This meeting to order of the Cranston City Plan Commission.

First item on the agenda is the bond release request for Briarwoods Estate subdivision.

I think all of you have seen the letter.

Is the staff had anything to add to that?

No.

Road is done.

Road is done.

Okay.

And so I believe the motion would be to release the bond on the amount of 122,500.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

All right.

Anyone's ready to make a motion to that effect.

Motion made by Commissioner Renzuli to release the bond.

Seconded by Commissioner Coop.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

I vote.

All those opposed saying a all right.

I have it.

Thank you.

Next item the agenda is native solar.

Um start out with a um how we got here.

So we had a meeting previously at the start of November.

There was an mistake made on the notice uh in the Secretary of State.

So we had to uh out of an abundance of caution, we decided to um not go forward with a special meeting at the end of November.

Instead, we scheduled it for tonight.

Um and so my plan is uh with the consent of my colleagues, is that we will go approximately four hours.

We will conclude sometime between 10 and 11.

Uh we'll see where things stand from the questions of the commissioners and the public comment and of that nature, and then we'll see where things go.

Um where we left off, if I recall correctly, is that um the applicant had just presented all as witnesses, and that it was now time to see if the commissioners had any questions, and then we would go to public comment, and the abutters could of course make comment at that point, and after public comment concludes, commissioners may have more questions, and of course the applicant may want to rebut what is said during public comment.

So with that said, I think we can get going.

So uh questions for the applicant.

Uh Mr.

Marcello, please.

Um, yes, so we just on the record.

Um Miss Renzuli was not here the first time.

Uh I just um want to confirm that uh she um reviewed the uh entire um hearing the first hearing um and uh reviewed any other um submissions.

Yes, I reviewed the hearing twice on YouTube and read the materials as well.

Yep, that's all I have.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Marcello.

All right.

Um go through some questions if my colleagues want to have quite there are questions asked first, otherwise I'll I'll get the thing started and uh then we'll go from there.

Okay.

Um see the first question probably would be for the engineer.

Go ahead, Mr.

Murray.

Yeah, yeah.

Um process um we're happy to have anybody answer questions.

So normally when public ask questions we aggregate them that the answer we're gonna we're it's on, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I was just gonna do at this stage would ask some questions for the the applicant, and then we're done, we'd have the public would make its comments.

That's fine.

Is that fine?

Okay.

So first questions are for the engineer.

Um state your name for the record again.

Yep, uh Eric Prevy, P R I V as invictor E.

I'm a registered professional engineer with the breed engineering offices at two, Stafford Court and Cranson, Rhode Island.

All right, good evening, Mr.

Preebee.

Um at your testimony last time we talked about the size of these proposed solar farm has decreased and it actually went from 8.1 megawatts to 6.2 megawatts.

Is that correct?

So the uh so the uh 6.2 is is the yeah, the AC megawatts.

Yep.

Okay.

And the number of solar panels also decreased, correct?

Yes.

Uh we did have on the previous design, we had 16,200 panels and and now we have 14,280 panels.

All right.

And could you just explain succinctly and in general why the reduction in size, what has caused that reduction in size?

Uh there's different technology changes that can come with the panels.

Uh you can switch them out for efficiencies and such.

So we're able to look at uh different different panels.

Okay.

Are you also the person I should ask some questions of in regards to stormwater?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um the 8.1 is DC, the 6.25 is AC.

Okay.

So there is not in the size of the megawatts, it's really no different than it's always been 6.25 AC.

So I I understand.

I got there are less panels, but I don't want to.

There is less panels, but not used.

Okay, I got it.

All right.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um stormwater, I have I reviewed the report.

This was prepared in 2019 and approved in 2020.

Yes.

Okay.

Has there been subsequent revisions or modifications reviewed by DEM subsequent to 2020?

Um no, we are currently petting.

Okay.

And to the best of your knowledge, has there been any kind of I would characterize material changes on the site or in any sort of weather conditions since 2020?

No.

Okay.

And purposes for one of the things required here is that um I believe you have to show that there is not going to be more runoff, right?

And there's certain standards you use, like one like one one year, one in 10 year, one in a hundred year.

How the calculation of the one in 10 year or one in a hundred year, is that done based on a rolling average?

Meaning like they look at the last hundred years from 2019 21 to 2020, or is it how is that 100 year average calculated?

So the basis that we're uh industry standard, what we're required to use uh in the state of Rhode Island is uh they're actually generated by the Department of Environmental Management and they re-evaluate at different times.

At this moment, it's not constantly moving.

It's we use the Rhode Island stormwater design installations uh standard manual.

It's it's industry practice.

Um and so it's it's not a rolling list, uh, but yeah, as you mentioned, it does require to have a uh decrease from pre-development to post-development or the uh one through 100 year storm frequency storm.

Yeah, okay.

I was this is kind of like just educating myself a little because the reason I asked that is that if it was a rolling average, I'd wondered if like the more years you go, you know, it's getting wetter and wetter, whether or not a 100 year average, if you set it today would be different from let's say 10 years ago or 20 years ago.

That's the kind of question I was asking.

Um, but state or down sets 100 year average, and that's the one you've complied with.

Um you have proposed in this plan.

I may be incorrect, I may count wrong, but five stone-filled basins and seven, excuse me, two stone trenches.

That's correct, yes.

Three stone trenches, right?

Yep, okay.

These basins, these are uh retention basins or detention basins.

So they would collect the stormwater, they have stone in them as well.

Yeah, and uh they would be uh combination of doing some infiltration and moving on uh to the next series as well.

So that there's a a series of parallel uh that go along the way.

Okay, but they do infiltrate along the way.

So the stone, each basin itself also infiltrates on the site and puts it right, recharges back into the groundwater and so you have an inspections and maintenance uh requirement in the DEM we do in the stormwater, and it indicates if I recall correctly 23,000 an inspection periodic inspection inspections that will cost 20 approximately 23,000 dollars a year, is what I'm seeing here.

And let's see and a stormwater system that will cost 23,000 approximately to maintain every year, I presume here.

Um these are estimates, of course.

Yes, okay.

So it's gonna cost to maintain this stormwater system, you're gonna have to spend 23,000 a year to inspect it, 23,000 a year to maintain it.

Is that am I reading that correctly?

So yes, there are values that are given uh to estimate depending on square footage and size of different types of uh best management practices, infiltration fonts and such.

So, yeah, that is the approximate number that would need to be.

And these let's call um periodic expect inspection reports.

Do you have to file them anywhere?

Yes, at DEM.

Okay, you filed the annually with DEM.

Okay.

And do you have to file any sort of report regarding your maintenance with DEM?

Uh no.

No, okay.

Um is it customary that you be that the developer in this kind of project required to maintain some sort of um surety or escrow for maintenance costs or inspection costs?

Not that I'm aware.

That you're aware, okay.

In the event that this how long is this the useful life of this uh facility presumed to be?

Is it 20 years?

30 years.

30 years, thank you.

And I believe that there's a requirement in our ordinance of a financial surety.

Um are you familiar with this about the cost of removal in case of termination?

I'm familiar with the concept of it.

Uh we work with the team to evaluate the cost of what the decommissioning would be.

Yes.

Okay.

Oh, can we commissioner coop, sorry?

I believe um the performance standards include a requirement to put in escrow estimated cost to decommission the facility at the end of this useful life.

Right.

That's what I was getting to.

Do you have an estimate of how much it was gonna be?

How much you'll be putting in the escrow?

I do not personally, as the civil engineer, I do not.

I'm sure somebody from our team uh maybe will answer that better than I would.

Okay.

And um that's I'll ask that maybe a little bit later.

Is like when will the SB made?

And I assume it will and how that is derived.

I know okay.

Yeah, that is a requirement at the time of the building permit uh that we have to uh find an estimate to the uh building inspector department.

Uh and that will then establish an escrow account uh for the the estimate of cost, and there's usually a uh try to think of the right word.

Uh an escalator and inflation escalator.

Thank you.

Inflation there will be an inflation escalator.

Thank you.

All right.

Um you may not be the right person to ask, but I'll start with you.

If it's not you, it'll be somebody.

I would assume that the construction of this project will result in noise to the surrounding area, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um do you do you or the if it's not you, it's someone else on your team.

Um, what are the when are the plans when this work will be performed?

Is it going to be solely performed during business hours on weekdays?

I wouldn't be able to answer that question.

Or team would so uh I don't know that answer.

Um, and I would defer to my team members on this one.

So would you prefer to have a sure just if you don't have the answer, just feel free to defer to someone else?

Well, Mr.

Chairman, my name is Ryan Palumbo.

I'm one of the principals of Revit Energy.

Um so every municipality differs with uh construction hours.

We plan to abide by the standards of the city of Cranston.

So if they say trucks can't get to the site at 7 a.m.

until 7 a.m., we won't be there until then.

They say shut it down by 5 p.m.

We'll be off by 5 p.m.

Vice versa.

So whatever the city ordinance uh calls for you familiar with the uh specific city ordinances of of Cranston?

Not off the top of my head.

Okay.

All right, because I'm I was gonna say I was curious if there's a difference between construction in a what I would consider a residential area versus construction in a more industrial zone.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Because in an industrial zone, there would probably be more, maybe potentially more hours.

Not to my knowledge.

Not to your knowledge.

Construction's just the same citywide.

Citywide.

Okay, thank you.

The so you would be abiding by the noise the restrictions on our city ordinances about noise and more construction.

Okay.

All right.

Next question.

This may again not be for you, uh, but I'll start with you as the engineer.

Uh do you foresee any blasting doing uh for for purposes of this construction?

Uh again, Ryan Palembo.

Uh yes, I would anticipate that there would be some blasting outside, not knowing what is on the ground once we start, but I've anticipated some.

Okay.

But I know we had in the prior here when we had an expert cut one of your individuals came here for purposes of blasting.

Um the blasting, can you explain a little bit about what kinds of precautions you're going to take in general about the blasting?

Yeah, so Mr.

Chairman, if I may, I have uh one of my consultants and our experts here, David Punchek, who is uh construction manager with 30 years of experience.

I probably prefer to put him here to answer those questions.

Okay, David.

Uh Mr.

Punchuk has not testified before.

I'd just like to introduce him for the record.

Yeah, I'll just uh by way of introduction, but uh going back to the the general uh topic.

Um there is um there is going to be some blasting as Mr.

Columbo stated.

Um there are certain outcroppings that we'd like to address the most efficiently through blasting as opposed to you know hammering and things like that, which are can be even more disturbing.

Um obviously any blasting that is done would be in accordance with uh state and local requirements through the state fire marshal office.

Mr.

Rossi on his farm has periodically blasted.

Uh it's not a new occasion for this property.

Um with that Mr.

Punchuk, I'm just gonna ask you to come up and answer a couple questions for me to state your name and uh David Punchak.

Mr.

Punchak, I'm not gonna ask the qualifying expert, but just by way of introduction, um you're in the um construction management business.

Correct.

And uh you have extensive involvement in uh solar array farms and the construction of them.

Correct.

And you're familiar with the techniques that are used for the construction.

Correct.

And with respect to the property on Natick Avenue owned by Mr.

Rossi, are you familiar with that property?

Uh yes, I visited the site.

And are you familiar with the plans that have been developed by the uh by Revit Energy and uh decrete engineering that's before the board this evening?

Yes, and you're familiar with the uh topographical characters of the property?

Yes.

And you understand what would need to be done in terms of earth work uh to install these solar panels if the board approves this correct that actually answer the chairman's question.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening.

Um couple of questions.

So I you have some experience in blasting, correct?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Tell me a little bit about your experience in blasting their interstate gas pipeline.

So I built my house approximately five years ago, and the Tennessee gas company has a easement on my property.

So I blast it to build my house in North Smithfield.

Okay.

Um other experience other than blasting to build your house.

Uh with gas eyeing?

Yes.

No.

Okay.

Did you at all uh review the master plan proceeding in this case before you came here?

Master plan no.

Okay.

Did I ask it then a little bit more clearly?

Um last time we had a proceeding on this matter.

We had public comment and pictures were presented about the state of the installation of the gas pipeline.

Did you have any opportunity to review the photos that were of the and I I actually pardon me if I I'm not sure it was ever put into the record the photos themselves, but are did you ever review any photos of the installation of the gas pipeline in question at this property?

I did not.

Okay.

If the obviously when you blast near an interstate gas pipeline, there are more restrictions and more precautions are taken than you would blast somewhere else typically, right?

Yes.

Yes.

Um there any circumstances under which you would not blast near an interstate gas pipeline.

If Tennessee gas tells us we can't blast, then that would definitely be an instance.

But typically they allow you to blast.

Once you get to within 100 feet, is where it starts to become less economical to blast.

Do you have any estimates of where the blasting would occur?

That you that you excuse me, do you have any estimates of where you anticipate the blasting to occur on this project in regards to how close to the pipeline?

Um blasting would typically be outside of 200 feet.

I believe you looked at the the land there and made any determinations of where you think the blasting would need to be done.

I think would need to be addressed.

And then there is a section uh probably somewhat middle of the site on the southern end of where the access road is now or south of where the access road is now.

Um and then there is an area in the southwest corner, but that's too close, so we would have to uh most likely hammer that.

Okay.

So I'm sorry, this map probably doesn't show you where you would probably need blasting.

I don't know if this shows contours enough for you.

But as you as you know, the gas pipelines on the south.

Yep, right.

So you said the northwest corner.

Uh that's probably much more than let's say 300 feet from the gas pipeline, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Would you say middle to south?

Where was that be about?

You could almost it almost looks like there's that kind of yellow blurb yellow spot uh to the left to the left a little bit more.

I might feel like right there.

Yep, that I think is an area.

Oh that okay, so that's not even so then oops.

So um one more that one is this helpful?

Yes, right at the red line to the left, right?

Right about there in that area.

Okay, and so that area you would is about how many feet from the interstate pipeline?

I think that's right at 300.

That's right at 300?

Okay, and you said there was an area that you would not blast way down in the left corner, I think in that area there.

There was another spot that looked a little bit uh concerning.

Okay, and so you were you would indicate to me is that let's say you be blasting at 300 feet or more further away from the pipeline is your plan, correct?

Yeah, the only other thing we would have potential for would be our underground utilities, but you know, if we're within 100 feet, we're not blasting.

Okay.

So that's like an unequivocal if you're within 100 feet, you're not blasting.

And again, um, I may have asked it in a different way, but just and what's the why is it a hundred feet too close in your opinion?

Because once you get into that area, yes, the economics of blasting becomes unrealistic.

Okay, so economics of blasting become unrealistic.

I need to elaborate a little bit more on that.

You mean like it's not putting solutes in the ground?

It's putting what it's like putting solutes in the ground.

Okay.

Does it become more dangerous?

Is that what you I'm trying to understand what you mean by not economic?

Like, is it too risky?

I'm just trying to understand like the cost of the safeguards to avoid a problem on the pipeline.

Well, definitely the cost of it.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Um thank you, sir.

I'll leave it there for now.

Um, I gotta I gotta move on to the other topics.

Um, and I'll have you gave me thought food for thought.

I just uh uh one more thought on the the blasting topic.

Uh you'll recall uh Mr.

Palumbo at the last hearing on November 4th, talked about the new technology utilized for the installation of these panels.

We use a screw type uh technology.

Um Mr.

Punchak um is deeply involved in the construction of the of the array, but um one of the advantage of the uh as supposed to driving the beams into the ground, we're able to lasting uh does not have to be as extensive because of the technology used to install the pan uh the the beams for the uh the panels.

I just want to note that thank you.

My next line of questions and now will be landscaper, uh landscaping questions would be for Mr.

Carter, I believe.

Could you put Mr.

Carter's um landscaping report up?

Yes, hi.

Uh John Carter.

Excuse me.

I'm a registered landscape architect.

Uh my office is 960 Boston Neck Road.

Thank you.

So, Mr.

Carter, I I looked at your report, as I understand.

You went to the abutting properties, and these yellow lines are for lack, I'll use it like my layman's term.

This is their site view of the property from those lines, right?

Correct, yeah.

That's correct.

The transect.

Yeah, the okay, that's the term transect, right?

Um, and you have 14 transects here.

Okay, and I believe that you looked at it as if you were standing at ground level of the home, correct?

Correct, at the first floor level approximately.

Approximately, understood.

Yes.

Now when you did you visit the area at all?

Uh extensively, yes, extensively.

In its entirety, uh, probably a dozen times.

Okay.

And when you visited it, did you notice that some of the homes were more than just first floor homes?

I'm sorry, what was that?

Did you notice that some of the homes are not just first floor homes?

There were two you said.

Did you consider I'll call it a site view from the second floor?

Did not.

Okay.

Is there a reason why you did not?

I think the impetus for uh developing a buffer zone between this proposed project and the existing houses, uh, was primarily considered at ground level from the properties from the yards and so forth.

