Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Solar topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County planning commission presses ahead on solar ordinance, disputing acreage caps and setbacks
Summary
The Washington County Plan Commission resumed work on a draft solar ordinance, debating setbacks, countywide acreage limits, battery storage, noise and how to prevent solar sites from converting to data centers. A Ranger Power representative described mitigation tools such as transformer set‑backs, screening and development agreements.
The Washington County Plan Commission on Tuesday resumed a line‑by‑line review of a proposed solar ordinance, focusing members on setbacks, countywide acreage caps, battery storage and safeguards against future conversion of solar sites to data centers.
Chair (identified in the transcript as the meeting leader) opened the discussion by saying the group would use a Miami County draft as a starting point and "dissect it" to produce a version that fits Washington County. Commissioners agreed to work through the document topic by topic, starting with setbacks.
Commissioners debated whether to cap the amount of land that can be used for commercial solar by percentage of county acreage or by per‑district limits. One member noted the county has about 331,000 acres and warned that a flat percentage could mislead because much land is not suitable for solar. The transcript records a member saying the county might consider per‑district or area limits to avoid concentrating projects in a single region.
Kelly, a plan commission member, urged urgency tied to a local moratorium: "If we don't plan accordingly in May, we get solar whether we like it or not with no guardrails," she said, arguing the commission must draft protections now even if some leased acreage already exists.
On setbacks, commissioners compared sample distances found in other counties: Miami County’s draft contains shorter setbacks (single‑digit to low‑feet figures cited for some provisions), Harrison County included much larger buffers in places (hundreds to 1,000 feet in selected provisions), and Spencer County uses a nonparticipating‑landowner boundary rule. Several members suggested the commission adopt a working baseline (examples raised: 100–150 feet from roads or property lines for viewshed protection) and then refine numbers after technical review of noise and visual impacts.
Battery storage and safety were added to the checklist. One commissioner said she opposed battery systems because of the risk of lithium‑ion fires and the hazardous chemicals used to extinguish them; others asked the committee to study modern containment and mitigation practices and to include battery rules explicitly in the draft.
Ranger Power’s representative, Beth, told the commission the panels themselves are not the primary source of sound and recommended setbacks specifically for inverters and transformers: "The inverters and transformers are the things that make energy… If you wanna eliminate sound, you should apply setbacks to those things," she said. Beth suggested 50 feet from property lines for panels, 250 feet from homes and larger setbacks for transformers (she said 700–1,000 feet largely mitigates noise from transformers).
Beth also recommended adding development agreements and BZA (Board of Zoning Appeals) review as tools the county can use to secure community benefits and site‑specific conditions — for example, screening, utility bill assistance for nearby residents, or tailored setback increases for sensitive sites. She said typical decommissioning language restores land to ‘‘reasonably farmable’’ condition and that contracts and permits can limit future land uses to solar and transmission.
Public commenters echoed both concerns and requests for more information. Timothy Reese asked what tangible local benefits the county would see if generated energy is exported: "If the electric's gonna be shipped out to another state, why are we putting them in here other than to let the farmers get a paycheck?" he asked. Andrea Brewer urged the commission to form a task force with utility and technical expertise so commissioners can base policy choices on site visits and data rather than speculation.
The commission agreed next steps: research setback distances and acreage metrics, compare other counties' language, consider development agreements and BZA oversight, and return with more data. The meeting closed after the public comment period.
The commission approved prior meeting minutes earlier in the session and adjourned without taking any final ordinance votes. The work is procedural and ongoing; commissioners said they will bring technical analyses and sample draft language to future meetings for refinement.
