Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ancram Solar Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board asks for viewshed analysis, more screening for Ancram solar project
Summary
After a multi‑hour review the Ancram Planning Board advanced visual/aesthetic concerns about a proposed sub‑1 MW solar array, asked the applicant for a viewshed map and additional screening or undergrounding options, and scheduled a Sept. 25 follow‑up meeting for new material.
The Ancram Planning Board on Aug. 7 asked the applicant for a computerized viewshed analysis and additional mitigation after concluding the proposed Anchor and PV LLC (Rick Energy) solar array could be visible from several public vantage points, including Route 82 and scenic Cottontail Road. The board advanced questions from Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment Form to Part 3 for more in‑depth review and set a special meeting for Sept. 25 to consider new submissions.
Sierra Hopkins, a project developer at Rick Energy, opened the applicant presentation: "My name is Sierra Hopkins. I'm a project developer at Rick Energy. I'm here on behalf of the Ankurim Solar Project, less than 1 megawatt project, being proposed in Ankurim." Kristen Pratt, outside counsel for the applicant, said the team recommended a negative determination because their materials identify no large environmental impacts. Planning consultant Nan walked the board through the FEAF questions on plan consistency and community character and noted the practical difference in the FEAF between "no/small" impacts and "moderate to large" impacts that require Part 3 analysis.
Board members repeatedly returned to visibility and landscape character. Several members said photo simulations submitted by the applicant show the array would be visible from Route 82; others stressed that the town's comprehensive plan names scenic roads where even distant visibility could matter. The board asked the applicant to provide a viewshed map (the board discussed a two‑mile radius to include Cottontail Road), additional photo simulations at identified viewpoints, and specific proposals to reduce visibility, such as additional vegetative screening or shifting the interconnection design so fewer above‑ground poles are needed. The board also asked the applicant to consult with Central Hudson about pad‑mounted interconnection versus pole‑mounted lines.
Planning counsel John Lyons told the board it was reasonable to request more information without automatically issuing a positive declaration under SEQR: "The town board made land use policy; the planning board's job is to implement those decisions," he said, advising the board to rely on the local solar law and the comprehensive plan when framing mitigation requests.
The board recorded consensus that visibility from public roads and the potential diminishment of designated scenic resources were issues warranting further analysis. The applicant agreed to supply a viewshed analysis and explore mitigation options. The planning board and applicant staff agreed materials should be submitted at least 14 days before the Sept. 25 special meeting so consultants and the board can review them ahead of time.
