The public hearing about a proposed solar development at 91 and 101 Fearing Hill Rd. was continued to the Planning Board’s August 9 meeting after more than an hour and a half of discussion on July 26.

The proposal has been modified significantly in response to concerns from board members and the public, but many citizens still expressed concern.

Joseph Shanahan, representing the applicant, said the plans have been changed to respect the 100-foot wetland buffer. Work would disrupt 23 acres of land, not 27 acres, as was originally proposed. 

Instead of four utility poles at the entrance to the site, there will be one.

Shanahan said that the company would conduct line of sight reviews to determine whether the solar array would be visible from nearby homes and conservation land, as was requested by the Planning Board at a previous meeting.

In response to citizen concerns, Shanahan explained that the earth removal on the site would be limited to gathering the material needed to construct berms and other structures to manage stormwater runoff. On average, about six inches of material would be scraped from the ground.

Shanahan said that although multiple people asked whether the land could be preserved, the landowners have no intention of doing so. 

“This isn’t will the site be preserved or won’t it — it’s what will be on the site when it’s developed,” Shanahan said.

If the solar field is not approved, Shanahan said, the owners will work to build a residential subdivision. Shanahan said that a residential development would be far worse for the environment and have more of an impact on the neighborhood. Homes require paved roads and driveways, utilities, and far more impervious surfaces than the solar field, which could increase stormwater runoff. 

One citizen said he was concerned about the heat retention in solar panels, which could cause a “heat island” effect. Heat islands are built structures, like roads or buildings, that retain and reflect heat at a higher rate than areas with greenery. 

Others said they were unconvinced by the company’s claim that no endangered species lived in the project area, and said that proposed stormwater management would not be effective.