[0:00] Anyone

[0:15] else

[0:24] free?

[0:31] Yeah.

[0:51] » No. Okay. >> Mr. bond.

[0:55] » As a recipient of federal funds and has supported Debron Countyy's efforts to

[0:58] ensure non-discrimination and equal access to all citizens, the county

[1:00] gathers statistical data regarding participants and county activities.

[1:03] Therefore, we have provided a voluntary title six public involvement survey at

[1:06] this meeting. You are not required to complete this survey. However, the form

[1:09] is anonymous and will be used solely for the purpose of monitoring our compliance

[1:12] with title six and ADA.

[1:17] » Oh, yes.

[1:22] Let's see. Today's Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 planning commission meeting to

[1:27] order. If everyone would please stand for the pledge of allegiance

[1:39] to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it

[1:44] stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:50] for all.

[1:56] Roll call Jim Thatcher Russell Berser Eric Lang

[2:01] » Dennis Grass Jr. Mark Leman, >> Sabrina Gregory,

[2:05] » Joe Bubble,

[2:08] » Jake and Danny absent.

[2:16] » We have no action on minutes tonight. We have

[2:22] » It's not really new old business. are

[2:27] jump down to administrative for proposed

[2:33] solar ordinance

[2:38] article 19 I believe it is

[2:44] um we were kind of going through this

[2:48] section by section but I think uh it might be better if we maybe did a

[2:54] couple sections or three sections at a time and then took public input on that

[2:59] so we could help move along a little faster.

[3:04] And then maybe at the end of the meeting if people who can't attend a meeting in

[3:11] the future have comments for a section they may not be here for, we could take

[3:16] a couple people at the end. Has anybody got any heartburn with that?

[3:24] H. Okay.

[4:07] So according to my notes, we left off at section 1906.

[4:15] Let's start with 1910

[4:23] gold. Do you have

[4:29] » first I wanted to um just explain what you have in front of you as well. Um

[4:37] so um the Excel sheet um that you have it goes section by

[4:43] section and then the comments that have been received.

[4:48] Um you actually have the most dated. Um now

[4:53] there are a couple comments that were received in the last two days that are

[4:57] not on there. Um

[5:01] so and then if it is over in discussion or the decisions discussions if it's red

[5:07] that means it was something of minor um maybe spelling or something like that

[5:14] that's already been changed or something that we discussed last um time we met.

[5:20] Um, also you have the latest and greatest of uh the solar um the draft

[5:27] ordinance and that isn't even within the those changes that have been made.

[5:34] They're highlighted or crossed out. Um this packet here is the comments that

[5:40] have been received um since um

[5:46] yours would be the comments that were received. you received the ones that

[5:50] were from last month or from 8:12 to 8:25. This would be from 8:26 to 98.

[5:58] Um, as you go through there and then the last packet that you have is what I had

[6:04] received um from the MS4 coordinator. Um, also these were discussions that had

[6:12] taken place in tech review meeting. Um so soil and water was there as well in

[6:18] those discussions of those comments that were had. Um and that was also in

[6:23] comparison with um the technical standards of the MS4

[6:29] um to ensure consistency between those

[6:34] ordinances as well. Um, so we went through those

[6:40] um to make sure both um the draft ordinance and the technical standards

[6:46] for MS4 um are consistent.

[6:50] Um and it was actually determined that a couple things need to be um revised in

[6:56] the technical standards as well. Um so that's what you have before you.

[7:02] Um and then I will go uh through what we've received um to date

[7:10] um

[7:14] on the comments for uh 1910

[7:20] if you and I'll have it up on the screen too.

[7:25] So page eight. So 1910 is the permitting requirements and standards for smallcale

[7:31] solar projects.

[7:35] Excuse me. Um these uh projects would be those on individual houses in the

[7:43] individual yards for homes or for um agricultural farms um for individual

[7:51] property owners um if they want to have solar for the use of their homes, their

[7:56] barns, um anything on their property. Um so in um

[8:07] on B2 which would be the location um the and these first few comments were

[8:14] were re received by the commissioner citizen advisory committee. Um the word

[8:20] reasonable leads to interpretation. Um

[8:25] and that is as far as giving the technical review committee um

[8:32] reasonable um discretionary to have um if it can't be placed in the required

[8:39] yards. Um we have that in other areas of the ordinance the for tech review um to

[8:47] give um leeway to some of those ordinances.

[8:53] Um and it would be up to the um plan commission whether you wanted that

[8:59] something of that nature to go before the technical review committee or the

[9:03] BZA. So it's one or the other. In this instance, we gave it to the a tech

[9:08] review committee because it's a smaller scale solar project for a home

[9:15] or for an A um and for the cost of a BZA, we felt the technical review

[9:21] committee could make that decision um on the location.

[9:26] Um so that was one comment on there. Um on the

[9:35] for a and the third sentence the word except um it was just it was um

[9:42] spelling error. Um page nine as we go through number four. Um they

[9:52] suggest instead of doing percentages using a cap on acres, two acres as a cap

[9:58] size. Um the reason it wasn't done that initially

[10:04] is not knowing the size of the house, what you know it would be used for. Um

[10:14] thinking it was going to be more legitimate size per what their use is

[10:17] for. Um either way, I don't think it's

[10:23] um do I ever see a farm having more than two acres? No. But is it realistic? I

[10:28] don't know. Um depending on the size of the farm, if it's used for their

[10:32] personal use. Um so that would just be up for

[10:37] discussion on how the plan commission would like to move forward on that. Um

[10:42] number five, uh the solar panel setbacks. Um the reason why it's in red,

[10:47] it was already taken out that comment. Number six, the screening uh coverage

[10:53] needs more defined and required list. Um you know, we I put screening in there.

[11:01] um just to try to allow um the screening of

[11:06] the personal solar. But um the disc the discussion that um probably needs to be

[11:13] had is just whether or not it should be in there eliminated because we don't

[11:16] require screening for any other residential personal

[11:22] uses. Um so it would be one or the other as

[11:27] far as being what is written being more descriptive

[11:33] on I guess what that screening should be exactly or to eliminate the screening

[11:39] alto together. Um number seven glare

[11:45] um need more defined um so I did a little bit more research and I did add

[11:50] additional sentence to that. Um it's hard to define exactly what because

[11:56] there's just different types of materials that are used um for

[12:01] anti-glare, but just to try to be a little bit more descriptive in that. Um

[12:06] so what's highlighted in yellow, what was added um for that comment.

[12:12] Number 11, maintenance. Um what is the enforcement?

[12:18] Um it would be just the basic enforcement through the planning and

[12:22] zoning department as any other ordinance violation

[12:26] um for that which is outlined in different articles of the zoning

[12:31] ordinance. Um so the procedures um enforcement and then penalties are all

[12:37] outlined um in article six number 13 which is on the next page

[12:45] abandonment. Um as far as uh I had in there um a

[12:53] required time frame didn't describe that. Um

[12:58] then the other question comes to play and I had talked to Andy about this as

[13:03] far as a possibility of eliminating the abandonment part in this this the small

[13:10] scale. Um because if it's abandoned, if it's for a residential house or for a

[13:16] barn of uses like that, if the house is abandoned and that's what the solar is

[13:21] abandoned, it can actually go under even if it's not abandoned because the house

[13:25] is abandoned, it can go under the unsafe building ordinance.

[13:30] Um so either eliminating it or just putting it abandonment would follow the

[13:36] unsafe building ordinance. um or any violations of that. Um

[13:44] I would suggest probably the um unsafe building ordinance as there's more teeth

[13:50] to that ordinance than there is a zoning ordinance. So if it's truly abandoned on

[13:55] a property with an abandoned house, um we there's more teeth under the unsafe

[14:01] building ordinance.

[14:04] Um and then So, the last few uh comments were based

[14:12] on that um and whether or not we keep it in there or state that it is under the

[14:17] unsafe building ordinance. Um and then also the MS4 and the highway

[14:24] engineer brought up the same question. That's where we got discussing on the

[14:28] unsafe building ordinance uh to be followed in that case as well. Um those

[14:33] are all the comments um as of the date that when probably about Friday um that

[14:39] were received for this particular section for the small scale. Does the

[14:43] board have any questions on the small scale or any comments on

[14:48] any of the um items that were received?

[14:59] » Not. >> Okay. any um heartburn over the

[15:04] abandonment just going under the unsafe building ordinance?

[15:08] » No. >> Seems like a good place for it.

[15:11] » Yep. >> Wherever it's got more teeth.

[15:14] » Okay. Um would there necessarily need to be

[15:20] any kind of specific requirements regarding solar being abandoned in a

[15:25] residential area? It's whether or not we're getting

[15:29] complaints on whether it's abandoned. I mean, I don't know how else to do

[15:33] whether outside of >> you might be able to do something with a

[15:36] house because most of that's all known. But when you start dealing with

[15:40] something that's unknown to folks, it could be a different situation.

[15:46] » And if you're talking about abandoned and cleanup would happen,

[15:53] » I'm talking about would they be aware of how to handle

[15:57] abandoned solar equipment. >> So, it would either have to be so under

[16:02] the as we've done um some of the unsafe building ordinances and and violations

[16:08] thereof. So, it's first of course you

[16:12] » I think it's a good fit. Yeah. I think >> I think as far as what it would be is if

[16:16] they don't take it down take the house down as we do because

[16:22] event it goes to court. So, they either have to take it down or it goes to

[16:25] court. Um, then as far as what we would see whether they took it all down or

[16:30] not, if there's any safety factors, we would still go to a judge and say,

[16:34] » safety factors >> we would still go to something that

[16:36] they're not used to dealing with. >> Yeah. So, most of the time we then also

[16:40] ask for an entry entry warrant which allows us to go on the property to

[16:44] either determine what has to be taken down specifically or what has to what

[16:50] still has to be taken down. Um, and then it goes through a bid process as far as

[16:54] we described that what has to be taken down, how it has to be taken down in

[16:57] that bid process and it gets approved by the judge.

[17:00] » Yeah. Yeah. I'm aware of how it all works. I just concerned about that

[17:04] equipment being in the backyard or wherever and people go in to do a

[17:07] demolition and they believe that they could just

[17:12] » Yeah. But I I but the same as if some we tell someone to take down their house of

[17:16] whether or not they're equipped to take down their own house and they do it

[17:19] themselves as well. I don't know how far into the personal aspect of telling them

[17:26] how to take things down. >> I think we just need a little bit of

[17:31] information around that >> around taking the solder down if it's

[17:36] abandoned by a residential. >> Okay.

[17:41] » Uh as far as details of what has to be taken down.

[17:48] Well, you need to tell people something if they're going in to tear down. Let's

[17:51] say Ed Yelton goes out to tear something down and and he doesn't he doesn't know,

[17:57] you know, what possible consequences could be if he starts tearing down the

[18:02] solar with his boulder

[18:07] and then we're on the hook for liability.

[18:11] » If not if we put it under unsafe building because then it's still up to

[18:14] them. the countyy's tell him about the potential hazard.

[18:21] » I don't know if I would be telling him about the potential hazard of taking the

[18:25] house down with asbestous because we don't have to tell them what the hazards

[18:28] are down houses before. >> Oh, I know that. But that this is kind

[18:33] of a different animal >> the way I see it anyway. I don't know.

[18:37] Maybe Ed can jump in. It's not a problem. But it's not it's but you're

[18:40] not required to do anything for taking down a house even if it has a speestous

[18:43] because it's a residential house unless it's commercial. So we don't go tell

[18:47] them how to take it down with the asbestous being in there and

[18:52] we're not liable. >> Yeah. But that's a known entity.

[18:58] » We know that's dangerous. >> Take a building down. You're talking

[19:03] about a 1500 square foot. You go in a solar field, say a tornado goes through

[19:08] it, you got acres,

[19:13] » private private >> residential acres.

[19:18] » I know it's frustrating, but I just want to make sure. Well, I'm trying I'm

[19:21] trying not to where we're >> giving more, you know, be more strict

[19:26] over here, but in getting involved in people's residential

[19:31] » if they tear down a shed, you know, where are we stop and telling personally

[19:37] what they need to do with their own >> Well, I think the problem here is that

[19:43] we're not experts to be able to tell someone

[19:47] how to terrorize. That's exactly what I'm saying. We're not experts.

[19:51] » We can't put something that we don't know about in an ordinance.

[19:55] I think it would fall on the person that would be bidding on.

[19:58] » I mean, if anything, it would be the same as a decommissioning and you're

[20:01] just telling them what parts to take down. We're not telling them how to take

[20:04] it down, though. So, you're wanting to have the parts of what has to be

[20:08] removed. >> So, you're putting the onus on whoever's

[20:10] tearing it down. >> Putting it on whoever put it up and

[20:13] who's tearing it down on their property. >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Yep.

[20:18] All right, move on. >> Um, so we would Does anybody else else

[20:25] have anything for 1910? >> Um, I mean I do see where they're coming

[20:30] from with the the two acre cap. Um, I do also like the the percentage requirement

[20:36] because like I've got a 1acre yard. So, if we just did a a twoacre cap, that

[20:42] would mean that I could put like my entire yard of solar panels if we didn't

[20:45] have like the 25%. But is there maybe a way to add that 2% cap? So, we have that

[20:51] that percentage. >> Yeah. So, we have that percentage and

[20:54] then like absolutely no more than two acres otherwise it moves into a larger

[20:58] project size.

[21:05] Well, or it would be if we put a cap on two acres, um, in my opinion, it would

[21:10] then be as a like a variance where they'd have to prove why they need the

[21:15] more than two acres. >> Okay. Yeah.

[21:17] » Instead of moving up to a different size because then you're getting it to a

[21:21] different, >> right? Yeah. Okay. So, wording for a

[21:23] variance there. Yeah. So, that's a way if we want to do a cap, I would say yes,

[21:28] put a cap on there, but then if they need, they'd have to go to the BCA as a

[21:33] variance to prove why they need more than two acres.

[21:36] » Okay. Is everybody comfortable with two acres for the small?

[21:42] » I think that's a good idea to cap it and then

[21:44] » and keep the percentages. >> Yeah. But I'm also wondering, so if you

[21:48] want to put solar on your roof and it works for you and you want to put some

[21:52] in your yard, does the roof count against your percentage of your yard? I

[21:56] wouldn't shoot because it's already >> put it on your Yeah. Then then you're

[22:01] » Yeah. Whatever ground mounted you have is where your percentage starts.

[22:05] » Yes.

[22:08] » Okay. >> Because the we don't have a um coverage.

[22:13] Now, if we had a coverage percentage for any structures, like in the county, we

[22:18] don't have a um percentage coverage for like building a house, building a barn,

[22:23] building um driveway. We don't have a percentage of what you can how much

[22:28] impervious service you can have on your acreage. If we did, then we would

[22:32] probably include the house or not, you know, we would it would already be

[22:35] included. >> Yeah. But I wouldn't include a roof

[22:38] because it's not included in any other structures.

[22:42] » I just I didn't know if that was spelled out or if that's implied in here, but

[22:49] » um

[22:53] it does say the total surface area of ground mounted solar array shall. So it

[22:58] doesn't where it says maximum coverage, it's comes right out and says ground

[23:03] mounted ground. So then I I mean I could see where some would say no it's on your

[23:07] roof it doesn't count it's your percentage.

[23:09] » Mhm. >> So okay.

[23:11] » So but adding the two two acres cap everybody comfortable with

[23:17] » Yeah. >> or different acreage. I don't everybody

[23:24] seems >> I mean it seems like we're pulling two

[23:25] acres out of the air. That's a fair amount of solar but I mean but it's not

[23:30] big enough where it's going to be >> commercial either. No.

[23:46] Okay. If we move on to 1915,

[23:54] 1915 is um the st permitting requirements standards for large-scale

[23:59] individual projects. So, this would be if um Walmart came in and wanted to do a

[24:06] solar um field for just their just the Walmart

[24:11] um or an industrial use wanting to use the solar just for theirs. Um so the

[24:20] comments um we received

[24:27] um again they uh reasonable is too large.

[24:32] Um again this was something for tech review as tech review uh does review

[24:39] commercial um site plans and permitting processes as far as the location.

[24:46] um in an alternate um spot, whether it be the side or rear. Um an alternate

[24:52] would be of course the front yard. Um but allowing the technical review

[24:57] committee um to make that decision or because it would be of a larger scale as

[25:03] far as for commercial or industrial use, would you prefer it to go to BZA?

[25:23] I have a problem >> either way or or the tech review.

[25:28] » Tech review.

[25:34] » And we're talking about things that only fall in either a business or industrial

[25:38] zone. Correct. >> Yeah. things that

[25:40] » right here >> or they've had a conditional use to be

[25:44] there um >> so yeah so it' be the and it's actually

[25:50] just the location um

[25:54] » of those because we don't get into the setbacks

[25:58] yet. It's just whether or not they should be allowed to be in the front

[26:01] yard. >> So it would essentially follow whatever

[26:05] setbacks that we've got already in those zones. There's no special setbacks for

[26:09] solar in >> later on down we do. This is just giving

[26:14] whether if it's >> so if it's in the front yard a there's a

[26:19] um stipulation to where the front yard can be allowed if it's canopy solar. So

[26:26] covering their parking lots. >> Um so that's just allowed. It would be

[26:31] as if their front yard is grass and they want to put solar in there.

[26:37] Does it make then they have to go what we're proposing they would have to ask

[26:42] the tech review to allow that >> to go in there.

[26:53] » Oh, is it?

[27:01] » I thought I got rid of them all. I didn't.

[27:08] You see it? >> I see it.

[27:11] » Yeah. I thought I got them all.

[27:26] I guess where I'm at on this is

[27:35] I think the tech review committee has to have some sort of criteria for approving

[27:40] or denying to where we're not put in a position where it seems like

[27:47] we're making random decisions. >> I don't have a suggestion for that

[27:53] language yet. Well, we've talked about um that was actually talked about that

[27:59] before this came up going through that ordinance and providing that criteria

[28:04] for those decisions since there are decisions already that are permitted by

[28:09] tech review um for percentage and stuff like that. Um

[28:15] because we wanted more criteria set for even making those

[28:20] decisions.

[28:23] I'm okay with leaving it in there, but I think we need to work on that part

[28:29] » next.

[28:33] » I apologize. Um, >> no, it's my fault. I I can't hear most

[28:39] of the time. So, um, too many loud noises when I was younger. I guess uh we

[28:46] were discussing or what I was trying to convey to Nicole was that uh if it's

[28:52] left up to the technical review committee to approve uh

[28:58] not necessarily a variance but a a use in a front yard where uh

[29:05] I thought that the technical review committee should have criteria to judge

[29:10] projects by so it doesn't seem like we're making decisions randomly. family.

[29:15] And I I say it that way because I'm on the technical review committee, so I'm

[29:19] one of the people making these decisions.

[29:22] And Nicole agreed, but we'll have to address that criteria

[29:29] later. >> And it's been a conversation we've had

[29:32] prior to. So, the technical review committee already does have the ability

[29:38] to make certain um decisions as far as a 25% reduction in landscaping, a 20%

[29:46] reduction in um driveway spacing. Um so, there are other

[29:53] ones and we had already talked about criteria to make those decisions as

[29:57] well. Um so, I and I agree with that. Um because we talked about that before that

[30:03] we wanted to do that. So um >> Nicole

[30:07] » yes >> is there any

[30:12] what board does a existing business who

[30:19] wants to switch from open detention to an underground

[30:23] detention system and rip up their parking lot

[30:29] and pave over let's say their existing open ditch detention facility. Does that

[30:34] go to tech review? Does that come >> It would go under um depending on the

[30:38] size which I would deem that as because it's above the utility. That would be

[30:43] deemed it would be deemed a major site plan permitting process that goes before

[30:48] the technical review committee >> um to take a look at all those changes

[30:52] and whether it's still >> that's about the most similar thing I

[30:55] can think >> still make sure that they're still

[30:58] meeting the requirements of the detention that they're not just taking

[31:01] it down to lower the storage capacity. >> So there's your criteria. We still have

[31:07] to meet the outflow the the detention systems and all of that. Okay.

[31:29] All right. So,

[31:36] moving on. Um, one of the This is where um,

[31:46] uh, the comment was to eliminate for the maximum coverage.

[31:52] Um, already in a zoned area where it would

[31:55] be acceptable to have more condensed solar protection on the um, I think I

[32:01] spelled that word wrong. zoned areas to protect residential and agricultural.

[32:07] Um

[32:10] so this is just a coverage the percentage the same um as the small

[32:17] scale just for the industrial and commercial.

[32:20] Um whether or not that stays in there or is removed and doesn't have any coverage

[32:27] percentage. Um, so it' be up to the board um if you

[32:33] see any pros or cons one way or the other

[33:26] Does anybody have any

[33:32] one way or the other. >> I guess without being able to envision a

[33:38] project, it's really hard to make a decision on this. I mean, I don't know

[33:45] what this looks like. >> Mhm.

[33:51] Anyone

[33:57] else?

[34:02] » Um, what? So, really what I mean, ordinance wise, what it would look like

[34:07] is if it's it's if it stays in there, there's just a percentage of what they

[34:12] can cover their ground with. If it's not in there, then it doesn't matter what

[34:17] percentage their ground is covered. Um, and I guess the theory is that they're

[34:22] landscaping buffer areas that would be protecting the residential agricultural

[34:27] districts that it abuts to.

