Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Farm topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board declares negative SEQR and sets March 16 hearing for Pivot Solar amendment amid DEC wetland concerns
Summary
The Town of Richland Planning Board reviewed Pivot Solar’s amended site plan for a solar farm at 4347 U.S. Route 11 on Feb. 17, declaring a negative SEQR finding and scheduling a public hearing for March 16, 2026, after discussing DEC wetland concerns, a proposed capacity reduction, fire-access issues and a forthcoming decommissioning plan.
The Town of Richland Planning Board reviewed an amended site-plan application from Pivot Solar for property at 4347 U.S. Route 11 in Pulaski on Feb. 17, addressing concerns raised by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation about wetlands on the site.
Minutes record that the applicant proposed a reduction in the project’s capacity (the minutes state a change from "3.5 MG" to 2.5 MW) and will submit a decommissioning plan with the amended application. Board members expressed concern that the proposed site lacks an access road that encircles the project perimeter for fire response and asked for clarification on where the electricity generated by the array would be directed.
The board completed the State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) form on the record, with Chairman Jonathan Goodsell signing the paperwork. John Mandigo moved and Robert Jeffery seconded a motion to declare a negative declaration under SEQR for the amendment; roll-call vote recorded Goodsell, Jeffery, Jones and Mandigo — all voted yes.
The board also made a motion to schedule a public hearing on the Pivot Solar amendment for March 16, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.; the minutes record the motion (moved by Robert Jeffery, seconded by John Mandigo) but do not list a roll-call for that motion. The minutes do not record a presenting company representative or public comment at the meeting.
The minutes list three specific technical and procedural items for the applicant to address: wetlands concerns flagged by the DEC, submission of a decommissioning plan, and the board’s concern about emergency access. The minutes do not specify whether the reduced capacity figure in the minutes was a typographical error for megawatts; the transcript text records ‘‘3.5 MG’’ and then 2.5 MW. That discrepancy and any final project capacity will be clarified in application materials presented at the public hearing.
