Bollinger Solar LLC has proposed a 33-megawatt solar farm on Clarkstown Road about a half of a mile from Muncy. The project site would include a large-scale concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) of five barns, with each barn hosting 70,000 free-range chickens. In certain areas it would be an agrivoltaic project, allowing the chickens – raised to produce eggs – to graze beneath the panels as protection from glaring heat and predatory birds.

The project is a joint venture of the Bollinger and Wagner families known as Sunny Side Up Farms LLC with the CAFO operated by a company called AgVentures. The hearings have been held inside the Muncy Area Volunteer Fire Co. – even as ambulance and fire calls happen.

In what was a continuation of the solar hearing, professional Appraiser Mark Pomykacz has presented academic studies that he said indicate “limited to no negative impact” on the property values of homes adjacent or near solar farms that are properly designed, maintained and operated.

But after the appraiser presented testimony, Muncy attorney, Layne Oden, who lives on Muncy-Exchange Road next to the project along Clarkstown Road, questioned how the appraiser could reconcile the fact that testimony was given that the studies he referenced “do cite and reflect negative impacts” on value of homes that are next to solar farms.

Appraiser Mark Pomykacz testifies during the conditional use hearing by the Muncy Creek Township Supervisors at the Muncy Area Volunteer Fire Company in Muncy. Pomykacz spoke to the hearing about whether he felt that home values would rise or fall as a result of the proposed solar farm along Clarkstown Road. DAVE KENNEDY/Sun-Gazette

Moreover, the studies presented to township supervisors for evidence are not comparable, in terms of megawattage, than what has been proposed by Bollinger Solar. The closest example given in the hearing has been a 20-megawatt electricity facility.

Pomykacz said there was little to no change in home values based on the data analysis he presented. He noted, however, that data differs depending on whether the site is in a rural or urban location and he said there are variables with this much data. For example, the appraiser’s report utilized academic studies from the University of Rhode Island, which has defined rural areas as a number of 850 or less people per square mile. The township’s population density is 175 people per square mile, he said.

The appraiser’s remark led to a question from township Solicitor J. Michael Wiley who asked the appraiser if the adjacent property was not as important as population density in determining valuation of properties near such solar facilities. The report shows matched paired properties in rural areas, with none indicated in urban areas.

To a question by Attorney Zachary DuGan, representing the Muncy Area Neighborhood Preservation Coalition, Pomykacz said none of the properties in the report given are next to solar panel farms that are for agrivoltaic use, as is this case.

Bollinger had no more witnesses to present, with some exhibit issues to take care of including providing the supervisors with previously asked for information such as 20 observation points and addresses and elevations regarding the solar farm glare and glint study. The applicant rested, said Attorney Samuel E. Wiser Jr., the applicant’s counsel.

DCIM100MEDIADJI_0081.JPG

Daniel Tapich, a civil engineer, who was a witness on behalf of the Muncy Area Neighborhood Preservation Coalition, indicated a number of what he perceived as “deficiencies,” based on what the township zoning ordinance required.

The sound or noise study does not consider the noise created by the operation of the proposed CAFO, he said.

Tapich said he did not recall testimony toward that end.

DuGan asked Tapich if, in his opinion, the proposed agrivoltaic operations would have an impact on sound, to which he replied affirmatively.

Tapich noted how the glint analysis included areas behind the panels, analyzing several points behind the panel, where risk of glare or glint from the sun would be far less than had it been tested in front of the panel.

DCIM100MEDIADJI_0082.JPG

Moreover, he testified, that having visited the site the existing vegetative buffering on the west and east sides were largely deciduous trees – those that typically drop their leaves in the fall and through winter. “I’m not sure that distinction is made,” Tapich said.

Because of this, he added, any conclusion on the impact of the glare on properties and roads near the site would be “premature.”

Tapich noted how the proposed arborvitae (plants that would be a vegetative buffer) a proposal to block the project view from those nearby it and along the roads as like “candy” to white tail deer.

He also observed how using arborvitae would require three to five years for the plants to reach that proper height to provide reliable screening.

He added how there could be other means of mitigating sound and minimizing the effect of the solar panel inverters such as acoustic panels.

Additionally, Tapich said he did not agree that grading and stormwater treatment processes could be waived — as they were by the zoning officer in this case — as part of the conditional use requirement.

In this case, township zoning officer Victor Marquardt testified previously that stormwater treatment and grading issues were “delayed,” and could be reviewed later, should the project move to the land development stage.

Wiser questioned Tapich as to his expertise on acoustics, glare and in other areas. Tapich acknowledged he was not testifying as an expert and was educated as a civil engineer with emphasis on hydrology.

As for whether the solar farm proposal would be adverse or beneficial to neighbors, Tapich said it was premature to conclude these matters, as there has not been enough evidence presented by the applicant in the proposal.

The evidence and testimony is being recorded for township Supervisors Eric Newcomer, chair and Harley Fry II, to review before making their decision. Each has been offered chances to ask questions of the applicants and those testifying. Supervisor Gary Phillips has been asked by legal advisers to recuse himself from the proceedings due to a comment on social media. Phillips, as a resident, can and has asked the applicant questions.

Tapich will remain under oath and continue with his testimony at the next hearing

Since the spring, when the project was announced, the CAFO hearings have drawn the most attendance – generally packing the interior of the engine bays of the Muncy Area Volunteer Fire Co. – as it has the most potential impact to traffic, air and water quality and odor.

The coalition has an active Facebook site and has prepared several expert witnesses to give testimony, which can be done now that the applicant has rested regarding the solar farm.

The next hearing for the CAFO portion is set for 7 p.m. on (Wednesday) Oct. 8 at the Muncy Area Volunteer Fire Co. with the solar hearing continuing at 7 p.m. on Oct. 29 at the fire station on East Penn Street.