Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board reviews Oya Pine Grove Road solar application after DEC jurisdictional determination
Summary
The board reviewed new exhibits and a December 17 memorandum from the Oya Pine Grove Road LLC solar applicant and was told the DEC jurisdictional determination was received that morning; members pressed the applicant on shifting company names, visual buffering, fence design and flood‑prone areas.
The Mount Hope Planning Board spent substantial time on an update from the applicant for the proposed large‑scale solar installation (filed under the project company name Oya Pine Grove Road LLC), and the applicant reported that the New York State DEC jurisdictional determination had been received that morning.
Michael Boncardo, an attorney with the firm Hodge Russ representing the applicant, said the applicant had submitted a December 17 memorandum and supplemental exhibits, including drone photos the ZBA had requested. Board members said they had not all had time to digest the long submission and that town professionals should review the materials; the board agreed the packet should be reviewed before the board makes a final SEQR determination.
Members of the board and attendees raised several technical and community concerns. One board member asked whether the applicant still maintained ties to a sequence of parent companies and noted the project company name had changed multiple times; the applicant’s representative replied that Oya Pine Grove Road LLC is the project company that will sign contracts and that ownership of the parent company has changed but the project company remains the contracting party. The applicant said contracts and landscape obligations travel with the project company.
Board members also pressed the applicant about potential flood‑prone areas near the site (referred to locally as "Nelly's Hole") and whether electrical equipment and inverters would be sited away from any such wet areas; the applicant said the inverters and pads are located well inside the array and away from the road‑side wet spots and that access roads would be used to reach fenced areas.
County reviewers recommended a larger wildlife passage gap under the security fence (a one‑foot opening instead of the applicant’s proposed 5‑inch gap) and suggested staggered conifer plantings for visual screening; the applicant said the team could raise the gap height if the board wishes and would revise the plans to reflect preferred planting arrangements.
No formal board vote was taken on the solar application; the board and applicant agreed to bring the matter back next month after staff and board members have had time to review the DEC jurisdictional determination and the applicant’s December 17 exhibits.
The board encouraged continued coordination with the ZBA and town reviewers and noted that the ZBA cannot close its hearing until the planning board completes its SEQR determination and related findings.
