The Planning Board voted to approve a major site‑plan review for a solar installation at a mini‑storage facility at 240 Waterville Road, subject to conditions addressing placement, buffering and foundation heights.

Applicant representatives — Jeff Allen of AE Hudson Engineers, the facility owner (identified as Mr. Hergert), and a supplier identified as Mr. Campbell of Bright Spot Solar — presented changes to the site plan and technical details of the proposed dual‑axis “tracker” system. The system manufacturer was identified as SunAction Trackers and the supplier marketed the product under the Bright Spot Solar trade name. The applicant described the proposal as a distributed, small commercial solar installation under 0.1 megawatts (i.e., less than 100 kilowatts) that uses dual‑axis tracking, bifacial panels and galvanized-steel structure.

Applicant testimony said the panels are arranged in trackers that have gaps between panels to limit channelized drainage and that the only significant impervious footprint would be small concrete foundations for each tracker post (each foundation described as roughly 30 inches in diameter, about 7 square feet). The supplier said the system typically increases energy yield versus fixed ground mounts and that the assemblies can be mounted high enough to meet electrical‑code clearances that reduce the need for fences.

Nearby residents and the owners of adjacent properties raised concerns about visual impact, buffer planting, water drainage and the trackers’ height as they move through their range of motion. A homeowner identified as Rick York said he owns the buffer trees and expressed concern about additional runoff that might affect his property; another resident (the Roderick household) asked about loss of an existing field view.

The board and the applicant negotiated siting adjustments and screening. The most substantive agreed changes recorded at the meeting were: relocating the two trackers closest to Route 201/residences to the rear of the site to reduce visual impact; establishing a vegetative buffer of conifer trees (board discussion settled on a minimum of about 40 trees total, initially described as 39 then increased during deliberations); and a stipulation that the concrete tracker bases be set as close as practicable to one foot above finished grade so the assemblies meet the board’s expectations for minimizing visual height while preserving required clearances.

At the conclusion of deliberations a board member moved to approve the major site plan with the listed stipulations; the motion was seconded by a board member identified as Randy. The board conducted a voice/hand vote and the motion passed. The board’s minutes record the approval subject to the plan updates and the stated conditions; the record notes the board will not make final plantings dependent solely on an abutter’s acceptance and that any specific agreements about buffer placement should be documented in writing at staff review.

The Planning Board’s approval also included a note that the applicant will pursue required state permits (wetland permitting and a major amendment to the hospital/site permit was discussed earlier for a different agenda item) and that staff will confirm engineering details with the applicant before final signoff.