LaPorte BZA tables 100 MW Yellowstone Solar after hours of testimony; board to revisit July 21

The LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals deferred a decision on a proposed 100‑megawatt Yellowstone Solar Project after an hourlong applicant presentation and more than an hour of public comment and board questioning.

The solar developer, represented by attorney Christopher Willoughby and Parker Sloan of Hoosier Solar, told the board the proposal would place about 300 acres of solar panels on roughly 600 acres of family‑owned farmland in Johnson Township and connect to an existing NIPSCO transmission line. Sloan said the project includes studies and commitments the county ordinance requires — site plans, drainage and glare studies, a decommissioning plan and bond, an economic impact study and a property‑value appraisal — and that the company is not seeking battery storage.

Supporters and the applicant emphasized economic benefits and safeguards. Sloan cited analyses estimating roughly $24.5 million in cumulative local tax revenue (in 2026 dollars) over a 35‑year life, construction and union wages during buildout, and long‑term modest operations employment. Rich Kirkland, an appraiser retained by the applicant, told the BZA his sale/resale and matched‑pair analyses of comparable Midwestern markets showed no measurable adverse effect on nearby property values once the project’s setbacks, buffer plantings and equipment siting are considered.

Opponents raised safety, environmental and quality‑of‑life concerns. Several neighbors and public commenters cited recent severe weather and tornado risk, questioned whether damaged panels can be recycled or disposed of locally, and objected to loss of view, wildlife impacts and the project’s proximity to the Kingsbury Fish & Wildlife area. “They plant nothing, they grow nothing, and they harvest nothing,” said County Commissioner Steve Holifield in public comment, summarizing his deep skepticism about large solar installations in the rural landscape. Other speakers said the project threatened the character and recreational value of nearby farmland and hunting areas.

The hearing included an early procedural moment: counsel for the applicant objected to Commissioner Jeff Baltes’s participation, and Baltes recused himself; counsel also asked that alternate member Jim Lefeber recuse, a request Lefeber discussed on the record and ultimately declined. The exchange was memorialized under counsel’s reference to Indiana Code § 909 on bias and disqualification.

Developers answered technical questions from the board about drainage, construction duration (estimated roughly 12 months), panel design (fixed east‑west tilt, 3–5 feet high; applicant said such low fixed arrays trade some per‑panel yield for reduced wind exposure), sound (inverter noise contours the applicant estimated at about 35–40 dB at the nearest boundaries), emergency response (applicant said it had trained Hamlet Fire and planned a written emergency plan), and decommissioning assurances (the applicant proposed a third‑party‑verified bond and five‑year re‑estimates).

After testimony and questions, a board member moved to table the special‑exception petition to allow members time to review a large set of materials the applicant placed in a binder at the hearing; Building Commissioner Michael Polan said the packet will be digitized and made available for public review at the building department. The motion to table carried 4–1. The board set the next hearing on the petition for July 21, 2026, at 6 p.m. in the County Complex Assembly Room.

What’s next: If the applicant re‑files or the petition is again scheduled, the BZA will reopen public comment and consider any additional or revised filings, then make written findings under the LaPorte County Joint Zoning Ordinance and the county’s solar regulations. The project still requires a road‑use agreement and decommissioning/financial security to be negotiated with county commissioners before any construction permits could be issued.