Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Freedom Planning Board continues two ground‑mounted solar applications after missing plan pages, easement and shoreland questions
Summary
The board continued two conditional-use applications for ground‑mounted solar arrays to Aug. 21 after finding missing plan pages, unresolved contour‑waiver requests and unanswered road‑easement/shoreland permitting questions; the contractor warned a 30% federal solar tax credit could be lost if work slips into 2026.
The Freedom Planning Board on Thursday continued two applications for ground‑mounted solar arrays after members said the submissions lacked required plan detail and still needed confirmations about road easements and shoreland permitting.
Chair Linda Mailhot opened a public hearing for an application by Jeff Nickel for a 26‑module ground‑mounted array at 85 Watson Hill Road and heard a presentation from Justin Painter of Revision Energy, the project's contractor. Painter described the proposed array, a rotary disconnect at the southeast corner and said the modules “do not have any toxic materials within them.” He said the array would be about 49 feet long and 11–14 feet high.
Board members repeatedly flagged missing pages and unclear mapping in the applicant packet. “There are 12 items on the application and I just wanted to see if anyone can comment on that,” Mailhot said, listing plan requirements such as perimeter bearings, setback lines and contours. Several members said the full‑size map with bearings was hard to read or missing and noted the board still had to vote on a contour waiver requested by the applicant.
Board members also raised precedent and optics. Jane Davidson said the town expects full submissions and warned that approving incomplete material could set an undesirable precedent. Brian Taylor and Robert Rafferty urged the applicant to provide clearer documentation; Rafferty noted the digital upload to the official planning email contained only one page.
Painter told the board the company planned to supply better maps and said a delay could affect the homeowner’s finances. “The 30% tax credit on solar is going away at the end of this year,” Painter said, warning that pushing the project into 2026 could “change substantially” the economics for the homeowner and urging that the applicant be allowed to resubmit for the August meeting.
With no abutters or members of the public speaking at the hearing, the board voted to continue the Nickel application to the Aug. 21 Planning Board meeting to let the applicant provide the missing plan pages, demonstrate setback bearings, and resolve the waiver and permitting questions.
The board then opened a separate public hearing for a 28‑panel ground array at 59 Babcock Road presented by Painter on behalf of the applicant (listed in the record as Lee Steege). Painter said ground mounting was required because roof mounting was infeasible due to the lot and proximity to water; he said the proposed trench for conduit would cross Babcock Road and that the array would be about 55 feet from the road.
Members pressed the applicant on road classification and what approvals are required to trench across a town right‑of‑way. The board discussed conduit depth and material—Painter said a two‑foot cover is used in traveled areas and schedule‑80 PVC would be used under the roadway—and raised the prospect of needing an easement or road‑agent approval. Mailhot said she would reach out to the road agent for clarification on the town’s expectations.
The trenching also appears to bring construction activity within the town’s 300‑foot shorefront district. Board members advised the applicant to coordinate the solar trenching with any shoreline permit for a concurrent house addition and to consult the building inspector and the state Department of Environmental Services to determine whether a permit‑by‑notification or a special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment is required.
That application was also continued to the Aug. 21 meeting so the applicant can provide clearer maps, secure road‑agent input or easement documentation, and resolve shoreland and contour waiver details.
No formal votes were taken on approvals; the board recorded motions to continue both applications and scheduled both items for 6:30 p.m. on Aug. 21 at Town Hall. The meeting closed after brief public‑comment discussion about a separate municipal ordinance option to permit outside drinking in designated public areas; no action was taken on that topic.
The board also approved the June 19 minutes earlier in the meeting and adjourned at about 7:25 p.m.
