Citizen petition asking Select Board to seek independent legal opinion on large‑scale solar permitting passes advisory vote

A citizen petition asking the town to instruct the Select Board to obtain an independent legal opinion on the town's authority and responsibilities for review and permitting of large‑scale ground‑mounted solar and battery storage systems passed in a nonbinding advisory vote at the annual town meeting.

Emily Larby presented the petition asking the Select Board to pursue a legal opinion separate from the town's current counsel, citing concerns about gaps in the record and long‑term governance and enforcement of such projects. Petitioners and several residents said independent review could reduce litigation risk by clarifying the town's legal standing and identifying any gaps in the record now, while the planning and permitting process is still in review.

Select Board members and others responded that the town is currently represented by a municipal law firm (KP Law) with experience in similar matters and that the board had not yet seen a clear demonstration of what a second opinion would add. The Select Board noted that the town does not have a funding appropriation in the petition for hiring outside counsel and suggested a special town meeting (or an appropriation) would likely be required if the town were to pay for a separate opinion.

Speakers debated whether applicant‑funded review through Massachusetts General Law chapter 44 §53G (commonly used to charge applicants for technical consultants) could cover legal costs; some asserted the town bylaw treats legal costs as eligible under the local 53G implementation, while Select Board and town counsel indicated the question is unsettled and under review. Petitioners said planning‑board and conservation commission bylaws already allow hiring consultants at the applicant's expense in certain cases.

Other residents raised concerns about who would choose the outside counsel and whether perceived ties between the municipal firm and other clients might present an appearance issue. Select Board members said they had discussed asking applicants (or their consultants) to cover review costs but noted that applicants can decline and that the Select Board must weigh options.

The motion passed by voice vote after discussion. The moderator noted the vote was advisory and that the article will be forwarded to the Select Board and the Attorney General's office for next steps.