Delaware Muncie MPC backs revised solar ordinance, sends recommendation to county commissioners 8-1

The Delaware Muncie Metropolitan Plan Commission voted 8–1 on a recommendation to send a rewritten solar ordinance and a new battery energy storage section to the Delaware County commissioners, the commission president announced after a roll call vote on the evening's final motion.

The recommendation asks commissioners to replace Article 31, Section 13 of the county Unified Development Ordinance with a new commercial-scale solar ordinance and to add Article 31, Section 14 to cover commercial battery energy storage systems. The commission also approved a package of edits and clarifications prepared by staff before forwarding the document.

Why it matters: The plan commission's vote is advisory; the county commissioners make the final decision. The ordinance rewrite and the added battery-storage rules would set local standards on setbacks, buffers, decommissioning, surety bonds, notice and special‑use procedures, and operational requirements that developers and landowners say will determine whether several proposed projects — some already under contract with local farmers — can proceed in Delaware County.

The commission hearing drew several hours of public comment from developers, farmers, residents, union representatives and two attorneys who spoke for competing sides.

Developer and industry supporters said the county should adopt a workable ordinance to keep projects viable and preserve farmland ownership, and they urged changes that reduce what they called unnecessary cost drivers. "The ordinance places unreasonable restrictions on this industry," Mara Hoff, a partner at the law firm Defer Veran representing Geronimo Power, told commissioners, citing requested changes that include reducing residential setbacks to 250 feet, expanding flexibility for neighbor waivers, and removing a universal property-value guarantee and certain bond requirements.

Invenergy, a separate developer working on a local project, urged removal of the property-value guarantee on enforceability grounds. "We question the enforceability of an ordinance requiring two private parties to enter into a private agreement," senior associate David Clifford said, adding that the draft ordinance already includes decommissioning, landscape and topsoil protection, and safety plans that address many neighbor concerns.

Opponents said the draft ordinance as proposed by county commissioners (and the version the plan commission was asked to review) did not adequately protect farmland, homes, water or property values. Loreen (Lauren) White, an attorney representing a group called Delaware County Concerned Citizens, asked the commission to adopt stronger limits on how much prime farmland can be converted, to require economic development agreements and to keep a property-value protection mechanism in the ordinance. "Maintaining and enhancing the viability of farming as an economic activity is what getting the basics right for rural Delaware County," White said, reading from the county comprehensive plan and accompanying materials.

Residents detailed concerns about noise, drainage, wildlife, battery‑storage fire risk and long-term decommissioning. Several speakers requested the ordinance retain a 500-foot setback from nonparticipating dwellings; others, including farming landowners with existing lease contracts, urged 250-foot or even 50-foot setbacks consistent with earlier task‑force recommendations and state guidance. Testimony included project-specific figures supplied by developers: Geronimo told the commission its Royerton project would be a 140-megawatt installation and represented a potential $274,000,000 private investment and, the company said, roughly $700,000 in direct community contributions over 20 years through a charitable fund negotiated in an economic development agreement.

The commission considered and voted on a staff list of technical and procedural edits before taking the final recommendation vote. Those edits (adopted earlier in the meeting) included removing residential roof‑and‑ground solar language from the commercial ordinance, clarifying which county office handles certain notices and documents, specifying the use of county GIS and appraiser standards, and directing that protections for federally recognized protected areas follow federal guidance rather than a fixed local setback distance. Commissioners also agreed to language allowing the 500‑foot setbacks the draft contained to be reduced by agreement: the ordinance text approved by the commission permits setbacks in items 2 and 3 to be reduced by up to 80 percent with a written waiver provided by the plan commission office (DMNPC) and executed by the affected property owners.

The commission took additional procedural actions during debate: it asked staff to prepare a standardized written waiver form for any setback reductions and accepted edits to make the battery‑storage section consistent with county zoning terminology. Commissioners also voted to retain decommissioning, restoration and surety bond provisions in the ordinance language presented as a way to assure removal and site restoration at the end of a project's life.

What the vote means now: The commission's favorable recommendation (8 votes in favor, 1 opposed) sends the amended draft to the county commissioners for final action. The plan commission president reminded the public that the county commissioners will take the ultimate vote; staff said the ordinance could go on the commissioners' agenda as early as their August 18 meeting, or if timing requires, the September 2 meeting.

The meeting record shows sustained public engagement: proponents argued the ordinance should keep Delaware County competitive for renewable energy investment and union construction jobs, while opponents asked for stronger local protections on farmland preservation, public safety, and property‑value remedies.

The plan commission provided no final rulings on any pending permits or projects; it moved only to recommend adoption of the revised ordinance language and battery‑storage rules to the county commissioners. The county commissioners will now review, may amend further, and then decide whether to adopt the ordinance into the county Unified Development Ordinance.