Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State law prevents Deep Creek zoning board from ruling on proposed solar project
Summary
Planning staff told the Deep Creek Watershed Board of Zoning Appeals that state law preempts county review of solar energy generating facilities; the board heard an informational presentation from developers but took no formal action.
The Deep Creek Watershed Board of Zoning Appeals in Garrett County heard an informational presentation on a proposed solar energy generating facility but did not rule on the project after county staff said state law removes the board's authority to deny such sites.
Chad Fike, of the planning and permits office, told the board that the item before them was a special exception for a solar energy generating facility and that state law restricts local regulation. “We cannot deny site development plans for solar energy generating stations,” Fike said. He added that the county must expedite review and process site development plan applications to permit the use.
A representative of Pivot Energy described the parcel the company has under consideration and answered general questions. The representative said the project would cover roughly 14 acres, would include solar panels only (no energy storage), and was sited for proximity to three‑phase power owned and operated by Potomac Edison. “This particular project has solar panels only, and there's no energy storage proposed for this project,” the representative said. The company also said the parcel’s terrain and minimal shading made it feasible for their design and that the developer would work with county planning staff on erosion control, stormwater management and access as the site plan proceeds.
Chairman Bruce Swift told those in attendance that because of the state law the board did not have jurisdiction to issue a decision on the application at that meeting. Swift said any testimony received would require the board to accept rebuttal from opponents and that, because of that limitation, the proceeding was informational rather than a hearing.
A resident, Deborah Hutton of 1893 Paradise Pointe Road, asked whether exceptions exist for certain regions; Fike and the chair directed questions about the statute to the state. "I suggest you get a copy of that law from the state and read it and direct any of your questions to them," Swift said.
No formal motion or vote was taken by the board on the solar project. The developer stated it will continue site plan work with planning staff.
The presentation and the board’s statement that it would not rule on the application clarify the county’s current procedural posture: the project was presented for information only, and the formal local permitting process will proceed under the expedited state-directed review process described by staff.