Uh and we were able to use uh survey and engineering data to uh establish an approximate first floor, so we use that.

Um we didn't go second floor or or roof or you know, uh there's other other spots on the property you could stand.

We we had to choose one, and that's how what we chose.

Would you agree with me that sometimes people look out the window of their second floor home?

Yes, I would agree.

Okay.

Um in other projects and looking at buffering.

Have you ever used site site views of second floors?

No, no, I have not.

I I've done probably a dozen solar projects in Rhode Island.

Uh we do use this as a tool to study how to develop a buffer, and it to this point it's all been from the ground floor.

Okay.

So let's um let's look through your 14.

I call them um to say it again.

Transect or cross section or site line, over whatever you want.

Okay.

I just wrote it down so I can say it.

Sorry.

Um, could you go to the next page?

Yes.

So you have listed actually in your report 14 different transects.

That's correct.

All right.

And I looked at each of these 14 different transects.

So I wanted to ask you about this is hard because you can't see it so well from here, but like for some of them, the transect.

I wasn't sure if the trees were tall enough to transect the view.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Like the dotted line is the transect, correct?

The little dotted line that goes up from where the human being little stick figure is a human being, right?

The whole the whole that whole drawing is called a transect.

Right.

So there's a couple of elements to it.

One of them is the uh proposed ground line.

Right.

We didn't bother with existing because this will be graded.

So that's the proposed grade or the proposed ground line.

Uh the tree heights were uh determined, uh were estimated, but uh with some certainty within the buffer zones.

The the two things we were looking for were how is the existing vegetation going to help with the screening and how is the topography gonna help or hurt with the screening?

Uh the topography, if there's significant differences in a topography, then uh in other words, you can't see through the ground, so that maybe worse.

The dash line is is the site line, that's the guy looking, right?

And understanding we don't look, I mean we turn our heads, we look up down sideways and so forth.

This is standing in this spot looking in.

We we try to pick something that was representative of accurately of what it would be like standing there.

Yeah, for example, on sight line two, I'll use that because it's clear to me.

The site line is clearly going above the trees.

Um I don't even know if that person will be able to see the solar panels because the way the land is and where it is, because he's just he's not gonna hit it.

But when I look at let's see, one is a close call, it looked like to me because I think it goes right over the top of the trees, right near the top, like it may.

If you if you give me, I can't you can't.

I see you can't see it well either, right?

Yeah, so let's go.

I'll give you a moment to look at them.

Right, and so like you know, both of you and I are kind of like I have the paper right in front of me, but everyone else in the room has to look at it from this distance.

I'll ask, I'll ask each one pipe one by one.

So line number one, so uh try and transect one, site line one.

So you see it it just gets the just that sight line hits the top of the tree.

I and I was wondering would the tree actually cover this?

Like, is it in your opinion looking at that site line?

Is the tree tall enough to block the view of the solar panels?

See how it's like at the very top of it.

The key on that is the screen existing looking the first group of trees, yep.

And then we'll be adding right the idea is to you know, we use words like screen or bitigate.

I'm not standing here telling the board, but everybody anywhere trying to see that right, it's just if that's unreasonable, okay.

Looking into the site, we can't first of all early in the project talk spot of fence, and not forward and feedback is up from here view and so fall, right?

But this is taking advantage of existing and an additional so I look clear to you is too, and people were following is that first clump over there, that's like the trees that are already there, right?

That's like and those trees are basically what's the term for it, like deciduous, is that the term that they kind of like yes, yeah, like you know, they the leaves fall off in the fall.

That's right, and that second clump, that's your trees that you would be planting there.

Okay, so go to sight line number three, uh transect, excuse me, number three.

So what I see here is it goes through two clumps of existing vegetation and trees, and there's no landscaping by you guys here.

Um was there a reason why you decided not to put any trees in this particular site line?

Yeah, yes, because there's approximately 270 feet of existing vegetation.

It's so thick, you aren't gonna need it.

That's what you're okay.

All right.

Next one is chairman.

I just oh sure, go ahead.

Okay.

I'll set I am, and I'd like to add some additional information.

So you do okay if it's okay.

Okay, all right, go ahead.

I was just told that uh on the the fence where it's facing the house that they uh developers are proposing to put slats in it, and so a chain link fence uh can be made, it's it's not solid uh uh uh in terms of blocking the view, and there's uh a technique where you put a slap in through the chain link.

You've seen these things around dumpster enclosures or backyards or something.

So yeah, uh Mr.

Maritis told me that they would put them in where the fence is between the house and the solar field in the fence.

Okay, so that that would be completely solid, solid.

Okay.

Um seven through eleven are my last group.

Okay, we can just put the transect for seven up lights one out.

Hold on a second that seven.

All right, for seven, again, the slight the line of sight touches the top of the tree that you plant, but is your view that that's sufficient because of how much trees there are in front of it?

Like regular vegetation?

That's correct, because there's about a hundred and twenty-five feet of vegetation, it presently existing, okay.

And we'll still do the supplemental plant, right?

And the fence, which is down at six feet in this case, but will be opaque.

Same thing for for eight.

Again, the lights site line just goes at the very top of the tree, but you think that's sufficient because of the amount of vegetation.

That's correct.

Because of the amount of natural vegetation already there, natural, and then at the point where the limit of clearing is we'll will we will uh add additional vegetation.

Okay.

Through the long process working with a peer reviewer and so and and the conservation commission, this board, numerous hearings.

We came up with this scalable planting plan for the supplemental buffer where it's in writing in the in the notes and so forth, and that uh when the site is cleared, the plant the supplemental planning will be put where it will be most effective.

It's it's not it's it's not easy to just stand here and say we're gonna plant everything and you won't see through it.

There'll be dense vegetation in some areas, and some areas there'll be a hole in the vegetation, and that's where we're gonna try to focus okay the supplemental planting.

All right, just a couple more things now on the trees, and this isn't my forte.

You know, I really don't pay that much attention to tree stuff like this, but when you're putting trees down, I believe you're putting like five foot tall trees, eight to ten foot tall trees.

Is that correct?

That's the plan.

Yes, five to eight feet, eight to ten feet, right?

Uh seven to eight feet, right?

That's planted size.

Plant and then they grow.

Well, do they always okay?

They grow and they're they're bonded and they're respected and so forth.

So is there a reason um why you made the evergreens five feet in the deciduous trees eight to ten feet in your plan?

Like, wouldn't you want to have the trees that don't have their leaves fall taller so that people can't see through it?

Picking the size of the plant, it's we can get anything from you know with a two-gallon plant, like you see in the garden center, yeah, to big 10, 12 plus foot plants.

The bigger the plant is uh the riskier it is to transplant, and the more care it takes to establish.

So if you were a plant in the ideal world, you would just be planting little seed trees.

Yep.

Um, so it just scales from there, and so we just use our experience in terms of uh of what we think is the best.

The the plants that we spec at five to eight feet, the evergreens, uh the white pine that we're all familiar with, and then uh the green giant arborvitae, which is becoming the go-to plant, right?

Because of its deer resistance, and that's a huge issue with evergreens, um, are very fast growers.

And um, as in the first year, two feet, three feet, third year, fifth year, they can be growing five feet, they grow really fast once once they're established.

So I what I wanted to ask about you you're almost there, was why did you pick the deciduous trees to be taller than the evergreens?

Is it because the evergreens you have to be more careful with transporting and transplanting the evergreens in the deciduous trees?

Um, well, yes, but the other reason is that the um those are well, we have two sizes for the for the deciduous five to ten, yep, uh five to six and eight to ten.

I would have to dig through this and figure out where we can close the eight to ten.

Um it it's a professional judgment and discretion.

Right.

No, I think all sides.

Yeah, the reason like the the fundamental question I'm getting at is really two parts, which is um to me, evergreens the one of the problems with this site, obviously, is that leaves fall, and then in the winter people can see through the the vegetation and see the solar farm, right?

So I was just trying to understand is two things.

Why wouldn't you have first taller trees slightly, maybe, you know, um, instead of eight to ten, you go like 12 to 15.

And then second, why aren't they evergreen?

More evergreen.

Why are the smaller ones evergreen and the taller ones deciduous?

Now, I'm not a botanist, whatever, you know, I'm not a pollinator.

What I don't know what the term is.

So I I really am not sure that there's like a uh biological botany reason, okay.

But from a visual standpoint, I would imagine if I'm a neighbor, I I would prefer to have green stuff year-round over there and slightly taller if possible.

Um so that's just a comment, really, kind of a comment and a question.

You can go back and we can look at it.

The second thing I'd in general would ask, and I'll leave it at this, and then we can I'll go my colleagues.

I've already asked enough questions for right now.

Is you've put forward a plan, it's pretty it's rather robust and very uh in aspects.

Are there any other things you think you could do that would have a marginal impact on the solar farm, but would make a material difference for the people's vistas in the winter site views?

Like even a slightly taller trees, for example.

I'm not going to say that the plant sizes we specified were you know the result of scientific calculations.

It's just it's simply judge professional judgment and experience.

Right.

Um we you know, cost is an issue, but frankly, uh working with the developers, I've never once was told ask how much is this gonna cost.

Right.

Um, I worked with the peer reviewer, Sarah Bradford, um, who's passed away, unfortunately.

Yeah, and um, who's very knowledgeable?

And we this was a collaborative collaborative effort.

So a lot of these things were also driven by her, and she was interacting with uh the abutters, the abutters, I believe, or their ad hoc committee or something.

Yep.

Um, so this was a collaborative effort of a lot of opinions to get to this point.

I'm not trying to be uh evasive on your question.

All right, can we put a 10-foot plant instead of an eight-foot plant?

Yes.

Yeah, that's okay.

And you said something earlier that I just wanted to, after you had a conversation with the attorney about some, I think you called it uh supplemental.

Could you elaborate on what you are thinking about supplemental?

Because supplemental, I'm not sure it's in the record here.

Maybe it is and I missed it, but could you elaborate a little bit more what you're envisioning in the supplemental?

Yes.

So on uh my sheet six, where we have the planting details, they're actually called supplemental planting.

Okay.

And um, if you look in the lower right, all right, okay.

And that's what we're supplementing the existing buffer.

That's what that's how we're using that word.

Oh, you're using okay.

So this is not supplementing the plan that's been presented, you're supplementing the uh existing vegetation.

Oh, okay.

Which are with the flexibility that I described that we would say when it's clear, if we look here and it's dense, we're gonna say, why bother wasting plants there?

But we understand that it's not a uniform existing buffer.

Right.

And if and this gives us some flexibility uh while still locking into uh size, quantity, species, right, of where we'll put them to be most effective.

Okay.

All right.

Uh I'm all set with my questions, but follow up.

Yeah, go ahead, Commissioner Coop.

Thank you.

Because I I'm a little confused in this questioning about the tree height, because we're talking about five to eight foot evergreens and ten to twelve foot deciduous trees, but that's the height at planting.

That's correct.

You mentioned green giants, for example.

Yes.

How tall do you expect those to grow?

Oh, 30 feet, 35 feet.

How long if in ideal conditions?

Right.

So typically, how long would it take uh uh eight to ten foot green giant to get to 20 to 30 feet?

That's big range.

How about if if I say 10 years, 20 years?

20 to 10 to 10 to 15, like a 10 foot to 15 foot.

Okay.

It could so that so that it could get there in five years.

The height at planting doesn't determine how what the eventual height is gonna be.

That's correct.

It's the it's the size of the plant that when a landscaper goes to the nursery with a planting plan, he buys the plants off our list.

He can buy a two to three-footer, three to four-footer.

So he these are the sizes that they're gonna be installed at.

Um the green giants and the white pine, which is an evergreen, uh, the white pines get huge, 60 feet.

Um they're both fast growers, they're they're hardy, they don't because we have to understand this is a uh commercial and if not commercial, it's not somebody's residence, there's not sprinkler systems and that type of thing involved.

So we need things that are gonna survive the deer, survive uh uh the environmental conditions.

Um they are warranted.

So somebody's gonna have to go out, whether it's Mr.

Rossi, the farmer or these guys, or somebody, you know, in a drought or something and make sure they get water.

I understand.

I just was uh I'm trying to make sure we or at least I make sense of the height differences now.

Yes, I mean I have green giants in my backyard that are 40 feet tall.

Yeah, um, but I don't know, are they different varieties, whatever, but um just want to make sure that it's they're probably the same ones.

They get they get in in a in a ideal situation, they would get 40 feet tall, probably.

Okay, so that's fast.

The height of planting doesn't determine what the eventual height is.

No, thank you.

This the smaller the plant, the better uh survivability is what I was explaining earlier.

Trying to move huge plants is risky.

Um uh vice chairman's coop's questions reminded me of something I I forgot to ask.

Um the plants that you are the evergreens you're putting there, okay.

Um tall can they grow uh when they're fully grown?

How tall?

A white pine could get 60, 70, 80 feet tall.

What about the evergreens that you have?

The big pump select the evergreens that you are planting here, yeah.

One is a white pine, right?

And that could get up to 16 plus feet, right?

And the other one is the uh it's a thhuia oxidantalis, which is a uh green giant, which is a type of a uh arbouplate, right?

And they can get as that gentleman said is 40 feet.

Right.

So what my question then becomes is the developer going to allow these trees to get to that height.

Yes, because the no the north boundary is no shade concerns, okay.

And we have taken shade into consideration on our on our planting plan.

Okay, because that so north boundary is no shade concerns.

Um height's not gonna help what we're trying to accomplish.

I mean, maybe 20 feet after that.

It doesn't matter what's going on up there.

We're trying to get a dense high-level vegetated buffer to establish.

Your supplemental plantings, I think, are primarily on the north side, but there's a couple.

There's one on the south side, I think.

Or in the southeast, too.

What's is there a concern on the south for shade?

Or maybe I'm reading the map wrong.

We just we drew them the transects from the abutting houses.

Okay, that's right.

That's what drove this.

Right.

So and from the house that doesn't above, but it's across Natick Avenue.

Right.

So for the transects for one, two, three, for example, that's it's got a D supplement.

I think it's a D like letter there of supplemental planting, right?

Yes.

Is there shading is a concern there at all?

So if we look at my diagram, yep.

Yes, cancel the question.

We look at my my planting diagram on six uh sheet six, yeah, you'll see we have a C supplemental planting detail and a D and E supplemental planting detail.

Those take into account uh ultimate height, shade and that type of stuff.

So we're not, and there's also um notes that say on the south side and on the uh east side that uh allow those buffers to be maintained at a certain height.

Okay, that's what I wanted to get at.

So on the east side, you're gonna maintain it to a certain height.

You have to you're gonna so those those trees are not gonna grow over how tall.

Yeah, 20 feet.

20 on the east, north, there's no issue, grow as tall as it they want.

And on the is that D over there, is that considered east or south?

I just saw uh D'S actually labeled on the plant.

Um area B trim to a height of no less than twelve feet.

Okay.

So now some of these plants like the white line doesn't want to get trimmed.

So that's not going to be planted in the home for the and everything on the sea up there has no they're just going to grow as tall as they want, right?

We actually, as a result of uh the road, the access road being moved from the north down into the center of the site.

Yep, uh, it gave us an additional 10 feet.

So we have the 50 foot, no cut buffer.

We have the 10 feet in front of it where we'll do supplemental planting.

Now we have 10 more feet.

It gives us latitude plant.

And the last thing on this is um your transect analysis and your line of sight that you represent on your plan, is that the plant as it's planted or plant the plant as how tall you expect it to get to those plants are not those plants were as planted.

As planted, okay.

All right, thanks.

All right, any questions, Commissioner Renzuli?

So from a homeowner's perspective in January, will the solar arrays be visible through the buffer?

It may be.

So at worst and at best.

Like do you know what I mean?

Like if I when these get planted, like people want to realistically know what the worst amount, the thinness it's going to be.

Like, do you anticipate I can't answer that?

That's purely speculative on my part.

So is that what you are proposing putting the slats in the in the fence form?

Are you going to put that in areas where it is thinner at the beginning before the plants grow in?

I just anticipate just guessing that that's what the neighbors probably want to know at worst, how much they're going to see of the solar array.

The fence will be with the slats would be 100% opaque year-round.

And those will be everywhere where it the green buffer is not grown in yet.

If I can just supplement, I want to clarify something.

So when we were here for development plan review a couple months ago, there was a comment made from uh the committee in relation to the color of the fence.

Not necessarily slats, but they had a preference uh it's trying to speak on behalf of the butters that the preference would be to see a black chain link fence instead of a silver traditional metal chain link fence, which we were happy to do.

So I think there was a little uh miscommunication here with the slats that are being proposed.

Not that we're against it if the commission feels that that's something that should be implemented, but I just wanted to clarify for the record what we were talking about.

And so to come back to your question, Mr.

