject: FW: Site Visit From: Carl Pinette Landscaping [mailto:pinettecarl@amail.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9.58 AM To: Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Re: Site Visit Hi Amanda, I was taken aback last night that some of the planning board members had visited the project and I was not notified that they were coming. Did you or anyone in the planning department have advance knowledge that this was taking place? On a different note, I noticed that the minutes for the planning board are not posted for 2017 meetings. Can you please email them to me for the last 2 months? Thank you, Carl • 0 On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Carl Pinette Landscaping <pinettecarl(alMail.com> wrote: Thanks Amanda On Feb 14, 2017 9:37 AM, "Amanda Boissonneault" <ABoissonneaultAagawam.ma.us> wrote: Carl, The site visit for yesterday was canceled due to the weather. I will let you know if it is rescheduled before the Planning Board's meeting on Thursday, February 161n �/!!�ltdC �OL4301L/IIQfLLE Senior Clerk Town of Agawam Planning and Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street, Agawam MA 01001 413-726-9739 aboissonneault a awam.ma.us From: Carl Pinette Landscaping [mailto:pinettecarl@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:03 AM To: Pamela Kerr Subject: site visit solar project 0 Hi Pamela, Had to work plowing all day yesterday after storm. Was the meeting held with Eversource on Monday for site visit and if not has it been rescheduled? Also is the planning board meeting still happening as scheduled for this Thursday? Thanks, Carl Pinette 0 0 Amanda Boissonneault From: Marc Strange Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 7:21 AM To: pinettecarl@gmail.com Cc: Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Fwd: Site Visit Hi Carl, Thank you for your e-mail. To answer your questions, the Planning Board members who visited the solar farm locations did so on their own. Our office did not know that they were going to do that. In fact, we found out they'd done so at the meeting last week just like everyone else. Also, regarding the meeting minutes, Pam Kerr typically attends the Planning Board meetings and prepares meeting minutes in a timely fashion and does a great job with it (and has been for the past 29 years). Unfortunately, though, she is battling a serious illness, which has kept her out of the office for extended periods over the past month or two. So our process has been slowed a bit. We are hoping to have those minutes ready for the Planning Board to approve at the next meeting (3/2). If so, they will then be ready for public distribution. If you need them sooner than that, please let us know. Best, Marc Begin forwarded message: From: Amanda Boissonneault <ABoissonneault2agawam.ma.us> Date: February 17, 2017 at 10:26:59 AM EST To: Marc Strange <MStrange nagawam.ma.us> Subject: FW: Site Visit From: Carl Pinette Landscaping [mailto;pinettecarl@nmaii.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:58 AM To: Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Re: Site Visit Hi Amanda, I was taken aback last night that some of the planning board members had visited the project and I was not notified that they were coming. Did you or anyone in the planning department have advance knowledge that this was taking place? On a different note, I noticed that the minutes for the planning board are not posted for 2017 meetings. Can you please email them to me for the last 2 months? Thank you, Carl 0 On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Carl Pinette Landscaping <pincttecarl cr,gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Amanda On Feb 14, 2017 9:37 AM, "Amanda Boissonneault" <ABoissonneaultkagawam.ma.us> wrote: Carl, The site visit for yesterday was canceled due to the weather. I will let you know if it is rescheduled before the Planning Board's meeting on Thursday, February 16tn �manala �elssonnsa�clt Senior Clerk Town of Agawam Planning and Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street, Agawam MA 01001 413-726-9739 aboissonneault@aeawam.ma.us From: Carl Pinette Landscaping[mailto:pinettecarl(cbgmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:03 AM To: Pamela Kerr Subject: site visit solar project Hi Pamela, • • Had to work plowing all day yesterday after storm. Was the meeting held with Eversource on Monday for site visit and if not has it been rescheduled? Also is the planning board meeting still happening as scheduled for this Thursday? Thanks, Carl Pinette Agawam Planning Board February 16, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD February 16, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman Violet E. Baldwin Charles Elfman Nicholas Pandolfi Mario Tedeschi ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Amanda BoissonneauIt Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. SITE PLAN — South West Street - Eversource Mike Gagnon from Malone and MacBroom was in attendance, along with William Blanchard and Amy Voisine-Shea from Eversource Energy. Mr. Paleologopoulos explained that a planned site visit was not possible due to the weather conditions. Mr. Gagnon gave a brief summary of the presentation given at the previous meeting. He then presented 3 photographs of the current conditions that were taken in January before the snow storms. In the absence of a site visit, Mr. Gagnon wanted to show the slight increase in grade towards the middle of the project area. It is a slight slope that increases 2-3 feet over an area of approximately 150 feet. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked how far away the PV solar panels will be away from the abutting properties. Mr. Gagnon stated the buffer plantings start approximately 8-10 feet from Kosak Ct. There will then be approximately 50 feet of buffer plantings with a fence, and then approximately 20 feet to the closest panel to the fence. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked Mr. Gagnon to describe the buffer plantings. Mr. Gagnon answered saying there will be both evergreen and deciduous plantings, some approximately 10 feet high. The possibility of more mature plantings was discussed. Ms. Baldwin asked how large the footprint of the project area would be. Mr. Gagnon answered the site is approximately 80 acres, with 16 acres being used for the proposed project area. Ms. Baldwin asked if there are plans to enlarge the project area at the site. Mr. Gagnon stated not at this time. Mr. Pandolfi asked what would happen to the energy production if some of the panels in the North West corner are removed. Mr. Blanchard stated Eversource Energy is utilizing as much buildable area as possible to maximize energy production. Taking out panels would cut back on the amount of energy produced. Mr. Gagnon showed the areas that are not buildable because they are mapped wetlands. Mr. Elfinan asked if the landscaping can be increased. Mr. Gagnon said the buffer plantings can be taller at the northwest corner. Mr. Tedeschi asked how many solar panels are proposed, and how many are in the top 2 rows of the North West corner of the plan. Mr. Gagnon stated there are approximately 15,800 panels proposed, and the top two lanes in the North West corner have approximately 150 panels. Mr. Tedeschi stated if those panels could be removed from the plan, it would only be a .9 percent Agawam Planning Board February 16, 2017 reduction in the amount of solar panels at the site. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if anyone in attendance had any questions. Jacques LaFlamme, 36 Cardinal Lane read a letter to the board that expressed his opposition to the installment of solar panels on the nearby property, and that all solar panel facilities should be built in landfill areas. Carl Pinette, 143 Kosak Ct. read a letter to the board that described some of the measures taken by Montague, MA in regards to the installation of solar panel facilities. Mr. Pinette asked if the site plan review can be tabled. Mr. Palcologopoulos stated that is an option, among others. Mr. Elfman would like to table the plan for more information. Mr. Tedeschi stated he would request that Eversource remove the panels closest to the abutters and ask for mature trees that are taller in height. Ms. Baldwin questioned if the Conservation Commission has completed their public hearings; they have not, both Notices of Intent will be on the Conservation Commission's February 23, 2017 agenda. Motion made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Ms. Baldwin to table the approval of the Site Plan for Eversource Energy South West Street (Site #2) until the City Council has been able to review and vote on the proposed Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Bylaw. VOTE 3-2 (Paleologopoulos & Tedeschi opposed) 2. SITE PLAN — South Westfield Street — Eversource Mike Gagnon from Malone and MacBroom was in attendance, along with William Blanchard and Amy Voisine-Shea from Eversource Energy. Mr. Paleologopoulos explained that a planned site visit was not possible due to the weather conditions. Mr. Gagnon gave a brief summary of the presentation given at the previous meeting. In the absence of a site visit, Mr. Gagnon presented a couple photo simulations of the site. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if they were at the same stage with the Conservation Commission as the South West Site. Mr. Gagnon stated their public hearing for a Notice of Intent is on the Conservation Commission's February 23, 2017 agenda (it was previously on the 2-9-17 agenda, but that meeting was canceled due to all town offices being closed because of snow). Ms. Baldwin asked how big the project would be. Mr. Gagnon stated there are approximately 6 acres of usable land, and 3,100 ground -mounted photovoltaic solar panels proposed. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if anyone in attendance had any questions. Doreen Prouty, 891 S. Westfield Street stated she is disappointed that the applicants did not take into consideration her previous request for buffer plantings on the southern side of the compound. She stated the existing trees will not adequately hide the proposed project area. Ms. Prouty is also concerned about ease of access to her adjacent property due to the installation of a gravel access road. 2 CJ 1-1 L Agawam Planning Board February 16, 2017 Marsha Pinette, 143 Kosak Ct. asked how far the first solar panel is from the property line. Mr. Gagnon stated approximately 100 feet. There is a lengthy discussion among all the board members in regards to their motion with the proposed S. West Site Plan and how it affects this Site Plan. In conclusion, the members agreed to table this plan as they did the South West Street plan. Motion made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to table the approval of the Site Plan for Eversource Energy South Westfield Street (Site 95) until the City Council has been able to review and vote on the proposed Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Bylaw. VOTE 4-1 (Paleologopoulos opposed) 3. SITE PLAN — 470 Shoemaker Lane — LTM LLC Mr. David Robinson of Robinson Engineering and his client were in attendance to present a Site Plan for a proposed fitness center. Mr. Robinson stated the existing building will be utilized, and the only, change needed will be to increase the paved parking area to 39 spaces. Comments from the Engineering Department that were made at the team meeting have been addressed, including the addition of a bike rack, a stop sign, additional handicap spots and a handicap accessible ramp. Mr. Robinson stated they have not been able to complete a drainage report due to the weather conditions. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if there would be a dumpster, Mr. Robinson answered no. Ms. Baldwin would like to see professional staff comments before continuing any farther. Motion made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded Mr. Tedeschi to table the Site Plan for LTM, LLC on 470 Shoemaker Lane until the next meeting. VOTE 5-0 4. SITE PLAN — 4D Coaster — Six Flags New England John Furman from VHB and David Jenks from Six Flags New England are in attendance to present the revised Site Plan for a 4-D Coaster. Mr. Furman explained that some of the ancillary buildings associated with the 4-D Coaster were not included on the former Site Plan because the park designers had not worked through the details yet. The new revised site plan includes a snack shack, a merchandising building and a canopy style sun -shield shelter. The three buildings are themed appropriately to match the 4-D Coaster. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked what type of materials the sun shelter will be made out of. Mr. Furman stated it will be an approximately 40 ft. by 60 ft. permanent rigid structure with a steel frame for the canopy. The board members discussed that they are still waiting on comments from the Engineering Department for the previous site plan that was approved conditionally. Mr. Furman stated he has spoken with the Town Engineer Michelle Chase, and that all the previous comments have been addressed. Mr. Agawam Planning Board February 16, 2017 Paleologopoulos said a letter from the Engineering Department stating they are satisfied will be needed. Motion by Mr. Elfman and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to approve the revised site plan for the 4-D Coaster at Six Flags New England with the condition that Engineering Department comments are to be addressed. VOTE 5-0 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 5 & February 2, 2017 Motion was made by Ms. Baldwin and seconded by Mr. Elfman to table the approval of the January 5 and February 2, 2017 minutes until the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. VOTE 5-0 4 Amanda Boissonneault From: Carl Pinette Landscaping <pinettecarl@gmaii.com> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:20 PM To: Amanda Boissonneault Subject: Re: South West St.-Kosak Ct. Eversource Site Visit Thank you. On Feb 10, 2017 2:14 PM, "Amanda Boissonneault" <ABoissonneaultAagawam.ma.us> wrote: Hello Carl, Members of the Planning Board have scheduled a site visit for the proposed S. West Street Eversource project for Monday, February 13"' at Sam. Unfortunately, if there is still snow in the forecast, they may have to cancel the visit and reschedule. If that happens, my office will update you on the new date and time as soon as we can. Have a great weekend, �4niauada �oLalonnea�slt Senior Clerk Town of Agawam Planning and Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street, Agawam MA 01001 413-726-9739 aboissonneault a)agawam.ma.us CI Amanda Boissonneault From: Amanda Boissonneault Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:20 PM To: 'Charles Elfman (CharlesElfman@gmail.com)'; 'Mario Tedeschi;'Mark Paleologopoulos'; 'Mark Paleologopoulos'; 'Nicholas Pandolfi (NM Pandolfi@gmail.com); 'Violet Baldwin' Cc: Pamela Kerr; 'Mike Gagnon' Subject: S. West Street Eversource Site Visit Hello - A site visit has been set up for Sam on Monday, February 13th for the Eversource project on S. West. Mark and Charlie can make it, and Mike Gagnon is aware that the weather may be an issue for that date. If there is anyone else that is going to attend, please check in with each other in case it needs to be rescheduled. Thank you! �ma�sedar�ot��an+eaa:t�t Senior Clerk Town of Agawam Planning and Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street, Agawam MA 01001 413-726-9739 aboissonneault@agawam.ma.us 0 Amanda Boissonneault Frorn: Amanda Boissonneault Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:15 PM To: pinettecarl@gmail.com' Cc: Pamela Kerr Subject: South West St.-Kosak Ct. Eversource Site Visit Hello Carl, Members of the Planning Board have scheduled a site visit for the proposed S. West Street Eversource project for Monday, February 131h at 8am. Unfortunately, if there is still snow in the forecast, they may have to cancel the visit and reschedule. If that happens, my office will update you on the new date and time as soon as we can. Have a great weekend, p4manda08aWon,w,,dt Senior Clerk Town of Agawam Planning and Community Development Zoning Board of Appeals 36 Main Street, Agawam MA 01001 413-726-9739 aboissonneault@agawam.ma.us 0 Agawam Planning Board February 2, 2017 AGAWAM PLANNING BOARD February 2, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark R. Paleologopoulos, Chairman Charles Elfman Nicholas Pandolfi Mario Tedeschi MEMBERS ABSENT: Violet E. Baldwin ALSO PRESENT: Marc Strange Pamela Kerr Mr. Paleologopoulos called the meeting to order at 6.00 PM. 1. DISCUSSION & POSSIBLE VOTE TO BE PETITIONER — Proposed Solar Photovoltaic Installations Regulations Attorney Stephen Buoniconti, Associate Solicitor, was in attendance to present a proposed zoning amendment entitled "Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations". He explained that the Town currently has no regulations on solar facilities and that he drafted this version based on the model bylaw prepared by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, a model prepared by the State and the Town of West Springfield's. He stated that this bylaw would regulate large capacity solar farms (over 40,000 sq. ft.) and not residential. As written, the bylaw would allow for these facilities in the Industrial A and B zones only. Attorney Buoniconti went on to say that there are current applications before the Board for solar project and that Massachusetts is a "time of decision State" which means the ordinance can change in the middle of the process. He also stated that the state bylaw includes wetlands and historic resources in their bylaw which he included in this draft. Mr. Paleologopoulos allowed for questions from the public. Dale Boglish, South West Street stated that this is long overdue and that solar projects need to be regulated. Carl Pinette, 143 Kosak Court asked if the members had received his letter. The members acknowledge they had received it. Joshua Lee Smith, Attorney for Eversource stated that this bylaw is too restrictive in allowing them only in the Industrial A and B zones and requests that they also be allowed in Agricultural zones as the two current applications are in or that these two applications be excluded from the amendment. He went on to say that his client looked for properties in the Industrial zones but could not find suitable sites. He stated that WMECO bought the South West Street property to construct a solar farm on it. He concluded that while Towns can regulate these facilities they cannot "unreasonably regulate" them as he feels this proposal does. Attorney Buoniconti cited a recent case where the Town of Hatfield's bylaw was upheld and that they have less allowable land than this proposal. He stated that he feels confident this proposal would pass the reasonable standard test. Elizabeth Myron, 53 Tobacco Farm Road stated that she agrees that rules need to be enacted to regulate these solar ! 