The most contentious subject was the proposed solar project by Nanoi Clemway Solar LLC on a 58-acre parcel on Main Street. This project, involving the construction of a ground-mounted solar array across open fields and forested land, raised substantial debate about its potential impact on bordering vegetative wetlands and flood-prone areas. Residents voiced apprehensions about the project’s effect on local wildlife, including box turtles and river otters, and questioned the rationale behind modifying buffer zone regulations to accommodate the solar installation. During the public comment section, Deborah Perry, a nearby property owner, expressed her concerns about flooding and compliance, demanding assurance of safety protocols and environmental protections. The commission members responded. They assured that no waivers from stormwater controls would be requested, and the project would adhere to guidelines.

In response to concerns about wetland delineations and buffer zone integrity, it was clarified that the delineations had undergone peer review, resulting in tighter restrictions compared to previous assessments. The commission emphasized their commitment to existing regulations, stressing that no changes to buffer areas were sought and that the project was subject to enhanced scrutiny. Despite these reassurances, residents, including Perry, remained skeptical, citing past unauthorized activities and demanding accountability for any environmental disruptions.

Additionally, the meeting highlighted concerns about recent land-clearing activities conducted by a group known as the “mosquito squad,” which involved significant tree removal along the river. Participants expressed frustration over the handling of debris and the accuracy of previous statements regarding responsibility for the clearing. To address these issues, the commission completed coordination with state and federal agencies, including the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the Massachusetts Historical Society, to ensure compliance with environmental and historical standards. However, attendees questioned the process, particularly when negative determinations from historical and species assessments appeared inconsistent with observed wildlife presence.

The commission faced further scrutiny over its authority to regulate activities within buffer zones, with some individuals questioning the necessity of such intrusions for the project’s size. The board clarified that while they could not deny access to buffer zones as long as state regulations were followed, their role was to ensure rigorous compliance. This explanation did little to alleviate the skepticism of residents who cited past infractions and expressed doubts about the developers’ intentions.

A separate agenda item concerning a solar project on Clemway prompted additional calls for transparency and oversight. Participants stressed the importance of site visits and direct involvement of engineers to guarantee adherence to regulations. Concerns were raised about the project’s proximity to property lines, with a resident, Kathleen Bar, emphasizing the need for visual stakes to determine potential encroachment on her property. The commission agreed to schedule a site visit and ensure stakes were in place beforehand, while also addressing the post-construction financial responsibilities of the project’s developers.

The meeting also addressed administrative matters, including the need for a peer review for a contentious project on Road. Despite these hurdles, a motion to initiate the peer review was unanimously supported.