Solar farms are sprouting on Westport fields one after another and, for the most part, they’ve been welcomed by neighbors.

Not so off Horseneck Road where neighbors turned out recently to oppose a 4 megawatt solar farm that Clean Energy Collective hopes to build on around 17 acres of a 38.6 acre property a 442-486 Horseneck Road owned by Paul and Viola Gay. The property is located between Horseneck and Division roads.

One after another, opponents argued that the proposed farm would ruin the woodland views of their rural neighborhood, destroy a forest and displace wildlife, cause drainage problems, harm property values and generally be a terrible fit for the residential area.

“For someone to clear-cut 17 acres of woods” including very old trees — “its criminal,” one neighbor said, her voice shaking.

Planning Board members, too, expressed skepticism before continuing the matter to the next meeting on December 12.

To an engineer for the project, board member Robert Daylor said, “I think you’re not looking at the project in the larger context. Essentially the property is bracketed by two streams” one of which flows into the East Branch. He said he has seen the project’s topographical maps and heard the drainage testimony, “but I give a lot of weight to people who’ve lived someplace for 20 years and they see what they see. I think you need to see what they see.”

“I don’t think the intent of the solar bylaw was to go around clear cutting isolated properties especially in residential agricultural areas,” said board member Andrew Sousa. I’d be hesitant to approve this in that area.”

The solar proposal

Representing the developer, engineer Steven Gioiosa of Sitec Co., first addressed wetlands concerns, saying that, while there would be an increase in runoff, “the idea is to maintain the same drainage divide” and keep water flowing in the same directions as it is now. There would be two runoff detention ponds as well as grass swales to control flow.

In response to a concern he said he had heard, Mr. Gioiosa said that the large number of solar panels is a “non-issue” in terms of heating water runoff since rainwater flows quickly off the panels and any slight heat gain would be lost during the long, slow route to the river.

He said that a 7-foot chain link fence would be erected around the property with a slight space beneath to allow small animals to pass. And he said a wood fence could be put up as “a very effective screen” along part of the south border that abuts homes on Gooseberry Farms Lane. Panels would be kept at least 100 feet from the property line as zoning requires, he said, and there would be a 25-30 foot uncleared stretch at the property line.

Board member David Cole said he doubts that would be sufficient.

“I would urge you to give much more serious consideration to possible plantings along that south side. An eight foot wooden fence doesn’t cut much mustard, I think, in terms of alleviating the problem.

“And I think you ought to even consider … removing one or two of the southernmost lines of panels to give more space” so that people aren’t seeing the panels.”

The project would create very little traffic, just occasional visits for maintenance, and little noise, just “a little bit of a hum from transformers in the middle of the property … no noise impact.”

Neighbors and others weren’t buying any of it.

“Let me be very frank and clear at the beginning,” said Attorney Daniel Perry, representing most of the residents of Gooseberry Farms Lane. “They are unanimous in their view and they detest this project. They believe it is going to ruin the neighborhood — I think their feelings are justified.”

“It is becoming increasingly clear,” he said, “that big scale solar projects do not play nice with residential neighborhoods,” adding that Dartmouth does not allow them in residential zones.

A 30-foot line of deciduous trees, “likely topped down to 12 feet — and you think that’s going to provide any value for screening to this neighborhood? I think you are under an illusion.”

“There are many places in Westport where you can put a solar facility that does not beat up a neighborhood like this.”

“I am not anti solar (but) this is not the place,” said neighbor Grant Moore. “A 30-foot buffer is nothing.”

Emilio Bizzi of Gooseberry Farms Lane, said a long search for a quiet, rural cottage led him and his wife to this location. Now, “I am afraid that the project will establish an industrial complex nearby.”

“I come from Europe and have seen the destruction of the beauty and environment in many places. It starts with the mixing up of things,” industry and business “in places where they should not be … It is a great shame to destroy beauty.”

I am shocked,” said Elizabeth Holden. “I thought we lived in a residential area and this all happened so fast … It’s just going to ruin the area.”

Paul Cronin said he and his wife believed they had found “our perfect retirement home” in a wooded, isolated environment.

Among other things, he said the developer has his drainage projections all wrong.

“I firmly believe that adding this solar farm will submerge my land. I don’t want to spend my retirement years dealing with a wet basement.”

Mentioning what has been called “energy sprawl,” George Cataldo, who said he is a World War II veteran, said that “if this water contaminates my well, I may not live to be 100.”

Brooks Burlingame, a self-described “weather nut” who likes to go out in the rain, said “what comes down that hill (from that property) now is like a waterfall” at times and washes out the entry drive. This will only make it worse.

Lee Tripp, who owns the large adjoining parcel to the north off Horseneck Road, said, “I hate to see all these woods go … there are so many creatures, so much wildlife there.”

“This really gets me in the heart,” added Deborah Moore. “This is wrong.”

Deborah Weaver, executive director of the Westport Watershed Alliance, said she questions “the wisdom of clear cutting such a large area of trees and whether that is a god environmental tradeoff.” She said the Alliance also has concerns for the added runoff to the two brooks that “drain right into the river.”

Mr. Gioiosa said the applicant will consider the comments. “We’re not sure that we will be able to satisfy the neighbors but at least we can see if we can alleviate” their concerns.

The board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to December 12.