Letter: Better city locations for solar panels

Better city locations for solar panels

To the editor:

I opened my Eagle Monday morning and noted an editorial entitled "A Good Solar Project Done in by NIMBYism" relative to the recent decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals on solar panel placement in residential zones.

First, some of the information in the editorial was incorrect. The approximately 8,400 solar panels were not going to be placed in my back yard, but in the front yard of four residents along Churchill Street. I guess that makes me a NIMFY.

If time had been taken to view the proposed area in question it would have been evident that we NIMFY's are nowhere near Dan Casey Boulevard, which is approximately a half mile away from the proposed site. The placement of the solar panels would in no way impact Onota Lake or the residences along its borders.

Further, the area in which the solar field was to be placed are in R20 and R43 Residential Zone, which means that the zones were passed and promulgated by the city to secure residential use, not commercial or industrial uses, and those zones are there legislatively for the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of those zones.

If the concern is for the development of solar power, why not write about the commercial and industrial sites where they may be better placed? For example: the landfill on East Street; all the vacant land abandoned by General Electric; on Woodlawn Avenue or Plastics Avenue, etc.

Ralph Cianflone, Jr., Pittsfield


If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.

Powered by Creative Circle Media Solutions