Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County weighs exploratory agreement for solar expansion on 20‑acre county parcel
Summary
A developer has asked Ashland County to enter a nonbinding agreement to study placing solar panels and battery storage on up to 15 of 20 county-owned acres near an existing 1 MW site; the developer proposed $800 per acre annually with 2% increases, and the committee recommended technical review and involvement of Public Property before any lease.
Committee members discussed a developer approach to explore expanding local solar capacity on a 20-acre county parcel adjacent to an existing 1 MW project. The developer requested a limited, nonbinding agreement to perform surveys, interconnection studies and site work to determine how much solar and battery storage could fit on roughly 15 acres.
Chair Pat Kinney summarized the developer’s offer: "They're proposing to offer us $800 per year per acre on 15 acres, which is 12,000 plus 2% annual increases," and noted that typical utility-scale leases run 30 years with extensions. Members warned the county’s Public Property department must be involved because the committee does not control land use determinations.
Erica suggested the committee use third‑party tools and non‑profit technical support (the Nature Conservancy energy opportunity mapping tool was offered) to evaluate whether the parcel is better suited for solar, farming, or other uses. Several members recommended pausing to obtain that analysis and to coordinate with the city’s zoning and the public‑property office before signing any exclusivity agreement. One member also noted the difference in regulatory jurisdiction: very large utility-scale projects (100 MW or larger) fall under the Public Service Commission, while smaller projects remain subject to local land-use controls.
No lease was approved; the committee instructed staff to bring more background materials, including interconnection feasibility, zoning considerations and third‑party site analysis, back to a future meeting and to involve Public Property and planning staff in the evaluation.
