Polk Township is considering changes to its zoning ordinance regarding commercial solar power generation.

A public hearing about the change is going to be held at 5:30 p.m. on Aug. 26. The supervisors will vote on it during their regular meeting following the hearing at 6:30 p.m.

The change would remove commercial solar power generation from the list of conditional uses in the rural/village residential (R-2) districts and place it in commercial (C) and rural residential (RR) districts. The Polk Township Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance (SALDO) would still apply.

The amendments also would change the setbacks. It would require solar collectors, all structures, equipment containers and associated mechanical facilities to be 100 feet from all property lines. The setback from the property lines of any adjoining properties in a residential (R-1), rural/village residential (R-2) or village center (R-3) zoning district and any property with a residential dwelling would have to be 250 feet. All substations, transformers and similar equipment will have to be 500 feet away from all property lines.

The amendments come on the heels of a decision on July 1, when the supervisors denied the Conditional Use application from Effort Solar LLC.

The company wanted to place a commercial solar power generation farm across three land parcels of about 486 acres. The company planned to lease land from owners of two of the parcels and purchase the third. The parcel that was to be purchased lies in both Polk and Chestnuthill townships.

James Fareri, the solicitor for Polk Township, said that Effort Solar had 30 days to appeal the supervisor’s decision. Aug. 1 came and went without any communication from the company or its representation.

Now if it still wants to pursue the project, it would have to reapply. If the amendments to the ordinance pass on Aug. 26, then the property Effort Solar sought for the solar farm would no longer be a permitted use. All of the land is in an R-2 district. They would need a special exemption in order to pursue the project.

Effort Solar’s request for conditional use was denied for several reasons, and it lying across three parcels complicated the situation.

“They never joined the properties together. They would have to merge the properties,” Fareri said. “They viewed their property as one, not three.”

Fareri explained that Effort Solar wanted to apply the 100-foot setback to the entire solar farm and place the fencing around the project, not the separate parcels of property. It didn’t take into consideration that the land is owned by separate owners. The township’s current ordinance requires a 100-foot setback from property lines. The amendment change increases the setback to 250 feet.

The fact that one of the properties lies in a different township made it impossible for the supervisors to rule in favor of a project that would effect another township, Fareri said.

The possibility of glare was also a reason the supervisors denied the application. Fareri said Effort Solar submitted a Glare Study, but the author of the study did not attend the hearing to give testimony.

The study said glare would not be a problem with panels that are 5 feet tall and fixed.

Fareri said that when Effort Solar and its representatives were asked if this would be the situation for their proposed solar farm, the supervisors were told the panels would be “much taller” and it had not been decided if the panels would be fixed or rotate. For this reason, the supervisors rejected the Glare Study.

Fareri also said Effort Solar did not get all of the necessary approvals and certificates prior to seeking approval from the supervisors.

According to the official decision, these included “certificates for design compliance obtained by the equipment manufacturers,” “written authorization from a utility company,” and an “agreement from a local electric utility or certificate of insurance as required.”

The decision also stated it was being denied because Effort Solar did not include a fire protection plan, and “credible competent evidence that the property would not have an adverse impact on the value of adjacent properties.”