Commissioners send revised solar ordinance to planning commission after weeks of debate

Delaware County commissioners on April 21 approved sending a set of revised solar‑farm and battery energy storage amendments to the county Planning Commission for a public hearing and further review.

The amendments — negotiated between commissioners and county staff over multiple meetings — adjust setbacks, a property‑value guarantee, and a cap on use of prime farmland. Commissioners said the changes try to balance property‑owner concerns with developers’ ability to build commercially viable projects. Commissioner Bridget Brand said meetings with four prospective developers showed “the current ordinance setbacks of 500 feet do not preclude them from building these projects,” but that other changes could ease local tensions.

Why it matters: The draft ordinance governs where utility‑scale solar arrays and battery systems can be sited in Delaware County and what conditions developers must meet. Supporters say clarified rules will enable predictable permitting and local jobs; opponents say the changes still risk lowering nearby homeowners’ and farmers’ property values and were drafted without enough transparent public process.

What the commissioners approved and why Commissioners voted to transmit the amended ordinance language to the Planning Commission and asked the planning body to set a special public hearing. The board agreed on several points before the referral: a property‑value guarantee distance, an expanded cap on prime farmland allowed for solar, a residential setback for private ground‑mounted arrays, and a shorter setback for battery energy storage systems than one version had proposed. The board instructed staff to post the version that incorporates those agreed changes for review by Planning.

Key policy choices discussed - Property‑value guarantee (PVG): Commissioners debated three options — a one‑mile guarantee, a half‑mile guarantee and protection limited to adjoining properties. After discussion, Brand proposed a compromise to use a half‑mile PVG in the version sent to Planning. The draft limits the guarantee to one year after project completion to allow neighbors time to observe the finished project.

- Prime farmland cap: The draft previously included a 10% cap on use of prime farmland countywide; commissioners agreed to raise that to 20% in the posted version. Commissioners said the cap aims to encourage siting on brownfields or lower‑quality agricultural land while preserving most productive acreage.

- Setbacks and private solar: Commissioners clarified the draft would treat homeowner rooftop and small private systems separately from utility projects. For ground‑mounted private systems adjacent to residences the board settled on a 50‑foot setback from an adjacent residence (and included a carve‑out for parcels with a residence on them). For battery energy storage systems the setback was set at 500 feet in the posted version.

Developer and public comment Mara Hoff, attorney for National Grid Renewables, urged the board and Planning Commission to consider that “buildable does not mean probable or economically viable,” saying that some setback language would reduce the acreage remaining for a viable utility project. Several residents and civic groups urged stronger setbacks, greater transparency and more public engagement. Linda Hanson of the League of Women Voters said the revision process had not been sufficiently transparent and urged clearer public notice. Others, including farmers and neighborhood residents, disagreed about whether the ordinance should further restrict farmland conversion.

Process next steps The Planning Commission will set a special public hearing; county staff said the commission planned to use the same public‑hearing rules used previously (fixed time allotments for proponents and opponents). After the Planning Commission’s public hearing and any recommended edits, the ordinance will return to the commissioners for a second reading and final vote.

Public reaction at the meeting Public commenters split between support for the county adopting workable rules that enable projects and opposition focused on process, property values, and farmland protection. The transcript records calls for clearer definitions (for example specifying photovoltaic panels versus concentrating solar systems) and questions about the enforceability and administrative burden of a PVG bond or guarantee.

What was not decided The Planning Commission will hold the public hearing and may recommend changes; the board’s referral was only a first‑reading step. No final adoption occurred at the April 21 meeting.