The Tippecanoe County Area Board of Zoning Appeals on Aug. 27 denied a special-exception request from Rainbow Trout Solar (a GeneX/RWE-backed project) to build a 120-megawatt AC large-scale solar energy system across approximately 1,700.1 acres in Shelby Township. The board voted 3–4 after a lengthy hearing that included technical presentations from county staff, the petitioner and its consultants, and more than three hours of public comment both supporting and opposing the project.

The board’s decision prevents the project—described in the petition as arrays, inverters, an operations building, a collector substation and internal access roads—from proceeding under the zoning relief it sought. The vote also rejected (for purposes of the special-exception decision) the decommissioning plan and the petitioner’s proposed surety estimate as presented with the application.

Staff and petitioner presentations: what was submitted and staff’s view

Amanda Esposito, Area Plan Commission (APC) staff, summarized the petition and staff analysis, telling the board the filing covers two large sections of land zoned AA (select agricultural) and AW (agricultural and wooded) and excludes flood‑plain (FP) holdings (staff noted FP land had been removed from the proposal). The application listed 1,700.1 acres of participating land, proposed a 35–40 year operational life, and included a decommissioning plan and a professional engineer’s cost estimate for removal. Staff said the petitioner had provided visual, noise, glint-and-glare, stormwater and drainage studies and that staff could not independently confirm the surety amount but had found the decommissioning plan to include the items the Unified Zoning Ordinance (UZO) requires; staff recommended approval subject to conditions and recorded commitments, including recording the decommissioning plan.

Ryan C. Munden, counsel for Rainbow Trout, and representatives from developer GeneX and owner/operator RWE presented the project materials and technical studies (noise, glare, drainage, cultural resources and wetlands surveys, traffic and property-value analyses). The petitioner described: a 120 MW AC project in two sections with roughly 272,000 modules and 33 inverters; a proposed minimum 250-foot setback from non-participating residences in many locations (larger than the ordinance minimum in places); pollinator-friendly seed mixes beneath arrays; an operations building and a collector substation adjacent to an existing American Electric Power substation; and a 6-foot agricultural-style fence plus a 15-foot evergreen buffer along residences. The petitioner said battery energy storage is not part of the site plan on file.

Public comment and opposition: scope of concerns

Hundreds of residents attended and dozens spoke at length. Opponents included local landowners, farmers, agronomists, county and township officials, and a coalition of neighbors and agricultural organizations. Their arguments included that: the filing was incomplete under the UZO (opponents pointed to the applicant’s lack of an executed power‑purchase agreement (PPA) in the application and to stormwater and driveway permits not yet approved); the project would remove or impair prime AA-designated farmland and damage soil structure and drainage tiles; the decommissioning estimate and proposed surety were too low to guarantee restoration; property values near large utility solar projects would decline; the required buffer landscaping as proposed (4–6-foot evergreens on wide spacing) would not screen impacts for many years; assessments and mitigation for wetlands and for endangered or protected species were inadequate; construction and operation would create traffic, dust, lighting, noise and public‑safety risks (including firefighting challenges and concerns about lithium‑ion battery installations even if batteries were not currently included); and the project would set a precedent that encourages further large-scale conversions of agricultural land.

Proponent testimony and expert material

Supporters included participating landowners, local business and union representatives, students and faculty from Purdue University (including members of the Purdue Solar Racing team), economic-development and renewable-energy advocates, and the petitioner’s technical witnesses. Proponents cited: economic investment (petitioner described approximately $140 million of taxable investment and construction spending), limited long‑term traffic, native-pollinator plantings under panels, jobs during construction, and the view that the project would not permanently “pave over” land because arrays are removable and the land could be returned to agricultural use after decommissioning.

Board action and legal/procedural issues cited by opponents

Opponents repeatedly urged the board to find the application incomplete under the UZO because it lacked an executed PPA and because several listed items (driveway permits, final stormwater approvals) were not yet granted. Opponents cited prior Indiana cases in which courts reversed BZA approvals when mandatory application items were missing. Petitioners and APC staff disagreed over whether the ordinance’s items must be filed with the special‑exception packet or may instead be conditions satisfied after approval; petitioners said the UZO allows flexibility in what must be submitted pre‑approval and noted that the county’s surveyor and highway director had told petitioners those final permits normally follow, not precede, a special‑exception approval.

Vote and next steps

After hearing staff, the petitioner, dozens of supporters and opponents and extended board questioning, the Area Board of Zoning Appeals cast seven ballots: 3 yes, 4 no. The special exception (BZA 21‑99) was denied. Because the board denied the special exception, APC staff and the petitioner will need to determine next steps: either revise and refile a legally complete application (if permissible) or await any changes to county rules. The commissioners had imposed a moratorium on new large‑scale solar filings in June; that moratorium and any subsequent ordinance changes may affect whether and how the applicant may proceed.

Why it matters

The project was the largest special‑exception request the board has seen in recent memory and touched multiple policy axes: protection of prime farmland, local control of siting, stormwater and drainage impacts, public safety and fire response, decommissioning finance, and how a county balances renewable-energy goals with agricultural preservation. The board’s denial leaves the underlying policy questions—particularly whether the UZO should be amended to address megaprojects of this size—squarely with the county’s elected officials and planning staff.

What the decision does not do

The denial is a zoning decision about the special exception as filed; it does not prohibit developers or landowners from submitting revised applications that address the deficiencies the BZA and members of the public identified, nor does it adjudicate any pending or future appeals or administrative matters outside this special‑exception process.