[34:46] » Yeah. The intent, our intent was you're already putting this is an business or

[34:50] industrial area, let them put as much as they can as long as they do all the

[34:56] other setbacks and requirements because it's it is an industrial area. We're not

[35:02] we're not out in an egg area. We're not there, you know, as long as we protect

[35:05] the the end zones of that zoning, let them put as much as they can and not

[35:12] restrict them when it isn't already an industrial area. What would you do in

[35:16] the case where someone came in to do a variance of use

[35:20] in an agricultural district? >> Then well that's in a different area

[35:27] the same

[35:33] buffers and setbacks then >> the buffer and the setbacks typically

[35:37] when it goes before PZA it's using the same buffers and setbacks. It's just now

[35:43] they haven't added coverage to base that on

[35:54] beed that it must be a zoned area not >> so that it stays where it's industrial

[36:03] not chang what you want to do if they do request a

[36:07] change

[36:11] » what is the requirement.

[36:27] » So I understand what if it's already zoned that but if it's reszoned or if

[36:31] it's a conditional use or variance of use

[36:35] then you have to take those into consideration too. So it's not just a

[36:40] zone.

[36:45] So if I can give an example

[36:49] of um

[36:58] come in for conditional use. Um

[37:04] we have had storage units come in before for conditional use or variance of use.

[37:10] So at that point then there's not an additional standard. So

[37:15] if it was the same with the solar or commercial business they wanted so they

[37:20] wanted the storage facility wanted solar because they don't want to pay the

[37:26] company to run this for their security lights.

[37:29] At what point do you say how much coverage that that's where

[37:35] » the instance would be not necessarily being an industrial district or district

[37:41] » but they came to PBA for it.

[37:51] » So that's where the coverage comes into play. Then they can always go to BA

[37:55] asker to ask for more. because then it covers all your um

[38:01] examples.

[38:07] » Can we do something there, Nicole, to try to drive them if they're doing that

[38:12] to put their solar either on the building or above the parking lot and

[38:17] make that path easier? And then anything that is solar to be installed over

[38:22] existing grass or whatever otherwise then that's that's another process or or

[38:28] a more stringent process >> I think depend on the use because so a

[38:33] Walmart >> just as an as a Walmart I could see

[38:37] possibly having enough because our parking requirements are so

[38:41] » heavy that I could see them having enough with their building and their

[38:45] parking where they wouldn't need additional ground to do anything with

[38:48] solar. But if you have a warehouse or something that you don't have the maybe

[38:54] you only have 50 employees,

[38:59] are you going to have, you know, >> Yeah. Is there enough ground?

[39:02] » Is there enough ground or do they need more ground to be able to run it because

[39:06] they don't have enough parking area because they don't need that much

[39:09] parking?

[39:13] » Yeah. I mean, there's a million scenarios. I'm just thinking if you

[39:17] drive it towards put it over your parking or your building and here's easy

[39:21] path A >> and if you want to put it in the grass

[39:25] and do >> well so the one of the things that is in

[39:27] here is that the coverage so if it's in the ground there's coverage and we have

[39:31] a certain percentage of how it was ranged but if they for the setbacks and

[39:36] if they did um the canopy style over parking they can do um 100% over that

[39:42] hard surface. So that's more of an incentive to do that area than go off

[39:48] and have to buy more ground and have to deal with a percentage.

[39:51] » Sure. >> So that's kind of what the idea was

[39:53] behind the 100% because then it leans them more towards that than having to

[39:57] pay for more ground. >> Okay.

[40:00] » That they wouldn't be able to use it at 100%.

[40:02] » Yeah. >> Because we cap the percentage of

[40:06] coverage.

[40:18] We can leave it in there for now and then just think or

[40:22] » I'm thinking you a rear yard for the most part is not going to be seen.

[40:27] I I don't necessarily feel that we have to have a cap in the rear yard per se.

[40:33] » Mhm. Um, I think it would make more sense if we

[40:38] were going to have a cap to maybe have something in the side or the front

[40:45] to to discourage them from putting solar in front or or maybe trying to keep it

[40:51] back along the sides. maybe word it as there's a not a

[40:57] percentage for rear but a percentage for um

[41:04] » side >> side

[41:06] » and a higher percentage for front. I >> yeah that I I would think that

[41:09] » I mean we're trying to keep it away from front that's why it's not really

[41:13] » but it's they would have to prove why they need it in front

[41:17] » but we can always put that in for as a standard for the tech review to look at

[41:23] if permitted by tech review. This is the

[41:28] coverage for front that

[41:34] » sounds good. >> Yeah. Okay.

[41:35] » I think so. Yes.

[42:19] Okay. So, number five, um,

[42:28] uh, it was just a wording thing. Um number six um screening

[42:36] um

[42:43] um I have to look at their specific comments. Um just says rules for

[42:48] screening especially when it's buffers up to a and residential. Um this is the

[42:54] reason why we've uh mentioned article 22 is the that's the article for the

[42:59] required landscaping buffers against aggre

[43:03] um and residential. >> Um so that would they have a buffer with

[43:07] and the landscaping requirement. Um so that's why it didn't go into details

[43:12] because it was using that as the requirement.

[43:16] I think it just so people are aware that when commercial uses adjoin an egg or

[43:23] residential area, there's an increased buffer yard requirement. That's why

[43:27] she's referring back to article 22 because it's already stated in there.

[43:32] » Screening for res. >> This would be screening in particular

[43:36] for a large scale solar. >> Large scale. Mhm. So, we would revert

[43:41] back to um as the you like if it's commercial or industrial.

[43:46] » Can you tell me how how high the burm would be?

[43:50] » No, that's if they want to put in a burm. They don't have to put in a burm.

[43:54] So, berms are So, you can do burming, fencing to reduce your size. You could

[43:58] do burming, fencing, contigu continuous hedge

[44:05] » when you want to put in a burm for the aesthetics.

[44:12] We were doing that for not util not commercial solar farms. The system

[44:17] » commercials. >> Well, I'm talking like commercial or

[44:20] industrial for their per own. >> Oh, okay.

[44:23] » Yeah. Their own use only. >> All right.

[44:25] » Not to the grid. >> So like if it was Walmart and they

[44:29] wanted some solar, they would have to follow whatever buffering they are

[44:33] against the zoning district for the screening.

[44:37] » Is everybody comfortable with that? Yep. Um

[44:50] number 12. Um so they asked why the battery storage um would it be better to

[44:55] put it in a best ordinance? So at this time I've put um as far as battery

[45:01] storage that it pertains to the solar only um being permitted. That way

[45:06] there's an ordinance in place. So if the solar ordinance gets approved first that

[45:12] there is something in there to protect us until a best ordinance gets approved.

[45:17] Um and at that decision when we are creating the best ordinance if we are

[45:23] including stuff related to solar it can always come out later so that there's

[45:27] not two locations but this was to cover battery storage only used for solar use

[45:34] and not battery storage standalone projects.

[45:41] So that's why it's in there now to protect if the ordinance gets

[45:45] approved before Bess that we're not we don't have a loophole in between time

[45:52] frames. >> But this is also only battery storage

[45:55] for this particular use. So this would be in our Walmart scenario. This would

[46:00] just be >> battery storage for their use.

[46:05] » It wouldn't be a place for them to store electric and sell it off.

[46:09] » No.

[46:13] But there just to answer that there why that we had it in there there that was

[46:17] the reason why it was in there. Um if everybody's comfortable to keep it in

[46:21] there. Um then number 13 the abandonment. Um

[46:27] on this one um whether or not it be um used um I understand what they're saying

[46:33] as far as the um time frame required time frame. It's not um spelled out

[46:40] completely. Um but this also could be used under the unsafe building ordinance

[46:45] as well.

[46:51] Is everybody still comfortable with that ordinance under commercial or industrial

[46:57] business?

[47:00] » Yes. >> Okay. Nicole, how does the unsafe

[47:05] building ordinance address when the official time is declared

[47:10] abandoned?

[47:13] » It doesn't. It's just a question of whether or not the the building, the

[47:17] structure, the premises is unsafe in the building commissioner's determination.

[47:27] So if it's not being maintained or looks like it's not being maintained or in the

[47:30] case that people said tornado comes through and that's destructive and we

[47:35] don't see action it would be an unsafe building order

[47:38] » and that's when the time clock starts. Gotcha.

[47:44] Most of those are even the ones we've done. Most of those the time clock

[47:47] starts when a complaint comes in or if it's noticeable or um

[47:54] » yeah or ones we've seen or >> depends on how the first one the first

[47:58] one did take a little longer than um we thought it was the first one we did in

[48:05] the county fall down. >> Yeah, it fell straight down first.

[48:11] Yeah, the pumpkin house >> or what we called it anyway. Um in

[48:15] Manchester. >> Okay.

[48:17] » Um that was the first one that we did for unsafe building order. Um

[48:23] so it works. It's taken down just then after the grass whoever maintains the

[48:29] lot the grass can still go um out of whack. But we don't have a grass

[48:35] ordinance. So, but the structure and everything with it would be gone

[48:39] following that process. >> Okay.

[48:42] » We had a question that might pertain to this on a later one.

[48:46] » If a solar system, we're talking Walmart has a large field, a systems live. They

[48:51] abandon the building, but that solar still producing electricity. Do we have

[48:55] something that requires a disconnect to a building so that that building isn't

[49:01] » We do the build the building ordinance does. So for Yes. So it would have to be

[49:07] the meter is still on to be >> taking that in. So that there's still

[49:11] electrical component to that. So Bill can put into um do your

[49:18] uh removal of um the meter. Okay. So it's usually something that we I mean

[49:26] that's one thing that's majorly checked even when we're doing the unsafe

[49:29] building order um is whether that meter is still on. But Usually that first

[49:34] phone call goes to Duke or RMC to see if electric is still on even before we

[49:39] start the process. >> Okay. I didn't know if solar has some

[49:41] other sort of disconnect other than a meter.

[49:44] » Um >> since it's maybe it's being pumped right

[49:47] in put right into the building. >> That would be the I mean the meter.

[49:52] Yeah. I mean they'd have to still have electric on

[49:56] it be running constantly. >> That's why I mean can the solar be go

[50:01] around the meter and still be live in the

[50:04] I have no idea. >> That's why we we had questions. Should

[50:08] that be some sort of requirement? If somebody leaves a building and leaves a

[50:11] solar field, should there be a requirement?

[50:13] » It still could be a requirement under the unsafe if the building's abandoned.

[50:17] That could be an automatic unsafe building.

[50:19] » But I mean, if we didn't put a requirement for a disconnect in the

[50:23] ordinance, >> do we need it? I think what he's saying

[50:26] is so it's a situation where say a business closes that has solar but it's

[50:31] not necessarily unsafe >> but nobody's occupying the the building

[50:35] currently because the business closed. Is there some requirement that should

[50:39] the structure be um vacated that the solar be cut off until such time?

[50:47] » So then it would be then it would be maybe not abandonment but an additional

[50:51] ordinance of vacated or vacant property. I can see vacant.

[50:58] » Yes. >> Yeah. Different words.

[51:00] » Yes. So we I could put a separate line item for vacant structures.

[51:05] » Yeah. That was just our thought. So the fire department and fire happens and

[51:09] they know the solar be disconnected from that.

[51:11] » No, I could put something in there for vacant. But it be

[51:15] » we addressed it somewhere else. We didn't I think we missed that thought

[51:18] here. We weren't thinking of a wall. Yeah.

[51:21] » No, I Yeah. Yeah. We can put vacant building that it would have to be

[51:26] disconnected >> and then it would be in second building.

[51:29] » That's kind of what I was trying to get to.

[51:31] » Okay. >> Yeah. No, but the abandonment as far as

[51:35] that to me that's unsafe. We would to me it would be more unsafe because it would

[51:39] be abandoned but the vacant building >> the panels contain

[51:43] certain chemicals or >> such that could pose a problem.

[51:48] » Lead. >> Yeah. But if it's abandoned, if it's

[51:51] vacant and they're still selling it, what we would do is the abandonment part

[51:55] would go under the unsafe building. The vacant I I could see adding that to

[51:59] where they would have to turn it off until they found.

[52:03] But I mean, it's whether or not it just because it's abandoned doesn't mean you

[52:08] want to shut off everything um

[52:12] if they're trying to sell it and it's just abandoned or vacant. So I think

[52:17] that maybe a time frame on well just for instance so the you know schools when

[52:22] they shut them down or they discontinued they still have to keep them

[52:26] » two years >> for two years. So they still have to

[52:29] keep the electric on even though it's vacant.

[52:33] Um, so whether or not we would say in that situation,

[52:39] um, could it that's what I'm thinking of is if I vacate a business of mine, but I

[52:45] still want to sell it, doesn't mean that I want them off to keep it on.

[52:52] I'll look at some stuff to see as far as putting it on there. The unsafe building

[52:58] would be as if there was damage and it's truly unsafe that it needs to be taken

[53:02] down. But if it's vacant and they have no other power source,

[53:15] » we're just talking that it's vacant and no one's doing anything with it. Someone

[53:18] still owns the building and they're still actively trying to sell it.

[53:22] » They're trying to sell it or Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, as long as someone's

[53:25] keeping an eye on things, I don't see that it's a problem. It's when the storm

[53:29] hits it and obliterates it and it needs cleaned up,

[53:31] » then that's unsafe building order right away.

[53:33] » So, >> if they're not cleaning it up,

[53:35] » Yeah. So, Walmart goes out of business and they're sitting there waiting to be

[53:38] bought out by >> the next Kroger or whatever, there's no

[53:43] » They're not going to want to turn it off anyway because they're going to want

[53:46] some of it to be used anyway.

[53:57] put some thoughts into it. I think because I think there's different

[54:00] scenarios that I could see, but then I could revert back to unsafe building,

[54:04] but then there's scenarios I see where it's vacant, but it's only vacant

[54:08] because they're trying to sell it. Um, and they still need that usage to

[54:15] so the building doesn't go into disrepair.

[54:20] Um,

[54:27] And then on this um the only other comment

[54:32] um for this one is um MS4 coordinator um

[54:40] looking at this um just to add a blurp in there on uh drainage

[54:47] um and reverberating back to the NS4 um technical standards. Um, so we were

[54:54] going to add that in there. Um, just so it's not missed, even though it might be

[54:59] in with the major site plan process. Uh, we're going to put it in

[55:04] here just to double check, but just it's going to be a couple sentences to

[55:09] describe reverting back to the MS4 technical standards for the

[55:13] requirements, not go into specifics to double do the list.

[55:19] Um so 1920 we have gone over 1920

[55:26] um at a previous meeting. Um we had one comment um the notification for project

[55:33] would be within um meet within a mile not 500 ft.

[55:39] Um,

[55:43] so

[55:46] um, what we've done, and I know this was a

[55:50] question that didn't get in there, um, as far as the 500 foot standard of

[55:56] notification, um, that came from the max that we have

[56:00] notification is a reszone, which is 500 ft. Uh so for conditional use for these

[56:07] types of projects, I stuck with the 500 ft instead of the um regular notice for

[56:14] um a conditional use is just a joiners. >> So I bumped it up to match a reszone.

[56:22] Um so that's where that 500 ft comes from. Um I don't know.

[56:26] » So does that match our current most restrictive requirement then?

[56:30] » Yes. >> Okay.

[56:31] Um, and I the the only other thing that I was going to add just because I was

[56:37] double-checking um the state ordinance on BZA related

[56:42] items or plant commission related items was the um

[56:48] notification if it um abuts a county line then you go have to go two

[56:55] properties over um within that county. I was going to add a blurp on that um just

[57:03] to make sure we're matching with the state standard task on there.

[57:10] Um because that

[57:17] was in there.

[57:23] So does anybody have anything additional on the conditional use requirements as

[57:28] we had gone over them before?

[57:34] Okay. and we'll move on. Um out of those, so

[57:40] we've gone through um one, two,

[57:45] basically three. Did you want to stop for public comment

[57:50] or do you want to keep going?

[57:55] » So, we've been all the way through. >> We would be starting 1925 right now,

[58:00] which would be community solar projects. We can take comments on the first the

[58:07] three sections that we've covered this even

[58:12] » I did have one thing Nicole and and I'm not sure what section or if it makes it

[58:18] in there at all or just something to suggest. Um, since any kind of community

[58:24] utility scale solar project, we'd be dealing with an outside entity, not

[58:28] someone or not a company likely from Dearborn County, but some entity

[58:32] outside. Is there any is there a place or is there a reason to have something

[58:39] in the ordinance that states that if there is an open enforcement case

[58:43] against XYZ company that their other any other projects that they're trying to

[58:50] push through are kind of on hold? Is there anything that we do like that

[58:54] where we're we've got maybe a bad actor not trying to put someone that's

[58:58] behaving properly and playing ball. let them do their thing. If they want to

[59:02] make 10 of them within the limits of the ordinance, fine, but if we have someone

[59:07] that's obviously not wanting to play ball, is there and maybe Andy, you can

[59:12] » So, we do have it to where we don't allow permitting for a person that's

[59:15] currently in violation on their the same property. I think we've asked about

[59:19] doing different properties because we've had people be in violation.

[59:24] » Sure. >> Over here and over here, but right here,

[59:26] they want another permit. We know they're not going to do what they're

[59:30] supposed to do. I don't believe we can do that.

[59:33] » Okay. I was just asking because I >> But if it's on the same parcel, we can.

[59:38] » Okay. >> They're they're currently in violation.

[59:43] » Okay. So, it's basically on a by property basis. You can't even if

[59:49] they're being knuckleheads consistently, you can't throw the bra.

[59:54] No, I'm just saying if if you have XYZ, I'm not throwing any particular company

[59:59] under the bus. I'm saying if you have three solar companies come in and two of

[1:00:03] them behave and they do their thing and they follow the ordinance and

[1:00:07] everything's great and you got one of them that is just constantly becoming a

[1:00:11] problem. Is there something that says, "Look, we're not doing any more of these

[1:00:15] until you guys get in line with everybody else." And

[1:00:21] you know, >> for the community part or for any of it,

[1:00:24] » I'm just saying when you get to the I >> for the community for the larger scale

[1:00:30] » large scale, I think it would be um you're going to be going after the

[1:00:34] person the property particular property in general. Um because if they're in

[1:00:39] violation, they're in violation and that's you're going to go after them. If

[1:00:42] they're >> if the same company or same property

[1:00:45] owner is doing another business on a diff different property and they

[1:00:51] still we couldn't regulate, we couldn't stop that.

[1:00:54] » Okay. I don't know. >> As if like their permitting process,

[1:00:57] they're showing that they're following all ducks and it comes to this part of

[1:01:01] it. We can't stop that. But if they're in violation on this property and they

[1:01:06] want to say add more, we can say not until you take care of this violation.

[1:01:12] » And I think it's certainly something if if there was a reason or a conditional

[1:01:16] use or a variance, I think it's certainly something that the plan

[1:01:19] commission or the board of zoning appeals could take into consideration if

[1:01:22] those concerns were raised. I think the issue would be with policing in because

[1:01:26] any company, if they're going to do something on that size of scale, is

[1:01:30] going to set up an LLC in the state of Indiana. They're probably a registered a

[1:01:34] agent out of Delaware and you I don't know that you'd ever be able to track

[1:01:37] back who actually >> so it's hard to draw that line to

[1:01:40] whoever the problem I just I've been involved with some people this is on the

[1:01:44] Lawrenceburg side of things where we got some bad actors that kind of

[1:01:47] continuously cause problems with their project and then when they come in hatin

[1:01:52] going oh we want to do this and it's like they I mean they pretty much got

[1:01:56] shut down but >> we talked to Andy about a contractor

[1:01:59] that was not doing the right thing on a particular construction construction.

[1:02:03] Um, and really it what it was is he was really sticking it to the property owner

[1:02:08] » and what they were doing and we were really struggling on how to stop him

[1:02:14] from being in the county because it was just one after the other.

[1:02:18] » Um, and the problem was it was the property owner that had to pay in the

[1:02:23] end and um, but they left anyway. So, >> okay. I've asked my question. Yeah, it's

[1:02:30] really hard when you're talking that kind, but

[1:02:33] » yeah, we deal mainly with they're more smaller because they're prop, you know,

[1:02:38] building some builders, but not all the time. It's more people that own multiple

[1:02:43] properties that are >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:02:47] » Yeah. >> Anything else before

[1:02:53] comments? No.

[1:02:55] » Nope.

[1:03:18] I don't know. >> You all right?

[1:03:21] » Yeah. >> I don't really got to stretch.

[1:03:26] Can I have a motion to open public discussion on section

[1:03:31] » I'll second >> 1910 1915 and 1920. Correct.

[1:03:38] » Russell and Eric.

[1:03:44] Have a motion by Russell Mer Storeford to open public discussion on sections

[1:03:49] 1910, 1915, and 1920. >> A second by Eric Lang. All in favor?

[1:03:56] » I >> I.

[1:03:58] » Any opposed? Motion carries.

[1:04:03] Um, since this is a little different than a

[1:04:07] casebycase thing, I'm just going to ask folks to raise their hands.

[1:04:12] You may come up. Please state your name

[1:04:21] » on these. Hi, I've given you guys all a copy of

[1:04:25] this. It has some sources in it speech so in case you forget anything.

