The Marshall County Commissioners opened a public hearing Monday morning to take comments on the proposed zoning ordinance amendments concerning solar energy systems.
The amendments address the size of systems kept to 12,000 acres of property in Marshall County, setbacks, buffering, drainage, power lines, glare, sound levels, lay down setbacks, construction parking, environmental reporting, emergency response plans, straight voltage and grounding site plan, enhancing decommissioning, restoration, bonding, and force majeure. Many of the amendments follow state statute, or are stricter than state statute.
Marshall County Plan Director Ty Adley previously noted that the Marshall County Plan Commission’s recommendation was 8-1 to present the amendments to the commissioners for their consideration. The commissioners did pass the first reading of the ordinance amendment in a previous meeting by a vote of 2-1 with Commissioners Michael Burroughs and Kevin Overmyer in favor of the ordinance amendments and Commissioner Stan Klotz in opposition.
Monday’s meeting was at capacity with interested citizens. Public comments were taken for about an hour and 12 minutes.
There were several farmers in attendance in support of solar energy systems and disagree with the added restrictions proposed in the amended ordinance. The majority of the supporters of solar stated that the current ordinance in place without the “excessive restrictions” should be kept in place and personal property rights should be protected. They also cited economic development, jobs and the lowering of property taxes as benefits of solar.
Landowner Joy McCarthy spoke in favor of solar.
McCarthy stated, “Neighbors to our farms have passively enjoyed the view of our livelihoods in Marshall County; however, neighbors are not entitled to dictate whether we harvest corn, soybeans, potatoes or the sun on our property. Excessive setbacks unlike any other setback in the zoning ordinance measured from uninhabited sheds, barns and garages inhibit our rights, freedoms and common sense values the United States was built upon. Diversifying our farm operations to harvest solar energy provides a steady income stream, allowing our families to continue to prosper from our land. We deserve respect from our neighbors and our county officials to use our land as we see fit. We know what is best for our land and leasing to a solar farm is our right, free of excessive regulations. We, the farmers, respectfully ask the Marshall County Commissioners to protect our individual landowner rights and put this excessive regulation on farmers to bed.”
Bonnie Broeker, who lives in rural Culver, had this to say in support of solar.
“It seems our local government is using solar panels at the wastewater plant, they’ve installed them next to our schools and other locations in our community. So, why can’t I put them on my property?” commented Broeker.
Hoosiers for Renewables Executive Director Rachel Conner presented a petition of 143 signatures from supporters from Bourbon, Bremen, Argos, Culver, LaPaz, Plymouth, and Walkerton.
Marshall County Solid Waste Management Director Marianne Peters mentioned that comments have been made about the hazardous nature of solar panels, but she would not describe them as such.
“I’ve heard a lot of discussions in these various meetings about the toxicity of solar panels,” she said, “They’re not categorized as hazardous by the agencies that usually do that categorization – that’s the Department of Transportation, OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration], and the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency].”
Peters also addressed the decommissioning and recycling of first and second generation solar panels.
Peters continued, “They’re being recycled at higher and higher rates because people are starting to realize they can make some money off this material. It’s aluminum, steel, silicon and glass. Those are four materials that are highly recyclable. They have value in recycling markets and now people are starting to create companies that take those materials – take those panels – back and recycle them.”
Steve Neff, on behalf of an ad hoc committee of the Marshall County Farm Bureau, whose members are not for nor against solar energy, asked for a two-year moratorium and an economic impact study. He noted the members also realize that landowners may use their land as they see fit within the perimeters of the law.
Several residents opposed to solar agreed with the two-year moratorium and asked the commissioners to slow down the process so they can “do it right for Marshall County”. Others spoke of their support of agriculture and the preservation of farm land for food production.
County Council President Jesse Bohannon commented that he agrees that a moratorium is warranted.
“My membership [the county council] has voted on this issue and I do feel it’s important for me to communicate to you that the council voted 7-0 requesting you all to enact a moratorium and to prevent the rapid deployment of solar panels here in Marshall County. So we want to join Farm Bureau in their request. We represent the 45,000 people in Marshall County just the way you guys do and we believe that is in the best interest of Marshall County. We believe that’s what the people want. Kosciusko County has enacted an ordinance that basically bans solar panels on agricultural land. They are the gold standard for economic development in North Central Indiana. I think following their example is wise. The only thing else I will leave you with is there is not going to be any tax abatements for solar projects. I don’t think this council is going to pass that and anybody who is thinking about a project here in Marshall County should be aware of that.”
Councilman Tim Harman also spoke in favor of a moratorium and asked the commissioners to listen to the people. He said there were comments that a petition with 650 signatures in opposition of solar has been provided to the commissioners.
Councilwoman Nicole Cox spoke on behalf of a personal situation concerning a failed ground-mount solar project on her property and she, too, asked the commissioners for a two-year moratorium.
Opponents also wanted to wait for state legislation that focuses on decommissioning. Other comments focused on proper procedure, more transparency and communication, a conflict of interest of a commissioner who is reportedly involved with a battery storage system lease on his property, and a repeat of environmental concerns, an issue with setbacks, and rights of property owners.
Commission President Stan Klotz said companies need to be financially responsible when negotiating projects in the county. He reminded the audience that any changes in setbacks not in the ordinance would need to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval. He commented that the commissioners need to protect the county.
Commissioner Michael Burroughs said they could put a two-year moratorium in place, but it would result in the same situation where they are now with the same comments for and against solar. He understands neighbors with issues and farmers who want the projects. He stressed that they have a lot to consider with revenues, safety, sounds, health, and welfare going forward with individuals.
Commissioner Kevin Overmyer said it is a tough decision and that there was a moratorium and the Plan Commission worked on amendments to the ordinance.
With that, Overmyer made a motion to approve the second reading of the ordinance. Commission President Klotz asked for a second and there was no second to the motion. President Klotz called for a second to the motion once again which was met with silence. With that, the motion died for a lack of a second and no other action was taken.
After a brief recess, County Attorney Jim Clevenger noted that with no action taken by the commissioners, the amendments will take effect after 90 days by default if no further action is taken to approve or deny the amendments as presented Monday. The commissioners did not take any further action on the matter.
