Part 1 of county solar zoning conversation: Commissioners, in split vote, reject planning/zoning commission’s draft of regulations

Editor’s note: This is the first part of a multi-installation feature about the county commissioners’ hours-long conversation on the matter. 
​

​YORK – For the second time, the York County Commissioners have rejected the proposed draft of regulations recommended to them by the county’s planning/zoning commission, pertaining to solar zoning regulations.
This matter has been on the county board’s radar for years – four years, to be exact – and this week, the county board took the matter on again.
Last year, the York County’s planning/zoning committee recommended nearly 30 pages of regulations, which included ½-mile setbacks for large commercial/industrial projects – like that which is being proposed/pursued near McCool Junction.
With a split vote last time, the county board rejected those regulations and the matter went on hold after a recall election against one of the commissioners.
Now, it’s back before the board. Since that last vote, a new commissioner (Deb Robertson) is sitting in the vacated seat and Commissioner Joe Burgess presented a revised set of regulations which would greatly reduce the setbacks for large operations (compared to the other draft).
This week, the county board members took on the matter.
“I sent another draft, and I want to clarify that this is not to disregard what the planning and zoning committee has done or to disrespect the process,” Burgess said. “It is to simplify the language, based on the review of Marvin Consulting who said the other was overly broad and overly burdensome. The document is streamlined to be more efficient. This five-page document is improved, it accomplishes the same things without being redundant. And I reiterate how the planning/zoning board’s review is appreciated. But the half-mile setback is not a regulation, it is meant to be a ban. I recommend a compromise.”
He suggested a 660-foot setback as that compromise.
“And the board should consider lost revenues if we have excessive buffers,” Burgess said.
He asked, “should the board consider a compromise or just be closed for business with some sort of ban? I recommend a compromise and I’ll move mine up to 660 feet.”
“Are you willing to move setbacks for livestock facilities, to 660 feet?” asked Commissioner Andy Bowman, referring to the long setbacks which exist in county zoning regulations pertaining to feedlots.
“That has nothing to do with what we are discussing,” Burgess said.
“It has everything to do with it,” Bowman said. “Odor is a sensory function, so is sight. We need to keep them equal. OPPD says solar farms are agricultural so let’s treat them the same as all other commercial agricultural operations in the county. Let’s not pick winners and losers on this issue.”
“We aren’t,” Burgess said.
“You are,” Bowman responded. “Our comprehensive plan clearly states we should not be removing farmland for anything other than livestock production or farming practices.”
“If you want to bring forward an amendment to (livestock operations) later, you can, but this is not about feedlots,” Burgess said. “I don’t see the same consequences with a solar farm.”
“I see way more consequences with a solar farm, such as being hit by a hail storm, rather than what would happen with a feedlot,” Bowman said. “We don’t know the long-term effects of something like that with a solar farm. And this huge windfall of tax revenue we are supposed to be getting – are we really?”
“Not if we pass a half-mile setback,” Burgess said.
Bowman called a large solar farm project “a flash in the pan. I’m not against solar, I’m against solar of this size replacing ag operations which already bring so much to our county.”
“I think the half-mile setback, with that, we are signaling we are closed for business,” Burgess said. “If it would be this hard for this type of operation, why wouldn’t it be for other business?”
“Ag land is the key,” said Commissioner Chairman Daniel Grotz. “We are looking at regulations which completely redefine what it is to have agricultural land. We have to be very careful with what we are allowing because it will affect a significant amount of land in York County.”
Burgess said he was willing to go with a limit of land, in York County, to be used for solar projects, to 1%.
“It is very important that what we put in our agricultural zone is right for York County,” Grotz said. “It’s been brought up many times that what the planning/zoning board brought forward is a ban and I can’t agree with that. If we want to ban all solar projects, we can. We have heard from constituents they want us to allow them and we have to represent them equally so we have to come up with something that is middle ground. It’s been said the planning/zoning board’s proposals are a ban, but I don’t agree. We have said we will allow it in certain places and that’s no different than any other zoning. For example, let’s take the 600 Block of Delaware Avenue in York – if all those property owners in that block said they wanted to have a steel foundry there, the city council would not allow that. So what is the difference? When dealing with our comprehensive plan, page 63 clearly says prime cropland should be used for raising livestock and farming practices. This document is what is in effect today. I don’t see how, if we are allowing solar projects in certain places, that this would be a ban (with the half-mile setbacks). I don’t subscribe to that.”
“I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization,” Burgess said.
