The most pressing topic involved a proposed solar array project on Middle Road, owned by White’s Dairy and represented by Rew Renewables. The project aims to install a solar array in a cleared area of the property, minimizing tree clearing and grading while focusing on stormwater management. A gravel access road for fire safety vehicles was also included in the proposal. However, the Planning Board raised concerns about the project’s proximity to residential properties in New Bedford, emphasizing the need for effective visual screening to mitigate the impact on neighboring residences.

Rew Renewables proposed a six-foot landscaped berm with a ten-foot stockade fence to address these concerns. However, some board members were skeptical about the adequacy of the proposed fencing, citing previous experiences with unsightly fencing styles. One member stressed the importance of ensuring the solar panels would not be visible from neighboring properties and suggested extending the stockade fence further along the project perimeter. The board agreed that residents’ concerns about visibility must be addressed effectively, and it was noted that feedback had already been received during the ANRAD process. Additionally, the board discussed the necessity of incorporating a glare analysis in the project’s submission to address visibility issues further.

The board also discussed the need for peer reviews concerning stormwater management and overall project design. The representatives confirmed they would coordinate these reviews with the Conservation Commission to streamline the process. They also mentioned the possibility of submitting a draft application for preliminary pricing to their peer review consultant to expedite the process.

In a related discussion, the Planning Board addressed the status of various solar projects, particularly special permits nearing expiration. A representative for several solar projects located at 1050, 1052, and Robinson Road acknowledged the need for extensions on these permits, emphasizing substantial progress, particularly on the Robinson Road site, which was reported to be 80 to 90% complete. Specific details about each site were discussed, with the representative clarifying the substantial progress made and arguing that it would be inappropriate to rescind the permits.

For the Robinson Road site, the board confirmed it was nearly finished, and the company had been responsive to inquiries. The 1050 Main Street project had initiated work, including road construction, but faced ongoing conservation issues. The third site on Woodbridge presented more complex challenges due to disputes with neighbors regarding property access, leading to legal proceedings. A lengthy settlement agreement had been reached, detailing the rights and expectations of the involved parties. The representative argued that the company had made efforts to resolve these disputes and requested the board recognize these efforts in their decision-making.

The Planning Board members expressed agreement with the assessment of progress on the sites, acknowledging the ongoing issues with the Main Street project, particularly concerning drainage and ponding problems that had previously caused flooding incidents. The board discussed the importance of adequately addressing these drainage concerns before granting final approvals. They recognized the need for reasonable expectations from neighbors, given the complexities involved.

In another discussion, the board addressed ongoing property development complications in Acushnet. A resident named Derek Adams, who owns property off Lambert and East Lane, shared his frustrations over the past year and a half in trying to obtain information and resolve issues related to his property. Adams expressed his desire to build a family home but faced numerous obstacles and conflicting advice from town officials. He described going in circles with various departments, including the Conservation Commission, and receiving mixed messages about surveying his land and the status of paper streets running through his property.

One board member advised Adams to seek an engineering firm to create preliminary plans for his property. Adams reiterated his dissatisfaction with the process, stating he felt he was wasting time with conflicting guidance from different town departments. The dialogue highlighted the complexities involved in navigating property development in the town, particularly when dealing with multiple regulatory bodies.

The meeting also covered discussions on the master plan committee, revised fee schedules, and a draft bylaw concerning accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The town planner presented a draft bylaw that mirrored state requirements but included a prohibition on short-term rentals, citing concerns about the housing crisis. The need for ADUs was acknowledged, as they provide housing options for various demographics, including older adults and recent graduates. The planner cautioned that additional regulations from the state could emerge as the bylaw is developed.

Lastly, the board discussed grant opportunities, particularly the Complete Streets program, which aims to enhance safety and accessibility for all roadway users. The town is not currently part of this program, but there is a pathway to join by adopting a Complete Streets policy, allowing the town to create a prioritization plan for addressing issues like problem intersections and missing sidewalks. The potential for receiving up to $38,000 in technical assistance funding was discussed, along with the possibility of applying for construction funding of up to $500,000 for transportation projects every four fiscal years.