The Local Source for News and Information Since 1980
FEDERALSBURG – Caroline County leaders and officials, as well as longtime Federalsburg residents pushed back against yet another solar project in Caroline County.
The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) held a June 12 evening public hearing at the Federalsburg Library to explain the Chaberton Solar Pahar LLC project and hear public comments, most of which were in opposition to its siting on a 42-acre parcel on Idlewild Road.
On Oct. 17, 2024, Chaberton filed a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the PSC to construct a 3.0-megawatt solar photovoltaic facility. The estimated cost of the project is about $6 million.
An earlier public hearing was held virtually March 3, 2025. The purpose of the June 12 hearing, led by Christine Burke, a public utility law judge with the PSC, was to “provide an overview of the project from the applicant, to hear the parties that are in the case, their recommendations and positions on the project, as well as take comments from members of the public,” Burke said.
The final opportunity to file public comments was June 13.
Lauren Barchi, community engagement manager with Maryland-based Chaberton Energy, provided an overview of the project.
Barchi said the developer began their outreach for the project in fall 2023 and January 2025 with letters and visits to neighbors and community meetings. She said “over a dozen neighbors and landowners have been spoken to for this project.”
The community solar project “will benefit local communities in many ways, including tax revenue to the state and county and annual savings of about $290 for market rate subscribers, and over $550 for low to moderate-income subscribers,” Barchi said.
She described community solar projects as occupying 40 acres or fewer. The Idlewild property is 42 acres, but the fixed-tilt solar panels will occupy about 20 acres. The project would connect exclusively to the Delmarva Power grid. If granted permission, Chaberton expects to begin construction in the second or third quarter of 2026.
Supida Piwkhow is a project manager in the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) within the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and said she attended the meeting to explain the state’s involvement and listen to the public.
If permitted, the Chaberton project “will contribute to the state law requiring that by 2030, 50% of the state generation comes from renewable energy, and that 14.5% comes from solar and solar generation,” she said.
The PPRP coordinates an independent review of the CPCN application for the reviewing state agencies, which include the Maryland Energy Administration, and the Departments of Natural Resources, Environment, Agriculture, Transportation, Planning and Commerce, Piwkhow said
She said the Secretaries of DNR and MDE (Maryland Department of Environment) recommended approval of Chaberton’s CPCN.
Representing the 3-member Caroline County Commission, Vice President Larry Porter voiced the Commission’s opposition to the project.
Porter said the project “is not in accordance with our Comprehensive Plan, or provisions of solar legislation we adopted in 2017 and refined in 2024.” He reiterated that the county was “vehemently opposed” to the recently adopted Renewable Energy Certainty Act, which was signed into law by Maryland Gov. Wes Moore May 15. The law’s intent is to meet the state’s green energy goals and lower electricity costs.
Caroline County Planning and Codes Director Crystal Dadds, Assistant Director of Planning Leslie Grunden and Assistant Director of Review Matthew Kaczynski presented statements opposing the CPCN application.
Dadds said Chaberton’s proposal is “fundamentally inconsistent” with both the county’s zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
The R1-zoned property is “specifically designated for residential development,” Dadds said. “It is one of the few areas within the county that is located near (a town) served by public water and sewer.”
“This makes it an ideal location for future residential growth, especially the kind of higher density, affordable housing that the state of Maryland has long urged local governments to promote near these municipalities with infrastructure capacity,” Dadds said. “In fact, the state has directed counties and municipalities for years to concentrate growth within and around the towns for precisely this reason: they are best suited to support it. … Our Comprehensive Plan echoes this policy and specifically seeks to preserve these limited R1 areas for their intended purpose.”
Dadds cited statistics to back up her claim.
“Let me underscore just how rare this zoning is in Caroline County,” she said. “Out of roughly the 205,000 acres countywide, only about 3,600 acres are zoned R1. Of that, fewer than 780 acres remain undeveloped and are located near a town with public water and sewer. That is less than one-tenth of 1% of the county's total land area. And in stark contrast, over 187,000 acres – more than 91% of the county’s land – is zoned in a manner that would allow for solar development as a permitted or conditional use. Caroline County is not opposed to solar development. In fact, we have approved more than 1,600 acres for solar projects that were consistent with our zoning regulations and our Comp Plan. We are also currently working with the same applicant, Chaberton, on a separate site elsewhere in the county, which is appropriately zoned for solar and has not met any restrictions or resistance from our office.”
On May 20, the Caroline County Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously approved a special use exception for another Chaberton solar project. The Board reviewed the request because Chaberton did not request a CPCN for this project.
Approved is a Chaberton Solar Jabal LLC 2.0-megawatt small-scale commercial solar energy system on a 63-acre parcel, which will contain a 23-acre solar array on Clark Canning House Road at the southern end of Federalsburg.
Grunden called R1 zoning a “precious resource” for compact or Smart Growth residential development in areas of existing infrastructure.”
Created in 2001, the state Office of Smart Growth was created, but was last funded in 2004 and is listed as a “defunct unit,” according to the Maryland Manual On-Line, which states, “through Smart Growth, Maryland is committed to limiting sprawl development by revitalizing older neighborhoods and redirecting growth to already developed areas, thereby saving the State's farmland, open spaces, and natural resources.”
“The county's remaining supply of buildable R1 residential parcels is a crucial component of the county’s strategy to address affordable housing needs,” Grunden said. “The Chaberton site’s small gain in megawatts will have a direct negative impact on the already extremely limited supply of land available for affordable housing, and far-reaching impacts on housing and employment stability in the county. The gain is not worth the cost.”
Kaczynski said that the county’s Comprehensive Plan provides a framework for land use regulation by the county. “It's our understanding that the state of Maryland entrusts its local jurisdictions with land use planning authority. However, the state continues to pass legislation which makes it difficult for local jurisdictions to enforce local laws and to plan for our future.”
Further complicating residential zoning limitations is the state’s Sustainable Growth and Agriculture Preservation Act of 2012, which imposed a 4-tier septic system. “That law has severely restricted residential developments because it dictates the type of sewage disposal system that can be used in certain areas,” Kaczynski said.
Several residents who grew up in Federalsburg near the proposed project or live close to it now weighed in, mostly in opposition. Only one person was in favor of it. One man commented on the poor health of the agricultural land that might result over time. Another said, “It seems like the state of Maryland is going against itself.” Yet another said he traveled to his hometown from northern Delaware to “support the county commissioners and my friends in this effort.”
A woman who lives next to the proposed solar arrays said she was “adamantly opposed” to the CPCN application. She mentioned the approval “upending zoning laws in Caroline County.” but broadened her concern statewide.
“So why this neighborhood?” she said. “Was it because they didn't think that this demographic would present the same type of pushback that you might receive from a more affluent neighborhood? … Every person in Caroline County, and I dare say every homeowner who is living on R1 land in the state of Maryland, needs to be very afraid of their R1 residential zoning rights being encroached upon.”
“This will literally make our land worthless and destroy what we and our ancestors have built,” she said.
Another attendee raised concerns about “the elevated fire risk,” posed by solar arrays.
“I'm very concerned,” he said, “especially given that solar arrays are known to elevate the local temperature, and one can only imagine what might happen in a drought during the summer in a field where the grass is dry and the temperature is increased by the solar heat island effect. And I think Maryland is making a tremendous mistake by allowing these installations to be sprinkled in amongst rural areas that have no defense against fire.”
In a letter dated Dec. 2, 2024, the county claimed that Chaberton should have requested a zoning change. However, Chaberton claimed in a Jan. 3, 2025, response to the county that Chaberton nor its counsel had received a copy of the letter. Chaberton’s legal counsel wrote that the company was not required to seek rezoning. It also cited a ruling by the Maryland Court of Appeals that the PSC “is the ultimate decision-maker and approving authority of generating stations. Local government is a participant in the process and has an advisory role…whose recommendations, and local planning and zoning regulations must be duly considered but leaves the (PSC) responsible for reaching the final balance that includes local planning and zoning as one of several factors.”
All parties filed their direct testimony regarding the Idlewild project by the due date of June 4. If the parties reached a settlement agreement, they were to notify Burke by June 17. An evidentiary hearing is set for June 24 at the Baltimore offices of the Public Service Commission. “If there are still contested issues and no settlement in the case, another round of testimony is due to be filed on July 8, with an evidentiary hearing that will be scheduled for July 22 again, (and) that hearing will be in Baltimore,” Burke said.
To view a video of the June 12 public hearing, visit https://www.youtube.com/live/oqNfGB4ZIe4.
All documents related to the project can be viewed and downloaded from the Public Service Commission’s website at https://webpscxb.psc.state.md.us/DMS/cpcnapplication. The CPCN application number is 9759.
