Unity zoning panel OKs fourth session for solar farm hearing; size requirement in contention

Debate about a proposed solar farm in Unity will continue for a fourth session before the township zoning hearing board.

Township officials and the developer have hit a hurdle in determining whether the facility will meet requirements that apply to agricultural property.

Township Solicitor Gary Falatovich said during Tuesday’s third evening of testimony on the project that the plan submitted by GreenKey Solar isn’t drawn to scale and doesn’t provide the detail needed to determine if the site will comply with size requirements. The company is leasing the land for the proposed solar farm along Charles Houck Road from owner Joseph Stas.

GreenKey representative Tracy Tackett said company officials believed a more formal site plan would not be needed until the project had passed the township zoning hurdle and was subject to additional scrutiny under Unity’s land development regulations. But, the company agreed to submit more defined plans for an additional session before the zoning hearing panel, on a date to be determined in December.

The Oregon-based company is seeking approval of a special exception required for operating a solar farm in an agricultural zone.

‘Starting from square one’

Stas expressed frustration that the developer wasn’t notified earlier by township officials about the site plan requirement — before hours of testimony during three sessions before the zoning panel. Previous hearing sessions were held on June 25 and Sept. 24.

“It’s almost like we’re starting from square one,” Stas said. “This is a process problem that wasted a lot of people’s time.”

David DeRose, solicitor for the zoning panel, said formal site plans sometimes are included in documents reviewed in township zoning cases, and sometimes not.

But, he told the developer, “You don’t have a plan that we can rely on.”

While noting this is the first solar farm being considered by the zoning panel, member Jackie Nindel said, “Five months into the process, all of a sudden you need a site plan.” She told the developers, “I’m sympathetic that you weren’t informed about that.”

Falatovich, backed by testimony from township planning and engineering staff, said one of the plan’s shortcomings is it doesn’t show the spacing between solar panels, which could affect the amount of access road required and the power facility’s overall coverage on the 62-acre site.

He said Unity’s zoning ordinance allows the facility a maximum coverage of 20% of the site — in this case, about 12 acres.

Tackett said the company initially planned a 30-acre facility, including an array of solar panels to generate electricity for the power grid, but had scaled the size back to 20 acres.

She said she interpreted the facility’s coverage as a smaller area including the combined surface of the solar panels.

‘Coverage situation is an issue’

While not drawn to scale, a plan GreenKey displayed at this week’s hearing indicated there would be about 24.6 feet of spacing between rows of solar panels.

Coverage isn’t among the terms included in the township zoning ordinance’s list of definitions.

“So you’re suggesting we should deny this application based on an undefined term?” GreenKey co-founder Hunter Strader questioned.

“The coverage situation is an issue,” said DeRose. “It’s been made an issue by the township. We have a major hurdle to go over.”

More than 50 people attended Tuesday’s hearing that lasted more than four hours in the Greater Latrobe Senior High auditorium. About a dozen people provided testimony, several expressing concern about a solar farm’s potential negative impacts.

Unity resident Jack Krall cited information from the Chicago-based Appraisal Institute, referring to cases where properties adjacent to a solar farm had lost an average of 20% of their value.

Tackett countered with a study GreenKey commissioned from international firm CohnReznick, including assessments of solar arrays in Franklin and Beaver counties. That study concluded that “no negative trend of property values is evident for properties adjacent to solar facilities.”

Addressing noise concerns, Tackett said the planned location for the solar arrays was shifted away from a “hollow,” to avoid an echo effect reported by local residents.

According to GreenKey, any sounds generated by the solar equipment would be comparable to the noise created by an air conditioner and would be less noticeable at the property line. The company said equipment would be located at least 500 feet from the closest home.

But Krall argued wind still could carry sounds from the solar farm to neighboring homes.

Township municipal authority board member Neal Fenton spoke in favor of the solar project, noting he was not speaking on behalf of the authority or its other members.

“In my view, discussion about noise is really irrelevant until the board of supervisors decide to put a (township) noise ordinance on the books,” he said.

Krall also contended the site is not suited for solar arrays because the slope of the ground is too steep and it’s uphill from a floodplain.

GreenKey said the site would be developed to meet stormwater management regulations.

“I’m actually not against solar energy, but not at this location,” said Krall.