0 Agawam Planning Board February 2, 2017 facilities and stated that Eversource's South West Street plan shows panels approximately 40' from homes. William Clark, 26 High Meadow Road stated that the problem is that the Town does not engage people enough or provide enough open communication. Dale Boglisch, South West Street stated that he is the former owner of the South West Street Eversource site and that WEMCO did not buy the South West Street site for a solar project, they bought it for wetland mitigation for their large upgrade project. He stated that there is a lack of regulation and communication. Carl Pinette stated that he visited two Everource facilities in Springfield and that one is located on an industrial site and the other is located on a brownfield site. He stated that those projects were conducive to their sites. He does not feel that the South West Street site is conducive for a solar project. Aline Stolar, 54 Kosak Court stated that the EOEA would rather see Towns allow solar projects on industrial property rather than agricultural land. Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Mr. Tedeschi that the Planning Board act as the petitioner on the prosed zoning amendment entitled "Commercial Ground -Mounted Solar Photovoltaic Installations". VOTE 3-0-1 (Elfman abstained) 2. SITE PLAN — South West Street — Eversource Mike Gagnon of Milonc and MacBroom was in attendance as well as Amy Voisine- Shea of Eversource. They explained that this project site is approximately 20 acres (part of a larger track of land) and there are 14,200 panels proposed. An S' chainlink fence is shown around the perimeter of the project. Mr. Gagnon stated that they are currently before the Conservation Commission and the stormwater management plan is being reviewed by the Engineering Department as well. He went on to say that there is an approximately 50' wide buffer along Kosak Court and there are plantings proposed in that buffer as well as the fence. He stated that the Route 57 layout is shown on the plan per the Mayor there is a note on the plan that the panels within the Iayout can be de -commissioned if the highway becomes a reality. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked about grading and drainage. Mr. Gagnon stated that existing sheet flows need to be maintained to the wetland. No soil is to be removed or brought in and they intend to minimize the clearing around the facility. The high point in property will be maintained to allow for the current sheet flows. He went on to say that a small area of vegetation is to be cleared but no large trees will be removed. He stated that proposed plantings are shown and there is approximately 60' to 65' from the fence to the edge of the street. Mr. Elfman asked about drainage patterns post development. Mr. Gagnon explained that as water hits the panels it will flow off the edge and then sheet flow on the ground below and their intent is that it drains post development as it does pre development. He went on to say that a Stormwater Management Report has been submitted. He also explained that the entrance to the site will be through the existing roadway which will be maintained. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked about snow removal. Ms. Voisine-Shea stated they don't typically remove snow from these facilities. Mr. Tedeschi asked other than the buffer plantings what vegetation will remain. Mr. Gagnon stated that the stand of trees along the wetland won't be touched. Mr. Tedeschi asked what the closest point from a panel to a neighboring home would be. Mr. Gagnon stated that there is a 50' buffer then Agawam Planning Board February 2, 2017 another 20' which equals 70' from the closest panel to the property line. No lighting is proposed. Mr. Paleologopoulos allowed for public input. Elizabeth Maher, 53 Tobacco Farm Road asked why there wouldn't be a 100' buffer. Mr. Paleologopoulos explained that there currently is no requirement for a buffer of any size on these projects. Harrison Grant, 17 Tobacco Farm Road stated that there is only one street light on Kosak Court and feels that additional street lights would make this a safer neighborhood. Brad Jameson, 873 South Westfield Street asked about wiring and power to the project. Mr. Gagnon stated that service to the street will be through an existing overhead and then to a meter pad. String inverters will be used on the panels. Carl Pinette, 143 Kosak Court stated that it is 40' from the property line to his house and the panels will be approximately 110' from his house. He wants the panels 200' from his house. Jeremy Taylor, 161 Tobacco Farm Road stated while he has a little more distance to the site, asked if any studies have been done on DC and AC power and its effect on the neighbors. He stated that his five and three year olds sleep in proximity to the solar field and is concerned with any impacts. Ms. Voisine-Shea stated that the solar panels do not generate radiation. Derek Turnbull, 300 North West Street stated that he currently farms this property and stated that the high point in the property is where a pond was dug out and the area is very wet. He stated that the Conservation Area is not farmed and is not allowed to be. Ms. Voisine-Shea stated that there was an agreement to keep the Conservation Restriction Area intact. Carlo] Pinette, 143 Kosak Court then submitted photos of his yard and stated that the proposed buffer plantings are not sufficient, he would like arborvitae. Mrs. Stolar, Kosak Court stated that she is concerned with the loss of farmland in town and the "danger" signs that will be installed. She asked how the town would benefit. Ms. Voisine-Shea stated the power will go into the grid and the Town will benefit through property taxes. She went on to say that Eversource will maintain the buffer plantings they install. Jean Cressotti, 64 Kosak Court expressed concern over the wildlife in the area. Henry Kozloski, Chairman of the Conservation Commission stated that the conservation area is in fact a mitigation area for the two large projects that WMECO recently undertook; and according to NHESP there are no endangered species on the site; and the markers are for the mitigation area. Mr. Gagnon stated that there is in fact priority habitat per NHESP on the southern end of the site. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked if it would be possible to enhance the plantings and provide a different type of fence behind the three homes on Kosak Court. Ms. Voisine-Shea stated a chain link fence is easier to remove if needed and the proposed plantings will be higher than the fence. Lori Rock, 180 South West Street asked if the entire site would be fenced. Mr. Gagnon stated that the 20 acres for the solar project will be fenced. Members agreed to table this item tonight to allow for them to make site visits. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to table the Site Plan for South West Street, Eversource to the next meeting to allow for a site visit by Board members and to get more specifics from the Engineering Department on the grading. VOTE 4-0 3. SITE PLAN — South Westfield Street — Eversource 3 Agawam Planning Board February 2, 2017 Mike Gagnon of Milone and MacBroom was in attendance as well as Amy Voisine-Shea of Eversource. They explained that this project site is approximately five acres out of a total 37 acre parcel on South Westfield Street across from Oak Ridge Golf Course. Mr. Gagnon stated that there will be a swale along the road for runoff and that arborvitae will be planted for screening. A gravel access road with a paved apron will be provided. He explained that the site is mostly wooded and the clearing will result in an increase in peak flows. The site contains bordering vegetated wetlands as well as isolated wetlands. The Conservation Commission will be reviewing these plans at their meeting next week. Mr. Paleologopoulos asked how the abutters to the south would be affected. Mr. Gagnon stated that the existing vegetation is to remain in that area so there should be no impact to the abutters to the south. He went on to say that the Massachusetts Historical Commission has requested an archeological investigation be conducted on this site. Mr. Paleolgopoulos allowed for public input. Brad and Doreen Prouty, direct abutters to this site, stated that this area was once a chicken farm and they are in favor of the proposal as there will be no noise associated with it. They did however express concern of the sparse existing vegetation and how much of a buffer it would provide them. They stated that they would like to see additional buffer plantings (i.e. arborvitae) planted along the property line up to where the project ends. Another direct abutter was in attendance and expressed concerns over people using the access road as illegal hunting in this area is already an issue. Henry Kozloski, Chairman of the Conservation Commission stated that the Mass. DEP has reviewed the Conservation Commission filing for this project and there is a possibility that this project may not be within their jurisdiction. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Pandolfi to table the Site Plan for Eversource on South Westfield Street to the next meeting to allow for members to visit the site. VOTE 4-0 4. FY2017 Community Development Strategy Jim Mazik of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission was in attendance to present Agawam's FYI Community Development Strategy and gain support and approval from the Planning Board. He explained that this process is a requirement for the upcoming CDBG application and that the current Community Development Strategy is four years old. He went over the document with the members and highlighted housing rehabilitation, Aging in Place, Safety Improvements and Town Hall Improvements. Motion was made by Mr. Tedeschi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to approve and support Agawam's FY2017 Community Development Strategy. VOTE 4-0 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —January 5, 2017 Motion was made by Mr. Pandolfi and seconded by Mr. Elfman to table approval of the January 5, 2017 minutes to the next meeting. 4 0 0 Agawam Planning Board February 2, 2017 VOTE 4-0 The meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM. oven of Agaifam Inspection Services Department Budding Inspection Code Enforcement 1000 Suffield Street, Agawam, MA 01001 Telephone - (413) 821-0632 Fax (413) 821-0637 Erik Wight inspector of Buildings Michse3 Day Plumbing inspector Cross Connection Tester February 2, 2017 Michael R. Bannon, P.E. Milone & MacBroorn, Inc. 1350 Main Street Gary Turnbull EkxWcai inspector Michael Theroas Sealer of Weights & Measures Eniereement Officer RE: Special Penn it Applications for Assessor's Map Parcel B8 12 South West Street & E3 2 2 South Westfield Street Dear Mr. Bannon, Today my office received two applications for special permits for ground -mounted photovoltaic solar panels. Upon review I have determined that no special permits are required for these projects just a site plan reviews from the Planning Board. I apologize for any delays in this determination. r' Si=4'e , y Erik C. ight, BO Inspector of Buildings Cc: Pat Toney Solicitor Zoning Board of Appeals Planning Board Marc Strange Planning Director Mark Kimball, Eversource 1% Carl and Marsha Pinette 143 Kosak Court Feeding Hills, MA 01030 413-796-7846 Agawam Planning Board Agawam Town Hall 36 Main_ Street Agawam, MA 01001 1/31/2017 Dear Chairman Paleologopoulos and members of the Agawam Planning Board, My wife Marsha and I understand the planning board will be voting on a proposed solar power generating facility located on South West Street in the Feeding Hills section of town on Thursday evening. I would like to say we are both for solar but believe that large scale industrial solar installations proposed for our town or region should be developed in a manner that is appropriate to the size and character of the town. Since we are unsure if we will be able to speak Thursday evening I would like our concerns to be known by the board. 1 am not sure if all the board has had an opportunity to visit our neighborhood to see in scale how this project will affect our area. I invite you to visit it. As residents of Agawam yourself I know you take great interest in seeing that projects like this be properly placed for not only esthetic purposes but for protection of property values and residents quality of life. We visited both solar facilities that Eversource runs in Springfield. One is located on an old capped dump site on Cottage Street and the other at a reclaimed Brownfield site at 255 Goodwin Street. Both are located in Industrial Designated Zones as per city records. Eversource's own website under Solar Generation states "sites of particular interest are capped landfills and environmentally challenged sites". I would say the proposed site is neither. I understand the city is currently working on facilitating legislation that will spell out the legal and zoning requirements for solar projects. We respectfully request the Planning Board take no further action on this project and table it till an ordinance is created designating proper placement of solar facilities and protecting the best interest of the community as a whole. You may reach us at 413-221-2113 with any questions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Carl and Marsha Pinette TOWN OF AGAWAM Department of Public Works 1000 Suffield Street Tel (413) 8210600 Christopher 3. Golba Agawam, MA 01001 Fax (413) 8210631 Superintendent MiJMORANDUM To: Planning CC: File From: Engineering Division Date: January 19, 2017 Subject: Site Platt —180 South West Street — Eversource Solar -- SP 611 Per your request, we have reviewed the site plan entitled "Eversource Solar Site 2, 180 South West Street, Agawam, MA; Parcel ID: B8 1 2; Prepared for: Eversource, 300 Cadwell Drive, Springfield, MA; Prepared by: Milone & MacBroom, One Financial Plaza, 1350 Main Street, Suite 1012, Springfield, MA; Scale: As noted; Dated: December 28, 2016," and we have no comment at this time. Engineering reserves the right to make additional comments as new information is submitted. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact this division. Sincerely, Vladimir Caceres Civil Engineer it. �k �-' � Michelle C. Chase, P.E. Town Engineer Town of Agawam Interoffice Memorandum To: Engineering Dept., Police Dept., Fire Dept., ADA Committee CC: From: Planning Board Date: 1/4/17 Subject: Site Plans (2) - Eversource - Please review and comment on the attached two Site Plans for Eversource (South West Street and South Westfield Street) prior to the Board's January 191" meeting. This item will also appear on the January 1 Ott, Team Meeting agenda. prk FRom THE DESK OF... YOUR NAMF TITLE TOWN OF AGAWAM 36 MAIN ST AGAWAM, MA 01001 Email address Here 413-786-0400 X Extension Fax:413-786-9927 TO: Office of Planning and DATE: Community Development JOB #: Agawam Town Hall Attention: 36 Main Street RE: Agawam, MA 01001 PHONE: (413) 786-0400 x8737 METHOD OF DELIVERY: ❑ Fed Ex (please indicate type) ❑ Electronic Copy WE ARE SENDING YOU: ❑Shop Drawings ❑Copy of Letter ❑Regular Mail January 4, 2017 5615-08/13 Pamela Kerr MA Eversource Solar Site 2 and 5 Permit Plans for Team Meeting ❑Pick Up ❑Certified/Return Receipt ®Hand Delivery ❑Prints %Plans ❑Samples El Specifications ❑Change Order El Permit Application ❑Other Copies Date No./Action Description 4 12-28-2016 13 Eversource Solar Site 2 — Permit Plans (2x3) 6 12-28-2016 13 Eversource Solar Site 2 — Permit Plans (1147) 4 12-28-2016 9 Eversource Solar Site 5 — Permit Plans (2x3) 6 12-28-2016 9 Eversource Solar Site 5 — Permit Plans (11x17) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED: 13 For Approval ❑Make Corrections Noted ❑Rejected ®As Requested ❑ Resubmit for Record ❑ For review and comment REMARKS: For January 10111 Team Meeting ®For your use ❑Not Acceptable— Revise & Resubmit ❑ For Information Only — Review Waived ❑Other COPY TO: File SIGNED:J, 6VA— W, Michael R.� a n. P.E. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 1350 Main Street, Suite 1012, Springfield, MA 01103 (413) 241-6920 Milonea ndMacBroom.com TOWN OF AGAWAM, MASSACHUSETTS FORM D Application for Site Plan Approval Please complete the following form and return it and ten (10) copies of the Site Plan to: Agawam Inspection Services 1000 Suffield Street Agawam, MA 01001 January 4, 20 17 1. Name of Business Eversource Energy, Attn: William Blanchard Address 300 Cadwell Drive, Springfield, MA 01104 Phone # 413-787-1029 Fax # email william.blandchard@eversource.com 2. Name of Applicant/Owner Same as business above. Address Phone # Fax # email 3. Name of Engineer/Architect Milone & MacBroom, Inc., Attn: Michael R. Gagnon, P.E. Address 1350 Main Street, Suite 1012, Springfield, MA 01103 Phone # 413-241-5920 Fax # email mikeg@miloneandmacbroom.com 4. Please give a brief description of the proposed project: Eversource Site-2 South West Street This project consists of a proposed 4.8 megawatt (MW) solar facility located on South West Street in Agawam, Massachusetts. The existing 80t acre site is parcel 2 on Assessor's Map B8 and currently zoned as agricultural. Approximately 14,228 ground -mounted photovoltaic (PV) solar panels will be supported by galvanized steel posts. The facility will be enclosed with an eight foot high chain link security fence. Buffer plantings and the construction of gravel access drives are included as shown on the permit drawings. V ID XD% C E. EJLXS O-U' SO AR J— �o �sU, Know what's below. Cal before you dig. www.digsafe.com SOUTH WEST STREET AGAWAM, MASSACHUSETTS Ok"VIR =2 PROJECT \, DECEMBER t 1 6 PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP: a 1W 2W SCALE V = 2W PREPARED BY: AUX MmoNE & MAcBRooW One Financial Plaza 1350 Main Street, Suite 1012 Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 (413) 241-6920 Fax (413) 241-6911 www.miloneandmacbroom.com LOCATION MAP: LIST OF DRAWINGS NO. NAME TITLE 01 - TITLE SHEET 02 LD LEGEND & NOTES 03 IN INDEX PLAN 04 - 07 EX-1 - EX-4 EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS PLAN 08 -11 LA-1 - LA-4 SITE LAYOUT, GRADING & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 12 - 13 SDA - SD-2 MISCELLANEOUS SITE DETAILS PREPARED FOR: EVERSA'"'W"URCE 300 CADWELL DRIVE SPRINGFIELD, MA 01104 a 300' 6W 0 1P2" 1 SCALE 1" = OW SURVEY NOTE: _UI_I.IIIII.