Hats off to all the action takers, our coalition partners, the producers, the County Executive’s office,  and to the council members who found a pathway forward that protects the land the sustains us while making room for solar. 

The vote: ​
A straw vote (firm)  was 6-3 for conditional use (a process that will afford more care in siting). The official vote on this amendment will take place at next week's council session.

An official vote was 5-4 to protect Class 2 soils (in addition to the class 1 soils protected in the ZTA as written)
Thanks to Councilmembers Rice, Friedson, Katz, Navarro, Albornoz, and Jawando for their support and leadership. Particular kudos to Craig Rice and Andrew Friedson for their work on the amendments. 

​Our Coalition was strong and deep on this issue, we'd like to thank the more than 60 local and state civic groups that signed on to support the Ag Reserve Stakeholders compromise amendments. Huge thanks also go to our partners at Clean Water Action Maryland, and Sugarloaf Citizens' Association, the Montgomery County Women's Democratic Club, Takoma Alliance for Local Living Economy, the county Office of Agriculture. We were proud to work shoulder to shoulder with farmers Doug Lechlider and Randy Stabler who took lots of time away from the field to work tirelessly on this issue. 

We'd also like to thank the many hundreds of residents that shared their concerns about this proposal with the Council. Your voice mattered and in these times we know you had many other demands on your attention. Thank You!

As Councilmembers said yesterday, this issue was a tough one but this compromise is the prudent path forward.  As we grapple with threats such as climate change, we can't let the emergency before us cloud the manner in which we engage with the issue and with each other. Good faith compromises like this one are not possible without a shared set of facts. Claims of misinformation must be respectfully addressed. The challenges we face as a county, nation and world are surmountable when robust disagreement remains civil.

There’s a lot of critical work to be done on other fronts. The robust discussion around the vote at the council identified the work ahead to ensure that the Reserve is growing the next generation of table crop producers - with an eye to making land accessible to all who want to grow our region's food, particularly farmers of color. (Check out our Land Link program)  Let’s get to it!

Press:
The Sentinel (before the vote)
The Sentinel (after the vote)
The Potomac Almanac (after the vote)

Renewable energy is going to need to be part of the solution to climate change, but on the way to our renewable future, we need to be sure that holistic solutions balance natural systems, equitable access and transparency. 

ZTA 20-01 proposed up to 3 square miles of solar arrays in Montgomery County's 40 year commitment to farming and open space, the Agricultural Reserve, with scant protections for productive farmland, forests and water quality. Compromise amendments balanced soil/forest/water protections in siting in line with the County's master plan and national best practices. 

Among the benefits of the ZTA touted by its backers is solar energy for low income people in the county that are unable to access renewable energy. The Community Solar program allows for this but the ZTA did not stipulate that the power will go only to the Community Solar program, rather that it would be net metered. Net metered energy, once produced becomes part of the state's deregulated energy market and the resulting lack of transparency has created a wild west of 3rd party power suppliers now under investigation for predatory practices, particularly in low income neighborhoods. 
Representatives of some of these same companies were the ones pushing for this ZTA in the Ag Reserve. 

The short story is told by the Baltimore Sun in December 2019 - "Maryland must crack down on energy suppliers that entice people into bad, pricey contracts." - and the Office of the People's Counsel is filing complaints with the Public Service Commission as a result.
Two State Representatives penned an Op-Ed in the Sun "Switching utility companies means many low-income Marylanders paying more" - laying out the ways in which these companies lure low income people into adjustable rate contracts that are then paid by state and local energy assistance funds. This deregulation and the shenanigans it allows is costing all of us more but particularly harming the most vulnerable. The Energy Assistance Protection Act proposed in the piece is long overdue. 

Or WYPR- last February covering the price gap for green energy suppliers - Baltimore residents have been paying an average of 50 percent more than a regular utility customer - and at variable rates that always seem to be going up. From 2014-2017, this unregulated market (green and conventional 3rd parties) cost Maryland consumers $600 Million above what would have been paid to the standard utility (Pepco, ConEdison, BGE, etc).
​

A report from the Abell Foundation has dug into the details.  We were fortunate to attend a webinar with one of the researchers behind the Abell report, Laurel Peltier. Her whole presentation on 3rd party power distributors is here (pdf) .  Below, a few of the slides explained:

Laurel has broken out the top green energy companies and the percentage they charge over the typical statewide average price per kilowatt. Paying slightly more for renewables that do not have the subsidies of dirtier fuels makes sense, but 60% more? 70% more?  The 16 Million dollars at the bottom represents the total extra paid by those 43,877 residents to these 4 companies over the amount they would have paid the standard supplier in 2018 alone.

