Conservation commission continues hearing on nine solar canopies at Mill River; cites site‑wide cleanup concerns

The Northampton Conservation Commission on April 24 continued a hearing on a plan to install nine solar-panel canopies over a junkyard at 182 Mount Tom Road, saying the application focuses on canopy construction but does not demonstrate durable, site‑wide improvements to riverfront resource areas.

Commissioners said they could not close the hearing because the proposal did not address long-standing operating and material-storage conditions across the property that affect riverfront performance standards. The commission voted to continue the hearing to June 26 at 5:30 p.m.

The project applicant, represented by Christian Fylin, principal engineer and president of Fylin Corp., and project counsel Michael Minot, said the team submitted a response letter to the commission’s April comments and that town stormwater approval has been received. “We feel we’ve been going back and forth quite a bit,” Fylin said, and asked the commission to make a decision that evening if it deemed the submittal sufficient.

Wetland scientist Brad Holmes said the wetland delineation followed Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) guidance for banks and mean annual high water, placing flags at the first observable break where the Mill River shows a steep bank. Engineer Scott Daggot described stormwater and compensatory flood‑storage calculations and said the electrical equipment must be elevated to Elevation 123 to keep utilities above the flood zone. Daggot said compensatory storage at elevations above 116 is not physically available on the site, so his approach spreads required volumes into lower elevations where storage can be provided.

Commissioners repeatedly raised two central concerns: that the proposed canopy work alone does not address the broader junkyard operations — tires, stacked vehicles, trailers, and equipment that appear to reduce flood storage — and that the application lacks clear, durable measures to push active operations away from resource areas. Commissioner Kevin, who presided over the meeting, said he had previously urged the applicants to work with city staff to produce plans that address the entire site, not only canopy construction.

Several commissioners questioned whether existing trailers and accumulated materials on-site were considered in the compensatory storage calculations. Daggot acknowledged the trailers farther north are outside the immediate canopy scope and said the design team limited its scope to areas near the canopies. Commissioners pressed whether on‑site structures could be removed or otherwise managed to provide compensatory storage; the applicant said they had spoken with a DEP staffer who offered guidance but that approval ultimately rests with the local commission.

Commissioner Elizabeth and others said they were not satisfied that the redevelopment proposal demonstrated the durable improvement required under the Rivers Protection Act regulations (310 CMR 10.58) and the city’s wetlands ordinance. The commission asked the applicant to work with the property owner to show how operations will be changed, to provide clearer compensatory storage documentation (the applicant referenced a foot‑by‑foot table on the grading plan), and to submit any National Heritage (NHESP) responses to reflect plan revisions.

At the end of the discussion, applicant Phil Cavallo of Parallel Products proposed a continuation to allow time to coordinate with the landlord; the commission moved, seconded, and by roll call vote continued the hearing to June 26 at 5:30 p.m. The roll call showed seven affirmative votes.