Pulaski County advisory plan commission approves amended solar siting rules after public hearing

Pulaski County — The Pulaski County Advisory Plan Commission voted to approve amended text to the county's Unified Development Ordinance governing commercial solar and associated battery storage after a public hearing that drew scores of residents on safety, property-value and enforcement concerns.

The commission approved edits to section 2.3.r (application and permitting requirements) and section 7 (commercial solar energy systems), adopting new requirements for site layout plans, 9-1-1 signage at gates, restrictions on driveway placements, fencing and screening standards, decommissioning plans with financial assurances, and emergency-response coordination with the sheriff, fire department and emergency management officials.

Staff presented the draft and walked commissioners through dozens of additions and reorganized sections, including requirements that developers submit a comprehensive culvert-condition survey 90 days before any ground movement, provide training for emergency responders at the developer's expense at least six months before energy production and every two years thereafter, and update decommissioning plans every five years. The draft also adds explicit requirements for road-use agreements, maintenance and restoration obligations after construction, and stricter signage and underground-utility marking standards.

The commission debated how to treat commercial solar as a use (special exception vs permitted use) and settled on language enabling the Board of Zoning Appeals to impose conditions when appropriate. On setbacks and screening, the board discussed a stepped approach that would require up to a 1,000-foot screening buffer around habitable residential structures in some cases, with step-down distances (750 feet, 500 feet) proposed depending on how many sides a residence borders a project; nonparticipating owners could reduce setbacks to 150 feet with a recorded waiver.

Public comments were extensive. "Do not back down from them," said Sherry Fager of Monroe Township, urging the commission to keep strong protections and to include emergency-response planning and equipment in requirements. Connie Ehrlich told the commission she believed one litigation clause should be removed entirely, arguing that language could expose the county to risk if developers proceeded while litigation was pending. Commissioner Jenny Knievel — speaking as a county commissioner during the public-comment period — urged the APC to consider a ban or stricter limits, saying the county could lose control if utilities later assume ownership of projects: "I would ask as a commissioner that you consider a ban on all future commercial solar energy systems and battery energy storage." (Jenny Knievel, Pulaski County commissioner).

Several residents asked the APC to require higher wind-resistance ratings, stronger financial assurances for decommissioning, pre-project baseline studies (roads and aviation), and clearer enforcement tools such as escalating penalties or temporary halts to construction for persistent violations. Multiple speakers called for a countywide cap on acreage or an outright moratorium; staff said they would return with comparative material from other counties and with suggested legal language to support any chosen cap.

After discussion and a brief procedural vote to seek attorney review of one clause related to pending litigation, a member moved and the commission voted to approve the ordinance language as amended. The commission's chair then closed the public hearing. Members also supported staff's request to ask county commissioners for an additional six-month extension to the battery storage moratorium that had been partially negotiated earlier.

Next steps: the APC tentatively scheduled a follow-up meeting for April 8 at 5:00 p.m. to consider the moratorium and finalize any remaining clerical edits; staff will confirm publication deadlines for the public notice. The approved text and the record of public comments will be forwarded to the county commissioners for their review and any action under their authority.

What the commission did not decide: the commission voted language for special-exception conditions, setbacks, screening and reporting requirements but did not set a final acreage cap or adopt a county ban; commissioners and several public speakers said those larger policy choices remain for further study or for the county commissioners to decide.