These suppliers are buying the RECs (Renewable Energy Certificates) from energy generators (with the deregulation involved these can come from the obvious wind, solar or the head scratcher- trash incineration). These cost around 1 cent/killowatt hour. ​However the adjustable rate of these evergreen contracts can go up considerably and without notice, not as a result of more power used, but the entire price structure is variable after the introductory rate period.  

More links:
Clean Choice Energy Under investigation in Illinois
Dubious Marketing Claims of Retail Power Suppliers
​Massachusetts needs to crack down on 3rd party energy suppliers 
​WaPo: Switching Energy Suppliers? Do your homework first
​Maryland Clean Energy Program Has Big Dirty Component  

There's no question we need to ramp up renewable energy as part of a comprehensive climate change response - but how we do so matters.

Over the past year in ensuring ZTA 20-01 had the proper protections to balance solar generation with local farms, forests and water quality, the broad coalition of farmers, climate activists and  environmentalists of which we are a part has been confused by the Sierra Club's lack of support for these same environmental protections as has been their mission for generations. 

Yesterday afternoon, MCA received this communication (and our Response)  from the Sierra Club taking us to task for our post listing the best practices for siting solar from Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Sierra Club.

All of the links and quotes on that post supporting farmland protection in solar siting were verbatim from the Maryland and National Sierra Club websites and yet  they were calling them "misinformation"- many of the quotes actually seemed to support careful siting of solar on farmland - even calling for the protection of class 1-3 productive soils and making the arrays a conditional use- something this ZTA has failed to do despite outcry from hundreds of residents up and down county and over 60 civic groups.  In the days since posting these best practices, one of the pages on the National Sierra Club about energy siting has been taken down. 
​
The email from Sierra Club instead shared a different solar siting document, called the updated energy siting guidelines. This "updated" document (with solar parts highlighted) did not even mention ground mounted solar - but instead seems to make the case for rooftop solar as the way forward. For example (p. 13): 

"Many opportunities exist in and adjacent to our communities for the local, smaller-scale application of renewable technologies (such as rooftop solar). Distributed clean energy involves the entire community in energy solutions, and reduces transmission impacts and disruptive transmission bottlenecks. The Sierra Club supports properly sited and designed local and district energy projects, and calls for measures to ensure that local, smaller-scale projects have access to the transmission and distribution system. Because distributed generation generally takes place in an urban or otherwise developed environment, serious siting problems or unacceptable environmental impacts are uncommon."

We remain confused about Sierra Club's current position that solar installation should not be balanced with the natural resources they have spent generations protecting - a position that is in conflict with their own stated policies listed on their website. 

It is up to the County Council now - many of whom have been thoughtfully considering the hundreds of emails from residents urging the responsible siting of solar in the Ag Reserve as a conditional use.  (related: The MoCo hearing examiner responds to a misunderstanding of the Conditional Use process)
​
This ZTA was up for a vote at the council today, but ZTA sponsor CM Riemer has pulled the vote and will just have discussion with a hope to vote next week (you can watch on you tube here - tune in around 2:00 or 2:30pm)  

This delay means there is still time to write in - individuals can do so here  and organizations here.  Thank you for your time on this issue when there is so much else going on. Your support of the Ag Reserve and local farms matters, ​

 As long as there has been energy generation there has been the issue of where to site it. 

Solar energy generation (in its current form) relies on flat sunny surfaces. Agriculture, since the practice began, has also relied on flat, sunny soil.  Wise planners saw the potential conflict between these land uses long ago and began to find ways to balance the need for renewable energy and agriculture.  

ZTA 20-01- that would allow 3 square miles of industrial solar in Montgomery County's Agricultural Reserve on productive soils and provide scant protections for forests or water quality - is coming up for a vote at the County Council on 1/26.

​This provision has not taken advantage of the best practices of experts or other area jurisdictions that are siting the very same community solar we are after on degraded lands and through conditional use, taking care of productive soils.  

