Keene planning board approves Rose Lane solar array with fire‑marshal review after neighbors raise drainage, safety concerns

The Keene Planning Board voted unanimously to approve PB‑2025‑20, a medium‑scale, 240 kW DC ground‑mounted solar array proposed for the remediated former wastewater treatment plant at 0 Rose Lane, with conditions requiring additional permits and a fire‑marshal determination before issuance of a building permit.

Revision Energy project representative Megan Yulin told the board the project will participate in New Hampshire’s low‑to‑moderate‑income community solar program and that Keene Housing — the primary off‑taker — is expected to receive reduced energy costs. Yulin said the array is projected to produce about 253,000 kilowatt‑hours annually and that the project lifetime savings available to Keene Housing add up to roughly $100,000 over a 25‑year design life. “This is a medium‑scale solar energy system proposed to be located at the former wastewater treatment plant site,” she said, describing a ballasted ground‑mount design placed on an engineered, remediated surface.

Planning staff recommended approval subject to standard conditions, including submittal of an approved New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services alteration‑of‑terrain (AOT) permit, a wetlands scientist‑stamped conditions plan, owner signatures and submittal of paper and PDF plan copies, and a security to cover sediment‑and‑erosion control measures and as‑built plans. Staff told the board that the city engineer’s truck‑turning and signage comments had been addressed and that the proposed development area is set back from the Branch River and from remediated capped areas.

Davis Oil owner Steve Walsh, who owns property adjacent to the site, urged the board to require two items before construction: a local plan to relieve an existing drainage problem affecting his parcel and a fire‑safety analysis because Davis Oil stores propane on adjacent property. Walsh said the capping and remediation work in 2018 altered drainage patterns and asked that the city ensure the solar project will not make the situation worse. He also said a fire‑safety analysis was required when his propane installation was permitted and asked what protections would exist if a leak or ignition occurred. “I will be the first to say that I am not against solar panels… What I am asking for now is what has this affected or what will it affect by adding the solar panels near our propane plant,” he said.

Staff and the applicant said the project meets the alteration‑of‑terrain screening criteria and that city public works and the engineer had not identified a runoff impact from the solar installation; staff said there is a wooded buffer and that the solar footprint is more than 30 feet inside the river buffer. On the fire issue, staff reported the fire marshal found it prudent to assess whether an additional analysis is necessary because the solar array could affect the validity of an adjacent property’s fire‑safety evaluation. Revision Energy said its projects are designed to meet NFPA code and that typical building‑permit reviews include fire‑marshal review, but the company asked for an opportunity to confer with the fire marshal about scope and cost.

To address those concerns, the board added a condition that the fire marshal (or their designee) must sign off prior to issuance of a building permit either that no additional fire‑safety analysis is needed or that an analysis has been completed to the marshal’s satisfaction. The motion as amended also required the applicant to provide the AOT permit, wetlands‑stamped plans, owner signatures, the specified security for erosion control and revegetation, and five paper copies plus a PDF of final plans before final signature.

Supporters including former Energy and Climate Committee member Peter Hansel urged a timely approval, saying incentives available to projects are time‑sensitive and delays could jeopardize financing and savings for low‑income residents. Hansel told the board certain incentives “run out at the end of this year,” arguing that a timely construction start matters for project viability.

The board approved the motion as amended and confirmed the applicant will be required to comply with the listed conditions prior to final sign‑off and prior to building‑permit issuance, at which point the fire marshal will make the determination about any additional fire‑safety study. The board also noted the lease agreement will require the project owner to remove the array and cover decommissioning costs at end of life.