Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ag & Farmland Protection Board weighs solar mitigation options for prime farmland and reviews Yellow Barn project
Summary
Crystal Buck of the Ag & Farmland Protection Board described NOI reviews of multiple solar projects, AFPB comments on the Yellow Barn utility-scale project and ongoing consideration of a county-level ag mitigation or community-benefit fund to offset impacts on prime farmland.
The Ag & Farmland Protection Board (AFPB) updated the PEAK committee on outreach and reviews of solar projects on agricultural land and described work toward mitigation strategies.
Crystal Buck, farmland protection educator with Cooperative Extension, summarized AFPB activity in 2025: three NYSERDA-funded projects underwent Notice of Intent (NOI) reviews (in Groton, Caroline and Dryden), and the board provided extensive comments on the Yellow Barn utility-scale project in Lansing and Groton, which follows a separate review process through the Office of Renewable Energy Siting (ORES).
AFPB staff have been exploring ways to reduce the impact of solar on prime and active farmland, including a possible county-level solar mitigation or ag-impact fund. "The basics of this idea would be that similar to the IDA pilot policy...there's a tiered approach to solar mitigation where there's higher payment paid by the solar company if the project is happening on prime and/or active farmland," Buck said. The concept could combine portions of IDA pilot payments, town host-community agreements and a county-administered grant program.
Rich, chair of the IDA, told the committee that negotiations around the Yellow Barn project showed the legal and practical complexity of host-community agreements and that some host community payments may be routed into local development corporations for economic-development uses, including agricultural development.
The AFPB is seeking legal guidance from the county attorney's office on whether the AFPB can act as a county entity to negotiate community benefit agreements and on how a county-administered mitigation fund might be structured and administered. Buck said the AFPB's work is ongoing and that staff and board members have been researching other counties' approaches and pilot policies.
Ending: The committee heard that AFPB plans to continue developing options for mitigation and that state grant cycles and local IDA policy choices will influence next steps.
