Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board approves Route 88 solar pole relocation with screening and conditions
Summary
The Westport Planning Board approved an after‑the‑fact modification allowing above‑ground utility poles at the Route 88 solar site, requiring engineered pole relocation plans, additional landscaping to screen neighboring properties and a field inspection before occupancy.
The Westport Planning Board voted to approve an after‑the‑fact modification to the Route 88 solar special permit, allowing above‑ground utility poles in place of the previously approved underground installation, contingent on several conditions intended to limit impacts on nearby residents.
Attorney Adam Baldderelli, representing Westport Route 88 Solar 1 LLC, told the board the project team had moved previously proposed poles inside the applicant’s fenced lease area and submitted on‑screen plans and photographs showing the revised layout. “The four poles will be relocated so that they are completely within the applicant’s property inside the fence,” Baldderelli said, describing the change as responsive to neighbor concerns.
The board spent considerable time pressing the applicant on technical constraints and alternatives. Project general manager Michael Kushner explained some poles carry metering and disconnect equipment and others provide conductor span support, noting a utility constraint: “they can only span 150 ft.” Kushner told the board that fully reverting to an underground design would be a major redesign that could add months or years to approvals and construction.
Neighbors George and Alan Dean, whose property sits between the solar field and Route 88, told the board they remain concerned about visibility and the location of plantings, saying they did not see screening proposed along the transformer/gate area adjacent to their property. The applicant responded that planting will be installed inside the fence at the drainage basin west of the Dean parcel and that the plant palette will match the previously approved Route 88 plan; the applicant also agreed to add fence slats and additional plantings to improve visual and audible screening.
Board members read a set of conditions into the record and tied approval to those commitments. Conditions require: an engineered plan showing the pole relocations and updated civil/electrical details; a landscape plan demonstrating screening between the subject parcel and parcel ID 29_22A with specified planting locations (including the drainage basin immediately west of the abutter’s property); site perimeter inspection by the planning board or its designee prior to issuance of an occupancy permit; installation of plantings as directed; and use of a pollinator‑friendly seed mix in landscaped areas.
The board clarified a proposed condition that the applicant “ensure” electrical connection to the adjacent property, replacing the wording with a requirement that the applicant “facilitate” discussions with the utility. Baldderelli said the applicant had been working with Eversource and could help introduce the abutters to the appropriate utility division but could not unilaterally guarantee a service connection.
The board closed the public hearing and approved the minor modification subject to the above conditions. The decision requires the applicant to submit the engineered relocation plan and final landscape plan to the planning office and to allow the planning board’s inspection before an occupancy certificate is issued.
The board’s approval resolves a multi‑year permitting process for the array but leaves follow‑up items — final planting installation, signage updates, and coordination with Eversource on residential service to the neighboring parcel — to be completed before final closeout.
