Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
York County adopts solar zoning regulations after months of debate
Summary
After extensive public comment and internal debate, the York County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt a set of solar zoning regulations that set setbacks, class categories and application requirements; commissioners said some wording and procedural details will be refined during the comprehensive-plan update.
York County commissioners on April 1 adopted a package of solar zoning regulations after a lengthy hearing that included multiple days of public comment and extended debate among commissioners.
The board adopted the planning commission's recommended regulations in a motion that commissioners debated for more than an hour. The adopted rules create class-based distinctions for solar installations, establish setbacks and require application materials including environmental and avian guidance, escrow or decommissioning assurances, and screening plans. The board agreed the document will be revisited as the county’s comprehensive plan update proceeds.
The package drew robust public opposition during the meeting’s public-comment period. "Is solar above the law?" asked Kim Regier, a York resident, who urged the board to enforce zoning protections for nearby property owners and warned of potential noise, heat and landscape changes. Susan Benavon told the commissioners she opposed outside utilities "coming in and telling us what's best for us," saying many large arrays are sited far from homes and rely on federal tax credits rather than local benefits. Leo App said the projects would create few long-term local jobs and risk lowering nearby property values. Ray White asked the board to require clear decommissioning and bonding if projects stop mid-construction.
Commissioners discussed several tensions in the draft regulations: whether setbacks were so large they would effectively bar projects, whether class 4 projects should be consolidated with class 3, and certain technical requirements such as electromagnetic interference language and the scope of avian studies. Commissioner discussion repeatedly referenced the county’s 2015 comprehensive plan, which favors preserving prime cropland and minimizing impacts to neighboring uses.
The board adopted the regulations on a roll-call vote. Commissioners who supported the planning commission's recommendations emphasized the county’s agricultural character and said the regulations align with existing livestock setback language; dissenting commissioners said parts of the document were too restrictive or contained wording that should be clarified.
The adopted regulation package will stand for now; commissioners said they expect to address grammatical issues, clarify defined terms, and consider some of the changes discussed during the meeting as part of the ongoing comprehensive-plan review.
The board did not announce an immediate implementation date for the new regulations; staff were directed to post the adopted document and to outline any next procedural steps for conditional-use permit applications and decommissioning/escrow requirements.
