Howard County hearing concludes on 12.3-acre Walnut Creek solar conditional use; decision forthcoming

The Howard County Hearing Examiner concluded an evidentiary hearing July 17 on a conditional-use request (case BA24-O21C) for a 12.3-acre commercial solar facility proposed on a county-owned septic-reserve parcel at 12320 Autumn Tree Lane in Clarksville.

The petitioner, identified in the hearing as KDC Solar Walnut Creek (now associated with CI Renewables), asked the hearing examiner to approve the conditional use despite new state legislation the attorney for the project said could allow projects that meet certain standards to be approved as a by-right use. "There has been new state law ... that allows solar of the size that we're offering here to be approved as a permitted use as a by right use," attorney Tom Cole said, adding the petitioner preferred to seek conditional-use approval so it could maintain a 50-foot setback and secure relief on landscaping requirements.

Why it matters: the parcel is owned by Howard County and is designated as a septic reserve for the Walnut Creek subdivision; approving a solar facility on county property and on a septic-reserve site raises land-use and interagency-approval issues that the Hearing Examiner and county departments reviewed during the hearing.

Key facts and testimony

- Site and proposal: Paul Sill of Sill Engineering Group testified that the parcel at the end of Autumn Tree Lane is a septic-reserve parcel within a 45-acre parent parcel and that the proposed solar array would occupy about 12.3 acres (roughly one quarter of the larger parcel). He said the project would not remove trees, would meet a 50-foot setback from lot lines and would use existing vegetation as an alternative landscape buffer. "The solar facility is only gonna take up about a quarter of the [parcel]," Sill said.

- Design and operations: Eric Metcalfe, vice president of construction at CI Renewables, said the arrays are fixed (non-tracking) panels about 12 feet tall, will be enclosed by a 7-foot chain-link fence, and would require only two or three maintenance visits per year. Metcalfe said the project is expected to produce roughly 7,000 megawatt-hours per year, which he estimated would reduce carbon emissions by about 4,300 tons annually — a figure he described as roughly equivalent to the annual usage of about 1,100 homes.

- Beneficiaries and uses: Metcalfe said part of the project's output would serve Howard Community College and that the project would include a community-solar component.

- Environmental and site constraints: Witnesses said the site includes stream and wetland buffers but that the solar installation would avoid impacts to those features. A historic site lies roughly three-quarters of a mile away and is separated by topography and vegetation, the witnesses said.

- Buffers, glare and other studies: The petitioner submitted a glare study (prepared by Ford Solar) that the witnesses said shows no glare impact to adjacent properties. The petitioner also submitted seven site photos of the existing tree line and vegetation; CI Renewables asked that the existing vegetation be accepted as an alternative to a Type D landscaped buffer, saying the forested edge provides substantial screening. Metcalfe testified that a Type D planted buffer in front of the existing tree line "would look a little silly" and would not be visible from off-site.

- Interagency review and ownership authorization: The hearing record includes an owner-authorization form signed by the Howard County Department of Public Works, which the petitioner represented had been filed with the application. The petitioner said it had engaged with the Maryland Department of the Environment and the Howard County Health Department and characterized the septic-reserve status as having sufficient surplus capacity so the portion proposed for solar would not be needed in the foreseeable future. The Hearing Examiner noted a technical-staff report with departmental comments and asked the petitioner to provide or confirm corrected citations and documents in the file.

Conditions and outstanding items

- The Hearing Examiner directed that the record include (and the petitioner provide) copies of: the owner-authorization form (marked petitioner's exhibit 1), seven site photos (petitioner's exhibit 2), and the glare study (petitioner's exhibit 3). The petitioner confirmed those items were in the project file or were sent during the hearing.

- The Hearing Examiner said the project should be conditioned to clarify that the panels are fixed (non-tracking); the petitioner agreed that the panel type could be added as a condition of approval and that it would also add the specification to resubmitted plan sheets if required.

Outcome

The Hearing Examiner said the evidentiary portion of the hearing was concluded and that a written decision and order would be issued at a later date. No decision or vote was announced at the hearing.

What proponents said

Tom Cole, attorney for the petitioner, said the petitioner chose the conditional-use route to secure the 50-foot setback and to address landscaping relief. Eric Metcalfe of CI Renewables said the company had coordinated with county and state agencies, planned an internal pollinator habitat, and was not proposing grazing within the fenced array.

What county staff and reviewers asked

The Hearing Examiner and staff questioned the petitioner about ownership authorization documentation, the correct code citations in the technical staff report (including forest conservation references), whether panels are fixed or tracking, and whether outstanding health-department and environmental comments had been resolved. The petitioner said most departmental comments had been resolved through resubmissions and agency coordination.

Next steps

The Hearing Examiner will issue a written decision and order; the transcript and exhibits will be part of the record considered in that decision.