The National Sierra Club Position on Energy Facilities Siting and Ag/Food
​Update - Sierra Club has said the previously quoted  siting policy on their website is not accurate as it is from 1978  (but accessed on their website this week but as of 1/29/2021 it has been taken down). According to their email, this is the updated solar policy. (solar parts highlighted by MCA). This policy does not mention ground mounted solar however on p 13 seems to set a preference for rooftop solar: ​

"Many opportunities exist in and adjacent to our communities for the local, smaller-scale application of renewable technologies (such as rooftop solar). Distributed clean energy involves the entire community in energy solutions, and reduces transmission impacts and disruptive transmission bottlenecks. The Sierra Club supports properly sited and designed local and district energy projects, and calls for measures to ensure that local, smaller-scale projects have access to the transmission and distribution system. Because distributed generation generally takes place in an urban or otherwise developed environment, serious siting problems or unacceptable environmental impacts are uncommon."

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

"Where Solar Shouldn't Go is as Critical as Where it Does Go" - Bay Journal OpEd by CBF Land Use Director Lee Epstein 12/20

CBF White Paper "Principles and Practices for Realizing the Necessity and Promise of Solar Power"

•  "Either conduct statewide or local solar facility siting studies. "
• "“Community solar” facilities may also be acceptable, if they avoid high quality environmental resources and are not placed on prime farmland or replace forest and woodlands. "
• "Avoid location of solar facilities on prime agricultural soils. Any solar operations on lesser quality agricultural fields must not negatively affect the land and soil that could prevent active farming in the future"
• "At the local level (where appropriate under state law), list solar facilities as, and use the review and approval process for, conditional or special exception uses. "

Baltimore County - Conditional Use  
​Projects -
Owings Mills 
Kingsville 
Dogwood (Now Closed w/700 subscribers)
​
​Howard County  -  Conditional Use 
Projects: 
West Friendship
​Hanover

Thanks to the Montgomery County Food Council for their letter in support of solar as a conditional use. : "It is critical to ensure that farmers continue to have equitable access to land lease opportunities that support food production and expand the ability for new and historically disadvantaged farmers to establish farms in the Agricultural Reserve"

Good News: The Ag Reserve stakeholders group has identified a pathway forward for solar siting in the Ag Reserve. The Conditional use process that already exists for cell and radio towers, pipelines and public utilities is the only legal path for siting solar in the Reserve under the master plan.  Read the full recommendations here. 

A number of Councilmembers are giving careful thought to the way we balance resource protection and climate goals through the conditional use process. But they need to hear from you. Even if you have already written in, the Council needs to hear from you this week in advance of the vote on the 26th. 

If you are an individual, the fastest way to get your message to the Council is our two minute email portal here. 

If you represent an organization, please sign on to the letter here, full text pasted below. 

If you would rather pick up the phone and leave a message for the council members, click here. 

​Sign-On Letter:
MAINTAIN AGRICULTURE AS THE PRIMARY USE OF LAND IN THE AGRICULTURAL RESERVE IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD

SUPPORT THE CONDITIONAL USE PROPOSAL FROM AGRICULTURAL STAKEHOLDERS TO ALLOW SOLAR ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS

OUR CLIMATE DECISIONS CAN AND MUST REINFORCE – NOT DESTROY – OUR FOOD AND WATER SECURITY

Council President Tom Hucker
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850

January 2021

Dear Council President Hucker and Councilmembers,

Montgomery County is home to the nation’s most celebrated farmland. Our County’s Agricultural Reserve – a forty-year effort and model of farming on the edge of a metropolis – is 93,000 acres of land preserved for farming. Led by a coalition of farmers and advocates for local agriculture, food justice, climate justice, and clean water, the undersigned request your support to maintain agriculture as the sole primary land use in the Agricultural Reserve. This means rejecting ZTA 20-01 as written, and voting “Yes” on the Agricultural Stakeholders’ Conditional Use proposal for reviewing and permitting solar installations in the Agricultural Reserve.

A well-protected Agricultural Reserve is key to food security, human health, and environmental sustainability for all residents in Montgomery County and the Chesapeake region, now and in the years to come. Its 562 farms supply food and fiber, along with clean drinking water and clean air, to the Greater Washington D.C. region. The ability to grow food locally has been critical during the pandemic, while 100,000 people in Montgomery County are food-insecure. The Farm to Food Bank Program is helping farmers ramp-up the supply of healthy table crops to families in need. And local food production will become even more critical as the climate crisis worsens. At present, 5% or less of the table crops eaten in our region are grown in our region; as fuel prices increase and food supplies are disrupted, Montgomery County’s need for the Ag Reserve, for the food security of its residents, will increase. All Montgomery County residents have been part of and paid for the Agricultural Reserve, and all Montgomery County residents benefit from preserving it for agriculture.

