Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reviews Greenwich solar farm referral for two ground‑mounted arrays totaling 7.7 MW
Summary
Washington County planning staff reviewed a GML 239 referral from the Town of Greenwich for two ground‑mounted solar projects — a 5 MW array and a 2.7 MW array — raising questions about wetlands, emergency access and utility easements; the board voted unanimously to move forward with the referral review.
Washington County Planning Board members on an intermunicipal referral review discussed a proposed New York Greenwich Solar Farm comprising two ground‑mounted photovoltaic arrays — Project 1 at 5 megawatts and Project 2 at 2.7 megawatts, for a total of 7.7 megawatts — and moved to record the referral for consideration.
The planning staff presented the submission under General Municipal Law (GML) 239, noting the projects are within 500 feet of the county referral boundary and include access roads, utility upgrades, new fencing and construction drawings. Staff said the full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) notes potential impacts to streams, stormwater and adjoining areas and includes construction details in the submitted set (construction set labeled E001 in the file).
Board members focused on site specifics: the location of the arrays on the southern portion of a single parcel; whether a transmission/utility easement is delineated on the maps; the 500‑foot referral buffer; and possible wetland impacts. One board member requested that the applicant involve emergency services in siting and site‑plan review, saying the board should adopt the same condition used on a prior local project requiring emergency‑services input. Planning staff confirmed construction drawings show wetland and mitigation annotations but did not present a finalized utility‑easement plan on the map submitted with the referral.
During discussion board members also asked about screening and traffic during construction. Staff responded that routine construction traffic would be temporary and that the submission includes standard screening notes; specific traffic or long‑term access effects were not detailed in the referral packet.
After discussion the board recorded a unanimous aye vote to conclude their consideration of the referral and move on to the next agenda item.
The board did not adopt local conditions on the record at the meeting; staff recommended that the town’s special use permit and site‑plan review processes address the details—utility easements, emergency access coordination, wetlands offsets and screening—before issuance of any building or grading permits.
The county review continues as a GML 239 referral; the town’s local special‑use review and any required Army Corps or state reviews remain independent processes for permit approvals.
