Greene County commissioners restrict large-scale solar in New Jasper and part of Miami Townships after mixed public comment

Greene County commissioners on Aug. 21 approved time‑limited restrictions on large‑scale solar in two unincorporated township areas after public testimony that both opposed and supported the limits.

The action: The commissioners voted to designate all unincorporated areas of New Jasper Township and a portion of Miami Township as restricted for construction of large‑scale solar facilities under Senate Bill 52 and cited section 303.58 of the Ohio Revised Code. Both restrictions were adopted as five‑year designations.

Why it matters: Petitioned restrictions shape where utility‑scale solar projects can be built and affect farmland, recreation areas and local economic opportunities. Petitioning trustees told the commission their communities had weighed in; residents and trustees gave contrasting views at the meeting.

Public comment: Five people spoke during public comment on the township petitions. Jane Sweet, a fourth‑generation resident at 3731 Fishworm Road in Cedarville, said she opposed a request to ban large‑scale solar on the land she described as south and east of the Little Miami River because of transmission access and local benefits. "You need to have a connection to the transmission line...and there is one in Greene County, Miami Township, and it is on this particular land," Sweet said, adding that large solar brings jobs and is renewable.

Other residents urged the opposite. Chris Nash of 745 Jacoby Road in Xenia Township said he supported a permanent restriction rather than the five‑year limit, arguing residents had expended years organizing and should not have to repeatedly fight proposals. Deborah Hillsman of 478 Clifton Road said she bought her farm to live on a farm, "not to live in a solar farm," and asked commissioners to continue the restriction. Marlon Vangsness of 2303 Clifton Road said the county needed broader land‑use planning before committing farmland to multi‑decade solar projects.

Trustee position and process: Don Hollister, a Miami Township trustee, told the commission the trustees asked for a five‑year exclusion and reminded commissioners they had previously approved a two‑year exclusion; he said public hearings and trustee vetting had taken place. Commissioners repeatedly said they generally defer to township trustees as the closest local representatives when trustees formally petition the board.

Formal actions and scope: The board approved a motion to designate New Jasper Township's unincorporated area as restricted from large‑scale solar following a staff explanation that New Jasper had held a public meeting on June 9 but reported no attendees. The board also approved a motion to designate a portion of the unincorporated area of Miami Township as a restricted area for five years; staff said Miami Township had held a public meeting on May 21 and reported the majority of comments were in support of the restriction. Both motions were seconded and carried by voice vote.

Distinguishing discussion and decision: The record shows a mixture of discussion (public comment and commissioner remarks about land use, wildlife, aesthetics, transmission access and local planning), direction (commissioners emphasizing deference to township trustees), and formal decisions (the two five‑year restricted‑area designations were adopted). The restrictions limit only large‑scale solar, not wind, where that exclusion was explicitly not requested by one township.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt permanent prohibitions; both restrictions are time‑limited to five years. The transcript does not show any changes to zoning code language, decommissioning standards, or contractual guarantees for site restoration; commissioners noted those details are part of broader planning discussions but took no additional formal action at the meeting.

Looking ahead: The five‑year designations expire unless the board or petitioning trustees take further action. Commissioners and trustees indicated the topic could return for further land‑use planning and public input.