Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Pleasantville council to weigh in on nearby Eastern Cotton Tail solar project, council tables vote
Summary
A member of Citizens for Fairfields urged Pleasantville to support Walnut Township in opposing the Eastern Cotton Tail solar project, raising farmland, drainage and decommissioning concerns; the council agreed to continue discussion and deferred taking a position or sending a letter to the Ohio Power Siting Board.
A resident representing Citizens for Fairfields urged the Pleasantville Village Council on Sept. 12 to oppose the Eastern Cotton Tail solar project, saying the development would consume large tracts of prime farmland, increase local flood risks and leave uncertain liabilities when decommissioned.
The speaker told the council the project covers hundreds of acres and said the “initial project” is 550 acres while also referring elsewhere to 1,550 acres; they described plans for roughly 63,000 steel piles driven 10 feet into the ground and said the proposal would install hundreds of thousands of solar panels. The commenter asked the village to write a letter opposing the project and to back Walnut Township, which has already indicated opposition.
Why it matters: the project is before the Ohio power sighting board, and local officials said the board reads written comments from municipalities. The resident warned of road damage during construction, drainage and flooding tied to new on-site drainage systems, potential groundwater contamination if broken panels leach metals, and uncertainty about whether performance bonds would cover real decommissioning costs.
“People are losing crop land,” the speaker said, summarizing the group’s main objection. They also argued that large industrial arrays serve remote purchasers through the regional transmission system and that local electricity customers can bear some of the costs through mechanisms tied to power-purchase agreements.
Council response and next steps: Mayor Henderson said the village has limited direct authority because the parcels sit in county jurisdiction, but officials can submit written concerns to the Ohio power sighting board and coordinate with county commissioners and local townships. Council members said they wanted more internal discussion and asked staff and legal counsel to determine timing and the best form for any written comment. The council did not take a formal vote at the meeting and tabled the matter for later discussion.
Claims and evidence: the resident cited past problems at similar projects (identified as “fox squirrel” and a “yellow bud” project in other counties) where drainage mitigation and broken panels contributed to local complaints; they also cited Senate Bill 52 as a change in state law that added procedural requirements for siting reviews.
What’s next: council members said they will meet to review the details, consult with county officials and may vote later on whether to send a letter to the Ohio power sighting board. The resident encouraged prompt submission because staff has a limited-window review schedule once an application is deemed complete.
Ending: The village did not adopt a formal position Sept. 12; council members asked for more time to review technical studies and potential local impacts before deciding whether to send a letter of opposition or comment to the state board.
