Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
York County commissioners and residents press for clearer solar zoning, battery rules and setbacks
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners spent more than an hour discussing draft solar zoning rules, battery storage and setbacks after public commenters described projected tax revenue and raised groundwater, noise and proximity concerns. No formal rule was adopted; staff and board members asked for more technical research and to return with specific proposals.
York County Board of Commissioners members and residents spent much of a meeting discussing draft zoning rules for large solar projects, with public commenters and commissioners pressing for clearer rules about battery storage, setbacks and categories of solar use.
The discussion drew several public speakers. Gail, a representative for a developer calling itself OPPV, told the board the nameplate-capacity tax from the firm’s “K Junction” project would produce “over $1,000,000 annually,” including roughly $200,000 in unrestricted general-fund revenue, and would deliver steady lease payments to participating landowners. Willard Peterson, a Bradshaw resident, urged the board to move quickly and suggested cutting proposed setbacks “in half” from earlier drafts. Gene Jacks, who said he represents a group called Our Voices Count, told the board that K Junction is “queued in the Southwest Power District as a hybrid,” and warned that battery installations need explicit zoning rules because “batteries are cooled by ground water” and “batteries make noise.” Another resident, identified only as Jim, said he worried about loss of prime farmland and argued that large projects benefit outside interests; he said, “Solar panels, 52% of the prop cost of it is paid by the taxpayers.”
Commissioners and staff discussed multiple technical and policy questions raised by those comments. Board members debated whether to measure projects by area (acres) or generating capacity (kilowatts), and several commissioners described a three-tier structure they favor: small individual systems, neighborhood/community systems and larger commercial projects. Commissioners and staff said categories would change what approvals are required: smaller systems could have simpler permits, while commercial fields would require conditional-use permits and additional review.
Battery storage was a recurring concern. Commissioners said they have no technical expertise in battery safety, groundwater use, cooling systems or the fire risks that have been reported nationally, and asked staff to find outside technical experts and examples of local rules other counties have adopted. The board directed that battery energy storage systems be required to provide details in conditional-use applications so commissioners and reviewers have data to evaluate groundwater use, thermal-management systems and emergency response plans.
Commissioners also discussed setbacks from property lines, roads and dwellings and whether to treat a property’s front yard, side yard and backyard differently. Several members suggested front-yard setbacks should be larger to preserve view sheds, with smaller side- and rear-yard setbacks. Commissioners and staff discussed allowing waivers for “nonparticipating” dwellings when residents agree with developers, while also preserving minimum protections for neighbors who do not participate.
No ordinance or resolution was adopted. Zoning administrator and other staff were asked to prepare a revised draft that: separates general rules from category-specific rules to reduce duplication, adds explicit requirements for battery energy storage system applications, provides options to measure projects by capacity or acreage and creates conditional-use permit language for larger projects. The item will return for further public discussion at future meetings; commissioners also said work on the county budget will take priority at the next two meetings.
Why it matters: York County’s decisions will determine where and under what conditions large renewable-energy projects can be sited, how nearby residents are protected, and whether utilities and developers can build battery systems and substations that serve distant markets. The discussion also frames tax revenue questions and potential long-term impacts on farmland and county services.
