Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Pleasantville council to ask Ohio Power Siting Board to deny 1,550‑acre Eastern Cotton Tail solar project
Summary
At the Nov. 14 Pleasantville council meeting, residents representing a grassroots group asked the council to send a formal letter opposing the 1,550‑acre Eastern Cotton Tail solar proposal, citing drainage, flood risk and proximity to village growth areas; the council did not take immediate action.
Melissa Connor, representing a grassroots group she called "Citizens," asked the Village of Pleasantville Council on Nov. 14 to submit a formal letter to the Ohio Power Siting Board asking that the Eastern Cotton Tail industrial solar project be denied. Connor handed a binder of supporting materials to the clerk and said the deadline for written comments and the applicant's public hearing is Dec. 13.
Connor told the council the project would cover about "1,550 acres" of what she described as prime farmland and said the applicant's map shows dozens of homes and leased parcels within the project's radius. "Our ask is that you as a council present a letter to the Ohio Power Siting Board asking that they deny this project," she said, and urged councilmembers and residents to submit individual comments as well.
Connor described drainage and flooding risks she says follow from installing large solar arrays: piling and construction can sever agricultural drainage tiles, she said, creating faster runoff onto clay subsoil and raising flood risk for neighboring properties. She also said the project's footprint overlaps areas marked for village growth in the 2023 county land‑use plan and argued that a large solar field next to planned growth sites could discourage future residential or commercial development near Pleasantville.
Francis Martin, another resident, said he reviewed figures in the applicant's filing and cited projected population declines in nearby villages in the applicant's materials, and left copies of those application excerpts with the clerk for council review.
Connor summarized several concrete figures included in her binder: she said the applicant identifies roughly a dozen leased family parcels (she said "13 families" have lease agreements), and that about 85 properties are flagged by the applicant as "adjacent" (within 500 feet). She also emphasized residents' concern about long‑term site permanence and decommissioning, warning that corporate sales or bankruptcies could leave a difficult cleanup and reduce the land's future agricultural productivity.
Council members did not adopt a formal motion opposing the project at the meeting. Council President Michelle Deal said the council would remain neutral in its official posture for now and asked members to review the submitted materials; the transcript records members encouraging residents to submit comments before the Dec. 13 deadline.
The public hearing and the applicant's filing with the Ohio Power Siting Board are the next formal steps; the council may elect to write an original letter or members may submit individual comments before the stated deadline.
