Webster Solar Garden

Urged the board to make ethical and compassionate decisions regarding the solar farm, raising environmental concerns.

Spoke in support of the solar project, citing his EHS background and noting it reuses brownfield land with proper decommissioning plans.

Expressed concern over tree removal, wildlife displacement, and project planning despite changes removing panels from the landfill cap.

Requested written clarification on the industrial use classification and applicability of the town's solar energy law.

Opposed the solar project, citing deforestation, noise, wildlife disruption, and lack of stakeholder confidence.

Urged thorough due diligence regarding noise, groundwater impacts, and SEQR review.

Questioned groundwater impacts from removing 17.5 acres of trees in an area with known wetlands.

Expressed brief support for the solar garden project.

Shared positive personal experience with solar energy and supported off-site solar programs.

Opposed the solar project, citing loss of tree buffers, overdevelopment, and potential property value declines exceeding tax revenue.

Criticized developer misrepresentations regarding noise and urged the board to vote no.

Requested clarification on permitting pathways and noted she would consider relocating if approved.

Raised concerns about unaddressed inverter noise, inaccurate cap membrane descriptions, and Xerox's financial instability.

Spoke in support of the project as a solar industry CEO, addressing safety, non-toxic materials, and grid benefits.

Expressed concern that the solar project makes the location unsuitable and questioned solar efficiency in upstate New York.

Provided legal advice warning of Article 78 litigation due to procedural errors and material changes without planning board review.

Described long family history and expressed strong concerns over continuous generator-like noise and environmental disruption.

Emphasized that opposition is about location and inverter noise, playing an audio clip of estimated sound levels.

Noted allowable sound limits exceed 45 dB and urged the board to reject the project.

Cautioned against questionable data and suggested focusing arguments on straightforward neighborhood preferences.

Criticized spending taxpayer funds on a project benefiting Xerox while local roads and power infrastructure deteriorate.

Expressed strong opposition to the proposed solar garden at 750 Phillips Road on behalf of 400 petition-signing residents, citing health risks, environmental concerns on a hazardous waste site, and loss of green space.

Voiced opposition to the solar panel farm, focusing specifically on disruptive noise from inverters and requesting thorough noise and water studies before any decisions are made.

A registered nurse living near the proposed solar project expressed deep concern over potential toxic leaks from disturbed industrial land and low-frequency noise impacts on health and animals.