Neighbor dispute risks souring a Connecticut community on solar energy
Dana Van Steenburgh wasn’t instantly opposed when the Verogy
solar company proposed a 4.9-megawatt project on open farmland directly across
from his brand new home in East Windsor, Connecticut.
He participated in an informational online session hosted by
the developer and asked a lot of questions. In the end, “I felt like they were
going to be good neighbors,” Van Steenburgh, 68, said.
But when the 29-acre project on East Road went into
operation in late 2021, Van Steenburgh immediately heard a constant ringing in
the air from electrical equipment at the site. What he describes as an
“annoying high-pitched tone,” audible whenever it was sunny, followed him into
his front and back yards.
His next-door neighbor Josh Bergendahl, 33, was bothered as
well by what he describes as a “high-pitched fan noise.”
“As soon as the sun comes up until it goes down,” Bergendahl
said. “When I had friends come over to my house, they would say, ‘How can they
think that’s acceptable?’”
Eighteen months later, the noise persists, despite numerous
complaints from neighbors and the efforts of local elected officials to get the
matter resolved. Adding to neighbors’ annoyance, the dozens of arborvitae
planted by the developer to help shield the solar panels from public view — a
requirement for the project’s approval — have mostly turned brown and
died.
The project, East Windsor Solar One, reveals the limits of
what state and local officials can do if problems arise with solar farms once
they are in place. The Connecticut Siting Council sets the conditions for their
approval, and those conditions are enforceable. But this case fell into what
appears to be a gray area.
“Technically, the noise at the site is not over the allowed
decibel level, but it’s still a true nuisance,” said Rep. Jaime Foster
(D-Ellington, East Windsor), who hears the “buzzing” when she passes the site
while out running.
While the dispute doesn’t appear to represent a broader
problem — experts say noise issues can be easily mitigated through project
design — it does threaten to become an albatross for the industry in an area
where elected officials say they are being asked to bear more than their fair
share of solar development.
Frustration with developer
First Selectman Jason Bowsza, the top elected official in
this town of roughly 11,000 people, first relayed neighbors’ complaints about
noise from the East Road array in an email to the siting council in January of
2022.
“I would ask that you kindly provide remedies available to
the homeowners who are left to bear the effect of the solar development on
their homes,” he wrote.
By this time, Verogy, which is based in West Hartford, had
sold the project to NextEra Energy Resources, the renewable energy development
arm of Florida-based NextEra. The siting council immediately sent a letter to
Lee Hoffman, a lawyer for Verogy, and the designated NextEra representative
requesting that they conduct a noise study at the property lines of the
neighbors across the street.
Solar panels themselves are silent, but the equipment that
connects them to the grid can produce noise, similar to any electrical
transformer such as the cylinder-shaped enclosures that sit atop utility poles.
Sound can also come from inverters, which convert the DC power generated by
solar panels to AC power that can be used on the grid.
The lawyer for Verogy responded to Bowsza’s letter a few
days later, saying that two company representatives had visited the site and,
using a sound meter, determined that the noise was within the decibel levels
allowed under the conditions of approval. However, he said, “both Verogy
representatives acknowledge that sounds from the inverters were heard at the
property line of the project,” and they are reviewing options to “potentially”
install a sound barrier.
“They saw reputationally they were still at risk, even
though legally, they’re out,” Bowsza said in an interview.
Bowsza sent another email to the council in March relaying
noise concerns from another neighbor. The council requested an update from
Hoffman, who replied that Verogy planned to hire an acoustical engineering
consulting firm to perform an acoustic study and design a noise mitigation
solution.
In the meantime, he said, they were seeking permission to
construct a “temporary sound baffle” inside the fencing at the north end of the
project. The council granted that approval.
In March 2023, a full year later, Bowsza again wrote to the
council, noting that the developer was aware of the noise issue and had
indicated that they would take steps to mitigate it.
“To date, to my knowledge, and based on communications
received recently from residents, no mitigation has occurred,” he said.
While town zoning regulations don’t apply to the project,
Bowsza said, he was directing the town building official to determine if
conditions at the project are in compliance with state building and fire
codes.
“The project manager for East Windsor Solar One is not
acting in good faith, and has not acted in good faith, and the residents are
owed timely relief,” he said.
