Supreme Judicial Court Decision on Protecting Forests From Solar-good, not great, new: bottom line: Keep Fighting!

[Coordinator]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks again for signing on to the Amicus Brief to the SJC in March. On July 14, 2026, the Court issued its decision. 

The decision "remanded" the Town of Petersham Zoning Board of Appeals decision denying the solar project that would clear cut forests. It directed the ZBA to make finding that protecting forests protects the public health, safety and welfare. This is not a clear win for Petersham, nor is it a win for the solar company.

The Decision is attached.

Here is CLWC's blog: https://communitylandandwater.org/coalition-files-brief-to-protect-health-safety-welfare-against-solar-gone-wrong/

And my quote below. I hope I didn't leave anyone off this list.

Thank you! Meg

The Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Sunpin v. Town of Petersham is a clear, bottom-line win for local zoning control over industrial-scale solar siting: the Court reaffirmed that municipalities may deny such facilities when, and only when, doing so is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, based on fact-driven, site-specific findings, and it cautioned against blanket prohibitions dressed up as forest protection. The Court recognized that where a municipality is overwhelmingly forested, denials premised on generalized tree-clearing concerns operate as unlawful blanket bans, and it required individualized analysis rather than categorical rules. The Court also acknowledged the positions advanced by eight public interest amici and the Town of Petersham that forests deliver vital public benefits, including carbon storage, water protection, cooling, and biodiversity.

At the same time, we are concerned that the Court did not analyze the 50-year legislative history of G.L. c. 40A, § 3, and that the statute’s solar language was never intended to shield massive projects that clear-cut hundreds of acres, risking misuse of the Dover Amendment. Going forward, the ruling provides much-needed guidance to help municipalities make rigorous, evidence-based, site-specific determinations and deny improperly sited projects where protecting drinking water, wetlands, biodiversity, clean air, and climate resilience demonstrably serves public health, safety, and welfare.

--

Community Land & Water Coalition

Our Mission: 

To preserve, protect and steward the land and water resources of Southeastern Massachusetts. We are losing them fast.

www.communitylandandwater.org

Check out our report & video: Sand Wars in Cranberry Country: An investigation into the money, politics and corruption behind sand mining and its silent environmental crisis in Southeastern Massachusetts

https://www.sandwars.org/

Contact us: environmentwatc...@gmail.com

P.O. Box 1699

Plymouth MA 02362

Check out our You Tube Channel for drone footage of earth removal sites, meeting recordings and educational webinars

Join us on Facebook Twitter  Instagram 

[Michael DeChiara]

Dear All

I did a write-up of my interpretation of the SJC's Sunpin case. In my opinion, along with any forthcoming DOER model bylaws, this case should serve as guidance for muni updates to solar and ESS bylaws. 

Please keep in mind I am not a lawyer but I think my takeaways make sense as the landscape continues to shift with these legal decisions.

Michael

--

Michael DeChiara 

Pronounced "day-key-ara"
mdec...@gmail.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preferred pronoun: he/him/his (why include this? --  about pronouns)

[Janet Sinclair]

Meg, is this true?

I thought that any developer was subject to the bylaws on the day they applied for a permit. 

[T]he right to a permit vests at the time the applicant is unconditionally entitled to its issuance. Until that time, . . . the applicant is subject to any changes in zoning provisions that are properly noticed before the permit issues"

Janet