Residents press fiscal court to review Scout solar project, question ordinance changes and timelines

Dozens of residents spoke at the Ohio County Fiscal Court meeting on Jan. 28, 2025, urging judges and magistrates to slow or revisit the county’s handling of a proposed solar project by Scout, saying the company has not yet filed required state paperwork and that the court changed ordinance variances too quickly.

The speakers’ concerns centered on where Scout proposes to place arrays, whether the firm has submitted licensing paperwork to the state, and whether changes the court made to setback and variance rules were properly noticed. Residents said Scout representatives told them the company had agreed to pull panels from a section of farmland but that no written commitments had been provided.

Why it matters: The project would affect multiple parcels and longstanding family properties, and residents say the county’s recent ordinance amendment and subsequent variances broadened where arrays could be sited. Several speakers asked the court to verify the administrative record, including meeting minutes and any memoranda of agreement, and to consider outside legal counsel used by other counties in successful challenges.

Court and public timelines and procedural status Transcript remarks indicate Scout has not yet filed its permit application with the state; the company, according to comments reported at the meeting, expects to hold public hearings in January or February 2026 if and when its state filing is complete. Residents said they were told verbally that Scout might pull panels off a parcel adjacent to a subdivision and instead use reclaimed or strip-mined land, but they have no written confirmation of that.

Some residents pressed the court about a vote in a prior meeting that changed a setback or variance standard (described by speakers as a shift “from 2,000 feet to a couple hundred feet” in some places). At the Jan. 28 meeting, one attendee said the minutes from that prior meeting reflected an MOU only addressing added vegetation around a perimeter and “are silent to any other changes” alleged to have been approved; another called for staff to investigate whether the minutes reflect the actual actions taken.

Speakers also recommended the court consider outside counsel used elsewhere. A member of the public who had studied a nearby county’s approach said that county engaged an outside law firm (identified in public comment as Telpo Law and an attorney named Matt Johns) in litigation that resulted in a circuit court decision upholding an ordinance based on conservation concerns.

Public concerns raised included visual impacts, potential effects on water flow and local creeks, the fate and recycling of solar panels at end of life, whether construction jobs would go to local workers, and potential noise from equipment or battery storage. One resident, identified at the meeting as Gracie, asked directly, “I want to know if I’ve got your money for your solar yet,” and was told no county grant or award had been made to the project.

Court response and next steps Presiding officials said they would keep the public informed of any filings and hearings and that they would continue communications with Scout. The court asked staff to gather documentation, offered to provide maps and paperwork to residents who requested them, and promised to follow up at future meetings. The judge said county staff would report back when new information arrived and that the county would check with other judges and counties about their experiences.

Residents asked the court to "dig and fight" to find ways to undo or revisit prior actions if they were improperly taken; court members said they would investigate and report at the next meeting.

Ending No formal county action on Scout’s project occurred at the Jan. 28 meeting; residents requested additional documentation and legal review and court staff committed to report back when the company files and when staff can verify past meeting records.