Carter was starting to allude to this, each transect shows a different perspective depending on the house and where it's located.

For example, from the house on the bottom, kind of by the D area, if you look at transact three, you know, that view corridor will always have 300 plus feet of vegetated buffer because there's a wetland there that will never be touched.

Um of these abutters have you know 50 to 75 feet of vegetation on their own property that they may choose to do with whatever they wish in the future.

So it's tough for us to account for things like that.

What we can tell you for sure is that the 50-foot buffer that's being proposed that was implemented by uh the independent landscape architect Sarah Bradford and the uh review committee at the time um will remain untouched.

So we never want to come to a meeting and say nobody will ever see it.

You know, it's just it's not realistic because there's so many conditions that we just can't plan for.

But what we can tell you is to what Mr.

Carter was saying is that when it's all said and done, by relocating the road, specifically speaking to the north side here, by relocating the road to the center of the property, we now have an additional eight to ten feet of flexibility to incorporate the supplemental plantings.

Carter was saying is that when it's all said and done by relocating the road, specifically speaking for the north side here, by relocating the road to the center of the property, we now have an additional eight to ten feet of flexibility to incorporate the supplemental plantings.

So if the commission or the town planner or an independent engineer that's inspecting the site comes to us at the completion of construction and says, Hey, you know, this area looks good, but there's still a decent visual to the subutter's home, then we're gonna come in and take the supplemental planting plan, and we're going to put that in to try to establish it to the best of our abilities.

Again, never to say that you won't see it, but you know, we're not only developing this project, we are building this project.

We're acting at the general contract.

We're not only acting as a general contractor, but we're going to own this project for a long term.

It's in our best interest to make sure that all the items like this uh you know get addressed because for lack of a better term, we're going to be everyone's neighbor for the next 30 years.

Um that's a long way to wait for them.

Okay, I I appreciate that.

I think that everyone would appreciate a good neighbor in this situation, being our best interest as well.

Um, just a follow-up question.

So, what mechanism are you proposing to ensure the long-term health of the buffer plantings?

For example, is there a replacement standard if a certain percentage of the buffer plantings die off within the first three to five years?

Like what's the standard there?

John, I'll I'll let Mr.

Carter supplement.

But when we were going through this process originally, we talked about uh inspections not only during construction, but after the project was commissioned.

So maybe you know, twice a year, there would be either our landscape architect or if the city wanted to use the town planner or town engineer to come out to the site and make sure that you know the proper measures were put in place or stayed in place, and if they weren't at the time, we're talking about posting some sort of bond at the completion of the project that if something was not addressed to the city satisfaction and or at least we didn't act on it timely enough, um, you know, that bond is there as additional.

I would say uh additional reoccurring inspections throughout the life of the project on an annual basis would uh have mitigated that you say thank you.

I appreciate that.

All right, uh Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Um Mr.

Carter, I'm going to take you way back to 2020 when um the planning commission heard the preliminary plan application of this applicant that subsequently because the master plan was sent back, more or less went away.

Um, and I'm doing that because some of what is being discussed with regard to landscaping was um very much vetted during that preliminary plan process, and I am um looking at what was the decision letter um of approval for that preliminary plan that was issued and recorded on April 13th, 2021.

And um I would I'm not sure that you'll be able to answer this, or that even Mr.

Murray would be able to answer this without having the ability to take a look and and maybe get back to us, but I want to at least raise it.

Um I do have a copy if you want to look at it, or if Mr.

Murray needs one.

Um and the reason I I raise it is because um in that approval, there were a number of conditions of approval with respect to um landscaping, and many of those conditions of approval I am hearing you discuss tonight, and I'm trying to determine which of those are now part of the applicant's plan and which are not.

So one of the ones that you did mention is that planting area E shall be trimmed to a height of no less than 18 feet, correct?

That's correct, yeah.

All right, that that was a condition of approval um at the time.

The other is um planting area D, and I I think you said this a few moments ago, planting area D shall be extended to the area indicated as planting area F on the landscape plans between the proposed fence and the access road.

Does that still make sense with the access road being moved?

And the reason why I ask is the next sentence is the mixture of plants will be consistent with area D, but no white pines will be included.

And I I think that speaks to what you just mentioned about the suitability or or non-suitability of white pines in that area.

Correct.

That's exactly what that was.

Yes, in response to us saying that we can't uh can't cut them.

And and there were then a number of other um landscape conditions, but some of them spoke to Commissioner Renzuli's questions about uh sustainability of the the buffer um inspections, how that would be done, uh, what would occur, how often they would be done.

And I guess what I'm trying to determine is um those were conditions of approval that the commission placed on that preliminary plan approval.

It would be helpful, I think, for certainly for me, but for the commission as a whole, to perhaps know how many of those conditions of approval um the applicant has actually incorporated into its plan, or at least um has consented to as part of um conditions that they would um find acceptable should there be an approval.

So I don't expect an answer um on that at the moment, but I I would just ask if the applicant through council or however can review those and advise the commission um with respect to those conditions that were included in that master plan record of decision.

I I can't speak to that they were put on the project by the commission, and I think Mr.

Murray can speak to uh that issue, but our landscape plans that were prepared and approved at preliminary with those conditions.

We have not eliminated any of those um we've we designed our plans to meet these conditions, and we have have that's what they all came forward.

That's all come forward.

You may have other questions, Carter.

Um just in response to Ms.

Renzulie and uh Commissioner Lamfair.

Um the you know, I have and we've reviewed the uh April 13th, 2021 preliminary plan approval.

Um, I can represent to the commission that except for anything, and I don't really think it impacts the movement of the road, um generally the conditions that were imposed at the preliminary plan were carried forward to the final plan, and the plan that's represented here this evening um is consistent with those conditions.

Um Mr.

Card has been you know referring to the notes on the landscape plan that you've had on the screen.

I just want to remind the commission that we also submitted a vegetated buffer maintenance guideline um that extensively talks about it incorporates the notes on the plan, but you know, specifically um it talks about control of invasive species, maintenance pruning, and specifically says, for example, um pruning is allowed to maintain planting area D at a minimum height of 12 feet and area E to minimum height of 18 feet.

So those notes were uh are carried forward in the um the maintenance guideline, and it also talks about replacement of any dead trees.

So uh I so I think you have to read um consider the landscape plan, you know, what's before you, the actual plan itself with the transect, but also these guidelines which were intended to make certain that um the developer um followed through on the representations of the landscape plan.

Um you know, and I could you know we can if required do a specific analysis of the the myriad of conditions on the preliminary approval, but um speaking to Mr.

But um speaking to Mr.

Plumbo and uh, you know, I I feel comfortable representing today that the conditions specifically as are related to the landscape that were imposed in the 2021 decision, I think are carried forward to today, and uh would not pose a different problem for us uh in another preliminary plan approval.

Thank you.

I just wanted um to ask Mr.

Chairman if if you thought it would be helpful.

I do have a copy of that decision letter for each of the commissioners.

I know I my recollection is that only Commissioner Coop and I um were sitting on the commission at that time, but um to the extent that it might be helpful for them to see what those conditions were because Mr.

Murray has indicated that with regard to the landscape provisions, um they the current plan is consistent with those conditions that are in the April 13th, 2021 decision.

Correct.

We they were they were given by the board at the preliminary at the preliminary review stage.

We took those, implemented those, and then it went to the final.

So and those are the plans that with some minor adjustments or what you have.

I'm I don't have a problem seeing the I assume Mr.

Murray, you do not object if Commissioner Lampier passes out a public document.

Not at all.

I have uh I have one extra copy.

I'm no, I have it.

Let me just help here.

Sure.

Um as it relates to conditions one through 14 of the of the approval from 2021 relating to landscaping, we have no objection to any of those being incorporated in another condition of approval.

Okay.

Just take one of the other anyone else have any other questions before we begin the public comment process.

Okay.

Okay.

Go ahead, Commissioner Lampier.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to get organized.

Um I'm still a little bit confused on the the blasting.

Um, I don't understand um when Mr.

Punchak testified, um he tried to give us an example of why we don't go within that 100 foot area for blasting.

And I my note is it was like putting solutes in the ground.

So I'm not sure I'm interpreting that correctly.

My thought is that nothing really happens, it's just kind of a lot of popping, but it doesn't accomplish much.

More or less.

So excuse, um, maybe to clarify it is that because you can't use strong explosives, so it gets so weak it doesn't do it.

Is that what you're trying to do?

Okay, so we would have to submit a blasting plan to Tennessee gas company.

They're going to approve our blasting plan.

And you know, in the past, our blaster has told us that once you get within that hundred feet of the gas line, it is not economical to put explosives in the ground.

Would it also not be safe?

Well, um, not that's up to Tennessee Valley Gas.

If they would allow us to do it, and you know uh money was no object, as long as they allow us to do it, we could do it.

But as far as you know, we're concerned, we don't have many instances within that hundred feet where we feel we need to be blasting.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

If I might just to supplement that, I just you know, and I know sometimes we assume everybody remembers everything, and um, but um incorporated in these plans uh that the preteering is you know, we had extensive discussions on site and off-site with Kinder Morgan, who manages the pipeline.

So their requirements, they have a handbook uh that deals with blasting um and what their protocols are.

We will uh obviously follow those to the T.

The uh we will also work within the uh regulations for the state fire marshal.

So um, you know, we can't say there will be no blasting.

We're gonna try and do minimal blasting, but whatever we do will make certain that it's done safely.

Now obviously the closer you get to the pipeline, you know, we know that there's concern about the condition of the pipeline.

There's been blasting up and down this pipeline for many years uh without incident.

Obviously, we don't want to be the first incident, but we want to be prudent.

Um the blasting is um an operational detail that we think helps us do this quickly um and efficiently.

Um but if you know if there are areas where we can do something other than blasting, we're obviously going to do that.

So I just wanted, but I want to remind everybody that we have the benefit of the manager of the pipeline's input on what we would have to do and how we would do it.

So Mr.

Murray, just finishing up on that following up on that blasting comment you made.

When you do blasting, I can't remember now.

And you have to follow the guidelines in Kinder Morgan.

Do you have to put anything in escrow in case something goes wrong?

Um, I don't believe so.

Okay.

I don't believe that's part of their protocol.

I don't think it is either.

Okay.

Is that a problem if we would require you guys to put something in escrow if you're gonna be blasting within 300 feet of that thing?

Well, certainly 300 feet is an extensive distance.

Um I don't know if anybody in this room has the expertise to quantify anything.

Um the reason the reason I used I just say this the reason I you have to go at a certain distance, you got to get permission from Kinder Morgan, correct?

Yeah.

If you don't have to get permission from Kinder Morgan, then it's probably safe.

It's okay.

But within 300 feet is what I understood from the testimony tonight.

And what I think I'm recalling from before, you have to get some you have to work with Kinder Morgan, the Tennessee pipeline.

Is that about right?

Uh I think it's more in the area of notice versus you know, actual okay.

If I can defer to Mr.

Plum.

I'll just to supplement anything within 300 feet of their gas line is going to trigger a review.

That's exactly blasting, whether we're digging with a shovel, whether we're putting our post on the ground for the solar system itself, it's going to trigger the review.

And they're going to look at everything.

Um, so when we go through that process, you know, whether it's 100 feet, 200 feet, or 300 feet, we're going to need their approval process.

But going into this site, you know, blasting pipeline, no pipeline.

We have stringent insurance requirements on ourselves as a general contractor that are bestowed upon us by our lenders and other uh partners that we work with.

So um we are insured going for this.

Obviously, the blasts have their own separate insurance policies that they abide by.

Um, so I just wanted to throw that out there as an additional custom.

All right, I have to think about that because you're insured.

You're saying you're insured if something goes wrong with the blasting, right?

The contractors are insured if something goes wrong with the blasting.

So we are the contractors.

Okay, that's why and then there's a subcontractor who will actually do the blasting.

Okay.

I have to think about a little bit about if the city is on the hook for anything for approving this if something goes wrong.

Understood.

I have to think about that because I wasn't sure you guys are going to do blasting, but once you go 300 feet, you got to talk to Kinder Morgan.

And so I got to think about that.

But that's neither here nor there for now.

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner O'Lanvier.

Thank you.

Just um one question, if I I may, Mr.

Colombo.

Of course.

Um you spoke when you presented to us, and it's been reiterated tonight that the um new technology um will cut back on um the amount of blasting that needs to be done.

And my question is just um, it said blasting does not have to be as extensive, I think was how Mr.

Murray put it.

Can does that mean the volume of blasting, the depth of blasting, the intensity, how does that how will those things change because of the newer technology?

Yeah, no, good question.

I think it's uh it varies from case by case, but essentially what the new technology is that we're referring to.

When we were building projects or you know, before we were acting as a contractor and our GCs were building projects, uh, they were using a post-driven system, which is exactly what it sounds like.

So all the mounting structures that support these panels were sit on I beams that a contractor would come in and would just pound into the ground dependently.

Um the downside of those I beams is that they are very susceptible to refusal.

So if they hit rock or they hit ledge, they break, and it causes us to you know further excavate or hammer or blast in those vicinities so that we can get those supports in there as needed.

Today, what we utilize is a screw driven system.

So there may be five hundred uh individual screws that will be pre-drilled throughout the site to support the system.

And I throw that number out just as a guess.

I don't know what the number is, but all those holes being pre-drilled will go through rock, will go through ledge and provide us with the stability that we need to support the system.

So in the areas of the site where if the commission doesn't mind, could I approach just the point with my finger?

Make it a little bit.

Just be careful of the speaker.

Okay, you can point and then you speak it there.

You can do both.

But once why don't you point and then go back?

Good job.

Can you hear me?

Yeah.

Yes, okay, great.

So there are areas of the site that we were talking about earlier that are, you know, we foresee some blasting.

And those are the areas where we have large knobs of outcrop rock on the site.

So let's just say in this vicinity over here.

But through the rest of the site, we're still going to require to put in our our racking system.

Now, if it was a post-driven system, and I knew that there was ledge in this vicinity here, but it wasn't an outcrop of ledge, then I would probably still plan or anticipate some sort of blasting in that area.

But because it's a relatively flat area and I can pre-drill every single hole, it mitigates the amount of blasting that I need to do in this vicinity.

It's not going to mitigate it here because, like I said, it's a large outcrop.

So just imagine you know, a TP type of structure of rock.

We're not going to build on that.

But uh, when we talk about how this new technology mitigates it, if this entire site was filled with ledge, we've mitigated blasting, and let's just call it 90% of the site by switching technologies.

Hopefully that helps answer the question.

There are any other questions.

Commissioner Coop.

I don't want to accurate.

I probably want to bring up Mr.

Punk check just to clarify how that's done.

I don't know if they drill deeper than charge.

So Dave, do you find just clarifying?

So, in order to keep the explosives in the ground, you have to drill to a certain depth, six feet, eight feet typically.

So if we're looking at a two-foot cut, we may not go and blast that because we're going to have six additional feet of overburden, which we don't want to deal with.

If we're getting into larger cuts, you know, that make more sense than yes, we're going to, but we got to be six or eight feet in the ground no matter what.

So relative to the size of the peak, it's it's not very deep.

The the depth is determined by the by the height of the peak.

More or less, yes.

Once you get it flat, you're not going deeper than that.

We don't want to.

Okay.

All right.

I just want to make sure I understood that idea.

And just to clarify, we're not looking for a perfectly flat site.

This screw-driven system has its slope tolerances that we're trying to utilize the best of our ability and balance it with our civil engineering plan to make sure that first and foremost we're mitigating runoff and you know those protective measures are put in place.

But it doesn't just the paint picture.

It doesn't need to be perfectly flat.

Any other questions?

Commissioner Winzilly.

Uh thank you.

In regards to stormwater, do you have um plans to submit periodic inspection reports to the city, particularly after major storm events, or are we relying just on the self-policing of this?

So I know we have reporting requirements for DEM.

I'm not sure what they look like for the city itself.

Eric, are you familiar with any?

I don't think there are any required, but with that said, we're doing them for DEM anyways.

If the city wanted to request that we provide copies to the planner or town engineer for review, just to make sure that you're up to speed, what's going on?

We're more than happy to do so.

That would be great.

Thank you.

And just one more question.

Have you coordinated with Cranston Fire or do you plan to about emergency response procedures, shut-off locations, access routes?

Will they be provided with site specific response plan?

Yeah.

Absolutely.

So prior to usually prior to building pulling a building permit, we'll coordinate with fire, uh, police, EMS to go over our uh site specific layout.

Um, every municipality is different.

But what we have also done is when the project is fully built and operational, we'll actually do a site walkthrough with emergency personnel in the city just to get them, you know, first on hand experience with the uh you know, the locks, the you know, shutoff switches, what to do in this type of scenario.

Ultimately, they'll dictate and we'll follow their lead, but we're there to show them you know where to go and in case of emergency, what the access road looks like and what needs to be done.

