(This story by Ed Damon was first published in the Bennington Banner on June 2, 2017.)
[B]ENNINGTON — State regulators will take another look at a solar facility being proposed by a New York City developer.
Apple Hill Solar is one of three projects that Allco Renewable Energy seeks to build in Bennington. Intervenors argued the 2.0 megawatt ground-mounted solar project violated the Bennington Town Plan. Allco, arguing it didn’t have an opportunity to respond to those concerns at a technical hearing in August 2015, later filed numerous motions, among them to reduce the project’s size and to reopen discovery.
The evidentiary record was reopened under a May 24 order by Hearing Officer Michael E. Tousley. The board will allow “further discovery and a supplemental technical hearing to address Apple Hill’s proposed amendment.” The board will also “allow the presentation of any additional evidence related to the impact of the language of the Town Plan on the permissibility of the project,” the order states.
The developer’s motion to amend is timely because an evidentiary hearing has been held, but no “proposal for decision” or final order has been issued, according to the order.
The developer must submit evidence on the proposed amendment’s impact on Section 248 criteria.
“Discovery shall not include an investigation into the town’s intent in crafting the language of those planning documents in order to determine the meaning of allegedly ambiguous terms in that language,” the order states.
Apple Hill Solar and Chelsea Solar would share a 27 acre parcel near the Apple Hill Neighborhood, near the Route 279 and Route 7 interchange. The PSB last winter denied Chelsea Solar a certificate of public good; the developer has appealed the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. Both projects have drawn much criticism from residents and abutters who live in the Apple Hill Neighborhood. Allco also wants to build a 2.2-megawatt power facility behind Home Depot and Carbone Auto dubbed Battle Creek Solar I.
An attorney for the town, in a brief after Apple Hill’s technical hearing, argued the project would not be allowed in Rural Conservation District.
That district, described in the town plan, limits development to “limited residential development” and prohibits development “in prominently visible locations on hillsides and ridgelines” and requires “any development must minimize the clearing of natural vegetation.”
Last April, Allco filed an amended site plan. That plan reduced the height of panels from 9 feet to 6.5 feet. It also reduced the project’s total footprint from 12.5 acres to 8.5 acres, and reduced the total amount of cleared land from 10.6 acres to 8.3 acres.
The setback between the project and the southern property line rose from 20 feet to 228 feet.
The order states the amendment doesn’t offer expert testimony on the project’s impacts on various Section 248 criteria and is insufficient to determine whether it should be granted. The developer must file testimony on criteria that aren’t addressed.
/
