Lots of Questions, Few Answers, Part 1
Lots of questions, few answers, Part 1 The Rail Trail
Since I moved to Holliston in 1986 I have been active in town. Many know me from my time on the FinCom or my many comments at Town Meeting or my longwinded responses on the town Facebook pages. Most people understand that I am one the biggest defenders of those that take the time to serve in town government. All of the boards require time that people could be spending with friends or family or simply relaxing. That has not changed. I still appreciate EVERYONE’s service.
However, lately I have had a lot more questions than answers concerning a number of issues before the town. Especially because in two of these issues the citizens of the town will have no vote on them and the present resolutions are do not appear very advantageous to residents. This will be in taken up in two parts, first the Rail Trail and later the Water Surcharge.
The Board of Selectmen are our chief governing body and are charged with looking out of the interests of the town. However some recent actions seem to beg the question how well they are doing that.
On the Rail Trail issue I am referring to the damage to the rail trail caused by Solect last year during the construction of their solar farm. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for solar farms, however it appears as though these companies like to operate on the premise that it is easier (and less costly) to ask forgiveness that to seek permission. I am referring to the illegal cutting of trees that Solect did along the rail trail. They were told explicitly not to do it, but they did it anyway. Now it’s everyone’s fault but theirs. It’s their project, their responsibility.
They cut down over 100 trees. The Rail Trail committee negotiated a “settlement” with them. The town gets $ 175,000 to replace the trees, rehab a bridge, add a crushed stone surface to the trail in that area, plus 20 years of landscape maintenance for the effected area.
Proposed parking area above,
There was also supposed to be an escrow account set up to assure compliance. In addition they were going to build a public parking area on the property with access to the trail as part of the original plans. This was all agreed to in principle before construction began. However, no agreement has been signed to date.
Here are the facts. They trespassed on property they did not own and were specifically forbidden from taking the trees, but they did it anyway. To return the land to its original condition would be impossible. To plant very mature trees would be insanely costly, plus due to their actions they would be liable for triple damages if this went to court. It is easy to see that this could cost in excess of $1 million plus court costs if it ever went that far. The eventual resolution could take years and considerable resources and both sides to fund the inevitable appeals . Therefore a more modest settlement was reached. Or so it appears.
It is now the end of April. On April 26, I took the pictures included here. Please note that not one tree has been planted, not one stump removed, no work has been started on the bridge or the trail itself. Why? It’s because Solect is under no legal obligation to do so at this time. Our Selectman are currently waiting for Solect to sign the agreement and do their part. This is a company that has already shown that it has little regard for the town and will do as they please while worrying about the consequences later. Yet they continue to build their project and will soon be generating profits. What do the people of Holliston get? Nothing! Our only leverage is to put a stop to this project until such time as an agreement is signed and in place. At this time we just continue to wait. The longer this is unresolved the worse it gets and the less leverage we have.
Behind my house is another solar project on private land (Wheeler Farm). This one is run by another company, Blue Wave. Different companies but a very similar behavior pattern. Against the wishes of the property owner they cut down a large number of trees that they had agreed to leave untouched in their original plans. They have apologized profusely and promised to replant. However the damage is done. No matter what they plant the area will be impacted for 15-20 years. The same is true for damage caused by Solect. Apparently, this seems to be the case for solar companies. Cut down now, pay the fines later seems to be the order of the day. In the meantime they get everything they want for a substantial period of time.
As I said initially, I am a huge supporter of solar energy, however I do not support the practices of these two companies. Apparently the penalties for violating our regulations are not severe enough to cause them a moment’s hesitation. Our town boards (Planning, Zoning and Selectmen) need to draft rules specifically protecting the interests of the town and its people. If a company does not adhere to plans submitted or they take down trees without prior written authorization, the penalties should be substantial. This will cause them to think twice.
Some might say this is unfriendly to business, it is not. It will only hold them accountable for their actions. We want business to come to Holliston but we want them to be responsible too. Our Board of Selectmen need to get the agreement signed and work needs to begin to repair the damage. What Solect did was horrible; the lack of action by our Selectmen is disturbing. Why are they not pressing the issue harder?
Town Meeting is coming up and there is no mention of any of this in the warrant. Therefore one can only assume that no report to the town will be forthcoming. That is the best forum to report to the town. At this time there does not seem to be much progress so I guess the lack of information to the town is understandable. Regrettable but understandable.
