Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jacob Road Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers revise Jacob Road solar layout, increase setbacks and buffering after board questions
Summary
Freestone Renewals presented an amended layout for a proposed 3.125 MW solar array on Jacob Road that increases the setback to 150 feet, reduces disturbance by about 4 acres, updates visual analyses and stormwater plans and creates a possible conflict with a planned trail; board requested coordination with subdivision approvals.
Freestone Renewals returned to the Yorktown Planning Board on Nov. 10 with a revised site plan for a 3.125-megawatt solar project at 1805 Jacob Road that reduces the project's disturbance footprint and increases setbacks but creates new design tradeoffs.
David Cooper, counsel for the applicant, said the new layout reflects a 150‑foot setback from neighboring parcels (raised from earlier proposals at 80–100 feet) and that the project's technical analyses—visual impact, stormwater, carbon sequestration—were updated to match the redesign. He asked the board to move the application toward public hearing status.
Nicholas Vambas, the project engineer, presented updated line‑of‑sight analyses based on corrected topography verified with a licensed land surveyor. The applicant said it will plant a "green wall" and other vegetative buffers (planted heights of 10–12 feet in critical locations) to reduce visibility from nearby homes. The updated plan reduced the overall limited disturbance by about four acres; the fenced array footprint was adjusted and the panel count and estimated output declined (transcript figures: roughly 8,300 panels previously, now ~6,700 panels; output down roughly 30 percent compared to the prior layout).
Board members flagged two procedural and substantive issues: the revised array now overlaps the alignment of a previously proposed Passport Park trail and therefore may require an amended subdivision and a re‑calculation of recreation fees; and the town's pending zoning‑law amendments for solar that are scheduled for a town‑board public hearing later in November could affect project standards. The applicant said it had been patient during the town's zoning review process but cannot delay indefinitely.
The board asked staff to coordinate sequencing (subdivision amendment, recreation‑fee implications and the solar special‑permit review) and to reconvene the applicants and the landowner for an integrated solution. No final action was taken at the meeting; staff and the applicant will return with the required subdivision amendments and responses to engineering comments.
Next steps: Applicant to coordinate amended subdivision and revised recreation fee schedule with the landowner and planning staff; town staff to confirm sequencing relative to pending zoning amendments and return to the planning board for subsequent review.
