Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County planners draft tiered "alternative energy" ordinance, set public review
Summary
The Scott County Advisory Planning Commission reviewed a working draft that would classify energy projects into three tiers (small rooftop, medium commercial, large utility‑scale) and asked staff to refine setbacks, drainage, decommissioning and financial‑assurance rules before a public comment meeting and referral to commissioners.
Carla, a planning staff member, presented a working draft ordinance that would treat energy production in three tiers: small systems under 25 kilowatts for personal use that require no special approval; a medium commercial tier requiring special exceptions in agricultural and industrial zones; and a large utility‑scale tier ("solar farms") requiring special exceptions and additional review. The draft recommends minimum setbacks, a 20‑foot panel height limit for ground arrays, fencing with lockable gates for commercial projects, a glare analysis within 1,000 feet of roads or aviation facilities, and an engineer‑certified drainage plan for larger projects.
Commission members emphasized that the proposal aims “to enable development while protecting drainage, road infrastructure, farm productivity and neighboring property,” and said it would apply to unincorporated Scott County. The draft also calls for a decommissioning plan and financial assurance (bond or escrow) reviewed periodically and an abandonment clause that treats 12 months of non‑operation as abandonment, with notice and cure periods before enforcement.
Several residents and farmers raised concerns about converting productive farmland to large solar projects and the economic pressures on older landowners. Cody Chambers, a resident who said he farms several hundred acres, told the commission he worried about losing farmland and urged careful siting near substations and away from productive ground. Commissioners noted that utility‑scale projects are often sited near substations because of interconnection costs and that counties lack authority to ban energy investment outright if state law preempts local controls.
Members discussed model provisions from neighboring counties, including setback regimes and requirements for screening, native vegetation, and emergency access and responder coordination. The commission asked staff to refine the working draft (including clearer tier thresholds and which uses require special exceptions), circulate the updated text to commissioners and the public in advance, and place a revised ordinance on a future agenda for public comment and possible first/second‑reading style consideration.
The commission did not take formal action on an ordinance at the meeting but directed staff to produce an ordinance‑formatted draft for review by the board and the county commissioners. The draft will be distributed to the commission for comments before the next meeting, when the board expects to host a public comment opportunity and decide whether to forward a recommendation to the county commissioners.
