Two dozen residents filled the benches of City Council chambers last Tuesday as Planning Commissioners started the master plan remand for the Natick Avenue Solar project. While the public did not have an opportunity to speak due to time limitations, their dedication to their cause was apparent; they sat through two hours of the meeting before Natick Avenue Solar was addressed, followed by another two hours of listening to the project’s developer and questions from the commission.

Planning Director Jason Pezzullo explained that the applicant (Natick Solar LLC) and developer (Revity Energy LLC) started the application process to construct an 8.1 megawatt solar farm on the 64-acre parcel in 2018; the project received master plan approval in 2019. Residents appealed the decision to the city’s Platting Board of Review where the initial decision was upheld. Residents then appealed to the Rhode Island Superior Court. Due to procedural issues with public comment, Judge Netti Vogel ruled in May 2022 that the master plan go before the Planning Commission again.

“This is a very unique situation – one that I’ve never been in and commissioners, I believe, have never been in,” said Pezzullo at the Feb. 7 meeting.

According to Pezzullo, only two of the nine current commissioners, Michael Smith and Kathleen Lanphear, were on the Planning Commission at the time the Natick Avenue Solar application came before the body.

After the project found its way to court in 2019, Revity Energy decided to move forward with the project’s preliminary and final plans (both of which received approval).

“The presented application has been fully engineered, reviewed and vetted by city and its staff as well as all the applicable outside agencies needed to render a decision,” reads the Planning Department’s memo.

Pezzullo said the master plan meets the standards and requirements of a final plan application.

At the Feb. 7 meeting, Nick Nybo, senior legal counsel for Revity Energy LLC and Natick Solar LLC, asked that public comment be reserved to the end of the presentation for fear of finding themselves in a similar legal situation.

After a history briefing, Nybo said the developer accommodated nearly all residents’ concerns that could work financially. However, even after those changes, there was still opposition to the project.

“The only thing the abutters are going to want is for the application to be denied,” said Nybo.

Attorney Robert Murray, representing Ronald Rossi, explained that the goal is to sell the electricity to the grid.

“Solar arrays like this are a critical component to generate the type of renewable energy that society wants, the state encourages for all our benefit,” said Murray.

At the meeting, Professional Engineer David Russo with DiPrete Engineering said the site is mostly wooded with a maintained trail system and clear meadow. Of the 64-acres, solar panels will cover 12 acres – 19 percent of the lot.

Commissioner Steve Frias said in the application he read that, besides solar, residential housing could potentially go on the site. Asking how difficult it would be for a residential development to go there, Russo said there would be a lot more earthwork and a significant increase in roadway construction.

Russo also addressed residents’ concerns about blasting and earthwork to be conducted near the Tennessee Gas Pipeline (TGP) that runs along the southern property line. The Planning Department noted that Rossi has worked with TGP to ensure that the project will be consistent with the terms and conditions of the easement. Rossi has also met with the representatives of the Tennessee Gas Pipeline on site review of proposed development.

A report prepared by Paige Bronk on behalf of the residents’ attorney Patrick Dougherty opposed to the project noted that “there is concern that the land disturbance, steep slopes, and removal of vegetation with exacerbate stormwater flow issues with erosion, sedimentation, and increased water runoff quantities.”

Comprehensive Plan

Interpretations

The Planning Department recommended approval of the project’s master plan. Pezzullo added that the application is considered vested (grandfathered) under existing ordinances and regulations that were in effect at the time of the certified complete application in 2018.

“Therefore, Ordinance Number 2020-2 and its requirements for solar energy production are not applicable to this remanded Master Plan application,” reads the Planning Department’s staff report.

In 2018, solar farms were permitted in the A-80 zoning (single family dwellings on lots of minimum areas of 80,000 square feet), however, City Council later amended the ordinance.

Ed Pimentel of Pimentel Consulting Inc. has also played a role in the Natick Avenue Solar project and worked on two to three dozen solar farm projects over the last eight to 10 years. While the Natick Solar Farm project is 8.1 megawatts, Pimentel has dealt with smaller and larger projects – going all the way up to 36-60 megawatts.

“The City of Cranston has indeed adopted the necessary foundational Comprehensive Plan language evidencing solar facility development appropriateness, in direct support of the Ordinance amendment permitting the referenced land use a matter-of-right in the A-80 District. Regardless, even if there were inconsistencies, which there are not, the Ordinance amendment would nevertheless still be deemed appropriate and enforceable as it pertains to all regulatory actions,” reads Pimentel’s report.

Bronk’s report offered an opposing point.

“In 2017, the City of Cranston completed a local Comprehensive Plan amendment for alternative energy including solar. This amendment was submitted to the state, but was not accepted by the State of Rhode Island (Division of Statewide Planning),” reads the report. “In short, the state expressed it cannot approve the proposed amendment since the full, previously approved, Cranston Comprehensive Plan has expired. The state’s correspondence instead provides guidance to Cranston on how best to integrate the language in the future when a full Comprehensive Plan rewrite is completed. Although there was some further communication from the City of Cranston’s planning staff questioning the meaning of Statewide Planning’s correspondence, the meaning is quite clear. Cranston’s Comprehensive Plan has expired and proposed amendments to expired plans cannot be approved.”

Planning Commission Chair Michael Smith stopped the meeting at 10:30 p.m. to consult with commissioners about continuing hearing public comment on Feb. 7 or moving the matter to another meeting. The body voted to continue the master plan remand process to a special meeting on March 20.