ZTA 20-01, if passed as written, will break the legal tools that have protected the Agricultural Reserve so far. The bill’s current language would allow a non-agricultural industry to be considered a “permitted use”, the same category as farming. This will destroy the legal protections that have allowed the County to preserve this land for agriculture. As the solar industry and its advocates have threatened, the Maryland Public Services Commission has the legal authority to site large-scale solar facilities of any size within the Ag Reserve. The fact that Montgomery County has maintained farming as the sole primary land use in the Ag Reserve for forty years supports the case for adhering to the Master Plan and maintaining this crucial land use commitment to agriculture. If Montgomery County now establishes large-scale solar as a co-equal primary use for land in the Ag Reserve through this ZTA, its strongest argument against State siting of large industrial facilities will be lost, and the County will lose its control of land use in the Ag Reserve. Making solar power a conditional use instead, as proposed by the Stakeholders, will allow appropriate solar projects to move forward in the Ag Reserve while retaining the County’s local control over land use. This is the legal framework Howard County and Baltimore County have used, and Montgomery County must follow suit.

Smart solar siting does not require Montgomery County to rush to displace renting farmers. A sound climate response should not pit energy producers against farmers; we can choose to expand the solar industry in places where it won’t have such negative effects - including brownfields, parking lots, industrial roofs, and more - and there are many more effective methods we can use in the Agricultural Reserve that can assist the County in meeting their climate action goals - including using regenerative agriculture practices on our lands to pull carbon back into the soil. Neither Montgomery County nor the state of Maryland have completed a comprehensive study to determine where solar can and should be optimally placed in the county; communities that have done so found more than enough appropriate sites to build solar without taking prime farmland.

If the Ag Reserve is opened to non-conditional solar development, this land use change will displace farmers from their land. Farmers rely on access to affordable land to rent: that’s why Montgomery County residents have invested for decades in easements, Transfers of Development Rights, and other tools to keep this valuable land affordable for farmers. But land rents being offered by the solar industry are more than 20 times higher than what many land-leasing farmers currently pay. Some of Montgomery’s tenant farmers are already losing their long-term leases, due to solar speculators’ offers to landowners. ZTA 20-01 would open 2% (1800 acres) of the land in the Ag Reserve to solar, but industry representatives have said this is only the beginning of the land they wish to access, with their aim being solar conversion of anywhere between 13,000 and 18,000 acres in the Ag Reserve. Through the “Land Link” program of Montgomery Countryside Alliance, 40 new farmers - many of them immigrants, people of color, women, and veterans - are now seeking suitable land in the Ag Reserve, with 15 landowners offering farmland; the more landlords are able to raise rents and speculate on solar development, the fewer farmers will be able to afford and access land. Fifty-seven percent of land in the Ag Reserve is rented, not farmed by its owner – so renting farmers and new farmers searching for land to rent will lose out if forced to compete for land access with the deep-pocket solar industry.

Montgomery County should not base its zoning decisions solely on private corporations’ profit and convenience. Solar industry speculators and owners are seeking to profit from converting “cheap farmland” to energy production, but that inexpensive farmland is not a happenstance - it is the result of the forty-year effort to create and protect the Ag Reserve to benefit farming, because producers need affordable, stable land access. By developing on this publicly-subsidized farmland instead of on available, more appropriate sites, the solar firms can increase their profits – but increasing corporate profits is not why Montgomery County has invested in preserving the Agricultural Reserve. The industry objects to the Conditional Use process because they claim it will take too much time – but that is the same process that other industrial uses that may be in the public interest, like cell phone towers or transmission lines, follow in order to use land in the Ag Reserve. Giving the solar industry a special dispensation that other industries do not have is not necessary to build solar power in Montgomery County.

We ask you to support the compromise Conditional Use amendment to the ZTA. The undersigned organizations and individuals ask you to work with the Stakeholder community to:
1. Reject ZTA 20-01 as written.
2. Support the compromise Conditional Use proposal instead

Montgomery County already has the second-most solar installations in the state; we don't need to destroy the Agricultural Reserve to create solar power. The County can keep fighting climate change and working for environmental justice by expanding the Farm to Food Bank program, instituting a regenerative agriculture pilot program in the Agricultural Reserve, conducting a solar siting study and Smart Solar location policy, and prioritizing solar development on degraded land, brownfield, built surfaces, and industrial zones (like the 500-acre former coal plant site in Dickerson). Let’s build a harmonious food and climate justice strategy that honors complementary roles for agriculture and appropriately-scaled and sited solar facilities.

