Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Solar Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks setback relief for 2.1 MW Mount Hope community solar; board sends project to county for review
Summary
Mongot River Solar presented a 2.1 MW AC, 15‑acre community solar project and requested area/setback variances; the board voted to circulate the application to the county (GML/239) and will await county comments before scheduling a local public hearing.
Mongot River Solar representatives told the Mount Hope Planning Board on May 7 that they plan a 2.1 megawatt AC community solar farm off Pine Grove Road and are seeking area variances for side and rear setbacks. The project entity, Hoya Pine Grove Road LLC, acquired the project from Hoya Renewables, the company said, and the developer said it has completed an interconnection study with Orange and Rockland and paid interconnection fees.
“It's a 2.1 megawatt AC solar farm,” said Matt Mahaley of Mongot River Solar, who described the layout as approximately 15 acres of fenced panels with single‑axis trackers and about 4,600 panels. He told the board there is no battery storage proposed and that the developer has filed a jurisdictional determination and environmental surveys; he said two small wetlands on site would not be impacted. Mahaley also said the project would offer local customers in the Orange and Rockland territory a subscription discount and that the town would receive increased tax revenue either via a pilot payment or the state standardized assessment.
Board members questioned height and visual impacts; Mahaley said panels will be up to 15 feet high (per code) and perimeter fencing about 7–8 feet tall. He proposed evergreen screening along Pine Grove Road and Beering Hill Road and said the team is willing to add reasonable screening requested by the board. The board asked whether a reduced footprint to meet code setbacks would significantly reduce system capacity; Mahaley said the exact reduced size would require follow‑up with the project's electrical engineer.
There was also discussion comparing this Mount Hope application to a separate, approved project in the adjacent Town of Walkill; Mahaley said the Walkill site had different parcel constraints and that variances had been approved there. After discussion the board voted to move the Mount Hope application to county review (239/GML circulation) and to await county comment before setting a local public hearing.
Next steps: The board will circulate the application to the county for a 30‑day review period and reconvene the matter after county responses and any required agency determinations.
