Planning commission recommends 60-day hold on Paradise Point solar special exception while county attorneys review new state law

The Garrett County Planning Commission on a 60-day advisory pause recommended that the Board of Zoning Appeals delay a special-exception hearing for a proposed community-scale solar array at 136 Paradise Point Road while county attorneys review a new state law.

Planning staff presented the application by the law firm Steptoe and Johnson on behalf of Pivot Energy Development; the landowners are listed as Randall and Sarah Harvey. The project site lies near the intersection of Paradise Point and Sam Flat Road in the Deep Creek Lake area, in a Lake Residential 2 zoning district.

The recommendation followed an extended discussion about the scope of local authority after the state’s Renewable Energy Certainty Act — which staff said became effective July 1 — and whether the county can deny or lawfully condition community solar projects. Planning staff summarized the local ordinance and recent state changes: Garrett County’s Deep Creek zoning ordinance currently allows community solar up to 2 megawatts by special exception, while the state act treats projects of not more than 5 megawatts as a use that must be treated permissively in many respects.

“The bill says a local jurisdiction may not adopt zoning laws or other laws or regulations to prohibit the construction or operation of solar energy generating stations,” the planning staff said, and that projects of 5 megawatts or less are treated as permitted uses under certain conditions. Staff advised the commission that, as a result, the county’s ability to deny a special exception is likely limited and that the local ordinance will need amendment to align with the state law.

Residents and board members raised concerns about fencing, glare, noise and impacts to farmland and resort-area character. One resident asked who would regulate final design elements such as wildlife fencing and whether the fence might include barbed wire. Commissioners and board members said they want a clearer legal interpretation before making a final advisory recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

Board member Bob Hoffman, who serves on the Board of Zoning Appeals, noted the prior Newsom Farm denial and the circuit court’s decision in favor of the county when that denial was appealed; he asked how the new state law affects reliance on the county’s comprehensive plan and past case law. Other commissioners and members asked whether the county can impose conditions that would effectively limit where arrays are feasible (for example, larger setbacks or landscaping requirements) even if outright denial is constrained.

Planning staff and several commissioners said the state act also includes provisions that could help the county, such as explicit allowances for setbacks and decommissioning bonds, and that some permitting constraints (floodplains, steep slopes, grading, fire marshal review, utility interconnection) will continue to restrict siting in practice. Staff estimated typical community-size solar installations at roughly 10–15 acres for 2 megawatts, with larger fields occupying more acreage; the proposed field was discussed in the range of about 19–25 acres in the presentation.

After hearing public comment and internal discussion, the commission voted on a motion to recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals table the special-exception hearing for 60 days while the county attorney (Mike Getty) or other counsel provides a legal interpretation of the state law and its effect on local zoning and the comprehensive plan. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.

The commission also asked planning staff to prepare a review of the county’s zoning ordinance language so commissioners and the public can compare existing local rules with the state requirements and consider potential ordinance updates. Planning staff said the county will also have opportunities to impose “reasonable” conditions where allowed and that the Maryland Association of Counties sessions on the topic may provide additional guidance next week.

The advisory opinion to table the hearing is not a final decision on the application; it requests that the Board of Zoning Appeals defer action while legal guidance is obtained. The project will return to the appeals board once the requested legal interpretation and advisory follow-up are complete.

The planning commission's discussion combined statutory interpretation, public comment, and land-use trade-offs in a meeting that commissioners described as the first major local case since the state law took effect.