Commissioners remove solar zoning item from agenda citing state law; public voices split on proposed solar setbacks and property-value guarantee

At the start of the July 15 meeting the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners amended its agenda to remove ordinance 47-25, a zoning item related to a proposed solar ordinance and property-value provisions. The chair explained that County ordinance 154.599 subsection a(6) and Indiana Code section 36-2-4-8(e) limit the Board of Commissioners’ authority over zoning amendments, which are handled by the County Council and the Area Plan Commission.

After the agenda amendment — which passed on an audible roll call — multiple members of the public spoke on solar policy and a proposed property-value guarantee tied to solar farms (the ordinance had been considered by the Council and was subsequently removed from the commissioners’ agenda). Speakers opposed the commission deciding the zoning item and argued the matter belongs to the Area Plan Commission; others urged the commissioners to weigh in.

Tom Roe and Steve Francis both raised procedural and substantive concerns. Steve Francis, who said he reviewed a legal analysis that morning, argued a property-value guarantee is “not a zoning decision” but a private promise from a developer, and that legal disagreement among attorneys made the process contentious. Chuck Bueter, speaking for solar industry concerns, said the proposed ordinance “is capricious in singling up solar energy systems” and that imposing unique, large setbacks and costs on solar “will decimate jobs.” Bueter noted data centers have smaller setbacks and said the solar industry was being asked to shoulder disproportionate restrictions.

Residents and other commenters favored strong setbacks and protection for property owners. Cynthia Heckman and Charlotte Wolf urged commissioners to consider economic impacts and to allow the Area Plan Commission process to run, while Charlotte Wolf suggested broader proactive setback planning for heavy industry.

The board president said the matter would proceed through the Area Plan Commission; for decisions at that level, an Area Plan denial would return the question to the County Council, while approval would typically allow the project to proceed. Commissioners encouraged public attendance at the Area Plan Commission’s August 19 meeting for further comment.

Clarifying procedural detail: the reason for removing 47-25 from the commissioners’ agenda was framed as a jurisdictional issue under county ordinance 154.599 a(6) and Indiana Code 36-2-4-8(e). Several speakers urged the county to reconvene discussion in the Area Plan Commission rather than treat it as a commissioners’ zoning determination. The board did not take a final vote on a solar ordinance at the July 15 meeting because 47-25 was removed from the agenda; public comment on solar matters occurred during the general public-comment period.