[1:04:33] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:04:49] » Hi, my name is Michelle Dudley. I'm a lifelong man

[1:04:56] My name is Michelle Dudley. I'm a lifelong Manchester resident. Um, and my

[1:05:00] speech kind of ties right into the stuff we're talking about right now. So, I

[1:05:04] believe it's very important to write and comply with appropriate definitions for

[1:05:08] all aspects of our solar ordinance, especially in regard to project sizes

[1:05:12] and acreage caps. Um, we're kind of all at a loss here trying to figure out what

[1:05:15] to do, but there's lots of ordinances in Indiana that have done just this

[1:05:19] already. Um, we've sent a lot of copies of them in. We've spoke about them at

[1:05:23] speeches. So, we're not reinventing the wheel. We can easily pull these

[1:05:26] ordinances up and pull some information from there instead of kind of going back

[1:05:30] and forth on opinions. Um, Boone County, Indiana is considered the gold standard

[1:05:35] by some for a protective, thorough ordinance that adheres to the purpose

[1:05:39] and intent of their ordinance, which is to preser preserve the health, safety,

[1:05:44] and general welfare of Boone County residents and public. The intent of the

[1:05:48] article is to guide the development and operation of energy projects in Boone

[1:05:52] County through reasonable standards and restrictions on the development,

[1:05:56] construction, operation, rehabilitation, decommissioning, and restoration of

[1:06:00] energy production and storage facilities. Um, their ordinance also

[1:06:04] lays out very clear definitions for each component. I won't go over those for

[1:06:08] time sake, but I do have in there they each have a acreage cap. So there's

[1:06:12] small, medium, and large, and each has a megawatt output and an acreage cap per

[1:06:16] each one. Uh, by not setting clear definitions and adhering to them

[1:06:20] throughout the ordinance, we've created a large loophole for a massive scale

[1:06:24] data center to be built in conjunction with the commercial solar. You might be

[1:06:27] saying, "What do you mean? I thought we were talking about solar." We are, but

[1:06:30] solar and data centers go hand in hand. And I have a few examples of that. Um,

[1:06:35] the same company that's shoving down Dearborn's County throats to solar,

[1:06:38] Lineia Energy, has recently signed a deal with Google Data Sitters. We've

[1:06:42] talked about that one already, but it is a 3,500 acre commercial solar plant

[1:06:46] built by Lineia. So, just know without a cap, we could be getting a 3500 acre

[1:06:51] facility. Um, Meta is working with Texas based solar company NG on three

[1:06:55] different solar projects that total 2.3 gawatts of energy output. The biggest

[1:07:00] project they've ever tackled is 600 megawatt. It's in the works now. Um, all

[1:07:05] three of these solar projects are all to power one mega one uh gill I don't even

[1:07:12] know how you say that word. Um, yellow jello like huge the G one. Sorry, this

[1:07:18] is above my stuff, but I'm fighting for my community. Okay.

[1:07:22] » Um, so I just want to remind you that Meta is made up mainly of social media

[1:07:26] apps such as Facebook and Instagram. It's not anything vital to life like

[1:07:30] water and things that are vital to life. I say all this to prove to naysayers

[1:07:34] that don't think solar is being built to power data centers. All of the

[1:07:37] facilities I just listed were for the purpose of powering data centers. And I

[1:07:41] just have one last thing to add. I recently received reports from someone

[1:07:44] in close proximity to the proposed solar site where Lineia has already built a

[1:07:48] driveway on Benning Road. Um they reported that they had had their

[1:07:51] property assessed before solar was even talked about in Debburn County and they

[1:07:55] got a set amount and they have now had an appraiser come out and assess again

[1:07:59] and they told them they are going to take they're going to lose at least 7500

[1:08:03] at least 75,000 to $100,000 on their property due to being in such close

[1:08:08] proximity to a proposed not even built yet solar project. Uh please listen to

[1:08:13] the concerned members of the community and protect us. That's all we ask. Thank

[1:08:16] you. >> I have a question. Yeah.

[1:08:20] » Who made B found Boon County uh the the gold standard?

[1:08:25] » Um just different. I said that's kind of opinion. That's I said it's like stated,

[1:08:30] but a lot of people consider it. There's other counties that are writing the

[1:08:33] ordinances based on that. >> So it depends on who you are and your

[1:08:36] opinion. >> Yep.

[1:08:37] » Sure. That's like everything does. >> Okay.

[1:08:40] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[1:08:53] You don't have a hand out, too, do you? >> No, I'm not I'm not that organized. I'm

[1:08:58] sorry. Mine's short, but Walmart is a great example.

[1:09:02] » Oh, I'm sorry, Shauna Drake. >> Oh, thank you.

[1:09:06] Walmart is a great example for you to know about because I think it would be

[1:09:10] interesting for you all to look into Walmart suing Tesla over the fires that

[1:09:16] were caused by the solar panels that were on the roofs.

[1:09:20] The insurance companies started to tell Walmart that they will not insure them

[1:09:26] because of the solar panels on the roofs of the Walmart. So, every Walmart had to

[1:09:32] have the solar the solar taken off because no one checked for faulty

[1:09:37] wiring. No one was an expert looking for things on top of the roof at Walmart.

[1:09:42] So, they had a lot of fires that happened because of solar panels. And

[1:09:48] you know if you think about it from a thousand acres that runoff goes into our

[1:09:55] stream they go into our water they hit all of us whether it's from the

[1:10:01] temperature you know I think we honestly need a solar expert for Dearborn County.

[1:10:07] Somebody who is not going to just be oh well let's just put this in the

[1:10:11] ordinance. somebody that really knows what they're talking about and somebody

[1:10:15] that would be able to go out and look at these solar panels to make sure they are

[1:10:19] being done right. Right now, the only thing that's being

[1:10:24] protected is the property owner who wants to have this done, not the people

[1:10:29] who are around it. But I feel like as Dearborn County, from a citizen

[1:10:35] standpoint, we trust you to look out for us.

[1:10:40] That's all I have to say. >> Thank you.

[1:10:50] » Please.

[1:10:57] My name is Jeff Brand, resident of Dearbornne County. Couple things just

[1:11:01] for general information. Solar power is active. So when we had the discussion

[1:11:06] about disconnecting it, it's always active. So you need to use terms like

[1:11:10] disconnect or isolate. Make sure that's broken down and removed. Otherwise, it's

[1:11:16] like having a huge battery sitting. Um, second thing I had is we spent a lot

[1:11:23] of time over the years putting together a master plan for Dearborn County, uh,

[1:11:27] districting, saying business districts, industrial zones. And then I found it

[1:11:32] interesting as we looked at section 1915.

[1:11:39] We have a right at the beginning it says large-scale solar projects as defined in

[1:11:44] this article are prohibited within all residential zoning districts.

[1:11:49] So, it might be something worthwhile to think about if we put a lot of time into

[1:11:53] our uh comprehensive plan for the county

[1:11:57] that we could use a similar wording in all the other sections, isolating them

[1:12:02] to specific areas that are already pre-zoned

[1:12:06] for solar, whether it be business districts or

[1:12:09] industrial.

[1:12:13] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:12:30] Yeah, >> just one comment on 1924.

[1:12:36] Section 4 there are a number of different

[1:12:39] » I'm sorry Chris Perry >> section so section 1920.4 four. Uh there

[1:12:46] are a number of different criteria for how the BCA might be able to deny an

[1:12:50] application. Just asking that those criteria be specified so that the

[1:12:55] definitions can help help the enforcement be equitable. That's all. I

[1:13:00] don't have specifics for the definitions, but some of them are a

[1:13:03] little little open-ended.

[1:13:07] » Thank you.

[1:13:24] quickly. >> You're quick.

[1:13:25] » Uh Chris Perry, uh 1920.6 and 1945A, which have come on later.

[1:13:32] There's two different triggers for when an application for a utility scale

[1:13:36] project would have to meet their permitting requirements after the

[1:13:39] conditional use. and they're both two years, but one says that you have to

[1:13:43] have your building permit submitted and one has it says it has to be approved. I

[1:13:47] would argue that it's got to be when it's submitted because it's a timeline

[1:13:50] that the applicant can control. But either way, just clarification there.

[1:14:10] Lisa Lee Wisburg Road just went over some of that that you was just I just

[1:14:14] had a question on 1915 and 13 the abandonment you keep talking about the

[1:14:18] building being abandoned. What if the solar is abandoned that storms come

[1:14:23] through knock it down but they're still living or occupying the building? Do we

[1:14:28] have anything on how those solar panels should be cleaned up?

[1:14:33] It was always talked about the building being abandonment.

[1:14:39] » What if just the solar is >> I think Nicole covered that talking

[1:14:43] about like if a storm came through and damaged it or if it was obvious that was

[1:14:47] not being used. >> Yeah.

[1:14:48] » That it would fall under the >> It would fall if we took it out. We

[1:14:52] would live list it under unsafe building ordinance

[1:14:55] » that it's not a building. >> So So the unsafe building ordinance

[1:14:58] applies to buildings or structures, but it also but it also applies to tracks of

[1:15:02] property that are a fire hazard, a hazard to public health, public

[1:15:05] nuisance, or dangerous to person. >> Okay, great.

[1:15:08] » Thank you. >> Yeah, and that stuff's all in statute.

[1:15:12] Like we've adopted the unsafe building warrants in De County, but all those

[1:15:15] parameters are in the code.

[1:15:25] » Is there anyone else? Please.

[1:15:30] My name is Jessica Schneider and I'm a resident of Manchester. Just to follow

[1:15:35] up on that, um, is there going to be a bond in place? So, say the company does

[1:15:40] go under, um, >> is there going to be a bond and how much

[1:15:44] does someone know how much for decommissioning, say a business goes

[1:15:49] under, a tornado came in to say, or storm?

[1:15:53] » I know we've talked about a bond, >> not for

[1:15:57] the large scale. That's what she's talking about

[1:16:01] » for like a commercial building. >> Yeah. No, that's what we were talking

[1:16:05] about doing the unsafe building >> um process.

[1:16:10] » So, who would pay for that? >> So, what happens is if it's unsafe

[1:16:13] building, the county case puts a lean on the property for the cost for the cost

[1:16:18] attorney cost.

[1:16:22] » So, when they sell the property, we would get the money,

[1:16:25] » right? >> Thank you.

[1:16:36] Go ahead.

[1:16:40] » Brandon Lang lander Lake Tambo Road. I'm curious uh the substation on Tangaman

[1:16:45] Road. It's Tangman Ashy Road. It was expanded years ago already.

[1:16:52] » Here we go. Oh, anyway. Brandon Lang, Lake Tambar Road. There's a substation

[1:16:56] on uh Tangaman and Ashy Road on the corner there and I I believe it was

[1:17:01] expanded years ago because it's considerably bigger than it was when I

[1:17:04] was a kid. What was the process for that?

[1:17:07] » What what process do they go through to expand uh substations?

[1:17:11] » That most likely falls under the NA utility regulatory commission because it

[1:17:16] doesn't fall under the county. >> So do you have we have no control where

[1:17:20] they put those, how big they get? No, nothing over.

[1:17:24] » I have not seen anything come through this county in regard to that

[1:17:29] substation. Now, granted,

[1:17:34] » we did receive plans, but we could not do anything about it. So, the courtesy

[1:17:39] was they sent us plans and that was >> Was that the same thing for the one on

[1:17:45] uh Wisburg Road on Crafty Lane? Mhm. >> So, we just got plans say, "Hey, we're

[1:17:50] building this and >> Yep."

[1:17:52] » Yeah. Enjoy. >> Yep.

[1:17:54] » They're like, uh, what if they wanted to add another substation? Do they just do

[1:18:00] they just tell you what they're going to do? Do they even have to tell you where

[1:18:02] they're going to put it? >> Well, they'll apply to IURC and then

[1:18:06] » they dictate to the county what happens. >> No control over what's contained in

[1:18:10] there. You know, lead or whatever kind of hazardous materials, batteries,

[1:18:15] whatever's going in a substation. And there's no control over that whatsoever

[1:18:18] on the county level. >> Not that I'm aware of. I mean,

[1:18:24] » if the tornado comes through and blows it over, their insurance company will

[1:18:27] take care of it and rebuild it probably, right?

[1:18:30] » I can't answer that. >> I think I can. That's pretty sounds

[1:18:34] pretty reasonable to me. All right. Thanks.

[1:18:43] » Anyone else?

[1:18:56] Emily Hartman.

[1:19:00] » I did bring some handouts. >> Sorry, Jim.

[1:19:08] » I'll speak up when I start talking. Sorry.

[1:19:18] Okay.

[1:19:22] » Will you just take one and pass it down? >> Just say pass them down.

[1:19:28] » Yes. Just take one and pass it down. >> I didn't hear the take one.

[1:19:36] » Take one and pass it down. >> And then I'll hold all the other stuff

[1:19:39] for you.

[1:19:43] Okay. So, I'm passing down the purpose and intent that I mentioned last time.

[1:19:48] Um, I figured you guys wanted it printed out. Email wasn't effective. And then

[1:19:54] the other thing I handed out is the definitions that I mentioned last time,

[1:19:58] which um probably means more to you now than

[1:20:02] it did last time. Anyway, so the recommendation is that citizens

[1:20:06] recommend that the draft ordinance define solar energy products based in

[1:20:10] part on acreage or project size ranges establishing clear size thresholds would

[1:20:14] allow the development standards and regulatory requirements to appropriately

[1:20:18] reflect the scale and potential impacts of a project rather than being based on

[1:20:22] the identity of the project owner, operator, or customer.

[1:20:27] Citizens further recommend that the proposed definitions and related

[1:20:30] standards be reviewed by an attorney with specialized experience in zoning

[1:20:34] and land use law. Legal review would ensure that the definitions are clear,

[1:20:38] enforcable, and comprehensive while minimizing those loopholes we discussed

[1:20:42] last time. I included our original article 19

[1:20:46] examples which did have ranges and caps all except for the large.

[1:20:52] I thought that did the job. Um, and then I also included Madison County who did

[1:20:56] something similar and has ranges. It

[1:21:01] makes sense to treat it for what it is, not who's benefiting from it. I don't

[1:21:06] know if the inverter noise changes based off of who's making money or not. Um,

[1:21:12] and that brings another point since we're talking about not the utility

[1:21:15] scale solars, but these like small project type ones.

[1:21:20] I did get a noise testimony from someone in Indiana. I can't remember. I think

[1:21:25] Frankton, that sounds right. Uh, the project is

[1:21:29] 4.15 acres. Homeowners can hear a constant high-pitched ringing noise from

[1:21:34] the back deck, which is 580 ft away and separated by two rows of tall pine

[1:21:39] trees. Uh, so I just thought I would insert that here so we don't think just

[1:21:46] because it's small it doesn't have any adverse impacts.

[1:21:51] Thank you.

[1:21:59] Thank you.

[1:22:05] Is there anyone else that would like to speak on the sections before mentioned

[1:22:14] public discussion? I'll second that.

[1:22:26] Motion by Eric Lang to close public discussion.

[1:22:32] Second by uh Russell Marstofer. All in favor say I.

[1:22:36] » I. >> Any opposed?

[1:22:42] » Thank you.

[1:22:47] Go.

[1:23:32] Okay. So, we're at section 1925. Um, these are for the uh community solar

[1:23:40] uh projects. Um, so

[1:23:51] As far as up to at least Friday, um I hadn't received any comments on this

[1:23:59] particular section. Um, I did receive some comments from the MS4 coordinator

[1:24:05] and the highway engineer um to add drainage um requirement, just

[1:24:11] a drainage statement within the requirement section um to match the MS4

[1:24:17] standards. And then um on number 14 which is on page 21

[1:24:25] um the abandonment um uh put a time frame of that abandonment

[1:24:32] for these projects um and because of the potential size of this if it's a

[1:24:38] neighborhood um or something putting um a

[1:24:42] decommissioning in there um plan for that instead of the abandonment to get

[1:24:48] specifics. Um, so I did um add that note to uh put more details into that. So

[1:24:58] because if it's a neighborhood or a community um solar project, um it would

[1:25:05] be hard to do individual um possibly individual

[1:25:09] under unsafe building. Um, but it's still I think could be used if it's on a

[1:25:15] parcel in within that that can be, you know, whether it's a homeowners

[1:25:20] association you'd still go after, but I think it does need a decommissioning um

[1:25:24] outlined on that, >> right?

[1:25:27] » Um, so and just looking real quick, I haven't had a chance to look at all of

[1:25:34] them. Um,

[1:25:46] I don't think there was anything in um any of the other things that I received

[1:25:52] on this particular um section.

[1:25:57] » Does the board have anything on this particular section?

[1:26:02] I noticed the typo on page 21. Um, under maintenance, the first one, uh, the

[1:26:07] owner owners shall maintain the solar system. Uh, it says in sage operating

[1:26:13] condition, but I think you meant safe. So, sorry.

[1:26:15] » Yes. 21. I think someone did point that out to me.

[1:26:24] » Yes, it's supposed to be safe.

[1:26:29] I think I noticed at all unless you've updated it. All the zoning ordinance,

[1:26:33] all the zoning districts were referenced in 1925 except B2.

[1:26:38] I assume that would be commercial builders.

[1:26:44] It's got I1, two, and three, but I didn't see

[1:26:59] Oh, B2 is supposed to be a conditional use

[1:27:03] » down with B1 in the commercial or >> so B1 would be a permitted use.

[1:27:10] Are you talking about the first? >> Are you on

[1:27:13] » 19? Oh, shoot. Nope. Sorry. 1920.

[1:27:22] Oh yes, including B2. >> Thank you.

[1:27:26] » Yes.

[1:27:30] » Although you did make me catch another mistake.

[1:27:45] any others for 1925?

[1:27:51] Um, actually I think they did. I just

[1:27:55] couldn't figure out page 19.

[1:28:11] Yes, it's just out of order. Sorry. Um the advisory committee did pick up

[1:28:16] something on page 19. Um page 19 number two at the end. Um

[1:28:24] I don't think I completed the sentence. Um but what it is intended to do be

[1:28:32] um is that the this is location um and this would be under canopy

[1:28:39] systems. Um if the systems shall not be located within public rightway recorded

[1:28:45] public or private easement or panhandle or access strip portion of a lot or

[1:28:50] required landscape buffer yard unless authorized in writing by the easement

[1:28:54] holder. And then it was meant to be a separate se section or sentence. If the

[1:28:59] rightway cannot be determined, it shall be a rightway distance as required in

[1:29:03] the sub subdivision control ordinance for the roadway classification.

[1:29:09] Um, and that was just some roads um don't always have a dedicated rideway.

[1:29:15] So that is to ensure that if it's deemed a collector road that we're using what

[1:29:23] the standard is for the rightway that should be dedicated. Um so it was the

[1:29:29] sentence just wasn't complete. So um I did have that. Um

[1:29:36] and then and then the other comment that was

[1:29:40] through because I just need to run it through um

[1:29:44] the word document is groundmounted systems um is not always written the

[1:29:51] same as the definition. So, I've made a note

[1:29:56] to run that through the find it process.

[1:30:08] So, I will be adding um drainage to there to follow them as for and put a

[1:30:14] more description. um probably will not use abandonment but this um a

[1:30:19] decommissioning for the community

[1:30:23] scale.

[1:30:28] All right, if there's nothing else, we'll move on to 1930.

[1:30:38] This is the utility scale. Um, so I do have comments on that.

[1:30:48] Um,

[1:30:51] so this would be all these are what I have so far are citizen comments,

[1:30:58] comments from the highway engineer, um, from emails and then from the MS4 um,

[1:31:05] coordinator as well. Um in page 22, which is the first page of that

[1:31:11] ordinance, um reducing the one mile between parcels of a part of utility,

[1:31:17] consider requiring project parcels to be contiguous.

[1:31:21] Um so the way we have that is the maximum acreage um for the project size

[1:31:26] to be a thousand acres. Um they do not it's we have in there not required to be

[1:31:33] contiguous. Um each parcel has to be located within a mile of each other. Um

[1:31:43] so that is what they're questioning on that particular would be the one B1A.

[1:31:49] Um you just want me to go one by one and let you guys speak up. That's the

[1:31:54] comments that we received. Okay. Um B1A um also reducing reducing

[1:32:02] the maximum project size um should there be a max cap size allowable in all of

[1:32:09] Dearburn County? Um so in this for if you put A and B together uh maximum

[1:32:16] project size is 1,000 acres. If there is another project that comes in, it has to

[1:32:21] be 10 miles away from the um any other project that is um

[1:32:27] currently in Dear County. Um >> where did that 10 miles come from?

[1:32:32] » Um well, on average, when you're looking at substations, especially through

[1:32:36] Darren County, we don't have a lot of locations where substations are. Um, so

[1:32:42] the maximum I'm looking at those substations, that's kind of where I just

[1:32:47] determined the 10 miles because if you're looking

[1:32:51] at actual substations currently, then you're really looking at those limits

[1:32:56] anyway. Um, and if they're in before, then when someone's coming in for a

[1:33:01] substation that's in between one, it it's already too late if it comes in

[1:33:05] after. So, um, that's kind of where I went with that size.

[1:33:13] or the distance I should say. >> Okay.

[1:33:26] » Just in case they wanted to start running substations as was stated before

[1:33:30] that wherever they want whenever they want. It was at least a distance in

[1:33:34] their set.

[1:33:39] Can you change the screen to your screen? What you're looking at?

[1:33:44] » Oh, sorry.

[1:33:52] I was looking at the I thought you meant up there. Thought my computer went black

[1:33:57] again. So, we're looking at the B 1 A and 1 B.

