Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Solar Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen approve one solar land-use amendment, reject separate solar ordinance after public opposition
Summary
After a public hearing in which residents and environmental advocates urged fewer restrictions, Clarkson Valley aldermen approved Bill No. 0596 (land-use amendment) and rejected Bill No. 0597 (new Chapter 420 regulating solar energy systems). Speakers warned that the draft rules could limit productive rooftop placements and implicate property rights and state law.
Mayor Sue McNamara opened a public hearing June 2 on proposed changes to Clarkson Valley’s regulations for rooftop solar systems. Dozens of residents and advocates urged the board to avoid restrictions that they said would make common solar installations impractical.
"A well-designed solar energy system can produce up to six figures worth of electricity during its lifetime," said resident Frances Babb, urging the board to respect homeowners' property rights. Bryan Meyers, who said he serves on the board of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, cited the Missouri Supreme Court case Eikmeier v. Granite Springs Homeowners Association, Inc., and warned parts of the proposal could be unenforceable.
Stephanie Todd of the Missouri Sierra Club’s executive committee said the draft ordinance would effectively ban many rooftop installations by confining panels to rear or side roofs and prohibiting street-facing panels on corner lots. "Citizens want to be able to put solar panels on their house," she said, urging the board not to take that option away.
John Luzynski, an energy consultant, told the board that restricting panels to less-productive roof surfaces can reduce generation, raise installation costs or make systems financially impractical; he asked whether future battery, inverter or expansion work would be covered by the new rules. Kyle Luzynski said rooftop solar increases resilience to rising energy costs and supply-chain risk and that limitations reduce homeowner and business options.
Dave Campbell, representing the Sierra Club locally, framed the draft as government overreach and cited Missouri Senate Bill 820 as protecting homeowners from unreasonable restrictions that raise costs or reduce efficiency.
After hearing public comment, the board considered two related items. Ms. Eldridge read Bill No. 0596 (an amendment to sections of Title IV regarding land use) twice. A motion to postpone consideration until all six aldermen were present failed on roll call (Yes — Low, Midyett; No — Schweig, Birkel, Nuelle; Absent — MacDonald). The board then approved Bill No. 0596 on roll call: Yes — Birkel, Midyett, Nuelle, Schweig; No — Low; Absent — MacDonald. Mayor McNamara declared Bill No. 0596 passed.
Ms. Eldridge then read Bill No. 0597 (an ordinance proposing a new Chapter 420, Solar Energy Systems) twice. A separate motion to postpone also failed (Yes — Midyett, Low; No — Nuelle, Schweig, Birkel; Absent — MacDonald). On the final roll call the board voted: Yes — Nuelle, Schweig, Birkel; No — Low; Abstain — Midyett; Absent — MacDonald. Mayor McNamara declared Bill No. 0597 failed.
Why it matters: Witnesses told the board some draft provisions would force installations onto less efficient roof faces, potentially undermining system performance, increasing cost, and impinging on property rights. Speakers invoked a recent Missouri Supreme Court decision and state legislation as legal context, and several asked the board to revise the draft to allow panels on any safe, productive roof surface and to clarify whether battery or inverter work would be treated differently.
What’s next: The record shows one land-use amendment passed and a separate comprehensive solar ordinance failed; proponents and opponents left the meeting urging the board to refine language so homeowners can install effective systems without harming community aesthetics.
