Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Renewable Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board delays Milburn Road solar decision pending legal memo; continues item to April 21
Summary
The board continued deliberation on Solar Liberty Energy Systems’ proposed 58.9-acre Milburn Road solar site after a board member raised a legal question; the public hearing had been closed to oral comments, the board received nine written comments, and staff will circulate a legal memorandum before the April 21 meeting.
The Zoning Board of Appeals on April 7 agreed to delay final action on Solar Liberty Energy Systems’ proposed solar energy site on Milburn Road (about 58.9 acres in the RU zone with multiple overlay districts) until members receive a written legal clarification and additional technical responses from the applicant.
The board had already closed the hearing to oral testimony and acknowledged receipt of nine written comments. During the continuation, a board member raised a legal question about an interpretation in the applicant’s response documents; the chair said that the best path was to memorialize the issue in a legal memorandum to the board rather than address it orally during deliberation.
Board members also asked technical questions about array layout and capacity sizing — including whether the two proposed arrays needed to be adjacent to maximize state grant eligibility and how the applicant converted the system’s DC-rated capacity to expected AC output. The applicant’s representative said the team would take those questions back and revise the narrative to clarify conversions and grant-related design choices.
One board member asked the applicant to correct a passage in its materials that appeared to attribute a statement to the Public Service Commission; the member said the passage actually quoted developer comments submitted in a notice of proposed rulemaking and asked that the record be corrected.
Given the outstanding legal and technical clarifications, the board voted to continue the item to the April 21 meeting to allow members time to review the legal memorandum and any applicant responses. Board members said they expect to be prepared to vote at the next meeting unless the legal clarification spawns additional questions.
The board’s decision to continue keeps the written comment record open for staff review; the board reminded participants that members may still pose follow-up questions until they have the information needed to deliberate and decide.
