Planning board presses Solar Liberty for clearer glare, visual and stormwater details on 58.9-acre Millburn Road project

Solar Liberty Energy Systems returned to the Goshen Planning Board to discuss supplemental materials for a proposed subdivision, site plan and special permit for a 58.9-acre solar energy system near Millburn Road, Moonlight Trail and Storms Road.

The applicant’s attorney, Dan Kruskowski of the law firm Barclay Damon, said the recent submission included a soil survey, a pile-load-testing report and product spec sheets, and that the project will rely on pile-driven galvanized steel “designed around that based on a 30 year corrosive life.” Kruskowski said the company’s noise testing showed 39–44 dBA at the parcel boundary and “at or below 39 at residential receptors,” and described that increase as within New York DEC guidance.

Board members said the package answered some earlier questions but left several technical and visual issues unresolved. Several commissioners pressed the applicant for a more complete glare analysis, visual renderings from neighborhood viewpoints, and a clearer planting and maintenance plan to reduce visual and glare impacts on nearby homes.

Why it matters: board members said the site’s topography and multiple surrounding roads mean glare and visual impacts should be evaluated from more vantage points than were included in the current submission. The board flagged stormwater, pile-depth and fencing details as items that must be clarified in subsequent materials before the board can move forward on site plan items.

In the meeting, Kruskowski said the glare minutes in a revised report dropped from about 25,000 minutes to roughly 12,800 minutes after including antireflective coatings and existing vegetation in the model. He described the panels as fixed-tilt arrays set at 20 degrees and said the spec sheets provided show panels without PFOS. The applicant also supplied a third-party noise study and pile-load testing.

Board questions and directions from the meeting included: - Glare study: commissioners asked for additional observation points (including Millburn Road, Wilmai Trail, Storms Road and the road named Northgate), runs that remove or vary hedgerows to test worst-case exposure, and analysis at both 3-foot and 8-foot panel centroid heights. Several members requested a written narrative from the design professional who prepared the glare model to explain inputs and what the reported minutes mean for receptors. - Visuals: the board asked for more photo-simulations and renderings from multiple public vantage points and for qualifications of the visual-study preparer. - Landscaping: commissioners requested denser, near-term plantings (including a mix of conifers and deciduous species), staggered rows rather than waiting for a one-year “look back” replacement approach, and specific planting spacing/centers to provide nearer-term screening. - Construction details: clarify pile depths (the plans referenced both 6 and 7 feet), consistent agricultural-fence underclearances (6 vs. 8 inches were both cited), and provide written confirmation about equipment operation in wet soils and whether pile-driving rigs will be able to operate on-site without extended disturbance. - Stormwater: the board asked the applicant to address how runoff beneath upslope panels will be managed—possible gravel troughs, grama plantings or other measures to prevent erosion along panel drip lines, especially where rows run downhill.

Board staff and consultants also advised that the submission lacked contextual narrative tying the technical studies to ‘significant adverse impact’ thresholds used in the board’s review; several members said they needed a clearer evaluation, not just raw model outputs. One commissioner noted the glare graphs showed months with as much as 60 contiguous minutes of ‘‘yellow glare’’ for certain receptors and said the board needed guidance on whether that constitutes a significant adverse impact.

Kruskowski and staff agreed to return with a further revised submission that: adds the viewpoints the board requests; runs glare scenarios with and without hedgerows; includes a narrative from the design professional who prepared the model; provides final equipment and product specifications; and clarifies pile, fence and planting details. Staff noted some items (stormwater treatment) will be captured at the site-plan stage after the EAF process.

The board did not vote on the solar application at the meeting; members said they would expect a more detailed packet and further discussion at a future meeting.

Next steps: the applicant will prepare an updated glare analysis and narrative, additional visual simulations from specified viewpoints, and corrected construction and planting details for the board’s review at a subsequent meeting.