Cloudy. Slight chance of an afternoon shower. High 62F. Winds S at 10 to 15 mph..
Cloudy skies early, then partly cloudy after midnight. Low around 55F. Winds S at 10 to 20 mph.
Updated: March 6, 2026 @ 12:54 pm
Property owners near a proposed solar farm look at the site and grading plan for the proposed facility, to be located between South Shady Avenue to the west, Sample Flats Road to the east, Stewart Road to the south and Route 426 to the north.
Representing Greenwood Sustainable Infrastructure, Kevin Johnson speaks to Corry’s planning commission members.
Property owners near a proposed solar farm look at the site and grading plan for the proposed facility, to be located between South Shady Avenue to the west, Sample Flats Road to the east, Stewart Road to the south and Route 426 to the north.
Neighbors cite property values, glare,
environmental concerns over proposed solar array
A proposal to build a three-megawatt solar panel array on a residential tract of land near South Shady Avenue has drawn opposition from neighbors and a split vote from the Corry Planning Commission, which narrowly declined to recommend approval to Corry City Council by a 3-2 margin.
Greenwood Sustainable Infrastructure, of New York, N.Y., represented by attorney Kevin Johnson, submitted its conditional use application in December 2024, supplemented in January 2025, seeking permission to install around 5,000 solar panels across roughly 16 acres of R-1 zoned land. The project, described by its developers as small-scale and community-oriented, has nonetheless ignited debate over zoning law, property values, environmental risk and the future character of Corry’s remaining undeveloped land.
Johnson was careful to distinguish the project from large-scale industrial solar farms.
“Industrial solar projects are 100 megawatts — hundreds of acres, large tracts of land,” he told the commission. “This is a local, community-sized solar project.”
He noted that Pennsylvania lacks a formal community solar program and argued the development is analogous to those that exist in other states, situated well back from property lines and designed to have minimal environmental impact.
The company proposed to lease the land from its private owner, who Johnson said has every legal right to enter such a contract. The array would be located in the central portion of the site, with vegetative buffering along the perimeter where natural vegetation does not already exist. Greenwood’s project development associate, Annika Shiffer-Delegard, emphasized that no land clearing or significant grading is planned, and that modern solar panels are substantially safer and less reflective than those from earlier decades.
Numerous residents spoke up to oppose the project, raising concerns ranging from declining property values to glint and glare, chemical runoff, radon exposure from soil disruption and the permanent loss of one of Corry’s last large, undeveloped parcels.
Dennis Anderson, a 37-year resident of South Shady Avenue, spoke of raising his family in what he described as a quiet, country setting within city limits.
“We don’t want [that] to change,” Anderson said. “I don’t need my property values to go down.”
Kurt Lund, another long-time resident, pointed to a glint and glare study commissioned by Greenwood itself, which identified his property as one of the locations most likely to experience solar reflection.
“Trees at our elevation are not going to mitigate that,” Lund said, adding that he is concerned about the long-term environmental fate of the panels. “When these are still there, leaching into the ground and causing damage to local wetlands, and nobody wants to take them in the landfill, we’re stuck with them.”
Katie Krasa, who moved to the area three years ago specifically for its natural setting, offered detailed arguments. She raised concerns about radon exposure from soil disturbance — noting that her own home required a mitigation system after elevated levels were discovered during her home inspection — and argued that the project conflicts with both the letter and intent of Corry’s zoning ordinances.
“This project threatens property values, conflicts with the purpose of zoning regulations, eliminates one of Corry’s last major opportunities for thoughtful residential or community development and introduces environmental and public health risks,” Krasa said.
She was followed by Gina Lund, who told the commission, “I agree with every sentence Katie Krasa just said.”
Perhaps the sharpest exchange of the evening centered on whether the city’s 1991 zoning ordinance — which predates solar technology — permits the project at all. Nick Krasa walked the commission through the ordinance section by section, arguing that solar farms are neither expressly listed nor logically implied as a permitted or conditional use in the R-1 single-family residential district.
Representing Greenwood Sustainable Infrastructure, Kevin Johnson speaks to Corry’s planning commission members.
“It does not make sense to interpret R-1 to allow an industrial solar farm,” Krasa said. “Solar farms are not residential in nature and should not be considered special residential projects. They should be treated as either a planned commercial use or an industrial use — neither of which are allowed in R-1.”
Johnson countered that the ordinance allows a wide range of non-residential conditional uses in R-1, including hospitals, nursing homes, colleges, funeral homes and cemeteries. He argued that approving the project as a special residential and commercial use is legally consistent with this framework, and that the city directed Greenwood to proceed under that classification. He acknowledged that generalized objections — concerns about aesthetics, speculative property value impacts or preferences for alternative uses — do not, under Pennsylvania law, constitute sufficient grounds for rejection.
Kelly Goodsel, a resident whose property straddles the city and Concord Township boundary, pushed back.
“The list of conditional uses — hospitals and playgrounds and things like that — are actually listed in the ordinance. In 1991, solar panels were not part of the ordinance, so they weren’t noted.”
Goodsel also criticized Greenwood’s buffering proposal for focusing primarily on the western, city-facing edge of the property, leaving residents in Concord Township and Warren County with little protection.
The commission also heard debate over draft special conditions. Johnson said Greenwood could comply with the vast majority of them, but raised two specific concerns. First, he argued that language requiring the project to be visually screened is being interpreted incorrectly as requiring the array to be entirely invisible — a standard he called neither achievable nor appropriate. Second, he objected to construction noise limits expressed as decibel thresholds, proposing instead that construction simply be restricted to daytime hours, suggesting a window of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
On the glare issue, Shiffer-Delegard cited an engineering study finding only minimal “green level” glare from most observation points, including a total of 16 minutes per year at the Lund residence during May and June. She described modern anti-glare coatings as standard technology that makes significant reflection unlikely. On the question of weed management, she confirmed that a local operations and maintenance technician would be hired to mow regularly.
After deliberating outside Council chambers, the commission returned with a divided vote. Jim Myers moved to recommend approval to City Council; Scott Johnson seconded. But commission members Bill Wilt, Erica Helmer-Allen, and Tim Gould voted against, resulting in a 3-2 decision not to recommend the project.
City Solicitor Lydia Caparosa reminded residents that the planning commission functions only as a recommending body. Regardless of its vote, the application will still go before City Council at a public hearing to be advertised separately, where both residents and the applicant will again have an opportunity to speak. Council has not set a timeline for its final decision.
Your comment has been submitted.
Reported
There was a problem reporting this.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular images.
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.
Success! An email has been sent to with a link to confirm list signup.
Error! There was an error processing your request.
Would you like to receive our daily news? Sign up today!
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