“There are certain places it would be allowed,” Grotz countered. “And there would be places it would not be allowed. That’s what’s jumbling around in my thoughts. There are multiple things to consider. There are a lot of things, including property rights, which have been brought up. I’m a landowner and I have to think about how the decisions I make affect others. I agree limiting (the total amount of York County land to be used for solar projects) to 1% helps me be on board with putting solar zoning in place. But there have been multiple hearings on this, multiple meetings. I’m still comfortable with what the planning/zoning board put in place as it aligns with the county’s comprehensive plan. Our comprehensive plan, on page 64, says we must minimize impacts on agriculture and separate distances are required. And we have in the proposed regulations the provision that if a non-conforming land owner wants to allow a solar project to be closer to them, they can do so.”
“Adequate separation, I agree, is necessary,” Burgess said, “but it needs to be rational. To make it a half-mile, I still haven’t seen a rational reason for that distance. Our own consultants don’t recommend that distance.”
“Are they York County residents?” Grotz asked. “It is imperative we listen to York County residents.”
“Indeed,” Burgess responded.
Grotz said he agreed with Bowman in that sight considerations should hold weight like odor considerations when it comes to setbacks.
“We have screening provisions and solar panels don’t make odor, so it is not the same thing,” Burgess said.
Commissioner Randy Obermier noted how 1% of acres being allowed to house solar projects would be a small amount, considering how the vast amount of acres in York County is already used for agricultural uses. He also argued – regarding the Delaware Avenue example – how the zoning within the city is way more definite and wouldn’t be like this situation. He also said there is nothing in the county’s comprehensive plan which would prohibit solar projects.
“If we go down that sight road, how far do we go then?” Obermier asked the board. “If we don’t like the look of things, then where does that end? And if we want to ban it, we were already told we could, if that’s what we chose. And also, to my knowledge, no one forced these landowners to do what they wanted to do (as far as signing on to allow solar panels to be installed on their land). Nothing prohibited it.
“And yes, again, the comp plan says York County has 346,000 acres involved in agriculture, so 1% total would be a small amount – but we realize it is huge to the area where it may be going,” Obermier said further. “Now what about the people who want it on their land? We haven’t seen them here at these meetings, likely because it’s not comfortable. If we want to make a decision now, regarding what the planning/zoning committee is recommending, we should do that and if it fails, we need to come to some form of agreement. This has been going on for four years – Daniel and I have been on the board this whole time and the rest of you are here now. We have to make a decision and we have to represent everyone.”
“To your point, I see sight and odor issues as no different,” Bowman said.
“We still have no rational reasoning as to how it will negatively impact the neighbors, as would a livestock operation,” Burgess said.
“But to me, we don’t know the full ramifications of these types of projects as of yet,” Grotz said.
“If we don’t protect our number one resource today, it will be really hard to protect in the future,” Bowman said.
“If you are truly concerned about a solar field poisoning the ground, then ban it,” Obermier said.
“I don’t see that is a concern,” Burgess said.
“We have had good discussion, I think we should put the planning/zoning commission’s recommendation back on the table and I would entertain a motion on that,” said Commissioner Chairman Daniel Grotz.
Bowman made a motion to approve the planning/zoning commission’s recommended regulations (which included half-mile setbacks). Obermier seconded the motion, for the purpose of taking a vote.
“Before we vote, I’d like to outline my work on this issue, as I’ve made every effort to gain information,” said Commissioner Deb Robertson, who was recently appointed to her position. She noted she has been talking with constituents, holding townhall meetings, attending meetings of village boards, “talking with county residents on both sides of the issues, with OPPD, with landowners and many more, as I’ve been open-minded on this issue.”
“We will find out, with the vote, if it is adopted or defeated,” Obermier said. “If it is defeated, we need to come to some agreement.”
“I urge the board to not pass this (the regulations from the planning/zoning commission) as it is an unfinished document, it is excessive,” Burgess said.
“I do not believe we are ‘closed for business,’” Bowman said. “I don’t believe this is a business York County needs to get into.”
When the vote was taken, regarding whether to approve what the county’s planning/zoning board was recommending, Bowman and Grotz voted yes. Burgess, Obermier and Robertson voted no.
“Unfortunately, that resolution fails, so now we need to find a compromise,” Chairman Grotz said. “We will continue our discussion and see where we can find some common ground.”
Editor’s note: As indicated earlier, this is the first in a multi-part series about this hours-long conversation. More installations will follow, including public comment and the board’s next steps.