News Tidbits 4/8/17: Please Don’t Document-Dump on Fridays » 1061_dryden_v2_4


Actions

One response

9 04 2017
Buzz Lavine

Hi Brian,

Buzz Lavine here. I used to be a member of the Dryden Planning Board, long retired now. I’m also a member of DRAC (Dryden Resource Awareness Coalition). I’ve been following and working on developments in Dryden for some time and have paid particularly close attention to the 1061 Dryden Rd project in Dryden. I much appreciate your posts in general and follow them regularly. Here’s some comments and a request regarding your 4/8/17 post on 1061.

Using your numbers and some numbers that the developer has presented at Planning Bd Meetings (some of which you appear not to have known), here’s a somewhat different view of the project. His proposed solar arrays are flat mounted on the roofs, and the buildings are not sited to take advantage of solar pv. There may be some potentially significant shading issues as well. Thus they’re much less effective than we’d like to see for solar pv. The impression is that the developer added the solar as an afterthought, just to gain acceptance as a green project that would more likely meet the Board’s request. I believe his stated number for adding in the solar is $300K.

I think the Planning Board’s recommendation to exclude the $300K solar in favor of using air-to-air heat pumps makes sense. I didn’t see in your analysis any subtraction of the $300K cost. I also didn’t see any subtraction of the cost of the gas heating equipment and systems, which of course is also substantial. Considering these two subtractions might well change one’s view of the financial viability of the Planning Board’s request. And note also that it seems likely that large amounts of discounted solar electricity will likely be available quite soon from the large solar farms proposed nearby. That solar-based electric would be an ideal companion to the heat pumps (and completely avoid increasing demand for natural gas).

The lower cost and the greener project would add to its marketability while meeting the Planning Board’s requirements. It might also make it more viable to decrease the number of units in favor of the family-oriented open space requested by both Varna and the Planning Board.

I hope these are convincing arguments to you, and that you might post a followup reflecting them asap.

Thanks for all your wonderful coverage of so many projects.

Buzz Lavine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s