Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Industrial Solar Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery County Legislature authorizes county attorney to pursue litigation over industrial solar projects after public plea
Summary
Following a public comment urging legal action, the Montgomery County Legislature approved Resolution 106 authorizing the county attorney to commence litigation related to industrial solar siting; public commenter Steve Helman had warned state action could threaten local forestlands and urged the appeal referenced in the resolution.
The Montgomery County Legislature voted to authorize the County Attorney to commence litigation related to industrial solar projects in the county by adopting Resolution 106.
Resolution 106, sponsored by Legislators Mulebeck and Kowalic, passed on a voice vote. The action followed public comment from Steve Helman, supervisor of the Town of Glenn, who urged the Legislature to direct county counsel to appeal a state agency decision and to defend the county’s scenic-byways and cumulative-impact protections in court.
During his public comment, Helman referenced state-level legislation (Senate 4408) and warned that the bill could expose state forestlands to large-scale solar siting, creating cumulative impacts on tourism, watercourses and community character. Helman told the body: "I strongly urge the legislature to direct the county attorney to file the appeal outlined in the resolution." The Legislature recorded no on-the-record rebuttal to Helman’s specific legal claim in the transcript before voting to authorize litigation.
The resolution gives the County Attorney authority to pursue legal remedies relating to industrial solar projects in Montgomery County. The transcript records that sponsors brought the resolution forward, there was no substantive debate recorded on the floor, and legislators approved the authorization by voice vote.
Because the motion carried by voice, no roll-call vote totals were recorded in the transcript. The Legislature did not provide additional detail on the scope of litigation in the meeting record; implementation and any filings will be handled by the County Attorney’s office.
