The Marshall County Plan Commission kicked the ball back into the County Commissioner’s court as they recommended the passage of a newly amended ordinance regarding solar farms in the county.
Plan Director Ty Adley reported on his office’s investigation into other ordinances as well as the Technical Review Committee (TRC) and Drainage Board recommendations on how the ordinance should be amended.
A cap of 12 acres was the TRC recommendation for the size of a solar farm in the county as well as a 150-foot right of way and a setback of 325 feet from any existing structure. The Drainage Board suggested a 75-foot setback from any county drain. The ordinance would have all transmission lines buried underground. The Plan Commission also recommended a 500-foot setback from any non-participating property.
The ordinance would also cap ground that could be used for solar farms at 12,000 acres in the county which is 5 percent of the 240,000 acres of arable land.
During the public meeting, residents from both sides of the issue aired their disagreement with various parts of the proposed changes.
One main sticking point for those on both sides was the issue of setbacks. Those opposed to solar farms in the county would like those setbacks to be measured from the property line. Those in favor, representatives from Invenergy and lawyers involved with energy policy from Indianapolis, felt the suggested setback of 325 feet was “unreasonable”.
Those in favor also felt that the 12,000-acre cap on the ground that could be used would spark a “race to file” for those wishing to participate in the programs. They also stated that ground used for solar farms would not be taken away from farmland, it merely would be removed from eligibility for any USDA subsidy programs.
Along with setbacks those against brought up concerns of the need to preserve farmland and a concern for environmental buffering between solar farms and adjacent properties. It was also suggested that those neighboring properties should receive reimbursement as well as those participating in a lease arrangement.
The topic of “eminent domain” was also voiced citing that NIPSCO had recently used that method to procure land for their recent project to replace powerlines.
It was noted that any solar farm project would currently have to come before the County Board of Zoning Appeals and receive a variance for such use of land.
Indiana Code was a sticking point for both those against and the Plan Commission citing a concern that current wording in that statute could be interpreted to take away the right of a community to decide on such projects without state approval.
A motion was made for a three-month moratorium to study the topic further, but was defeated.
The Commission voted on a second motion that recommended passage of the amended ordinance to the Marshall County Commissioners who have the final say so on any county zoning changes.
