Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves two BlueWave ground‑mounted solar projects with standardized conditions
Summary
The Auburn Planning Board approved two BlueWave Energy solar projects March 11, each conditioned on decommissioning financial security, engineering bonding determinations and fire department review of as‑built emergency access plans.
The Auburn Planning Board approved two ground‑mounted solar projects proposed by BlueWave Energy subsidiaries at its March 11 meeting, with both approvals carrying similar conditions on financial security and emergency access.
The first approval was for BWC Gulf Island LLC’s project at 224 East Waterman Road, a 1.41‑megawatt DC array on about 10.12 acres located in the Agricultural and Resource Protection zone. Planning staff noted the site had previously received approval for a larger project that was never built; the new proposal is smaller and includes updated operations and maintenance, waste management and hazardous materials plans. The Fire Department requested final as‑built site plans showing emergency response access before final electrical approval, and planning staff required financial security for decommissioning before issuance of building permits.
BlueWave’s representative, Colin Sexton, described the developer’s experience with agrivoltaics and said the firm seeks to preserve agricultural use where possible (grazing, pollinators, apiaries) and to minimize tree clearing. He said site selection was constrained by interconnection and routing needs and that the company had reduced access road length and altered the limits of disturbance in its revised design.
The second approval covered Supper Millbrook LLC’s project at 371 Penley Corner Road. Planning staff described a roughly 1.0‑megawatt DC array on about 10.91 acres and noted the site’s existing tree line and proximity to a prior solar installation. Staff also reported historical PFAS contamination on that parcel and said the applicant is exploring remediation/co‑use strategies in consultation with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The board attached the same conditions: determination of bonding/inspection fees by engineering, blasting permit if required, fire department as‑built plans for emergency response, and acceptable financial security for decommissioning prior to building permits.
Both motions carried by voice vote; no roll‑call tallies were recorded in the meeting transcript.
