Voters guide to Election 2023 [Updated]

Oct. 20—Developers of a 440-acre solar farm in Windsor Township offered their first round of testimony in a hearing to determine whether the project meets the criteria for land use.

Two witnesses for developers Leeward Renewable Energy LLC, Dallas — commercial real estate appraiser Andrew Lines and project engineer Paul Hughes — presented their cases, with Lines also undergoing cross-examination by William J. Cluck on behalf of residents opposing the plans.

The hearing Wednesday before the Windsor Township supervisors was the first of what will likely be a series of hearings continuing into November.

Gaining conditional use approval does not guarantee final plan approval.

About 70 residents opposing the plans attended with roughly a dozen registering as a party to the proceedings, allowing them to question witnesses and present a case.

The plans place the solar farm south of Old Route 22, north of Hess Road, east of Sunday Road and west of Clauss Road.

Developers say the facility would power 8,500 homes per year and connect to the Met-Ed system.

In June, the township planning commission voted 3-1 to recommend that supervisors deny the conditional use approval request.

Planner Josh Youpa said at the vote that the township's rules are too permissive of large solar projects and need to be changed.

Residents, too, have voiced no shortage of criticism for the solar farm at previous meetings, with those living near the site claiming the project would disrupt the area's scenic views. They also raised questions about the panels' impacts on soil quality, flooding, the disruptive nature of construction, and the safety effects of panel glare on drivers.

Some also worried that the project would affect the values of adjacent properties.

Appraiser testifies

The latter claim was addressed in detail by Lines of CohnReznick LLP, Chicago, who studied 35 solar farms throughout the country to analyze their effects on property values and home sales.

Lines analyzed property sales of properties next to solar farms, such as the Whitetail Solar 1 facility in Franklin County, to determine whether the solar facility's proximity had an effect.

"We go through, and we see, did a home sell, and when did it sell, did it sell before or after the solar facility started operating," Lines said. "We also go through and make sure the sale...meets the definition of market value. It can't be a short sale or a bank sale."

He said his report compared the selling price of homes next to the facilities to similar homes in surrounding areas.

Lines' analysis also involved contacting real estate assessors, including those who have assessed solar facilities in Lancaster and Carbon counties, and asking them about sales trends of homes next to solar farms.

"Overwhelmingly they tell us they do not see any negative trends," Lines said.

He said his analysis found that homes next to solar farms showed no major differences in property values, sale prices, days on the market, conditions of sale, or overall marketability compared to homes farther away.

"The reality is that solar exists around the country, and while it might be slightly new here in Pennsylvania, it has been well developed in other states," Lines said. "People are getting used to it."

In addition, Lines cited four large-scale academic studies that explored the effects of solar farms of varying sizes on land values and found little or no evidence of negative impacts.

"I do not believe the proposed project will have a negative impact on surrounding property values," Lines said.

Supervisors asked why Lines' studies didn't include any analysis of the impacts of Leeward projects.

"We're limited to data points that have occurred since a project has started operating," Lines said. "I know Leeward has a number of projects that aren't operating yet or are under construction."

In cross-examination, Cluck cited state guidance saying that properties with soil qualities shared by properties included in the plan should be avoided for solar grid development.

He asked if Lines' analysis considered the loss of prime agricultural land for up to 50 years, or the possible time frame until the solar farm lease is up and the property can be grown on again.

"I think that's called letting the land go fallow," Lines said. "But I'm not a farmer."

Cluck also asked whether Lines was familiar with the scenic views of properties that would be affected by the solar farm.

"When considering value, one of the most important factors in Berks County is the scenic view of this incredibly gorgeous land," Cluck said. "A solar farm kills that."

Cluck also said he didn't receive Lines' analysis in time to review it for cross-examination.

Developers agreed to have Lines available for further cross-examination later.

Project engineer testifies

Next to testify was Hughes of Kimley-Horn, a Philadelphia-based engineering and design firm.

Hughes noted the project design complies with local zoning requirements for the township's agricultural district.

He said the farm would be enclosed by a fence, with landscape buffers placed throughout.

Lighting onsite would be motion activated and angled for minimal impact, and sound levels would be lower than ambient noise, with most sound only being generated during the day in accordance with zoning requirements, Hughes said.

The project would also meet state and local criteria for stormwater management and impact on wetlands, Hughes said.

He noted the stormwater plan had been modified after the planning commission's negative recommendation in accordance with the township engineer's recommendations.

Hearings are scheduled for Oct. 24 and 26 at 6:30 p.m. in the Hamburg Middle School.