Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
York County Planning Commission sends proposed solar rules back to county commissioners after public concern
Loading...
Summary
The York County Planning Commission voted to return draft solar regulations to the county commissioners for further work after public commenters raised concerns about setbacks, battery storage, decommissioning and tax treatment for large solar projects including K Junction Solar.
The York County Planning Commission voted to send its recommended solar regulations back to the York County Commissioners for further review after public comments raised concerns about industrial-scale solar siting, battery storage and decommissioning.
The decision came after residents urged stricter setbacks and clearer rules for batteries and inverters at what they called industrial solar sites. "The York County Planning Commission must seriously consider the negative impact solar brings to our environment resources, local businesses, communities, long term economic growth, and wildlife," said Dana Jackson, a York County resident, during the public comment period. Jackson also said residents "want a strong decommissioning plan in place" and asked, "Who owns K Junction Solar?"
A second public commenter, Jean Jackson of Hays Township, told the commission the draft regulations do not address industrial-sized batteries or inverters and cited recent state-level activity. "In all of the regulations that have been presented, the setbacks, I see nothing about industrial sized batteries or inverters," Jean Jackson said, and referenced a recent bill, LB503, and a proposed constitutional amendment, LR22CA, that she said could affect local control.
Commission members discussed gaps in the draft, particularly around battery-storage standards and legal vulnerability. One commissioner said the public's primary concern was setbacks and that the panel had included setbacks they were comfortable with, but acknowledged batteries and inverters were not well addressed. Another commissioner said the consultant, Marvin and Associates, had more experience with smaller-scale projects than with "industrial size" solar and urged the county commissioners to examine the battery-storage issue further.
During the meeting a commissioner moved "to send them back the recommendation that we got now," and an unidentified commissioner seconded. The motion passed on a roll call: Commissioner Purdue — yes; Commissioner Hynan — yes; Commissioner Givar — yes. Commissioner Chad Herschel was recorded as not present.
Meeting participants asked the county commissioners to consider stronger setbacks, explicit rules for the footprint of solar panels, inverters and batteries, and guaranteed decommissioning funding in case ownership changes. Commenters and commissioners also noted concerns that some solar project ownerships are organized as out-of-state LLCs and that Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) entities may not pay local property taxes as private owners would; both subjects were raised by public commenters.
Commissioners asked staff to request further updates from Marvin and Associates and to have the consultant available for the next meeting. The commission tentatively scheduled its next meeting for March 17 and discussed distributing a survey to gather more local input before planting season.
Votes at a glance: The commission approved a motion to forward the draft regulations back to the York County Commissioners for further consideration (motion text recorded as "send them back the recommendation that we got now"); vote: 3 yes, 0 no, 1 absent. The motion was seconded and carried.
