We have to save the planet. This is a sacred task. This project will help. It passed all requirements. It will not "cause" flooding: flooding is getting worse because we are burning billions of tons of fossil fuel each year. Much money and time was spent to be sure everything is properly done. Vermont has pledged to do its part. But this sends a chilling message that your project will be turned down for no reason. Aesthetics? NIMBY neighbors were happy to clear for their homes and power lines.
Filed
11/10/2021
Kovac, Marek [PUBCOM]
Please see attached.
Filed
11/10/2021
Alexander, Mintz [PUBCOM]
It is absurd that in this day in age, knowing what we know about the devastating impact of climate change, that we would disqualify a project like this based on vanity. We have the power of information and science to inform our decisions now, Why is Vermont still in the dark ages? Can someone explain to me why tremendous resources were wasted on expert opinions if the commission would make it's own, arbitrary call regardless? It really smells fishy.
Filed
11/10/2021
Bucholt, Carl [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Filed
11/10/2021
Burg, Leslie [PUBCOM]
see attached file
Filed
11/08/2021
Morrow, Christopher [PUBCOM]
These comments pertain to this case, but also express concern about the general approach to the process given VT's stated goals for the energy transition which is urgently needed. We need to electrify our economy. So, we will need a lot more electricity. Visibility/esthetics deserve to be taken into account but only in the larger context of VT's energy needs. If most other considerations are positive, as in this case, projects should be approved. NIMBYism is a straight line to failure. Thanks
Filed
11/08/2021
Heilemann, Richard [PUBCOM]
My comments relate to the process that the PUC uses to determine adequate sites. Through act 174, the goal is for 90% renewable by 2050. Each town can identify preferred sites for energy installations that potentially give them the ability of their community to meet these goals. When the PUC rejects sites that are listed as preferred, where do they expect energy to come from to meet these goals? Denial of sites like this sets a negative precident for companies trying to fulfill these goals.
Filed
11/08/2021
Costantino, Robert L. [PUBCOM]
see attached file
Filed
11/08/2021
Hildick-Smith, Peter [PUBCOM]
20-1261-NMP
Dear Vermont PUC --
As a resident of Arlington VT, next to Manchester where a very well researched, new solar power development project was recently denied -- I'm totally taken aback by this action, and others just like it. Our state has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2028, just 7 years away! If our state can't even support local initiatives in our communities to make progress against that goal, please explain how the state of Vermont intends to get there?
Filed
11/08/2021
Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc. [PUBCOM]
Smith, Annette [PUBCOMREP]
see attached file
Filed
11/05/2021
Pomerance, Anita Humphreys [PUBCOM]
I learned that a proposed solar project on Richville Road in Manchester was rejected by the PUC because it was visible from the road. I'm very disturbed by this decision and the precedent it sets. Vermont needs many more sites than the obvious ones, unused airports, or parking lots to meet our climate goals. I'm deeply worried about what climate change is doing, and will do, to our planet. I have a solar setup by my house, and am planning for an electric car, but hope PUC will do their share.
Filed
11/03/2021
Sternberg, Peter [PUBCOM]
I was dismayed to hear this project was rejected solely on the grounds of aesthetics. We don't bury our power lines because it is expensive to do so and we have gotten used to looking at them. The choice we have in the next 5 or 10 years is to look at a lot of solar and wind or leave our kids with an ugly and expensive mess - California is seeing it now. The only difference is that we would pay to bury our power lines and our kids will pay for the climate change. Panels aren't that bad.
Filed
10/18/2021
Oberg, Eric [PUBCOM]
See attached file
Filed
08/17/2021
Vermonters for a Clean Environment, Inc. [PUBCOM]
Smith, Annette [PUBCOMREP]
Video of Hearing Officer Site Visit, May 25, 2021
https://youtu.be/eq3us2lEVCc
Video of PUC Site Visit, August 13, 2021
https://youtu.be/y2xLJGz6z2Y
Filed
07/09/2021
Bennington County Regional Commission [PUBCOMRO]
Sullivan, James D [PUBCOMREP]
See attached file
Filed
05/10/2021
Penge, Dom [PUBCOM]
Several Intervenors have either called or emailed to try to get clarification on how we could participate with no response or return email. This hearing has been run as a court hearing and not being lawyers we had no idea on how to handle this. It would have been helpful and fair to all if we had some cooperation and a site visit
as originally proposed.
