Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses staff to add notice, lighting and setback language to draft solar ordinance
Summary
After public comment raising property-value and setback concerns, the Planning Commission directed staff to draft additions to a proposed ordinance for non-accessory solar energy systems — including a 3-mile notification radius, downward lighting, and a scalable setback (15 feet per acre with a 750-foot minimum) — and to return next month for review before sending to the county commission.
The Lincoln County Planning Commission continued a multi-month discussion about how to regulate non-accessory solar energy systems, directing staff to draft specific language on public notice, lighting and setbacks and to bring the draft back next month for review.
Tony Brown, county planning staff, said the draft would convert non-accessory solar (those that sell to the grid) from a largely unregulated status into a use requiring a conditional-use permit, and that staff had added proposed signage and noise requirements modeled in part on the county’s wind-energy conditional-use standards. "So staff did do that," Brown said of adding signage and noise language to the draft.
Public commenters told the commission to widen notice and setback requirements. Resident Sarah Steven cited a large Virginia Tech analysis and told the commission that homeowners within half a mile could see a 7–8% decline in property value adjacent to solar farms; she urged notice to a three-mile radius and larger setbacks. "What they determined was if you're within a half a mile the drop in your residence value is probably 7 to 8%," Steven said, arguing for broader neighbor notification and districting instead of allowing solar in A-1 agricultural zoning by default.
Other residents asked for downward-directed lighting to reduce glare, larger setback distances tied to project size, and clearer decommissioning and bonding requirements. Commissioners discussed both keeping non-accessory solar in the county’s A-1 district and allowing commercial or industrial siting (roofs, parking lots, near rail corridors), and debated whether cost or siting would make limiting to A-1 impractical.
After debate, commissioners expressed preliminary consensus to add the following items to the draft before sending it on for further review: (1) a 3-mile neighbor-notification radius, (2) an explicit downward-lighting requirement, and (3) a setback approach starting at 750 feet minimum with an increase scaled by project acreage (staff noted 15 feet per acre as a starting point for discussion). Tony Brown recommended the commission allow staff time to draft the precise ordinance language and return next month for review so the words on the page reflect the board’s intent.
The commission did not vote to adopt the ordinance at this meeting; instead members directed staff to prepare a revised draft and said they expected further public input at a future remand or public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners.
