Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Projects And Public Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press county for answers on Duff and Crossvine solar projects, citing road damage, noise and safety fears
Summary
Residents at the June 15 meeting urged commissioners to extend the solar moratorium, raise setback protections and require more transparency from developers after concerns about road damage, pile-driving noise, property values and fire safety at BESS sites were raised.
Several residents voiced concerns about proposed and active large-scale solar projects in Dubois County at the June 15 commissioners meeting, asking the board to consider stronger setbacks, moratorium extensions and additional oversight.
Barb Hopf, a Duff-area resident, asked why solar parks are beneficial and said she had spoken with an EDP representative whom she felt "was not forthcoming with information about the Duff Solar Phase II project" and that she "felt EDP was misleading and was trespassing on landowners' property." Hopf also asked whether solar facilities should be treated as public utilities, questioned land assessments when solar parks are added and requested increasing the current 250-foot distance required by county ordinance; she asked that the moratorium be extended.
Highway Engineer notes read into the record flagged traffic and pavement impacts tied to the Crossvine Solar project and described AES mitigation steps: installing a temporary 35 mph work-zone speed limit, adjusting construction signs, making turn-radius improvements for oversized trucks, and coordinating fixes for roadway damage. Commissioners and residents also raised concerns about weekend pile-driving noise, the legality of hauling topsoil off-site and returning with sand, and fire-safety at the AES BESS site; resident Rita Bartelt asked whether there was an adequate water supply in the event of fire and was advised to consult her attorney for legal questions.
Multiple public commenters requested county action on road use and signage where construction traffic has been routed (notably 400 W/CR 500 W) and sought confirmation that temporary closures (such as the 500 W two‑week closure) would be limited to the announced duration and not used by construction traffic when taxpayers cannot use the roads. Commissioners noted they are not attorneys and referred some legal questions back to commenters’ counsel or to the appropriate agencies.
