Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers scale back disturbance and add screening as Ancram planning board continues review of solar project
Summary
Developer said the Ancram solar project reduced its limit of disturbance from 9.93 to 9.4 acres and added screening; the county recommended approval with conditions including fire access, a SWIP and landscaping/decommissioning assurances. The board kept the public hearing open and asked for consultant review.
The Ancram Planning Board continued public review of the Ancram Solar project on June 5 after the applicant submitted revised materials and a supplemental EAF. "We brought down from 9.93 acres to 9.4 acres," said Sierra Hopkins, representing the developer, describing the project's reduced limit of disturbance and updates to the landscaping plan.
Board members then worked item-by-item through SEQRA (the EAF), characterizing most resource impacts as small after staff and applicant responses. The submission indicates groundwater depth greater than 6.67 feet and that about 7% of the site contains slopes over 15 percent; the applicant and board concluded these factors would not likely create large adverse impacts under the current design. The board also noted the project will require compliance with stormwater controls because it disturbs more than one acre and that a SWIP (stormwater pollution prevention plan) was submitted.
County reviewers provided a letter recommending approval with caveats, the board said. The county asked the town to verify zoning compliance, have the fire chief review emergency access, confirm a Knox box at the array gate, and ensure the SWIP and ag data statement are complete. "CCPB suggests that the site landscape plan be reviewed in order to evaluate the proposed screening," the county letter said, and it also recommended that the applicant provide assurances for long‑term landscape maintenance and a decommissioning cost estimate or bond.
Neighbors spoke at length about visibility, glare and farmland impacts. Jeff Baker, owner of Hill Rock Farm and Distillery, said he could see the site from nearby roads and asked whether a glare analysis had been done. The applicant replied that modern PV modules include anti‑reflective coatings and that no site‑specific glare study was required by code, but said they would consider additional vantage points if the board requested them. Another resident suggested that the ground beneath arrays be seeded with a pollinator‑friendly mix; the applicant confirmed the maintenance plan calls for a pollinator mix and limited mowing to support habitat.
Chair asked town consultants (planner and engineer) to review the county comments and the applicant responses before the next meeting. The board voted to keep the public hearing open to the next month so consultants can comment and the applicant can respond to outstanding items.