^Il,il r, GENERAL NOTES SEDIMENT & EROSION CONTROL NOTES PLANTING NOTES 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION IS BASED UPON INFORMATION PROVIDED EASTERN TOPOGRAPH AT A SCALE OF THIS 1.. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED IN THE 1. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SHALL BE 1• THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO EXCAVATING PLANT PITS. MAPPING A AERIAL TAKEN50'. 19 COLLECTED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY TAKEN ON MARCH 30, 1996 (1:540p) AND SEPTEMBER. 16, 2D16 FIELD (V.I.F.) PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.' ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S HELD WITH MUNICIPAL STAFF AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER. AT THIS MEETING, ONE PERSON (UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE 2 THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL. PROVIDE A 6" MINIMUM DEPTH OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL SEEDED AND LANDSCAPED AREAS. , (1:510D). MAPPING COMPLIED ON OCTOBER 26, 2016 USING DIGITAL TERRAIN REPRESENTATIVE.' CONTRACTOR) WILL BE PLACED IN CHARGE OF SEDIMENT AND EROSION, N MODELING (DTM) METHODS WITH KLT ATLAS SOFTWARE. DIGITAL CONTROL FOR THE ENTIRE SITE. 3. ALL PLANTING BEDS SHALL HAVE 12" MINIMUM DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. FILE NAME: 13426-iL.ATL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM NECESSARY CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATIONS, APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS 2. T CONTRACTOR TO STAKE OUT LIMIT OF f�TSTURBANCE: NO DISTURBANCE IS TO 4. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A 4" MIN. DEPTH OF SHREDDED MULCH OVER ALL PLANTING BEDS AND TREE PLANTINGS. 2. BUILDING CORNERS AS SHOWN PRESENT ROOF LINES AS COLLECTED PAY FEES, AND POST BONDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WORK AS TAKE PLACE BEYOND THE LIMITS OF W6RK SHOWN. FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 5. ALL PLANT MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO AND AFTER PLANTING. PLANT 3. CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROLS ALONG THE SPECIES MAY BE ADJUSTED BASED. ON AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF PLANTING. 3. WETLAND DELINEATION O PERFORMED BY MILONE & MACBROOM ON 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND PERIMETER, AS SHOWN ON THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND STABILIZED SEPTEMBER 7; 2016. SAFETY OF TRAFFIC ON THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WAYS AFFECTED .. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 6, ALL PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT. 4. THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND ABUTTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY 4. CLEAR AND GRUB SITE AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL A$ S PLACE NECESSARY. CE 7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CARRY A FULL GUARANTEE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE, TO INCLUDE PROMPT - INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON THE MASSGTS 4. ALL SLOPES, VEGETATION, PAVING, WALKS, AND IMPROVEMENTS SEDIMENT FILTER FENCE AROUND STOCKPILES. TREATMENT OR REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ANY PLANTS FOUND TO BE IN AN UNHEALTHY CONDITION BY THE OWNER'S DATABASE AND THE CITY OF ASSESSORS MAPPING. OUTSIDE THE AREAS TO BE AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPRESENTATIVE. ALL REPLACEMENTS SHALL BE OF THE SAME KIND AND SIZE OF PLANTS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANT LIST. .BOUNDARIES ARE THEREFORETHE APPR XIM APPROXIMATE 0 ATE IN NATURE AND SHALL PROJECT SHALL BE PROTECTED. DAMAGES RESULTING FROM 5. SLOPES ARE TO BE ESTABLISHE AS SOON AS PRACTICAL BEFORE PV ARRAY D NOT BE TREATED AS FINAL. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OUTSIDE THE PROJECT LIMITS SHALL INSTALLATION. STABILIZE ALL SLOPES IMMEDIATELY AFTER THEIR $. MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING AND SHALL CONTINUE UNTIL ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. ESTABLISHMENT. MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, MULCHING, TIGHTENING & REPLACING OF TREE GUYS, REPLACEMENT OF SICK OR DEAD PLANTS, S. LOCATIONS OF UTILITIES SHOWN HERE ON ARE THE RESULT OF RESETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADE OR UPRIGHT (PLUMB) POSITION, RESTORATION OF SAUCERS, AND ALL OTHER CARE NEEDED FOR SURFACE EVIDENCE C AS LOCATED BY FIELD SURVEY AND ANECDOTAL 5. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE. SECURITY AND JOB 6.. THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MODIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT PROPER GROWTH OF THE PLANTS. KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITE. NO RELIABLE PLANS OF RECORD, OR OTHER AVAILABLE SOURCES OF UTILITY INFORMATION WERE FOUND. SAFETY. PERFORM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH O.S:H.A. STANDARDS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS, ` THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MUNICIPALITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE AS NECESSITATED BY CHANGING SITE 9• WHERE A SIZE RANGE IS SPECIFIED AT LEAST 50% OF PLANTS PROVIDED SHALL BE OF THE LARGER SIZE. THIS PLAN DOES NOT DEPICT THE EXACT LOCATIONS OF ALL CONDITIONS. 10. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE TREE STAKES AFTER ONE GROWING SEASON. UTILITIES WHICH MAY EXIST AT THIS TIME WITHIN THE PREMISES SURVEYED. GRADING NOTES 7. INSPECTION F THE SITE R E SHALL H S . FOR EROSION CONTINUE FORA PERIOD D THREE MONTHS AFTER PROJECT COMPLETION AND WHEN RAINFALL EXCEEDS .11. ALL PLANTINGS MUST BE MAINTAINED AND THAT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WAY ABUTTING THE PARCEL AND INCLUDING THE TREE BELT SHALL ONE HALF INCH OR MORE. BE MAINTAINED IN A SAFE AND ATTRACTIVE CONDITION BY THE OWNER OF THE PARCEL. EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND THE RESHAPING OF THE GROUND SURFACE WITH EXCAVATION AND FILLING OR A COMBINATION TO OBTAIN PLANNED GRADES, 8. ALL DEWATERING WASTE WATERS SHALL BE DISCHARGED IN A MANNER WHICH MINIMIZES WATERS. LOF, -SHALL PROCEED CCO THE DISCOLORATION OF THE RECEIVING . IN A RDANCE THE SEDIMENT AND EROSION MEASURES SUR S IN ADDITION THE ITIO FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 9: THE SITE SHOULD BE KEPT CLEAN OF LOOSE DEBRIS, LITTER, BUILDING ` .AND MATERIALS SUCH THAT NONE OF THE ABOVE ENTER WATERS OR WETLANDS. 1. THE CUT FACE OF EARTH EXCAVATION SHALL NOT RE STEEPER . BUILDING THAN TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (2: 1). iD. A COPY OF ALL PLANS AND REVISIONS, AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON -SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. THE PERMANENT EXPOSED FACES OF FILLS SHALL NOT BE STRUCTURES TOPE REMOVED STEEPER THAN TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (Z: 1).. 3. THE CUT FACE OF ROCK EXCAVATION SHALL NOT BE STEEPER HORIZONTAL SEDIMENT & EROSION LEGEND CONTOUR (INDEX) ---- - sii�---- THAN ONE TO TWO VERTICAL (1:2). CONTOUR (INTERMEDIATE) 4. PROVISIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED TO CONVEY SURFACE WATER WETLAND FLAG aW-1 SAFELY TO STORM DRAINS TO PREVENT SURFACE RUNOFF FROM DAMAGING CUT FACES AND FILL SLOPES. SILT FENCE .............. . FLAGGED WETLAND LIMIT - - 1D0 WETLAND BUFFER 1a0'WETLANDSUFMR 5. NO FILL SHOULD BE PLACED WHERE IT WILL SLIDE OR WASH LIMIT OF CLEARING ry INTO ADJACENT WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES, OR WATER BODIES. UTILITY POLE W/ GUY WIRE PLANT LIST EVERGREEN TREES' KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE COMMENTS TOTAL' 143 FF Abies fraseri Fraser Fir 8' H7. MIN. B&B, FULL & DENSE WF Abies concolor White Fir 8' HT. MIN. B&B, FULL & DENSE BS Picea pungens Blue Spruce 8' HT. MIN. B&B, FULL & DENSE BS10 Picea pungens Blue Spruce 10' HT. MIN. B&B, FULL & DENSE SHADE TREES KEY BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE COMMENTS TOTAL:1$ BP Betula papyrifera White Birch 8'-10' HT. B&B, MULTISTEM BN Betula nigra River Birch 8'-1 D' HT. B&B, MULTISTEM AR Acer rubrum October Glory Maple 8'-10' HT. B&B, MULTISTEM TA Tilia americana American Linden 8'--10' HT. B&B, MULTISTEM NATIVE SHRUBS KEY I BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE COMMENTS t 0 (.