e-Edition
Sign up for email newsletters
to submit an obituary
Please email obits@scrantontimes.com or call 570-230-4917. Please include your name, mailing address, and phone number along with the copy and photo.
Sign up for email newsletters
e-Edition
A developer appealed Scott Twp.’s decision denying plans for a solar farm that was opposed by neighbors, contending the farm doesn’t negatively affect the township.
Penn Coneflower Solar LLC of Wilmington, Delaware, sought conditional use to build a 3-megawatt mounted solar farm on nearly 18 acres on a property at 1745 Lakeland Drive owned by David Schlasta. The township supervisors unanimously denied the application at a hearing in December.
The supervisors said in their decision there is a lack of community need for the proposed farm, and that it doesn’t improve the health, safety and general welfare of the township and its residents. They added its location and size would be detrimental to surrounding residences, resulting in diminished property values, and no amount of screening would obscure it from homes and motorists.
The property is surrounded by homes, with the nearest property about 400 feet away from the proposed solar farm, according to the appeal. Five people living near the farm opposed the plans, with one neighbor who attended the hearing stating she would be able to see the solar array from her window, according to minutes from the meeting.
The township has determined solar farms are a conditional use in all zoning districts, meaning developers would have to adhere to conditions established by the municipality and appear before a governing body at a public hearing.
Attorneys Dean Reynosa and Cory Dillinger contend in the appeal, filed earlier this month in Lackawanna County Court, that there is no evidence to support the board’s finding that the plans don’t meet requirements in the township’s comprehensive plan. They also said the plans satisfy the township’s zoning ordinance.
They further argue there is no evidence establishing that the farm will adversely affect the community’s welfare, noting the developer presented qualified experts who testified that it would not adversely impact surrounding property values, and there is no condition in the zoning ordinance requiring the project to be completely screened from residences and roads.
Reynosa and Dillinger said in their appeal that Penn Coneflower proposed a screening buffer around the farm, provided a noise analysis demonstrating that noise won’t be an issue and demonstrated that the project is compatible with the area.
“The Board erred in denying the Application when the Appellant, through its testimony and various Application Exhibits, met the objective Ordinance requirements and no other party showed, to a high degree of probability that the Project will adversely affect the welfare of the community in a way not normally expected from the type of use,” they wrote in the appeal.
They attorneys are asking the court to reverse the supervisors’ decision.
Copyright 2026 Scranton Times-Tribune. All rights reserved. The use of any content on this website for the purpose of training artificial intelligence systems, algorithms, machine learning models, text and data mining, or similar use is strictly prohibited without explicit written consent.
