APC stalls countywide rezoning of prime farmland after outreach, solar concerns

The Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission’s Ordinance and Bylaw Committee on May 7, 2025, moved to delay final action on a staff proposal to rezone dozens of parcels in Wabash and Tippecanoe townships to Select Agricultural (AA), voting to continue discussion for about 90 days and direct staff to refine outreach.

The committee’s pause followed an extended staff presentation and about two hours of public comment. Amanda (staff planner) told the committee that staff mailed 159 letters covering 353 parcel ID numbers about the proposed rezoning and removed properties from the proposal if owners asked: “We received approximately 10 phone calls or emails from property owners since that notices were mailed. 2 of them were in support of the rezone, and 8 of them were against and wanted their properties removed from this rezone,” Amanda said. She described AA as intended to “provide areas identified within the adopted comprehensive plan as having either highest or a combination of high and highest potential for agricultural use,” and said the proposal excluded small (6-acre or smaller) nonfarmed parcels.

Why it matters: staff told the committee the rezoning is intended to align zoning with the Wabash–Tippecanoe township land-use plan, preserving productive soils and limiting future subdivision. Several residents argued the notice and opt-out process was unclear and requested more time or a different outreach method. Others supported the rezoning as a way to protect contiguous farmland and farm-support services.

Public speakers and concerns: dozens of residents and landowners addressed the committee. Several said they had not received usable contact information in the mailed notice and were surprised to learn of the proposal; others described farming and family plans that led them to request removal. Kelly Bush said neighbors did not realize the rezone was being advanced at this time and urged more outreach. Steve Kirko said the mailed notice lacked phone numbers and that he came to the meeting to get details. By contrast, Otto Doering and other producers urged protections for contiguous prime farmland and described benefits to keeping large farm blocks intact.

Utility-scale solar emerged as a crosscutting concern. Joe Sobrowski, representing a citizens’ group opposing a proposed solar project, said the county’s solar rules predate the recent expansion of large utility projects and urged the APC to review the standards before more approvals are issued: “I love this plan ... I am a bit concerned and confused at how utility scale solar farms that are basically power plants ... are allowed by special exception on double A land,” he said. Staff and other committee members noted that large solar projects currently require special-exception review by the Board of Zoning Appeals and are treated similarly to other public-utility infrastructure, but speakers urged a fuller ordinance review and, for some, a temporary pause on approvals.

Committee action and next steps: after public comment and internal discussion the committee voted to continue the matter for approximately 90 days so staff and commissioners could evaluate outreach options and consider whether additional ordinance changes or clarifications are necessary. The committee chair explained the item will remain on upcoming agendas for discussion but that no final rezoning votes would occur in the near term. Staff was directed to accept opt-outs from owners who contact the office and to return with a proposed outreach plan and any suggested ordinance clarifications (including whether a different opt-in/opt-out approach or additional mailings should be used).

What’s next: staff said the item will be discussed again in the ordinance committee in the coming month and could return to the APC for formal consideration in August. Property owners who wish to remove parcels from the proposed rezoning were told to contact the APC staff; Amanda noted staff has already removed parcels from the proposal at owners’ requests.

The hearing included representatives of affected townships and city staff; Dennis Carson, Lafayette economic development director, confirmed he had contacted affected property owners in Lafayette’s portion of the draft area and that the owners he reached were comfortable with the proposed boundary adjustments.

Ending: By delaying action, the committee signaled an intent to balance the comprehensive-plan goal of protecting prime farmland with the desire that affected owners receive clearer notice and an opportunity for informed comment. The committee asked staff to return with an outreach plan and ordinance clarifications before a final vote.