The same day, Hoffman submitted a brief letter to the
council saying that “no definitive plans have been made” for sound mitigation.
However, this time he noted that because the project is in compliance with the
required decibel limits, “additional sound control designs are not mandatory.”
Simple, low-cost mitigation
The simplest, least-cost way to ensure that noise is not
audible to neighbors of a solar development is to site the equipment on a
non-noise-sensitive property line, such as away from houses, said Michael
Bahtiarian, a principal at Acentech, an acoustical consulting firm based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has worked on a number of solar projects.
“In that case, the noise control just comes from added
distance,” he said.
If that isn’t possible, developers can install a noise
barrier, which is “a one, two, three or potentially four-sided wall around the
equipment,” he said. “Usually a three-sided wall is what you would put up — it
blocks sound in one direction but allows for air flow.”
With proper acoustical engineering ahead of time, solar
arrays can easily be quiet neighbors, Bahtiarian said.
While NextEra had been previously unresponsive to the
matter, a company representative recently communicated to Bowsza and Rep.
Foster that the company is working on a mitigation plan.
“I’m hoping we get somewhere soon,” Foster said. “It’s
giving a bad name to an industry. It makes it hard for me, as the vice chair of
the Energy and Technology Committee, to do the work that I’m doing. You want to
be able to say that these are good for the environment. But in small towns,
everyone knows everyone. And everyone is upset on behalf of those neighbors.”
A spokesperson for Verogy said the company could not comment
on the project because it is no longer the owner.
NextEra’s media office did not offer a company
representative to respond to questions.
While other projects have not generated similar complaints,
the problems on East Road are stoking opposition to new proposals. Just over
the border in Ellington, for example, residents
are opposing a solar facility proposed on farmland by another
developer, citing in part the noise and dead trees at the East Windsor project.
Foster sponsored a legislative amendment this year that
would have given municipalities the authority to block projects located within
five miles of an existing solar project larger than 100 MW. East Windsor is
host to a 120 MW solar project — the largest in the Northeast — being built on
485 acres of fields, woods and sand and gravel quarries.
It passed in the House but did not receive a vote in the
Senate before the legislative session concluded this month.
Van Steenburgh thinks the siting regulations ought to be
revised to ensure that a situation like the one he’s in doesn’t happen
again.
“The siting council needs to be more diligent in looking at
sites before approval,” he said.
Developer considering 540 housing units at former The Hartford campus in Simsbury
The New
Jersey developer that built more than 170 townhouses and apartments at
The Hartford’s former campus in Simsbury is considering an enormous expansion
that would add more than 500 new apartments and houses.
The Silverman Group’s concept for The
Ridge at Talcott Mountain – South would focus on rental housing with
448 new apartments.
The company also wants to build 70 one-family houses as well
as 11 duplexes, which would create 22 separate units.
The Silverman Group is scheduled to outline its idea to town
planners when the zoning commission meets Wednesday at 7 p.m. at town hall. The
presentation is informal; so far, the company hasn’t filed permit requests or
zoning application.
The Silverman Group would build on dozens of acres that were once part of The Hartford’s headquarters complex. The site is along the north side of Hopmeadow Street at Old Canal Way.
Silverman began changing the face of southern Simsbury not
longer after The Hartford shut down its 172-acre headquarters in 2013.
Silverman bought the property for $8.5 million in 2015, and razed more than
600,000 square feet of office buildings where about 1,500 employees of The
Hartford had worked.
Silverman’s contractors then constructed The Ridge at Talcott Mountain,
a complex of apartments and townhouses, on the northern end of the land.
Marketing materials describe it as “the very definition of
refined mountain living,” and two-bedroom apartments are currently listed at
$2,170 to $2,600.
The inventory includes one-bedroom apartments ranging in
size from 775 square feet to 1,077 for units with a loft, too. Two-bedroom
models have two bathrooms and sizes run from 1,144 to 1,372 square feet for the
ones with a loft.
Two-bedroom townhouses have garages and either
two-and-a-half or three-and-a-half bathrooms. Sizes range from 1,396 square
feet to 1,583.
