NEW SCOTLAND —  A solar project seeking a major area variance faces skepticism from the New Scotland Zoning Board of Appeals over the size and type of request.

“I think you heard a lot of strong concerns from the members of the board regarding the amount of mature forest that’s being proposed to be taken here,” Chairman Jeffrey Baker, referring to the board’s April meeting, said to representatives from Seaboard Solar on May 25. 

The project was due back before the zoning board in July, but Seaboard’s attorney couldn’t be present for the July 27 meeting, Building Inspector Jeremy Cramer told The Enterprise on Monday, so board members have yet to be presented with the updated proposal.

The updated proposal from Seaboard Solar offers to preserve a separate 43-acre property near the intersection of New Scotland and Crow Ridge roads. 

In April, Seaboard had proposed a 5-megawatt ground-mounted solar array with an ask to chop down over 41 acres of mature forest. Then in May, Seaboard Solar presented the board with a 4.2-megawatt system while shrinking the acreage it intended to fell for the proposed site to 34 acres. 

Seaboard is seeking two variances from town code. 

New Scotland’s solar law prohibits large-scale solar facilities from being sited on land containing prime soils — Seaboard is proposing to disturb about 4,600 square feet. And town code doesn’t allow solar on a site if it contains more than one acre of mature forest — the developer is now looking to take down about 34 acres of trees. 

Board members had little positive to say about the May update, but continued to be open to alternatives. 

Access to the 90-acre addressless parcel of land on Bullock Road where the project is proposed for installation is located between 51 and 83 Bullock, where zoning board member Erin Casey resides. Casey has recused herself from discussing and voting on the project because, prior to the application being submitted to the town, she had made an offer on the land, Cramer said.

The board at its April meeting made it clear that, if Seaboard were to pursue its original proposal, the project as presented would have received a positive State Environmental Quality Review Act declaration, meaning it would have had a potentially significant adverse environmental impact. 

The positive declaration wouldn’t have killed the project; it would require Seaboard to produce an Environmental Impact Statement, an in-depth review of the project’s potential effect on its surroundings. 

Seaboard went back before the board at its May meeting, looking for feedback on a revised plan to “see if there’s any feedback or that will allow this project to go forward, in one form or another,” said the developer’s attorney, Mark Sweeney, on May 25. 

Sweeney said, since the project was originally proposed in April, the size of the solar field itself had been reduced by about 15 percent and the total amount of disturbed mature forest had been decreased by 7 acres. 

Lance Moore, who has since stepped down from the board to take a part-time code-enforcement officer job with the town, said on May 25, “I don’t think they’ve reduced a large amount at all; I really don’t. The reason we have a solar law is to prevent the taking of forested properties or viable farmlands.”

Once the project is built, Moore said, “it’s built for at least 20 years.”

Of the trees that would be felled to create the space needed for the array, he said, “You’re not going to be able to restore that mature forest.”

Sweeney said the property owner had been logging the site. 

Planning and zoning board attorney Crystal Peck asked when the owner had last logged the site. “There’s a one-year look-back, so that the site can’t be cleared one year prior to the application being submitted to the ZBA,” she said. “And that’s why the timing of what was … logged and when it was last logged, may be relevant to the application.” 

Peck was told she would be provided with a timeline.

Speaking to Sweeney, board member Dean Sommer said, “I think, as you would have expected [to hear], this is a lot of — this is a large area to start cutting down mature forest.

“But this design itself, just from an untrained eye, looks as if it takes nothing into account. Other than, let’s put fewer — let’s try to reduce by a few acres, the number of trees,” Sommer said.

Sommer said it seemed to him there hadn’t been any real effort to take into account the purpose and function of a mature forest. And, after the project’s initial proposal, Sommer said he felt “very reluctant” deviating from what the town board had in mind “in terms of the goal of maintenance of mature forests” when it adopted the solar law, in 2017.

“Just speaking for myself, I mean, you’re still looking at clearing 30-odd acres of mature forest,” Chairman Baker said, “which is a very many times increase over what the code allows.”

Mitigation proposed

Baker said he thought the site restricted Seaboard, but if the company were “somehow magically” able to reduce the number of acres of mature forest that were to be cut down, “I’d say, ‘Well then, you know, that’s worth pursuing.’” 

Baker was even “somewhat interested in off-site mitigation, in terms of preserving other areas — but not easily,” he said.

The project the board has yet to see, which was supposed to be presented in July, includes a proposal to preserve a separate 43-acre property near the intersection New Scotland and Crow Ridge roads. 

But, given constraints the project is facing, “I think it’s insurmountable,” Baker said on May 25.

The constraints include: finding somewhere on-site to place the infrastructure needed to connect to the grid; making it economically feasible with the megawattage it produces; and dealing with the environmental impacts discussed by the board.

Sweeney acknowledged the difficulties his client’s project would face moving forward, but said, “It is a permitted use in this area.”

He continued, “And yes, we are seeking an area variance that is substantial. However, that’s not the end of the equation, as we know. And we have to do our homework to understand what we can do to minimize that, and address the other factors before you.”

Baker said he appreciated the effort Seaboard was making to address the board’s concerns, concluding, “But I think you got a bad piece of land.”

He noted an unsuccessful history of trying to develop the parcel.

“Separate and apart from this project, this property by virtue of limited road frontage, limited water, topographical limitations,” Baker said, “has faced other limitations in the past.”