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:
A Lackawanna County judge agreed with Ransom Twp.’s decision denying a developer’s plans for a solar farm that residents opposed.
Judge Terrence Nealon denied Pivot Energy’s appeal in a ruling handed down last week.
The supervisors denied the Denver-based company’s conditional use request to build 6,550 solar modules on 18 acres of a nearly 300-acre township-owned parcel at Ransom and Lower Narrows roads last year. Residents opposed the proposed solar farm, concerned about its impact on the township’s character, their property values, the environment and wildlife.
Attorneys Richard Williams and Tara Giarratano appealed the decision in Lackawanna County Court shortly after the supervisors’ decision, arguing the township and those who objected to the project 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 also said the applicant must only prove compliance with specific objective criteria set in the zoning ordinance, the attorneys said.
Nealon wrote in his ruling the developer’s studies didn’t take into account how the anticipated glare from the array would affect neighboring properties. Residents also provided credible testimony that the proposed solar farm would negatively impact the rural area, property values and local wildlife, which the board took as proof that public health, welfare and convenience would not be protected by the farm’s construction.
The judge pointed out that Pivot’s glare analysis was confined to “four structures directly … adjacent to the property” and did not consider or examine “any of the properties further away that could, possibly, be in the path of the glare” because it believed “the farther you move away from the project, the potential for glare decreases” — which goes against state zoning laws that require such studies take into account all properties that could be affected by the proposed project.
In addition, there is sufficient evidence to support the board’s determination that public welfare and convenience will not be protected by the proposed solar energy facility, it will cause “substantial injury” to other properties in the neighborhood and it isn’t compatible with adjoining development, Nealon wrote. He ruled the board didn’t abuse its discretion or commit an error of law when it denied the application.
Pivot Energy officials said in a lengthy statement Monday that while they are disappointed with the ruling, they respect the court’s role in reviewing local land-use decisions and believe responsibly developed solar projects can provide meaningful benefits.
“The company is committed to sustainable land management practices and the preservation of agricultural communities,” the company said.
Pivot officials defended their project, saying they presented evidence showing that the proposed facility complied with the township’s zoning ordinance, including civil engineering review, environmental assessment, geospatial and glare analysis, and acoustical modeling.
“Pivot also believes this case raises important questions about private property rights and the ability of landowners to make lawful, productive use of their property when an applicant has satisfied the requirements established by the local ordinance. In Pivot’s view, the record showed that the company met the obligations required for consideration of its application. While residents expressed concerns throughout the process, Pivot believes the technical record demonstrates that the project satisfied the ordinance standards,” they said in the statement.
Efforts to reach representatives for the township for comment about the decision were unsuccessful.
Nealon’s ruling is the latest to uphold an Abingtons township’s decision denying a controversial solar farm. Late last year, he upheld Newton Twp.’s denial of Newton Solar 1 LLC’s plans to build nearly 12,000 solar panels on the 59-acre property on Hillside Drive in that township.
Supervisors rejected the plans in 2024 by New Leaf Energy, the Massachusetts-based company doing business as Newton Solar 1 LLC, and Borrego Solar Systems Inc. of Oakland, California. The developer appealed shortly afterward.
Nealon ruled the developer did not establish that the township supervisors erred or abused their discretion when they denied the plans.
He noted the similarities with the Newton Twp. case in his most recent ruling, pointing out that in both instances residents presented credible evidence that the proposed solar farm would be detrimental to the character of the rural area in which they were proposed, and affect area wildlife and migration patterns.
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.
