JEFFERSONVILLE — A report was provided to the Clark County Planning and Zoning Department based on a series of meetings of the advisory citizens’ committee that discussed the future of solar energy systems in the county.
County commissioner Bryan Glover, chair of the committee, presented the report at the plan commission meeting Wednesday, which summarized the conclusions and work of the committee across around five meetings to come to an agreement on potential amendments to regulations imposed on solar energy facilities in the Unified Development Ordinance.
The committee contained three residents that were against the solar facilities and three that were for them.
“This was a great opportunity for groups of people to get together and discuss their differences,” Glover said.
At the first meeting July 1, Glover said those on the committee agreed unanimously to keep the meetings private and not open them to the public.
“I thought that it allowed for us to have open discussions,” he said.
There were also representatives from the company BrightNite, which has signed leases with local residents to use their land for solar facilities, in the meetings, but Glover said they were only there to answer questions when asked about their facilities.
“I think they were extremely beneficial to the conversations,” he said. Also at the first meeting, a handful of issues were selected that those against and for the solar facilities wanted changed or to remain the same in the UDO.
Glover said the No. 1 issue of concern for everyone was the setbacks and the “biggest hurdle.”
The Clark County Commissioners voted in May to amend the UDO to create a 650-foot setback from a non-participating residential dwelling to the solar farm property, which those in support of the facilities have said is too much.
Glover said supporters wanted setbacks that were 250 feet from the dwelling to the solar property if on one side of the house, 300 feet from two sides, 400 feet from three sides and 650 feet from four sides.
Those critical of the facilities said they would agree to setbacks 500 feet from the dwelling to the solar property on one side, 550 feet on two sides, 600 feet from three sides and 650 feet from four sides.
Glover said that those for the solar facilities felt that the cabling and conduit regulations were also too aggressive.
He said those against the solar facilities also wanted to see slightly tighter regulations on screening, property value guarantees, wildlife corridors and construction.
He also said that committee members discussed possibly adjusting the UDO, including the acreage cap of 6,000, once a solar facility was installed after three years.
“It was obvious that we were at an impasse,” Glover said. He said they realized this at their last meeting, and their respective recommendations were memorialized to be presented to the plan commission.
“Moving the needle, we hadn’t moved it as far as we were going to,” Glover said.
Plan commission president and county commissioner Connie Sellers said she’s glad the commission was able to meet and work regardless.
“We’re not voting for solar, we’re not voting against solar,” she said. “We’re just voting for the UDO to be strengthened to be the best that it can be.”
The UDO recommendations were put under advisement with discussion by the plan commission planned at its next meeting Oct. 9.
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.