Jefferson County hears public objections to proposed solar and battery UDO rules; commission narrows technical requirements but delays final recommendation

At a public hearing on proposed revisions to Jefferson County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) governing large-scale solar energy systems and battery storage, residents, landowners and developer representatives delivered more than two hours of testimony about setbacks, caps on farmland conversion, decommissioning and potential effects on property values.

The hearing drew speakers on both sides of the issue. Several residents urged stricter limits and protections for agricultural land, asking the commission to adopt a countywide cap of 2 percent of prime farmland and larger setbacks for nonparticipating residences. Attorneys and landowners supporting solar argued that Indiana law promotes and protects solar development and that the draft ordinance should avoid measures that would effectively bar projects.

Why it matters: the UDO changes under consideration would establish where utility-scale solar and associated battery storage can be sited in Jefferson County, how much farmland may be converted, what buffers and screening are required, and what restoration and bonding rules apply after projects end. Those choices determine whether and how projects proceed, affect farm operations and shape property owners’ financial exposure.

Public testimony and key claims - Multiple speakers said the draft would allow too much farmland conversion under the proposed 4,000-acre cap expressed in the draft materials and asked the commission to limit conversion to 2 percent of prime farmland countywide. One speaker described farmland as “the land that feeds” and urged protections for future generations. - Several residents asked the commission to increase the proposed 500-foot setback for nonparticipating dwellings, churches, schools and cemeteries to 1,000 feet. A number of commenters linked setbacks to noise, safety and property-value concerns. - Concern about decommissioning and soil impacts was frequent. Commenters cited reports and examples they said show heavy soil disturbance and difficult restoration after solar removal and asked for strict testing and bonding. One attendee requested that the county adopt a property-value guarantee or buyout for nearby owners; others pointed to language in commercial leases that, they said, acknowledged potential nuisance impacts. - Attorneys representing solar-interested landowners argued the draft contains overly burdensome requirements that could “unreasonably restrict the use of solar energy systems,” citing Indiana Code 36-7-2-8 and related law. Chelsea Stanley, speaking for landowners, summarized that state law “is clear in its intent … to promote and encourage the use of solar energy systems and to remove obstacles to their use.” - On testing frequency, one commenter recommended against per-acre soil sampling as written in the draft and said the closest guidance found was Michigan’s suggestion of “tests every 10 to 15 acres.” Amanda Hoffman said, “We would support tests every 10 to 15 acres to create a baseline for the project and require subsequent tests if there are ever incidents.”

What the planning commission changed or clarified during the meeting - Material safety data sheets: The commission adopted an amendment requiring applicants to include material safety data sheets (MSDS) for panels as part of the development application so reviewers can evaluate panel materials during application review. - Decommissioning/site restoration language: The commission removed a proposed soil compaction test from the ordinance text and retained soil fertility testing as the baseline for restoration. Commissioners discussed allowing standard agricultural deep tillage (roughly 10–14 inches) as an appropriate remedial measure in many situations. The commission also approved language clarifying that the project owner/applicant is primarily responsible for decommissioning, that the county’s bond would be used only if the applicant fails to perform, and that only if the bond proves insufficient could additional costs fall to the property owner. The approved language permits the county to consider a property owner’s petition for variance from strict site-restoration requirements when the owner intends a permitted future use other than returning to prior crop production.

Commission action and next steps - The commission voted to give a favorable recommendation on a separate, low-controversy “barrel house” ordinance amendment (roll-call affirmative votes recorded by the commission at the meeting). - The MSDS requirement and the decommissioning/variance clarifications were adopted by motions during the planning commission meeting. - A separate motion to increase the nonparticipating setback from the draft 500 feet to 1,000 feet (for existing single-family dwellings and certain ag/residential contexts) did not receive the number of votes required to pass; the chair announced it “failed” for lack of the necessary five votes. - A motion to forward the UDO as amended with a favorable recommendation to the county commissioners failed to carry. The commission ultimately voted to table further action on the UDO amendments to the next planning-commission meeting for additional review.

What the record shows (limits and open questions) - The public record at the hearing includes competing positions: residents and local groups seeking tighter limits on commercial solar in agricultural zones, and developers/landowners arguing the draft should comply with state policy encouraging solar and avoid measures that would effectively prohibit projects. The transcript contains citations to Indiana Code 36-7-2-8 and to planning-factor statutes referenced to guide Commission consideration. - Several requested numeric changes were not adopted at this meeting (for example, the countywide 2 percent cap and an across-the-board 1,000-foot setback). The commission did not adopt a final, comprehensive recommendation to the county commissioners; the issue is being continued to the next meeting for further consideration and potential amendment.

Ending: The commission closed the public hearing portion after extensive testimony and proceeded to work through technical and procedural amendments. Because the commission tabled a final recommendation to the county commissioners, additional hearings or a future vote are expected; the county’s formal adoption process would follow any recommendation forwarded by the planning commission.