But definitely our access roads are built to uh in coordination with FIRE to be sure that we're abiding by their standards.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Commissioner Lampier.

Thank you.

Just one last question on the the DEM storm water permit that was issued in 2019.

Um, when does that expire or when are you required to get a new permit?

So I believe uh that permit expired this past week.

We have already filed for an updated permit.

It is in process right now.

I'd anticipate that we'd probably have it uh within a couple months.

Um, but we will definitely have it prior to final plan approval when it's required.

Thank you.

To follow up on Commissioner Lampier's question, you've just filed um this permit.

Has there been any material changes in what you filed compared to what you have before us now?

No.

Okay, thank you.

And obviously, if if we could have just requested an extension with Ride M, we would have preferred to do so.

But this project has been going on for seven or eight years now, and they only grant so many extensions.

So we were forced to go through the uh new upgrades process.

Okay.

Mr.

Murray, you have something to add?

Yeah, I just want to add two things.

One on that specific point.

Um, as you know, the um we will need to have the permit at the final plan approval stage.

You know, on a note that it's not a requirement at this level.

We've had it up until the last week or so, but we've been we we've been cognizant of the uh expiration.

We've been dealing with TEM on this, trying to uh work uh how best to renew the permit.

So there will be no uh we expect that there are no material changes here, and they will uh they will issue a new permit.

Um we just don't have any control over their timing.

The other thing in response to Mr.

Enzula, I just want to note uh Revit has six or eight other existing solar arrays in the city of Cranston.

So they work hand in hand with the fire department and the police.

Um, so uh we have experience in terms of uh working with them in terms of safety procedures and uh you know we we have other projects in Cranston today operating.

Thank you.

Are there any other questions from my colleagues at this time before we go to public comment?

Okay, I'd ask my colleagues are you you guys just want to go right to public comment, or do you guys want to take five-minute break or anything like that?

Just gauge in the room.

A lot of like let's plow forward faces.

Okay.

Um right, thank you, Mr.

Murray and the applicant.

Um, we will now hear from the public and take public comment.

Um, please come forward one at a time.

Please state your name and address.

Hi.

My name is Carol Swanson, 593 Natick Avenue.

My husband, daughter, and I are direct of Butters, and our home is one of the closest to the property on the northern border.

AP 22-4 lot 122.

The past seven years have been an epic grueling exercise in endurance and tolerance for the people in our little neighborhood.

When this saga saga began, our daughter was in the seventh grade at Hopeans Middle School.

She is now a sophomore in college.

I appreciate everything the planning commissions, both this one and the previous one have done to try to help address the abutter's concerns.

You have been as supportive as you can, and we sincerely appreciate that.

After listening to the presentation last November, I also want to note appreciation for the moving of the main road from the northern boundary of the project to the center.

The noted flexibility in the buffer zone and the introduction of LEC and the pollinator seed mix.

I'm going to apologize now if some of this seems redundant, but I believe certain things need to be restated.

But first, I would like to point out some inaccuracies in the plans as they relate to our property.

I'll start with the schematic that shows our views of the development, which are indicated on the plans as transects 10 and 11.

I'll pass around a copy.

There are some relevant attachments here, including photos from transect 10 taken in early November.

In both cross sections, the applicant has noted existing natural screenings of more than 100 feet.

It should also shows a stone wall, which divides our property from the Rossies.

Approximately half of the so-called natural screening is on our property on one side of the stone wall, and the other half is on the Rossi's.

Each half is approximately the length of this room, 50 feet.

In reality, there is little, if any natural screening here.

The land only includes mature trees, mainly oak and red cedar, with bottom branches about 15 to 20 feet off the ground.

In transect 10 on my side, there are exactly five mature trees, and on the Rossies, there are less than a dozen.

There is no undergrowth on my property and very little on the Rossi side, a fact that is also noted in LEC's analysis of the current landscape, and I'm quoting here.

The understory includes saplings from the canopy and is generally devoid of shrubs, with the exception of patches of raspberry and American holly.

The variably sparse ground cover layer includes seedlings from the overstory and scattered patches of common green briar.

The phrases devoid of shrubs and variably sparse ground cover do not describe natural screening.

In fact, we have a clear view of the property from my patio and can even see the property from my living room couch.

The next issue I'd like to bring up is the possible damage to our property.

We have a well located maybe 100 feet, 50 feet from the property line, a very old barn, which we use for storage that sits about six feet in front of the property line.

And we have a septic system, all of which are at risk from any potential blasting, as we just talked about.

We are also concerned about property values.

As many of you may be aware, in 2020, a URI study found that homes within a mile of the project, such as this, lost 5% of their market value, while homes within one-tenth of a mile, such as ours, lost 7%.

On a home worth $600,000, which is a conservative estimate for ours, that's 42,000, also known as one year of college education.

Through the years, the applicants and their attorneys have verbally assured us that our properties and our home values will be just fine.

But what good is any assurance if it doesn't specify what recourse we have should something go wrong?

My neighbors and I who abut the northern edge of the property live on a little private road off of Natick Avenue.

We all pay the same tax rate as everybody in Cranston while taking full responsibility for our road's maintenance.

We do our own ploughing, we do our own repairs, and about 10 years ago, we all chipped in to have the road repaved.

Every Wednesday night, we take our trash barrels down to the main road, which from my house is a quarter mile away.

I'm not saying any of this to complain.

We all moved to this little area knowing it would be extra cost for us and extra work for us.

We did it because it's a gorgeous area, surrounded by forests, populated by all kinds of animals, including a big family of deer that we see walking through our yards every day.

It's a tragedy to think this will all disappear.

I'm now going to show you, this is a bit corny, but I'm now going to show you my Christmas part from this year, which helps get a sense of why we love where we live and why we are fighting so hard.

It also includes a picture in the upper right-hand corner of the barn I just referred to.

We do not begrud anyone the opportunity to make money off of their property within zoning regulations and the law.

But the city has seemed fit to prevent this kind of development from happening in neighborhoods like ours for good reason.

There's not much of this beauty left in Cranston.

Because of some sheer luck of timing and one superior court judge, this project has been allowed to proceed.

And here we are, seven years later, still trying to point out why it's wrong.

We care about our neighborhood.

We care about the trees and the animals, and we care about our city.

At this point, excuse me, I'm not sure if there's anything left that you can do.

But we are asking that you do whatever you can to help protect our properties and preserve the character of this beautiful little wooded corner of Cranston.

Thank you.

Hold on.

Jonas, just for the record, I'm gonna bring these back if you could mark these objectors one and two or a and b, whatever you're using.

Okay.

Pursue when you're ready, ma'am.

Carol Cooney, ate Eva Lane.

I wanted to also thank all of you and Revit for this meeting.

It's very helpful to be able to hear the clarity of the information that they have uh brought to us tonight.

However, I I still I'm not buying it.

I'm just not.

I live right down the street, and the solar farm does not belong in this residential area.

And I'm I am also a realtor specializing in residential sales.

I do much of my work in Cranston, like 40%.

I can tell you that property values will be affected.

I will not change my opinion on that.

I see it all the time.

Secondly, the blasting.

I have concerns because you know, I deal with new construction, and I know blasting does interfere um with septic and well radon in water.

Who will we be testing all the wells for radon and whose course will that be?

What happens if there's a crack in someone's septic system?

How do we prove whose responsibility is that?

I can just hear the insurance companies now, and the rates increasing as a result of it.

So that that's a concern.

The other concern that I haven't heard tonight that I'd like to bring up is this is the landscape the way it flows from where that's proposed site will be, or you know, is proposed to be the flooding on Natick.

I have pictures in my phone, I have video.

It's a flood, it's a mess.

We're picking up sheds that have fallen down to the ground, fixing our you know, sunken in landscape, uh, our lawns.

What will happen when all those trees are gone will be further eroded?

Have we thought about that?

What is the remedy for that?

Once those trees are cut, that water will free flow, no matter how much of a border you have, with all due respect.

So those are my concerns.

There are places for solar, it is not in that area.

That is my opinion, and I say this very respectfully.

Thank you.

Oh, yes.

Did you want to sign this?

Yes, but everyone, I should have mentioned that earlier.

It helps the staff when they do in the minutes if you just sign your name.

Jan Ranyo, 1439 Hope Road.

Jan Ranyo, R-A-G-NO, 1439 Hope Road.

Um so I have a question as those screws.

How do those screws get into the ground?

What disturbance does that cause to insert all of those screws?

I didn't hear that in any discussion.

Um, so that would be a question that I'd have and a concern that I'd have.

Um, what is the established code in Cranston for construction hours?

Is there an established code?

Anybody know that?

I don't know.

Um, I mean, there should be, right?

But um I asked at the last meeting about AI images of what this project would look like when it was finished.

And I think in this age, that's probably not that difficult.

And and obviously with the the money involved in this project, there should be money out there to pay for that so people can actually picture it and that like that doesn't bring up greenery to me at all.

Um, but what is it gonna look like when it's finished and what is it gonna look like from different aspects?

What is it gonna look like in 30 years when they take it out?

What's left?

What can you do with that land?

What is it gonna look like?

Um, but I don't think that's unreasonable, but that's me.

Um, you said that that uh Mr.

Rossi blasted on his property.

What um distance does the um the permit allow from I don't know, his house or buildings or roads or um I'm curious to see how far you can actually blast on your own.

There must be a permit for that, I'm assuming.

Um so when the gentleman came up to talk about blasting, I have to say I was not very confident in listening to him.

There was a lot of like typically he said 200 feet, he started with, and then it was a hundred feet, two hundred feet.

Um it's Mr.

Umrae said, it's a matter of doing it quickly and efficiently.

Is that really what blasting is about to get things done quickly and efficiently when you're in the middle of a gas pipeline in people's homes and in lives, people's lives, not just a home, not a building, but you live there.

Um I don't know if quick and efficient would be would come to mind for me.

And what the heck is a salute in the ground?

I I didn't get that at all.

And maybe it's me, I'm sure everybody else got that, but not me.

And then is is the is that actually a related to economics and a cost concern?

Like, do we do we relate cost with blasting?

I don't know.

I don't know.

Maybe everybody else does.

And what about that second floor site view?

I live in the country.

I pay to live in the country.

These people pay to live in the country, they have a country lifestyle, they live there for a reason.

They pay our taxes to live in that area for a reason.

And now you're gonna look out your bedroom window and and see this.

I mean, I live on Hope Road.

I drive by that abomination on Hope Road every day at least three times.

And um, I mean, left to their own devices.

This is what whatever planning commission at the time approved of was this.

There's no buffers in front of that.

It's just a it's just a mess, that whole thing.

If I had to look at that up my my bedroom window, I'd be appalled.

And I can't believe that um that that can't affect property values.

I would never buy a house that overlooked a solar installation.

I don't know that people would.

Um then the whole landscaping thing.

Now, you know, I'm I'm not, this is not my thing, you know, but um, like, yeah, what happens when the leaves fall with that landscaping?

What happens in the years that it takes for this for these plants to get to the size that maybe will provide um shelter or or you know, uh to block this view of solar panels?

How long does that take?

And and and I feel like when we're when we're saying, oh, well, it will take a few years, I'm not giving up those few years.

The people who live around who have to look out their windows and be in their backyards, they're giving up those few years.

And I don't, I don't know that I don't have the right to make them do that.

I don't know who does.

I don't understand it.

The chain link fence with slats.

I honestly thought that was a joke.

Sorry.

Does it fit a country neighborhood?

I don't know.

I don't think people get those on purpose.

Um yeah, can we see what it looks like?

And who's deciding what is good enough in the planting?

You know, you have to you say it's good enough.

So who says when it's when it's good enough?

Is there is there a standard?

I don't care what they did in anywhere else building solar installations.

This is about this neighborhood in my city at this time, and I think somebody should be saying, hey, you know what?

I'll decide for my neighborhood what's good enough and what's appropriate for this neighborhood and what you people have to live with for the rest of your lives of the rest of the time as you own these houses.

I I would I would I felt like a lot of things here were kind of out there and not clarified.

They were like, we'll take care of that, we'll take care of that, we'll take care of that.

I don't know.

I mean, the my first meeting, I think, was Zoom because it was in the pandemic.

It's just been going on a long time.

Um, yeah, the size of the trees, whose discretion?

Again, who makes these decisions?

There's no commitment.

How long to wait until the area is blocked?

And again, cost is an issue, I heard as a quote this evening.

Not in my backyard.

I don't know why it has to be in other people's backyards.

Um I guess I guess that's really it.

I just found this information to be very vague and non-committal, and would love to see things in writing with names of people who are responsible to for getting these things done and making sure that life is as it should be in this area of Princeton.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

Rachel Clark, um, Woodcrest Court, Cranston.

Um, first of all, thank you all for letting us speak and your attention, and most of all your patience.

Um, because here we go again.

Um, while the benefits of solar energy are undeniable, the placement of large scale solar facilities must be carefully considered.

And installing a solar facility in a residential area, though well intentioned, raises significant concerns that outweigh its potential advantages.

The concerns include negative impact on property values, environmental disruption, safety issues, and the erosion of community character.

Not to mention somehow some of us are confused when 25 years turn to 30, but I guess someone will get back to us on that.

Um, one of the most immediate and tangible concerns for homeowners is the potential decline in property values.

Numerous studies and anecdotal evidence suggests that proximity to industrial scale solar farms can deter prospective buyers and the presence of large panels fencing and the associated infrastructure can make homes less attractive, and especially in the neighborhoods where scenic views and open landscapes are part of the appeal.

For many families, their home is their largest investment, one that should not be jeopardized by a nearby industrial development.

Residential areas are typically designed to foster a sense of community, tranquility, and harmony.

And the installation of a solar facility disrupts that balance.

Rows of metallic panels often surrounded by security fencing, surveillance, surveillance equipment can clash with the natural aesthetics of the neighborhood.

Additionally, the construction process will involve clearing vegetation, altering um drainage patterns.

Don't get me started on the drainage.

Displacing wildlife and leading to long-term ecological consequences.

And as was mentioned earlier about drainage.

I mean, we are the neighbors, we know Natick, we know the road, we love the road, the cow path, as it's finally called, but the puddles that pop up are native when it rains make the situate reservoir jealous.

So I'm just saying, I don't know.

We're not even talking about the ice.

Um while solar energy is generally safe, large scale uh installation comes with risks that are amplified in residential settings, electrical fires, panel malfunctions, hazardous materials that are used in some of the panels, um post safety concerns.

Moreover, residents may worry about the electromagnetic fields, the glare from the panels and the noise from the inverters.

Um even if the risks seem minimal or unproven, the perception of danger can cause anxiety in the community.

Um residential neighborhoods are more than just clusters of houses, they are communities built on shared values, aesthetics, and expectations and the introduction of industrial infrastructure like a solar facility can fundamentally alter the character of this neighborhood.

Um in the long run, it can road the social fabric that makes the residential area a desirable place to live.

Um, and I I really appreciate all of the testimony.

I think it's lovely that so many experts spoke tonight for the solar company.

But I'd like a show of hands.

How many of them live in our neighborhood?

Not one of these people is a neighbor.

And honestly, you know, honestly, how many of you would really be here speaking if this was your backyard?

So while the transition to clean energy is essential, it must be pursued thoughtfully and responsibly.

Installing a solar facility in a residential area may seem like a progressive step, but introduces a host of challenges that can undermine property values, community harmony, and environmental balance.

Let's choose a more appropriate site.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Dan Zivon, 591 Natick Avenue, and I've been working along with this team.

All of us over here for the last uh eight plus years.

In the train, I'm not I'm gonna be very brief, just and factual as I've always been.

Um I don't trust what they're saying to us at all.

In the trans, I don't know, trans the tranny map.

Can you go back to that, please?

To the one with screen.

That's the like the views, they look great, and it looks like a science project.

Okay, but that's not even coming from my house.

Like they're just picking some random point.

I live on 11 acres, but they're just picking a random point.

That's not my house, and even where the arrows or the lines are coming, it's not my house.

Okay, that upsets me.

Mr.

Rossi's property, he received close to a million dollars from the gas company.

It's not like this is you know, he didn't get money to have this gas line put across it.

A million dollars, okay.

Just think about that.

For it's not like he he pays less than 900 a year in taxes for this hundred acres of property.

Just let that sit with you for a second.

He already got a million dollars.

He's only paying $900 a year on property that he runs already a commercial tree farm business out of.

Okay, thank you very much for listening to me.

Good evening.

My name's Christy Moretti.

I live at 595 Natick Avenue, and um, I don't have any prepared statement, just um listening to all of my neighbors.

Uh, we all have the same concerns.

Um, mine specifically um is related to the the solar farm in our wooded residential neighborhood.

Solar has a place where it belongs, and it is not in this rural area of Cranston.

Um we have a septic system, and we have a well at our home as well that we are concerned about, should there be any sort of blasting or anything like that.

