Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Area Plan Commission recommends approval of draft solar ordinance after extended public hearing
Summary
After more than two hours of testimony and amendments, the Tippecanoe County Area Plan Commission voted 13–3 on April 15 to recommend UZO Amendment #126, which revises the county's large-scale solar standards, including setback changes, glare limits and substation setbacks. The ordinance moves on to local legislative bodies for final action.
The Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County on April 15 recommended approval of UZO Amendment #126, a comprehensive revision of the county's solar energy standards, after an extended public hearing and multiple amendments. The recommendation passed by a 13–3 vote and the draft ordinance will be forwarded to local legislative bodies for final action.
The ordinance update stems from a June 2025 county moratorium on large-scale solar while officials convened a Solar Study Committee that met from September 2025 through February 2026. Ryan O'Gara, APC staff, said the committee produced recommendations with and without full consensus; staff presented a draft ordinance for APC review and recommended approval.
Commissioners made several substantive changes during the hearing. The commission voted unanimously to expand the radius used to identify "non-participating" property owners from 200 feet to 500 feet, a change staff said aligns the definition with the minimum setbacks in the draft. Members also required provider/surety bonds to be FDIC-insured and authorized to do business in Indiana and reordered editorial paragraphs for clarity.
On technical and safety measures, the APC adopted several motions the public pressed for and some limits favored by staff. The commission approved language requiring a Generator Interconnection Agreement (GIA) and a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or equivalent contract for large-scale SES projects at the Improvement Location Permit stage in place of requiring both at the special exception stage. Tom Murtaugh moved the change, which passed by unanimous voice vote.
The commission addressed glare by amending the ordinance to require that "The SES shall produce zero (0) minutes of predicted glare per year on any non-participating property or public right-of-way." APC members also adopted a clarified definition of "project boundary" that explicitly counts acreage within the project's fenced footprint, support components (parking, substations, meteorological towers), and bufferyards while excluding public rights-of-way intersecting the project.
Substation setbacks drew extended discussion. After technical explanations and a read-back of a federal-style substation definition by Attorney Eric Burns, the APC approved a graduated setback formula for substations measured from non-participating property lines: 1,000 feet for one non-participating property line, 1,400 feet for two, 2,000 feet for three and 3,000 feet for four. The ordinance as amended excludes battery energy storage systems (BESS) from the current update; Tracy Brown clarified that BESS would be addressed in a later ordinance.
Many residents and stakeholders testified. Gwen Feemster urged separating transformers and inverters and proposed a 2,500-foot setback for substations unless waived; she also asked for restricted construction hours to reduce noise. Liz Solberg cited a Ball State University study she said showed counties that restrict solar development lose hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity and thousands of jobs, and she warned that acreage and setback limits could hinder local economic benefits. Jane Frankenberger, a Solar Study Committee member, said some provisions intended to protect the environment were negated by extreme size and setback limitations and stated her dissent for the record. Katherine Sobieralski, presenting a handout of proposed language, pushed for timing changes on GIA/PPA submissions and for stronger localized protections in power purchase agreement language.
Commission staff said the ordinance process would also include checkpoint reviews involving Tippecanoe County Emergency Management and local fire departments during the pre-submission phase, allowing those agencies to address emergency-response and other site-specific concerns without embedding operational details in the ordinance. "Rather than include specific language into the ordinance, the checkpoint agencies could address each project as needed," Nathan McBurnett said.
A motion to add specific day/night noise limits for non-participating property lines (proposed at 55 dB daytime and 45 dB nighttime) was proposed and later withdrawn.
After chair and staff remarks acknowledging extensive public input and technical analyses submitted by stakeholders, the APC moved to a yellow-ballot vote and recorded a 13–3 recommendation to approve UZO Amendment #126. The draft ordinance will carry forward to local legislative bodies for final consideration and possible further amendment.
What happens next: the ordinance will be forwarded to the county and affected municipal legislative bodies for their review and final decisions. The APC’s recommendation does not itself change zoning; final approval must still be adopted by the appropriate legislative councils.
