Law doesn't protect Adams project
To the editor of THE EAGLE:
This is in response to The Eagle’s editorial of Sept. 25 regarding the Adams Planning Board and the 217 East Road solar project "Adams board is out of line.")
The solar access law that some believe makes this an "as-right" project was part of a package of state initiatives passed during the 1980s that included tax breaks to encourage roof-mounted solar hot water systems. This project is 6,700 panels, 11 acres, in the middle of a residential/agricultural neighborhood. The Legislature’s intention could not possibly be interpreted to allow these 11-acre industrial facilities to invade and degrade residential neighborhoods. In fact the Department of Energy Resources states "It is unclear if the solar access law applies to large scale ground mounted solar installations."
More than half a dozen cities and towns in Massachusetts, including Cheshire and Holliston, have rejected the as-right premise, and no appeals have even been filed as of today.
This is only one example of the considerable legal ambiguities faced by the Adams Planning Board in looking at this proposal. The planning board showed great courage in making this decision. Mr. Shapiro and his bosses, Brian and Tyler Fairbank, should be ashamed of trying to use ambiguous legal dodges to destroy a beautiful pastoral neighborhood for their financial gain. The Eagle should be ashamed of its editorial, which short on facts and long on shilling for the proponents.
The writer is a neighbor of the
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.