TOWN OF FLORIDA — Solar developers are seeking substantial setback variances for a project proposed on Route 5S without which a representative indicated the project would likely be dead on arrival.
“We literally couldn’t physically put panels on the property. The setbacks are too restrictive,” said Carter Powell, senior project manager at Solar Liberty, on Monday. “The property is not wide enough for us to accommodate them.”
Solar Liberty is handling engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) on the project that would be owned and operated by Solar Energy Partners.
Solar Energy Partners bought the roughly 20-acre lot on Route 5S from Pervas Choudry for $288,600 in April 2022, according to Montgomery County property records.
Powell acknowledged to the Florida Zoning Board of Appeals that the developer apparently bought the property for development of a solar project without reviewing town zoning laws.
“I wish I could say I was surprised that this happens, but I’m not,” Powell said. “We just do the best we can, as the EPC, to try and work with you guys, and, you know, come up with some solutions and cross the bridges that we arrive at.”
Solar Energy Partners has proposed construction of a 2.35-megawatt solar array within a roughly 6.2-acre fenced area on the vacant land. The narrow site has dictated the site layout, prompting developers to seek variances from the 500-foot setbacks from property lines and 200 feet from wetlands required for utility-scale solar projects by town zoning law.
Powell said setbacks are being requested roughly 25 feet from neighboring property lines and “proximate” to the wetland. He noted the industrially zoned site is adjacent to the Montgomery County transfer station and a storage facility.
“I don’t think a variance to those property line setbacks does too much harm to the character of the surrounding properties,” Powell said. “If we’re looking at something that’s zoned industrial, there’s a lot of other approved uses for this property that could pose, you know, aesthetic concerns, environmental concerns, noise concerns, compared to us just throwing a bunch of solar panels up there.”
While the project as proposed is otherwise allowed under town law, ZBA member Matthew Bunker pointed out the requested setback variances amount to deviations from zoning standards of 90% or greater.
“We’re looking for some pretty aggressive variances to those setbacks,” Powell agreed.
Alternate board member William Bonner noted the burden lies with project representatives to demonstrate the proposal meets all required criteria in order to receive the requested variances, including that the request for relief is not due to a self-created hardship.
“The difficulty itself is self-created,” Bonner said. “The developer has purchased a piece of property knowing that there’s restrictions.”
Still, Chairman Frank Staley said the board will not make a decision until the next regular meeting following a public hearing set for 6:45 p.m. on July 8.
Should the variances be approved, the proposal would be returned to the Town Board to be reviewed for completeness before being referred to the Planning Board for its recommendation. The Town Board would then have final authority to approve or reject the project.
This post was originally published on 3rd party site mentioned in the title of this site
