The owners of a horse farm in Neshannock Township will have to go to court if they want to continue with plans to lease a commercial solar array on their property.
The township supervisors unanimously denied the request of attorney Louis Pomerico and his wife, Janet L. Kalajainen Pomerico, for a curative amendment to the township zoning ordinance. If granted, it would have allowed them to lease part of their 80-acre land at 1151 Old Pulaski Road to the Kordis Energy solar energy company of Denver, Colorado, for a commercial solar array in a residential-rural zone.
The supervisors also voted 3-0 to deny the applicants’ exclusionary challenge, which claims the ordinance excludes the use of solar from the township zoning ordinance.
Kordis proposed to build a three-megawatt contiguous solar panel array that reportedly would produce enough energy to power more than 300 homes annually. The project would involve the construction of an array of about 5,000 solar panels, the network of which would connect to the electrical power substation at Plank and Shenango roads in Neshannock Township, according to Jonathan Tardif, Kordis development associate. Tardif said the solar grid would connect to already existing overhead power lines and provide 100 temporary construction jobs.
The Pomericos and Kordis jointly requested the curative amendment to allow the operation in a residential-rural zone. They have 30 days to appeal the denial to the Lawrence County Court of Common Pleas if they plan to challenge the supervisors’ decision. Louis Pomerico said they intend to do so.
About 25 residents attended the meeting, some of whom previously had attended a 5 1/2-hour public hearing May 16 on the request. Many of them live near the Pomericos’ property and oppose the plans. Attorneys representing Korsair, the Pomericos and a special township attorney, Craig Michaelson of the Meyer, Unkovic and Scott law firm of Pittsburgh, also attended.
The Pomericos’ property reportedly would involve 64 leased acres but would have the panels in a seven-acre fenced-in tract of 14 acres on their land.
Supervisor Leslie S. Bucci, who made the motions to deny both requests, commented the township hired experts to advise them on the township zoning ordinance, “and we looked to these experts and their guidance to adopt this ordinance and give us measures to protect the community.
“I don’t believe it was any of our intentions to allow commercial or industrial uses in a residential zone,” she said.
The township was in the process of revising its zoning ordinance when the landowners submitted their request Jan. 3 for the curative amendment. The supervisors adopted the ordinance revisions April 17.
Bucci said the zoning ordinance previous to the adopted changes allowed for uses not specifically permitted — which included solar — in commercial, industrial and agricultural zones by conditional use only, as a “catchall” for uses not listed.
“(The ordinance) was never intended to have commercial or industrial uses in a residential area,” she said. “To put a commercial or industrial (use) in the middle of a residential area in my mind is considered spot zoning. I do not believe the ordinance is exclusionary.”
Supervisors Joseph Gierlach and Steve Demofonte also voted to deny both requests without further comment.
THE RESIDENTS’ COMMENTS
Before their votes, the supervisors allowed residents to offer public comments, but township Solicitor Louis Perrotta advised no further testimony be taken. The official record for the public hearing was closed at the May 16 hearing.
Resident Dan Pauline of Walker Drive asked if environmental studies had been done on the property, noting the groundwater passes through it into the Shenango River less than a mile away.
He added that solar farms are so new, and “the environmental impact could be devastating.” If the solar panels are damaged, there could be contaminants from the chemicals used to make them, he said.
Sue Perelman of Forest Road Extension raised questions about the fencing of the property, should the solar array be installed. She said she was told the fence around it would be 70 feet from the property line, but her home is close to the property line.
“For nine months out of the year, I’m going to be looking directly at that,” she said.
The township ordinance revisions adopted April 17 allow commercial solar projects only in Industrial 1 and Industrial 1-A (agriculture) districts and only as a conditional use, which can only be granted by the supervisors, who have the authority to impose certain conditions and restrictions, should they decide to grant it.
The curative amendment request sought to add principal solar energy systems as a regular, permitted use in the R-2 Rural Residential District.
THE LANDOWNERS’ POSITION
“We will appeal it,” Louis Pomerico declared in a phone conversation Thursday about the township’s denial of his requests.
“There is no health hazard, just visual, and we indicated we would put up any buffers required as a special condition,” he said, adding that trees planted there would grow to 11 feet tall or higher.
“In the R-2 rural, there is no special exception or a conditional use that would allow a solar array,” he reasoned. “That’s why you need a curative amendment.”
Pomericos were represented by attorney Phillip Clark. Korsair was represented by Attorney James Manolis. The two lawyers had jointly written a letter to the township June 5, stating their reasons for requesting the curative amendment.
“It is our opinion that the law regarding a landowners’ challenge to the validity of a zoning ordinance and request for curative amendment ...make clear that the Pomericos are entitled ... on their property only in the R2A special residential rural district.
Although we acknowledge the township zoning ordinance is presumed constitutional, the record establishes that the zoning ordinance as it existed at the time of the Pomericos’ application “was clearly unconstitutionally exclusionary,” as a principal solar energy system was not permitted or provided for in any zoning district in the township under the ordinance as it existed at the time they filed thei challenge to the ordinance, the letter said.
The letter contends the burden shifts to the municipality to show the exclusion is substantially related to the promotion of public health, safety and welfare.
“The township presented no such evidence,” The letter states. “Although not required, the Pomericos presented overwhelming evidence clearly establishing that the solar panels are virtually silent, and any noise caused by the inverters is minimal and less that the noise created by a normal washing machine.”
The system emits no fumes nor noxious odors, and the evidence shows there is no risk of pollution from the solar facility, the attorneys’ letter contends.
It maintains that solar energy has a positive impact and does not create pollution.
dwachter@ncnewsonline.com
