Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York County adopts solar zoning rules after months of public debate
Summary
Following a lengthy public comment period and extended commissioner debate, the York County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt new solar zoning regulations that set standards for setbacks, screening and aggregated projects; the board and public speakers emphasized competing priorities of agricultural preservation and property rights.
York County commissioners voted April 1 to adopt a package of solar zoning regulations sent to them by the county planning and zoning board after months of work and public comment. The decision follows multiple public speakers who urged the board to protect agricultural land and neighbors from large solar arrays and several commissioners who said the county needs rules to balance property rights with the comprehensive plan.
The new rules implement minimum separation distances, visual-screening standards and requirements for aggregated projects, and were presented to the board after a planning and zoning process that included at least one public hearing. Commissioner Daniel said the county needs standards in place: "I feel like we need to have some form of zoning for solar." Commissioner David and others debated the appropriate size and setbacks for different classes of solar projects.
Public commenters argued the regulations are needed to protect nonparticipating neighbors and farmland. "If U.S. commissioners agree with this position, then any landowner in the county can do anything they want with their land and expect you to change or adopt zoning laws to accommodate them?" said Kim Regier, a York County resident. Leo App, a Henderson resident who testified, said local jobs from a large solar array would be limited and that the electricity "is gonna be sold, shipped to wherever they can get the most money for it." Grant Jackson of McCool Junction urged a clear distinction between different sizes of commercial and industrial solar projects.
Commissioners and staff repeatedly referenced the county's 2015 comprehensive plan while weighing how strongly to protect cropland and residential expectations. A member of the board said that the comprehensive plan states York County should remain dominated by agricultural production and that "loss of cropland to non-cropland uses should be avoided as much as possible." Several commissioners said the planning and zoning board had returned the draft regulations without changes and that any future change would require another public hearing.
After debate, a motion to adopt the regulations carried and the board voted to approve the planning and zoning board's recommended rules. The transcript records the board chair announcing, "Motion passes." The exact roll-call tally is not specified in the public record portion of the transcript.
The county attorney and planning staff said that future conditional-use permit applications for specific solar projects will come back to the board for site-by-site review under the new standards. Commissioners also discussed the potential for litigation in other counties and referenced a recent Knox County court decision while noting the zoning rules make it easier to evaluate and, where appropriate, limit local impacts.
What happens next: individual solar project proposals will file conditional-use permit applications and required studies under the new rules, including visual screening and any required wildlife or avian assessments. Commissioners said grammatical and minor phrasing changes identified in the council discussion should be handled through the ongoing comprehensive-plan update and administrative edits, but they did not delay adoption of the regulations.
Ending note: The board's action establishes baseline regulatory requirements for solar projects in York County; applicants and neighbors will be able to cite these standards when particular projects seek county approvals.
