Springfield, MA Biomass Incinerator Permit Reinstated

- by Suzanne McLaugh­lin, August 20, 2014, MassLive

Mass­a­chu­setts Land Court has grant­ed Palmer Renew­able Energy’s request to rein­state its build­ing per­mit for a bio­mass wood-burn­ing plant in East Spring­field, undo­ing the Spring­field Zon­ing Board of Appeals’ deci­sion that the build­ing per­mit was invalid.

The deci­sion states that no spe­cial per­mit is need­ed and the build­ing per­mit is rein­stat­ed, City Solic­i­tor Edward Piku­la said. Piku­la said he is still review­ing the decision.

Palmer Renew­able Ener­gy pro­posed build­ing a 35-megawatt, wood-to-ener­gy plant on the grounds of Palmer Paving Co. prop­er­ty near the inter­sec­tion of Page Boule­vard and Cad­well Drive.

The build­ing com­mis­sion­er issued the per­mits for the project, but the Board of Appeals over­turned the action as peti­tioned by the City Coun­cil and three residents.

The ZBA revoked the build­ing per­mit, Piku­la said.

The deci­sion by the Mass­a­chu­setts Land Court says that no spe­cial per­mit is required and the build­ing per­mit is reinstated.

Project oppo­nents have argued that the bio­mass plant would wors­en air pol­lu­tion and harm pub­lic health.

Michae­lann Bewsee, a founder of Arise for Social Jus­tice, was one of the inter­venors in the case.

Bewsee said Wednes­day night that she hopes the city of Spring­field will appeal the Land Court’s decision.

The plant will emit harm­ful chem­i­cals, and the city of Spring­field has a high asth­ma rate, she said.

“We should be try­ing to improve things, not try­ing to make them worse,” she said.

“I am hav­ing my attor­ney review this,” Bewsee said. “I plan to fol­low this.”

Appeal of the Mass­a­chu­setts Land Court deci­sion would be to the Mass­a­chu­setts Appeals Court, Piku­la said. Bewsee said a stay could be request­ed of the Land Court deci­sion, pre­vent­ing the project from going for­ward while an appeal is pending.

Spring­field City Coun­cilor Bud Williams, who was coun­cil pres­i­dent at the time the plant was first grant­ed a spe­cial per­mit in 2008, said he read the rul­ing the oth­er night, and said the city will have no choice but to go along with the judge’s decision.

“The court declared it was legal, and (the devel­op­ers) nev­er need­ed a spe­cial per­mit to do it,” he said.

The spe­cial per­mit that was agreed to by the devel­op­ers agreed to sev­er­al con­di­tions at the insis­tence of the city, he said. Among them were that the devel­op­ers would pay for side­walk repairs, infra­struc­ture improve­ments, and make improve­ments in the neighborhood.

With the rul­ing from the land court, Williams said he does not believe the devel­op­ers will be required to pay for those conditions.