Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Shutesbury Solar Opposition
Shutesbury Solar Opposition
Cinda Jones
W.D. Cowls, Inc.
PO Box 9677
134 Montague Road
Amherst, MA 01059
We believe that much information needs to be provided before we or the town can make an
informed decision about this project. We ask that W.D. Cowls and Lake Street Development
provide written responses to the following questions by June 3, 2015. We have numbered each
item and request that your response include numbers that coincide to the questions/issues raised.
Water and wetlands
2. What are the expected impacts on the existing wetlands? (Mr. Bajnoci claimed there were no
wetlands but we believe this is incorrect).
3. Has there been an independent survey of vernal ponds in the area and if not, when will this
be completed and the findings made available to the public?
4. What will be the expected impact on residential drinking water wells and the underlying
aquifer?
5. What will be the expected impact on the drainage in and around Reed Road, in particular
water diverted by the development out of its natural streambed and the increase in water
volume resulting from deforesting of 30 acres of wooded land?
6. What size escrow account will be created to address the possible need for a resident to dig a
deeper well or sell their home if the change in water flow creates problems that cannot be
mitigated?
Road buildup and construction
7. What will be required in terms of road construction to enable Reed Road to support the
necessary truck and construction equipment used during all phases of the project?
8. What will be the impact of road construction on Pratt Corner Road in order to yearlong
access for maintenance vehicles?
Electrical transmission
9. What will the requirements be for the electrical transmission lines to carry electricity from
this 6 megawatt project to the electric grid at the bottom of Pratt Corner Road? Will new
lines need to be erected and if so, what size and capacity will they be?
10. What will be the impact on digging a trench down Reed Road to Pratt Corner Road to carry
the electricity from the solar farm site?
11. Mr. Bajnoci stated at the meeting that none of the electricity generated will go to Shutesbury
but rather will be sent to a municipal housing authority. What municipal housing authority
will be the recipient of this energy and if it is not known, how will this be determined?
12. Is it accurate to say the energy generated by this project will be added to the electric grid and
will not reduce the needs of Shutesbury?
Wildlife Conservation
13. What independent surveys have been conducted to document the disturbance of wildlife
habitat ranging from large mammals such as moose, to smaller mammals and birds, to frogs
living in the vernal pools? If no survey has been conducted when and how will this be done
and how will it be paid for?
Finances
14. What are the taxes that Shutesbury can expect to receive from this project? A figure of
$8,000 was mentioned at the meeting; this seems a very small amount given the cost of the
project.
15. On what basis will taxes owed to the town of Shutesbury be determined? If zoned as light
industrial will this project be taxed as equipment or a power plant?
16. Mr. Bajnoci indicated that the life of the installation is 25 years. If the assessed value of the
installation will depreciate over the 25 year life span of the equipment, what is the estimated
tax schedule that shows the decreasing taxes that Shutesbury will receive?
17. What infrastructure charges (construction and on-going maintenance) will Shutesbury
taxpayers be expected to cover on behalf of this project?
18. Mr. Bajnoci mentioned that after the 25 year life of the project, the installation will be
decommissioned. How much money will be put in escrow prior to construction to enable full
restoration of the land following decommissioning? Where and how will this money be held
and who will control its release?
Precedent
19. This installation would potentially be sited in the Rural Residential zone of Shutesbury,
requiring a Special Permit. However, as noted, this installation goes against the stated goals
of the Shutesbury Zoning Bylaws. What assurance is there that once a light industrial
installation is allowed in a Rural Residential area, that W.D. Cowls will not return with
another request for additional installations, noting that the contiguous woodland, watershed
protection, etc. have already been compromised?
ALTERNATIVE SITES AND MODELS
As stated at the outset of this letter, we firmly believe that solar development is a good thing and
communities should embrace renewable energy projects. However, we similarly believe that
there are good and bad projects and that some projects advance the public good while others
prioritize private profit with less public benefit.
We believe that any solar farms installed in Shutesbury should prioritize the following values:
Be municipally owned or at least directly benefit the town and residents of Shutesbury in
terms of finances, energy offset, etc.
Be built to a scale that is appropriate to the land/community, not the requirements to
make a project financially viable for investors
3
Given our support for solar energy and solar farms, we propose several alternate projects/models
for a solar installation in Shutesbury. We request a written response by Cowls as to why these
alternative approaches to solar development are not more appropriate and more closely comply
with the zoning bylaws for Shutesbury.
A. Option 1: Develop a solar farm under the transmission lines at the bottom of Pratt Corner
Road, as proposed several years ago.
Benefits: the land here is already deforested and currently used for high capacity
electrical transmission. There is minimal environmental degradation from construction
and little distance for any electrical lines.
B. Option 2: The developer buy-out, with approval of owners, nearby tracts of land that are
already in commercial use on non-woodland plots.
Benefits: If supported by commercial landowners, non-wooded tracts could provide a
similarly sized solar farm without needing to cause environmental degradation in terms of
woodlands, water systems, etc.
C. Option 3: By town vote several years ago, Shutesbury has a Municipal Lighting Plant.
This allows for a publicly owned and operated utility. Such a utility could contract for
smaller, more appropriately sited solar farms within Shutesbury with terms being
negotiated with the developer so that the electrical and financial needs of the town and
residents of Shutesbury are met.
Benefits: Installation will be governed by Town of Shutesbury and will directly benefit
the town and residents. This will allow for smaller, more site-appropriate installations.
COMMUNITY MEETING
We will be convening a community meeting to present information on the Wheelock Tract Solar
Development to other residents, landowners and allies impacted by this potential project. The
meeting will be on June 17, 2015 in Shutesbury, location to be confirmed. This meeting will be
open to the public but it will not be an official meeting of town government.
We invite a representative of W.D. Cowls and Lake Street Development to attend the meeting.
You will be provided with 10-15 minutes of time to share information about the above concerns
or any other pertinent aspects of the project. We require that any information that is shared at this
4
Sincerely,
Members of the Alliance for Appropriate Development
Michael Suter
Rob Hayes
Roger Tincknell
Jane Costello
Julie Stepanek
Lucy Gertz
Harvey Rivard
Cc:
Andrew Webster
Andrea Cummings
Randi Silnutzer
Miriam DeFant
Gian DiDonna
Michael DeChiara
Rob Kibler