Residents and developers clash as Delaware County hears extensive public comment on proposed solar ordinance

Delaware County Commissioners heard more than an hour of public comment Sept. 2 on a proposed county solar ordinance that would sharply restrict locations and set new requirements for utility-scale photovoltaic projects.

The meeting drew farmers, developers, union representatives and dozens of residents from townships proposed for solar arrays. Speakers split broadly into two camps: those urging that the county permit utility-scale solar to preserve farmers' contractual rights and attract investment, and neighbors arguing that large photovoltaic farms harm farmland, raise local traffic and drainage risks and depress nearby property values.

Supporters, including representatives of local construction trades and several residents, said solar projects create construction jobs, add to the tax base and offer farmers alternative income. Tim Hines of the Carpenters Union said construction jobs provide training and local opportunity, and that —all construction jobs are temporary— but lead to longer-term workforce benefits.

Opponents raised technical and land-use concerns. Several residents near proposed Royerton and other projects told commissioners they bought or built homes expecting a rural landscape; they asked the county to preserve setbacks, limit panels near residences and require clearer mitigation for drainage and tile damage. Farmer Ryan Richards and other agricultural speakers said fence posts and pile driving can damage buried drainage tile that creates long-term wet spots if not properly mitigated. Drainage consultant Chris Rever described a typical mitigation approach: aerial drainage studies, pre-installation of tile connections and coordinated tie-ins to existing outlets to avoid flooding of nonparticipating properties.

More than one speaker asked commissioners to honor contracts signed under the county's earlier ordinance and told the board that changing the rules now could undermine farmers who negotiated leases in good faith. The League of Women Voters urged the county to honor existing contracts while using the new ordinance for future projects.

Attorneys and developers flagged specific ordinance provisions they said are legally and practically inconsistent. Attorney Mara Hoff asked commissioners to clarify the property-value guarantee (PVG) language: one subsection applies a half-mile radius and a 12-month claim period, while a separate paragraph ties a surety bond to a three-mile radius and a bond equal to 20% of the assessed value in that area. Hoff urged the county to clarify timing, appraisal processes, how appraisers are chosen and what claims a surety bond would cover.

Several speakers warned that overly restrictive local rules could prompt legal challenges or drive companies to use state preemption tools; others said a moratorium or tighter rules would preserve home rule and avoid large industrial sites in residential areas.

Commissioners did not take a final vote on the ordinance at the Sept. 2 meeting. Chair and staff members asked County Counsel to review inconsistencies in the PVG language and indicated they would consider clarifying language before any final action.

The public-comment period and the planning commission's earlier 8'to—1 vote on the amended ordinance framed the meeting. Multiple speakers asked that the county either: (a) allow a limited set of previously signed contracts to proceed under the earlier ordinance; or (b) adopt the amended ordinance but revise PVG and surety-bond provisions for clarity and enforceability.