The Ridge has a pool and a conference room, a yoga studio, a
fitness center, a game room and a dog run. The complex advertises stainless
steel appliances, balconies or patios, and some units with full-size washers
and dryers.
The company is expected to give details about its expansion
proposal at Wednesday evening’s meeting. Documents that Silverman filed with
the town are marked “conceptual,” and do not specify all the amenities planned,
but include an outdoor pool, a community building and an open space section.
Renderings of The Ridge at Talcott Mountain-South show the
complex would be reached from Hopmeadow Street by Old Canal Road. A new street
and driveway network would branch out from Old Canal Way.
Plans show 14 three-story buildings, each with 32 apartments.
The units would be a mix of one- and two-bedrooms. Seventy single-family homes
would be built on the northern and southeastern sections of the property, with
the duplexes constructed just west of the houses in the southeastern quadrant.
The Silverman Group’s initial proposal to the town in 2015
was a mixed-use development including retail and commercial space, but it
reported that the residential component at The Ridge at Talcott Mountain was
successful. The other space didn’t attract as much interest, the company said.
Jarret Liotta
WILTON — Application details were ironed out for a 120-room
hotel planned for construction on a site off Route 7 on the Norwalk border as
the project moves closer to its final needed approvals.
The proposed four-story
300,000-square-foot iPark Hotel would be located at the mixed-use
campus of iPark Norwalk, at One Cannondale Way, off Kent Road between Danbury
Road and the railroad line.
While the bulk of the 29-acre parcel is in Norwalk, more
than 10 acres of it — including the site of the proposed hotel on the northeast
side — is in Wilton.
The full campus currently is home to about 375,000 square
feet of space in a variety of buildings, including 250,000 square feet of
office space, 60,000 square feet of warehouse space and 60,000 square feet of
space in a health club.
A 132-unit residential building is also proposed for the
Norwalk section of the site.
"We are delighted that we received our Inlands Wetlands
Commission approval," Lynne Ward, attorney for the project, told Wilton's
Planning & Zoning Commission at its meeting June 12, with other approvals
already completed.
The commission had asked the developers to prepare more
details on the project's potential impact on traffic in the area. At the
meeting, consultant Veronica Prezioso of Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. of
White Plains, N.Y., told the commission that there would be a negligible
difference.
"The project will have little to no impact on the
surrounding roadway network," she said, noting that traffic in that area
is "significantly less than pre-pandemic levels."
Access to the campus currently is available from both Main
Avenue, south of Kent Road across from West Rocks Road, and from Kent Road. But
the plan shows that hotel access would be routed in and out via Kent Road.
Prezioso said they estimate that nearly 100 trips would be
added to both the morning and evening rush hour peak times, calling it a 1.5
percent increase in traffic on the Kent Road intersection.
But commission member Eric Fanwick was not entirely
convinced there wouldn't be a greater impact on traffic.
"My concern is that that's a very narrow road, and even
with it being very little used now, it gets overloaded," he said of Kent
Road.
"Is there any provision to increase the capacity of
that road?" Fanwick said.
Prezioso said that although developers have reached out for
more details, no information has been forthcoming from the state on plans to do
work on Route 7 to improve traffic flow in the area.
"We followed up with them, but we haven't heard
back," she said. The project is expected to begin in 2025 and would
include widening of the road and "lane geometry changes," she
said.
Michael Wrinn, director of planning & land use
management, and town planner for Wilton, said a peer review traffic study was
not done for this project.
The commission also heard some details on the new
landscaping plans for the area surrounding the hotel.
"The landscape plan, I think, embraces the whole idea
of sustainability," said John Imbiano, landscape architect with IQ
Landscape Architects of Katonah, N.Y.
In its unanimous approval of the project last November, the
Architectural Review Board requested pollinator plants, which he noted
were added to the plan in a long and narrow section of plantings at the front
of the property.
The developers are also considering the addition of a dog
run on the site at the northeast corner.
"We'd most likely fence it in and keep it
permeable," he said, "be it (with) lawn mulch or even, these days,
we're using an artificial turf, which is permeable for dogs."
The P&Z Commission will likely be voting on the
application for the iPark Hotel at its June 26 meeting.