Filed
05/03/2021
Cestaro, Glenn Robert [PUBCOM]
Dear Mr. Marren,
I disagree with the applicants counsel and feel since Vermont is experiencing a downturn in Covid-19 cases and the Governor is now opening up Vermont and loosening restrictions we should be entitled to a site visit. We will be meeting in an open field, can easily social distance and wear masks. I feel you should take the time to come down and see the site first hand. Please give us this courtesy. In return I will abide by your decision whether fin favor of MHG Solor or not.
Filed
05/03/2021
Cestaro, Glenn Robert [PUBCOM]
Dear Mr. Marren,
I ran out of characters in my last comment.
I just wanted to thank you for your consideration.
This will also be most likely be my last post to comment on this solar project.
Respectfully,
Glenn R. Cestaro
Filed
04/27/2021
Penge, Cosmo [PUBCOM]
As has been stated by a number of homeowners, the site visit should take place before a decision is made. There is no danger at this time of infection at an outdoor site with masks and social distancing. As per the CDC, the chances of being infected outdoors is less then 10%.
This study does not address the site lines on the ground of the parcel as a rural field. The Manchester Town Plan does mention
Richville Road as an important scenic resource and this section is where it begins.
Filed
04/05/2021
Charbonneau, Joseph H [PUBCOMRO]
I feel the same as many of the neighbors that have commented about the cancelation of the site visit on April 21. By visiting the site of the proposed solar array, one will see it is very evident how this will "change our neighborhood". No action on this project should be taken until a site visit is done even if it is the end of the summer. Thank you!
Filed
04/01/2021
Penge, Cosmo [PUBCOM]
Not sure why the site visit has been canceled, since it will be held outdoors with plenty of room for social distancing with masks!
I feel that it would be critical to schedule a site visit before a final decision is made as that would afford all an in person view of the site rather than relying on photos or reports that dont offer the same
experience of the residential neighborhood and the rural character of the site.
Filed
04/01/2021
Cestaro, Glenn Robert [PUBCOM]
I concur with Mr. Penge. The site visit need not be canceled, since it will be held outdoors with plenty of room for social distancing with masks! I feel it is critical to schedule a site visit before a final decision is made. This would afford the homeowners full due process. An in person view of the site for the hearing officer and those in the various State departments would give a clear visual experience of the location and its effect residential neighborhood and the heavily traveled area.
Filed
04/01/2021
Boucher, Dody [PUBCOMRO]
I am in 100% agreement. The site visit should not have to cancelled due to Covid as it is an outdoor visit. Considering we are one of the homeowners directly across from this project a visit should be considered essential in order to make a proper judgement. We believe it would be beneficial to all involved if you would reconsider the cancellation and put it back on the schedule. Truly the only fair way for one to make an accurate final decision on this project.
Filed
03/24/2021
Penge, Cosmo [PUBCOM]
I did not respond to schedule as I was waiting for a time for the site visit. No time has been proposed, but date is fine.
Filed
01/11/2021
Penge, James [PUBCOMRO]
Perhaps if there were more people in the Town of Manchester who knew about this proposed eyesore we would get a better idea of their reaction to it. It was proposed with very little public information being given. How can you know what adverse reaction their would be without more public input to this project. It would be an eyesore in residential country setting.
Acknowledged
01/08/2021
Michael, Christine Nevada [PUBCOMRO]
I own 3195 Richville Road, I am appalled that this project is being sited in a residential area (and also an area that recently suffered serious flood damage) when there are so many other sites in the area that do not impose the problems this site does. This is unfair to property owners who will see property devaluation and suffer detraction to their daily life. A few cedar are not going to block the view from my property and that of other residents. I support solar, but not on this road.
Acknowledged
01/08/2021
WHITE, MARTIN [PUBCOMRO]
We bought the duplex at 3195 Richville to be a home for our grandchildren and their parents.
One of them, and another tenant with two school children, have lived at 3195 for years. They have made it a wonderful home for their two families, This huge solar installation is being disgracefully sited to destroy their residential quality of life, and to obliterate the obvious real community that exists for the owners and tenants in the residences up Richville Rd. Shameful greed in action.
Acknowledged
01/08/2021
Philpot, Natalie [PUBCOM]
I currently reside at 3195 Richville Rd with my daughters. I am very concerned about the installation of a field of solar panels adjacent to our home. This area has seen much flooding in recent years and this just seems like a dangerous endeavor. I am a huge supporter of renewable and green energy, but this space is not the appropriate or safe choice for solar panels in Manchester. The natural beauty and wildlife in the area will be negative impacted as well.