Mark J. Schultz
Some tree company did this on a weekend.....cut a 100 trees....wow.....great post David .....its hard to believe this company did this without talking to some official in holliston......maybe some tentative deal that the company made with someone....I think this is criminal case as well as civil......Alan stone
Alan stone | 2015-05-02 04:25:10
The more I think about this, the more obvious that the actions taken by Solect, if true, constitute an "unfair and deceptive business practice", and the injured party, i.e., the owner of the property on which the trees once grew, should sue under M.G.L. Chapter 93A. I only know what I read in the papers (Thank you Mark Schultz!) but as one very smart fellow I know said, these guys know down to the minute where the sun is every day of the year, what the average cloud cover will be, and when and at what angle its mighty energy gets to those panels. Their ROI is contingent on "harvesting" the maximum energy possible. If ONE of those trees slain cast a shadow for so much as a day, it would reduce that ROI. And trees grow. You can be sure that they have another program forecasting at what point neighboring trees grow into shade over a panel. This simple matter of discovery is the smoking gun, er, chainsaw, indicating the bad faith on Solect's part in making a deal they had no intention of honoring. Add to that the quite substantial cost of felling 100 green trees. Is Solect in the business of incurring costs like this by accident? The absurdity of it just reinforces the obvious. Make them prove to a jury that the contractor acted against the direction of Solect. It The law is there to protect us against bad actors like this. I'm a Holliston native, but not a resident. As such, despite the deep affection that binds me to the "town I love so well", I've no standing to call the selectmen nor speak at Town Meeting on Monday and Tuesday. But they must not cash any check, nor accept any compensation from this company, unless they are willing to accept this punch in the head. Once a check is cashed, the deal is done. Solect covers the gash with gravel and mulch and goes on to steal another man's trees. Please: Urge them to consult legal advice from a good law firm before accepting ANY mitigation. https://youtu.be/l5DnNxDTjbQ?t=1m37s
David Tobin | 2015-05-01 08:59:57
Alan the trees were cut down on a week end when they new no one was around. Does every one remember Solect put the blame on GLM stating they never marked out the buffer zone only to find that Solect pulled the stakes and we found them in the woods. Then Solect apologized and were willing to pay for there mistakes. This is how they operate. The power has not been connected to the grid yet. The board should make them waite till the parking lot, the bridge and the trail is completed. Every one should call Solect and complain. Call fox 25
sub contractor | 2015-04-30 19:00:01
I've been gardening today trying to understand how 100 old trees get cut down and no one knew.....I've lived in holliston 60 years and can't believe no one complained....no one called police.....this is something Sherlock Holmes should be called into investigate.....chain saws that don't make noise.....something ain't right.....I'm telling you something smells.....am I the only one who thinks there is something wrong......I wonder what the solar company has to say.....do you think the will say someone said they could......100 trees cut down that's sickening.....you ain't fooling me......Alan stone
Alan stone | 2015-04-30 13:01:23
It's disgusting what this company did.....this is a legal matter and the town should be enraged by this......the town has a solid case to bring to court and yet it waits....holliston should find a lawyer and start a law suit now....this company is arrogant and reckless....so what if the legal case is long and arduous......how can you cut a hundred trees and no one stop you.....the town has no problem watching mike Bromberg put leaves on his property and citing him legally and yet does nothing when a hundred beautiful trees are cut.....175000 for the trees is a horrible deal and only a stupid....I repeat stupid lawyer or town official would accept....
Alan stone | 2015-04-30 02:41:52
Mark, Well written article. You are feeling the frustration I had several times while serving on the Planning Board. We have little authority to hold businesses (and residents) accountable for violating our by-laws and agreements. Attempting to obtain agreements on a one-off basis is difficult because of a number of factors, including the fact that the Town is not willing to take violators to court. And the little authority we do have is not used frequently enough, nor consistently enough, to be effective. The case with the solar farms is but just one example. In the guise of being "business friendly", we are letting developers and others ride all over our town.
Parashar Patel | 2015-04-29 19:08:46
Shade and solar panels don't go together. The people making these deals not to take the trees know that, and I rather doubt they ever intended on honoring this deal or the one at the Wheeler property. They don't accidentally leave trees standing, do they? This is bad faith, "an unfair or deceptive business practice" and if adjudicated, triggers treble damages under the law, PLUS lawyers' fees, as Mark notes. Sinmply mitigating with mulch and some ground cover is not acceptable. The blight pictured above speaks for itself. If replacing 100 trees and restoring the property to its original state costs more than $175,000, and I would bet my best shade tree it is substantially more than that, then town counsel should be directed to nullify the settlement, if it is binding, on the grounds that Solect's officials failed to comply, compounding their original bad faith and misdeeds with rank stupidity. They were getting away with criminal trespass, stealing 100 trees, and ruining a small town's rail trail with a mere $175K, some bark mulch and an apology, and they can't even do that right? Holliston has been served, and it stinks. I sincerely hope that we reject any more efforts to "fix" this and instead make it right. Imagine: they actually agreed to put up a parking lot. They should not get the last laugh on that one.
