Meanwhile, zoning hearing on solar array site continues
By Amy Batista, Special Writer
FLORENCE — The people of the township are taking a proposal to build a 26.3-megawatt solar complex on Bustleton Road farmland quite seriously.
In fact, residents — in opposition to the project — brought forth a team of expert witnesses to testify before the Zoning Board on Aug. 27. The meeting marked the continuation of an ongoing hearing for applicant Florence PV LLC’s proposal to build the solar facility on Bustleton Road.
The company is applying for a use variance as well as preliminary and final site plan approval to permit the construction of the solar farm on 138 acres. Its application for such was first presented to the Zoning Board in May and then again in July.
The farmland is near Burlington Township.
Attorney Pat McAndrew, representing Florence PV, said at the end of the Aug. 27 hearing that he needed more time to address material presented that evening. The Zoning Board concurred and agreed to hold another special meeting on Sept. 24.
Zoning Board Chairman Michael Zekas did not respond to multiple requests for comment by the Register-News.
The Aug. 27 hearing, and special meeting on the proposal, opened with a chance for representatives of the residents of Florence — and also Burlington Township — to rebut and cross-examine testimony that had been presented previously by the applicant.
Numerous residents retained attorney Jeffrey Baron, of Voorhees, to represent them back in May. Mr. Baron introduced several expert witnesses and professionals who testified against the proposal on Aug. 27.
Joseph Burgis, a professional planner and owner of Burgis Associates in Westwood, started the testimony with a PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Burgis said he had three primary areas he was going to focus on in his presentation — statewide planning context, the Master Plan (of the township) and the zoning issues, and applicable statutory criteria and case law.
”My conclusion is that I don’t believe the applicant has met his statutory burden,” Mr. Burgis said.
Mr. Burgis said under the New Jersey Energy Master Plan that the state wants to “encourage solar energy but we want to discourage it where we take active farmland.”
Noteworthy, Mr. Burgis said the Bustleton Road site held the “highest priority area for farmland preservation” in the Rural Planning Area in the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) to “protect and enhance agricultural vitality.”
He said that all these elements are “what this application is all about.”
”In no way shape or form can one argue that the placement of solar panels is going to enhance agricultural vitality, nor does it support agricultural business, nor does it promote opportunities for related agricultural businesses,” Mr. Burgis said.
Mr. Burgis said that 2011 NJ Energy Master Plan encourages photovoltaic (PV) arrays but in selected areas and that the “Christie Administration does not support the use of ratepayer subsidies to turn productive farmland into grid-supply solar facilities.”
Mr. Burgis said, “Because urban development may have harmful effects on the continuation of productive farming in a metropolitan area, Florence must provide for the preservation of the entire agricultural district so that it can be devoted to such long-term use.”
Mr. Burgis said in the Atlantic Green Power vs. Upper Pittsgove Land Use Board that it “sounds like they are describing Florence.”
”The concept of a scenic vista is different from the concept of buffering because, whereas buffering may screen what’s behind it — that is not the same as saying it does not impair the scenic vista,” Mr. Burgis said. “Scenic vista implies a more expansive view and not simply something hidden behind trees, (it) implies an expansive view; a panorama.”
Mr. Burgis said there is a jurisdiction issue that needs to be addressed and resolved at some point during these proceedings that is whether the application “represents a de facto rezoning” and “whether the impact of requested variance substantially alters character of (the) district.”
Mr. Burgis spoke also in reference to the 118-acre solar facility slated for Cedar Lane in Florence.
The Zoning Board has already granted land use approval to the Cedar Lane applicant, EffiSolar Energy Corp., of Coquitlam, Canada. The company had not required the necessary construction permits to begin building, as of press time.
”If (the Bustleton site) is approved, there will be two solar sites within the immediate area — constituting 256 acres,” Mr. Burgis said, noting that this equated to approximately 20 percent of all the agricultural land in this portion of the municipality.
”These facilities should be placed at a minimum in your industrial zones,” Mr. Burgis said, adding that there are a significant number of sites in which this could be done.
”The board is obligated to focus on negative criteria,” Mr. Burgis said. “The negative criteria is not met and results in substantial impairment to Master Plan’s intent and substantial detriment to public good.”
”Are you aware that this 138 acres was previously approved about four years ago for 35 single-family homes?” asked Mr. McAndrew on behalf of applicant Florence PV during cross-examination.
Mr. McAndrew asked, “Why was this not factored into your analysis, your PowerPoint presentation at all?”
”That’s not the application before this board,” Mr. Burgis responded.
Noteworthy, “We are up to about 70 households now,” said David Van Camp, a resident of Burlington Township, regarding the number of folks being represented in opposition to the proposed solar site.
At the August hearing, Mr. Van Camp presented a PowerPoint presentation featuring photos showcasing his research of public records he collected over the past month on several New Jersey solar farms either in the planning stages or currently operating around the state associated the applicant’s engineering firm.
Mr. Van Camp said, as he explained the first few slides of his presentation, that maintenance and standing water underneath the solar panels were major issues.
”It took a ton of time and effort and it paid off,” Mr. Van Camp said, of the presentation, on Sept. 4.
Burlington Township Planner Joseph Augustyn, of the Alaimo Group, said, “This is a photovoltaic energy facility.”
He continued, “It’s not the solar ‘f’ word, farm. It’s not a farm. That’s a spin.”
Mr. Augustyn continued, “The loss of Florence’s farmland can be considered a serious, social as well as economic loss,” Mr. Augustyn said in reference to Florence’s Master Plan.
Mr. Augustyn said that these types of photovoltaic energy facilities create “few employment opportunities.”
”They add little to the local economy. Electricity goes into the grid and allocates it elsewhere,” Mr. Augustyn said.
Mr. Augustyn recognized the local residents who, in large numbers, have been showing up to oppose the application at the meetings.
”Who better than them to recognize a problem or a determinant to the public?” Mr. Augustyn asked.
Burlington Township Engineer Scott Hatfield also testified on the side of residents opposing the solar project.
”I’m that guy who (Evan) Hill (the applicant’s engineer) last month kept on saying, ‘Mr. Hatfield kept saying this,’ and ‘Mr. Hatfield said that that,’” Mr. Hatfield told the Zoning Board. “I’m here tonight to hopefully give you my point of view.”
In reference to Burlington Township, Mr. Hatfield said, “We in no way, shape or form support this application . . . My comments are meant to solely bring to your attention what we feel are significant concerns in respect to this proposed large-scale industrial development in particularly as they relate to screening and buffering.”
Mr. Hatfield said he was “shocked” at the size of this development when he first saw the plans for it in May with it being adjacent to an existing development.
Mr. Hatfield discussed the plans that he reviewed and recommendations he had made, which the applicant did comply with on setting back the buffer. He said he recommended that an elevated landscaper be involved in the process to work on enhancing the area for those that live in the second-story houses, but according to Mr. Hatfield, that request had gone unanswered at this time.
Further, “We question the ability to bring (this land) back to fertile farmland,” Mr. Hatfield said.

