LaPorte County Board hears hours-long case for 100‑MW Yellowstone Solar project; tables decision to July

LaPorte County’s Board of Zoning Appeals heard more than three hours of technical presentations and public comment on June 16 before voting to table the special‑exception petition for the Yellowstone Solar project until the board’s July meeting.

Counsel Christopher Willoughby and project representatives said the Yellowstone Solar proposal seeks approval to install roughly 300 acres of solar panels within an approximately 600‑acre permitted boundary in Johnson Township. Parker Sloan, identified as director of government affairs for Houser Solar, described the project as a fixed‑tilt, 100‑megawatt facility that could serve about 13,000 homes, and said the developer submitted site plans, glare and sound studies, drainage and decommissioning plans, and a property‑value analysis to show compliance with the LaPorte County Joint Zoning Ordinance and the county solar ordinance (Article 14, §1415). Willoughby told the board the petition “checks the boxes” required by the special‑exception standards and asked the board to find the project consistent with county zoning.

The presentation called for a compact footprint: the team said about 300 acres would be under panels within a roughly 600‑acre parcel set, and that the proposal intentionally avoids wetlands, minimizes tree removal, and includes landscaping and 500‑foot self‑imposed setbacks from neighboring homes in many locations. Engineers and consultants on the dais described construction practices intended to limit grading, preserve topsoil, install pollinator seed mixes and buffer plantings (the team cited planting plans that include 1,382 mature trees, 3,878 shrubs and roughly 1.27 acres of pollinator seed mix), and asserted the project would post a decommissioning bond and submit to five‑year revalidation of removal estimates.

Developers also presented an economic impact study that estimated roughly $24.5 million in cumulative local tax revenue over 35 years (in 2026 dollars), $6.1 million in local union wages and benefits, and a small number of long‑term operations jobs (the team cited two direct local operations roles) plus dozens of construction‑period positions. Appraiser Rich Kirkland presented a sale‑resale and matched‑pair analysis concluding the team’s review did not show a measurable negative impact on nearby property values given the proposed setbacks and screening.

Public comment that followed split between supporters who highlighted additional tax revenue, union construction jobs, and landowner rights, and opponents who raised safety and environmental concerns. Concerns included vulnerability to tornadoes and hail, disposal or recycling of damaged panels after severe weather, emergency‑response capacity for large grass or brush fires, and whether insurance and long‑term recycling markets are sufficient. Remonstrators also questioned whether the project is compatible with nearby wetland and floodplain areas near the Kankakee River, voiced anxiety about eminent‑domain language raised in private letters, and requested additional documentation on interconnection and road‑use agreements. Steve Alliefield (who identified himself as LaPorte County President of the Commission and longtime farmer) urged the board to postpone action and inspect storm damage elsewhere. Opponents repeatedly requested tabling so the public and departments could review newly submitted materials.

Developers responded point‑by‑point: they noted there is no battery storage proposed, said panels are fixed low to the ground and rated for high wind, described prior emergency training conducted with Hamlet Fire Department, and said they will fund road repairs and provide a financial assurance (decommissioning bond) before construction. They also said the project avoids wetlands, that the United States Army Corps of Engineers review will be sought as needed, and that the firm has committed to using union construction labor.

After question‑and‑answer with board members and county staff on decibel levels (the sound study shows estimated contours in the submitted report), drainage, insurance, and recycling/disposal practices, a motion to table the petition until the July meeting passed. The board instructed county staff to make the supplemental materials available to members and members of the public; the building department said a large binder of materials will be held as public record and digitized for the county website.

The board’s action pauses the special exception rather than denying it; applicants said additional county approvals — including a road‑use agreement and a final improvement‑location permit — would still be required before construction. The petition is scheduled to return on the board’s July 21 agenda.