Worthington planning board to press Blue Wave for technical answers ahead of July 28 hearing

The Worthington Planning Board agreed at a June meeting to forward a detailed set of technical questions to applicant Blue Wave and to require site-specific documentation — including test-pit results, equipment specifications, a drafted emergency management plan and representative noise modeling — ahead of a July 28 public hearing.

Chris Nolan, an engineer with the board's consulting firm, said he will prepare a technical memorandum that "will be more along the lines of a letter...with individual categories and individual questions" that the board can forward directly to Blue Wave. The board agreed to aim for a transmission date around the 14th to give the applicant time to respond.

Why it matters: Board members said the material will help determine whether site peculiarities (fractured bedrock, proximity to municipal wells and a water-surface protection district) require more stringent conditions or a special-permit review rather than ordinary site-plan approval. Without the applicant's detailed specs, the board said, it has limited leverage to impose design or operational mitigations.

Key requests and technical points: The board asked for the developer's geotechnical/test-pit results (the engineer noted the applicant reported test pits to "8 to 12 feet" during a site visit), saying the depth to bedrock will determine the relevance of fracturing concerns. Nolan told the board: "If bedrock is at 8 to 10 ft then fracturing becomes a really less important issue but if it's six inches everywhere then we need to know more." The board also asked Blue Wave to supply equipment spec sheets that document wind-loading capacity and to justify selections by referencing local wind history.

Noise and operations: Members asked for a representative sound study and, where useful, modeled scenarios that show tracker operation (how the trackers move at dusk/dawn and whether that produces short, loud operations or longer, quieter adjustments). The group discussed asking for an ambient baseline and modeling with accepted software to judge whether the installation would increase site-line noise by the 10-dB threshold typically used at property lines.

Emergency planning and battery risk: The fire-chief comments were a central focus. The consultant expanded that section and recommended the board ask the applicant to respond to the chief's points in question form. Board members flagged the need for a site-specific emergency management plan addressing battery-fire scenarios; one member said SWIP (stormwater pollution prevention) documents typically do not include post-battery-fire remediation, so the board will seek that detail in the emergency plan.

Process and timing: Members acknowledged the likelihood that Blue Wave will provide incomplete answers on an initial round and that the board will need follow-up rounds of clarification. The consultant and board agreed the July 28 hearing can include public, in-person review of the applicant's answers, with the board reserving the right to continue the hearing or require additional submittals if responses arrive too late for proper technical review.

Next steps: The consultant will finalize and circulate the technical memorandum and a one-page question list; the planning board will forward both to Blue Wave (and, separately, existing Board of Health and water-operator letters) and will ask applicants to respond publicly at the July 28 hearing. Technical reviewers from the consultant's firm and town staff will triage responses and recommend whether answers are adequate or require further detail.

The board did not take a formal vote at the meeting; members described the plan as an operational direction to staff and consultants. The hearing is scheduled for July 28, and the board expects iterative review beyond that date if applicant responses are partial.