Cecil Township hearing on draft solar ordinance spotlights size, setback and safety gaps

Cecil Township supervisors heard extended public comment on a draft ordinance to add rules for principal and accessory solar energy systems, with speakers urging clearer caps on accessory-system size, explicit setback language and safety provisions.

The hearing drew multiple questions about whether the draft lets homeowners install ground-mounted systems far larger than needed for on-site use. Cara Sheran, speaking for the Cecil Township Zoning Board, said, “at this time there seems to be no limitation on the size of an accessory solar energy system,” and warned that companies could try to “disguise solar farms as accessory systems.” Sheran recommended tying accessory systems to parcel coverage or otherwise tightening the definition so a system can’t be sized to serve more than the on-site structure.

Why it matters: Without clearer sizing rules or parcel-coverage limits, residents and supervisors said, large ground-mounted arrays could be allowed under an accessory-use label and create neighborhood visibility or nuisance issues. Supervisors and the solicitor discussed whether a production (kilowatt) cap or a parcel-coverage rule would be more durable, noting technology changes can alter production-per-panel over time.

Resident George Elish described his own rooftop installation to illustrate practical limits on resale to the grid. Elish told the board that residential interconnection rules typically cap systems and that “residential properties in Pennsylvania are permitted to install systems up to 50 kilowatts in capacity under net metering rules, generally limiting to producing 100 to 110% of the annual energy consumption of the property.” He also described a 13.5 kWh home battery in his basement and said a rooftop installation helped avoid visibility issues that can upset neighbors.

Speakers also pressed for clearer setback language. The draft references a default 50-foot perimeter setback; participants asked whether that setback applies to panels themselves or only to buildings and accessory structures. The solicitor and township engineer agreed the ordinance could be clarified to state explicitly that panels are included among structures subject to setbacks or else rely on existing district-specific setbacks.

Other public-safety and administration issues raised included whether accessory installations should require installers with state or DEP certification (the PSE section mandates D certification for larger operations) and whether decommissioning rules should apply to ground-mounted accessory systems. Candy Wauthier asked how corner lots (which can have two front yards) would be treated and recommended notifying local fire departments through the building-permit process so first responders know where energy-storage equipment and shutoffs are located.

The board did not close the hearing. Solicitor Gretchen Moore was asked to revise the draft to address the issues raised and the supervisors scheduled another hearing to consider the revised ordinance.

The hearing focused on drafting details — definition limits, setback clarity, decommissioning, installer standards and permit-notification procedures — and did not result in final action on the ordinance. The board said it will return the draft with edits for further review.