Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Site Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Board approves 64 Ridge Road site plan despite calls for more solar-panel details

Hillsdale Planning Board · April 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Hillsdale Planning Board approved a site plan for 64 Ridge Road on April 14, accepting an environmental analysis and voting 4-0 while some members said the application lacked specific rooftop solar details.

The Hillsdale Planning Board approved a site plan for 64 Ridge Road on April 14, voting 4-0 after accepting an environmental analysis the board had requested earlier. Chairperson Barbara Olsen Pascale moved to approve the application with a note to the town building inspector that the board might revisit the project if further review becomes necessary.

The decision came after a brief but pointed exchange over proposed rooftop solar panels. Board member John Avenia said the board "could not approve a project he hadn’t seen," arguing the application lacked details such as how many panels would be installed and their exact placement. Applicant Benjamin Berk, who attended remotely, responded that he had "followed regulations to a T" and that the black panels would be barely visible from the road because they match the roof’s color. Board member Kyle McGraw acknowledged that the installation was "not exactly as shown" on earlier renderings but described the difference as minor and not visually disruptive. Member Mark Barbato said he understood Avenia’s concern but did not oppose approval.

Pascale framed the board’s role narrowly: she said the panel question should be judged only on whether the rooftop installation would change the visual character of the ridge line, and she said she did not see a problem. With McGraw seconding, the motion passed 4-0 (Pascale, Avenia, McGraw and Barbato). The board’s approval clears the way for Berk to submit plans to the building inspector; Pascale’s motion included a proviso that the board could take the matter up again if additional review is necessary.

Clarifying details noted at the meeting included the prior submission and board acceptance of an environmental analysis document and the specific procedural route: site-plan approval by the Planning Board followed by building-inspector review. The board did not set a specific follow-up date.