York County public commenters press officials on solar setbacks, battery storage and consulting process; board moves to executive session

Residents at the York County meeting used the public comment period to press county officials on proposed utility-scale solar development, setbacks, visual screening and battery-storage questions, and to compare York County’s regulatory approach with neighboring Lancaster County.

Wilbur Peterson, who said he has followed Lancaster County hearings, urged the county to review Lancaster’s approach and noted Lancaster County had adopted setback tweaks when approving a project. “The biggest difference is Lancaster County had rules and stuff in place, which so far York County does not,” Peterson said.

Joanne Jackson told the board she was concerned the county’s consultant framed survey questions in a way that could affect responses and emphasized residents’ health and welfare. Jackson asked how the county could treat a builder putting a barn 50 feet from a property line the same as permitting a 640-acre solar array across the road, and she cited proximity to transmission lines and potential battery storage sites. “How can a builder come in building a barn 50 foot feet from somebody's property line if compared to having 640 acres of solar panels directly across the road from the residence,” Jackson said.

G. Jackson and other commenters cited World Health Organization materials, battery size and performance questions, and concerns about visual screening. Speakers asked whether international agreements and carbon-regulation frameworks will drive local permitting decisions.

Board action: After public comment, a board member made a motion “to call the executive session among the board” to discuss solar and additional matters. The chair asked for a second. The board then took a roll call and moved into executive session; the transcript records affirmative roll-call responses and the chair saying, “we will go ahead and move into executive session at this time.” The transcript does not record the executive-session discussion, which is consistent with closed-session procedure, and no subsequent public decision on the solar projects is recorded in the open transcript.

Ending: Commenters urged the county to adopt clearer local rules on solar setbacks, screening and battery storage and to ensure survey and consulting processes do not bias public input. The record shows the board planned to discuss solar in executive session but offers no public outcome on the projects.