La PORTE — After months of discussions, the solar ordinance draft, which was originally passed two years ago, has moved from the La Porte County Planning Commission to the county’s Board of Commissioners.
On Aug. 27, the Planning Commission unanimously passed the updated solar ordinance draft, with a further amendment to topsoil restrictions.
Additionally, the Planning Commission, with a vote of 7-2, rejected the proposed large-scale solar ordinance moratorium. Planning commissioners Harold Parker and Eric Pointon cast the dissenting votes.
While the solar ordinance draft can be found in its entirety on the county government’s website, a public hearing on concerns and recommendations was held by the Planning Commission on Aug. 27.
One of the largest discussion points of the night, first brought up by Mill Creek farmer and County Commissioner District 2 Republican candidate, Steve Holifield, was the solar ordinance’s stance on setbacks from neighboring properties.
“Other counties have 500-to-1,000-foot setbacks, and they’re still getting these projects coming to their attention,” Holifield said.
“[A] larger setback would give the people more privacy who were stuck in these areas. I don’t think that it would hurt them one bit at all,” he added.
As of right now, according to Planning Commission President Joe Haney, the county’s solar ordinance draft places setbacks at 250-feet from property lines.
The county’s setback stance, Haney said, is a change from the state’s recommendation of 250-feet from neighboring dwellings.
Indiana’s recommendation for setbacks is exactly what Daniel Straka, a field manager at Indiana Land and Liberty Coalition, believes the county should be following.
“I do believe that the 250-feet that you have from the property line, rather than 250-feet from a dwelling, is a little bit ... too much for what we’re doing here,” Starka said.
“If you’re trying to protect the land of a property owner that is not participating in a project, I believe the 50-feet would be more than ample – that goes with the state guidelines [of] 50-feet from a non-participating property line,” he added.
Considering both the rights of the farms that choose to loan their land to the solar company, as well as the rights of nonparticipating, neighboring farms, was weighed heavily by the county’s solar commission, according to Haney.
Haney said when considering the appropriate footage for setbacks in the county, he thought of the vacant, owned properties that have not yet built their dream homes, so there’s no dwelling to gauge the state’s recommended 250-feet.
“I came to the position of rather than have a setback from just a residence, have the setback from the property lines,” Haney said.
Variance to setbacks, said Planning Commission attorney, Doug Biege, can be requested through the county’s Board of Zoning Appeals [BZA] if both the lending farm and neighboring farm agree.
An additional concern Holifield brought to the attention of the commission was the effects solar farms could have on the county’s topsoil, a necessary resource to grow crops.
“Topsoil takes thousands of years to create. It doesn’t happen overnight,” Holifield said.
“What’s to say that the topsoil won’t be removed 20 years from now and sold off for some project,” he added.
The Planning Commission agreed with Holifield and amended the solar draft to include that no topsoil can be removed, at any time, without the permission of both the county’s Building Commissioner and the property owner.
A reoccurring concern that has been mentioned previously, Holifield said, is whether the solar farm will devalue neighboring homes.
“We provided documents that proved ... that people are losing the value of their homes,” Holifield said referring to the BZA meeting in June about the Bluestem solar farm.
“We are never ... denying you do not have the right to what you want with your property, but show me in the constitution where it says you have the right to devalue other people’s property and enjoy their property,” he added.
Biege said there are two problems at play when considering the option of reimbursing adjacent property owners of the solar farm for any negative value impact they might face.
One, he said there is no way to be sure what the “dollar amount is going to be” resulting from the solar farm moving next door.
For reason two, he said “the county doesn’t own the property, so the county’s rights are not the same set of rights that the individual property owner has.”
“So, the county can’t just come and enforce. First of all, the county can’t do something to directly affect someone’s rights because that’s unconstitutional,” he added.
The Planning Commission also discussed the possibility of placing a large-scale solar ordinance moratorium, an action they ultimately rejected.
However, a one-year moratorium, an action that would pause all activity concerning solar power within the county to provide additional time for research and discussions, is exactly what Holifield thinks the county needs.
“I don’t see any reason why we can’t impose a one-year moratorium minimum with the option to renew it in the future,” Holifield said.
“If things are so great and wonderful, they have no problem waiting a little bit for it,” he added.
Holifield reasoned that with the elections occurring this November, there is a possibility that there is a chance there will be a change in political parties and the current greenhouse policies will be overturned, making the solar discussions a moot point.
This was an opinion shared by Planning Commissioner Harold Parker, who said a decision should be made after the election to “see where the funding was, so we didn’t have a bunch of stuff going.”
“If the other party gets in and defunds everything, do we want a bunch of stuff on the books?” he asked.
Planning Commissioner John Carr disagreed, saying, “it’s getting kind of ridiculous the amount of time that we’re spending on a solar ordinance that we passed two years ago.”
© Copyright 2024 LPHeraldDispatch.com