Residents and developers clash over solar siting; county hears calls for paper ballots

Several residents and representatives used the board’s public-comment period May 14 to press the county on two recurring issues: zoning for large solar projects and confidence in election systems.

Dustin Marvel, speaking on behalf of OPD, urged the board to adopt “responsible” solar regulations that balance private property rights and state law and recommended the county engage its planning consultant in those discussions. "Public engagement is truly at the core of what we do," Marvel said, and he told commissioners OPD proposed a compromise on the proposed setback rules and that renewable projects like the K Junction project could help farmers and ranchers financially if properly sited.

By contrast, longtime resident Jim Jackson said the scale and layout of the proposed solar plan would dominate large tracts of land, questioned developer claims about panel and inverter counts, and asked the board to respect residents who will be living with the projects. "I sure don't want to see the solar panels," Jackson said, describing miles of panels and uncertainty about equipment and visual impact.

On a different topic, Morris Wires urged the county to prioritize election integrity over speed. Wires criticized electronic vote-tabulation systems as vulnerable and recommended York County adopt hand-counted paper ballots so the county can reconcile counts locally before sending results to the state.

Another resident, Susan Dunovan, described passing an industrial solar installation in Louisiana and being struck by the absence of nearby homes—an observation used to underline concerns about siting and scale. Skyler Cornish invited commissioners to a public presentation on elections by Dr. Douglas Frank at the fairgrounds.

Takeaways: Public comment showed a sharp range of views. A developer-aligned representative called for measured rules that protect property rights; multiple residents raised visual-impact, scale and technical concerns and urged strict setbacks or alternatives. Commissioners and staff acknowledged the solar debate as a reason to include a solar review in the consultant’s scope; any zoning changes would still require the normal planning commission process and public hearings.

Board action: Commissioners approved a contract with Marvin Planning Consultants that includes a review of renewable-energy regulations; the contract award was accompanied by staff direction to involve the planning commission and engage the public through surveys and meetings.

The board did not take an immediate regulatory vote on solar rules during the meeting; the planning process will determine any future ordinance changes.