Hampden Planning Board Allows Solar Project Withdrawal Without Prejudice

In a recent Hampden Planning Board meeting, the board voted to allow the withdrawal of a special permit application for a 4.92 megawatt agricultural ground-mounted solar facility by Glendale Road Development LLC without prejudice. The decision, following advice from Town Counsel, gives the applicant the possibility to resubmit the project at any time without having to wait for a two-year period. This move comes after the project was denied an order of conditions by the Conservation Commission, prompting the developers to reconsider their options, which may include revising the project, abandoning it, or filing appeals.

The application, represented by attorney Adam Costa and consultant Roy Walker from Zero Point Energy, was initially set for a special permit under the town’s zoning bylaw for solar energy systems. The project, proposed to be managed by Ledge Valley Farm, would have included the installation of a solar facility while maintaining the land as pasture for grazing sheep, cattle, and chickens.

During the meeting, Attorney Costa explained the reasons behind the decision to withdraw the application. He highlighted the inefficiency of continuing with the approval process knowing that the project would not proceed in its current form. Costa noted that the applicant had the option to revise the project and resubmit to the Conservation Commission, abandon the project altogether, or file appeals against the commission’s decision. The applicant’s intention to withdraw the application without prejudice was to avoid unnecessary litigation and to allow for the possibility of reevaluating the project’s direction in light of the Conservation Commission’s denial.

The planning board’s approval of the withdrawal without prejudice followed a clarification of the implications by the applicant’s attorney, including the potential consequences of a denial with prejudice, which would impose a two-year wait before refiling. The board’s decision was unanimous, and the members agreed that it was the most efficient course of action. The board acknowledged the routine nature of such withdrawals and aimed to facilitate a smoother process for the applicant should they choose to proceed with a revised project in the future.

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: