Proposed Solar Field Near Lovers Lane on Hold Through October

Haverhill City Councilor Melissa J. Lewandowski. (Courtesy photograph.)

Haverhill city councilors this week opted to continue discussions on a proposed solar field near Lovers Lane amid concerns over the scope and scale of the plan, which could impact more than 23 acres of green space near the New Hampshire border.

Attorney Robert D. Harb, representing applicant Christopher Anderson of Hannigan Engineering said the project proposes using approximately 23 acres of a greater than 120-acre site to build a large-scale solar field.

“This is going to be a good source of renewable energy, not carbon-based fuels. We’re going to be tied into the grid,” he said. He clarified abutting residents will not receive a discount on their bill. “But, we are supplying energy to the whole community through National Grid that will help the supply of energy if there is a peak time,” he said.

According to a Dec. 5, 2023 application submitted by Anderson on behalf of SPI Solar the project would include the solar field as well as a 20-foot gravel access drive, which will divide the site into two areas. He wrote the proposed development would not impact traffic, the character of adjacent neighborhoods or the surrounding green space. He added the proposal is expected to have a positive impact on the city by increasing its tax base and the value of the land.

Resident Christine Kwitchoff cited concerns over removing forested land in the area.

“I would argue that the best use is keeping it exactly as it is. It’s a large expanse of contiguous open space the value of which cannot be understated, what that means for carbon sequestration, climate resiliency, there’s value in it and that can’t be replaced once it’s gone,” she said.

She later added the benefit to the city “pales in comparison” to the benefit to the SPI Solar, and the city risks losing an “iconic” view. “Anyone that looks over across Tilton Swamp and looks up at that hill, Ayers Hill, the highest hill in Haverhill, the fact that could be modified is just a sinful proposal to me,” she said.

Others, like Anita Toscano added that she was concerned about the impacts to wildlife and the loss of the view. “Putting it on that hill with that beautiful view, why don’t you put it in front of Winnekenni Castle, that faces certain directions there, you wouldn’t do that to Winnekenni Castle, why are you doing it to the natural resources, it just doesn’t make sense to me,” she said.

Councilor Melissa J. Lewandowski cited concerns over whether the application is complete. “Now we’ve heard that the square footage is different from what was represented. I understand you indicated there’s some fencing there and so forth. I don’t have a clear understanding of all of the proposed landscaping features as required by our special permitting process,” she said.

Several items, such the tax and community benefits to the city, reviews from the city engineer or the Department of Public Works and lack of a peer review of the energy savings for the community were among other concerns from Lewandowski.

Council Vice President Timothy J. Jordan later echoed Lewandowski’s concerns over the benefits the projects would provide to the community and the tax base.  He asked, “I guess I’ll say it, what’s in it for the city?”

Councilor Michael S. McGonagle said he would support the project, as he believes the project will benefit the city and preserve green space.

“This owner owns his land. It’s the highest and best use in Pillsbury’s opinion. There’s no city department that has a problem with it, we’re going to get tax revenue. He’s not chewing up all of his land,” he said.

Harb said his client will return with an updated site plan, peer review, aerial photographs, tax impact and other uses of the property should the project not receive approval.

The Council voted unanimously to continue the hearing to its Oct. 29 meeting.

Comments are closed.