Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar Wind Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge pause and legal review on solar and wind projects; allege procedural problems in zoning appeals
Summary
Multiple speakers during public comment criticized county handling of solar and wind projects, urged a moratorium on new economic‑development agreements, and requested review of zoning appeals processes and planning department actions. Speakers cited constitutional and case law and asked the commission to investigate.
Several residents used the public‑comment period to press the Board of Commissioners for a halt or closer review of wind and solar project approvals and related county actions.
Speakers raised procedural concerns about a recent zoning hearing and appealed a decision of the planning director. One commenter said the Board promised not to enter economic development agreements (EDAs) or sign documents for wind or solar projects until a new ordinance was completed; that promise, the speaker said, was broken. Another resident asked that Daniel Schrader be recognized as president and representative of the local citizens’ association and asked that Anne Owen be removed from her position as planning and zoning executive director, alleging problems with agenda preparation and access to public documents.
Several speakers said the planning and zoning appeals process is costly and opaque. One speaker requested that the commissioners review a hearing that, the speaker said, was not recorded and in which petitioners and public participation were limited. Speakers urged a moratorium on new projects until the final ordinance and legal review are complete, and asked county officials to ensure public notice and access to records for appeals and special exceptions.
During public comment some speakers delivered a written “notice and demand” that accused county officials of using public funds for non‑public purposes and cited the Indiana Constitution (Article I) and other state constitutional cases and opinions. The speaker requested responses under penalty of perjury within five days and said the matter could be pursued in arbitration or court if the county did not comply. Another speaker cited a North Dakota constitutional provision and out‑of‑state case law to argue that “economic development” does not constitute a public purpose for using tax dollars.
Speakers also raised operational concerns about public notice and livestreaming of hearings, access to minutes and recordings, and whether administrative hearings were treated as judicial processes for purposes of due process.
What happens next: speakers asked the commissioners to investigate the planning and zoning hearing record, consider a moratorium on new economic development agreements with wind and solar developers until ordinances and legal reviews are complete, and to provide clearer public records and recorded hearings. The transcript records the requests and allegations but does not show formal commissioner action or votes on those requests during the meeting.