[1:34:08] All right. Um, next, um, on page 23,

[1:34:17] um, the comment was, "Is there a conflict with projects being separated

[1:34:21] by 10 miles with what is described in B1A? There is no definition on how

[1:34:27] separation is to be measured." Um

[1:34:37] and I agree there um to make a definition well the project proper or

[1:34:42] boundary um is in there. So it would be the boundary lines of the project would

[1:34:47] be the um distance away uh for the 10 miles

[1:35:01] and I'm not sure if there's I'm not sure the conflict of between one A and 1B for

[1:35:07] the separation. Um

[1:35:11] I guess maybe they just let the the one mile separation was for the same

[1:35:16] project for the total of the thousand acres if they're parcels that are not

[1:35:22] contiguous. Um, and then the 10 miles is actually

[1:35:26] for a project to project.

[1:35:40] Moving on on page 23 for the setbacks.

[1:35:48] Um >> there was two things like we had on

[1:35:51] there that I didn't you got that removing the word adjacent from B.

[1:35:57] So it just says for all minimum setback from non participating.

[1:36:01] » I haven't gone through all the yours which I don't know which um

[1:36:04] » that's 23

[1:36:08] some of these I didn't get to yet. I didn't

[1:36:13] » for page um

[1:36:19] » just yeah for 23.

[1:36:24] Yeah, that's what we just started there for the setbacks.

[1:36:28] So, I haven't gone through the these comments.

[1:36:30] » We're going to page 24. >> No, 23.

[1:36:33] » Okay. >> For setbacks.

[1:36:35] » So, I have But at least I know they're on here because I didn't know.

[1:36:39] » Um page 23 for B2 setbacks. Should there be

[1:36:46] setbacks for fencing, access roads, storm water facilities, etc. that are

[1:36:50] listed in the paragraph. Um so I did not I did not put any um

[1:36:56] setbacks uh for fencing, electric poles, um

[1:37:02] access roads, um

[1:37:06] required landscaping, storm management facilities, sign or aggravate features.

[1:37:12] Um

[1:37:15] so that's what they're referencing is I didn't put any in there. um access

[1:37:21] roads. We don't have setbacks in the current ordinance as far as regular

[1:37:26] ordinance for people's driveways and access roads. Um

[1:37:30] so I didn't have any for that. The fencing

[1:37:34] um we don't have setback for fencing. Um sometimes it's not a good idea to have

[1:37:39] setbacks for fencing because then you have

[1:37:43] um in the end whose property is who.

[1:37:47] » You're going to measure setbacks. Hm. >> How you going to measure the setbacks in

[1:37:50] the middle of the road or >> so the front yard? Well, the front yard

[1:37:54] is uh usually front yard setback is measured to the center line of the road.

[1:37:59] » Um >> so from the center of the line if it's

[1:38:02] 400 ft is 400 ft from the center of the road to that point.

[1:38:06] » Yes. >> Okay.

[1:38:07] » Um the reason being is we use the center line of the road because as I've stated

[1:38:12] not all roads have a dedicated rideaway that we can assume.

[1:38:17] Um, so that standard of measuring setbacks from the rideway is how we do

[1:38:23] all setbacks for the front yard from the center of the rideway. Okay? Or center

[1:38:27] of the road >> in case there is no rideway

[1:38:31] » because we had before we had an ordinance where it was

[1:38:34] » here it is from the center if there's no rideway and here it is from the rideway

[1:38:38] if there is a rideway. Um, and it's just too confusing. The

[1:38:43] center line of the road is the center line of the road. Um, so that's the

[1:38:47] front yard. Um, does anybody have any um, suggestions, comments at least board

[1:38:54] for setbacks or things that I've listed that are not included within the

[1:38:59] setbacks? >> What I'm seeing when I did uh, a Google

[1:39:03] for the average in the state of Indiana was 450 ft

[1:39:06] » for a front yard. >> Yep.

[1:39:09] And to put that into perspective, uh that's one football and a half football

[1:39:14] field and a half. So just to give you some perspective on how big that would

[1:39:19] be.

[1:39:26] » If someone wanted to build a bunch of hoop houses in an a district, they don't

[1:39:30] have to go through a zone change. They don't have to go through all of this

[1:39:33] process. What is their setback requirements? If it is no higher than 14

[1:39:38] feet, it is five feet. If it goes 15 or foot or higher, um, and that's just to

[1:39:43] the eaves, that is not so poop, we would where the breaking point is, um, 15 feet

[1:39:50] or higher, it would go to, uh, 10 ft >> for sideyards.

[1:39:54] » For sideyards >> and how

[1:39:56] » front yard would have to meet the front well accessory structures is front yard

[1:40:00] setback requirement in that zoning district and plus 110%.

[1:40:05] So if it's 70, you're looking at 77 feet from the center line of the road

[1:40:10] » for an accessory structure.

[1:40:16] » Is there a difference between like our requirements for hoop houses versus like

[1:40:19] confined feeding operations and like like if you're going to put a a pig farm

[1:40:24] » confined feed? No. If it's if it's not considered confined feeding and it's

[1:40:28] just a agricultural um because they confined feeding has to go through

[1:40:33] different regulations um res or agricultural hog barn

[1:40:39] um it depends on the size. So if it's 14 or at the eaves or lower it's 5t if not

[1:40:45] it's 10 ft. >> So what about confined feeding?

[1:40:47] » Confined feeding is 250 ft.

[1:40:56] sideyard >> 250 ft.

[1:40:59] » Anything. Okay.

[1:41:08] » And those if you wanted to look at the regulations for confined feeding, I did

[1:41:12] put those in your red binders. They're after article 19, the current article 19

[1:41:19] uh with the MS4 and confined feeding.

[1:41:34] Um, anything on the fences or any other birds?

[1:41:43] » Well, we haven't gotten there yet. >> Okay. Well, I'd like to be ahead.

[1:41:51] So if we got a 400 foot set back from the center of the road

[1:41:58] that property just sit there idle

[1:42:03] » I just threw out the average >> well what we currently have is 400 ft in

[1:42:09] here in the draft. So it would yeah it would be no different than the your yard

[1:42:17] being mowed or a hay field or

[1:42:22] they could do whatever they wanted agriculturally

[1:42:26] within that setback >> drop to 200 feet if we do the enhanced

[1:42:32] landscaping. >> Yes, that's the low end.

[1:42:44] Um and one of the comments on let me go through. So, a

[1:42:52] 2 A. I didn't have anything to A. I do for

[1:42:59] um

[1:43:03] sorry, I'm going through the um citizen advisory committee that I just got

[1:43:07] yesterday. Um

[1:43:12] on the landscaping they would like to see

[1:43:17] um hardy spruce trees used. We um had that

[1:43:23] they had to be native evergreen trees. Um white pine is they have white pine is

[1:43:28] probably the cheapest but also the least hearty to wind and storm and the

[1:43:33] distance needs between needs to be reduced at 20 years. The average spruce

[1:43:38] tea will only be 20 feet wide at the base.

[1:43:42] » I'd like to see that burm higher than what you have. Five feet. I'd like to

[1:43:47] see it up to 10 ft

[1:43:50] » and then the trees planted on top. >> Which dirt that is.

[1:43:53] » I mean, >> that's just that's what I'm saying

[1:43:56] » because that way you would be able to see anything.

[1:43:59] » I'll give you a prime example of a burm that you can see today right along 74

[1:44:04] between Sunman and St. Leon. I mean some in Batesville where they put the

[1:44:09] grindings on the person's property. They can't mow it because it's too damn

[1:44:14] steep and it's building up with

[1:44:19] what I call >> scrub

[1:44:21] » scrub trees. >> Weeds and scrub.

[1:44:23] » Well, I'd say BMS that uh >> but this this is this is a BM that's

[1:44:27] probably every bit 10 foot tall. It's got to be that tall. You've seen it,

[1:44:32] Dwayne. Uh

[1:44:34] » you seen the one down in uh Green Acres canoe place. There's a gravel pit next

[1:44:40] to it. They've got like a 10 foot BM >> with trees all across the top of it. You

[1:44:45] can't see anything back there. >> I know. I know.

[1:44:48] » So what I guess what I'm saying is it's doable.

[1:44:51] » It's doable, but I just don't want to see one like along 74.

[1:44:55] » Well, that's a mess. >> We can shake hands on that.

[1:45:00] » So if we did a BM that high and then had maybe stipulation for grading or like I

[1:45:05] don't know what the grade is on the levy or how they mow that. That's

[1:45:09] » to three to one. Yep. Three to one. >> So that was one of the statements that

[1:45:13] as far as the like through tech review from the highway engineer MS4 as we were

[1:45:18] going through them is 3 to one which we do have that stipulation in landscape

[1:45:23] ordinance. Um so if we left the burm in there um it would no matter the height

[1:45:31] » it would be 3 to one. So that was one of the things that we

[1:45:34] wanted added. >> You know, if you just put up a burm

[1:45:37] that's two feet or three feet or what have you, might as well not even put up

[1:45:40] a burm. >> Well, the the what it was looking at is

[1:45:46] um visually a rolling burm is visually I think more pleasing than a you know it.

[1:45:55] Would you rather look at a fence than a burm that tall? Um, but that's

[1:46:01] » I'd rather look at a BM, >> but I was looking at more pleasing and

[1:46:06] more naturally grading. That's what I had in mind for the BMS requirement on

[1:46:12] that. >> Just and I don't know if this means

[1:46:16] anything to you, but a 10 foot high burm every 10 feet is a little probably about

[1:46:24] 125 yards of material. >> So that just doesn't come cheap. I'm

[1:46:29] just saying that doesn't come out of a vacuum.

[1:46:30] » I I I kind of played that into my thought process.

[1:46:35] » And the other part of that too is this is trying to um as far as require some

[1:46:41] additional more evergreen trees that would be solid year round. There's

[1:46:47] always the stipulation of going back to if we had a reduction um going back to

[1:46:52] whatever the requirement would be for commercial industrial use against an

[1:46:56] agricultural residential. Correct. Along the So, which is already in the

[1:47:00] landscape ordinance currently. Yep. >> This was just trying to get more of a

[1:47:04] solid instead of we have different deciduous

[1:47:09] and evergreens and you know >> Nicole since we've adopted the new

[1:47:16] landscape ordinance because when I started here in '08 the original

[1:47:22] landscape ordinance was so packed with materials that

[1:47:26] » we were costing everybody a fortune replanting every couple of years and

[1:47:29] they wouldn't survive and nothing survived.

[1:47:32] Have we had any major do we have any major data points as to

[1:47:37] whether or not we're on the right right track because it's what been about 10

[1:47:41] years >> is

[1:47:43] » yeah what no well >> because yeah I wrote that in 2012 2013 I

[1:47:49] think we didn't hear it until 201 about 10 years back

[1:47:57] » really the only thing on there is um we haven't had complaints as far as far as

[1:48:01] the original starting with it. It gets into

[1:48:06] whether they come in for a variance later or I don't want the trees because

[1:48:10] I don't want the birds pooping on the cars or um

[1:48:16] an excuse at BZA. >> Um so they've gone through BZA

[1:48:21] but we haven't seen anything as far as oh I can't replant that and because it's

[1:48:26] dying because it's too close or anything like that.

[1:48:28] » Right. So following our landscape ordinance

[1:48:32] would be character of the county as far as the data points that we have.

[1:48:39] » Y okay. >> Um now this was just a way of getting um

[1:48:44] the some rollingness to it and maybe to try to avoid the shrubs included in that

[1:48:51] um

[1:48:54] void um enforcement later. Trees do better. I think that can be

[1:49:01] mathematically figured out if

[1:49:06] » we tend to have less enforcement on trees than we do we have more

[1:49:09] enforcement on shrubs dying than we do trees.

[1:49:13] » Correct. I I was thinking more along the lines of just the amount of dirt and top

[1:49:17] soil that you're going to need to construct it.

[1:49:21] Maybe everybody really wants the 10-ft BM because you can't see it, but then it

[1:49:25] adds another whatever $20,000 cost to the project. That then becomes

[1:49:33] » it becomes a a a >> The other problem too that it's been

[1:49:38] brought up and that's as far as doing the rolling and not just a solid burm is

[1:49:42] it does put the pressure on as far as drainage too.

[1:49:47] » Um then you've got I mean 10 foot BM animals as well, but you've got a lot

[1:49:53] with to do with drainage that tends to therefore the rolling at least allows

[1:49:58] some of that to >> unpour all of the options. I'm I'm not

[1:50:03] going to sit here and and >> shake my fist to say it has to be x

[1:50:09] number. If if somebody has a good architectural landscape

[1:50:14] » person that says that we can do a nice rolling gentle to break up the line of

[1:50:19] sight and then we're going to plant trees on top of it and that kind of is

[1:50:23] cost effective >> way to construct it and it

[1:50:28] » gets everything up to speed a lot faster rather than trying to figure out where

[1:50:32] you're going to find the extra 20,000 yards of dirt.

[1:50:35] » Yeah, I know. >> Well, and one of the things that you got

[1:50:37] to think of too is depending on the height of the burm. So

[1:50:41] the smaller the smaller you make the burm

[1:50:45] closer it is to the natural ground. >> You've got to be careful of what type of

[1:50:49] trees you plant on top of a burm. >> Um so you're looking at

[1:50:54] » more likely deciduous trees >> um that are medium small to medium

[1:51:00] height because of this by the time the root system grows. Then if they have the

[1:51:05] further down they have to go to spread out the

[1:51:08] » just not as >> and the white pines need water and you

[1:51:11] put them up on top of a hill they dry out quick and they die.

[1:51:15] » You're going to end up coming up so much.

[1:51:17] » Um so that's reasoning behind not making it as tall.

[1:51:21] » I just did a Google >> to be able to do that. That's why it was

[1:51:24] stated to put the trees in front of the burming

[1:51:26] » and also what it does is an evergreen tree. Depending on the type of tree, it

[1:51:30] could either be low to the ground or it could be a little higher up

[1:51:34] » once it starts growing and at least a burn breaks up that possible looking

[1:51:38] underneath an evergreen tree. >> So, those were the reasons why of

[1:51:42] sticking to that way. But if it's easier because the ordinance is already in

[1:51:46] place and referring to that >> um and that's if the board wants to put

[1:51:52] in landscaping to have the possibility of a reduction.

[1:51:56] Um so what we were looking at was if we what we were looking at is 400 feet we

[1:52:03] don't have requirement of landscaping just with the magnitude of the setback

[1:52:08] to get closer they have to do something. Um and it was that way before. Um but

[1:52:16] it's really on how I mean either which way

[1:52:20] » talking about >> the board

[1:52:22] » 60 makes sense.

[1:52:27] » I mean

[1:52:30] » and auction >> and I don't um

[1:52:34] » that's a lot of ground. may not have to look at the spruces from what I've been

[1:52:37] told about the spruces here in Indiana and that it could but um at least

[1:52:40] spruces in Indiana don't survive as long because they're more um up to diseases

[1:52:46] and pest >> um so that's why we say native evergreen

[1:52:52] just because we know what the native trees here do with this environment.

[1:52:56] » I can't remember the name. There is a spruce that I found but I didn't write

[1:52:59] the name >> native to India.

[1:53:02] » It's not a native though. That's the thing is there's none of the native ones

[1:53:05] are. >> So that's that's my only

[1:53:10] » experience with spruces in the area for Indiana at least.

[1:53:14] » Um

[1:53:18] » all right. So we'll move on then to minimum setback um to B which is minimum

[1:53:23] setback from adjacent non participating property lines. um we have

[1:53:30] it as 200 um feet and the setback may be re be able to be

[1:53:35] reduced to 100 feet if there's a uh waiver written consent by the adjoiner.

[1:53:42] Um trying to see if we have two

[1:53:50] um one of the comments is 200 feet is for non-participating property line is

[1:53:55] an inadequate and

[1:54:02] uh remove adjacent. We would like it to be all no participating property lines.

[1:54:13] Um >> excuse me, Dennis.

[1:54:17] » I get one minute comment from >> when we open we open.

[1:54:21] » I'm asking the chairman if we can motion for one minute comment on the burn from

[1:54:25] a professional perspective on education. I'm just going to ask you to wait until

[1:54:30] we open up for comment for the whole section, please.

[1:54:34] » Um I'm not sure that what you guys mean by

[1:54:38] » just so that it's all nonparticipating property lines, not just

[1:54:43] any participating.

[1:54:48] » But if it's not if it's nonparticipating and a joining, what would

[1:54:53] non-participating wear? like two houses down.

[1:55:01] That's what I'm not understanding. >> I guess we were just weren't

[1:55:04] understanding what you what what your intent what the intent

[1:55:09] » adjacent is. >> Yeah. So, anything if this is the solar,

[1:55:16] it would be any of these people around the four corners of the property.

[1:55:21] » Okay. Someone brought it up and we I guess got

[1:55:25] misinterpreted. >> So the only other time that we do um

[1:55:29] also adjacent would be is if this property comes off this corner, this

[1:55:32] property comes off this corner, we include this property that has the four

[1:55:36] corners. >> So it's the definition that we use for

[1:55:41] even our notifications. Anybody that and it's across the street that there's a

[1:55:47] front yard setback that's more. So, um, but if there's say it's a particular

[1:55:52] parcel that's out and doesn't have front yard, it would be all these

[1:56:00] adjacent.

[1:56:05] So, I'm not sure

[1:56:09] what that meant. Um

[1:56:17] um does anybody have any comments on the 200 feet or anything with the waiver?

[1:56:24] » Um I mean I think if they have the ability to reduce the setback I think it

[1:56:30] could be fair to increase our setback. I know Spencer County had um solar panel

[1:56:36] must be a thousand foot or more from the property line. And I think that's like

[1:56:40] the most extreme for our state. Um but if average um is 450, I think that

[1:56:46] that's a fair ask with the potential to reduce if that's if that's in the

[1:56:51] » 450 was just >> Was that average of

[1:56:55] » average >> front yard or was that side just

[1:56:58] setbacks?

[1:57:01] » And I'm just throwing that out. It could be 400. Mhm.

[1:57:07] » But I mean, the the one from Spencer County, that ordinance went through in

[1:57:11] like 2023, and I I'm not sure if there's any litigation in action over over that

[1:57:20] setback. But, I mean, if it's been around for going on three years now, it

[1:57:25] if it fits the character of our of our county, it could make sense.

[1:57:34] Depending on how we do these setbacks, that could take care of some other

[1:57:37] things down the road, like the noise decibb.

[1:57:41] » I mean, if if you're, you know, a football and a half, you're you're

[1:57:45] probably not going to hear anything and you're probably not going to feel

[1:57:48] anything. So, I think that adds a level of of security and for the folks that

[1:57:55] potentially could have a solar fund next month.

[1:57:59] And that that that that was one of the reasons we had added a setback for um

[1:58:05] inverters in addition to so inverters would have a 600 foot setback from any

[1:58:11] property line. >> 600 ft.

[1:58:14] » Mhm. >> You know how many yards that is?

[1:58:16] » So that would be from And that's so the inverters

[1:58:20] » yards. 600 feet is two football fields. Yep.

[1:58:24] » But they're not Yeah. That would keep the inverters though away from the

[1:58:27] property line for the noise. >> And if you increase that

[1:58:33] football field, you're telling me it's going to be they're that loud.

[1:58:37] » No, in my opinion, I don't. But >> well, I can tell you what's louder and

[1:58:42] that's the high tension lines. >> Mhm.

[1:58:46] » Yeah, >> I know.

[1:58:47] » We can't do anything about that. >> I know. So

[1:58:50] » yes, those are >> high lines where I can hear them a

[1:58:54] thousand feet away. >> Well, what the purpose of the um

[1:59:01] just sorry bouncing around, but the purpose of the 600 was tried to keep and

[1:59:06] more or less put a restriction on there to try to keep the inverters in the

[1:59:09] interior of the development um which would help with noise. So more you can

[1:59:17] concentrate those into the center um I think better

[1:59:21] no matter the noise level um and kind of gets rid of the

[1:59:26] » where do you measure the 600 ft from >> property lines any property line or

[1:59:30] center line. >> So where the property line starts you go

[1:59:33] 600 ft >> and that's where you can put the

[1:59:35] inverter >> no the inverters are back here.

[1:59:39] » Yes I mean it >> yeah to the property line

[1:59:42] » right at the property line. There you go 600 feet. That's a lot. I know.

[1:59:47] » That's a lot.

[2:00:01] » If you use a 200 foot setback on a 100 acre farm,

[2:00:06] » you end up with about 62 63 usable acres per project, right?

[2:00:15] What my concern is is what if you don't maintain that 200 ft.

[2:00:22] It's I mean it's got to be maintained because

[2:00:26] it has to have landscaping. That's right. It has to

[2:00:30] I mean 200 foot we don't state need to burn but that's just a lot of ground to

[2:00:36] be laying there idle that can't you you're not nobody's going to farm a 200

[2:00:40] foot strip. >> No.

[2:00:43] And you know, they couldn't even farm a 200 foot strip anyway because by the

[2:00:47] time you put in the landscaping and everything,

[2:00:51] » you're lucky if you have 10 ft. >> You know, you're going to get two passes

[2:00:54] with that 110 horse tractor, you can't afford to move the equipment to do that.

[2:01:00] So if a project would come,

[2:01:09] how much ground are we just going to have laying out there idle that isn't in

[2:01:14] production but can't be used for anything else?