For Food and Climate Justice,

​Montgomery Countryside Alliance
Sugarloaf Citizens Association
Clean Water Action
Safe Skies Maryland
TALLE - Takoma Alliance for Local Living Economy
TAME Coalition (Transit Alternatives to MidCounty Highway Extended)
Divergence, LLC
Maryland Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
Preservation Maryland
Sugarland Ethnohistory Project
Landscape and Nature Discoveries
Biodiversity For A Livable Climate
Conservation Montgomery
Poolesville High School Chesapeake Bay Coalition
One Tree Club
Friends of Ten Mile Creek
Echotopia LLC
West Montgomery County Citizens Association
Environmental Justice Ministry-Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Valley Mill Camp
Richard Montgomery High School Fishing Club
Voices MD
L & M Farm
Montgomery County Farm Bureau
Envision Frederick County
​Montgomery County League of Women Voters
Kingsbury's Orchard
Cloverly Civic Association
Audubon Naturalist Society
Sunrise Rockville
Sunrise Einstein
Nick's Organic Farm
​Sunrise Movement Frederick
Safe Healthy Playing Fields Inc
Poolesville High School Chesapeake Bay Coalition
Sunrise Movement Baltimore
Cedar Lane Ecosystems Study Group
Citizens' Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights
West Montgomery County Citizens Association
Seneca Creek Watershed Partners
Future Harvest
Shepherd's Hey Farm
Around The Mountain Farm
Darnestown Civic Association
Bethesda Chevy Chase Izaak Walton League
Muslim Voices Coalition
Montgomery County Women's Democratic Club
Montgomery County Civic Federation
Progressive Democrats of America
One Acre Farm LLC
District 1 Neighbors
Tiewyan Farms
Green Plate Catering
Boyds Civic Association
Comus Sky Farm
Hidden Ridge Farm Flowers and Herbs
Peach Tree Pottery
​

Council President Hucker spoke this morning the the D-18 Breakfast about ZTA 20-01 (the provision that would allow 3 square miles of solar arrays in the Ag Reserve with scant protections for productive soils, water quality or forests.) He made a number of statements that are inaccurate. Getting solar sited responsibly in the Ag Reserve is possible but all members of the discussion need to get our facts right. 

Claim: Residents in the Ag Reserve are not allowed to have solar arrays. 
Fact: Residents in the Reserve can put solar on their roof the same way someone down county can. Currently, farms in the Reserve are allowed to have solar arrays that meet 120% of their needs and a number of farms do. All members of the ZTA work group agree that this accessory use on farms needs to be increased to 200%.  

​Claim: Just 2% of the Ag Reserve will be impacted
Fact: While this ZTA is only 1800 acres, there is no provision that would keep this cap in place. ZTA sponsor Councilmember Riemer has said anywhere between 13,000-18,000 acres is the amount of ground mounted solar being sought on open space and rural lands in the county. Moreover the industry has stated, as recently as the work sessions that the only place they can put it is on farmland in the county for reasons that we cannot fathom.  Councilmember Riemer in the PHED/T+E Committee meeting on the ZTA on 7/22/20 said "Far from talking about scaling back this proposal, we should be talking about where are we going to get the other 15,000 acres of ground-mounted solar or rooftop-mounted solar or other solar? Where are we going to get it from? What is the timeline to get that?”  (minute 11 here)

The provisions of the ZTA allow siting on productive class 2 and 3 soils and protect forests on a site by site basis - allowing clearcutting. With solar companies offering landowners 10-25 times what farmers pay per acre this provision will have impacts over the entire Reserve. Full fact sheet here. 

Claim: Council President Hucker has met with stakeholders.
Fact: In advance of the workgroup, a stakeholder meeting with Mr. Hucker was cut short as he sited the many challenges that the Council is up against with the pandemic and financial crisis. Now that the work group has finished, stakeholders have reached out again only to be rebuffed. While the work of the Council has surely increased dramatically in these unprecedented times - this ZTA is still speeding toward a vote. If there is enough time to consider sweeping land use changes to 1/3rd of the county, there must be enough time to meet with deeply concerned stakeholders impacted by these changes. 