State easement across linear trail needed for bridge project in Wallingford
Kate Ramunni,
WALLINGFORD — The state of Connecticut is going to pay the town $7,100 for an easement that passes over the Quinnipiac River Linear Trail to facilitate the movement of construction equipment to a Route 15 northbound bridge slated for repair.
While Town Council members had reservations about the easement, Town Attorney Janis Small said they really have no choice.
"They are not asking you to sell anything. Really the only objection you can make is to the compensation," Small said. "If you say no, they take it - they own it that second and they take it, and then you argue over the $7,100. As I always say, they're king, we're not. They are going to take the easement, they are just asking you to accept $7,100 for the purchase rights."
While the state needs it for the upcoming work, the easement will be permanent. It is part of a path that starts on private property, crosses over the town-owned land and ends at the bridge. The easement extends from North Plains Highway over private property, Mayor William Dickinson Jr. said, and reaches town of Wallingford property, extends across open space to the linear trail and crosses the trail to the area needed for bridge construction.
Trail concerns
"We certainly want them to fix the bridge and we don't see that there's going to be any significant difficulties with the project in general," Dickinson said, though he isn't sure how much interruption to use of the trail the construction work would cause.
"We would expect that it wouldn't be constant travel back and forth, but really we don't know at this time," he said.
"I imagine the purpose of the easement is so heavy equipment can cross and get to the construction site," Town Council Chairman Vincent Cervoni said.
"That's right," Dickinson said.
"We have a nice paved trail that people walk on and ride their bikes on. Are they going to make sure it's in the same condition at the end of their passing over it?" Cervoni asked.
"My understanding is that they are obligated to restore anything to its original condition," Dickinson said. "We are granting a permanent easement so that in the future if the state needs to repair this same site, they will have an ongoing easement. It's a permanent easement - that's the reason for the payment of the $7,000. Once granted they are able to use it for the purposes of highway reconstruction when they need to use it. We would not be able to do anything to obstruct the state from using that easement over our property."
Councilor Craig Fishbein, who also is a state representative, said he's leery of how much control the easement will leave the town over the trail.
"What's to stop them from putting an excavator on the linear trail and leaving it there?" Fishbein asked.
Dickinson said he doesn't believe that will be an issue.
"It's an easement and that doesn't mean the town can't continue to use that area," Dickinson said. "They would not be able to just wall off the trail and prevent anyone from going along the trail. There may be temporary periods where the crossing of traffic, we don't want dangerous situations for pedestrians and bicyclists. This doesn't give them the right to prevent the town from using this area. It is just that they have a permanent easement for access for construction purposes. They need to reach their own property where the bridge is."
According to a Department of Transportation Public Information Meeting on the project from Aug. 4, 2022, DOT officials said the trail would remain open for the duration of the project. The only disruption would be when machinery needs to cross the trail. Construction fencing will be in place at the project site to protect the public.
Credibility question?
You can't always take the state at its word, Fishbein said, citing a train project that was supposed to result is quieter horns.
"Unfortunately many times you get representations from the state," Fishbein said. "For example the train horn - they said you won't hear it. Now I can hear it across town. So I don't believe half of what they tell us."
Dickinson said the state never said there would be no noise from the trains, but that the noise would be reduced.
"I could never hear the train at my house until after they redid it," Fishbein said.
Small said she doesn't anticipate the state will do anything other than just cross the trail to get to the area of the bridge.
"The project is beyond the trail so one would not expect them to be putting equipment on the trail," she said. “There is an existing pathway that they feel is the most appropriate place to put (the easement) that was created by the equipment that put the trail in"
"I appreciate that they want to do this work and fix a bridge," Fishbein said. "I am concerned they are going to take authority of things there. I am concerned that we are going to be blocked off while they are doing this work, and if it takes the amount of time that it did on Center Street, we are talking about years of access."
"I can't imagine the state wants to stage their equipment right smack in the middle of our linear trail, but that will be part of our conversations with them," Small said.
If there are trail closures, they need to be announced on the website, Councilor Jason Zandri said. "This is a 30+ year asset and I want to make sure we will be able to continue to use it."
The council approved the easement, with only Fishbein voting against it.