[2:01:19] It's just something to think about.

[2:01:24] I think we are.

[2:01:29] Okay. Um,

[2:01:33] so I think that as far as the setbacks, I think there's going to be a um

[2:01:43] differences on what does anybody have a heartburn over

[2:01:49] uh reducing it no matter what the setback is on the side and rear? Um, if

[2:01:54] the joiner signs a waiver,

[2:02:00] » I think if the adjoining property owners have like had a conversation and they

[2:02:03] sign and agree, then that would be all right. Right.

[2:02:09] » I have no problem with it. >> I have no problem with that. I don't

[2:02:13] either. >> Okay. Um,

[2:02:18] so, um, like I said, we had 600 feet for the

[2:02:22] inverters. Um, we didn't have the stipulation of, uh, signing an agreement

[2:02:27] with that. >> Are we agreeing on the 600 ft?

[2:02:29] » No, we're not because I know there's a couple different things.

[2:02:32] » I like debating with you. >> Yeah.

[2:02:35] No, I think there's I think what we've heard is there's a couple different

[2:02:39] opinions on the setback. What I wanted to try to do is get through and I think

[2:02:43] everybody if we're giving the opinions on the setback I think everybody's heard

[2:02:48] them. I think everybody needs to think about them. Um,

[2:02:53] and then I think it that so right now the way I'm seeing it is if we're not

[2:02:58] agreeing upon a number, what I think it needs to be is whether we take the

[2:03:05] board's going to have to take a vote on these particular issues if there's so

[2:03:10] this is kind of one of those ones that I'm seeing the first disagreement and I

[2:03:15] think that's what's going to have to happen. Um, it's going to have to be a

[2:03:19] motion of I believe this who seconds it, you know, I think we're just and then

[2:03:24] till we get to a motion that sticks with the setback. Um,

[2:03:30] that's the way I see it um happening if it can't be agreed upon, you know, just

[2:03:36] in conversation >> right now. But I think right now I want

[2:03:39] that everybody at least to hear what everybody thinks and then they can think

[2:03:43] about it. Um so you know we've discussed and we've advertised for a special

[2:03:47] meeting on the 21st and having your opinions

[2:03:52] you know this is a big topic having your opinions on those and you know um that

[2:03:59] would probably be a question for you. Are they able to do like non voting

[2:04:07] » 21st? >> So it's like on the 21st if they

[2:04:12] » don't know I think it is >> it is Monday

[2:04:14] » have different still different opinions. >> I will not be here the 21st.

[2:04:18] » Okay. If they have different opinions and they want to vote or should we leave

[2:04:22] that to the final vote whatever final vote we have of the ordinance as a whole

[2:04:28] the setbacks because it looks like Certainly if there's if somebody's

[2:04:33] proposing a thousand, somebody's proposing 200 or whatever in the middle,

[2:04:37] I mean certain the chair could certainly go down the line and say, "Hey, what are

[2:04:40] your thoughts on the distance?" and give an idea of where the board comes down on

[2:04:44] it. >> But we could still do when we do a final

[2:04:47] vote on the ordinance, if there's still stipulation, we could do a separate vote

[2:04:50] for each topic that they may not agree upon. Is that a way or do they have to

[2:04:56] do the whole >> ultimately the only has to be formally

[2:05:00] voted on is what their recommendation is going to be on the final draft.

[2:05:04] » So I mean I mean it's more of like an informal polling. Okay, you know but but

[2:05:09] the formal vote is the final action is going to be on what the recommendations

[2:05:14] for the whole thing. >> So it' be more informal to try to get

[2:05:16] where you guys stick. So, as far as some of these setbacks, I think it's looking

[2:05:21] at it, hearing everybody's discussion here tonight and try to have some, you

[2:05:25] know, something in mind or further discussions on the 21st about it.

[2:05:29] » Well, that way we can >> we're going to have further discussions

[2:05:32] on the 21st about it regardless because >> we're going to have to get the public's

[2:05:37] input on these setbacks before we can even form our own Congress.

[2:05:43] » Okay. Um

[2:05:48] so then we have minimum setback for um residential water wells. Um

[2:05:55] 200 ft was chosen. Um I asked the health department what the setback was from

[2:06:02] water wells to commercial septic site and it was 200 feet. Um, so that's the

[2:06:08] distance of the the reasoning I chose the distance of a commercial septic

[2:06:12] because residential septic uh is only required to be 50 feet from a well. So I

[2:06:18] went with the either more with the commercial septic.

[2:06:21] Um the minimum setback to flood plane waterways um we have that is 50 feet.

[2:06:27] Um, >> would you pages?

[2:06:29] » Oh, sorry.

[2:06:39] So the setbacks for waterways um for flood planes, floodways 50 feet and then

[2:06:45] minimum setback for accessory structures um these would be for storage only um 30

[2:06:52] ft from adjacent or property lines along the um side and it would be 80 ft from

[2:06:58] the center line of the road. more than likely that whether or not they do their

[2:07:03] fencing, even if you say solar has to be 400 feet, if they decide to

[2:07:09] put their fencing in some accessory structures, meaning that um they would

[2:07:13] be able to do 80 ft from the center line of the road.

[2:07:17] Um and these would not be any these would

[2:07:21] be could not be used for any battery storage or electronics uh for live

[2:07:28] electronics. These would be um accessory structures um that are used for

[2:07:33] materials that they would need to keep on site rather than having them outside

[2:07:36] putting them into an accessory structure. And then the setbacks from

[2:07:41] schools um 15 or 10,560 ft. >> Why don't you just say two miles?

[2:07:48] » Why don't you just say two miles? >> Well, because everything else is in feet

[2:07:51] and that's why we did feet.

[2:07:58] That's the only thing that's not in my feet is in the is the

[2:08:03] service. >> Can we do we do that chains?

[2:08:05] » We want to do that chains.

[2:08:11] » Sorry. >> You too.

[2:08:17] » Okay. Um,

[2:08:22] » for those that don't know, a chain is an old surveying measurement instrument.

[2:08:25] That's why we find it so amusing. >> This is a joke that only two people got.

[2:08:30] » Tell them how many >> the two surveyors in the room

[2:08:33] understood. >> But that being said, I find it hard to

[2:08:35] fathom.

[2:08:40] » So then the one there was an additional let me make sure um someone stated 30

[2:08:46] feet on sex structure. It's inadequate for non-electrified items. Um

[2:08:55] and then the committee said add more protection for other dwellings such as

[2:09:02] what would be dwellings but other um non-residential such as churches, parks,

[2:09:07] and community buildings.

[2:09:12] Anybody

[2:09:18] have any?

[2:09:28] I mean, I guess I can see the need for a setback around a park.

[2:09:34] » Yeah. Um I I don't have any heartburn adding that

[2:09:40] » like additional to where the project couldn't be as close to or the the

[2:09:44] setback if they had join a park.

[2:09:54] » I guess it's something I'll have to get >> or a better opinion on. But I mean I can

[2:09:59] understand the reasoning behind that.

[2:10:03] » Okay. I will add that as it

[2:10:07] » I mean is that um anybody else have an opinion?

[2:10:16] » Not really.

[2:10:21] » I'm sure you do.

[2:10:36] I mean, I could see community buildings being what they're in the dwelling

[2:10:39] units. Um, so effects.

[2:10:52] » Okay. So then

[2:10:55] » Nicole, we got one question before we get too far away from setbacks.

[2:11:01] Maybe I missed it with all the paperwork. If you have two properties

[2:11:05] next to each other touching each other and they decide to go in on a solar

[2:11:12] agreement, do we have any? >> They can go they can go right across

[2:11:17] property.

[2:11:22] we can add a setback as far as that, but most time as far as with if they're two

[2:11:26] different properties. Um what I would suggest is maybe a setback, you know,

[2:11:32] put 10 feet or something just for the fact of different ownership of it. Um,

[2:11:38] you know, because if you typically on people that have prop different

[2:11:43] properties and they're joining, we'll do a contiguous lot form so they could

[2:11:47] build over the property, but it's the same owner because we can't do that with

[2:11:50] this. Um, we probably should put a set back in there at least 10 feet or so,

[2:11:55] but I wasn't looking at a setback internally to each other

[2:12:01] of the same project. Uh just gets into land use with

[2:12:05] if you still want to keep a fence run livestock on your property with the

[2:12:10] solar panels. So you're still going to need a fence to

[2:12:15] separate it from your neighbor if >> they're going to have

[2:12:17] » and then that means you've only got five feet to the edge of the solar panel.

[2:12:24] » All right. >> 10 feet with without a fence and more

[2:12:29] with a fence.

[2:12:36] Yeah, probably something like that. Just just as much flexibility to

[2:12:41] configure your your array as possible.

[2:12:46] » Mhm.

[2:12:53] » If different owners. >> That's correct.

[2:12:56] » Yes. Yes.

[2:13:12] anything else generally or opinion wise on any of the setbacks before we move

[2:13:18] on.

[2:13:22] » I have an average in state of Indiana for inverters if you want that or you

[2:13:26] want to wait. No, if you have the inverters

[2:13:30] » says ranges from 25 ft to 250 >> from the property line.

[2:13:39] » Is that with or without your burn? >> What's that?

[2:13:41] » Is that with or without your BM? >> We want the burn.

[2:13:50] » Okay.

[2:13:54] » By the way, 600 ft is two football fields.

[2:13:57] figured it out. >> Um, all right. So, moving on to height

[2:14:02] limits. Um,

[2:14:06] three. Um, from a citizen's email requesting

[2:14:13] maximum height to be 10 ft. Um, and then I know the citizens advisory committee

[2:14:21] didn't say 10 feet. They just wanted it um across the board the consistent

[2:14:27] um making the max 15 ft. Um so just to clarify that the so

[2:14:33] consistent through the the ordinance the height max height is 15 ft. Um where it

[2:14:40] differs is two areas. Um is if they can prove and show that they're going to do

[2:14:46] aggravates and the reasoning why they want it higher than 15 ft. Um, is it the

[2:14:52] animal? Is it the mo, you know, what is it that requires it higher than the 15

[2:14:56] ft? And then there's another part in the ordinance that says something about 20

[2:15:01] ft, but that is an addition that we put in there because if they come for

[2:15:06] variance or through the conditional use process, they ask for variance to

[2:15:10] increase the height if for some reason they increase the height to 20 feet or

[2:15:14] plus, even if it's canopy. So any solar that's higher than that has

[2:15:20] to have a structural engineer on top, you know, with additional

[2:15:25] paperwork and through their submitt. So those are the only two reasons for any

[2:15:30] inconsistencies of the 15, but across the board it's 15

[2:15:36] um

[2:15:40] except for the aggravates.

[2:15:46] This a 15 foot something that is in another one that's the reason I asked

[2:15:52] » it's ranges from 10 to 15. >> I mean I

[2:15:59] don't know if solar panels are standardized. If they're not um

[2:16:08] I mean if that's the number that other counties are using I guess that's okay.

[2:16:15] So that's just that's the range 10 to 15. Um

[2:16:24] » I I don't have any >> and it's one of the I mean just one of

[2:16:27] the stipulations as far as even the height going there um is typically the

[2:16:32] bottom they want three to four feet from the ground because of grasses. So they

[2:16:37] don't want that interference of the sun. So they're for at least at the bottom.

[2:16:43] Um that's generally where they start is the

[2:16:47] three or four and then they go up. So it just gives the option of that. Um

[2:16:57] but

[2:17:01] » that's all I had. Um,

[2:17:05] and then we have the aggravates management plan in there if they have

[2:17:10] for them to be able to do it in the 12 months.

[2:17:14] It's in there as an option. Um, it doesn't have to be in there as an

[2:17:18] option. Um,

[2:17:22] it's I mean, I really think it's something neat that's available

[2:17:27] to it. um that there's other things that they could do with the property if they

[2:17:32] choose to. Um but if they choose to, I think we have to have we should have

[2:17:36] something in place that they have to prove what they're doing. Um so that's

[2:17:40] why it's in there and that's why the allowance, but the allowance isn't given

[2:17:43] if they can't prove what they're doing and can't maintain it. Um so and if it's

[2:17:50] a violation, they have to correct it and they have to lower it. Just plain and

[2:17:53] simple if they don't follow it. Um so um they would have to correct everything

[2:17:59] within the 12 months with written notice if they are in violation of it. Um, so

[2:18:06] does anybody have any issues with the aggravates or just being an option

[2:18:12] for the height increase approving it though when they So at this point what

[2:18:16] would happen is they would have to if they're coming to the through a

[2:18:20] conditional use process to the board of zoning appeals and they want that height

[2:18:24] increase they're going to have to prove it at that point. They don't have to

[2:18:28] they they have to prove what they're doing and then come permitting if

[2:18:32] they're approved for it that permitting part they're going to have to have that

[2:18:36] plan in place of what exactly they're doing

[2:18:39] um to go with their permit. So there's a couple checks in there if they choose to

[2:18:44] do that, but they have to prove what they're doing to get that height

[2:18:48] to it. Um

[2:18:54] and then we move on to fencing. Um fencing um we have it as they have to

[2:19:03] have six feet or 6 in. I did the same thing someone else did at tech review. 6

[2:19:08] in um from the ground is to start um above there. That would allow the

[2:19:14] animals um maximum six feet height. of course that is to help other animals

[2:19:20] jump over and then um they would have to so the wildlife friendly um fencing um

[2:19:28] it's not chain link fencing um it's more of your agricultural fencing um what

[2:19:34] they use for security purposes which have the wider um

[2:19:40] openings for the animals to go in there that's what it's meaning um and then we

[2:19:45] have also in the front in the fencing thing that they have to have when they

[2:19:49] have entrances into the estab or the facility that they have to have gates

[2:19:54] that are at least 20 ft wide and that is to no matter what that emergency

[2:19:58] vehicles can access in and out no matter where the that gate is. So if they have

[2:20:04] an entrance into it um from a public road they're going to have to have a

[2:20:07] gate that is 20 ft wide. Um any comments, suggestions on fencing?

[2:20:16] What page is that? >> That is on page 25 and it's B.

[2:20:23] » Yes,

[2:20:29] » there was another county's ordinance I read that had um stipulations for

[2:20:34] wildlife corridors every so many feet. Um and the wildlife corridor would have

[2:20:38] to be like a break in the fencing at least 25 foot wide. Um so I don't know

[2:20:43] what your guys's thoughts are on

[2:20:49] Well, the deer can jump six feet. >> I know that's the fencing like that.

[2:20:53] Don't even need that.

[2:21:04] » How does that work? I mean, you have cattle in there in the winter time.

[2:21:08] » Somebody has to be able to get in there.

[2:21:12] » No big deal. >> Okay.

[2:21:15] There have to be access from the farmer or whoever's cat owns

[2:21:19] that cattle if there's cattle in there. >> Yeah, they would have that would be an

[2:21:22] agreement between the farmer and the company as far as the access to things.

[2:21:28] » Yeah.

[2:21:35] » Okay. >> There was one question,

[2:21:39] isn't it?

[2:21:46] It says, but it says if the site must be completely fenced. I thought we had it

[2:21:51] or had

[2:21:56] » um

[2:22:00] » 24

[2:22:11] » on yours >> or 25. I'm sorry. 25B. You were on 25,

[2:22:18] right? >> Yes.

[2:22:19] » Yeah. 25B. >> Oh, are you talking in the draft

[2:22:21] ordinance? >> Yes.

[2:22:23] » Okay. >> Did that get deleted already?

[2:22:24] » No, no, no, no, no. I just I I thought you were talking about your sheet. I was

[2:22:29] » Sorry. That's what I was looking at the wrong sheet then.

[2:22:32] » No, I'm just trying to cover what I didn't get.

[2:22:42] » I forgot to take my computer with me when I

[2:22:46] You have to read the first sentence because uh It says

[2:22:51] » that it has to be fenced or otherwise secured. And then it goes on to say if

[2:22:55] » fencing is outside the fence. >> Yep.

[2:22:58] » I don't know. >> But you got to have fence.

[2:23:01] » What is the other method that prevents if we don't stay

[2:23:09] » um >> we're having to allow animals wildlife

[2:23:11] through. So, I looked at I couldn't find anything

[2:23:16] as far as because this was talked about in tech review 2 if there were any state

[2:23:21] or federal regulations for solar uh regarding fencing like to make sure

[2:23:27] we weren't putting anything in there that said, "Oh, no, you have to have

[2:23:31] 12oot fencing and it doesn't matter what the local says." Um, I couldn't find

[2:23:35] anything on it. Um, it does just say there are

[2:23:41] they do have security um things that are in place that they

[2:23:46] have to follow. Um it just doesn't specifically say how

[2:23:51] they have to follow. If it's electrified, it has to be secured.

[2:23:58] So, but yes, as far as the wording there, um

[2:24:06] I mean, um the other thing about fencing

[2:24:11] » Mhm. >> if that fencing is close to the uh

[2:24:15] solar panels, they could energize. So, they would need to be grounded on the

[2:24:20] fencing.

[2:24:53] Okay. Um, anybody else with anything on the

[2:24:58] fencing? So when we get into C,

[2:25:02] um

[2:25:13] um so when we get into C, your access from your county road or your

[2:25:18] um county roads, state roads, federal

[2:25:22] roads, um they have to be designed in a way article three or article 24 which is

[2:25:28] the transportation in the current zoning or ordinance and

[2:25:32] then anything else state or federal would have to follow their standards for

[2:25:36] access um and construction. Um so whe whoever maintains it that's who you're

[2:25:43] going to have to follow the um with. And then D um

[2:25:50] for this is for county maintained roads and no access um entrance serving

[2:25:56] utility shall be permitted if the county road the existing county road with um is

[2:26:03] 16 ft or less. Uh so this is um the same as we have in the ordinance under our

[2:26:11] subdivision control ordinance for our subdivision. So a subdivision cannot be

[2:26:17] accessed on a county road that's less than 16 ft. So that is why that is in

[2:26:22] here and at the um where we pulled it off to match. Um

[2:26:27] as far as that um also the county engineer um wanted these um to be um

[2:26:35] determined as commercial driveways and that is to um put a standard on them for

[2:26:41] sight distance as well for those access drives. Um that way we know which part

[2:26:47] of the ordinance that we're pointing at when doing the site distance

[2:26:52] um and space.

[2:26:58] Um,

[2:27:02] does anybody have any

[2:27:07] comments, concerns about the access roads um at least accessing state,

[2:27:14] federal or county maintained roadways?

[2:27:23] Apparently

[2:27:34] not. >> Okay.

[2:27:37] Um internal access roads. Uh we have that they have to have an access road.

[2:27:43] The rays can't be more than 500 ft in length. Um without an internal access

[2:27:49] road for fire access. Um, we have that they must be 20 feet wide. We took the

[2:27:55] radiuses um, looking at these larger fire trucks. And then the I had the

[2:28:02] county engineer take a look at the compaction as far as um the typical

[2:28:08] section of the access road and then the drain or the slopes for drainage and the

[2:28:15] maximum grade um not to exceed of the actual um access road. Um

[2:28:23] does anybody have any issues and the highway engineer had no issues with that

[2:28:27] um with any of those standards. Well, an internal road 20ts wider than some of

[2:28:32] our roads. >> Yes.

[2:28:36] » Yeah. I'm serious. >> You did yours on purpose.

[2:28:48] » Um landscaping buffer. Um

[2:28:55] we had it as where as if there was this is kind of repeat um

[2:29:02] but it's if the evergreens 6oot plantings and then

[2:29:12] um if they wanted to use existing woodlands

[2:29:18] um within for the landscape buffering requirement um they would have to um

[2:29:24] provide um where those areas are and um Whoops. Sorry, I went the wrong way.

[2:29:32] Getting confused. 26. So, landscaping

[2:29:38] um and that just matches um going further into some of the sideyards as

[2:29:43] well. Um

[2:29:51] and then the ground cover um

[2:30:00] which is typical and also just to let you know in that statement

[2:30:06] um and working with the MS4 coordinator um there's going to be

[2:30:11] a couple more sentences in there as far has um just a time frame too for that

[2:30:18] ground cover so it matches what the requirements are if it's undisturbed um

[2:30:23] and idle for so long that it has to match theirs of the seven and 14 days.

[2:30:28] Um so we did talk about that including that in there.

[2:30:34] um

[2:30:41] woodland preservation and wildlife corridors.

[2:30:48] Um this is um requiring that 30% of the woodland area um inside the project area

[2:30:56] shall be preserved and maintained natural condition. Um

[2:31:03] And that they can be also if it left it can also be used for count towards

[2:31:07] landscape requirements if located within those

[2:31:11] buffer areas and they have to be proven and called out of what trees and what

[2:31:16] size they are maturity um on those to be counted towards

[2:31:21] landscaping. Um so did um have comment citizen

[2:31:27] comment on that allowing the removal of 70% of woodlands is unacceptable and

[2:31:32] should be reduced. Um

[2:31:39] that's the only comment that I have on that. Um

[2:31:48] the 30% was put in there that um to try to preserve some wildlife corridors of

[2:31:55] wooded acreage um for a project and also that it could be used towards the

[2:32:01] buffering that it is mature trees and not cutting everything down. Um

[2:32:07] that's really where the 30% came from and being higher than what um

[2:32:15] we don't have a requirement for farmers or for residential or anybody else to

[2:32:21] keep woodlands. Um so this was an attempt to try to keep some of that in a

[2:32:27] larger um type development. Um,

[2:32:33] and that's why it was added in there.

