Hugo planning commissioners decline to recommend citywide ban on solar farms, ask for joint workshop

The Hugo Planning Commission voted July 11 to recommend denying a staff-drafted text amendment that would have prohibited solar farms across the city and asked the City Council for a joint workshop to pursue ordinance revisions instead.

Staff opened the public hearing by outlining the city’s existing solar energy systems ordinance (adopted in 2016), the distinction between accessory rooftop or on-site systems and larger solar farms that distribute power off-site, and the ordinance-review history including a prior moratorium and ORC-recommended changes such as increased setbacks and a 5-acre array-size cap. Staff said the draft amendment under consideration would add a clarified definition of "solar farm" and add a single sentence prohibiting their construction in any Hugo zoning district while leaving accessory systems permitted.

Public comment reflected sharply divided views. John David Utston of Everton Avenue said he was "100% opposed" to solar farms sited next to residences and argued such projects are commercial enterprises that do not belong in neighborhoods. "You wouldn't put a big business in the middle of a neighborhood," Utston said, urging the commission to preserve the city's character. By contrast, landowner Mark Lutz said solar farms can be a useful retirement income for farmers and that properly screened projects "can't even be seen" by neighbors. Nathan Bridal, representing the Minnesota Land and Liberty Coalition, warned the commission against moving from denial of a single megawatt project to a citywide ban and urged more careful siting.

Daniel Buck, a mechanical engineer and resident, told commissioners he could not find any Minnesota municipality that had enacted a complete solar-ban ordinance and argued state clean-energy goals (utilities carbon-free by 2040) increase local demand for distributed renewables and technical assistance. "There is a path here that can meet the needs of various stakeholders," Buck said, urging the city to use state resources and guidance rather than a total prohibition.

Commission discussion after public comment focused on options other than a full ban: expanding setbacks, increasing minimum parcel or ownership thresholds, requiring more screening, and specifying distance buffers from primary residences. Commissioners noted the existing ordinance allows solar farms with an interim use permit and that the current limit for array size had been reduced in prior revisions to roughly 5 acres.

Committee member (speaker 6) moved to deny the text amendment as drafted and to ask for a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council to draft revisions; the motion carried on a roll-call vote. Staff told the commission the item would appear on the City Council agenda the following Monday so council members could receive the public hearing summary and the commission’s recommendation.

The planning commission’s action does not change the underlying ordinance: solar farms remain permitted where the ordinance allows, but the city remains under a development moratorium on new solar-farm applications while officials consider ordinance revisions. The commission’s next step is the joint workshop with councilors to consider specific changes and additional restrictions before any formal prohibition would be adopted or rejected.