The Cranston Plan Commission voted against the master plan for the Natick Solar development at their meeting on June 6.

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. It received master plan approval in 2019. After its original approval local residents appealed the decision to the city’s Platting Board of Review where the initial decision was upheld.

After the Platting Board chose to uphold the decision, residents took their appeal to the state’s Superior Court where it was decided that a procedural error was made in not allowing residents to speak between the second and final step of the approval process. Superior court ruled that, due to the public not being able to voice their concerns, the project should be remanded to the preliminary planning phase and would need to be voted on again step by step from preliminary back to master plan while ensuring that residents were given a chance to voice concerns every step of the way.

Having successfully moved forward back to the point of needing master plan approval, residents are still against the development and made sure to make their voices heard at the June 6 meeting. Aside from the residents, the legal counsel for Revity also had some things to say.  

“This is the 14^th time that we’ve come before this commission on this application,” said Senior Legal Counsel for Revity Energy Nick Nybo. “Most of the legal and operational concerns that were raised during the last meeting in April I addressed, I hope, in my May 30 letter to the commission, but there were a few final points I wanted to address before the commission closes this matter.”

While understanding concerns like materials, glare and electromagnetic hypersensitivity, which he said there is no scientific basis for, but that if there was a scientific basis for that he would be concerned as well. Nybo urged the council to remember that the decision ultimately lay with the commission and that from a legal perspective all the necessary work and qualifications to the building of the solar farm had been accomplished.

While city ordinance has not allowed the building of solar facilities in A80 zones since 2019, Nybo said that the proposed Natick Avenue solar facility was applied for in 2018 when ordinance allowed for the use of such zones for solar energy. The fact that the zoning laws have changed since the application was filed does not interfere with the application filed before the change.

 “While I’m genuinely sympathetic to the public’s concerns about this project about the alleged impact on property values and on the bucolic nature of Western Cranston,” Nybo began, “frankly these impacts are nothing compared to the preternatural environmental damage that this state’s electricity consumption has visited on communities, upon whom we’ve for decades outsourced the social and environmental costs of electricity consumption. I would respectfully suggest that any environmentalist that objects to this project is not concerned about the environment. They’re concerned with their environment.”

After asking for clarification on a few of Nybo’s points, the commission invited the public up for another chance to speak about their concerns regarding the building of the Natick solar facility.

Residents came forward to speak about property line and value issues, feelings of being pressured, worries about blasting and other concerns about how the solar farm would affect their lives.

“The impact of Mr. Rossi’s project is certainly going to have significant impact to the people on Natick Avenue and the ones like Mr. Lawrence, who is basically an abutter,” said Natick Avenue resident Vincent Moses. “I would just ask that when these attorneys make these kinds of comparisons don’t buy everything that they say just because they’re an attorney. They’re an advocate for their client. So, please take some of these statements with a grain of salt.”

Moses said that despite the implication that those opposing the project were not concerned with increasing the use of solar energy, the issue was not an opposition to solar but to the location.

“This is our neighborhood,” he said. “Who knows down the road what the planning department could be advocating for another applicant, maybe in your neighborhood, and you may find yourself thinking back to the opposition that all of my fellow neighbors on Natick have tried to convince you to please not approve this recommendation.”

Attorney Patrick Dougherty, who represents abutters of the site, also spoke on behalf of the neighbors opposing the project while discourse became more an more personal. Attempting to set the record straight with facts, he raised concerns about land use, historical concerns and the statements made by the developer’s attorney.

“They couldn’t be further away from the truth when they say that it’s a decided matter of the courts, by the body, by everyone that the solar ordinance is consistent with the comprehensive plan,” Dougherty said. “This project stinks. It should never be in this place. They haven’t complied with the standards applicable and no matter what they say about us personally, no matter what they say using manipulation and distortion of the facts, it still can’t change the fact that this is a project that has a special place in hell.”

After both sides had a chance to make their points, the time came for the Plan Commission to once again make a decision on the matter.

“I have sat through hours of testimony,” said Commissioner Steven Frias. “I have spent hours researching and reviewing this case and all the documents, and I do not come to the conclusions I do lightly. I recognize the rights of people involved, so I want to start out that way.”

Frias addressed the comprehensive plan and found, personally, that the applicant had not successfully addressed the issues of consistency. Finding that the 2017 amendment was valid and the applicant had the better argument there. However, when reviewing the comprehensive plan he felt that despite the fact that an A80 zone was legally viable, this specific property was not the right place for this particular project.

Despite a tense vote, the majority of the commission agreed with Frias that there were concerns regarding the projects feasibility. Frias said he expects the commission’s denial will be appealed in court.

The next regular meeting of the Plan Commission is scheduled for July 11 at 6:30 p.m. in City Council chambers at City Hall.