RICHLAND COUNTY — The wind and sun have been around, well, since the beginning of time.
So how did the issue of wind and solar power get to the ballot box on the May 2026 primary ballot in Richland County?
Follow along. It began years ago.
Before we get too far along — and for those not interested in a bit of history on the topic — here is what you need to know for the May 5 ballot issue:
— A “yes” vote on the referendum is in support of the of the resolution approved by Richland County commissioners that prohibits large wind and solar energy projects in 11 of the county’s 18 townships.
— A “no” vote would end the restrictions imposed by commissioners and would allow such projects to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Some residents wanted more local input
Ohio saw a surge in utility-scale solar and wind project applications in the last couple of decades to the Ohio Power Siting Board, an agency founded in 1972 to regulate the siting of major utility facilities.
However, many rural residents and local officials felt the state’s OPSB process gave too little local input into the process when it came to large-scale wind and solar.
In response, five years ago, Senate Bill 52 gave rare, new zoning-like powers to county commissioners over certain renewable energy developments, setting aside the “public utility exemption” in those situations.
That law said counties can designate restricted areas where wind and solar development is prohibited and can prohibit an individual proposed wind and solar facility or limit its size.
These new powers, however, apply only to facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid and beyond a certain production size.
The bill didn’t address other forms of energy, such as oil and gas production.
It was amended in 2025 under Ohio Revised Code 303.58. But the basic tenants remained. A county board of commissioners can designate unincorporated areas of a county prohibiting the construction of an:
(1) An economically significant wind farm;
(2) A large wind farm;
(3) A large solar facility.
Fast-forward to local news in early 2025. No large wind or solar projects had been proposed in Richland County, though such sites have been approved by the OPSB in Crawford, Morrow and Knox counties.
Richland County commissioners ask township trustees
In February, the Richland County Board of Commissioners asked trustees in the county’s 18 townships how they felt about wind farms and/or solar facilities in their jurisdictions.
Eleven of those townships responded negatively. Commissioners then voted in July to unanimously approve a ban on “economically significant wind farms, large wind farms and large solar facilities” in those 11 townships.
The ban didn’t impact the remaining seven townships, nor any cities or villages in the county.
But it was clear even during the meeting in which that vote took place that there was opposition to banning such projects even before such proposals could be put forth. A room full of residents came to the weekday 9:30 a.m. session to voice that opposition.
John Makley, a Sharon Township resident, said during that meeting that scattered prohibited areas around the county could lower the potential for a large project.
“Why not go on a case-by-case basis?” Makley asked commissioners. “The power demands of our county, of our state, are only going to grow. Eliminating sources is only going to make power more expensive.”
Brian McPeek, business manager for the IBEW 688 in Mansfield, has been involved in the permitting and approval process of solar factories around the state, including Crawford, Wyandot, Morrow and Knox counties.
He told commissioners that major companies like Amazon or Intel want communities to have some source of clean energy.
“They’re (companies) forward-thinking,” McPeek said in July. “(If) we’re banning these projects (than) we’re banning development in Richland County. There’s no reason to do that now.”
McPeek had attended a Madison Township trustees’ meeting in March 2025, asking them to not seek such a ban in the township.
McPeek told trustees he wants to see “as many energy-producing facilities as possible” to keep up with expected energy demands in the state.
“I not only come tonight as a concerned citizen, but as an electrician and the representative for 300 union electricians and another 200 retirees who live, work and play in our community,” McPeek said.
“I do not think now is the time to deny any energy generation facility, especially before we even see the benefits to our community or before a project has even been proposed,” McPeek said.
“I also would take a strong stance against any elected official telling a property owner what they can and cannot do with their own land, especially before even hearing the individual out,” McPeek told Madison trustees.
Ultimately, Madison Township trustees did not ask commissioners to ban such renewable energy projects.
At the July meeting, Commissioner Tony Vero said commissioners felt the decision to prohibit these projects in specific townships was a decision which should be left to trustees.
He said the resolution does not prevent large wind or solar projects from coming to other areas of Richland County.
“If we go out and fill up these townships with amazing solar projects that bring clean energy, labor and we can do more, I am 100 percent willing to revisit and rescind a prohibition potentially,” he said.
But Vero doubled down on making it clear commissioners’ position remained centered on the requests of individual townships.
“Again, I think we need to follow the wishes of our local townships,” he responded when asked why the legislation was necessary if no projects are currently on the table.
Senate Bill 52 also provides a tool for the opposition
The same law that allows such bans also provides a tool for those who oppose them.
It didn’t take long for those opposing the commissioners’ decision to organize into the the Richland County Citizens for Property Rights and Job Development.
When the group organized a week after the commissioners’ vote, leaders said the ballot box was their only path forward using ORC 303.59.
“Our only recourse is Election Day,” McPeek said.
A meeting launching a petition drive opposing the resolution was conducted July 24, led by Venita Shoulders, vice chair of the Richland County Democratic Party, who also holds a party seat on the four-member county Board of Elections; Makley and McPeek.
Makley told those in attendance at the meeting the petitions needed to be turned into the Board of Commissioners by Aug. 15, which was within 30 days of the resolution banning such projects approved by commissioners. That deadline was met.
On Sept. 3, Richland County Board of Elections Director Matt Finfgeld said the bipartisan board unanimously validated 3,380 signatures — 60 more than were needed to put the issue on the ballot.
A total of 3,320 voter signatures were needed, representing 8 percent of county voters who participated in the most recent gubernatorial election.
More than 4,300 signatures were collected during the drive, according to organizers, which they said was a bipartisan effort.
The group opposing that resolution has campaigned for its cause, including a website titled, “No Ban in Property Rights.”
The website says its “a group of local residents who came together to fight against the county commissioners’ ban on utility-scale solar and wind in our county. We believe that citizens deserve to have a say in the future of Richland County, and that development decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.”
On Feb. 10, the local Board of Elections unanimously approved the ballot language for the issue.
(Below is the ballot language voters see on the May 5 primary ballot.)
It’s clear people need to pay attention when voting on this issue.
To reiterate:
— A “yes” vote on the referendum is in support of the of the resolution approved by Richland County commissioners that prohibits large wind and solar energy projects in 11 of the county’s 18 townships.
— A “no” vote would end the restrictions imposed by commissioners and would allow such projects to continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
