Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bellefontaine council holds packed hearing on proposed solar zoning; residents urge bonding, oppose annexation
Summary
At a special hearing, city staff explained a Planning Commission recommendation to add Chapter 11.66 to the zoning code to regulate nonresidential solar as a conditional use in M-2 zones. Dozens of residents raised environmental, decommissioning and annexation concerns; council expects formal legislation on a future agenda.
A special hearing of the Bellefontaine City Council devoted to a Planning Commission recommendation on solar zoning drew more than two dozen public speakers on the city’s proposed Chapter 11.66, which would add rules for principal (nonresidential) solar projects.
City engineer and chief zoning officer Mister Bischoff told the hearing the current code contains no rules for principal solar. “Our current zoning code right now does not address anything whatsoever of principal solar,” he said, explaining the Planning Commission adapted regional model language to treat large solar as a conditional use limited to M-2 (manufacturing) zones and to add setbacks, screening, fencing and maximum land-coverage limits.
Why it matters: Residents framed the discussion less around tonight’s draft language and more around a pending annexation petition and a proposed Blue Jacket/Hudson Energy project that several speakers said would be built on farmland outside but near the city. Hundreds of acres, bonding for decommissioning, stormwater and wildlife impacts, and whether annexation would be used to bypass township restrictions dominated public remarks.
Several speakers urged strict financial guarantees. “What I would like to see in the zoning language would be to reflect that these providers be bonded so it does not damage our communities if they go out of business,” said Will Heinegg, who described professional experience designing solar and battery systems. Multiple commenters cited an EPA figure for removal costs — $175,000 per acre — and flagged an estimate of roughly $35 million to remove 200 acres as a potential liability if a project failed.
Opposition came from many residents who said industrial-scale solar would harm farmland, lower property values and disrupt waterways and wildlife. “Don’t sell out,” Samantha Decker said, asking council to consider the effect on future generations and nearby households. Several speakers asked whether annexation would change road maintenance responsibilities and whether the community would see the promised economic benefits.
Supporters urged the council to adopt zoning language proactively to provide predictable rules for future land use. “I think it’s important when we talk about responsible land use…to put measures around these future uses,” said Kyle West, who thanked the Planning Commission for preparing model text and said a clear ordinance could create a framework for future economic development.
Procedure and next steps: Law director Mister Scully told the audience that council and administration had received an annexation petition filed with county commissioners and that legislation based on the Planning Commission recommendation will appear on an upcoming council agenda. He noted the Ohio Revised Code’s ordinary requirement for three readings of an ordinance (council may waive by supermajority) and reminded residents that roll-call votes are public record.
The public-comment portion concluded with the chair saying the proposed ordinance will be on a future agenda; residents were encouraged to consult posted agendas and attend the next council meeting to speak during the legislative process.
