West Brunswick supervisors block solar collection projects on farmland

Oct. 7—DEER LAKE — Projects to collect solar power on farmland are prohibited by an amendment to the West Brunswick Twp. zoning ordinance that was approved Wednesday night by the township supervisors.

Without discussion, the supervisors voted unanimously to restrict such projects to areas of the township zoned as commercial or industrial.

For all intents and purposes, the ordinance bans solar projects on farmland throughout the township, except those placed by property owners for their own use.

The move does not affect a homeowner's ability to put solar panels on a home, which is governed by a different provision in the zoning ordinance.

The supervisors' action came after an hourlong public hearing in which proponents argued that so-called community solar projects could allow farmers to earn extra income, particularly by placing the projects on unproductive land.

Community solar is defined as collection projects of 30 acres or less. Utility-scale solar projects are those larger than community projects.

Township solicitor Chris Hartman recommended the amendment be enacted, saying the present zoning ordinance had no provisions regulating solar projects.

Hartman stressed that the supervisors could in the future make changes to the provisions, should they so desire.

The township planning commission also recommended the supervisors limit the community solar projects to commercial and industrial zones.

A nonbinding review by Schuylkill County planners, however, urged caution in enacting the amendment.

Existing commercial and industrial zones make up only 7% of land in the township. In effect, the review said, the land would be better used for manufacturing or businesses.

"The township should consider impacts permitting solar farms in these districts — commercial and industrial — may have on other economically productive uses currently permitted by right or otherwise," the county's analysis concluded.

The county urged the supervisors to review materials on the benefits of solar projects, particularly on agricultural land.

Solar "has the potential to be a secondary source of income (to the) farmer," the county planners said.

Attorney Jeffrey J. Malak, representing New Leaf Energy, asked that the proposed amendment be tabled to give the supervisors time to reconsider the ban.

Proposed projects

The move to limit the solar projects to commercial and industrial zones came as Ken Smith, a farmer in the township, was working with New Leaf Energy to put community solar projects on two tracts he owns.

Smith said the soil on the tracts is shale and not suitable for most crops. He grows Christmas trees and sunflowers at the sites, which are along Pine Tree Lane and Second Mountain Road.

Smith, 67, who lives on a 200-acre farm that includes the proposed solar sites, said generating solar energy would make the proposed land useful.

Tim Mills, senior project director with Massachusetts-based New Leaf Energy, explained the two projects.

One would be on 30 acres, the other on 17. They would generate about 7.5 megawatts of electricity, enough to supply about 1,500 homes.

The projects would not be connected to homes; the power would go to the PJM distribution grid, but township residents would qualify for up to a 20% discount on their electric bills by subscribing with New Leaf Energy.

In what is essentially an accounting procedure, Mills said, a homeowner's monthly PPL bill would be adjusted to reflect the discount.

New Leaf Energy would lease Smith's land for 40 years, and the projects would become operational in late 2024.

Mills estimated that over time, the projects would generate about $55,000 to $60,000 in taxes for the township.

The advantage to households, he said, would be that they could receive discounted electricity without investing in residential solar panels, which could cost $15,000 or more.

Farmers, he said, could earn revenue by using portions of their land while still cultivating it for vegetables, pollinators and other agricultural uses.

"We do not remove any topsoil," Mills said. "When the project is over, the land can be returned to farming."

Pros and cons

Tim and Elaine Deitzler, whose property adjoins Smith's, opposed the project.

"The land is being ruined by warehouses and solar projects," Elaine Deitzler said. "We need to keep the land for producing food."

The 20% discount on electricity bills did not justify allowing solar projects, she added.

"All we're doing is making China richer," Deitzler said.

Mills pointed to legislation that requires solar panels to be at least partially American-made.

Robert Bylone Jr., a property owner, approved of solar projects in agricultural zones.

"I do believe solar projects are appropriate on agricultural land, particularly where the land is marginalized and not fit for production," said Bylone, who is in the recycling business.

In response to a question on decommissioning solar farms, Bylone said there is a growing market for the used glass and chemicals in solar panels.

Contact the writer: rdevlin@republicanherald.com; 570-628-6007