GOOGLE MAP
This Google Map shows the wooded area where the solar panels were to be constructed.
ANSONIA — A solar panel farm proposed for the city’s Hilltop section by a solar energy company has been rejected by the state.
The Connecticut Siting Council rendered its decision March 11 regarding a proposal to build both a 1.0- megawatt and 0.99-megawatt solar generating facilities.
Windham Solar, LLC, a division of Allco Renewable Energy, LTD, based in New Haven, wanted to build the solar farm on former farmland at 31 Benz St.
The plan called for installation of more than 6,000 solar panels on about 8.6 acres of the 12-acre parcel, which, according to the paperwork submitted to the state, was to “grow and sustain renewable and zero-carbon generation in the state and region.”
The Council denied the proposal with prejudice.
“The proposed project would have substantial adverse environmental effects, particularly with regard to water quality,” said the Council’s Executive Director Melanie A. Bachman.
In its denial, the Council cited the project would have the following negative effects on water quality:
- Insufficient wetland buffers composed of undisturbed vegetation to maintain water quality of onsite wetlands, as recommended in the 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual.
- Insufficient information as to how the removal and processing of on-site ledge for use as fill material will affect on-site water hydrology, topographic settling and as a substrate to support vegetation.
Allco’s CEO Thomas Melone, reached by email, said the Council’s decision came as a complete surprise.
“The Council had nearly nine months to review the petition and raise issues,” Melone said. “Not once did it raise an objection to the placement of stormwater retaining ponds, nor was that an issue raised by the staff report. One would have thought that if the Council had questions or an issue that it would have asked and not simply rejected the project. It was also quite surprising, and I would say unlawful, for the Council to attempt to deny the petition with prejudice.”
Melone said the project meets the state’s water quality requirements that were in effect at the time the petition was filed.
“The Council’s statement that the project did not meet the water quality requirements was simply wrong,” Melone said.
Melone said he plans to file a motion with the Council to reconsider the proposal, with some possible modifications made to the original plan.
For city officials, the Council’s denial was welcome news.
“We agree with the decision of the Siting Council to deny this application with prejudice based on the significant environmental concerns raised,” said Corporation Counsel John Marini.”The decision was necessary for the protection of Ansonia residents, and echoes the concerns that I raised on behalf of the city as an intervening party. The Siting Council’s denial of this application with prejudice should close the door on any future attempt by the developer to revive this project.”
Melone said Marini is wrong, and that the project can be reconsidered.
“The ‘with prejudice’ aspect has no basis in the Council’s enabling statute or its regulations,” Melone said.
The Valley Indy reached out to the siting council for clarification but did not hear back.
Marini said the project would provide no benefit to Ansonia. Neighbors used Facebook to express their opposition to the project.
“This project would have put Ansonia wildlife and wetlands in jeopardy, while adding zero taxable revenue to the city’s grand list,” Marini said. “Moreover, an array of solar panels, in the proposed configuration, appeared ill-suited to a residential neighborhood. “
Mayor David Cassetti agreed.
“I am thankful that the Connecticut Siting Council acted to protect the interests of Ansonia and its residents by denying the application,” Cassetti said. “Development has been a key component of my administration. However, not every development project is right for our city.”
Aldermanic President Josh Shuart said he believed the project was not the right fit for Ansonia, and that it would not benefit the city’s tax rolls.
“I have felt all along that it was the wrong project in the wrong location,” Shuart said. “Whenever possible, we do fight to protect Ansonians. I agree with residents who felt that their neighborhood was going to be disrupted and negatively impacted by this proposed solar farm. I would not want to look out my window at a solar farm, and neither should those residents.”
The council’s decision is embedded below:
