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
TRENDING:
Ransom Twp. argues a proposed solar farm the supervisors rejected last year adversely affects the township and its residents as the developer appeals the supervisors’ denial of the project.
In an opposition brief filed last month, then-township Solicitor Kevin Conaboy said residents opposed to the plans presented credible evidence of the adverse effects the project would have on the area and Pivot Energy didn’t provide proof the project would be compatible with township zoning.
Conaboy left as the township solicitor earlier this month, Supervisor Chairman David Bird said. The supervisors are expected to appoint William Rinaldi as the solicitor at their meeting next month, he said.
The supervisors denied the Denver-based company’s request for conditional use to build 6,550 solar modules on 18 acres of a nearly 300-acre township-owned parcel at Ransom and Lower Narrows roads in June of last year. Residents opposed the proposed solar farm, concerned about its impact on the township’s character, their property values, the environment and wildlife.
In their decision, the supervisors said the proposal doesn’t comply with adjoining development, would impact the area’s rural nature and harm property values. They also stated that Pivot failed to provide evidence about the anticipated glare from the facility and how the farm’s potential effects on area properties and public roads would be controlled.
Attorneys Richard Williams and Tara Giarratano appealed the decision in Lackawanna County Court shortly after the supervisors’ decision.
The attorneys argue that the township and the objectors didn’t present evidence that Pivot didn’t meet the requirements in the zoning ordinance for the proposed conditional use and that the property’s use as a solar farm would substantially affect the community’s health, safety and welfare.
They said the supervisors’ decision relied on the objectors’ complaints that the proposed solar farm is incompatible with the area and impacts adjacent properties and property values.
Conaboy said in the brief the objectors presented evidence that having a solar farm on the property was incompatible with neighboring development, would impact the rural area, that the project would directly impact the community’s health, welfare and convenience, and would negatively impact property values — all of which violate the township’s zoning ordinance.
He also stated the developer didn’t provide evidence concerning the anticipated glare from the facility and how potential nuisance from the project to area properties and public roads would be controlled, which also violates the township’s zoning ordinance. Conaboy said the glare study provided by Pivot Energy failed to take into account all the surrounding properties that would be affected by the project — also required under the zoning ordinance.
Conaboy asked the court to deny the developer’s appeal.
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.
