Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CCRPC signs letters on multiple Act 250/Section 240 energy applications, flags soils concerns
Summary
The committee approved comment/response letters for four energy-related applications — Colchester solar, a small Vermont Gas array, a Global Foundries solar petition and an Essex battery storage project — and requested coordination with the Agency of Agriculture on soils for several items.
Taylor Newton, Planning Program Director, presented Act 250 and Section 240 notices and application letters for multiple energy projects across Chittenden County and asked the committee to approve comment letters.
For the Town of Colchester (#24-1600-NM), Newton said the proposed solar facility at the Colchester Recreation Center parking lot presented no new CCRPC concerns and that the document was an application letter rather than a 45-day notice; the committee approved the edited letter unanimously.
Newton described a Vermont Gas Systems project in Milton (#24-1795-AN) as a small solar array to charge equipment and noted the need to coordinate with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture regarding soils; the committee approved the 45-day notice letter unanimously.
On Global Foundries (#24-1898-PET), Newton said impacts were limited to soils and again recommended coordination with the Agency of Agriculture; the committee approved the petition letter unanimously. Newton then briefed members on an Essex battery energy storage system (BESS) proposed on Global Foundries property (#24-2009-AN), calling it "an exciting project, one of the first of its kind in the county," and noted jurisdictional interaction with ISO New England for grid stability. The committee approved the letter for the BESS, with members asking staff to note soils concerns and the project's new LLC structure.
The committee also received an update on the Wheeler property Act 250 appeal in South Burlington, where Newton and Baker explained the parcel's 2016–17 land swap history, a 2022 Act 250 permit, and ongoing neighbor appeals; CCRPC has incurred modest attorney fees to monitor hearings. Baker told the committee appellants view CCRPC as "anti-environment and pro-development," a characterization he said does not reflect a policy shift.
All project letters presented at the meeting were approved by unanimous vote.