[2:32:40] Does the board have any comments or anything on the 30%.

[2:32:47] » Or you can think about it too. >> Before you move to the next page, a

[2:32:50] couple things was I didn't get you. I apologize again, but the spacing on the

[2:32:54] side and the front, our recommendation was to be the same all the way around,

[2:32:58] not 40 60 feet on the side and 40 on the front.

[2:33:02] » And again, the 40t, those trees are never going to create a visual barrier.

[2:33:06] They're never going to grow 20 years from now. They might be close.

[2:33:11] » Okay. Did you guys have any >> Well, just reducing it to try to create

[2:33:16] the barrier. If you're trying to create a barrier, 40 ft isn't going to create a

[2:33:19] barrier. 20 years from now, there'll still be a 20 foot gap between those

[2:33:23] trees. >> And you're not not if you go by the

[2:33:29] landscape ordinance. It's it's double road. 40 foot

[2:33:35] 40 foot 40 foot. Makes so it makes them 20.

[2:33:40] » That's not what it says. This ordinance says 40T on center and shall be

[2:33:44] staggered to provide a continual vision streaming. So what what does that mean

[2:33:49] to me? I I mean I see that as 40 ft in a zigzag pattern, but there's still 40t

[2:33:55] between each tree. And then on the sides it's 60 ft zigzag

[2:34:01] pattern, which is still ft. There's nothing says it has to be,

[2:34:07] you know what you're talking about.

[2:34:14] » Mine was the Google search years. will grow 20 ft at base. And I found the tree

[2:34:18] is a Norway spruce. It's not native, but it is a hardy, durable spruce for this

[2:34:23] part of the country.

[2:34:33] Somebody had a comment about watering. If they're going to plant any trees,

[2:34:36] they're going to have to be watered for at least the first year, if not the

[2:34:38] first two years, to try to keep them alive in this part of the country.

[2:34:44] » Well, I'm saying at least two years. Yes, you're correct. Three years, but at

[2:34:47] least two years.

[2:35:14] Okay.

[2:35:22] There was one thing >> you were on 27.

[2:35:25] » Yes. >> 27. The last sentence of the top

[2:35:27] paragraph. >> I just reading

[2:35:38] correct >> before number two.

[2:35:40] » Yes. Right before number. I'd have to read the whole thing to be

[2:35:45] honest with you.

[2:36:07] » Um

[2:36:17] I have to look at that and get back to you because I think that has to do with

[2:36:20] the setback

[2:36:25] » and hand >> maybe it's just maybe it's supposed to

[2:36:30] be because it says buffer is this section

[2:36:34] » if I remember >> it's supposed to mean in this section

[2:36:36] » between I read a word confusing.

[2:36:42] » Yeah, it's definitely in this section is what

[2:36:47] » it might be where we have the setback. So, I'll just make a note of that and

[2:36:50] go.

[2:36:53] » Yeah, >> it's grammar.

[2:36:56] » Oh, I that's supposed to be the 40, but this

[2:37:06] if I remember right, that's what our landscape or said.

[2:37:15] about a double row. >> A double row. Yeah.

[2:37:17] » And then staggered and then you >> Does the board have any um

[2:37:26] conversation suggestions as far as the 30%

[2:37:39] We're still on page 27 at the bottom >> for the woodland preservation and

[2:37:44] wildlife corridors. >> I I think

[2:37:50] » I think that'll come out with an actual project

[2:37:56] how they can meet that requirement. >> Do you have an issue with the

[2:38:01] percentage? >> I don't have an issue with the

[2:38:03] percentage. I like the goal. I just don't know how

[2:38:08] practical it will be when >> someone actually does a layout has the

[2:38:14] pro, you know,

[2:38:19] » when a subdivision comes in, they'll come in and they'll say, "We

[2:38:23] want 200 homes on these 300 acres." And when it's all said and done, they're

[2:38:28] ending up 175 by the time you put in detention facilities. They they then

[2:38:35] decide they want a pond and then all of a sudden they start ending up losing

[2:38:38] lots just >> because the layout it works different in

[2:38:43] real life. >> Yes.

[2:38:44] » Than it does on the flat piece of paper even though you got the grading lines on

[2:38:47] it. Mhm.

[2:38:53] But I also think it's a because these go through the board of zoning appeals,

[2:38:58] they're going to have to approve of at least show how they're doing it to match

[2:39:03] that or ask for something. >> Sure. If you put zero in there, there

[2:39:07] will be nothing. If >> they can't meet the 30, then when

[2:39:11] they're going through the BCA and they got 25%,

[2:39:14] we're up 25% when the end of the project is said and done. Yeah, I

[2:39:20] » But I think there needs to be something in there.

[2:39:23] » I agree. 30% is a fine number.

[2:39:28] » Okay. Lighting. Um this is um we do have

[2:39:35] lighting in here. We have exterior lighting. Um but also this is for

[2:39:40] security purposes that they have to keep it to security purposes, not have

[2:39:44] anything outrageous. But we also have a lighting ordinance that they would um

[2:39:50] have to follow when going through their permitting process. So there is already

[2:39:55] in the zoning ordinance requirements for lighting as far as the foot candles and

[2:40:00] the the distances from um property lines. Um this is just reiterating to

[2:40:07] keep it to a minimum of there for security purposes only.

[2:40:11] » So enlighten me, no pun intended. Um is this going to look like a parking lot?

[2:40:18] It >> should not.

[2:40:22] Um, so >> when you say lighting for security

[2:40:24] purposes, to me that means you standing from the outside looking in, you can

[2:40:30] somewhat see if someone's walking around there that shouldn't be.

[2:40:36] So one foot candle or something low like that to where you wouldn't need to a

[2:40:40] flashlight to walk through the place. It's lit enough that you can navigate.

[2:40:44] You're not going to read a book or or anything, but it's it's bright enough

[2:40:48] the entire solar site. And

[2:40:52] » I'm not saying that they have to be. I'm just saying.

[2:40:55] » Well, I'm trying to understand what we say. Well, you must light it for

[2:40:58] security purposes. Like some people might say, well, you need a light at the

[2:41:02] gate. And if there's a building there that's housing electrical stuff, there's

[2:41:06] probably a light >> illuminating the front door. But like

[2:41:11] the rest of the solar array is kind of not lit.

[2:41:14] » Lit. >> And I mean in minimal lighting to me is

[2:41:17] fine. Like if you've got a place where there's a gate and there's a fire and

[2:41:21] the fire department's coming up, it's pretty okay. There's

[2:41:24] » there's the gate. We can see it. Or or you can see someone's

[2:41:27] » kicking the gate down and driving in there where you know, whatever the

[2:41:31] » the need is. But to me, having it lit to where you can see the

[2:41:36] whole thing and it looks like Walmart's parking lot at 2 a.m. would be really

[2:41:41] bad. >> Mhm.

[2:41:43] » So So that So we're just talking about minimal lighting

[2:41:46] » for >> Yes.

[2:41:47] » Okay. Understood. >> And that's why it shall be limited to

[2:41:50] only those reasons or for those security reasons.

[2:41:53] » Yeah. I just couldn't make the leap of the way it's worded and what that

[2:41:57] actually functionally meant is what my My problem with that

[2:42:08] » in the paragraph second paragraph under H

[2:42:11] » yes >> where exterior lighting is proposed or

[2:42:14] required the applicant shall submit a detail plan

[2:42:18] is if it's proposed the applicant shall shall submit it if it's required

[2:42:24] » if it's required so what I mean is um if it is required by the federal government

[2:42:29] if it is required by the safety >> codes. Uh that's what I did.

[2:42:36] » What they require? >> What kind of lighting? That's why I

[2:42:39] didn't want to get into the requirement of lighting.

[2:42:42] » They had to have security lighting for requirement, but I didn't. That's what I

[2:42:46] kept it to. It's just security. >> Just security.

[2:42:49] » Mhm. >> Okay.

[2:42:57] » Okay. So then moving on to the noise. Um

[2:43:04] we have it at 55. Um

[2:43:14] » um on that uh measured at the property line

[2:43:18] um the property line being the center of

[2:43:22] the road. >> Yep.

[2:43:24] » Mhm. >> Okay.

[2:43:29] or at the side of the property side >> or rear property line. Okay.

[2:43:34] » Um so it would be that way if they're say it's a joining

[2:43:39] um someone's property that's nonparticipating, it would have to be

[2:43:42] that >> um at their property line too, not just

[2:43:46] the roadway.

[2:44:01] And I know one of the things and this is just from hearing. Um so the reason why

[2:44:06] it says that the county may require it is because I wanted the option of the

[2:44:11] county to require it at any point as well. Not just um put a shall in there

[2:44:17] and be a one-time thing. um but that we may require it um to verify compliance

[2:44:23] at any point.

[2:44:27] I didn't want to be too specific with SHA because I didn't want to get into

[2:44:31] whether or not um if that was applicable for any time that we wanted to.

[2:44:44] » I got a couple things down. >> Yeah. on the first sentence where it

[2:44:49] talks about doing report at the end of that sentence

[2:44:54] utility scale solar project chosen by the county which would be the qualified

[2:44:58] acoustical profession it's the county choosing

[2:45:03] it's an unbiased

[2:45:06] » measurement versus

[2:45:14] » yeah as long as I can have consult doing that because I nobody in this building

[2:45:19] would be equipped to choose >> a company that would be qualified.

[2:45:24] » Yeah, it would be I mean that there's nothing says you can't.

[2:45:27] » Mhm.

[2:45:34] » And there's two places that we requested that was the second one was when the

[2:45:39] county may request a post construction sound testing by qualified professionals

[2:45:44] chosen by the county to verify complian we had put SH in there since it's after

[2:45:49] construction. Make sure it complies with your ordinance. The only way you're

[2:45:52] going to find that out is to do a test. >> Um

[2:45:59] otherwise >> as far as for the at the beginning of

[2:46:04] the project when they're submitting in one of the requirements of submitt

[2:46:08] um

[2:46:12] I really have an issue with the county choosing that. Um, and it's not because

[2:46:16] I it's just because of everything else that we do. Um, I wouldn't want to go in

[2:46:23] to choose a structural engineer to do an analysis of a cell

[2:46:28] tower. Um, >> or even have that come back on us of

[2:46:34] their job. At least if it's chosen by them

[2:46:41] and it's incorrect, it's on them and not on us.

[2:46:48] That would be the only issue with choosing a qualified person for

[2:46:54] something like that. >> But it's only

[2:47:00] recording what you hear at that time. >> Correct.

[2:47:05] It's not changing the construction. It's just recording the sounds at that

[2:47:11] particular point in time and then recording it again after construction.

[2:47:15] » Well, I don't have that before and after. What I have is that they the

[2:47:19] report shall evaluate all project components capable of generating because

[2:47:23] it's going to be but not limited. So, what we do on these is they're doing

[2:47:28] a a noise based on the they're doing it prior to the project, right? So they're

[2:47:33] doing it based on what is it going to be with this many converters, this many

[2:47:39] arrays. Um in that study, uh it would be no different than a structural analysis

[2:47:45] for a cell tower. They're using all their wisdom prior to the cell tower

[2:47:50] being constructed. What can how many antennas can that

[2:47:54] tower as it's built or as the drawing says can it support? Um so that was the

[2:48:00] that was the noise evaluation report that we were that I had um anticipated

[2:48:06] looking for in the application um

[2:48:11] for that and then that we the county could may

[2:48:16] require post construction testing by a qualified professional. Um,

[2:48:22] and like I said, the reason why I put May in there is that we may at any

[2:48:26] point. Um, I don't know that the the legal

[2:48:31] terminology for May and shall at that point, but the reason why I had May is I

[2:48:34] wanted it to be across the lifetime of the

[2:48:38] » um project that we may um require a >> an additional noise test

[2:48:46] once the project is done. So a noise evaluation report would be before the

[2:48:52] project happened. >> Um you're not doing evaluation on site

[2:48:59] evaluation of the project >> evaluation at the time of the

[2:49:03] application what the project will be >> would this is potentially what it would

[2:49:08] be. This is what has to be submitted with the permitting process.

[2:49:12] » Okay. >> And then it's evaluating does that sound

[2:49:16] with the what the components of that proposing doesn't meet the ordinance at

[2:49:21] that level and then after the fact is if the construction starts they start and

[2:49:26] then so we get a complaint we go out >> yeah it's really loud I think you know

[2:49:31] even by our standards of our handheld said it's really loud

[2:49:35] » at that point then that's why we may because we may at any time then say we

[2:49:39] don't believe you're in compliance now you have to have another report done

[2:49:43] on what is actually here >> so at that time though could we not

[2:49:46] choose it there is a complaint that would be especially the time you choose

[2:49:50] so we know it's our >> well no that's what they we have um we

[2:49:56] don't have a spec when it gets right down to it an engineer's license and

[2:50:00] they're stating by their license by their career that what they're providing

[2:50:05] the county is accurate and if they're providing this inaccurate information

[2:50:10] they can lose their license. >> Thank you Denny. Um, I'm not even sure

[2:50:15] how many agencies do this type of work. I want to talk to somebody tomorrow that

[2:50:20] works for an environmental consulting agency and see if I can get a feel for

[2:50:24] it. Um, I I think anything that's stamped by a licensed engineer in the

[2:50:30] state of Indiana will work.

[2:50:37] » The last question was the decis.

[2:50:42] » Was there why it was raised. >> Yes.

[2:50:45] » I'd like to see it between 45 and 50. >> I just our question was why was it up

[2:50:50] from 45? >> Because on it says in Indiana the

[2:50:54] average sound limit for a commercial solar farm is capped at 50A weighted

[2:50:59] decibb when measured from the outer wall of a neighbor's house or a property

[2:51:04] line. So, the reason why it was raised is just

[2:51:10] as far as what we went out to do um with our handheld and what we were looking at

[2:51:19] to the solar farms we were at to the ones we would visited outside inside. Um

[2:51:24] when we were actually on county long county roads here in De County just

[2:51:29] doing the natural sound um it was hard to even get natural sound

[2:51:36] as low as 45. This says actual and realwood sign created by a solar project

[2:51:41] is usually much quieter at standard setbacks distances solar equipment drops

[2:51:46] between 30 dBAs and 40 dBAs which sounds like a soft whisper or a quiet library.

[2:51:55] 55 from what I'm reading is saying coffee maker

[2:52:00] uh refrigerator running >> something I mean

[2:52:05] Google 55 dBA is what that so that >> well it so even so just um

[2:52:13] » my property

[2:52:17] was >> no baby if you were looking up there's a

[2:52:21] cap that is for Um, you mean a fire maximum?

[2:52:25] » That's just as >> No, the state would have that. They're

[2:52:28] going to have nothing. But their general says

[2:52:33] » Yeah. So, >> you know, just as far as standing

[2:52:38] um at the road on my property,

[2:52:42] 9:30 at night, dark >> crickets going,

[2:52:46] » just the crickets, the dogs. So, not even traffic. It was at 60.

[2:52:54] » Yep. >> That's right.

[2:52:58] » So, um,

[2:53:01] » what was it? Uh, Dwayne 45. >> Was 45.

[2:53:07] » So, between 45 and 50. But what I'm saying is the is looking at

[2:53:14] it if I go out to a natural area and the natural site is 55 and how am I to

[2:53:20] assume or say it's 55 how am I to assume that's it's the solar and not the

[2:53:25] natural >> right

[2:53:28] » just the natural part of the day >> so in trying to do that at any given

[2:53:33] point I think the lower you are the what you're going to have is everybody

[2:53:37] complaining and we're going to do noise, noise, noise, noise, noise because I

[2:53:42] think at your natural time it's going to be higher than 45.

[2:53:45] » Could we have verbiage in there that stipulates like um so more than so many

[2:53:50] decimals above or decibb above the established baseline? So like before the

[2:53:55] project goes in when you guys do your site assessments or whatever, you have

[2:53:59] an engineer that comes out to you to these sites, takes that baseline, has it

[2:54:03] documented, and then um like verbiage I've seen elsewhere is it exceed five dB

[2:54:10] for more than 10% of every hour >> is great.

[2:54:13] » AI is great. >> So, and so the other when looking at

[2:54:20] that too, how we talked about that too is in doing those baselines,

[2:54:26] it we'd have to get real specific on when we want that baseline.

[2:54:31] Um, so it's no different than when we do a traffic study. You know, one of those

[2:54:35] requirements is that you can't do the traffic study during the summertime. It

[2:54:39] has to be done during the school time. Um because you just the amount of

[2:54:45] traffic is increased. So why take a smaller number when you're having this?

[2:54:50] Um so at what point um do we put parameters on that established

[2:54:57] time? Um, >> could it be like

[2:55:02] » October, November when the grain bins are going and the loudest that we need

[2:55:06] to have it? Um, or do we, you know, limit it to a certain time of year. Um,

[2:55:13] so I could see the two then of course then you get to the well they took it.

[2:55:19] Well, of course it's going to be high. It's November and the grain bins and the

[2:55:23] drying and the everything like that and there's no leaves on there. So sound is,

[2:55:28] you know, I I don't know. We're during the summertime when all the leaves are

[2:55:32] full and you can't hear a word. Um I don't know what that

[2:55:37] answer is for baseline. >> So I mean if there's suggestions on

[2:55:44] that, be glad to have but I don't know what that

[2:55:48] » because you can argue one way or the other on that baseline. They didn't do

[2:55:52] it the right time or it's it's too high. There's no way that's the base. I I

[2:55:56] don't if it's something we study or they take

[2:56:00] for their word for it. And >> I think if we cap what the solar can

[2:56:05] make if the baselines higher and you're just near a highway or there's noise

[2:56:09] there. I mean, the only problem with doing

[2:56:13] something after the fact is I don't know that they can tell you what noise is

[2:56:17] what without unless you're looking at certain parts of the spectrum and going,

[2:56:21] "This is the noise the solar is making and this is cars going up and down the

[2:56:25] highway that's a quarter mile away." >> Um,

[2:56:28] » well, and that's what, you know, one of the things is you're standing out there

[2:56:30] and you're doing it, you know, it's and it could be at 40 and then one minute

[2:56:36] it's 70. I mean, we were standing in front of one and it was doing just that.

[2:56:41] It was 40. You can hear the the breeze was blowing. And then right next to me

[2:56:46] was a chirping bird and it went up to 70.

[2:56:49] » Um well, it is a baseline at least a baseline to have um to where if

[2:56:57] in my opinion if I went out there and stood stood there and went, "Holy crap."

[2:57:04] Out of all the times I've been to a solar plant, that is ridiculous.

[2:57:08] You know what? go do a so go do the sound study because we we can require

[2:57:12] that. Um but at least then if they do the

[2:57:17] noise study and it shows that oh they can pick it out and yeah the solar is at

[2:57:22] 70 well yeah there's a reason why we heard it.

[2:57:25] » Yeah. >> But I I do think there needs to be a

[2:57:29] number in there because we have to be able to if we think there's a violation

[2:57:34] and it comes back that there is a violation what is that violation? So,

[2:57:38] there has to be a number in there. Um, and I'm not saying one number is right

[2:57:42] over the other. I just think for natural sounds in the country, it's that it's a

[2:57:49] low. >> I would think they'd be able to isolate

[2:57:52] whatever sound, whatever hum, whatever >> the frequency that is making and say,

[2:57:57] "All right, how how loud is is that 200 hertz sound or 55 Hz sound or whatever."

[2:58:05] Yeah, I think you got to have a number.

[2:58:11] » Um, >> okay.

[2:58:12] » Before we move on, >> yes,

[2:58:16] » it's a little after 9:00. >> Um, if we want to take public comment on

[2:58:23] what we got through up to the end of page 28,

[2:58:28] » that's probably going to take us long enough that we're going to be ready to

[2:58:32] go home. >> Yes. And then um one thing that I would

[2:58:35] like to state is um just as far as um the way that it is written um because I

[2:58:44] know I've heard different comments on it. Uh if there is an additional plan or

[2:58:49] plan specifications that tie into a requirement listed in this section and

[2:58:56] it's put in the other section because those plans go in more depth. It was

[2:59:01] done that way so that you're not going here are the requirements. Oh, let me

[2:59:04] wait five pages before I tell you the other requirement because I had to tell

[2:59:08] you what is provided in that plan. Um, it was to keep all the details of the

[2:59:14] plans in a different section so that the requirement page at least at just face

[2:59:21] value was not going five pages until the next

[2:59:26] requirement. Um so that was the difference in the two sections of why um

[2:59:34] section um 1935

[2:59:39] goes through those plans and specifies the layouts of each of those plans or

[2:59:42] the requirements of those plans. It didn't go into detail in the list of

[2:59:46] requirements for utility solar. So just to explain that

[2:59:57] Move up public discussion for what we've gone through.

[3:00:06] » I'll second. Thought he was going to die for lack of

[3:00:10] a second there.

[3:00:16] I have a motion by Russell Bytoorpher to take public comment on

[3:00:24] section 1930 of the article 19 up till page 28.

[3:00:32] » Correct. >> Which will take us to the noise

[3:00:35] standards. >> Correct.

[3:00:38] » I have a second by Eric Lane. All in favor say I.

[3:00:42] » I. Any opposed? Mr. Mortonson, I believe you wanted to

[3:00:48] speak, >> please. Thank you.

[3:00:52] We'll make it quick. >> Samuel David Mortonson, uh, Dearborn

[3:00:57] County resident, there were a couple things, some good points Commissioner

[3:01:02] Thatcher made, and then Russell, you also had some good points, uh, as far as

[3:01:05] a burm. Just a couple things to think about here.

[3:01:09] Um,

[3:01:12] so, uh, from a vegetation standpoint, there's a couple things. If we're going

[3:01:17] to, if we're going to mandate that, uh, acreage used has to go back to original

[3:01:22] use. The two questions is where are you getting the dirt from the burm?

[3:01:26] » Are you scraping off of top soil or not? Second thing is there needs to be

[3:01:32] written in to protect whoever the developer is and to make sure we have a

[3:01:37] clean ordinance that if they put a burm in, there is going to be a certain

[3:01:41] amount of permanent damaged ground. If you put in a a burm that's 40, 50 feet

[3:01:46] wide, when you truck in, compact, whatever else, even if you come in and

[3:01:50] truck out and remove everything, that ground that is compacted, the top 18 in,

[3:01:55] the PSI of that ground is uh going to be permanently damaged. So, even if it's

[3:02:02] clay and you're bringing in more clay or top soil, the truck's moving in and out,

[3:02:05] it's there's a thing called a penetrometer. You can actually check the

[3:02:08] the gauge. you can see how deep you go before you hit a hard pan at like 180

[3:02:12] PSI. Corn roots go sideways. So that ground will be permanently damaged. So

[3:02:18] that needs to be acknowledged in our ordinance. If not, I think we got a

[3:02:21] sloppy ordinance. Second thing is to decide how close to the road are we

[3:02:25] going to put the burm. Uh if commissioner Bishoff's recommendation of

[3:02:28] spruces are going on top, those can get like 80 ft, I think.

[3:02:32] » Yep. >> Nor spruce, something like that.

[3:02:35] » Yep. Um, if those are on the top, then we probably need to have a certain

[3:02:40] amount of width of the top of that burm that if Commissioner Thcher's

[3:02:43] recommendation 10 ft high is what you were going, right? If you go 10 ft up

[3:02:47] and you're going to stagger, >> if you were going to go 10 ft up, you

[3:02:52] got to decide how wide is the top portion of that. If you're staggering

[3:02:56] cedars and they're 40 feet wide, then you probably need at least 60 feet wide

[3:03:00] on top. And then you got to decide the degree of slope after the burm, right?

[3:03:04] Right? Because if you're going to stab stagger 40 foot wide, they'll grow

[3:03:07] together. >> China.

[3:03:09] » So it's 20 ft to 20 ft, right? So you need 30 or 40 feet before they're

[3:03:13] spilling over the edges of uh that burm. If you go with something like aravida

[3:03:18] that's a little bit quicker going, that's typically what you see at the

[3:03:20] gravel quarry. Those are 20 30 feet. Like a little green giant gets um about

[3:03:25] 35 ft tall at maturity. They're a quick grower. Yep. But then we also need to

[3:03:29] factor in if you got deer that are coming after those that are not coming

[3:03:32] after Norway spruces. >> So the type of tree that you pick should

[3:03:36] probably be specified in there. If you're going to do arbida, we probably

[3:03:39] need to have a temporary netting for the first 3 five years to keep that deer

[3:03:43] out. That's cheap. They can take that down. The other question is um how close

[3:03:47] to the burm? So if we're going 80 feet from the center of the road is what a a

[3:03:50] house structure is, I think. So if the burm starts 80 ft from the center of the

[3:03:54] road and it goes however wide and we're 400 feet set back. Let's say we're 40

[3:03:59] feet on the or 40 ft on the top of the burm with 10 foot. You're 80 ft. You're

[3:04:03] probably 160 ft back which means we have another 240 ft of what are we doing with

[3:04:10] that space? Are we going to mandate that they have to mow it or are we just going

[3:04:14] to get if we don't mow within 3 to 5 years you've got cedars, scrub trees. I

[3:04:18] mean just whatever happens with pasture. >> Huh?

[3:04:20] » Honey locust. honeyloust, all kinds of stuff. If we're going to do that, I

[3:04:25] would almost rather see, and this is pretty cheap for the developer, to go in

[3:04:29] and put in a selective variety of hardwoods. So many per, you can put them

[3:04:33] in a foot tall, they don't have to be watered. You put them in small enough,

[3:04:36] some of them will die, some of them will live, but then longterm, you've got

[3:04:40] permanent woods there that can then be ripped out if you were to, you know,

[3:04:44] restore it to farm field. So anyway, just a couple things to think about uh

[3:04:47] with the BM. was a good suggestion, but a couple other things to consider that

[3:04:51] pro should probably be thoroughly uh uh put into the ordinance. Wherever you

[3:04:56] guys decide is up to you, but those are some uh thoughtprovoking comments. So,

[3:05:00] thank you, sir. >> Thank you,

[3:05:02] » Brandon.

[3:05:06] Stand up. >> Uh Brandon Lang, land owner Lake Tambo

[3:05:10] Road. I just want to state I want to remind the commissioners and the board

[3:05:17] on and I did this at the last week's commissioners meeting the uh the county

[3:05:22] website front page focus area one for the commissioners states that your your

[3:05:26] focus area number one is economic development.

[3:05:28] » Speak up please. >> The county commissioners focus area

[3:05:33] number one on the county website states that they're their focus area number one

[3:05:37] is economic development. the planning and zoning commission.

[3:05:40] You're here to plan for it. When you take an overview, if you were

[3:05:45] outside looking in, does that sound like what we're doing

[3:05:49] here? I think I think I think we're talking

[3:05:53] about BMS and trees and I I I'm no offense. I think you're building a lake,

[3:05:58] 10 foot BMS. And and and then we're talking about 80 feet high trees on top

[3:06:03] of 10 foot BMS. And this is a solar development.

[3:06:07] shades kind of the antithesis of what we're looking for if we're developing

[3:06:11] with solar. Okay. So, uh last week I sent in uh I hope you all got it an

[3:06:19] economic impact analysis that was done. >> Yeah.

[3:06:23] » Okay. >> Yeah, it's in our packet.

[3:06:25] » It's our packet. Okay. We're talking they're talking about $23 million for

[3:06:30] the schools, $8.8 million for the county.

[3:06:36] facts, facts and logic. So this is this is over the lifespan of the project.

[3:06:42] That's that's what economic develop that's what we're here for. That's what

[3:06:45] we're here for. >> You're a little mistaken because the

[3:06:47] most important job of commissioner is making sure the people of Dub County are

[3:06:50] safe. >> Right. Well, I said focus

[3:06:52] » we have to go we have to go economic development is important but so is

[3:06:57] keeping the people of D County safe. So we're trying to we're trying to thread

[3:07:00] that needle is what we're trying to do. I stated I stated that focus area number

[3:07:04] one on the front page of the county website for the commissioner states

[3:07:08] economic development. That's what the county website says. I'm just regurging.

[3:07:11] » I'm telling you the most important job. >> Okay. Okay. Well, in order in order for

[3:07:15] this tax tax revenue to come in, I believe we're taxed on the equipment

[3:07:20] that goes on the land. So when you're talking about thousand foot setbacks and

[3:07:24] mile apart from one pro part of the project to another and and 10 miles

[3:07:29] between projects and all that kind of stuff, I think what we should be looking

[3:07:33] for here is maximum benefit with minimum impact.

[3:07:39] So let's put it all together. Let's put it

[3:07:43] all together and and tell me how this affects how how does a 10 miles between

[3:07:47] projects affect public health, safety, and welfare.

[3:07:53] What does it do? I mean, we're just limited. I look at this and this is and

[3:07:56] this is really what I want to impose on on on everyone. This solar development

[3:08:01] or any solar development is a potential lifeline to land owners and farmers

[3:08:08] alike. It is a potential lifeline for these people. And why are we limited? I

[3:08:13] keep thinking about the the the lifeboats of the Titanic rolling by live

[3:08:17] people in the water even though there's room in them and saying and I'm sorry

[3:08:21] we're full. >> We're full. Why? Why are we limited? Why

[3:08:24] are we limited the benefit that we could all get from this?

[3:08:29] » Brandon, I'm going have to ask you to wrap it up.

[3:08:31] » Okay. Okay. Uh

[3:08:35] I see a lot of junk cars sitting in the front yards of people's houses along the

[3:08:38] front 48. all that kind of stuff that we're not asking anybody to build a wall

[3:08:42] around them uh of dirt. Um let's see

[3:08:49] again 200 for the the setbacks from water wells 200 feet. It doesn't make

[3:08:53] any sense with 50 foot septic for a residential development that how far

[3:08:58] does a house have to be from a well an existing well because you can put solar

[3:09:03] on the roof. So why why are we limited in that? uh two miles from schools

[3:09:09] you can build but you can build a prison next door to a school.

[3:09:13] The height I'm not I don't >> surely that won't happen either.

[3:09:17] » Okay. Well, there's no ordinance for it. The the height of 15 ft

[3:09:24] » again again I don't think >> I have to ask you to sit there.

[3:09:27] » Okay. the woodland preservation though this is

[3:09:31] just an infringement on my property rights that if if a farmer can clear

[3:09:34] land to make more money and have more usable land I don't understand why I

[3:09:37] can't

[3:09:41] » Mr.

[3:09:50] ain't over yet. >> Bobby Brown, Manchester Township.

[3:09:56] Um, citizens recommended a 200 acre project cap. This wasn't an arbitrary

[3:10:02] number. Citizens repeatedly expressed concern about allowing a single

[3:10:06] industrial solar project to consume thousands of acres. We need to put a

[3:10:11] thousand acres into perspective. Our uh agricultural census

[3:10:18] gives us perspective on that scale. The average Dearborn County farm is

[3:10:22] approximately 120 acres. Per the 2022 census, only 2% of farms are over 500

[3:10:29] acres. There's not a farm in Dearborn County exceeding 1,000 acres.

[3:10:34] 200 acres isn't unreasonable or unprecedented.

[3:10:39] Carol, Spencer, Franklin counties have adopted 200 acre caps. Rush County

[3:10:43] limits uh projects to 300 acres. Boone, Typicano, and Madison counties limit

[3:10:49] them to 400 acres. Dearborn County's comprehensive plan calls for the

[3:10:54] conservation of farmland and open space and rural areas. Calls for the

[3:10:59] protection of our rural character and importantly minimizing negative impacts

[3:11:03] between incompatible or conflicting land uses. Page 18 of our comprehensive plan.

[3:11:08] Conserve distinctive natural and man-made features and resources that

[3:11:11] contribute to the rural character of Dearborn County. Page 125. It is

[3:11:16] essential to establish general development guidelines in order to

[3:11:19] provide a high quality of life for residents and to mitigate impacts upon

[3:11:23] the physical setting. Page 150. The entire community must work together for

[3:11:28] growth that stresses the cons conservation of farmland and open space

[3:11:32] in rural areas as a way to preserve the local economy and to preserve a high

[3:11:36] quality of life. Page 150 goes on, ensure that all new development is

[3:11:41] designed in such a manner that it incorporates the county's commitment to

[3:11:44] both maintaining its rural character and improving the quality of life. Page 150

[3:11:50] con concludes with negative impacts between incompatible land uses must be

[3:11:54] kept to a minimum. Page 151, respect areas and agricultural operations and

[3:12:00] preserve rural amenities. Page 152, minimize impacts by establishing

[3:12:05] setbacks, buffer yards, and other mitigation measures. Page 153, promote

[3:12:10] sub sustainable growth patterns that are consistent with community's vision for

[3:12:15] the future. Utility power generation is fundamentally different than the farms,

[3:12:20] homes, and rural properties surrounding it. Limiting the size of that industrial

[3:12:24] use is one of the simplest ways to limit the extent of that conflict. A project

[3:12:29] cap helps slows the loss of farmland, reduces visual and landscape conflicts,

[3:12:33] limits storm water and drainage impacts, and reduces the impacts from traffic,

[3:12:37] noise, lighting, maintenance, you name it. It also reduces the scale of

[3:12:41] potential emergency response, and limits the ability of any one project to

[3:12:45] significantly change the character of an area. So, if 200 acres isn't the right

[3:12:50] number, let's have the discussion publicly. Why 500? Why 750? Why a

[3:12:56] thousand? What Dearborn County specific evidence supports a single project of

[3:13:00] that magnitude? A 200 acre cap does not prohibit a solar development. It doesn't

[3:13:05] prohibit a land owner from participating. It simply limits the

[3:13:08] concentration of farms of industrial land on our farms and the amount of

[3:13:13] Dearborn County that can be transformed by one project in one location at one

[3:13:17] time. The citizens gave you a recommendation. Our agricultural data

[3:13:21] gives us perspective on that scale. Other ind Indiana counties have already

[3:13:25] adopted similar limits and our own comprehensive plan tells us to conserve

[3:13:29] farmland, protect rural character and mitigate conflicts between uses. These

[3:13:34] principles point towards limiting project size. not allowing a thousand

[3:13:37] acres per site. So if there's not a compelling reason for thousand acres,

[3:13:42] then listen to the citizens in this room and put the 200 acre cap into the

[3:13:46] ordinance. Thank you.

[3:13:51] » Thank you.

[3:14:02] » Uh my name is Dave Sams. I'm a lifelong Manchester Township resident, born and

[3:14:07] raised there. Um, still live there. I've got it. Um, and it may just seem simple.

[3:14:14] I I don't know. I don't know what the answer is. I I would question if you

[3:14:20] went on an existing solar if OSHA requires them to wear earplugs and a

[3:14:26] hard hat. But they do you you know the federal government says

[3:14:32] the noise is too loud right there. So if you're going to and another one I think

[3:14:38] Mark he may you may have answered this question but I didn't grasp it. Um when

[3:14:44] you're saying the setbacks one they should safety should be number

[3:14:50] one. Okay. So the setbacks if if you make it

[3:14:57] what was it 400 foot from the adjoining property owners I believe is what what

[3:15:03] was suggested >> 400t from the center of the road 200t

[3:15:07] from adjoining propert. What if somebody >> not that we have subdivisions in

[3:15:12] Manchester Township, but what if somebody is,

[3:15:17] you know, within that 400 foot, but his neighbor who is not adjoining is also

[3:15:25] within that 400 foot, shouldn't he have a say in it as well?

[3:15:30] I mean the the you know the one person owns the property that was in is within

[3:15:36] that 400 foot but that 400 foot might also include maybe the next two or three

[3:15:42] people that are next to him that aren't adjoining.

[3:15:47] I don't know if you if that question even came up and answered.

[3:15:51] » I don't know that I'm I don't know that I'm following you. I mean I'm

[3:15:55] » okay. So a guy lives within 400 foot his property does. He don't have he has less

[3:16:01] than 400 foot width of his property. So the next person falls within that 400

[3:16:06] but he's not adjoining.

[3:16:11] » Is that clear? >> No.

[3:16:14] » The setback is from the property line into the parcel that would have the

[3:16:19] solar. So you're having extended. So if he's 400 ft, if he's 390 ft, he's going

[3:16:25] to be 790 ft from us the start of the soul.

[3:16:31] » No, he wouldn't. >> Yeah,

[3:16:33] » I think. Are you talking about like if So that property owner that would be in

[3:16:37] that middle if he's signing a waiver to say, "Yeah,

[3:16:40] » he's signing a waiver says he's okay with it, but the guy that falls within

[3:16:44] that's still within the 400t doesn't sign away."

[3:16:47] » But the 400 foot's on the way back from the road. So

[3:16:50] » what is it from the >> it's 200

[3:16:52] » 200. So >> I guess if you had a property a zero set

[3:16:57] back well you can only go down to 100 ft. So then the

[3:17:02] » I'm just not understand we'd have to make it to where you

[3:17:05] » Well, if you were in you were in a subdivision type thing. That's very

[3:17:10] » I think I understand what you're saying now.

[3:17:13] » But you took the rights away from the person that's still within 400t but he

[3:17:17] doesn't adjoin it. So he just lost. That's my concern.

[3:17:27] » So anyway, that's that's my com. So you want a minimum set back to the any

[3:17:31] adjoining any non-adjoining property owners within that distance

[3:17:37] » that's that's what I'm >> if they're signing the waiver they have

[3:17:41] to own the property that mean still meets that what

[3:17:44] » within the 400 >> the 100 plus whatever the setback is

[3:17:48] determined to be >> right

[3:17:50] » okay so I was grasping um and you knew you my ears went

[3:17:59] Dennis, when you said it it ought to be different at a park, correct? Did I

[3:18:04] understand you to say that? You understand?

[3:18:06] » I said I could understand what people >> Well, people live out there in that

[3:18:09] rural area. That is our park. >> So, I don't see any difference at all.

[3:18:15] That's where we chose to live. That's where we bought our property. That's

[3:18:18] where we pay our taxes. That's why we went there. So, that is my park. If my

[3:18:24] kids and grandkids are playing in my backyard, it shouldn't be any different

[3:18:29] for that than it should be at a park because that's that is my park.

[3:18:35] » That's why we chose to live there. >> Point taken.

[3:18:38] » And the and the other is just a kind of concern and a and a wake up. I'm kind of

[3:18:44] getting the feeling that, you know, these this this company or these

[3:18:48] companies came to this county. you didn't, nobody here went out and

[3:18:54] recruited them and said, "Hey, come here. We've got some opportunity for

[3:18:57] you." So, I think we should be more concerned about the people that live

[3:19:02] here and the cost that they're paying for it than what it cost the developers.

[3:19:09] That's that's just my opinion. I don't think we should be worried about what it

[3:19:13] cost them because they're doing it because

[3:19:17] it's saving. They're they're getting Okay, I'm getting confused. So that's

[3:19:22] that's all I got. >> Got you.

[3:19:24] » You're more concerned about us than what it cost them.

[3:19:28] » I am more concerned about you than what it cost developers.

[3:19:31] » Well, thank you. >> I am.

[3:19:40] I'll let you go next. Go ahead. >> No, you're fine. It's fine.

[3:19:47] » Name's Steve Neil. I've been in uh It's Manchester area for been married for 54

[3:19:54] years and I married a Manchester girl and I've lived there for 54 years since

[3:20:00] I married her. But uh my question is there's two things. I went to

[3:20:07] uh Agnar Hall and I had two or three questions

[3:20:12] and one of the questions was I seen up on a board a picture said minimal

[3:20:16] excavation.

[3:20:19] All right. I didn't get an answer. >> They wouldn't tell me what it was.

[3:20:27] All right. Remember that? >> Please direct your

[3:20:30] » Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. And but the that's one of the that's one of the

[3:20:34] things I was minimal excavation. I've been in contracting for 35 years

[3:20:40] and I've seen a lot of dozer work and I've seen a lot of things done with

[3:20:44] dozers and stuff. A burm in an area

[3:20:50] I don't know how that's going to work because that is not flat ground.

[3:20:56] You put a burm unless you're going to put pipes through the burm.

[3:20:59] » Yeah. >> To get the water to drain out, you're

[3:21:02] going to create ponds or you're going to create muddy areas. You're going to

[3:21:05] create areas that's not going to be able to be used.

[3:21:09] And also, I used to fight with you guys all the time about certain things on

[3:21:14] setbacks and stuff. Um, but one of the things was is water water flow.

[3:21:22] I got a couple friends of mine that's part of this and they're they are for it

[3:21:26] and they are going to let their or use their land for that. One of them is on

[3:21:32] his his property the high side is behind his house

[3:21:37] and it comes down it's a pretty big farm and uh it comes down to that. But what

[3:21:43] happens to the guy that's got the bean field just on the other side of him or

[3:21:47] connecting him with the corn field or even a house? You put that burm up

[3:21:52] there, you stop that water from flowing down there. That ain't right.

[3:21:57] And I don't think BMS are going to work anyway because it's not flat ground. If

[3:22:02] it was per flat ground like the top of your table wouldn't be a problem.

[3:22:07] But that's pretty much all I've got and the only thing I'm looking for is THREE

[3:22:11] MORE VOTES.

[3:22:20] THAT'S ALL WE NEED.

[3:22:33] » HI, my name is Michelle Dudley, resident of Manchester my whole life. I have a

[3:22:37] testimony that was written directly to you guys. I've shared it before, but it

[3:22:41] doesn't seem it resonated at all. So, I'm going to share it again. It directly

[3:22:44] relates to setbacks and noise levels. Um, and this woman is a me. She's from

[3:22:49] Brooks County, Georgia. She wrote this specifically to you guys. My name is Peg

[3:22:53] Howard. I served on the Brooks County, Georgia solar ordinance committee, and I

[3:22:57] live less than 1500 feet from a utility scale solar facility. I want to speak to

[3:23:02] you not just as someone who helped write our policy, but as someone whose life

[3:23:06] was changed by trusting the wrong assurances from a developer. Before the

[3:23:10] solar project was built, our home was our refuge. It was quiet, peaceful, the

[3:23:15] kind of place where you breathe deeper the moment you step outside. After the

[3:23:19] facility went in, that piece disappeared. The noise didn't just

[3:23:22] intrude, it invaded. It followed us into every corner of our property. My porch,

[3:23:28] formerly an evening resppit, is now a place I avoid. My yard, once my favorite

[3:23:33] part of our property, feels hostile. What used to restore me now drains me.

[3:23:39] Developers will tell you that setbacks and decibel averages guarantee no

[3:23:43] problems. I believed that once. But what they don't tell you is that solar noise

[3:23:47] isn't just noise that can be measured by decb. Its pure tones, low frequency

[3:23:51] vibration, and a constant hum that the atmosphere itself can and does amplify.

