Fearing Hill solar proposal sparks more criticism

[ad_1]

The public hearing on a solar development project at 91 and 101 Fearing Hill Rd. Continued until the August 9 planning council meeting after more than an hour and a half of discussion on July 26.

The proposal was significantly amended in response to concerns from board members and the public, but many citizens still expressed concern.

Joseph Shanahan, representing the claimant, said the plans were amended to respect the 100 foot wetland buffer zone. The work would disrupt 23 acres of land, not 27 acres, as was originally proposed.

Instead of four electric poles at the entrance to the site, there will be one.

Shanahan said the company would conduct line-of-sight reviews to determine whether the solar panel would be visible from nearby homes and protected land, as requested by the Planning Council at a previous meeting.

Responding to citizens’ concerns, Shanahan explained that removing soil from the site would be limited to collecting the materials needed to build berms and other structures to handle stormwater runoff. On average, about six inches of material would be scraped off the ground.

Shanahan said that although several people asked if the land could be preserved, the landowners had no intention of doing so.

It is not the site that will be preserved or it will not be what will be on the site when it is developed, Shanahan said.

If the solar field is not approved, Shanahan said, the owners will work on building a residential subdivision. Shanahan said a residential development would be much worse for the environment and would have more of an impact on the neighborhood. Homes require paved roads and walkways, utilities, and surfaces that are much more impervious than the solar field, which could increase stormwater runoff.

A citizen expressed concern about heat retention in solar panels, which could cause a heat island effect. Heat islands are built structures, such as roads or buildings, that retain and reflect heat at a higher rate than green areas.

Others said they were not convinced by the company’s claim that no endangered species lived in the project area, and said the proposed stormwater management would not be effective.

[ad_2]