Acknowledged
01/08/2021
Philpot, Natalie [PUBCOM]
See attached comment filed in error in 21A-0069
Acknowledged
01/07/2021
Penge, Kathleen [PUBCOM]
In response to Mr. Raubvogels letter, this Project will not effectively screen views of the panels for a number of years while their plantings reach a height to possibly screen the Project. A change in land use and visual contrast is a major concern to residents. This field of mowed hay and wildflowers that we are accustomed to will become a field filled with unsightly solar panels. Their own study clearly states "the Project could potentially be considered adverse."
Acknowledged
01/07/2021
Slade, Mark William [PUBCOMRO]
As stated in the letter, this project will have a negative impact to the community, not only the home owners that live there-- everyone. The homeowners directly across the street will wake up every morning and have to stare directly at a man made obstacle rather than the deer and birds that frequent the field. This solar array will detract from their view and their pocket books due to the decrease in property value. In turn, this will drop prices for property and every homeowner.
Acknowledged
01/06/2021
Boucher, Dody & Timothy [PUBCOMRO]
I don't think view obstruction of EQ MTN was the concern of this project.The concern is the view for the residents who live here.It was stated by the Consultant that the project is not offensive to the other residents .How does he know that to be true? He obviously CAN NOT be referring to those of us who actually live right here by this project. If the view of this field looks anything like the view of the other fields in VT it will be unacceptable. Eyesoar for Manchester,Not the place for it!
Acknowledged
01/06/2021
West, William [PUBCOM]
My concerns would be based on years of living here on Richville Rd.Many projects have been offered for this piece but all had to be put down because of flood plain restrictions. This project is most likely offered because of these restrictions, What will the underpinnings of these panel look like after years of flooding? Will they hold up? Probably not. I believe in solar power but not in the middle of the busiest residential street in Manchester. It will not be a visual gem . Put it elsewhere!
Acknowledged
12/29/2020
Charbonneau, Joseph H [PUBCOMRO]
I would not dispute that the solar array proposed by MHG Solar will negatively obstruct our view of Mount Equinox through line of site. We didn't need a study to prove that. The real problem is that it will change our residential neighborhood from just that to a commercial area. It will change the feel of our neighborhood and it will decrease the value of our property. In my opinion, there is no place for it.
Acknowledged
12/29/2020
Bush, Cynthia [PUBCOMRO]
While the view of The Taconic Range will remain the same, the view of the field and surrounding neighborhood will be forever changed by the addition of solar panels. The proposed plantings will not hide the view of the thousands of panels in that open field to pedestrians, homeowners or motor vehicles on Richville Road.
Acknowledged
12/29/2020
Charbonneau, Joseph H. [PUBCOMRO]
See attached comment originally filed in error in #20A-3947
Acknowledged
12/28/2020
Cestaro, Glenn Robert [PUBCOM]
There are two items I would like comment on: 1) The consultant shows plantings and screenings that are not very tall and would mature in 20 years. If the project is approved the petitioner should be required to screen the entire site along Richville Road with plantings 6-7 feet tall a a minimum. 2) Of course the top of the Taconic Range will always be visible, Mt Equinox is over 3,855 feet! The ground view of the proposed site will be completely changed by the presence of the solar panels .
Acknowledged
12/24/2020
Penge, Cosmo [PUBCOM]
This site line review does not address the view of solar panels from ground level. While the top of the Taconic Range will always be visible, the ground view of the proposed site will be completely altered from a rural country field to a field filled with solar panels that will always be visible to homeowners, passerbys,motorists and visitors to the area. The character of the project is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Acknowledged
06/26/2020
Lemke, Anne [PUBCOMRO]
I, Anne Lemke, live at 114 Valley Pass across the street from the proposed project. I am not concerned about “property values,” however I am concerned about the very close proximity to the heavily travelled Richville Road. This has got to create additional water problems on a very small flood-plain area status but also the actual “floods” we have experienced on Richville right in that area and in our neighborhood, as well. There HAS GOT to be a much better and bigger area for these panels!
Acknowledged
06/26/2020
Bush, Cynthia [PUBCOM]
Thank you for the opportunity to express concerns. I support solar energy but I do not believe the proposed Solar Farm site is appropriate in a residential area. My concerns are decreased property values and the difficulty in selling a home adjacent to a solar farm; the length of time it will take to grow 10-12 ft landscaping to shield view of unattractive panels; and the potential for increased flood damage to neighborhood (debris flows to the proposed site reducing risk of river clogging).
