Mitigation of Visual Impacts for Large-Scale Solar

The impact of a large-scale solar site on the community viewshed is usually one of the greatest concerns the public has with a proposed site. This guide aims to address how solar developers can help work with communities to mitigate these concerns.

Fencing

Fencing is usually both a zoning requirement and a necessary part of a safe solar site, but it can also matter as part of a screening approach. Ordinances usually require fencing 6 to 8 feet high, providing a visual barrier, with polymethine tarp or plastic chain-link inserts to block the visual impact of the solar panels.

There are also considerations for alternative fencing, including the use of high-tensile fencing for developers who choose to incorporate agrivoltaics. Make sure that any alternative fencing remains compliant with the National Electrical Code standards. Most solar sites in PA are built in agricultural areas, with viewshed considerations often tied to the desire to preserve the rural aesthetic. Employing agrivoltaics and the associated agricultural fencing may not block the view but bring the solar site more in line with this rural aesthetic.

Lighting

Light pollution can be a concern in rural areas that want to maintain adequate darkness in their skies for stargazing or effects on adjacent neighbors’ sleep. These concerns can be largely resolved with a few considerations. First, consider what actually needs lighting on-site; generally, that is the transformers and other central electrical equipment. For installed lighting, consider using motion-sensor-activated lighting to light only the areas when needed. You can also consider using downcast lighting to ensure the light is focused only where it is needed, avoiding light pollution on adjacent properties or in the night sky.

Setbacks

Setbacks are widely applied to all uses by zoning or SALDO ordinances. In PA, setback distances typically range from 50 ft to 1,000 ft. Though this can be one of the most effective methods for reducing visual impacts, it can also reduce usable land for the solar developer and lock a significant amount of land out of productive use. It can be practical to consider what can be done with these areas. One of the most common potential uses is creating a pollinator or native-grass space. This can help align the solar site with natural habitat, create benefits for wildlife and pollinators important to agriculture. Also, native grasses with deeper root systems can help with runoff and stormwater.

Specifically with pollinators, there is also an opportunity to bring the solar array more in line with the often agricultural setting by incorporating agrivoltaics, creating space for apiaries in the setback area.

Screening

Screening, along with setbacks, is a tool that can help blend solar into the landscape. This will usually be achieved by using a combination of trees and other vegetation to blend the array into the natural habitat. Consider using vegetation species native to the local area to help blend into the local environment.

When discussing native habitat, developers should also consider maintaining as much of the existing natural buffers surrounding the array as possible. PA is a heavily forested area, creating a significant natural buffer for solar arrays. While there are legitimate concerns about reducing any potential shading of the array, maintaining natural buffers to the extent possible is an effective screening tool. For screening, conducting a viewshed analysis may be the best way to account for the visual impacts of an array. This involves finding sensitive receptors, such as residential properties, public roadways, recreational parks, or historical sites. One or more points along the use are assigned and then assessed for the potential visual impact of the array. This can help reveal the best mitigation strategies to reduce visual impact where it matters.

Though some municipalities might require a viewshed analysis, most have a more straightforward screening requirement that dictates plant type at specific intervals. It should be noted that, especially with townships where the array will go through the conditional use process, this requirement could be subject to change when opened up for public discussion during the meeting with the planning commission and township board of supervisors, who may alter the screening requirements to address the desires of the public.

It may be more proactive and simpler to identify and meet with sensitive receptors to incorporate their feedback in advance, avoiding the need to adjust the screening plan after public input.

Conclusion

Addressing the visual impact of a solar array can be one of the most crucial factors in a project’s success or failure. Planning with the local environment and aesthetics in mind and proactively incorporating public feedback can go a long way toward reducing resistance to a project.