Planning board conditionally approves 8.25 MW Main Street solar project after public hearing

Hopkinton Planning Board on July 2 granted conditional approval to a continued development plan review for a proposed 8.25 megawatt AC solar facility on Main Street that would occupy a 29-acre parcel, with about 21.3 acres fenced and a 25.8-acre limit of disturbance.

The board opened a public hearing on the project, heard a presentation from the applicant team and comments from residents, then approved the project with conditions that require cemetery protection measures, administrative review of outstanding technical items, peer-review follow-up and an extension of the construction timeline to start within two years and finish within three years.

The project team — represented at the hearing by attorney Joel Rocha and project manager Jenna Shea — described the site plan, stormwater controls and visual mitigation. Shea said the site layout includes two infiltration basins, one detention basin, an 8-foot security fence with a 6-inch bottom gap for small animals, a small storage building and proposed 20-foot crushed‑stone access roads tying into Main Street and Gray Lane. John Carter, the project’s landscape architect, described supplemental evergreen and understory planting focused along Route 3 and the Route 95 frontage to reduce visibility from the road.

During public comment, resident Jasmine Roy asked whether the town would receive revenue from the project. Ralph Palumbo of Remedy Energy and Ryan Palumbo, also with Remedy Energy, responded that under a state law adopted this year the project would pay a real and tangible property tax set at $8,500 per megawatt — roughly $50,000 annually for a 5.6 MW (speaker-stated) portion of the project — producing revenue without the public‑service burdens (schools, EMS) typically associated with residential development. The applicant’s representatives also presented a “conceptual laydown plan” showing staging, parking and trailer locations and said they will locate laydown areas away from Main Street to limit visual impacts.

The board’s technical discussion focused on outstanding peer-review comments from Crossman Engineering and new guidance from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) about stormwater and erosion management on solar sites. David Russo, the project civil engineer, told the board that most Crossman comments have been addressed and described practices the applicant uses to achieve rapid vegetative cover, including 4–6 inches of loam and hydroseeding with tackifiers where needed; he said the applicant also conducts drone topography after clearing to refine contractor quantities and minimize rework. The applicant said RIDEM has reviewed and approved their stormwater and site design and that the project has a RIDOT physical alteration permit for the proposed access work.

Board members and staff asked for explicit cemetery‑avoidance measures during construction. The applicant agreed to show a cemetery protection/avoidance plan on the final plan set and to rope or clearly mark sensitive areas during construction. The board also discussed decommissioning cost estimates; staff noted Crossman will review and confirm a decommissioning estimate at final plan stage.

Planning staff presented a memorandum that recommended approval with conditions; the board modified several conditions at the meeting: (1) striking a redundant item, (2) changing a 100‑foot “buffer” reference to a 100‑foot “setback,” (3) requiring cemetery roping/avoidance and (4) extending the required start/finish milestones from the original 1/2 years to 2/3 years to align with state utility upgrade schedules. The board approved the project subject to those conditions and the administrative verification of outstanding items before any grading or construction begins.

The board and applicant clarified process steps: the applicant must record an administrative subdivision (to merge lots) before construction can begin, and planning staff will verify that all conditions have been met administratively before issuing any approvals that would allow work to start.

The hearing record includes RIDEM review and a RIDOT permit, peer review by Crossman Engineering, and on‑site coordination with local fire, police and DPW; the project team said Crossman will continue weekly inspections during construction and that the applicant will perform construction‑period inspections required by RIDEM and the operation and maintenance plan.

The board accepted the planner’s findings as modified at the hearing and voted to approve the development plan subject to the conditions recorded in the planner’s memorandum and the additional edits made during the meeting. The approval requires the applicant to supply final plan materials for administrative verification before any physical work begins.