Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plan commission continues debate on commercial solar: NDAs, eminent-domain risk, bonds and road impacts
Summary
Commissioners and public commenters continued an extensive discussion about commercial solar projects, including concerns about nondisclosure clauses in leases, the risk that facilities could be sold to utilities (potentially enabling eminent-domain), requirements for bonds and road-repair funding, and a proposal to treat commercial solar as non‑permitted in agricultural zones with a variance path.
The Washington County Plan Commission continued a multi-part discussion about commercial solar projects, focusing on contract transparency, legal risk, and site-management requirements.
Lucy, a participant who has compiled materials on local solar proposals, briefed commissioners on contracts and cases elsewhere in Indiana. "So, we're starting off with a lack of transparency," she said, summarizing research that, she said, shows some commercial leases include non-disclosure clauses and provisions that permit the leaseholder or developer to sell the facility to another entity. Lucy warned that sale to a public utility could expose landowners to eminent-domain risk if ownership changes.
Lucy proposed a simple county resolution designating commercial solar as a nonpermitted use in agricultural zones so any commercial project would need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and a full public notice process. She said that, in her view, the BZA route preserves public notice and limits county litigation risk because it creates a documented administrative record.
Commissioners discussed precedents and litigation in other counties, including large project acreages proposed elsewhere. Members also noted examples where agriculture can continue under panels — grazing sheep or pollinator habitat — but raised unanswered questions about long-term contamination and groundwater risks in karst terrain. One commissioner asked whether the county had evidence of soil contamination from panel materials; no such evidence was presented on the record.
The commission also debated mitigation measures: mandatory road-repair bonds and decommissioning funds, periodic reassessment of bonding levels, and filing of maintenance agreements to cover abandonment or bankruptcy scenarios. Commissioners cited reported road-damage suits in other counties and said any local ordinance should include bonding and warranties to protect county infrastructure.
Max, a member of the public, urged staff and commissioners to ensure ordinance language and public notices comply precisely with state statute (citing 5-14-9-6) and to include required technical details such as grades and curves so decisions are legally defensible.
No final policy was adopted; the commission distributed model ordinances for review and asked staff to draft options for bonding, decommissioning and a proposed resolution for commissioners to consider at a future meeting.
