Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Installation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingston commission approves rooftop solar at 61 Spring Street with environmental finding
Summary
The Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness and a short environmental assessment form for a 7.65 kW rooftop solar installation at 61 Spring Street after finding no significant environmental impact.
The Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission on Jan. 9 approved a certificate of appropriateness and accepted a short environmental assessment form for a proposed rooftop solar installation at 61 Spring Street.
Commission chair Mark Grumblatt moved the commission to accept staff’s Part 2 findings on the short environmental assessment form and to sign a determination of no significant adverse environmental impact. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nettie Murano and carried on a roll call vote with all members present voting aye.
Grumblatt then moved that the commission grant a certificate of appropriateness for the rooftop solar work as described in the application, conditioned on performing the work according to the submitted plans and the procedures in Section 405-26.l of the City of Kingston’s form-based zoning code. Eric Mitchell seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Applicant representatives showed color photographs and drone images and said the system would be small, black-paneled and “not be visible from the street.” Bridal Erzari, director of sales for New York State Solar Farm, identified the installer. The application lists a 7.65-kilowatt system comprised of 18 black panels—14 on a west-facing roof plane and four on an east-facing plane—with racking attached to rafters and an exterior-mounted combiner and disconnect near the utility meter. Commission staff required that exterior lines be painted to match the façade color to minimize visibility from the public right of way.
Commissioners and staff reviewed changes made to the Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1 and noted that staff completed Part 2 with conclusions of “no or small impact.” Grumblatt described edits including mapping-generated flags for proximity to regulated resources (endangered/ threatened species and nearby remediation sites) that were addressed in staff’s Part 2 evaluation.
The commission’s approval was made explicit as conditional: any changes to the plans submitted to the commission will require further review, and the commission’s approval does not replace the need for required building permits or other agency approvals.
The commission’s vote: unanimous approval of the SEAF determination and unanimous approval of the certificate of appropriateness.
