The lengthy review of Revity Energy’s plans for an 8.1-megawatt solar energy installation on Natick Avenue has been continued another month, while the City Council’s Public Works Committee on Thursday is set to again consider a request for new utility poles being sought in conjunction with the project.

The Planning Commission’s March 2 hearing on the preliminary plan submission for the Natick Avenue project – which had been continued from January, and then from February based on public meeting access concerns – ran more than five hours.

Due to length of the solar review and the late hour when the proceedings adjourned, all of the commission’s other business was forwarded to a special meeting held Monday.

The Natick Avenue review was also initially continued until this week, but Revity has since agreed to waive its 90-day review period – which was due to expire March 30 – to allow for the proceedings to continue at the commission’s April 6 meeting.

The project was the last of its kind to gain master plan approval before the city’s adoption of new zoning that bars commercial-scale solar installations in A-80 residential zoning. It has long been the subject of controversy, with abutters questioning its impact on property values and the character of the area. A group of residents have mounted an ongoing legal challenge to the project’s master plan approval.

Last week’s proceedings featured expert testimony from both sides of the matter, with attorney Robert Murray representing the developer and attorney Patrick Dougherty representing abutters of the Natick Avenue site.

University of Rhode Island professor Corey Lang, on behalf of the group represented by Dougherty, testified regarding the project’s impact on nearby property values. He discussed his work on a study of more than 400,000 property transactions between 2005 and 2019, which he said determined that properties within one mile of a commercial-scale solar project decreased in value by 1.7 percent. Properties within one-tenth of a mile of such an installation, he said, depreciated by roughly 7 percent.

Kaki Martin, a landscape architect and president of the Boston Society of Landscape Architects, also testified on behalf of the abutters, raising concerns over the landscaping and buffering plans for the Natick Avenue project.

The preliminary plan process focuses largely on various specific aspects of the project and the conditions set by the Planning Commission as part of master plan approval. Based on discussion from last week’s meeting, it appears officials remain concerned over several aspects of the project, including the effectiveness and sustainability of the buffering and landscaping plans; whether the project’s utility connection will be sited above or below ground; and how the developer will approach any needed blasting at the site, particularly given the presence of a nearby natural gas line along with wells and septic systems in the area.

“We do have some thinking to do on some of these conditions,” commissioner Fred Vincent said.

Added Commissioner Kathleen Lanphear: “We want to be sure that we’re precise.”

The commission did vote to grant the developer’s request for a one-year continuance of the project’s master plan approval. While that request had already been granted at the February meeting, it was voted on again due to the public access concerns.

The Public Works Committee also previously voted on the request for new utility poles on Natick Avenue as part of the project. But that vote, along with others from multiple City Council committee meetings on Feb. 11, was nullified last month due to what Council President Chris Paplauskas called “Zoom access issues.” The affected business, including the poles request, was reintroduced before the council and referred back to committees for new consideration.

Drake Patten, a neighbor of the Natick Avenue site, shared a letter she sent to Councilman Robert Ferri, chairman of the Public Works Committee, regarding the issue.

“These poles will be larger (taller and wider) than those that currently carry power and other services through our community … I am asking you to deny the poles request pending additional information that details the entire interconnection project so that all those impacted may be noticed and given opportunity to express their concerns and so that you and the Committee may best represent and protect our community,” she wrote.