Just over a year after a decision by Buffalo Township supervisors to grant conditional use permits for an energy company to operate two solar farms, attorneys argued over whether the requirements of conditional use were actually met.

Oral arguments took place Wednesday morning, Aug. 26, in an appeal arguing whether the solar farms met all conditional use requirements in the township’s zoning ordinance.

SolAmerica Energy — the Atlanta-based company which applied as “Butler County PA S2” and “Butler County PA S3” — has permits to operate solar farms at parcels along Grimm and Bear Creek roads. The two parcels total nearly 100 acres, although the planned size of the actual facilities is much smaller.

Despite resident pushback, each application received a conditional use permit by a 4-1 decision on Aug. 13, 2025.

John Linkosky, attorney for township resident Justin Rushin III, who is appealing the approvals, argued Wednesday the township’s zoning ordinance places the burden on the applicants to comply with criteria. He claimed “overwhelming” evidence of noncompliance.

The appeal specifically highlights three performance standards for conditional use noncompliance: consistency with community and economic development objectives; a lack of detrimental effect on persons or property; and a lack of emissions, discharges, noise or glare.

He argued SolAmerica did not provide enough evidence to prove compliance, while objectors, such as Rushin, provided evidence of detrimental effects and other concerns, including safety.

Charles Suhr, attorney for SolAmerica, argued over which conditional use standards should be considered objective, measurable standards and which should be considered subjective. He said case law states it is not the burden of applicants to prove compliance with subjective standards, but rather on objectors to prove noncompliance.

He said SolAmerica provided evidence in its application and testimony that it met all of the township’s objective standards, but the ones mentioned in the appeal should be considered subjective.

Suhr argued Buffalo Township said SolAmerica proved it met all standards, regardless.

He also argued objectors at the hearings were not able to prove noncompliance, as many expressed concerns or speculation rather than evidence that impacts would be greater than normally anticipated.

He noted one study submitted to the township cited a 4.8% decrease in residential property values, but did not include any additional evidence that Buffalo Township property owners would see a more adverse effect.

Linkosky said there was more evidence, including several studies, but they were not discussed by the township. He said he believes all the standards are objective and therefore on the applicant to prove.

Brian Farrington, attorney for the Buffalo Township Board of Supervisors, argued all of the conditional use standards weighed were objective, but he said SolAmerica provided enough evidence to prove compliance to the board.

He said the applicants submitted a traffic impact study, a glare study, a decommissioning plan and more, as well as testified the sites would have minimal personnel and would not pollute.

He said the township’s policy is everything is submitted into evidence so it can be reviewed and considered later, but the board has final decision on whether evidence is worth discussing.

He also noted the same study that mentioned a decrease in residential property values recorded a 19.4% increase in values for agricultural and vacant parcels. It also clarified that the 4.8% decrease was a national average, which changed based on time since the solar farm’s installation, distance from the farm, geographical location and size of the property.

Linkosky rebutted that, during testimony, the representatives for the farms referred back to the application, which simply said it will comply with standards without citing any evidence on how it will comply.

Farrington argued applicants are allowed to refer back to their application, and the board of supervisors’ findings were sufficient enough to determine conditional use standards were met.

The attorneys also argued over whether filing one appeal for two separate conditional use permits is proper procedure.

Suhr and Farrington argued the board saw two applications, held two hearings and made two separate decisions regarding the farms, and it is a procedural defect to consider one appeal for both.

Linkosky argued there was significant interplay with applicants and objectors submitting the same evidence for both.

Judge Kelley Streib said she will review the ordinance and all attorneys’ briefs and arguments before making a decision in the coming weeks.