And another thing that I just wanted to bring up too that I haven't heard anybody talk about is um, you know, construction, construction equipment, deliveries, anything like that.

If anyone's been down Natick Avenue, you know it is a two-lane road with nowhere to go on either side except into the rocks, and it's very windy.

So I think that is is also a concern for anybody that lives over there or that travels that road, and it is heavily used during rush hour from people going from Wakefield Street to Wilbur Avenue, probably to get to 295 or um so I think that that should also be considered that there is a lot of um a lot of traffic on that road for a two-lane road that used to be you know the cow lane.

It's there's literally nowhere to go, and it's very windy, it's dangerous on a regular day.

Never mind trying to get around at this point.

Amazon, UPS, FedEx.

Now you throw construction equipment into that, deliveries of solar panels or anything like that.

I think as um as a neighborhood, you've seen us all come together time and time again into this room because we stand for something that we believe in, and that is our homes and where we live.

And um that that's all I wanted to add.

Then I appreciate you listening to us.

Thank you.

Oh, Douglas Doe, 84 River Farms Drive, West Warwick.

Um, I just have two questions.

Um could the staff bring up the the uh layout screen.

Um there was discussion about emergency vehicles access.

Um according to the plan, there are two gates about halfway down that road.

Now the Hope Road project has an internal road, I believe this uh Sun Mel Road projects of internal roads, lipid as an internal road, and a permanent road required by the fire department.

This project has none.

I mean, how would emergency vehicles supposed to get the far corners of the project without some kind of access road?

Because there's nothing there, there's no way you can tell how anybody's gonna get around that project with a fire truck or a large maintenance truck.

Um, just a procedure question are all our uh comments and submissions submitted before the previous meetings part of the record for this meeting.

Are you asking is whether or not everything that was in the master plan stage part of the record in this proceeding?

I've made numerous submissions over the oh and I understand it's cursed the part of the record.

I I don't, Ms.

Marcel, I don't think they're part of the record of this proceeding, correct?

I mean the everything for the from the master plan is is for this master plan.

Correct.

Okay, but this is a preliminary plan.

No, we've gone through I I excuse me.

I I don't I'll talk so I I don't know if he's referencing prior master plan hearings like in 2019, yeah, 2022, those master plan hearings or the master plan hearing that we had that ultimately led to the court reversing let's talk about the master plan proceeding that was on remand that I was involved in as not correct.

That's that's part of all part of the record.

That part is part of that part is yes, it's all that is all part of this record.

However, should any person wish to restate what they did at that time, they should certainly can.

Okay.

Um and I would encourage that okay, because that was a while ago.

Right, I understand that was a few years ago.

That was like 2023 approximately.

At least so basically I should resubmit those just to be safe.

I would yeah, I I would any comments I would restate them, resubmit them.

Exactly.

Um, because people's um certainly memories, you know, do fade.

Um and it's and it's certainly difficult to um you know remember what everyone said two or three years ago.

Um, but um you know you have the right to submit anything via email to the department, plus anything you wish to say tonight.

Also, no, I've got nothing more to say tonight.

Just that I hope you remember why you pull it up against the master plan in the first place.

Nothing's changed, changed that both.

Thank you.

My name is Wright Dieter 68.

W R I G H D.

Last name Dieter spelled D-E-T-E-R 684 Natick Avenue, Cranston.

I'm not gonna say all of the things that I was going to say because I'll be somewhat redundant from some of the wonderful things that others have said, but I would like to suggest before a vote is taken.

I encourage the entire commission to visit the proposed site.

I invite the commission to drive the roads at Eva Lane, Ridgewood Road, Briar Hill Drive, Carmina Circle, Weldon Woods, and Natick Avenue, in order to understand the density of the suburban community which completely surrounds the proposed solar project and to view the project from the perspective of those who will be most affected by its presence.

Thank you.

I want to echo the thanks of everyone else for um taking the time to set aside some time to really consider this project.

Um I'm not here in as a butter as an abutter to this project.

Um but most people in this room, regardless of their proximity to this project, um, are here because they care about Western Branston.

And at some point in the past decade, they became concerned about the explosion of industrial solar installations in residential and rural areas.

Most of us already live within a mile of one or more existing industrial solar installations.

I've been following this case and attending these meetings since this project's beginning.

And in the time that this project has been mired down in legal cases, it's my understanding that the entire commission, with the exception of Commissioner Lamfeer and at a later point, Commissioner Coop has changed.

Additionally, there's been pretty much an entirely new planning staff.

Based on my reading of the staff opinion of this project, I can only assume that the staff has not physically visited the site.

And I echo Wright's comments when I say, as we have learned in past projects, there's much to be learned by visiting the site in person.

I would encourage this commission and the staff to do so to gain a real understanding of the impact on local homeowners and the community.

And I know that it likely warrants an entirely separate discussion, but I truly believe that any project of substantial scale should require a site visit from the staff before an opinion is published and from the commission before a vote is taken.

If this project moves forward, you have an opportunity to make sure that the community's interests are understood by visiting the area yourself.

I would also ask the plan commission to remember that it was this case and the mismanagement of other large-scale Cranston-based solar installations, many of which were managed by the same developer, albeit under different names, that motivated the city to change the laws regarding solar development.

And lastly, this project is a project in its entirety.

It is not just the clearing of the trees or the changing in water runoff direction or the wildlife displacement that impacts the abutters.

It is the interconnection plan and the way that it will impact the roads and neighbors throughout Western Cranston.

If any part of that plan has changes, then the project has changed.

And it should be the requirement that they relate to the new redesign project.

They should have to adhere to anything that currently stands for the new project.

Thank you.

Anyone need to stretch?

We're doing okay.

Name and address.

Sorry, Drake Patton, 684 Natick Avenue.

For the past seven years, I stood before this body on numerous occasions regarding this project.

Your membership has changed greatly over that period.

And tonight we also have an entirely new planning staff.

Our group of neighbors also contains new faces, including one couple who invested in Natick Avenue after being blatantly misled about the commercial solar project planned immediately next to their forever home.

Since Thanksgiving of 2018, our group has opposed AX Solar, a project that will clear cut and raise a swath of core forest, destroy a vibrant ecosystem, place our community at increased risk of flooding impacts, and permanently alter the residential fabric of our neighborhood.

You've heard about this tonight from all of our neighbors.

Members of our group and one of our experts received threatening letters from the applicant, the latter threatening his job.

We've been denigrated and laughed at by members of the applicant's oversized team.

Our attorney has been publicly insulted.

Most egregiously, many of us and some of you were served with subpoenas during this process.

Multiple court cases have ensued, each costing our group a significant amount of money.

Most recently, our lawyer was approached and asked what it would take to make us go away.

The answer to that question is we cannot be bought.

Instead, you can see that we are all here tonight, standing strong and resilient.

To those new to the commission and to this project, the all new planning staff, welcome.

To those of you who served for some time, thank you for your continued dedication.

And I apologize in advance to those of you who've been here for anything that is redundant to you, but our group feels strongly that with so many new faces, we need to err on the side of repetition, and others tonight have done that as well.

Based on this, I will provide our brief history of the most recent events.

In the last cycle of this project, this commission correctly and thoughtfully rejected native solar at Master Plan.

You did so with a clear understanding of the project's shortcomings, its inherent safety risk to the community, and its overall inconsistency with the comprehensive plan.

Despite your good work on appeal, Judge Montavano required that the project be returned to you and approved unconditionally.

This was done despite Rhode Island Law, which clearly states that quote, the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the planning board as to the weight of evidence or questions of fact.

Montalbano's highly unusual ruling effectively stripped you of your purpose and your responsibility to us.

It also took away what we had fought the hardest for, conditions that would protect us during and after the project's construction.

When our group responded to this ruling by requesting review by the Supreme Court, the commission was left undefended.

Despite legal advice to the contrary, the city chose not to defend you or us in that request.

The Supreme Court subsequently denied us an outcome that we have no doubt would have been different had the city joined.

We now know that your attorney was not, as claimed by Mr.

Marcella, serving his country and thereby inaccessible when he was asked to appear and advise you.

He was, in fact, quite available and could have appeared before you as requested by Commissioner Lamphier on multiple occasions.

Why you were misled about the legal advice given to the city or your lawyers' availability remains unclear, but it has had tremendous ramifications for you and for our community.

So here we are again on a winter night, not unlike the first time we ever met the applicant.

A night when Mr.

Murray told our community that we would not be impacted by this small solar project, that there was nothing to worry about, and that everything would be okay.

Nothing about this has been okay, and you've heard that tonight.

This is your last opportunity to review this project and our last to weigh in.

Why is that?

Because at development plan review in July, the planning director and the development plan review committee voted to allow the final plan to be handled administratively.

This was a terrible decision with all due respect.

It limits your critical oversight and obscures the final stage from public view, something especially troubling for those most impacted by this project.

It also goes directly against what Chairman Fryas has promised the public that despite Speaker Sakarchi's intent to silence us at these public meetings here in Cranston, the public will always be heard and respected.

Now will you not be heard for final plan, and nor will you?

While we understand this decision may have been made without truly understanding its consequences, we feel far less charitable about the staff memo.

It is with respect and regret that I share our group's deep incredulity over its content, or perhaps better stated, the lack thereof.

Anyone who could ever write the statement, anyone who had visited could never write this statement.

Quote, planning staff have found that the proposal is generally consistent with the surrounding area.

The proposal does not propose any undue nuisances, and proposed plantings reduce any visual impact from neighboring properties.

A true review of this project or even a passing understanding of the site would never have limited comment about the high-pressure gas line that sits on the same ledge as the proposed installation to quote the applicant is also working with Tennessee gas.

Finally, a true review would not have listed road maintenance as the only recommended condition of approval.

With all this history, both old and new in mind, I'm here for the very last time to offer you facts or group believes you need to fully evaluate this plan.

Then give us a roadmap because it always helps.

In what follows, I will first summarize the development plan review and technical good review meetings that preceded your own.

I don't believe that you were there and they are not on video.

So I want to give you my uh summary of them.

I will then present four major arguments supporting our position that the project before you is in fact an entirely new project, and not the one you previously denied, but were legally forced to accept.

During development plan review and technical review, several important items came to light.

We were told that, quote, out of an abundance of caution, unquote, the applicant is considering alternative methods for securing the panels.

This was presented as a benefit to abutters and as a means of quote avoiding subsurface risks, unquote.

This is the first direct admission of risk in seven years.

We heard about some of this tonight.

But what risks have been assessed?

How will the system truly mitigate those risks?

Are there new risks?

We've heard about sight grading, and at first there wasn't going to be blasting, but now there does seem to be blasting, which brings back for those of you who were here for those of you who were here before the knob.

The knob came up in 2023 out of nowhere.

The knob must still be there.

And it reminds those of us who live in the neighborhood that every single time the quarry on Phoenix Avenue blasts, which is typically once a day between 12 and 1, our houses shape.

That's a distance, not across the street or next door.

Blasting remains the question for us.

And we don't feel that it at tech review or development plan review that was really addressed.

And still tonight it seems unclear what's happening there.

A new road road has appeared on the plans, and we learned at development plan review that the road was relocated to its current east-west orientation for the public's benefit.

Yet we were not consulted, and we actually never expressed a preference for such a change, although we heard from a neighbor tonight who was happy to have the road moved away from her border, and I understand that.

And rows and paths get very uh confused in the in the various documents.

Um that kind of came up.

There was also mention of noise mitigation.

We heard some of that tonight.

Um, this was an interesting tidbit, given that we had years of assurances that there would be no noise associated with this project.

What has changed?

What exactly will be done to mitigate?

What about operational noise?

Sometimes it's just about building.

We accept that that will happen, but what about once it's in operation?

I know the noise study does not need to be submitted yet, but perhaps it should be.

Should we have those at NATIC?

We've never seen them.

And the landscape.

But uh the slats in the fence, that was new.

Um, and we started out back in the day with the first landscape proposal being a fence, which we all said absolutely not to, and then proceeded to work as collaboratively as possible with um the late Sarah Bradford and um Mr.

Carter to create a better plan.

You heard tonight that there are some problems with that.

Uh, there will be topping, there will be trimming.

Um, many of the uh trees are going to lose their lower branches, as we know, and also as Ms.

Swanson mentioned tonight.

That is what happens in forests.

Uh, so that's a little confusing.

And I will say that the continued use of Arvivitae, as lovely and fast as they grow, they have no place in a natural landscape.

They are absolutely suburban cultivars, and they are not natural.

Um, so I that's that's personal.

Sorry about that.

So I guess I'm uh confused by the transect use, and you did hear about that tonight from various folks.

And I'm going to insert one personal thing.

The transect to my property goes to a large bush in my driveway.

Um it does, and it also goes to my animal barn.

As much as I want my animals to have good views, I don't live in the barn.

So it's uh not particularly helpful to us.

And I think many of us have concerns about those transects, as you have heard.

Um, and of course, we've learned about all the trimmings.

So uh those were concerns from development and tech, and also um milkweed was mentioned as a new buffering plant, and it is a marvelous plant.

I am so glad it's being included, but it is not a buffer plant, period.

Also buffer related, we were told again that the applicant has no control over anything beyond the fence area.

Despite this, the applicant promised that the project's west face will remain, quote, in natural condition, providing a buffer.

Neighbors from Walden Woods who came to development tech or tech, I believe it was development tech, uh, development review, um, asked about the buffer to their community to the south-southwest, and they were told that they would quote likely, likely is a big word, be 1,000 yards away, and there would be open space that can't be cut between the development and the property boundary.

If the applicant doesn't have control, how can they promise this?

Has something changed?

During tech review, only one question was asked by the committee, and it was focused on emergency vehicle access.

We were told the vehicles would enter off native, drive through the newly designed east-west road, get to the end, unlock the gate, turn around in the cleared zone, folks, used by Mr.

Rossi for its excavation business.

That would then they would then make a turn and drive back the way they came.

And you heard from Mr.

Doe tonight that it's unclear how the interior would be addressed by fire.

Um, so that's a little confusing, also.

We still don't completely understand how that's going to be addressed.

Uh, and it's at odds with the landscape arctic's assurances that the west face of the project will be naturally buffered.

You can't be a cleared area, a turnaround excavation business, and also a buffer.

Um, so that's uh another confusing thing.

Finally, at development plan review, Miss Ashman and the committee voted the unthinkable a waiver of the landscape standards for this project.

First, a judge strips us of any protective condition, and then the planning staff and committee take away the landscape standards.

These standards were a foundation of our protection, and yet the applicant made the calculation to remove this from us, and staff agreed.

This decision should have been yours, and we believe it is still.

Copies of the um copies of the development plan review for the record.

All right, with this summary and update behind us, I'm going to present my four points and let you be.

A promise that was repeated as recently as development plan review in the summer, technical review in October, and at your November meeting.

Now we know that it's expired.

It expired on the 6th of December.

The permit cannot be extended anymore.

We understand that the applicant has until final plan to provide all final permits, meaning, in the case of DEM, a revised permit reflecting any minor changes that may have arisen during the course of the project's development, the existence, even with that, the existence of a DEM permit, has been a central point in the commission's decisions thus far.

Yet we're here tonight with an expired permit.

How is that possible?

The applicant has had the court's support to move forward since early 2025 and has known the permit would be expiring by year's end.

Why didn't they tell you this in November?

Well, perhaps because they didn't want to.

On October 16th, two weeks before the November Commission meeting, and well after the preliminary plan application was submitted, Miss Shea sent a letter.

Shea is from here tonight, but she's from the engineering firm.

She sent a letter to DEM submitting the Nate Natick Avenue Solar Project as a quote, General Wetlands application for re-review and new approval under updated wetland regulations, unquote.

She then claimed that the existing stormwater and engineering designs meet the Rhode Island DEM solar guidance documents of 2022.

A claim that's questionable, particularly since one of the first recommended criteria in that document is to discourage clearing forests and green space for solar arrays.

Furthermore, the new submission is described by the applicant as being, and I quote, identical to the 2019th application with no updates to the site or stormwater management plans.

Let me repeat that.

No updates to the site or stormwater management plans.

As you can see, the preliminary plan submission contains major changes to stormwater management.

Why?

And why does it rely on a 2020 stormwater report when we all know, and you've heard tonight that climate change is vastly increasing flooding along NADEC year over year.

This is a shocking misrepresent misrepresentation to a state agency, to the staff and to you.

The ability of this project to be permitted under the new DEM regulations is yet untested.

Natick solar is proposed for core forest, which is no longer allowable for solar installations in Rhode Island.

And DEM is not obligated to work within a municipality's vested framework, only you are.

DEM is, however, required to refer to both new setback rules and their own 2022 solar array guidelines, many of which I remind all of you were first drafted based on the controversial location and scenario of the NADIC solar project.

