Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Development Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press solar developers on fence setbacks and laydown yards; on‑call engineering contract reviewed but not approved
Summary
Pulaski County commissioners and staff pressed solar developers over fence placement, laydown‑yard proximity and related construction impacts during a meeting in which residents reported fence lines and laydown yards inside required setbacks and county staff reviewed an on‑call engineering contract.
Pulaski County commissioners and staff pressed solar developers over fence placement, laydown‑yard proximity and related construction impacts during a lengthy discussion prompted by resident complaints about the Amethyst South project.
Residents and county officials said some temporary construction fencing and laydown‑yard activity sit well inside required setbacks and, in places, within a few dozen feet of nonparticipating homeowners. Commissioners and staff said they are seeking a firm legal interpretation of required setbacks and told the developer’s counsel to respond quickly; one commissioner said development should stop until questions are resolved.
A resident described measured distances: "the furthest distance between my property and the solar fence is 33 feet and the other 1 ... is 25 feet," a speaker told commissioners, adding she believes some black silt fencing may be on her property. Another resident said the company removed about 20 trees from a nonparticipating parcel and had not remedied that removal.
County staff reported a trail camera placed to monitor activity was damaged and replaced, and that the county is issuing violation notices and fees where warranted. Staff also said they continue to log and respond to dust complaints, and noted a recent gravel‑truck incident under investigation; no injuries were reported.
Separately, the board reviewed a draft on‑call engineering services contract proposed by BS (an engineering firm) that would allow the county to retain engineering services on an as‑needed basis. Commissioners asked for more time to review the contract, citing concerns that some language appeared heavily favorable to developers and that limited liability terms could leave the county with cleanup responsibilities; the board requested Jacob (county staff) to seek more neutral language from the firm’s attorney before the next meeting.
Staff explained the on‑call contract would normally be billed to solar companies for work directly associated with those projects but could also be used for other county needs at an hourly rate. Jacob and legal staff will follow up with the developer and the engineering firm; no approval or change in construction status was recorded during the meeting.