� TOTAL:sq KL lKalmia latifolia Mountain Laurel 2 GAL. FULL & DENSE CS Corms sericea "Cardinal" Red Twig Dogwood 2 GAL. FULL & DENSE AC Amslanchier. canadensis Canadian Servlceberry 2 GAL. IFULL & DENSE MANHOLE •MH 6. PRIOR TO ANY RE -GRADING, A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION. CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ENTRANCE SHALL BE PLACED AT. THE ENTRANCE TO THE WORK �g AREA IN ORDER TO REDUCE MUD AND OTHER SEDIMENTS FROM CATCH BASIN • LEAVING THE SITE. .. : LIGHT POLE FIRE HYDRANT C93FH SITE LAYOUT LEGEND : WATER MANHOLE SIGN SURVEY MONUMENT PROPOSED CONTOUR 250 SPOT ELEVATION +260.20 TREELINE EDGE OF VEGETATION GRAVEL SURFACE RETAINING WALL PROPOSED ELECTRICAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT 6 . SERVICE EDGE OF WALK / GRAVEL PROPOSED CHANLINK FENCE / GATE .. ABUTTER LINE CONSERVATION EASEMENT PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY PROPOSED RTE. 57 LAYOUT PROPOSED LIMIT OF WORK w PROPOSED UTILITY POLE - ZONING DATA .Ilrl'..��1 � q...Wl...l 11. • - Ii�in4.lmi ZONING DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL DIMENSIONAL 1 DENSITY CRITERIA REGULATION PROVIDED. MIN. LOT AREA 20,000 SF 3,489,853 SF YARD SETBACKS FRONT 35 FT 492 FT +!- SIDE' 15 FT 50 FT +1; REAR ' 28 FT 610 FT */= NOTES: 1. YARD SETBACKS BASED ON THE PROXIMATE RESIDENCE A-2 REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE AGAWAM ZONING ORDINANCE. I I I I I I S WG PQ N `� 'D E � 7rp p U M n 2 a, y kn 0.--1 AO m (L W � a � o Z _o z U DL o � cf) W p g w = �- Q w Zcayn z °QLLJ W N LU = Q WW �a � wW °a MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED AS NOTED SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 02OF13 SHEET NO. L D SHEET NAME f:nnurinht AAllnrtn R AAwr•.Rrnnm PEDERZANI _..... BK. 11605 PG. 194 DONALD A. & DAVID C L/T & TOBACCO FARM RD.4p ANDRE M. & JOSf M. & MICHAEL i? & PATRICIA A. JACQUELINE L/T MARJOLAINE DENISB M. LINpA J. PRDGULSKE RUDOLPH & KAREN A. THOM7FN MICHAEL T. & MARY L CARROLC OWENS & VALERI KRESOCKBK. 17293 PG. 436 , PIOTROW5KI BOUCHARD E. LINARES LYNN,; L. O CONNOR SKDLNICKSUSAN A. & BK. 10632 PG. 059 LYNN M. CDNCHIERI BK. 10431 B/� 9948MICHAEL A. MIRSKI BK. 948TBK. 166Z1 PG, 226 BK. 101 D5 PG, 276 PG. 389 BK. 19995 PG. S19 PG. 359� BK. 12424 PG, 301 E:::EPG: 445 00 J JOHN A. & OSEPH T. MAR TI JAMES R. & BK. 20609 11ENISE A. '9 ROSEMARIE E. KIEF` GERARD S. & MAUREEN J. & SK. 18318 PG, 46.3 CAROL A. EREMY M. TAYLO PG. 242 PELCHAT ELIZABETH A. MAHER SATKOWSKI BK. 18751 BK. 10620 ROGER A. & BK. 17161 PG. 356 BK. 10360 '9Q PG. 337" PG. 469 lULIANNE CLARK NIKOLAY DIPON MARSHA J, TAMI PG. 465 : _ BK. 10783 PG, 124 LLOYD E. & EVA JACK M- -. BK. 20130 PG. 531 8K. 18877 PG. 226 BK. 14162 PG. 221 RANSOM L. ` GALINAT III COMMONWEALTH OF J ...,.�,..... _;:._ " 17900 26 BRIAN F. LFAVY JEAN A. pY '� BK. 20523 PG. 457 CRESSOTTI & HARRISON L. GRANT MASSACHUS,ETTS ` _ ..,� "'.' BK JANE FAZIO 10608 PG. 71 J ROBERT A. & & CATHY A. PARKER �. BK. 19913 PG 81 ALINE STOLAR BK. 9109'PG, 403 1 w.. BK. 18427 PG. 282 / J KQS JEFFREY S. MACKECHNIE BK. 11 S67 PG. 278 CHARLENE M. COLLINS l - & RICHARD A. WAIT' OMMONWEALTH OF W MASSACHUSETTS i-- ' Mw� BK. 13396 PG. 217 BK 9287 PG. 506 t1 n B S r, PQ N C N Y- � O M p m CD '�C77 W N Ln /I. \r M. N } Z �a Ny �a W� a © L X y CV a W� © �a ? w � U) MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED 4 1 "=120' SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 03OF13 SHEET NO. �i �: INL f CD 229.1 Z WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS226.9 X WFxxx; ELECTRIC COMPANY DBA ! x D EVERSOURCE ENERGY � �� . z �— BK. 18054 PG. 352 ; �—.. N ° CL F+ -.` i o _......._...- X 227,2 u W . C vun lu ' Lu QLu L --_---.. _-- X 225.3 / ui ,. -Y li '-- 226.4 [ ,1 i' "'-..'„"�""' ---�.. . �„� j 230.1 ~� f X 232.7 ; 1 wFxxx 225.3 X � � Q ' a \ ui X 229.4 t X 222.E WFxxx , N W ` L) Bvw PLOT W--1 r nor a W END MANMADE Dim Z O 1 cm s � W 1.�..., X 230.2 --� �!� � ~ O Ca9 ui MRG ECR MRA X 220.2 ,t t f - X 229.2 � DES{GNED DRAWN CHECKED �p �UFFR ` lag 1 •` WET 1 — - SCALE ---. ' DECEMBER 2 016 8, wFxxx[p� DATE CMs / 223,9 oo- z ��r �1ND 56 15 08 414 x B(fFFER PROJECT NO. 04 OF 13 SHEET NO. MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET EX- EX=l I.—Inht Mil— A IulartRrnnm Inr•-- MIA a �m MATCHLINE SEE SHEET EX-1 an a$ si d11 I� .� Z a v' C zU) G o �a p 0 v� N� �0 a. CO)� W z a N H Cl) W W � a �, w ul � ° a MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED 1 rr�40' SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 06 OF 13 SHEETNO. EX=3 SHEET NAME Coovrioht Mom & MacBroom. Inc • Me 5 : iu xaw i ;' E . 1 jtDjl. I MA GUY R. & RAQUEL ST PIERRE BK. 11979 PG. 391 I s Q' 20' 40' Q 112" f" 1� e�^I V o d o M cd C6 12, d- w � nn C" . f%. �1 m 0 z 0 H a v w Z 5 0- J O W ca Vy N O GC Q p o 02 u o Lu 0 z C)Lu N w Lu a w U) ° a MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED 1 0r=40' SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 HATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 07 OF 13 SHEET NO. EX=.4 SHEET NAME Coovrlaht Milone & MacBroom. Inc .2016 N Ylr - S 9 20' 40' k T::, 0 f12' f" O r-I CN m PQ N_ q d' N ` 4 t-I Cd �T� Ip�-I •U� ��D j Sy I0�"" i-1 �i :� tN N w �d•�M Q cn CI] U T m !L � W a � � o e z O z d a � O W © � g z a J z O v h- w Ga w U) ca O z cr) 0LLI oc a CO) L � H- U N co Q = Co N 2 NLU Q WH :3 cn w cn ° a MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED ill=40' SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 08OF13 SHEET NO. LA=1 SHEET NAME Coavrlaht Milone & MeaBroom, Inc -2046 PV ARRAY .LEGEND S - �b 0' 20, 40• MODULAR PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY FOR $�` POSSIBLE FUTURE DECOMMISSIONING N MARJOLAINE DENISE M. KRESOCK O og ANDRE M. & I JOSE M. & - . 18611 PG. 359 ' � THIS SECTION AS REQUIRED WITHIN PATRICIAA. BOUCHARD 1 DAVID C LIT & JACQUELINE I E. LINARES 1 BK 'y THE POTENTIAL ROUTE S7 LAYOUT L OWENS & VALERIE I BK 9948 PG, 519 1 BK. 1043j PG. 389 /T 1 . SKOLNICK �a 1 ELIZABETH A. MAHER . BK. 19995 PG. 445 BK 17161 PG. 355vp '9 rq �-9 RANSOM L, GALINAT III U O N O BK, 17900 PG. 269 \ _ 4 a 1 BRIAN F. LEAVY 1 BK. 20523 PG. 457 I JEAN A. CRESSOTTI 1 _ 1 \ HARRISON L. GRANT ID ° & JANE FAZIO & CATHY A. PARKER O w c BK: 19913 PG. 8i ROBERT A. & BK, 9109 PG. 403 o ' _w r- ALINE STOLAR - 0��3 �''•...,--,-,,_._,1 BK. 18427. PG. 282 ` m U JEFFREY S. MACKECHNIE BK. 11567 PG. 278 MICHAEL A. MIRSKI ! CHARLENE M. COLLINS BK. 8054 PG. 302 i.. r , � � 1.1 _ 4°'4.•-. -"-:p: ,� .. - - - - PY & RICHARD A. WAIT 0 BK, 13396 PG. 217 O - ! z J ^':L✓ fj J DUiQT � [:.s •-,.,� `----•�-`.""`----...:. Lu SHADE TREEt �i. YJ .. ..o W�^4 NATIVES RUB "PLANTING J 4 f t ' d ;�.u. _ - •``',. -'^ter_..-.. -y�. - Wy,_EVERGREEN TREE ---- W 409 'J(( wFz-- z2v�le- l-.� ca i { f }f LISA MACKECHNIE ;t } r. v h e BK. 139 P 63 G. 297 - J S .t l f - e a X xt t' >' - f it 74- •� � ]jj1. � t ; Ln . LLa LL a o0 5 E , r t ) z T -... • f' Ff 2 j r . .� ` rn I— . [ f..•' - r�'y. - f„ Y Y r - S N �'.r ` y V .J'; F � - ~� � E - O ! ui 222• !`✓ri'lI'YY'lf-lrb'.L^fl:-t:�' co _ • �:,'+Y't �.1 ! ( i� i., Iw• ram/ �4. _ ry • .�, `5 ;` � O � 1 .� _ i ❑ 100' WETLAND BUFFER tJy • • a i'' 1 ITClb j W .. - • - - '� 1 • • • -F' !:$i Nz::a �" s=' :s%! °'G.-.'t':i Ate,: i'r.1 ' f ° . 3 " - a r , i .1 - i. w.y ( _ - • • „ ; n, e 'wi: E + yd t kd . : a '# I n i 5 i �: ! za ;ai i s : t 1 . i ♦ ," I -�� t ent Rio a x ( 4 r 'b fa r;su swa' _ r: $ r� W f r_ .' co �_- ) O GEORGE E. REED JR. ❑ a �`' ` ti ;� �._ . MIT OF WORK SILT FENCE kI �Y - LIMIT OF CLEARING BK. 17056 PG. 405 ✓l. PHOTOVOLTAIC�RRmy (TYP:) LIMIT OF CLEARING Lu D co 8' CHAIN LINK FENCE - _ .._ Y �4 ' v- /,, �- w, ,,� ,,ram ���- 1�-:,, f. �! J a W „� : L DffCH. 6Ff � ,r'- ..�...-.- VH?- -.` DITCH 8FT-'- DITCH CL OFT P. _.....:.-...u,,...._ .--- �. 1sWF2�-132 ✓✓.' T1® 4r' �' 1� 04 a _[�- Q-• WFXXX DITCH/MEADOW f. i .__...___. �._._-•.�•---rr.+._. .yyF XX DITfvE{ 5F7,_...-..,-.__ - _.•w - -Lu 5gF.,VHP�.�• _.. .-... .-. f W W W i w2 -1 W Y r ' i WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS _ � ELECTRIC COMPANY DBA R j MRG ECMRA --- _ _ EVERSOURCE ENERGY ' `- i. '`' �-� -• � BK. 18054 PG. 352 �' � RESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 1 �.=40' BK, r3574 PG. 30 scare DECEMBER 28, 2016 WF3-VH -1421 B .. DATE � 1 fi0 WETLAND BUFFER PROJECTNO. 5615-08 r 09OF13 SH EET NO. MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET LA-4 LA=2 SHEET NAME Lill— R. AAOPo___ In.• _'M1R .. _ _ r �� � S a ` �+� ! 1 1 l 1 1 ice-+-j l�,i •+ �Yl -- - --•,+ -- l ��v_.' � - • t �� f ` • 1 • —31 µ 158 ~ will 9 y...�� f I56 gwy123 ~ • 9 X�— �i57 Q- 3 ` j 1 • I as - la IS3 15�5 1 a • WW—�2 WW-33 /A _ �... ; 1 %j ` • WW-35 154 ww ww �< ' 1 } • �`w. • N_• y wW-34_ww-37ww _ a 1Iri d i ,ate ,- r i • , i . -.✓�._ :%�.>. r.. ~^ \ ww-w39 1VW-40 t - _ - - 1 - - - �^•� u"� � `..:.:.s y •`' - >-__ • .. • • � , f � L ' � f �: a '' w:;,._. ' '•.: � ""'� _/ - - _ �...,.!�.... � @ •e.`" * • • • • • `� :sue -- �� ... l.._ i .. �. ' ` WM22 lode,-.,.• .:. .�v N LIMIT OF WORK -- - �r :.K� • ..,.. • -1 _ 14.4 ,1, .t iSi%rt 4 • SILT FENCE f `-'= •� - . . _ _ 8' CHAIN LINK FENCE -�. �---- 10071,(y/Q BUFFER 11 J r'1 � /Z ff:iz .li`�' Lu PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY (TYP.) F~''lu _ 1N1u121 12" WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE �. _ BEGIN GRAVEL DRIVE WM2a `0. wM1s MEET EXISTING 4 f W _ WM16 �� WM14 wMi3 WM19 wM17 WM12wmlB 4 Q' � ` s Lu \. ,wmi1 . WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY DBA Q EVERSOURCE ENERGY \ BK. 18054 PG. 358 wMta %m9 I00' WETLAND BUFFER 1 ' 1 wMa 0` \ wM7 wM5 WM4 wM6 WM3 a 20' 40, F�y; m:<. 