‘A piece of Swiss cheese’: Work still to be done on Tippecanoe solar ordinance

A 6,000-acre limit and significant setback distance requirements were just two policies discussed during the second Tippecanoe County solar ordinance review meeting on Wednesday evening.

The saga over large-scale solar development has reached a new stage with the latest proposal to amend the county’s unified zoning ordinance. Since the one-year moratorium on solar development was enacted by the Tippecanoe County Commissioners last June, a group of experts and community members has met several times to craft a new ordinance.

The Area Plan Commission Ordinance Committee has held two public meetings to review the proposal, first on March 4 and again on Wednesday. The study committee reportedly could not reach a consensus on certain regulations, including caps on construction size and on distance from properties.

The current proposal would set a 6,000-acre limit on large-scale solar energy development across the county. Commissioner Dave Byers offered support for another restriction: a 400-acre limit per individual solar project, which some community members argued would deter commercial solar investors.

“They’re not putting a cap on home building, and they’re not putting a cap on factory building,” said Mark Bennett, a local farmer who stated he had 300 acres of solar panels on his land. “They just need to let the free market decide how big solar is going to be.”

Bennett argued that both the 6,000-acre total cap and the 400-acre individual project limit would be too restrictive. Six thousand acres would be about equivalent to 9.5 square miles, which he saw as a tiny fraction of Tippecanoe County’s 503 square miles.

A significant topic of debate was over setback distance, or how far away the solar panels could be from nearby properties. The committee discussed whether the setback distance should be measured from property lines or from an “occupied structure” — any home, trailer, or other structure that can house people.

The resolution, by and large, was to set it at the property line, which is less likely to change from owner to owner than if someone wants to build another structure on their land.

The setback distance varies depending on how many non-participating property lines — or land on which the owner has not signed a lease or agreement with the solar farm operator — the solar development comes near.

Additionally, a standard would have to be met, requiring either a buffer yard of planted vegetation or a 1,000-foot setback from non-participating property lines. The minimum distance, ranging from 100 to 400 feet based on how many property lines the development is near, would still have to be met if the operator chooses to construct the vegetation buffer. The lack of a buffer yard would dramatically increase the distance the solar panels could be from the house.

Members of the public audibly approved of the distance requirements, as many had voiced concerns about noise, ground damage, or property devaluation from having solar projects near them.

Another change to the drafted ordinance came from Commissioner Tom Murtaugh, who said he had been advised to tweak the battery energy system requirement.

The original draft suggested that solar developments should not have battery energy storage systems with a capacity over 100 megawatt-hours, but the committee agreed to change the requirement to prohibit battery energy storage systems for solar developments altogether.

Even with progress made on the ordinance ahead of the upcoming April 15 full Area Plan Commission meeting, one member of the study committee was unsatisfied with the section on decommissioning regulations.

“What you see in front of you is a piece of Swiss cheese,” Kenny McCleary said to the committee. “I propose you rip it out and replace it with the original submission that was put together by three very hard working members of this community to try to put a thorough and complete document together that not only protects the county, but draws upon the painful experiences and concerns that many other counties have.”

McCleary, an engineer who has been outspoken throughout the entire solar saga and was placed on the study committee, was primarily concerned with the process of when a solar farm is shut down and needs to be demolished. In recent weeks, he said he had worked with fellow study committee members Zacaria Martinez and West Lafayette City Councilor Rabita Rajkarnikar to propose strict regulations to hold solar companies accountable for restoring the land on which the developments used to sit.

“I’m discouraged and very much frustrated that the decommissioning document … is a hollow shell of what the community team put together,” McCleary said. “It’s a very thorough and comprehensive whole life cycle effort to ensure that the county, property owners, adjacent property owners, the environment, and our county infrastructure are not put at risk by this type of project throughout its entire life cycle and through the restoration and recovery.”

A final resolution for large-scale solar energy development is still in the works after the various amendments and suggestions at the ordinance review meeting. The April 15 APC meeting will serve as the next major landmark before an official proposal can be sent to the county commissioners.

The complete draft as presented at Wednesday’s meeting can be found here.