Pepper Pike council holds detailed first reading of residential solar ordinance, refers code rewrite to planning commission

On first reading Feb. 25, Pepper Pike City Council reviewed a draft rewrite of the city’s residential solar chapter intended to update rules last amended in 2018. The ordinance (2026‑07) would modernize definitions and installation standards and was referred to the planning commission for further review and a public hearing.

Council discussion focused on several technical drafting points. Questions centered on the definition that describes a "solar energy facility" as an array "primarily for consumption on site," with members asking whether systems that are intended chiefly to sell power back to the grid would fall outside the draft and therefore escape the regulation. Drafting language stating that solar facilities "shall only be permitted as accessory to a principal use" prompted debate over whether standalone generation intended primarily for off‑site sale would be excluded by the ordinance.

Members also discussed electrical storage and batteries, asking whether the draft correctly limits storage that is "not associated with the primary use" and whether battery charging would be captured. The ordinance’s dimensional standards drew attention: for some flat roof and office‑district situations the draft permits panels to project up to 36 inches above the roofline; several councilmembers said that would be visually conspicuous on a typical residence and asked staff to reexamine the provision.

Ground‑mounted arrays were another point of contention. The draft requires freestanding or ground‑mounted systems to be located "behind the principal building," and councilors debated whether that standard also implicitly prohibits side‑yard placement and how to address properties with heavy tree cover that could justify a variance or planning commission review. Multiple members recommended posting visual examples and renderings for the public hearing so residents could see typical rooftop and ground‑mount configurations.

Councilmembers asked staff and the planning commission to clarify whether the draft should explicitly prohibit principal‑use energy production, to tighten the storage language ("electrical storage not associated with the primary use"), and to adjust setback/height provisions for residential aesthetics. The measure was not adopted; it will be considered by the planning commission and brought back with edits and public input.