How a 2019 renewable energy presentation, farmland concerns, and
a later recusal raised new questions about town government.
Hartland’s new administration says a disputed solar law could have exposed the town to costly litigation and weakened its ability to protect farmland.
HARTLAND, NY — A solar controversy in the Town of Hartland appears to reach back to at least August 2019, when EDF Renewables reportedly gave a
public presentation at the fire hall showing proposed solar siting in the town.According to information provided by the current Hartland administration, the presentation included color posters showing what was believed to be more than 1,000 acres under consideration. The scale of the proposal surprised residents and officials who viewed Hartland as a largely agricultural community with a significant amount of prime farmland.
Former Supervisor Ross Annable reportedly assured concerned residents that the event was only a presentation. But after the new administration contacted EDF Renewables, officials say the company had detailed records of conversations and meetings involving Annable and others in town government dating back approximately six months before the public presentation.
A solar law was later discussed and passed. One phrase in that law has become a central issue: language reportedly stating that the town agreed solar was a benefit to Hartland.
Critics say that wording may have helped create a favorable legal and political foundation for large-scale solar development in a rural farming community.
According to the current administration, if the disputed language had not been caught by new Town Supervisor Margaret Zaepfel and the incoming board, Hartland could have faced tens of thousands of dollars in solar-related litigation and may have lost important legal footing needed to protect town land, farmland, and local planning authority.
That concern is central to the solar controversy. If a town law states that solar development is a benefit to the community, critics argue that developers could later use that language against the town if officials tried to reject, restrict, or limit a large solar project. In other words, Hartland may have been placed in the position of defending farmland while its own law contained language that appeared to support solar development.
The attorney believed to be connected to the original solar law was David Hensley, working with Seaman Norris. When the new supervisor took office, Dan Seaman reportedly said he could not continue representing the town.
After taking office, the new board rewrote the existing solar law. According to the administration, the revised law removed the disputed benefit language and added stricter guidelines intended to comply with the town comprehensive plan, including setbacks and limits on project area size. The board also drafted a separate battery storage law.
The vote on the revised solar law was reportedly 3 to 1. Board member Joe Reed reportedly recused himself from all solar-related voting after being offered approximately $750,000 for use of his land.
The recusal raises an obvious question: were all potential conflicts properly disclosed during earlier solar discussions, and did anyone else connected to town government stand to benefit directly or indirectly from solar development?
The solar issue also intersects with a broader concern about how resolutions were passed under the prior administration. David Mongielo says he has video of former Hartland board members stating they did not fully read certain resolutions before voting and relied heavily on Annable’s guidance.
If accurate, that would raise serious concerns about whether board members independently reviewed major decisions affecting farmland, development, litigation risk, and town policy.
The unanswered questions remain direct:
Under Ross Annable, who first introduced the solar benefit language? Who voted for it? What resolution number applies? What advice was given by counsel? Were board members fully aware of what they were approving? Did any official have a conflict of interest requiring recusal? And did the original language expose Hartland taxpayers to avoidable litigation risk?
Until the full timeline, meeting minutes, attorney records, resolution language, vote history, and conflict disclosures are made public, Hartland residents are left asking whether solar policy was developed in the open — or advanced quietly before the public fully understood the stakes.
|
Source notes / records to attach or verify: • EDF Renewables presentation date and materials from approximately August 2019. • Original solar law, resolution number, and meeting minutes. • Records showing attorney involvement by David Hensley, Seaman Norris, and Dan Seaman. • Vote record for revised solar law and battery storage law. • Any written conflict disclosures or recusal records involving Joe Reed or other officials. • Video statements from former board members about reading or not reading resolutions. |