Project details
The DOT project consists of replacing the northbound side of the Route 15 bridge over the Quinnipiac River, according to the DOT. The plan is to use a prefabricated bridge structure to accelerate the project. DOT officials expect it will take two construction seasons to complete. They estimate the project would start in the spring of 2024. Season one would consist of in-stream and substructure work. Season two would involved four weekends of superstructure replacement, with northbound traffic being diverted via a crossover to one lane of the southbound side of Route 15.
80-Room Hotel Approved in Pawcatuck
Cate Hewitt
STONINGTON — The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously
approved the construction of a five-story, 80-room extended stay hotel at 321
Liberty St, Route 2, in Pawcatuck, Tuesday night.
The 40,000-square-foot building will share a driveway with
Tractor Supply Co. at 331 Liberty Street, as well as a stormwater retention
pond at the back of the properties.
The project was proposed by Mystic Sahajanand, LLC, of
Pawcatuck, whose principal, Mukesh Patel, also owns the 75-room La Quinta Inn
& Suites at 349 Liberty St., which was constructed in 2009.
The back of the building will be sited at the high point of
the 8.8-acre property, close to Liberty St., with the front entrance located at
the opposite end in the parking lot. The building will be constructed into the
slope of the property so that it will be four stories at street level and a
fifth level will be built as a lower story at the entrance.
At Tuesday’s meeting, engineer Sergio Cherenzia, president
of Cherenzia & Associates of Pawcatuck, addressed a number of items that
were raised in the May 16 hearing, including an explanation of stormwater
management that he said will reduce the amount of stormwater runoff across the
abutter’s property. He said the stormwater will discharge to a retention and
detention basin that will treat the water before it is released.
Dust control, which was requested by the neighbors, will be
implemented during construction, he said.
Cherenzia said the previously included patio has been
reduced to a six-foot picnic table or two and there will be no outdoor fire pit
as previously discussed.
Concerning the building’s three loading docks, he said that
through discussions with the town planner and town attorneys, it was determined
that the hotel does not receive deliveries of hazardous materials, which would
have required building roofs over the loading docks. Cherenzia said that
cleaning services will be outsourced and there will be no cleaning supplies
delivered.
“There is no pool, no spa, no hot tubs, so no chemicals
associated with that,” he said. “The most caustic thing is probably the same
things you’d find in a residential household, unless someone comes in to do
some heavy, deep cleaning, but that would not be stored on site.”
He also provided “nightscape” renderings showing the
building at night, adding that his firm would return to the commission for
permits for the backlit signage.
Neighbors Terry Chiaradio and Dennis Maynard, of 311 Liberty
St., who had expressed concerns at the May 16 meeting about noise, lighting,
traffic and water lines, addressed the commission on Tuesday about potentially
incorrect property lines on the site plan.
Chiaradio told the commission she reviewed the deed with Ted
Ladwig, the attorney who set up her family’s property deed, and “there was one
line we were not positive on.” She said she was waiting to hear back from the
original surveyors who worked on the Tractor Supply, a facility that was
constructed in 2010.
Board member Charles Sheehan said that lot line disputes are
a civil matter between property owners, but if the lot line shifts, it could
impact the setbacks.
Cherenzia said that his firm had checked the land evidence
records where the property lines matched. He said that if there were property
line issues that impact the project, his firm would be back before zoning to
adjust the site plans.
Chiaradio also cited safety issues and a significant number
of accidents on Route 2 in the last 12 months.
“Whether it’s the town or the state, something needs to be
addressed in that area because we’re continuing to add businesses and it’s not
safe,” she said.
Sheehan said a larger development would have triggered a
review by the Office of State Transportation Administration, but, he said, the
town’s police commission reviewed the traffic, parking and safety issues and
approved the project in April 2023.
Chiaradio also said she was concerned about her property
value once the project is built. “When this goes in, my house is worth nothing
for me to sell.”
The commission unanimously approved two special use permits
for the project with six stipulations, among which were posting an Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Bond, notifying town staff prior to construction so that
they can inspect the erosion control measures, and providing a plan for
best practices for stormwater management.
After the meeting, Patel told CT Examiner that his company
will operate and manage the hotel as a franchise of Extended Stay America,
which provides suites equipped with kitchens and on-site laundry facilities.