David Tobin | 2015-04-28 18:21:29
I would propose that the town plant 100 foot telephone poles on the town property that borders the solar field, similar to the ones they placed around Pinecrest country club driving range. Only instead of stringing nets to catch stray golf balls, we should string black tarps to block sunlight. Once the restitution to the town is complete the tarps and poles could be removed. Just like putting a parking boot on an illegally parked car that refuses to pay parking fines.
John Connor | 2015-04-28 18:10:13
Mark you are exactly right. I was a electrical sub contractor for Solect and that was there motto, DO NOW WORRY LATER. We were on countless job where there Forman of the company told us not to be pushed around by inspectors. Just get the work done so they could get it up and running so they could get there credits/incentives. They just cut the trees like they always did and say they will plant new ones. By the time the new ones mature the solar system will be done and I'm sure with Solect they will leave it for the town to deal with and have it removed by the towns tax payers when the solar system is failed. Solar panel are good up to 15 - 20 years. When the panels start to die and need to be discarded we will be over whelmed with carbon filled panels not knowing where to dispose of them. This will be a problem in the future. The people of Holliston need to go to town meetings an voice there concerns. Mark is right, what is the agenda for: new trees, parking lot, bridge, and rail trail stone. Lets stop these guys before they put the system on line and they begin to make a revenue.
Sub Contractor | 2015-04-28 16:58:03
You are right it is easier to just move forward. The town should either force them to replace the trees or receive an amount equivalent to the extra revenue they will get from the added sunshine. 175k is peanuts
george Gotsis | 2015-04-28 16:42:02
Good summary Mark. As time goes on I am also getting a little unsettled by work progressing without a signed agreement. I stand of the side of trusting that there is a "legal" process for giving Solect consequences, such as not issuing of a final permit signoff to operate, or starting up the lawsuit for damages if not eventually signed. These things take a lot of time to navigate, and I know 1st hand that the Trails Committee is well aware. I just don't want to be surprised in the end with no "teeth" of consequences. I'm counting on Selectmen and Town Legal Counsel to get it done as planned.
Ed Daniels | 2015-04-28 12:32:25
It is ironic that Mr. Schultz's comments appear above the Arbor Day article. I agree fully with his remarks. The Holliston Garden Club donated funds to the Rail Trail Committee to landscape the Cross St. Trail Head. For over 70 years, our club has bought and planted trees in town to celebrate Arbor Day. They are invaluable in our landscape for so many reasons. Those who love the earth and are true conservationists do not unnecessarily cut trees down. Solar power is awesome, but respect of trees should accompany alternative energy projects.
Carol Holly | 2015-04-28 12:01:12
Drives me nuts to hear these stupid decisions done by unabiding companies. How many times do you have to tell them " Do not cut down the trees ". Natural landscape ruined by stupidity. Keep after them for their destruction. Determination can win over evil.
Terry P. | 2015-04-28 06:21:38
Mark: Thank you for that..You put it all in a nutshell very nicely. Good information, and well-written.
Jean | 2015-04-28 05:26:20
Yes there was an agreement, the problem is that it has not been signed and therefore not implemented, as yet. Apparently permits have not been withheld.
Mark Schultz | 2015-04-28 05:20:56
Say it ain't so! Somebody challenging what's going on? Somebody daring to question the town's Board of Selectmen? How disrespectful. These people are humble volunteers who put in countless hours for our town. Who are you to speak openly about your concerns. These things should be handled privately and discreetly in one on one conversations preceded by an homage to their superior understanding of these situations. And you've been on the inside before for many years. You should know better. If you're not careful, you'll soon be ignored, disregarded and spoken ill of. On second thoghht, welcome to my world.
Bill Dowd | 2015-04-28 04:43:40
Very nice and informative article. Wasn't there an agreement to withhold a building permit until specified action was undertaken? I assume the agreement might have had some deliverable dates before a permit was given. Could be wrong though.
RPW | 2015-04-28 03:46:11