RI Supreme Court denies Natick residents, solar development to move forward

By BARBARA POLICHETTI
Posted 1/15/25

The State Supreme Court last week rejected a group of residents’ request to hear an appeal of a Superior Court ruling that allows a solar farm to be built off Natick Avenue.

The high …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
Posted

The State Supreme Court last week rejected a group of residents’ request to hear an appeal of a Superior Court ruling that allows a solar farm to be built off Natick Avenue.

The high court’s decision brings to a close the long, tumultuous fight residents have waged in an attempt to prevent the solar project which will clearcut about 28 wooded acres in a residential area.

“The court’s denial to hear this case sanctions the destruction not only of a neighborhood, but also of its ecosystem,” the residents, sometimes known as “Citizens of Natick,” said in a statement issued over the weekend.  They stated that the creation of the commercial solar project will place “hundreds of families at risk for increased flooding, fire and other environmental and infrastructure impacts.”

“These potential impacts include loss of wildlife habitats, erasure of arable topsoil, drinking water contamination, foundation and septic system damage,” they further stated.  “There is also the loss of real estate value for those nearest to the energy facility.”

The Supreme Court ruling, dated January 9th, states: “The petition for writ of certiorari, as prayed is denied.  This matter shall be closed.”

The petition to the Supreme Court was the last legal challenge available to the residents who have been fighting the commercial solar installation for seven years.

There is now no apparent further legal impediment to prevent Natick Solar LLC and developer Revity Energy LLC from proceeding with plans to construct a 8.1. megawatt solar farm on a 64-acre parcel on Natick Avenue owned by Ronald Rossi.  According to plans that have been filed with the city, the installation of the panels would require clearcutting a little more than half of the wooded parcel.

The controversial project has been discussed and debated at the local level and in the courts.

The project was proposed in 2018 and received master plan approval from the City Planning Commission in 2019.  But residents contended that the process flawed and appealed to State Superior Court. 

The project was sent back to the City for reconsideration after Superior Court Judge Netti Vogel found a procedural flaw in which more than 100 pages of evidence and a revised site plan were accepted into the record after the close of public comment, according to the case documents.

The project went through planning review again, and this time, the Planning Commission rejected the master plan, underlining concerns about the proposal’s impact on the environment and neighborhood.

The city Zoning Board upheld the Planning Commission’s decision.

Revity Energy then appealed the city’s actions to Superior Court, and this past August, Joseph Montalbano overruled the city actions and ordered the Planning Commission to approve the solar farm’s master plan.

While the legal battles waged on, residents also contended that politics were at play. They criticized Mayor Kenneth Hopkins for not being responsive to residents’ concerns and also alleged a possible conflict of interest because Revity’s lawyer, Robert Murray, is the mayor’s friend and personal lawyer.

Murray has stated that there is no conflict of interest.  And Hopkins recently stressed that the City has followed the law throughout the process and has consistently tried to make sure residents were heard and represented.

 In a recent statement to the Herald, Hopkins said he fully supported the Planning Commission throughout the process and that he defended its vote denying the solar project on second review. He said that the city has spent about $71,000 defending the Planning Commission’s rejection of the project.  

This week, in expressing disappointment over the Supreme Court ruling, citizens again claimed politics and again voiced frustration with the way Hopkins and his administration have handled the project.

Drake Patten, a neighbor whose farm looks out at the project site and an outspoken opponent of the solar project, said, “We are feeling many things today -- including deep sorrow -- but the thing that is most egregious to us is how completely abandoned we were by Mayor Hopkins during this fight. Thanks to the Mayor, our community has been made into a sacrificial lamb to the solar gold rush: one that places greed, profit and politics over people.”

“As difficult as this moment is for our group, we know that we fought for the greater good of where we live, for our neighborhood and for Cranston as a whole,” she said. “It is something to be proud of. Can the Mayor say the same?”

Anthony Moretti, Hopkins’ Chief of Staff, countered the Hopkins did support residents and followed the law throughout the complicated review process and resultant lawsuits.

“Yes, the mayor can be proud,” Moretti said.  “He has supported the efforts of the neighbors and has demonstrated this by having his law department pursue their interests in court.”

He said that the City only exited the legal fight after being advised that the Montalbano decision was legally sound and that an appeal to the Supreme Court would be very unlikely to result in a reversal.

“The mayor has done what’s right for the citizens and taxpayers,” Moretti said.  “Any other comment would be unproductive and political at this point.”

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here