Carl Lienhoop
The Bartholomew County commissioners voted 2-1 Monday to give preliminary approval to proposed rules for websites for solar fields after a prolonged public listening to held in particular person and on-line.
Commissioners’ Chairman Carl Lienhoop solid the “no” vote, whereas Larry Kleinhenz and Tony London voted in favor of the ordinance. However, when the suggestions accepted in August by the Bartholomew County Plan Commission come up for a second and last studying on Monday, Oct. 24, the commissioners mentioned it’s possible they’ll ask for some adjustments.
The commissioners mentioned they felt pressured into taking some motion this week as a result of state regulation solely offers them 90 days from the day the plan fee makes its suggestion to take motion themselves.
If the county commissioners make no resolution by Nov. 14, the plan fee suggestions mechanically turn into regulation, Columbus/Bartholomew County Planning Director Jeff Bergman mentioned.
If the commissioners request adjustments throughout subsequent week’s second studying, Bergman says the county’s government board could have met its authorized obligations. It will begin one other counting interval that provides the plan fee 45 days to think about the county commissioners’ adjustments earlier than sending it again with up to date suggestions, Bergman mentioned.
About 24 people instructed the commissioners their ideas about solar fields in particular person Monday, whereas a a lot bigger group noticed the assembly on-line by Zoom video conferencing.
Nearly half of the people who spoke requested that setbacks for solar fields return to the unique suggestion of 500 toes from residential plenty of 5 acres or much less. It was the plan fee who voted to cut back that distance to 200 toes in August after a number of farmers mentioned if the setback is established at 500 toes, it can make it not possible to web site any solar farm.
After listening to many clarify why they don’t need or like solar fields, Lienhoop determined to made an admission.
“Personally, I’m not in favor of it either,” he mentioned.
Lienhoop mentioned he voted “no” as a result of he thought the plan fee’s suggestions contained “confusing language.”
While he urged that the 500-foot setback be restored, Lienhoop additionally urged that negotiations be allowed to regulate the setback.
Lienhoop additionally expressed his settlement with viewers member Skip Taylor, who mentioned a 500-foot setback permits the county to “pump the brakes ” a bit on shifting forward with solar energy. More time is required to see what a number of neighboring counties are doing in securing sources of different vitality earlier than a particular setback is established, Taylor mentioned.
Kleinhenz talked about what he described because the unappealing aesthetics of a solar subject.
“Personally, I would rather see no solar farms in the county because I love seeing crops and soybeans,” Kleinhenz mentioned.
But all three mentioned their their high concern is property rights of farmers. Kleinhenz mentioned the secret’s to discover a stability that permits a property proprietor to use their land as they want, however not having a detrimental influence on their neighbors.
Kleinhenz is requesting adjustments within the ordinance at three completely different ranges. He desires higher assurances that the eventual decommissioning of a solar farm – or potential chapter of a solar panel firm – doesn’t have a detrimental influence on the property proprietor or taxpayers. He additionally desires to change a three-foot top requirement for the bottom of a solar panel. Finally, Kleinhenz additionally requested for extra versatile setback rules that may regulate with a farmer’s plan.
London praised the 2 years of labor that Bergman and his employees have put into the proposed rules, including that he believes the suggestions ought to be accepted as offered.
London additionally agreed with feedback made by retired Columbus legal professional Mike Mullett, a board member of the “Energy Matters” neighborhood coalition. Mullett described the plan fee suggestions as cheap, including that they supply a possibility for the neighborhood to welcome utility-scale solar energy.
“I will tell you from my expertise that we are all going to want utility-scale solar in large amounts in the future if we want resiliency and reliability as far as the balance of power is concerned,” Mullett mentioned.
But London additionally shared a priority expressed by Columbus actual property dealer Jeff Hilycord. As he mentioned final August earlier than the plan fee, Hilycord cited college research from different states that counsel a solar subject could cause property values inside a mile to decline. None of these research originated within the Midwest, he mentioned.
story by The Texas Tribune Source link
