Conservation commissioners continue hearing on 9 solar canopies at Highway Auto Salvage; require more detail on contamination and mitigation

The Northampton Conservation Commission continued the hearing on Feb. 27 for a notice of intent to install nine solar panel canopies at 182 Mount Tom Road (Highway Auto Salvage), after commissioners and staff identified outstanding questions about riverfront mitigation, contaminant risk and site operations.

Scott Daggett, senior project manager for Fallen Corp., and Brad Holmes of Environmental Consulting & Restoration presented the plan and emphasized that redevelopment of an auto salvage yard under solar canopies can produce site improvements by reconfiguring inventory and removing debris. “In order to install these canopies, they have to move their inventory around, and it gives them an opportunity to be able to rearrange and clean up their site a bit,” Daggett said.

Commissioners pressed the applicants on several unresolved points. Commissioners and staff asked for clearer documentation and commitments on: removal of visible surface debris and contamination in the slope down to the river, control and routing of snow and plowed material so contaminated meltwater does not move toward the river, a cut-and-fill accounting and compensatory flood-storage calculations for gravel beds under the canopies, and a monitoring and enforcement plan to ensure mitigation plantings and long-term maintenance are completed. Christian Follin, principal engineer with Follin Coop, told the commission that the proposed canopy supports will be drilled vertically and “There won't be any soils removed from the site.”

Brad Holmes described the mitigation approach as focused on revegetation and invasive-species removal on the slope between the work area and the river. Holmes said that preparing the site for mitigation will require moving automobile stockpiles so surface debris can be removed prior to planting. He framed the project as “the type of project that, we look for in the sense of redeveloping an area of degraded riverfront.”

Commissioners, notably Sarah (conservation staff), Kevin and others, repeatedly requested that the applicant provide more detailed engineering responses and clear, enforceable conditions before the commission would consider an approval. Commissioners also noted concerns about whether the site is operating within required industrial stormwater (SWPPP) expectations and whether documented oil/petroleum sheens in puddles indicate the need for additional remediation or state involvement.

Applicants agreed to work with staff to supply additional documents and a proposed schedule for cleaning and mitigation; the commission continued the hearing to the meeting of March 27, 2025. The commission asked staff to coordinate a pre-submission call so the applicant can return with a more complete set of materials addressing (at minimum) debris removal procedures, compensatory storage calculations, a construction sequencing and erosion-control plan, and a monitoring and reporting program implemented by a qualified wetland specialist.