Dighton Commission Advances Energy and Conservation Projects Amid Bylaw Changes

In a recent Dighton Conservation Commission meeting, developments were made concerning a variety of environmental and community projects, including the advancement of solar and battery storage initiatives, the proposal of bylaw amendments, and the discussion of multiple resource area delineations. The commission tackled a full agenda that included project approvals, the consideration of construction impacts on natural resources, and revisions to local conservation bylaws.

At the forefront of the meeting, the commission approved an order of conditions for a 115 kilovolt transmission lines asset condition refurbishment project by Neco. This project entails replacing double-circuited transmission lines with steel monopoles and reorienting the S8 line, with provisions for environmental monitoring and restoration throughout the construction period. The approval followed a presentation by a project representative, Adam, and a vote that was previously postponed due to the need for some commission members to demonstrate their impartiality by filing with the ethics commission.

Another application, filed by Dean Smith of New Leaf Energy Storage LLC, sought an Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) to confirm wetland resources. The commission reviewed a report from Beta, discussed plan changes, and, at Smith’s request, agreed to a continuance for further discussion at a future meeting. A similar request from Cal Rebello of Bell Farmer State was met with a decision to accept a $4,300 cost estimate from Weston and Samson for additional review of revised plans, with further discussion also postponed to a later date.

The commission also revisited a notice of intent from Grasshopper Energy, initially tabled to an uncertain date. After requesting an update from the applicant, Amen Hent, it was decided to continue tabling the matter. Additionally, a hearing was closed for Junior Delma’s notice of intent for a single-family home construction, following a discussion on the potential impact of ledge removal on neighboring properties.

In matters of local governance, the commission discussed proposed changes to the conservation bylaw, which included adding exemptions for certain activities, implementing a local fee for filings, and enforcing fines. The proposed fines would be directed into a separate conservation account. Moreover, a provision was considered to allow associate members to serve as voting members to maintain a quorum, emphasizing the importance of continuity within the commission’s membership.

The commission also deliberated on the removal of an invasive plant species, frag Mighty, from a garden bed near the beach, with the goal of replacing it with native beach plums. This initiative was met with support from the commission, including the suggestion of using erosion barriers to protect the river during storms.

For instance, Tyler Ry’s application for wetland resource confirmation on Oak Street prompted a $7,150 proposal for additional peer review work from Weston and Samson, with a continuation of the hearing to allow for a discussion.

Concerns about the preservation of Chestnut trees and the impact of construction on bird habitats were raised, leading to the decision to mark limited clearing areas to protect trees from unnecessary removal.

Property violations and non-compliance issues were another focal point. The commission discussed actions regarding unauthorized cutting and clearing on conservation restriction land, as well as buffer zones to vernal pools. In response to a certificate of compliance request for a solar project on Tront Street, concerns about stormwater management were addressed, with the commission planning to consult another expert for review.

Administrative topics included the need for more assistance with budget and year-end matters, as well as handling the increased workload. The commission considered pulling staff from other positions temporarily to alleviate the pressure.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

Trending meetings
across the country: