Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wareham Planning Board approves large Route 25 solar array with conditions, bans on battery storage
Summary
The Wareham Planning Board voted 5–0 on June 22 to approve a large ground‑mounted solar array on Route 25, subject to conditions including groundwater test pits, as‑built plans, pollinator plantings, decommissioning and an explicit prohibition on battery energy storage.
The Wareham Planning Board on June 22 approved a site plan review and special permit for a large ground‑mounted solar array on Route 25, voting 5–0 to grant the application subject to detailed conditions.
The approval requires the project to: confirm high groundwater elevations through test pits witnessed by a planning representative before final stormwater approval; submit as‑built plans endorsed by a professional land surveyor and a compliance statement by the engineer of record; install a pollinator seed mix in designated areas; adhere to dimensional and other requirements in the Zoning Board of Appeals variance (case referenced in the record); and provide a decommissioning cost estimate that accounts for module recycling or freight to recycling facilities. The board carried forward standard conditions from a prior, similar decision (the 370 County Road decision) and added project‑specific items such as maintenance of utility easements to avoid conflicts with agricultural access and an explicit statement that a future battery energy storage system would be treated as a major modification requiring a public hearing.
Board members and staff said the project’s decision was prepared by adapting the town’s prior solar decision and that the current draft included a red‑line and a record of prior hearings. Peer reviewer material and a consultant peer review (Allen & Major Associates) were read into the record and used to refine conditions, particularly around groundwater testing and decommissioning methodology.
Public commenters supported more review time but also welcomed the battery‑storage prohibition. Resident Nancy McCale said, "I applaud that. Absolutely," speaking in support of the explicit ban on battery installations at the site.
The board closed the public hearing before taking the vote, noting the zoning board had already approved dimensional variances and that clerical completion of that vote (signatures) remained. The planning board directed staff to finish insertion of remaining dates and minor edits into the decision document and to circulate a final version for signatures.
What happens next: the approval is subject to the conditions adopted by the planning board. Any materially different project or an application that attempts to add battery energy storage will require further review and a public hearing.