Background: ZTA 20-01 is the proposal to allow commercial solar by right on three square miles of the Ag Reserve in opposition to the master plan without protections for forests, water quality or productive soils. Extensive fact sheet here.

After speeding through the committee process during the pandemic when concerned citizens were less able to weigh in, (particularly Ag Reserve residents, many of whom have broadband challenges) in November the Council sent the proposal to an 8 member working group made up of farmers, civic organizations (including MCA), local solar proponents and two non-resident solar industry representatives. 

The group was tasked with finding common ground on amendments to the ZTA that would better balance the concerns of farmers (who are unanimously against this provision) and ambitious (and necessary) carbon cutting goals. Last night, 12/29 was the 5th and last meeting. A huge THANK YOU to our partners on the work group and to all our supporters that joined us in the chat to make the case for balancing solar with agriculture, forests and water quality. 

The full video of the over 2 hour meeting is here.
The very robust chat transcript is here.
For a deep dive, the entire google drive the work group was working with is here. 

Synopsis: there was disagreement regarding the legal path to deploy commercial solar in the Agricultural Reserve. MCA and our Reserve colleagues are firm that the industrial use of solar arrays requires a conditional use designation- just as do other similar utility uses (radio, phone, utility towers, pipelines) in the Reserve. The Conditional Use designation properly regards this non-farming use as other requiring that the MC Board of Appeals take on the review/approval with public participation. And, in fact, it is how neighboring MC counties (that have no Ag Reserve) manage review/approval of commercial solar.

Stray Chat Follow Ups:
The Poolesville Array: 3+ acres of trees cleared to make a 6 acre array
New Farmers Can't Compete With Non-Ag Uses
How We Grow New Farms: Land Link Montgomery 

What's Next: Each "side" of the work group - pro and con - will write up their report and send it to the Council. The Transportation and Environment Committee and PHED committee are scheduled to meet on this ZTA on January 14th and the full council will meet later in January. We will continue to make the case that conditional use is the way to get solar done legally under the master plan.  Please stay tuned for opportunities to contact the Council as we work to get this right. 

As ZTA 20-01 (that as written would allow 3 square miles of commercial solar arrays in the Ag Reserve with scant protections for water quality, productive soils and forests) moves toward a vote at the County Council, Ag Reserve stakeholders have proposed amendments to the ZTA that would better balance natural resources and agriculture. 

The Reserve stakeholder report insists that allowing solar siting as a conditional use in the Ag Reserve is the only viable and legal path forward for this ZTA.   

For those not well versed in land use planning (most of us) - a brief explanation:

The ZTA currently proposed solar siting as a "limited use" meaning that it is a permitted use with some conditions, reviewed and approved by the MC Planning Commission. This ZTA as written has actually made few limits on where this use can go and what it can displace, namely farming:

- Forests removed for these projects will be the purview of the Planning Board on a site by site basis. This process did not protect trees when the Poolesville Array was allowed to clear 3 acres of forests for 6 acres of arrays.

-1800 is the first ask of ground mounted solar sought for the Reserve - ZTA sponsor CM Riemer has said anywhere between 13,000-18,000 acres is the amount of ground mounted solar being sought on open space and rural lands in the county. A limited use does not curtail far more than 1800 acres being approved later. With solar companies already offering 10-25 the going price per acre, why would this use not drive up costs for farmers throughout the Reserve? - a place designed so farmers don't have to compete with other uses for land.

Bottom Line: This "Limited Use" does not properly ensure that farming and forests are protected in the Reserve.   

​Conditional Use applications are required for a variety of non- ag uses in certain zones (i.e - the AR Zone encompassing the Ag Reserve), based on the use table found in the zoning code (In the AR zone these conditional uses include: cellular towers; broadcast towers; above-ground pipelines; and, notably, public utility structures.)  The Planning Department conducts intake review on Conditional Use cases to verify completeness.  Once applications are deemed acceptable, they are sent to the Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings (OZAH), which ultimately approves or denies the Conditional Use. The process includes requirement of a forest conservation plan. Other neighboring jurisdictions - Baltimore, Hartford to name a few- have on-farm solar as a conditional use on farms  - this without having a formally protected Ag Reserve. 
​
Bottom Line: Conditional use is an existing path for non-ag uses to co-exist with farms in the Ag Reserve. It balances non-farm uses with farms - a stated goal of this ZTA. In conformance with the master plan this is only legal path forward. ​