Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Solar Wind topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission declines to add proposed solar/wind rezoning to tonight’s agenda after debate over process
Summary
A motion to suspend rules so the commission could add a resolution moving solar and wind systems from A‑1 to I‑2 zoning failed after commissioners said they had not seen the draft and raised process concerns.
A commissioner moved to suspend the rules and add a resolution aiming to move solar and wind systems out of A‑1 agricultural zoning into I‑2 industrial zoning; the commission voted not to add the item tonight after a contentious exchange about process and legal costs.
The motion to suspend the rules was introduced by a commissioner who provided copies of the draft and said the change “does not affect accessory uses.” The commission chair objected, saying the county commission had not authorized or funded drafting the resolution and that commissioners should be consulted as the document is developed. The chair said commissioners should “know what is going on when someone is wanting to write a resolution” and offered to defer the item to January to ensure broad input.
Opponents said they would not vote to add an item they had not seen. One commissioner said she would vote no because she had not reviewed the resolution in advance and noted the planning commission had just formed a working group to consider zoning revisions in agricultural areas. The mover emphasized the intent was only to initiate review, not to approve a zoning change, telling the board “the purpose of initiating…is initiating this resolution.”
The motion to suspend the rules to add the zoning resolution failed on the roll call. Following that vote the commission proceeded with the published agenda and consent items.
The exchange highlighted procedural disagreements about whether zoning‑related resolutions should originate in regional planning bodies or be initiated directly by the county commission. Supporters argued that regional planning and city bodies can only recommend changes and that the county commission is the final approver; opponents said broader input and coordination with staff, CTAS and counsel should precede drafting to avoid duplicate effort and unplanned legal costs.
The chair said the item may be placed on the January agenda so the full commission can review a draft and provide input before any formal action.
