Lincoln County hears sustained public input on building-eligibility transfers and draft solar ordinance; staff to redraft rules
Loading...
Summary
After hours of public testimony, the Lincoln County Planning Commission asked staff to draft changes to building-eligibility transfer rules and a non-accessory solar ordinance that would address setbacks, notification, decommissioning and battery/fire planning; commissioners agreed to return the drafts next month for more public input.
Lincoln County planning staff presented two draft items — revisions to the county’s building-eligibility transfer policy and a proposed land-use framework for non-accessory (utility-scale) solar energy — and solicited public comment and commissioner feedback. Staff emphasized the drafts are preliminary and that conditional-use review would remain the vehicle for individual project scrutiny.
On building-eligibility transfers, staff described a proposal to remove the contiguity requirement tied to common ownership and to require a one-acre receiving parcel in some cases, while using conditional-use permits to review multiple transfers. Members of the public raised concerns that the change could allow landowners to consolidate many eligibilities near population centers, alter land values, and create long-term ‘dead zones’ in less-populated townships. Michael Poppins and Scott Montgomery said consolidation could harm future generations’ ability to live in certain areas, and urged stronger guardrails like requiring adjacent parcels or limiting the number transferrable at once.
On the draft solar ordinance, staff proposed creating a specific conditional-use category in the A1 Agricultural District for non-accessory solar that would automatically trigger a public hearing and an ability to attach site-specific conditions. Public commenters urged stronger protections and specific standards: Sarah Stever read a statement asking for larger setbacks and the chair read a statement from Andrew Nielsen urging a 1,000-foot setback; Beth Coyle and others cited environmental and health concerns, noise and glare, battery-storage fire risk and end-of-life disposal. One commenter referenced a Virginia Tech study about property-value effects near solar farms.
Commissioners and staff discussed technical details including whether to treat projects differently by size or megawatt output, the role of grid interconnection and substations, requirements for decommissioning bonds or deposits, notification radii for neighbors, glare and sound limits, and the difference between ‘straight-to-grid’ solar farms and ‘solar-plus’ projects with on-site battery storage. Toby Robinson said staff would draft ordinance language that incorporated tonight’s public input for commissioners to review next month.
No final vote was taken on either draft. Commissioners moved to continue discussion and public comment next month and directed staff to draft specific language on setbacks, decommissioning, notification, battery/fire planning and potential size-based thresholds for review.
What’s next: Planning staff will prepare redrafted ordinance language and recommended metrics (setbacks, decommissioning expectations, notification radius and size thresholds) and present them at the commission’s next meeting for further public comment.
