The primary focus of the meeting was the continuation of the public hearing for the solar project, which is proposed for land off Park Drive. The project involves installing a solar array with a capacity of 4,999 kW and associated battery storage within a 100-foot buffer zone of a wetland. The applicant’s representative presented the amended order of conditions, noting significant revisions, such as replacing a gravel access road with a bridge to reduce environmental disturbance. The revised plans also reduced the number of piles needed for installation from 85 to 81. Despite these changes, there was considerable concern among commission members regarding oversight during the construction phase. The idea of hiring a full-time agent to monitor the project was suggested to ensure adequate supervision, especially since current oversight is part-time. The applicant’s representatives expressed willingness to explore this suggestion to enhance communication and documentation throughout the project’s development.

The discussion also involved a detailed presentation by an engineering firm representative, who estimated that the bridge installation would disturb approximately 777.2 square feet, with all work being conducted from the bridge deck to minimize impact. Concerns regarding tree stump removal were raised, with suggestions to explore alternative methods to further reduce disturbance. A recent site visit reportedly increased the commission’s comfort with the project, although there was a consensus to ensure all conditions were thoroughly met before proceeding.

In addition to the solar project, the commission addressed concerns about wetland protection related to property use in other areas. One notable discussion involved a project on Tilly Way, where a resident raised issues about dirt being placed in wetlands, allegedly by the property owner’s father. The resident stressed the importance of wetlands protection, highlighting potential repercussions for violations, such as losing contracts with utility companies like Eversource. The property owner denied responsibility, asserting that the dirt was not placed there for chickens, as claimed. A compromise was discussed to remove any obstructive materials to allow natural vegetation regrowth, with a deadline of June for visible improvement.

Another point of contention involved a proposed livestock crossing that intersects with a wetland resource. The participant claimed exemption from the Wetlands Protection Act, arguing their right to build a farm structure. However, the commission raised concerns about managing livestock near wetlands and suggested exploring solutions with state agencies for clarity on legal requirements. The dialogue underscored ongoing tension between property rights and environmental stewardship, with the participant expressing frustration over perceived restrictions.

The meeting also touched on a complaint about flooding due to construction activities on a neighboring property. A temporary water management solution had caused flooding issues, but the construction companies assured that it was a short-term measure, with expectations for resolution in a few weeks.