0 112" 1" CN _CN ec1 i N Q3 La•c ,^ a� � • er? c) m Q 0 Z a tY C� W Z 5 a. J O 4 U H Z 0 Z a �a W 0 02 wx a �Q 0 a 0) o �a W2 N Q Lu CV wLLJ a � w to U) ° a M.RG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED 1 "=40' SCALE 0ECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE " 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 10 OF 13 SHEET NO. LA=3 SHEET NAME 41, • • • 16' WIDE GRAVEL DRIVE , ,y O WF2- 1.1X+ VHB .. E • ' • ��:: rF o_.:. -Y.. COMM. OFMAS • • .. r 3:x. LIMIT OF WORK BK. 0-0 , lkw SILT FENCE---------------- jzONSTRUCT N `y t z 4` R 4 , .., • ti ENTRANCE •3AR GATE s l Irv, VHP F" X�/ WESTERN MASSACHUSETI S y' WFXXX D TGeH/ t ` ELECTRIC COMPANY DBA { °t.� wF1-2os vHB 1 MEET EXISTING EVERsoURCE ENERGY�r �- COMMONWEALTH OF 0 ww-12� ,- M-A SArM! ITS .SFTY•= r..° GRAVEL DRIVC- am. iS454 P6. 35� 11 � � S �# OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL ww-1 , r POINT OF INTERCONNECTION i 1 j w to SERVICE �' j` i /�i.. . ! ) ww-14 ww-� / 1. z C ti.�. TO EXISTING THREE PHASE l si_I �/ , r i.b : DISTRIBUTION CIRCUIT } WFX(J('IC VERT C(}w [ '_...._...__ .- � r- � ?, ,s. �,�r..�.�•--� � / `j.._� FLU PIA AUDIA301V zl jar BAID Fft}EJ E. `•' J i `G . r{ �N ; ­ ­_­ .. . . . . . . . . . 0 0 Ln } ._ _. _:.._. f f VHBWFLu �w + -1 -- V F-1136 I Q,�. � a:•..Y %: -,��-.( ^ti/"`1r <.- '�.• _[�p W-'42 EN � t. 1} y • ( r f •ti F, . r .✓' _'r r "3„ � j r� • Y �` - - 1 !.f .� � yam. ' f . ,, } M a D5 j f V J 114 WF-116 ' ,' VH �1,[17 uj Lu LL I Dj N D Fi;'l:.3 ,, ,'� �•-_.,ems. s� �i _ - e•'1-V,: t"iK1r„•.y,r-bi`•!`rt^r ;^D c t,�' - - - - .. -r,r-:-••�. ;,r, }\ NAIDA & ROBERT & - _ - _ - - � ^/Z"'T<q `c "v r^- u"Msn.^.:w Y'r,-'Z-.••+.^ro, z .. .. , .z v , 5 � - r ARTHUR KING - r,. .t 3 a ", r-1 r•h,,. - ',+. < .-t...+.htJ.. , , . ,.rf^FJ , r a_ . . , .. - - .. .. � BK. 1797 PG. 152 I DDe 1 - I I ` I DD g DALE T. BOGLISCN I p BK. 18704 PG. 107 - o � I 1 I . z I 1 a rn.DALE T. BOGLISCH BK. 18704 PG 109 t„ I ! GUY R. & RAQUEL ST PIERRE BK. 11979 PG. 391 m a Z 5 CL ,.J O O U Z lU to ca 0 Z VJ Cl �a a � ❑ v N oaLLJ r (1)N IX = a LLJ W D Q ... (1) w 0 w a MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED 1,.=40P SCALE . DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 11 OF 13 SHEET NO. LA=4 SHEET NAME CouYrlaht Mil9ne & MacBroom. Inc -2016 4L1-ll Vi\Tii\i•.i\Y, Mlv, r•.•,. „r•, •••.•. •��._�� � -�.__ __�... ..---- - _ _ - AND SOIL EROSION, AS MAY BE REQUIRED, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY PERVIOUS BARRIERS USING BALES OF STRAW, HELD IN PLACE STAKE - - THE PROJECT. WITH STAKES DRIVEN THROUGH THE BALES AND INTO THE GROUND OR PLAN - VIEW GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FASTENED TO A FENCE POST AND BURIED INTO THE IN GENERAL, ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL PROCEED IN SUCH A GROUND, SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED TO CHECK BINDING WIRE OR TWINE, .. MANNER SO AS NOT TO POLLUTE ANY WETLANDS, WATERCOURSE, WATER BODY, EROSION AND REDUCE SEDIMENTATION. I I I 1 !t I I COMPACTED AND CONDUIT CARRYING WATER, ETC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT, I'! 19 I I BACKFILL . INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, THE. SURFACE AREA OF EARTH MATERIALS EXPOSED BY CONSTRUCTION:HI Ni I I CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND IMMEDIATELY PROVIDE PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF - ADJACENT WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES, AND WATER BODIES, AND TO PREVENT; BALES SHOULD BE PLACED IN A ROW WITH ENDS TIGHTLY ABUTTING THE INSOFAR AS POSSIBLE, EROSION ON THE SITE.. ADJACENT BALES. 1.) EXCAVATE A TRENCH 4" 2.) PLACE AND STAKE 3.) WEDGE LOOSE STRAW 4.) BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE DEEP AND 2" LARGER THAN. STRAW BALES, TWO BETWEEN BALES TO CREATE A EXCAVATED SOIL AS SHOWN ON EACH BALE SHALL BE EMBEDDED INTO THE SOIL A MINIMUM OF FOUR (4") THE LENGTH AND WIDTH OF STAKES PER BALE. CONTINUOUS BARRIER, THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE BARRIER INCHES. THE STRAW BALE. TO PREVENT PIPING. �� :. LAND GRADING: $°'MIN BALES SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED IN PLACE BY WOOD STAKES OR APING OF THE GROUND SURFACE BY EXCAVATION AND FILLING OR A REINFORCEMENT BARS DRIVEN THROUGH THE BALES AND INTO THE GROUND, , ,• `,. " THE RESHAPING I PLAN COMBINATION OF BOTH TO OBTAIN PLANNED GRAPES, SHALL PROCEED IN THE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE SHALL BE ANGLED TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY ,. ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: LAID BALE TO FORCE BALES TOGETHER. AND r FIGURE 7-7 PLACEMENT :z• '' CONSTRUCTION OF A STRAW BALE s `' 4 " ''`• BARRIER IC SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED AT THE TOP OF A THREE l E I 1 I I a. THE CUT FACE OF EARTH EXCAVATION SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN TWO GEOTEXTILE FABRIC I I I I I I FOOT HIGH FENCE AND BURIED A MINIMUM OF FOUR INCHES (4"} TO THE �a� SOIL. SEAMS BETWEEN SECTIONS OF FILTER FABRIC SHALL OVERLAP MINIMUM 3' �` HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL (2: 1). { ) I I .�+.I I I I as ' eQ° _ - b. THE PERMANENT EXPOSED FACES OF FILLS SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN OF TWO FEET (2). BOTTOM OF ao,. L� • = ' , : ° TWO HORIZONTAL TO ONE VERTICAL 2:1 DRAINAGE ( }' MAY INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE: c. THE CUT FACE OF ROCK EXCAVATION SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN ONE A �.��'\ A GRAVEL BORROW TYPE A `- r w HORIZONTAL TO TWO VERTICAL (1:2). 1. BALED STRAW EROSION BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL STORM ° :f/�.B xa rIxra. rNxclvtilRcs . PROVISIONS SHOULD BE INCLUDED TO CONVEY SURFACE WATER SAFELY TO SEWER INLETS. 1 d ELEVATION: POINTS A SHOULD BE STORM DRAINS TO PREVENT SURFACE RUNOFF FROM DAMAGING CUT FACES 2, BALED STRAW EROSION BARRIERS AND GEOTEXTILE FENCE SHALL BE HIGHER THAN POINTS B. NOTE: STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND AND FILL SLOPES. INSTALLED AT THE LOCATION INDICATED ON THE PLAN AND IN ADDITIONAL + p MAINTAINED DURING OPERATIONS WHICH PROMOTE VEHICULAR TRACKING OF MUD e. NO FILL SHOULD BE PLACED WHERE IT WILL SLIDE OR WASH UPON THE AREAS AS MAY BE DEEMED APPROPRIATE DURING CONSTRUCTION. PLACEMENT & CONSTRUCTION OF STRAW BALE BARRIER INTO ADJACENT WETLANDS, WATERCOURSES, OR WATER BODIES, ALL EROSION CHECKS SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL ADJACENT AREAS ARE - CONSTRUCTION. ENTRANCE PAD' 3 STABILIZED. f. PRIOR TO ANY RE -GRADING, A STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE SHALL BE PLACED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE WORK AREA IN ORDER TO 4, INSPECTION SHALL BE FREQUENT (AT MINIMUM BI-MONTHLY AND AFTER REDUCE MUD AND OTHER' SEDIMENTS FROM LEAVING THE SITE. RAINFALL EVENTS GREATER THAN ONE HALF INCH) AND REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE MADE PROMPTLY AS NEEDED. TOPSOILING: 5. EROSION CHECKS SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED THEIR USEFULNESS SO AS NOT TO BLOCK OR IMPEDE STORM WATER FLOW OR TOPSOIL SHALL BE SPREAD OVER ALL EXPOSED AREAS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A DRAINAGE, SOIL MEDIUM HAVING FAVORABLE CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, GROWTH, AND MAINTENANCE OF VEGETATION. 5 �Mp,X• 1}"xi}"x3fi" WOOD STAKE POSTS WITH A MIN. VEGETATIVE COVER SELECTION $c OF 0.5 POUNDS PER UPON ATTAINING FINAL SUBGRADES, SCARIFY SURFACE TO PROVIDE A GOOD 1} x1 x42' MIN. WOOD LINEAR FOOT 4 MULCHING ■ STAKE OR STEEL POST BOND WITH TOPSOIL. (2 PER STRAW BALE) REMOVE ALL LARGE STONES, TREE LIMBS, ROOTS AND CONSTRUCTION D.EBRIS. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER: 1 xl x42 MIN. WOOD SILT FENCE STAKE OR STEEL POST APPLY LIME ACCORDING TO SOIL TEST OR AT THE RATE OF TWO (2) TONS PER PERENNIAL RYEGRASS 3 LBS./1,000 SQ.FT. (IOLUIUM PERENNE} EMBED STRAW BALES 4" X SILT FENCE Q ACRE. INTO GROUND. BACKFILL PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER: AND COMPACT EXCAVATED , Q MATERIAL. L FILL ALONG STRAW BALES 1. SEE SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR SEED MIX .'� BACKFILL AND COMPACT 1. TOPSOIL SHOULD HAVE PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL �� PROTECTED. 4"x4" TRENCH FAVORABLE TO THE GROWTH OF PLANTS. MULCHING, STRAW AT 70-90 LBS, 1 000 S .FT. TEMPORARY WORK AREA } AREA I I CHARACTERISTICS FAVO 2. TEMPORARY MUL / Q { � VEGETATIVE AREAS) WOOD FIBER IN HYDROMULCH SLURRY 25-5(i i I I 2. TOPSOIL SHOULD HAVE A SANDY OR LOAMY TEXTURE. LBS./1,000 SQ. FT. FLOW BINDINGS UR BE PARALLEL TO V � 'f GROUND SURFACE. WORK AREA I � 3. TOPSOIL SHOULD BE RELATIVELY FREE OF SUBSOIL MATERIAL AND MUST BE ESTABLISHMENT: �, STRAW BALES FREE OF STONES (OVER 1" IN DIAMETER), LUMPS OF SOIL, ROOTS, TREE PLACE 4 OF FABRIC ALONG I I PROTECTED AREA LIMBS, TRASH, OR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS. IT SHOULD BE FREE OF ROOTS TRENCH AWAY FROM FLOW 1. SMOOTH AND FIRM SEEDBED WITH CULTIPACKER OR OTHER SIMILAR D UACKGRASS• PROTECTED AREA BURY FILTER FABRIC 4' 0R RHIZOMES SUCH AS THISTLE, NUTGRASS, AN Q EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO SEEDING {EXCEPT WHEN HYDROSEEDING}: I i TOP OF GROUND �y 4. AN ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT OF SIX PERCENT (6%) IS REQUIRED. AVOID 2• SELECT ADAPTED SEED MIXTURE FOR THE SPECIFIC SITUATION. NOTE I IL-----ILj --- v STAPLE LIGHT COLORED SUBSOIL MATERIAL. RATES AND THE SEEDING DATES (REFER TO TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT I 1 B TOP OF GROUND 5. SOLUBLE SALT CONTENT OF OVER 500 PARTS PER MILLION (PPM) IS LESS VEGETATIVE COVER REQUIREMENTS). 12" (MIN.) �I TIDAL MARSH SOILS BECAUSE OF HIGH SALT CONTENT 1B" (MIN.) B A A U STAPLE SUITABLE. AVOID T 3,. APPLY SEED UNIFORMLY ACCORDING TO RATE INDICATED, BY y# AND SULFUR ACIDITY. BROADCASTING, DRILLING, OR HYDRAULIC APPLICATION. �/ B STAPLE PLACE 4" OF FABRIC ALONG 12" (MIN.) 6. THE pH SHOULD BE MORE THAN 6.0. IF LESS, ADD LIME TO INCREASE pH TO 4• COVER GRASS AND LEGUME SEED WITH NOT MORE THAN 1/4 INCH OF SOIL WOOD STAKE JOINT DETAIL TRENCHECTED, AWAY FROM AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL. GENERAL NOTES PROTECTED AREA B A WITH SUITABLE EQUIPMENT (EXCEPT WHEN HYDROSEEDING). A 1. STRAW BALES SHALL BE MADE OF STRAW WITH 40 POUND MIN. WEIGHT AND 120 POUND MAX. WEIGHT HELD STAPLE APPLICATION: 5. MULCH IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING, IF REQUIRED, ACCORDING TO TOGETHER BY TWINE OR WIRE. WOOD STAKE JOINT DETAIL TEMPORARY MULCHING SPECIFICATIONS. (REFER TO TEMPORARY OR 1. VOID SPREADING WHEN TOPSOIL IS WET OR FROZEN: PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER REQUIREMENTS). 2. PLACE STRAW BALES ON CONTOUR AND WING THE LAST STRAW BALES UP SLOPE SO THAT THE TOP OF THE LAST GENERAL NOTES SEVERAL STRAW BALES ARE HIGHER THAN THE LINE OF STRAW BALES. 2. SPREAD TOPSOIL UNIFORMLY TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST SIX INCHES (6"), OR 6• USE PROPER INOCULANT ON ALL LEGUME SEEDINGS, USE FOUR (4) TIMES I. FOR SLOPE & P OF E LOW INSTALLATIONS, EXTEND FENCE UP SLOPE SUCH THAT BOTTOM ENDS OF FENCE WILL BE HIGHER TO THE DEPTH SHOWN ON THE PLANS. NORMAL RATES WHEN HYDROSEEDING. 3. DRIVE FIRST STAKE IN EACH BALE TOWARD THE PREVIOUSLY LAID BALE TO FORCE THEM TOGETHER. THAN THE TOP OF THE LOWEST PORTION OF FENCE, 4. PUT ONE STRAW BALE PERPENDICULAR ALONG STRAW BALE BARRIER EVERY 100 FEET. 2. FOR FENCE INSTALLED ON LEVEL TERRAIN INSTALL WING SECTIONS PERPENDICULAR TO MAIN BARRIER AT 50'-100' 7. USE SOD WHERE THERE IS A HEAVY CONCENTRATION OF WATER AND IN INTERVALS. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER; CRITICAL AREAS WHERE IT IS IMPORTANT TO GETAQUICK VEGETATIVE COVER TO PREVENT EROSION. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL UNPROTECTED STRAIN BALE BARRIER &SILT FENCE AREAS THAT PRODUCE SEDIMENT, AREAS WHERE FINAL GRADING HAS BEEN MAINTENANCE: SILT FENCE . BARRIER COMPLETED, AND AREAS WHERE THE ESTIMATED PERIOD OF BARE SOIL NOT TO SCALE EXPOSURE IS LESS THAN 12 MONTHS. TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL 1. TEST FOR SOIL ACIDITY EVERY THREE (3) YEARS AND LIME AS REQUIRED. NOT TO SCALE BE APPLIED IF AREAS WILL NOT BE PERMANENTLY SEEDED BY SEPTEMBER 1. 2. ON SITES WHERE GRASSES PREDOMINATE, BROADCAST ANNUALLY 500 SITE PREPARATION: POUNDS OF 10-10-10 FERTILIZER PER ACRE (12 LBS. PER 1,000 SQ. FT.) OR AS NEEDED ACCORDING TO ANNUAL SOIL TESTS, 1. INSTALL REQUIRED SURFACE WATER CONTROL MEASURES. 3. ON SITES WHERE LEGUMES PREDOMINATE, BROADCAST EVERY THREE 2, REMOVE LOOSE ROCK, STONE, AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM AREA. (3)YEARS OR AS INDICATED BY SOIL TEST 300 POUNDS OF 0-20-20 OR EQUIVALENT PER ACRE (8 LBS PER 1,000 SQ. FT.). 3. APPLY LIME ACCORDING TO SOIL TEST OR AT A RATE OF ONE (1) TON OF GROUND DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE PER ACRE (5 LBS. PER 100 SQ. FT.). PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER. 4. APPLY FERTILIZER ACCORDING TO SOIL TEST OR AT THE RATE OF 300 LBS. Of IO=IO=IO PER ACRE (7 L95: P9#l, I;999 Sg: FT.) AH9 5gCOND t?€P - ANENT V99ETATIV€ coVgR SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AS VARIOUS APPLICATION OF 200 LBS, OF 10-10-10- (5 LBS. PER 1,000 SQ. FT.) WHEN SECTIONS OF THE PROJECT ARE COMPLETED IN ORDER TO STABILIZE THE SOIL, GRASS IS FOUR INCHES (4") TO SIX INCHES (6") HIGH. APPLY ONLY WHEN REDUCE DOWNSTREAM DAMAGE FROM SEDIMENT AND RUNOFF, AND TO GRASS IS DRY. ENHANCE THE AESTHETIC. NATURE OF THE SITE. IT WILL BE APPLIED TO ALL. CONSTRUCTION AREAS SUBJECT TO EROSION WHERE FINAL GRADING HAS BEEN 5. UNLESS HYDROSEEDED, WORK IN LIME AND FERTILIZER TO A DEPTH OF COMPLETED AND A PERMANENT COVER IS NEEDED. FOUR (4") INCHES USING A DISK OR ANY SUITABLE EQUIPMENT. 6. TILLAGE SHOULD ACHIEVE A REASONABLY UNIFORM LOOSE SEEDBED. SITE PREPARATION WORK ON CONTOUR IF SITE IS SLOPING. 1. INSTALL REQUIRED SURFACE WATER CONTROL MEASURES. ESTABLISHMENT: 2. REMOVE LOOSE ROCK, STONE, AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS FROM AREA.. 1.. APPLY SEED UNIFORMLY ACCORDING TO THE RATE INDICATED BY 3, PERFORM ALL PLANTING OPERATIONS PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS OF THE BROADCASTING, DRILLING, OR HYDRAULIC APPLICATION. SLOPE, 2. UNLESS HYDROSEEDED, COVER RYEGRASS SEEDS WITH NOT MORE THAN 4. APPLY TOPSOIL AS INDICATED ELSEWHERE HEREIN. 1/4 INCH OF SOIL USING SUITABLE EQUIPMENT. 5. APPLY FERTILIZER ACCORDING TO SOIL TEST OR: 3. MULCH IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING IF REQUIRED. (REFER TO TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT VEGETATIVE COVER REQUIREMENTS.) APPLY STRAW MULCH • SPRING SEEDING: WORK DEEPLY IN SOIL, BEFORE SEEDING, 500 LBS. AND ANCHOR TO SLOPES GREATER THAN 3% OR WHERE CONCENTRATED OF 10-10-10 FERTILIZER PER ACRE (7 LBS. PER 1,000 SQ. FT.); THEN SIX FLOW WILL OCCUR. (6) TO EIGHT (8) WEEKS. LATER, APPLY ON THE SURFACE AN ADDITIONAL 300LBS. OF 10-10-10 FERTILIZER PER ACRE. AFTER SEPTEMBER 1, TEMPORARY VEGETATIVE COVER SHALL BE APPLIED. • FALL SEEDING: WORK DEEPLY IN SOIL, BEFORE SEEDING, 600 LBS. OF 10-10-10 FERTILIZER PER ACRE (.14 LBS. PER 1,000 SQ, FT.); S c u' o cat d N O t I� bA r� gyp. rn a� O�vs7t: m O Z O a_ N L!I G J cl LLJ N LIJ N w p 04 rJ z Q � a Cu3 ca co mQ W w cca cr, a co W wU) °a MRG E. MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED AS NOTED SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 12 OF 13 SHEET NO. SDml 5kEET NAME i, c. �R111ASs1"G I® (POWDERED e� BLACK)- - - ��1 �� moo ii 11 �� ���o°moo•--��ime�oo�me„��ii�i�i ���vwwvww E o♦♦ �4°�0° ®I s♦,♦4♦*♦o ♦�♦s♦+♦�♦♦ - . p e ♦o:♦��♦♦ a,��oi♦ie iIi' s FILL WITH CONCRETE�I 'e o♦o♦♦e �L♦81-011 �I �� ♦ ♦ �i°o°°° ;�►4♦°♦♦ of �' ► PRIME WITH COATS RUST RESISTANT I 9 ♦♦ • • ♦o � : M e• ti_ , a 1 t 1 i II o I1 ,ow- O�o�►�O •Ow��O�e� �► NOT TO SCALE *VARIES NOTE: SIGN SHALL HAVE OVERALL DIMENSIONS OF 18" X 12". PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL *VARIES *VARIES NO TRESPASSING SIGN ` NOT TO SCALE *REFER TO ELECTRICAL 3, FINISHED GRADE DRAWINGS DIMENSIONS. FOR SPECIFIC DRIVE POST AT ANGLE t FINISHED GRADE .. CA W VERTICAL AND DRAW /\/\/\ // // // / // // // // // \ \ \ \ .\ // \ /\// // // / / / / \ \ \ \ // // // /�/�/\/\/�/\/\/\/� \r�\ // /� // // // // / / /�/\/�/�/\/\/�/\/�/�/�/\/\/ // // // // // // r\\ ram\ r\\r\\ / / . / / r�\r\\ /\\r\� / / r\\r� / 4 DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE . [ MassDOT M2.01.7) ROOTFLARE 4" DEPTH OF MULCH SUPPORT POST bA, GRAVEL BORROW 1/4 WIDTH OF ROOTBALL TYPICAL SIDE ELEVATION _i 1E.ElI-1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - I I =1 11=1 11=1 I I--[ 11=1 i 1=1 11=1 11=I 11=111-111= (MaSSDOT M1.O3.0 TYPE B, 3" MAX) EDGE OF MULCH AS PER PLANS OR ��. 2 HIGH EARTHEN SAUCER II��;�: 1— I ��—� III-111 1=111=.1 11- ".I -k I I1L�� I I,T THE] 111. Ill COMPACTED SUB GRADE DRIPLINE OF TREE FINISHED GRADE ao C ❑ -III I { IT-11, , C; F� i ROOTBALL ❑ . ❑ O ❑z;:� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a r SECTION -GRAVEL DRIVE 7 5' TILLED TOPSOIL (TYPICAL) p ❑ ❑ © ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NOT TO SCALE - SLOPED SIDES -� REMOVE TOP PORTION OF BURLAP ONLY © l7 : ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0❑ CLEAN BACKFILL ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ E ❑ ❑ . ❑ .. 11. ❑ - rr7 - � � � , BEND BACK WIRE BASKET COMPACTED SUBGRADE SECTION VARIES f10' OR VARIES TREE PIT - f' um FRONT ELEVATION LIMIT OF BALL RUBBER HOSE PLAN DOUBLE STRAND NO. 12 GAUGE ALVANIZED WIRE TWISTED Mn NOT PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY NOT TO SCALE G OVERTIGHTEN WIRE NOTE: 1. SUPPORT STAKES SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR ONE YEAR AFTER INSTALLATION. TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE r"'� FINISHED GRADE 4" MULCH u MAINTAIN SAUCER ON LOWER SIDES OF PLANT TO RETAIN WATER Woo° :..:::::.. IITIII� PLANTING SOIL MIX WATER AND -I,;I"'—"`� COMPACTED SUBGRADE TAMP TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS NOTESd 1. UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED SHREDDED MULCH SHALL BE PLACED TO A LIMIT OF ONE FOOL" BEYOND THE CENTER OF THE OUTERMOST SHRUBS IN SHRUB BED. SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE P4 rr p M �y C31 � � 8 � A d- O C? cy U M Ra vC Z (ONb Q -aAo �� Al.�% C> M o Cn CO) J a w 0 w U) vc Q Lu Cf) S 04 U a �Q z V) Q �C3 oQ W w Ln N Q =3. L Vu— Q win °a MRG ECR MRA DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED AS NOTED SCALE DECEMBER 28, 2016 DATE 5615-08 PROJECT NO. 13 OF 13 SHEET NO. SD-2 J SHEET NAME 1 Cozvrlaht Mllone & MacBroom. Inc -2016