I'm going to submit a documentation to support this section.

Point two.

What defines the project area?

The project's physical scope has been inconsistently defined since the project's outset, with references ranging from 22, 23 to 29 acres, and a confusing use of terms interchangeably, such as lot, parcel, project, and development.

Since a landscape waiver was granted at development plan review, we will rely on Miss Shea's specific acreage calculations presented in her argument for that waiver.

According to her submission, quote, the proposed development includes approximately 23.4 acres of existing wooded tree area, 18.2 acres of existing grass, 0.8 acres of proposed landscaping, and an additional 19.5 acres of grass within the fenced array.

These areas collectively comprise approximately 62 acres, which is 97% of the total parcel area, unquote.

Since the waiver was granted on this basis, we must assume the development is 62 acres, which is the entirety of Mr.

Rossi's acreage in lots 108 and 119.

This is confusing.

Does or does the applicant not have control of the acreage as defined by Ms.

Shea?

And how does that answer affect buffering and the waiver provided at development plan review?

Now keep this in mind, point two, as we move on to point three.

Uses of the proposed development.

These concerns stemmed from his communications with neighbors, an easement granted to National Grid for a distribution line to a random point in the middle of his property, references to utility access for future housing in the Revity Rossi lease, and finally, on October 2021, a request by Mr.

Rossi to DEM Division of Agriculture for a quote farm road, unquote.

The reason given was that the future construction of the solar facility would restrict his farm access.

This rationale was both untrue and deceptive, as Mr.

Rossi had and still has multiple access points to his farm as outlined in Revenue's plans and guaranteed in his lease with them.

In March 2023, we specifically asked about those housing plans.

Then planning director Jason Pizzulo stated that planning would not consider a housing proposal for the same site as the solar facility.

The applicant claimed there were no such plans.

And yet, in July of this year, Depreet Engineering, the same firm on the applicant's team, applied to DEM on behalf of Mr.

Rossi for a combined wetland and septic permit pertaining to a 2500 plus square foot four-bedroom residence proposed for lot 108, one of the two lots identified in this shade populations regarding the quote proposed development.

This house will be situated at, you'll never guess, the terminus of the so-called farm road.

The required Rhode Island DEM wetlands inspection report submitted for approval identifies Mr.

Rossi's house site as 59.79 acres of an existing Christmas tree farm.

There is no mention of a pending utility scale solar facility, nor the presence of an excavating business.

How could Mr.

Rossi or Dupreet fail to share these critical details with the agency required to permit this new construction?

Is the plus or minus 60 acre project area, Mr.

Housey's how Mr.

Rossi's housing development or the applicant's solar installation?

How can DEM permit two different projects claiming the same acreage and location?

And how will the city resolve these multiple uses on the same lot?

How will taxes be assessed?

Just to review, the proposed development now includes housing, a Christmas tree farm, an excavation business, incidentally not allowed by local zoning, and a utility scale commercial solar facility.

And let's not forget, this raises questions about Ms.

Shea's calculations of the 62 acre proposed development, which was the entire basis of her waiver argument.

The applicant's promises about existing buffering and the murky emergency vehicle provisions and probably a host of other things that we have not even considered.

Submit these supporting document.

Oh, um, identify what they are.

Um they are the propos the uh application to DEM.

That's what that was.

I asked that they be placed on the record.

My final point.

The solar installation itself.

You will note that the written submission refers to an 8.1 megawatt output for native solar, and it was raised tonight that it's been 8.1 and 6.25 and various things.

And it was finally explained tonight why there is this difference.

But I didn't know until quite recently the difference in why it was AC versus DC, and um recent references to 6.25 megawatt facility got me curious.

So I did some investigating.

So solar projects are permitted to interconnect with multiple agencies, including the ISO New England.

They're the big oversight agency, and much of what they work on is classified due to its inclusion of critical infrastructure information.

But with a little time, there's still a lot available to the public.

It turns out that Revit is no longer permitted for an 8.1 megawatt facility or 6.25 or whichever one we want to go with, or possibly even for a project interconnecting on Natick Avenue.

The native solar project NEP20, GO432, was withdrawn from ISO New England.

And then I learned that a new project, 1935 Phoenix Avenue, was submitted under application RIE 24G07 and approved only in August of 2024.

This new project is for a 6.25 megawatt solar PV system in France and Rhode Island, interconnected to 1935 Phoenix Avenue, and that is a quote.

This change in address seemed significant, and I spent an extraordinary amount of time trying to understand if this new name also related to a new interconnection.

And guess what?

The ISO stated, and I quote, if the address is listed, that is the POC or point of connection.

The Rhode Island State Energy Office told me that although they could see the entire interconnection, meaning they couldn't see all the parts between the point of interconnection to the array and the substation, what they could see showed a physical connection to the physical address of 1935 Phoenix Avenue.

The Rhode Island PUC had no records on the project, despite the fact that the ISO said the sighting board would have that information.

But they sent me to Rhode Island Energy where I had a semantics-bound conversation with a very reluctant representative who said that whatever is in the DEM permit could quote be assumed to be correct for now, unquote.

What's curious about that is that at development plan review, Mr.

Murray specifically stated, quote, right now we are not changing the interconnection, further stating that all decisions depend on Rhode Island Energy.

And this was echoed by Mr.

Columbo.

Now, in 2019, we heard a near identical claim about the role of the utility company being responsible for the interconnection.

And we were also told that the applicant had no idea of the interconnect interconnection path at that time.

Now, this of course proved to be a lie since the original and already filed DEM permit application required an interconnection plan.

So in 2019, the team had full knowledge of the connection at the time they said they knew nothing.

If in 2025 there is a new interconnection plan, or even the possibility of one, or even a slight change to the one we expect, we all need to know that.

And so does DEM, and so do you.

At least this possible new interconnection route might explain some mysteries.

The Access Road's new east-west orientation, the Westgate's inclusion of a Knot's box, which was there before the whole, we're gonna go out Phoenix Avenue when we leave.

That Knotz box, the Knotz box is on the Westgate, and that's usually installed for first responder access.

There's also the sudden offer of an emergency vehicle path to Phoenix Avenue across Mr.

Rossi's property, and simultaneously, there's a total lack of any kind of gate or not box at the Nadik Avenue entrance.

Why would that be?

And then one final related item that I want to make sure we uh place on the record.

Interconnection to the grid requires projected power generation to have full off tape.

In lay language, that means the project must have customer, a customer or customers who will be buying the energy.

While the city has been trapped in an unfulfilled contract with Brevity since 2019, over the last year it is our understanding that Mr.

Murray has been shopping around extra production from native solar, including to the school department.

Given this, is the project even viable for interconnection right now?

Might be worth an ask, like so much else tonight.

I'm submitting this for the record, these are documents related to the various projects that we have.

On the record, if possible.

In closing, members of the commission, you've been told by the applicant that the project in front of you for preliminary plan approval is the same project that you previously rejected but were forced by law to accept.

I am here to tell you on behalf of all of us that it is not the same project, not even close.

We believe that the applicant has ample opportunity to come clean about a host of changes and possible uncertainties that the proposed project now faces, but they have not done so, likely concerned about the loss of their project vesting, without which Natick Solar would be dead on arrival.

We imagine that the applicant will disagree with our facts.

After all, at development plan review, Mr.

Murray categorized all the changes being discussed as quote, mining, unquote.

As if anticipating our position, he downplayed any notion that the project was in any way different from the project you've been reviewing since 2019.

At the same meeting, Mr.

Murray threatened that if the planning commission, quote, didn't like the new plans, unquote, the applicant was prepared to return to the original master plan.

This is confusing.

Submissions to this commission are not exercises in multiple choice.

An applicant submits a project and must yield to the will of the commission.

You don't get to throw things out there until something sits.

Perhaps more alarming to us if some of these changes were truly made as stated, quote, out of an abundance of caution, unquote, and to provide, quote, better a better project, unquote.

But the applicant is willing to jettison them if you don't like them.

Are we being placed at risk?

Or conversely, if the changes were unimportant to the project, why make them in the first place?

Sadly, we can't read the applicant's mind.

But what we know to be true is that the applicant has neglected to disclose very consequential information to you, to staff, and to the public.

There is so very much we don't know about this project.

Every time we show up, it is if we are playing a game of shells, taken as marks to be fooled and swindled.

And all of us are marked.

The commission, the planning department, the city of Princeton, Rhode Island DEM Wetlands, Rhode Island DEM Division of Agriculture, and all my neighbors here tonight.

On behalf of our community group and the public good, and based on the evidence presented by all of us tonight, I respectfully request that you deny this preliminary plan.

I will be submitting a copy of these comments for the record, along with supporting documents from the twenty twenty-three record that I referenced tonight.

Okay, we are reconvening to take a comment.

How they buried the pipe and what they buried it with.

I broke them up at the picture.

Mr.

Lawrence, just go over there and repeat what you're saying.

I'll give you time to look these pictures over.

Anybody stay on a glass go over there.

I wouldn't even shape the ground.

I know we have this in the record before.

Um we asked about this before.

I don't know, is pictures of this is in the record right now from the master plan.

Do you remember?

Well, they are about um I was gonna suggest maybe Jonas could, or I'll I'll even do it.

If we I go make copies, and so we could give um the applicant, and if we can't do it tonight, if we could sir, if we could keep the pictures, make copies, and you could we'll send them back to you tomorrow or the next day, just so we need copies of those.

Is that is that okay?

Thanks, yes.

Okay, thanks.

Thanks.

The uh DEM, all this is possible.

Okay.

You must Mr.

Lawrence, if you're gonna speak, you gotta go speak at the microphone.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Patrick Doherty, uh Doherty and Associates Law 887 Boston Neck Road, Narragansett, Rhode Island.

I'm here representing a number of uh clients.

Uh do y'all want to at least acknowledge the commission?

Uh it's been quite a uh travel.

Um we're in our eighth year now, eight years.

Uh we're in the midst of and it's been a battle.

Uh but one thing has not changed, and that is we're still having an applicant and an owner play what I term is a game of hide the ball.

You can't present two different projects on one application.

One thing is clear uh based upon what you've heard, especially from um Drake Patton, is that uh this project has changed, and there are questions as to how it has changed and what project we're actually dealing with.

And it's clear that uh the applicant has been um treating this uh differently in their interactions with DEM with ISO New England and with this commission.

One thing that I I would like to say, uh, and again, you know, Mr.

Murray at the beginning of uh his comments or when he last uh session he brought up the fact uh when he was introducing Mr.

Prevy that I like Mr.

Prevy and I've worked with Mr.

Prevy.

In fact, I have I've I've uh I'm I'm currently working with Depreet Engineering on some projects.

I'm currently working with Mr.

Carter on some projects, they're very, very uh good professionals and they're and they're they're honest people.

But what we don't have here is the type of client owner applicant that I have when I work with these professionals, and that is an owner and an applicant that is forthright and honest with the commission and the body that it's appearing in front of.

And I don't think you have that here.

And I'm gonna go into my reasons why in detail it and it's regretful that we're in this type of a position because it no commission should be in the dark or half in the dark when you look at an application and a development project that's before you.

Um the other things that is really unfortunate about all of this is the fact that the acrimony that is uh you know apparent between a number of my clients and and you know, the attorney for the other side.

I mean, there's the there's clearly acrimony, there's a lot of adversity going on, and uh, you know, there was glee, in fact, expressed that my clients would have to come back for yet another session because they'd have to spend more money uh to fight the the project.

But one of the things uh about this is that's clear to me, and based on the evidence that was put before you in particular by um Trade Patton is that the issues regarding the zoning and the non-compliance with the with the proposed plans, there these aren't settled, they're nowhere near settled.

Um, as I said earlier at the outset of these um comments that uh the applicant has been playing hide the ball since 2018, they have utterly failed and dis uh and and I I think purposely did not identify what they're required to identify in their application before this commission.

Um the proposed conditions are not shown on the plans, and it's clear you had before you uh an inspection report from October of 2025 for a residential dwelling on the same lot on which part of this is situated, lot 108.

That it's clear, it's in a it's in a government record and an inspection report, and that's been one of the mantras that I've been ringing true in just about every appearance that I've had before this board, but it's never been settled by a court yet.

And and I'm sure this is going to be the opportunity to have that settled by a court.

Um they are not showing you the parcel and in its entirety.

If you look at the materials that have been submitted, you know, to this commission and to your administrative officer, you look at the uh first off.

I mean, I one of the things that is in the record here is this um major subdivision and and MLD application.

It's clearly signed by the applicant, Natick Solar LLC on 107 25, and it's also signed by Ronald Rossi as the owner.

And in bold, on the second page of this application are the words I slash we hereby certify that I slash we own the subject property and seek major subdivision and or major land development preliminary plan approval as drafted in the accompanying plans for the review by the city plan commission.

Now, what you've heard from my colleague, Mr.

Murray, is that oh, well, we've just got our own our our leased area.

We just have a portion of the lot.

This is what we need to focus on.

This is our land development project.

But your regs require so much more disclosure than what this applicant and the owner have been providing to you for your review.

You're looking at this application in a vacuum of all the surrounding activity and uses that are occurring on the site.

The move or the removal of the of the proposed road along the north, that's not it's not really removed, it's still going to remain there.

Mr.

Rossi has some plans for that.

Mr.

Murray said, Well, we don't control Mr.

Rossi, we only control our leased area.

But he's a Mr.

Rossi's a signatory on this application.

He he signed under those words that I just read to you in bold that he was supporting this and he was seeking this.

And as a person, a signatory to an application, and he's been in a lot of these hearings.

He's spoken before to you and to previous uh you know um makeups of of this commission uh prior to your taking your seats, and uh, you know, not once have they disclosed what the heck is going on on this property and the plans.

There are a number of uses ongoing right now.

In the September 4th 2025 letter from Depreet Engineering to uh Ms.

Ashman as the city planning director, they referenced the um the fact that uh it's it's a total area of 64 acres.

Well, where's the rest of it?

What have you seen about the 64 acres here?

What you didn't see up until tonight was the inspection report from October 2nd of 2025, where they're talking about a residential dwelling, and that's a very very important addition to this project to this area, lot 108.

It's an extremely important thing because it's the grounds for a major revision or major change to the plan as defined in your own subdivision and planning records, which I'm going to specifically cite to you in just a few minutes after I go through a couple other provisions.

But if you look at the way that this was described, they talk about the fact on this September 4th, 2025 letter to Ms.

Ashburn from DePrete Engineering from Jenna Shea, who was the project manager, who's not here.

She wasn't here at the last one.

Mr.

Prevy came up.

Why is Mr.

Prevy coming up at this stage when he's not the project manager?

Why is it is it true that Ms.

Shea was unavailable last month and this month, or are they trying to hide the ball on other plans that she may be involved in?

And I don't intend in any way, shape, or form to impugn the integrity of Mr.

Preevy in any way, not at all.

He gave a cogent recitation of facts, figures, and statements in the plans.

And he's he's a he's an honest man, but he has not been involved in the other portions of Mr.

Rossi's plans that have been going forth to DEM as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm not sure if he's been involved in the ISO New England applications as well with regard to the solar project.

Although I'm not quite sure even if that's a good point, because I don't know to the extent that engineers would have in dealing with the regulatory agencies like ISO New England.

So take that with a grain of salt, that lasts a little bit of comment.

But the but the thing is if you look at the way that they've been treating this project, they keep talking about the 64 acres.

They keep talking about the entirety of all this.

If you look on page three of the uh Ms.

Shay's uh the project manager's uh correspondence that it's September 4th, they talk about the fact that a lay a waiver was requested and granted from the minimum 15% landscaping requirement, as we believe this standard is not applicable to the solar development.

The nature of the project preserves large areas of natural vegetation and grass cover, which provide visual buffering and environmental benefits.

Although the waiver was granted, we note, and these are their words.

This is the project manager's words for this, not Mr.

Preevy, but the project manager's words for this.

We note that the proposed development includes approximately 23.4 acres of existing wooded tree area, 18.2 acres of existing grass, 0.8 acres of proposed landscaping, and an additional 19.5 acres of grass within the fenced array.

These areas collectively comprise approximately 62 acres, which is 97% of the total parcel area for end 64 acres, close parent.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't use the entirety of the 64 acres to justify that you're you can get a landscape waiver because of these existing wooded areas and existing vegetated areas and grassy areas when you don't control them.

Remember, Mr.

Murray's said many times here before uh previous uh iterations of this application and and in fact uh before when we were here on an on a prior occasion that no, we we just have our leased area, but yet everything that they're telling you about hey, we're good with the landscaping, we can get a waiver is because we have 64 acres here.

We have all the stuff that's around there that's gonna create this buffer, but it's not gonna create a buffer.

You already have seen an application with DEM for the permitting required to put in an additional residential structure.

That's huge right there.

That has a triggering implication in your subdivision and planning regulations that you are charged with the with the weighing out and the permitting there under.

So keep those things in mind as a Mr.

Rossi sign this application.

Mr.

Rossi can be here to commit, he can give other information, and he as an applicant is failing to disclose.

You know, there's something I've thought of, you know, in 30 something years doing this kind of a practice.

You know, there's there's a uh I had in my first zoning case, there was a statute that I think should be applicable to proceedings before administrative bodies.

And there's a state statute in Rhode Island General Law that allows a building permit to be revoked upon the discovery of a purposeful or even an inadvertent misrepresentation.

That's what we should have applicable to proceedings before planning commissions and zoning boards as well.

And right here, you're you and these miss uh misstatements and whatnot can also be by virtue of a failure to disclose, and that's what we have here's a blatant humongous failure to disclose what the true intent is for the development of this property.

So what I'd like to go through right now, just for your own iteration, are your city of Cranston subdivision and land development regulations that are particularly pertinent to my argument tonight.

The definition of a land development project, that's what we're here about, right?

This major land development project, and it's contained on page seven of 123 in section two definitions.

Land development project is a project in which one or more lots, tracts or parcels of land or a portion thereof are developed or redeveloped as a coordinated site for one or more uses, units or structures, including but not limited to plan development or cluster development for residential, commercial, institutional, recreational, open space, or mixed uses, pretty broad, right?

But it it contemplates that it can be one or more tracts of land, one or more lots, and that's exactly what we have here.

You know, we we have one or more lots here, but they don't want you, the the applicant here doesn't want you to look at everything that's going to be going on on all those lots, and they have good reason because that's gonna really take all of their grandiose uh representations that they can adequately buffer this project, that it's gonna, you know, be uh adequate for screening of the other residential properties.

Well, we know of one right now that's not that clearly isn't gonna be accounted for in any of the transects.

We it clearly hasn't been shown on any of the plans, and that's the one that's contemplated by the uh inspection report from DEM from October 2nd of 2025.

It's in the record before you haven't talked about that.

And Mr.

Rossi is a signatory on the application that brought this matter to you as the owner of the land.

That's a big no-no.

That's that's that's a misrepresentation by omission.

He's not showing you what's going on, he doesn't show you anything about his excavation business, doesn't show you anything about his tree farm except to use it as a justification that they could get a land a waiver from the landscaping requirements or your subdivision regulations because it's going to remain there.

Well, it's it's not.

I don't think you can trust that it's going to remain there, and you don't even know what's going on there right now, other than the representations that I much like I read to you out of the September letter from Depreet that uh to Ms.

Ashman over there uh from the project engineer.

So we we look at that clearly this array of lots falls within the definition of a land development project.

So you look next and you look at another one of your definitions contained in section two, page nine of 123, and that's the reference to parcel.

And a parcel is defined as a lot or contiguous group of lots in single ownership or under single control and usually considered a unit for purposes of development, also referred to as a tract.

Well, they're using the entirety of the tract to justify to you that they can get that landscape waiver, they don't have to do these other things, they're using the 64 acres in its entirety when it suits them, but they're hiding what's going on on the remaining acreage that they're saying that they don't have control over.

And you've already seen that there are plans, there are already uses going on.

There are a number of different things happening on that that they aren't controlling and that can't be made conditions under this application is drafted and presented before you.

Now, I think you it's commonly known here, and it's in your regulations that in order to proceed forward with any kind of an application for a land development project, you have to have a site plan.

All right, so what's a site plan defined as on page 11 of 123 in section two of your uh subdivision planning regulations?

And a site plan is defined as the development plan for one or more lots on which it is shown the existing and or the proposed conditions of the lot.

Have they shown that to you?

No, they'd have.

I don't see Mr.

Rossi's planned house on there anywhere.

I don't see his excavation business.

I don't see the Christmas tree farm.

I don't see anything that's going on in that's existing right now on the property, and what's planned for is evidenced by the departmental regulations or the uh memoranda that we're put into the record tonight.

None of that's shown.

So their site plan is deficient.

I'd I'd be I'd be insulted as a planning commission to sit there knowing full well that a person who signed an application is in and is in support of this project as applied for right now, isn't disclosing this to you when they know that they're doing something, you know that it it stinks.

It's a it's a it's a fraudulent by omission, fraud by omission.

Now one of the things that is also contained in your in your since section three, page 24123 on application revisions, says notwithstanding other provisions of the section, the administrative officer or development plan, the development plan review committee, technical review committee, or the city plan commission may require correction of any information found to be an error and submission of additional information required or specified in the regulations, but not required by the administrative officer prior to certification as is necessary to make an informed decision.

Now, Ms.

Ashman, I really don't fault you because you don't you didn't know about all this other stuff that was going on at the time that you said you certified this application complete.

But I think this commission would be well, well within its authority to say, wait a second, we've already heard about your different connection for Pontiac Avenue versus Natick.

We've already heard about these other plans that are going on on the property with regard to it an additional residential dwelling, for example.

You aren't being forthright with us, and we're gonna put the brakes on you, and you need to either agree to extend your time or vote this thing down because of their fraud by omission.

It's clear there's a lot going on that they haven't told you one thing about, and that's why.

That's absolutely wrong, because your subdivision regulations have definitions that talk about the the conglomeration of multiple lots and all and this the requirements of a site plan showing the proposed and existing conditions that they haven't shown you, and and those those records that were put in there tonight give you that evidence upon which you can say, yeah, you know, something I don't I don't I don't feel like we're getting the whole story here.

And a matter of fact, you should know that by now that you're not when you go for the preliminary plan, which is where we're at here tonight, that you know that starts out on page 49 of 123 of your subdivision regulations, but again, it says on page 50 of 123 and F and E.

You have to show the existing and proposed streets, location, name, rights of way, widths for streets on an entire development parcel, entire development parcel, and on a budding property, right?

Have they done that?

I don't think so.

It's clear.

G, utilities, the location and size of existing and proposed water, sewer, electrical, and cable lines on the development parcel and on adjacent property.

Have you seen that?

It's not on any plans that I've seen.

Clearly isn't.

They're playing hide the ball.

Why are there two applications for an interconnection?

Why did they abandon the one the one on Natick?

And now it's it's on Pontiac Avenue.

I'm sorry, Phoenix, excuse me.

When I said Pontiac, would may the record please reflect that I was inadvertently saying Pontiac when it should have been Phoenix Avenue, forgive me.

Thank you.

So you haven't seen that.

So how come they haven't given that to you?

Because in my view, I think they're there's a different project being proposed.

You can't have we we had years of talk about the need for polls on Natick Avenue.

You know, now we're talking about something up on Phoenix.

Where are those gonna go?

What's the connection going to be like?

And how do you immediately, or how do you abruptly depart from one source of entry to another?

I mean, it just did there's two different projects going on here.

If you look at section six of your major subdivisions and major land development projects, and in uh page 52 of 123, item number seven, they have to show the evidence that all public utility companies, the 911 system and the U.S.

Postal Service have been notified of a proposed subdivision and have been provided copies of said subdivision for the review.

More importantly, though, and again, you know, subdivision is used in multiple ways throughout your regulations, but it says where utility company approval of access location or design of an extension is required.

Evidence of said approval must also be submitted to the administrative officer.

Well, they're playing hide the ball because they haven't shown you any evidence of any approvals whatsoever or any any applications for approvals of their plans.

And ISO New England's got something else going on in this property.

All right.

Why is it Phoenix?

Why is it not Natick?

Because they're doing something different.

They don't have the Phoenix Avenue property or project going on anymore with that entity.

So again, you look at this, you look at subsection or section six again for uh page 60 of 123.

It talks about minor changes, right?

And this is what my brother, Mr.

Murray has been referring to as referenced by Drake Patt uh the time.

He's been insisting that this is a minor change, minor change.

These are just minor changes.

Minor, if you don't want them, don't that's fine, we'll just stick with the original.

Well, they're not minor changes.

Minor changes are defined as defined in sub section uh 9B3 of these regulations.

Any minor changes to the plans approved at any stage may be approved only by the DPRC or the commission, and shall follow the same review and hearing process required for approval of preliminary plans, which shall include a public hearing if originally required as part of the application.

Well, they haven't disclosed any of this, they haven't made an application or request for that I've seen formally for any minor changes.

But you know why?

Because they're not minor changes.

If you go back to section nine, major changes where you look on page 87 of 123, major changes to a subdivision or land development project may be approved only by the commission.

That's you.

And for purposes of these regulations, the term major changes.

Remember, I said think about that extra residential dwelling on there.

Here's where we bring it home.

Major changes shall mean changes, which, in the opinion of the administrative officer, are clearly contrary to the intent of the original approval.

Such major changes shall include, but are not necessarily limited to the following.

All right.

Now we have a there's a change from you.

We're here on preliminary.

There's a major change to that master plan approval that was thrust down on you with no conditions by a superior court judge who just didn't take into account all these people whose lives are gonna be so dramatically and drastically negatively affected by the by this project, which I've termed on many times on the record that has a special place in hell.

Changes that are considered by your own subdivision regulations to be major changes, or changes which would have the effect of creating additional lots or dwelling units for development.

October 2nd, 2025 inspection report DM.

There is a planned additional dwelling unit slated for lot 108.

That's a major change as defined by your own specific regulations.

You got a definition on point, you have the whole process, the procedure for approval on any such major change shall follow the same review and public hearing process is required for preliminary approval to a major subdivision and major land development project is provided in section 6A5 of these regulations.

They're hiding the ball.

There's a major change, not only with the addition of a dwelling, there's a major change of the utility infrastructure that's required for this project.

It's going up Phoenix Ave now.

They've abandoned the Natick one, according to the testimony of Drake, who did extensive work with the regulatory agencies that are involved.

And I don't think you or DEM or ISO New England have the same picture on anything here that's going on.

I think there's a hide the ball mentality.

We're going to be cute, we're going to play with our regs.

So one of the things that you have to look at, all the electric communication, telephone, fire alarm, cable TV, street lighting lines shall be installed underground.

Okay, fine.

In cases where it's not feasible due to the physical conditions of the site or other limitation, an alternative location for these utility lines shall be approved by the commission if prior approval thereof has been obtained by the utility company involved.

I don't think they have any approval of anything at this point.

What are they doing here?

They haven't come to you, they haven't shown you any approval of that.

And it's a again, it's a it's a moving target.

Let's talk about waivers and the modification of regulations, section 13, page 115 of 123.

You, the commission, you're you have the power.

You got the empower granity in the enabling legislation of the state of Rhode Island.

You also have it contained here in your subdivision planning regulations.

The commission shall have the authority to waive or modify one or more of the requirements for subdivision or land development project approval contained in these regulations.

If the commission finds that the waiver modification is reasonable and within the general purposes and intents of these regulations, and the literal enforcement of one or more provisions is impracticable and will exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question, or waiver modification of the regulation is in the best interest of good planning practice or design as evidenced by consistency with the comp plan and the zoning ordinance.

They can't satisfy that.

They cannot satisfy that because of the fact that they're playing hide the ball.

They are not showing you what is really planned for this project.

Mr.

Rossi signed these applications.

He came here, spoke in favor of this, he wanted this, but he's committing fraud by omission, by omission on the application.

He's expecting you to rely on the plans that are submitted here before you.

One comes from a barn, another one goes to a bush.

It doesn't go to the bedroom windows, it doesn't go to their front yards.

I mean, these transects, they don't give you the true picture of what's going on.

And white pines, you know, Mr.

Carter, you know, white pines grow huge.

The I what do you say?

40, 60 feet, they can go.

No, no, I'm not talking about the giant thus.

But one thing about white pines, I think it's common knowledge.

There's self-pruning, there's self-pruning.

The bottom of them die out.

There's no buffer on the bottom of a mature white pine.

So you can wait for these things to grow and grow tall, but the bottom is going to be clear.

Take a ride, take a ride around the neighborhoods.

Look at the white pines.

Look at it all.

I have I have litigation right now because someone tried to substitute white pines for Arborvitae on a residential subdivision, and it that was meant to be a buffer.

It's a completely inadequate buffer.

The other thing, you know, I mean, you heard a lot of testimony from these people.

I mean, think about it.

Some of the some of the buffering, the native buffering or whatever you have, it's going to be 50 feet, 50 feet.

Well, that's this room, right?

That's not a long way.

That's not a big buffer.

And I urge you again, with with my clients, I urge you to go look at that.

There that property is a mature hardwood forest.

There's no significant understory that's cast throughout the whole thing.

There are fields that may or may not be there.

There are trees that may or may not be there that they're using as buffer on the 64 acres.

But oh, but we can't control what's going on on that.

Let us use that as our buffer.

Let us use that as existing and proposed conditions, but don't look at the fact that that might be gone in six months.

Don't look at the fact that there may be more residential housing proposed and developed on this property.

They don't want you to see that.

They don't want you to hear that.

They don't care.

But now that you know that there is at least one four-bedroom residence, and I'm I'm Mr.

Rossi's been heard on the street talking about many more that he has plans for.

It doesn't.

They have an insufficient application now that you know this.

Now that you know that there's other uses planned and in process and permitting right now.

Now that you know that, you can't accept their application as it is.

You can't accept their site plan because it it's fraud by omission.

They're not showing you everything, they're hiding the ball.

I'd be upset if I was the planner after being spoon-fed this gibberish from the other side about, oh no, this is good.

We're we're we're fine.

We have 64 acres, we have mature forests, we have the grassy fields, the you know, the Christmas tree farm, all that could be gone in a heartbeat.

And there's plans in play right now to take it away piece by piece at the very least.

There's no significant thick understory that will help the people to be shielded from this.

Please, please take a site visit, go look at this stuff, and also request that this applicant, if you're not going to just deny this and vote it down tonight, which I I really think you should.

I I really think you should.

I'd be I'd be upset to to be confronted with this kind of information now at this stage of the proceedings.

But you should reject this.

Their site plan doesn't show it.

Hide the ball, don't give them everything, just give them a piece of what we want them to see.

Is that good planning?

You you're you're the commissioners.

You're supposed to sit here and evaluate the entirety of the lot of the parcel of the combination of lots and what's going on and existing on those lots and what's planned to be going on in those lots in the future.

And right now, I know of at least one house that's not gonna have any buffer, right?

Nothing hasn't even been taken into account, and there's plans for it by a person who signed this application.

Buffer is completely inadequate.

The original road to the north is still gonna remain.

So it's it's gonna be that there's gonna be the width of that road and whatever else, not buffered at all.

They haven't taken that into account.

And they can't shield it.

They they picked, they they picked this site.

If you go out there and you see the topography and you look at the the slope, I mean, you can see it on plans when they have contours on it and whatnot.

But you know, you really you don't appreciate that until you go out and you you walk this site.

And there was a site visit early on, really early on in the original master plan things, and god, you know, it's funny.

I but back then my hair wasn't platinum blonde like it is now, and I had a lot more hair at the time too.

But uh, yeah, I've aged considerably.

But I can still remember the day we went there for the um, I I still remember the day we went there for the site visit, and as an attorney for my clients, I was able to sit on the bus that went around.

And and I I implored Mr.

Murray to let the bus drive onto my clients' property so that the commissioners could see what it was going to look like from these little neighborhoods and the and those real transects in real time.

Oh no, no, we I no, I'm concerned about liability, I don't want to do it.

Well, he wasn't concerned about liability.

He was concerned that it was going to show how drastic and horrible this plan is for this piece of property.

They chose this site to do it.

They should be held to the landscaping standards.

They should be held to your project.

And I think you can go back.

I think you can go back now because they they've been playing hide the ball.

There's evidence, there's unequivocal evidence before you that's not impeached and can't be impeached of other uses that are going on and that you plan for this property.

Maybe not Revit, but Mr.

Rossi certainly, who's a signatory and a necessary signatory to the application, who's made the representation that he supports us that he wants this project.

Well, you got to disclose if you want it.

You have to show what's going on.

And Revity themselves were obligated by the subdivision regulations and the definitions contained therein to show what was going on on the abutting property in terms of the utilities and all that, and and certainly at the very least, on the entirety of the two lots that are comprising this land development project.

And they haven't done that.

So now for the first time, for the first time, instead of just people talking about how miserable it's going to be to have this glaring solar field, you know, stuck in their face of their largest investments, their homes that they've lived in for years.

I mean, I there have been so many tears shed on from people behind me on this.

I I was so vested in this pro in fighting for these people.

I I wrote off a $10,000 off of my bill one time because these people deserve some advocacy and some enforcement of the subdivision rates, and they're not getting it.

They weren't getting it up until now.

And and I'm urging you, just use your regulations, use your requirements, go forward and and demand that they get rid of this fraud by omission and come clean.

Where's the interconnect?

You don't have the approval of the utility company?

Were they even notified that this is part of it?

They're hiding the ball.

The project has changed.

