by Valerie Hurley ·
Friday, May 8, 2026
The town will not enter a lease agreement that would have allowed Solect Energy to construct solar panels on the town’s former gravel pit. Neither will the town’s solar overlay district be expanded from two to four lots. That was the result of a close vote on three solar-related warrant articles at Saturday’s Town Meeting.
Article 25, which would have allowed the lease to move forward, failed by 14 votes on the required two-thirds vote, 178-107. The Select Board subsequently withdrew Articles 26 and 27 from consideration by moving to refer them “back to the Planning Board for study, review, and report.” Those articles would have added two parcels on Stow Road—the gravel pit and 32 acres of state-listed wildlife habitat near Interstate 495—to the solar overlay district. The current district consists of the contaminated former landfill off Depot Road and an existing solar farm on Ayer Road.
Debate on the article drew 23 speakers to the mic and ended after 65 minutes, when the question was called by Codman Hill Road resident Jennifer Finch.
In an introduction to Article 25, Energy Advisory Committee Chair Brian Smith said that voting “yes” would allow the town to take the tax credit that made the project financially feasible and save the town $2.3m in municipal energy costs over 20 years. He said the project had been scaled back from 3 MW on 7 acres to 1.4 MW on 4 acres and stripped of its battery storage in response to abutter concern. He assured attendees the project would be reviewed along the way by utility regulators and Harvard’s Planning Board and Conservation Commission.
Misty Flores of Jacob Gates Road, which backs up to the proposed site, disputed the idea that proponents had scaled back the project based on neighbors’ concerns. “A lot of the changes that have been made to the size and the scale have been because of Planning Board bylaws. So don’t just think that they were made just to accommodate residents’ requests,” she said. However, while the proposed bylaw, Article 26, did specify parameters such as 120-foot setbacks from residences, it did not contain provisions that would have required the lot to be smaller or excluded the use of backup batteries. “Let’s not put the cart before the horse and sign a lease before we really ask all the committees to review this,” she added.
Other speakers opposed to the solar farm cited negative effects on neighborhood property values and wildlife habitat, while a handout put together by abutters disputed town officials’ positive financial analysis. Several other speakers endorsed locations other than the former gravel pit.
“There are alternative locations,” said Gail McCarthy of Jacob Gates Road, suggesting the school and library parking lots, municipal rooftops, and the former landfill. “The town should focus on repairing and strengthening them, so that they are viable alternatives.”
Those places are already targets for solar panels, although canopies over parking lots are understood to be relatively costly, Smith told the Press after Town Meeting. Now, he said, “The primary focus is on the larger opportunities: the Bromfield School roof, which requires completion of a HVAC installation and roof replacement and reworking, and the town landfill at the Transfer Station which requires the landfill to be capped in accordance with state regulations.”
John Livornese of Jacob Gates Road was one of several residents who said they supported clean energy but urged Town Meeting to vote against Articles 25, 26, and 27. “I think it’s really important to recognize that the number one point that’s highlighted here is this July 4 date that we are hurrying to get to,” he said, referring to the date by which a lease has to be signed to lock in the tax incentives that made the project financially viable. In another point echoed by most of the other “vote no” speakers, he added: “ And that land is not really a gravel pit. It’s actually a delicate, vibrant habitat that is surrounded by protected land.”
But Stu Sklar of Scott Road questioned the logic of those who opposed the project but claimed to support clean energy. “How can you be for solar and be against this project?” he asked. Referring to the estimated savings per year on municipal energy costs from the solar farm, he said: “When people complain to me about our taxes going up, this is real money. It’s $120,000. It’s almost what the override is.”
Select Board member Eve Wittenberg went to the microphone “as a voting member of the Open Space Committee,” and said she wanted to “correct some misinformation that has been conveyed here by previous speakers.” The Open Space Committee ranks currently unprotected open land to see if it should be prioritized for protection. “This parcel … was scored as a four on a scale of 20,” she said. She countered assertions that the fencing would harm wildlife. “[It] allows small animals, amphibians, reptiles, birds to pass through. It excludes large animals that are, in fact, destructive to the habitat, to the ecological habitat.”
Ben Alexander of Depot Road said he was sympathetic to concerns about open space, wildlife, and property values, but urged a “yes” vote. “We need energy. Climate change is an existential risk. We cannot afford to just kick this can down the road.”
Kicking Articles 26 and 27 down the road, said Planning Board Chair John McCormack, may matter less as recent state law and a decision against the town of Walpole by the Massachusetts Land Court signal less tolerance for restricting solar development. Solar overlay districts may eventually become obsolete, he said.
Adam Meier, a Finance Committee member who helped with the project’s financial projections, told the Press he was disappointed by the vote but would continue to support other projects for generating cleaner energy. One such option is to join a network of towns on a microgrid, a possibility the Select Board has agreed to explore through its March 3 agreement with NextGen Energy. Meier said that project was promising, but that the solar farm was a lost opportunity. The tax incentives that had made the project viable had originally been set to expire in 2032 instead of in 2026, a fact that he thought had been overlooked in the debate. “Missing the tax incentives creates more challenges,” he said.