It's a major change, it's not a minor one, like my my brother Mr.

Murray would have you say.

Where is the interconnection going to be?

Where is it?

I haven't heard about the big huge polls on Natick Avenue for a long time now.

Because they're probably not going to be going in there, they're going to be going in on Phoenix, according to what the you know, what the state is finding out about in ISO New England.

So now, you know, and also this road, you know, what's what are the plans for the road?

You know, that that's a not a not a road, but it's uh you know, referred to as a road or a path or what have you on the plans.

What is that?

What are you gonna do with that?

Where's it going?

Is that gonna lead to the new residential subdivision that they're gonna have on there?

Isn't are we gonna be faced with a comp permit next?

You know, look at what look at what's going on.

There's a lot of stuff you can do, and once you get a project approved, invested.

So you have now before you for the first time some context, some context for what they're actually seeking approval of and what it's gonna be in the midst of.

And the context still at this proceeding, when we're supposed to be beyond a conceptual game plan that master plan gives you, just a broad concept.

Now they're digging down deep and drilling down into the details of the project, but they're not showing them to you outside of this little microcosm of their leased area.

That's wrong.

That's not good planning.

It's not a good way to analyze a uh land development project, especially a major land development project that is industrial, commercial, what have you, right in the midst of a beautiful bucolic piece of Western Cranston.

It's gonna destroy this.

So the whole thing about land banking and all that cockamami stuff that you know the former uh ordinance referenced, and some of your the former planners referred to.

That's that's hogwalk.

It's hogwashed.

This isn't land banking.

And originally, I think this project was supposed to have a life of 25 years, now it's up to 30.

You know, whatever.

That's another thing that changed.

Um the other thing, too, is you know, when they talk about decommissioning, I mean, oh my gosh, what are you gonna do?

You got corporations, you got limited liability entities on here, and they're like, oh, well, it's a building permit issue.

How much the decommissioning uh bond should be and whatnot.

Well, it's not just you know, carting this stuff off and removing it, but it's it's gonna be the disposal of hazardous materials, uh, taking this stuff out, those solar panels have ungodly uh metals in them and whatnot.

This is not an easy cheap little thing, and I'm very fearful for my clients and the city that they'll be left with the holding the bag on this thing at the end of the day when you tank a corporation or an LLC, and uh you know, they hide the ball with the money, and you know, you don't have a sufficient amount of bonding to to take this out.

So I'm urging you right now.

I say you got enough to deny this project and vote it down clearly.

They're not giving you the whole plan, they haven't complied with what it with the specificity of what is required to be submitted with the application.

I I don't think it's complete at this point because now you've had stuff shown material misrepresentation by omission of different things that are going on here.

But at the very least, if you choose not to vote it down tonight, request that clarification, demand the additional information and the disclosure that they should have come here with from the get go, and demand to see what actual changes there are on file with their regulatory agencies that are required to you know put power into the grid.

They're they're not doing that, they're not showing it.

There's murky contradictions in the materials that have been submitted to DEM, ISO New England, this commission, the PUC.

There's contradictions everywhere, and that's not the way you put forth the project.

You know, I uh I respect the professionals that have been involved, like working with them, but the difference is when they've worked for me, we've given the whole story to the to the administrative body that we're seeking approval from.

They have been in, they've been instructed to stick to just this leased area and nothing else, and that's wrong.

And that doesn't give you what you need to make your findings and determination.

So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

If not, thank you very much for your time.

Please vote this down.

Is there any further public comment?

Okay.

Um I forgot your name now, Mr.

IT guy.

Um, is there any public comment online?

There is no online public comment.

They're all here.

Okay.

All right.

Um let's see.

1010.

Uh okay, so that's public comment.

So, Mr.

Murray.

Do you wish to at this point to respond to any of this public comment, or we can wait till January?

Oh, like so outrageous that it can't wait until January or your next meeting.

And I asked you to indulge me for a couple of minutes.

Mr.

Palumbo has an extensive rebuttal to a number of comments, but right now I am like astonished in Mr.

Dougherty's display tonight of misinformation, misrepresentation, and you know, these professionals are only honorable when they work for him.

But somehow, you know, I'm you know, I've been doing this for 40 years, okay.

And I'm not gonna stand here tonight and have him accuse me of lying and making representations and my client making misrepresentations.

Shame on him.

Okay.

How many times are we gonna say hide the ball?

Okay.

I can't, I don't have a catchy phrase.

All I can tell you is grasping at straws is what we heard tonight.

Okay.

The other adage I think about is a little information is dangerous.

Okay.

And what I heard tonight was an extrapolation of information that people did have no idea what they were talking about.

And they owe this commission and the public an apology for the misrepresentations that were made tonight.

I'm not going to get into all of it right now, but Ron Rossi, okay, is the most honorable and decent man that I know, and I'm proud to represent him and his wife and his family.

This talk about this housing unit, okay.

There is nothing to talk about yet.

There will be at some point, because he would like to build a house for his daughter and his grandchildren and his son-in-law, who is in California, a disabled Navy SEAL.

They would like to come back to Rhode Island.

He would like to build a house for them.

And it's going to be 35 acres away from this solar farm.

Okay.

So to somehow come in here and paint this thing like major change.

Stop the stop the wheel.

What are we doing?

Okay.

I I'll stand corrected.

I think I shared the concept with the staff.

There was nothing for them to review.

There's nothing for you to review.

And when there is, it'll be submitted and it'll be handled accordingly.

But to suggest that Mr.

Rossi has signed an application, fraud by omission.

Stop it.

This could Pat Dowherty's better than that.

And I'm really disappointed in his performance tonight.

ISO New England, okay.

There are there are certain things in this project that haven't changed in eight years.

This parcel 108 and 119 is about 64 acres.

This solar array is going to take up 21 to 23 acres.

I'm not going to get hung up on the number right now.

Okay.

That has not changed, okay, since we started this project.

Okay.

The other thing that hasn't changed is the interconnection for this project will go out Natick Avenue.

Okay.

This ISO New England stuff between Narragans Electric or Island Energy or PPL, whatever their whatever their entity is today, that's separate and apart from what we're doing.

We have never told ISO New England or Rhode Island Energy that we're changing the interconnection on this.

Okay.

It has been and will be out Natick Avenue.

So let's stop the nonsense in this misdirection.

Oh my God, there's another misrepresentation.

The project, the interconnection is on Natick Avenue.

Fraud by omission.

Shame on him.

There is from the beginning at development plan review, the first night I was here on November 4th, in our written communications, I have said that we are proposing some changes from the master plan as it as it stands approved.

Okay, principally the road down the middle, the additional buffering, okay.

Okay.

Those are minor changes, okay.

And you know, he has misconstrued the definition of chain a major change in our subdivision regulations, okay.

You people are smart enough to know whether or not those two particular changes are a major change.

I use the term minor not to distinguish minor change versus major change.

I consider them negligible in change, but we always presented them as a benefit to the community, bringing that road away from uh the property, the abutting properties.

The waivers that were sought here were common sense waivers.

It was appropriate for the development plan review committee to grant them.

And the landscaping standards that you know in our in our development plan review ordinance are designed for landscaping standards for parking lots, not for solar arrays.

There is, if you really want to talk about the amount of landscaping as we have today, we're well in excess of the 15%.

But we we applied for it and we asked for it just so there'd be no confusion.

Um, that this was not what was typically assumed to be uh a project that required uh 15% landscaping.

But to suggest here tonight, on the record that Mr.

Rossi and Natick Solar LLC or Rebity Energy hasn't been forthright or honest with this commission, shame on them.

Okay.

We have whatever information we have submitted to DEM for Mr.

Rossi's proposed house is public record.

Okay.

It's the it's the step that we needed to do to see if in fact we could build a house for his daughter and son-in-law.

It has nothing to do with this solar farm.

It's at the far end of the property.

If you're looking at the screen there, you can see that road at the top where the where the green meets at the top.

Okay, there's a road to dead end to Ridgewood Road.

He's proposing to build a house for his daughter there.

Okay, and that's what we sought approval from DEM.

And if we have to come to this commission for that, you know, we'll, you know, we'll, you know, we will uh we don't, I haven't decided yet whether or not it's it can be approved at the staff level.

Um, we may need to come to the commission for it as a minor subdivision, but um, we will deal with that in due course.

That is not before the commission tonight.

To even throw that into the record is so wrong.

I'm really I'm really bothered by it.

Uh but when you have nothing else to talk about, when you have a master plan that is the case of this law that the courts have said we comply with zoning, we comply with the comprehensive plan, and we can meet the five findings under 452360 of the general laws.

This project and this preliminary plan is in order to be approved.

But we'll we'll save that for summation.

But at this point, um, Mr.

Chairman, I Mr.

Mr.

Palumbo is probably going to take more than 10 minutes.

Uh he's asking for five minutes.

If we can if you're if you'll if you'll bear with him for five minutes, you'd just like to say a few words.

Um, and then we'll be guided by you is where we go from here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um if there was you know one thing that Mr.

Darthie said that I might agree with, it would be that there's a lot of uh, you know, throw it against the wall and see what sticks going on here.

But you know, obviously it's coming from his now, in my opinion.

You know, the the hide the ball theatrics, you know, I it's really important to you know see through the intent of what he's trying to do here, and that's distract this commission.

He wants to distract you from the fact that Revit is here making a good faith effort with a revised site plan, despite what the master plan said, with accommodations based on feedback that we've received from the abutters, the neighboring community, and even members of this commission here.

We're not increasing the buffers here for our benefit.

We're not reducing the project footprint for our benefit.

We're not reducing the amount of panels on site for our benefit.

We're not going from a traditional solar seed mix to a pollinator seed mix from a $2 seed mix to a $45 seed mix for our own benefit.

We're truly here trying to make a good faith effort, and we thought that with this site plan and these modifications that it would help show that you know uh that effort that we're making on our end.

Um it's very common, as the commission knows, to have changes from faster plan to preliminary plan.

Master plan is the approval of a concept, right?

It's support it's put in place so that developers could come in with you know a decent amount of due diligence to get a concept approved before fully engineering through DEM and engineering consultants and feedback from the board to produce that revised plan.

Now, granted, this master plan is probably the most vetted master plan in the history of Princeton master plans, but nonetheless, it is not unordinary for there to be changes.

And again, we will say we're more than happy to move forward with the master plan layout.

If the commission feels for whatever reason they deem that that would be more appropriate, but we truly sought this as uh an improved plan for everybody involved.

Um, again, reiterating the Iceland New England stuff, you know, I don't blame the confusion, you know, spoken from people that may not be familiar with the ICE in New England and the Rhode Island Energy Project, but when we start this project in 2019, our application with utility, you know, we fill out an application and we put a project in lot address.

They require us to.

The only lot address for this parcel at the time is 1936 Phoenix out.

So that nomenclature stays on the application throughout the entire process.

Um it doesn't change, it doesn't dictate where the interconnection is going.

Like Mr.

Maurice said, that has been consistent for the past eight years.

We have an approved interconnection service agreement with Rhode Island Energy that shows that the polls are coming out in native gap.

Um the communication and submission of applications from two ISO New England at this point are purely from Rhode Island Energy.

We have no control over that.

Um, why there was and if there was a withdrawal and then a resubmission uh is news to me.

Um that's all done behind closed doors with Rhode Island Energy, but all we can tell you is that our interconnection service agreement is active and is definitely still coming out of data gap.

Um Mr.

Doherty mentioned, you know, several times about you know this road to the north year and what is going on.

Um, I I think that we talked about on our last meeting and we really dove into it at the DPR meeting.

I know Mr.

Doherty wasn't here for that day.

I'm not sure if he reviewed the record for that uh from that time, but what was a 20-foot road on that north side is now a 10 foot road path that the landowner wanted to keep in place, but we were able to convince him to reduce it from 20 feet to 10 feet by relocating this access road, and we're utilizing that 10 feet of additional space for supplemental plantings, as Mr.

Carter testified uh earlier tonight.

So if there are, you know, if there are more questions to be answered, if there's more information that the commission is requesting, you know, we're here.

Like I said, we're going to develop this project, we're going to build this project, and we're going to own this project.

So it's not when something goes wrong two years from now, or if the planner has a question on how something made out, it's my cell phone that you would give a phone call to.

It's not a hotline in Colorado.

We're not a big national company that operates throughout the US.

This is our backyard here.

You know, my family has solar in their backyard.

I'm proposing to have it in my backyard.

You know, it's something we live by, and you know, we're here to be as forthcoming and answer as many questions as the commission may have.

So thank you.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Palumbo.

So right now is 1024.

Um, approximately.

So first I'd want to say to my colleagues, do you have any questions right now based on what you heard that you feel you need to ask the applicants about?

Because, you know, uh if not, you know, there's a couple of things we could do next.

One, we could hear from the staff.

Second, we could just um go till just move this to January, would be the next meeting.

We do have the option of meeting next week, but I don't think there's a a need to meet next week on this.

Um, in part, and I'll tell you just my personal feeling.

Um, I need to read all this that's come in tonight and kind of understand all this.

Um, some people could be ready to vote tonight, possibly if the majority of you want to vote on it tonight, you can.

Um, personally, I don't feel comfortable voting on it tonight because I gotta read this, I gotta think about this whole thing and sort it through.

That's me personally.

And then we could have some questions in January.

Um, and then at that point, I believe we would probably be possibly I assume a majority of us would be ready to vote at that point.

But I'd like to hear from my colleagues of what they want to do if they want to hear our staff recommendation now, they have questions for the applicant.

Uh, or if they want to proceed to a vote, it's their decision as well.

It's a majority of you guys.

So, but my preference is to move let this go till January.

Go ahead, uh Vice Chairman Cooper.

President, my thought would be to close the public hearing and then come back in January, ask our questions, hear from the staff, ask our questions of the staff of our council, and I think I'd be ready to vote at that point.

Okay.

My perspective.

Um last time, and um, you know, Mr.

Solicitor wants to correct me, he can.

I think last time I don't remember when we closed public comment.

I think we waited to the very end before we're correct.

That's if we're gonna continue that, I would keep the public hearing open.

Okay.

So I would the reason so that you understand this was a little an issue that was brought up in litigation out of an abundance of caution.

I think we just let this go right to the end.

If there's any public comment, people say this, they want to say something back, you know, like last time, and then we would have a discussion and vote.

Um is there anything else, my colleagues?

Is anybody excited about meeting next week?

I don't think anybody's excited about me next week, right?

No, yeah.

Oh, because the next because I had by the way, everyone here in the room.

I I had a backup plan of having a meeting next week, but if we really wanted to get more of this, um otherwise we would continue.

When's the next date?

January 6th.

January 6th.

Okay.

Ummissioner Langfier is it?

If you felt we needed to meet before January 6th, never knowing what obstacles may be in our way.

I think I think the date of completion, 90 days ends sometime in mid-January.

So if I think if we had to squeeze in another meeting, we probably could.

I believe it's the 15th.

Yeah, approximately.

Is that correct?

Director.

Jonas, uh, before we ask the applicant, um, what was the certificate of the date of certificate of completeness?

No.

Uh I don't have it in front of me right now.

I can double check it though.

If you want me to, it's gonna take a second.

Okay, second.

Okay.

No, we're we're the staff is checking on the date of completeness.

Okay, until January.

Okay.

About mid-January.

Yep.

Yeah.

Um, unless you guys really want to meet next week.

Um, and then one week I will not, I'm not sure I'll be able to get through all this paperwork.

So I'd ask the staff to put this all on the website.

All the things submitted so I can kind of read all this and just parse through it and figure it out.

Um, is there anything else anyone?

No one has any questions at this stage.

Okay.

Does somebody do you want to say something?

Because you're making a face at me.

I I would just like to know if your intention would be to have next week to ask more questions, or you I was well, we would vote next week.

The my my intention was originally was maybe we would have a meeting next week if we were ready to have some more questions and have a vote.

Um because me personally, just speaking for me, the amount of information I got tonight, and the I have to read and parse through.

I'm not sure I'd be ready to vote in one week based on my own work schedule and other things.

So I just want to go through that, and then by January over the holidays, I'll get this all parsed out myself personally.

You know, I can't speak for anyone else, and I'd probably be ready, I think vote January 6th.

That would be that's my intention.

I just was so understanding I didn't expect everything I got tonight, so I have to think about the whole thing.

That's why.

So if everyone's okay, then I sounds like we just motion to continue this to January 6th, unless you have a nope.

That that's yep, Jane.

That's appropriate.

Yep, that's appropriate.

Okay.

Anything?

Commissioner Lampier?

I would just make a vote.

Okay.

So move by Commissioner Lamphier, seconded by Vice Chairman Coop.

Any discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

All those opposed to say nay.

Are you an A?

Okay, Commissioner Ronzuli is a nay.

Okay.

Motion passes.

See you January.

Merry Christmas.

All right.