[3:23:57] Normal atmospheric occurrences create temperature inversions. The sound bends

[3:24:01] and carries like it's being pushed straight towards you. I can even hear

[3:24:04] the facility from 3,000 ft away. A setback alone cannot protect a family

[3:24:09] from that. Brooks County learned this the hard way. Next Era Energy, the owner

[3:24:13] of Lineia, promised our board that noise would be no louder than a refrigerator.

[3:24:18] I think that's what Google said also. Those words are burned into my memory.

[3:24:22] But the reality was so different that the company was formally cited by Brooks

[3:24:25] County for violating our noise and nuisance regulations. They are still

[3:24:30] trying to mitigate this problem by wrapping active electrical equipment in

[3:24:33] industrial sound blankets. If distance alone solved the problem, they wouldn't

[3:24:38] be doing that. They refuse to wrap all the inverters because that would affect

[3:24:42] what would affect what they are able to deliver for the power purchase agreement

[3:24:46] they have signed with Georgia Power. The truth is simple. The issue isn't decibb.

[3:24:50] It's frequency, tone, and weather. A basic handheld meter can say everything

[3:24:54] is within limits while a family is sitting inside their home with their

[3:24:58] nerves frayed and their quality of life shattered. That is why when we amended

[3:25:02] our ordinance, we banned held handheld testing and required real acoustic

[3:25:07] engineering. 1/3 octave octave band analysis with meteorological log

[3:25:12] logging. We did it because families deserve better than what we got here in

[3:25:16] our county. I am asking you to please learn from our pain, not repeat it.

[3:25:21] Protect Dearborn County families by requiring an ambient noise study by

[3:25:25] mandating proper acoustic testing and by taking setbacks and sound barrier

[3:25:29] mitigation seriously. People's homes, their peace, their sense of safety,

[3:25:34] these are not things you can give back once they're lost. Please don't let what

[3:25:38] happened to us happen in Dearborn County. Respectfully and sincerely, Peg

[3:25:42] Howard. Thank you.

[3:25:46] » Thank you,

[3:25:55] » Mandy.

[3:26:05] Hey everybody again. My name is Amanda Thompson. Um, one question that a few

[3:26:10] people reached out to me to ask and I just wanted to on the record answer. Who

[3:26:14] does Nicole Planning and Zoning Director, it doesn't even have to be her

[3:26:17] if it's not her, report to >> this board. This board.

[3:26:21] » That's what I thought. I just wanted it on record for people in the public to

[3:26:24] actually know that. Thank you. >> I did make a mistake a couple of weeks

[3:26:26] ago and said that they reported to the commissioners, but

[3:26:29] » No, you're okay. >> I just

[3:26:31] » Yeah. Nope. >> Coming clean.

[3:26:32] » Yeah. Nope. I appreciate it. Um, so then I want to know why after numerous

[3:26:37] attempts of many people clearly voicing, coming to the meetings, writing emails,

[3:26:44] um, why so much of that was left out of the draft ordinance that we got the

[3:26:48] lowest of the low offered. I don't know if you can answer that or

[3:26:54] not, that's okay. Not. But a lot of people feel that what we had asked for

[3:27:00] and we came to the meetings and we wrote the emails and we filled out filled out

[3:27:03] the surveys that we didn't get that we got below that.

[3:27:10] » Well, I think that's why we're meeting now so we can correct any of those types

[3:27:13] of issues. >> Okay.

[3:27:15] » But I know that if >> she's probably got a stack of paper that

[3:27:18] we just got tonight bigger than this, so she has a lot to uh

[3:27:21] » to try to accomplish. >> Understood. I just know that we've been

[3:27:24] showing up for seven months. We have to start with something

[3:27:28] » all those surveys are not one-sided. So it's going between both sides of

[3:27:34] not making everybody happy one side or the other pro against

[3:27:42] those suggestions. So the US Supreme Court upheld the right

[3:27:47] um of communities by use of zoning for aesthetics in landmark 1954 decision for

[3:27:54] Burman and Parker. So just remember that when we are doing our aesthetics and you

[3:27:59] were talking about the Burm and all of that. This was actually US Supreme Court

[3:28:02] order. The comment was made that 200 feet um I think Denny you may have met

[3:28:09] um that 200 feet wouldn't leave a whole lot left to do stuff with the remaining

[3:28:16] uh land. So instead of decreasing that setback,

[3:28:20] why don't we increase it? I mean we could go the opposite direction. We

[3:28:24] could add more of a setback. >> That means we'll have to zone

[3:28:28] » solar out period because you don't have enough contiguous acres to do it. Good.

[3:28:34] » And that's what it actually means. >> Understood.

[3:28:37] » I'm just going off of what people are wanting and trying to come up with

[3:28:40] alternatives. >> My my point in the setback

[3:28:45] demonstration was that if you put a 200 foot perimeter around that 100 acre

[3:28:50] tract, you're taking that land out of service. Nobody can farm it. There's not

[3:28:55] enough ground there to farm. >> Yep.

[3:28:57] um you're making whatever company comes in there to maintain that area. You're

[3:29:04] using resources, paying people, and I don't really care about what it costs

[3:29:10] the developer because that's their price to do business, right?

[3:29:14] » But what why do we want to take 40 acres out of agricultural production just to

[3:29:19] create a setback >> is my question.

[3:29:22] » Totally understand what you're saying. I would also flip that and say, why take a

[3:29:26] thousand acres out of production and for solar? So, it could go either way on

[3:29:32] that. Um, >> and

[3:29:35] » and then the the question, >> if I reset my timer, we're well over

[3:29:39] » Okay. Well, I was getting feedback. Um, I will say this ending if you don't

[3:29:44] mind. On Lineia's own website, they stated that their noise stays between 0

[3:29:49] to 45 dB. >> Between what? zero and 45.

[3:29:54] » Okay, >> thank you.

[3:30:00] » Hello, my name's Jessica Schneider. I'm gonna cut this down. Um,

[3:30:05] just to I have this printed off just for the record. 43 people in Dearborn County

[3:30:10] mentions u 1500 foot setbacks, 44 people for property value guarantees, 43 for

[3:30:19] well buffers, 33 people for 40 decimal noise limit, and 32 for a 200 acre

[3:30:26] project and only two people on here were crow. So here's the record right here.

[3:30:32] » You know how long 1500 ft is? >> I know sir, but I'm just giving an

[3:30:36] example. The people can tell you >> only two people.

[3:30:39] » Five foot five football. >> I'm just telling you what was emailed to

[3:30:43] you guys. >> I know. I'm just responding.

[3:30:45] » But we we have to represent everyone in the county.

[3:30:48] » Yeah, you're right. >> I mean, there's approximately 50,000

[3:30:52] people in this county. >> That's right.

[3:30:53] » I mean, I I wouldn't even know. Maybe 50% of them.

[3:30:57] » That's the printed record of who's emailed Nicole. I'm not saying I mean,

[3:31:03] I'm sure there's more than two people. Yes. But that's two people. That's

[3:31:07] email.

[3:31:22] » I think this was one set of papers. >> Sorry.

[3:31:30] » Here we have the whole thing. >> Yeah. Here's the rest of it.

[3:31:36] more. >> I guess missing page one

[3:31:40] » here. You got her now.

[3:32:00] » Hi. Uh my name is Toeer Anderson. Um and I am actually a resident of Brownsburg,

[3:32:05] Indiana. uh but I work with a group called land and liberty that is here to

[3:32:08] represent the rights of land owners across the state especially around

[3:32:12] energy sighting issues. Uh so I'm really here to testify that this ordinance is

[3:32:16] pretty much excessive regulation. Uh and that if in enacted if enacted it would

[3:32:20] make solar development the most heavily regulated use in this county. Uh and I

[3:32:25] want to point to three areas to to back this up. Uh first uh I I would recommend

[3:32:30] just striking the 10 mile requirement between solar panels. Um, Dearborn

[3:32:34] County is 16 miles wide and 26 miles long. So, if we put one solar project in

[3:32:40] the center of the county of a thousand acres, a good chunk of which is being

[3:32:44] taken up by BMS and everything, it's not a total ban, but it's pretty dang close.

[3:32:49] And we don't really have a compelling I I don't understand a compelling reason

[3:32:53] to put a 10 mile spacing between um solar fields uh other than to to limit

[3:33:01] its uh use which clearly some people here want to just straight up ban it. So

[3:33:04] I appreciate their honesty there. Um likewise though the uh limitation of a

[3:33:09] thousand acres restricts the property rights of anyone who's adjacent who also

[3:33:12] wants to benefit. But if they're the next in line, they don't have that

[3:33:16] opportunity because they have the thousand1st acre. So I would recommend

[3:33:20] striking that as well. Um second, these setbacks are higher than for anything

[3:33:24] else in the county. So for reference, in your broader ordinance, the heavy

[3:33:28] industrial use and is appropriately the highest level of setbacks. These

[3:33:33] required setbacks are 100 feet on the front and 50 feet from the side.

[3:33:38] Permitted uses for heavy industrial zones are, and I'm pulling this from

[3:33:42] your ordinance, mining, landfills, firework, firework or explosive

[3:33:47] manufacturers, prisons, gas line, and oral distribution sites. So, at 50 ft

[3:33:53] and 100 ft are sufficient to protect neighbors from the damages of a

[3:33:56] landfill, gas line, or explosive manufacturer. Anything above that feels

[3:34:02] like we are verging into something relatively arbitrary uh for political

[3:34:07] reasons that aren't directly tied to health and safety as has been frequently

[3:34:10] claimed here. Um third, uh the BMS and screening requirements are some of the

[3:34:14] most extreme I've seen across counties in Indiana. Uh BMS uh even with just two

[3:34:18] foot BMS, that would be the largest drainage, soil erosion, and property

[3:34:22] damaging part of a solar project to come into this county. So, I would really

[3:34:26] recommend taking a close look at that and and asking whether that's worth it.

[3:34:30] And I just want to say that all of this unnecessary regulation is harmful to the

[3:34:34] land owners in your county. According to the USDA, the average non-commercial

[3:34:38] farm in in 2024 made minus $1,800. And a recent Purdue study highlights

[3:34:44] that the average solar lease provides three times more income per acre than

[3:34:48] farming. So all these claims of losing our farmland or our park or our visual

[3:34:53] lose the fact lose sight of the fact that it isn't our land. It is the land

[3:34:57] of the people whose deed is on that land. And we did not fight for freedom

[3:35:03] in this country to have governments start to tell me what I can and can't do

[3:35:07] with my land to this extreme. Um, so I'm really asking that the county government

[3:35:12] reconsider and step back from this excessive regulation uh to enable land

[3:35:16] owners to use their land as they see fit. Thank you.

[3:35:19] » Before you leave, repeat uh the question about you said something about politics.

[3:35:26] » Yes. So >> what was that statement? uh it was in

[3:35:30] regard to the fact that we are regulating the setbacks of solar

[3:35:34] to be higher than things like explosive manufacturers which I believe is

[3:35:38] probably tied to some political sentiments or something of that nature.

[3:35:42] It feels like a relatively arbitrary discrimination.

[3:35:46] » I think you should sit down. >> Okay. Well, thank you for your time.

[3:35:51] » Thank you,

[3:35:54] » Emily.

[3:36:01] You deserve

[3:36:13] » please take one and hand it down. >> Lord

[3:36:22] » Emily Hartman, Dearborn Calvary. All right, we have a lot. Um, but I want

[3:36:29] to start off with one of my favorites. In 1926, in Uklid versus Amler realy,

[3:36:35] the United States Supreme Court found that zoning is a valid exercise of

[3:36:38] police power which local governments use to protect the public welfare. The court

[3:36:42] wrote, "The line which separates the legitimate from the illegitimate

[3:36:46] assumption of power is not capable of precise delimination. It varies the

[3:36:50] circumstances and conditions. The question of whether the power exists to

[3:36:54] forbid the erection of a building or a particular kind or for a particular use,

[3:36:59] like the question of whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be

[3:37:03] determined not by abstract consideration of the building or the thing considered

[3:37:07] a part, but by considering in connection with the circumstances and the reality.

[3:37:14] A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the

[3:37:18] parlor instead of the barnyard. And that's how I want to dive into this

[3:37:24] document in front of you because it's not that fun. All right. So, an

[3:37:28] industrial power plant getting thrown into a residential and agricultural

[3:37:32] area.

[3:37:35] The pig in the parlor thing. Okay. The setback requirements for utility scale

[3:37:40] solar development should protect the public health, safety, and general

[3:37:43] welfare of our community while still allowing appropriately sighted solar

[3:37:47] development to occur. These facilities are substantially larger and more

[3:37:50] intensive than typical uses permitted in agricultural and rural areas. Their

[3:37:55] impacts can extend well beyond the project boundary, including visual

[3:37:58] impacts, changes to the character of the surrounding landscape, glare, noise,

[3:38:03] fencing, and security infrastructure and the industrialization of land next to

[3:38:08] properties whose owners did not choose to participate in the project.

[3:38:13] the citizens recommendations of a 1500 foot setback from nonparticipating

[3:38:17] property lines. I know it's a lot of football fields and a 500 foot setback

[3:38:22] from public rideway are consistent with the statutory purposes outlined in

[3:38:26] Indiana code title 36 article 7 chapter 4 and I have the footnotes there. I know

[3:38:31] I'm short on time. These setbacks are not intended to prevent solar

[3:38:35] development. They are intended to ensure that solar development is appropriately

[3:38:39] located and the rights and quality of life of neighboring property owners are

[3:38:43] considered. These recommendations are also consistent with our comprehensive

[3:38:46] plan which uh Bobby read from and the footnotes I have comp

[3:38:52] plan cited there too. Um and let's jump to a important part of that.

[3:38:58] Almost most land in Dearborn County is privately owned. The entire community

[3:39:02] has a stake in how it is used. the health, safety, and welfare of all

[3:39:06] current Dearborn County citizens as well as future generations are affected by

[3:39:10] the use of land. The comprehensive plan is the key to most appropriately

[3:39:14] managing the land and its future development in Dearborn County. And then

[3:39:18] I'll jump back to my speech. These recommendations are also consistent with

[3:39:22] our comprehensive plan, which calls for the conservation of farmland and open

[3:39:25] space in rural areas to preserve our local economy and quality of life. It

[3:39:30] also calls for minimizing negative impacts between incompatible land uses

[3:39:35] includ including the noise, traffic, and other conditions that could create a

[3:39:39] nuisance or danger to adjacent properties.

[3:39:43] Our handout or my handout also includes a comparison of Indiana counties that

[3:39:48] starts on page three. Um

[3:39:52] Jim, Mr. Thatcher, you mentioned the averages which was really great.

[3:39:58] Did I leave my phone over there? >> Okay,

[3:40:02] » it's on the counter. >> So, 60.

[3:40:08] » Oh, no. >> All right, here we go. 67.

[3:40:14] » Oh, yeah. I'm speaking for a group. >> Yeah, sure. I'll speak for the group.

[3:40:18] » Come on. Look, >> let Miss Hartman finish her stuff and I

[3:40:22] can't let everybody just talk. 67 counties in Indiana do have solar

[3:40:28] ordinances. Um, and these ordinance that I referenced because I wanted to do

[3:40:33] apples to apples, not apples to oranges. So, when we're looking at those

[3:40:36] averages, it there's a big difference in the range there. Uh, what were they

[3:40:41] again? I heard you from like 25 up to a much bigger number. This is

[3:40:46] » going to have to wrap up shortly. >> Okay. Well, so

[3:40:53] that's why I need to stick to my thing. Several Indiana counties now require

[3:40:58] thousand feet or more from non-participating property lines. Please

[3:41:01] note all these ordinances, they've been in the same position as us. They're

[3:41:04] rewriting their ordinance since 2023. These are not 2019 ordinances we're

[3:41:08] comparing to, including Allen, Rush, Davis, Fountain, Wells, Boone,

[3:41:13] Huntington, Carol, Spencer, Fulton, Whitley, and Faget. Others use tiered

[3:41:17] setbacks. They increase with more sight. >> I ask you to sit down.

[3:41:20] » Even if I'm representing a group, >> you didn't state you were representing a

[3:41:25] group when you started.

[3:41:29] » I'm representing. >> Well, here. Who would like to speak?

[3:41:35] » All right.

[3:41:39] » She already said

[3:41:43] you already spoke. You already spoke. you guys

[3:41:49] shut it down.

[3:41:53] » Josh Hollon incorporated part of Dearborn County. Uh continuing on, our

[3:41:57] handout also includes a comparison of Indiana counties that have adopted or

[3:42:01] amended their solar ordinances since 2023. These counties are not anti-solar.

[3:42:06] In fact, some including Stark County have facilitated solar development. And

[3:42:10] the recent to throw this up in here, the recent counties which were referenced

[3:42:13] are in northern a lot of them are in northern part where it's flat. We are in

[3:42:17] the hilly part. We are below I US40. We're below I7. We are a lot hillier.

[3:42:24] Getting back to here. They have recognized the counties that

[3:42:30] utility Stark County specifically the utility scale solar projects have

[3:42:33] evolved and that ordinances written when projects were expected to be around 100

[3:42:38] acres or less may not have adequately addressed today's much larger industrial

[3:42:42] scale facilities. Several Indiana counties now require 1,000 ft or more

[3:42:46] from non-participating property lines. Those counties have already been

[3:42:50] mentioned. A 1500t setback provides meaningful separation for neighboring

[3:42:54] land owners. It reduces the intensity of the project's impacts while preserving

[3:42:58] reasonable space around homes, agricultural operations, and other

[3:43:01] lawful uses. Private property rights prevail. I also want to respectfully

[3:43:07] address the concern that a 1500t setback may not I'll wait. Okay, there you go. I

[3:43:14] also want to respectfully address the concern that a 1500t setback may be

[3:43:18] impractical in Deer County. The sketch that was presented to illustrate this

[3:43:22] concerns

[3:43:28] appears to apply to 1500T setback to a single parcel in isolation.

[3:43:33] That does not necessarily reflect how an industrial scale solar project would

[3:43:37] actually be developed. These projects can involve multiple parcels assembled

[3:43:41] together as one development. When the project area is considered as a whole,

[3:43:45] rather than looking at the availability of one particular parcel, there can be

[3:43:50] substantially more land available within the project footprint to accommodate the

[3:43:53] setback. So the question should not be simply whether one parcel can support a

[3:43:59] solar project within a 1500T setback. The question is whether appropriately

[3:44:04] assembled industrial scale projects can be designed to meet the setback while

[3:44:08] protecting non-participating property owners.

[3:44:12] We believe they can and the experience of other Indiana counties demonstrates

[3:44:16] the meaningful setbacks can coexist with responsible solar development and a 500t

[3:44:21] setback from a public right away helps prevent large scale solar infrastructure

[3:44:25] from creating an immediate immediate industrial wall along our roads that

[3:44:30] protects the rural character and the inequalities of our road corridors and

[3:44:34] provides additional separation for the traveling public.

[3:44:37] Ultimately, it's about balance. We can support the responsible solar

[3:44:42] development without sacrificing the character, safety, property rights, and

[3:44:45] quality of life that make Deburn County a place people want to live. And we

[3:44:50] respectfully ask you to adopt the 1500 foot setback. Look at all those trees

[3:44:53] that could be planted in there. We are a county known as trees

[3:44:58] from the noticipated property lines and around the 500t setback for public

[3:45:03] rights aways. These are responsible, protective, supported by Supreme Court

[3:45:08] decisions, and consistent with both Indiana law and

[3:45:11] our community's comprehensive plan. Uh, I got a lot of other things to say, but

[3:45:17] you've done a nice job. Thank you very much.

[3:45:21] » Can you bring me? >> Yes, ma'am.

[3:45:45] Uh Chris Barry, I want to say that I'm I'm proud of like just as Americans

[3:45:50] what's happening in the room. And so I just want to acknowledge like this type

[3:45:53] of like civic debate. No, it's amazing. I and I honestly like we could talk

[3:45:57] after Bobby. We can disagree. I think we need to do so civily. And I think this

[3:46:01] is like amazing. This is how our country works. I'm proud of us as Americans. I'm

[3:46:04] going to start with a couple things >> directed towards

[3:46:07] » on on on noise. I I think that maybe one thing we could do is we could add

[3:46:11] there's a property line, but then there's also what happens at a as a res

[3:46:15] at a residence. I think it's what you're alluding to in the Indiana standards.

[3:46:18] It's 50 a weighted decibb >> at a house.

[3:46:24] » Make we suggesting that be 40. >> So reduce that to 40 at the house, 55 at

[3:46:30] the property line. one example. Um, I think the lightning example is a great

[3:46:33] one. It's, you know, keeping it down, keeping it mitigated.

[3:46:37] » There's 75 >> 75.

[3:46:42] » Yeah. >> Uh,

[3:46:45] » on the landscape buffers. I think that there's like reasonable compromise. I'm

[3:46:48] going to jump on the bandwagon with the BMS that I think it's going to invite a

[3:46:51] lot of really bad complications. We did a quick analysis of our own project. It

[3:46:55] would require 10,000 20 ton truckloads of earth for a three

[3:47:00] and a half foot burn. Uh that's from a local Dearborn contractor. Um and then

[3:47:06] the visual screens I think though are a good idea. They do protect rural

[3:47:09] character especially around homes. Something worth doing. But like rounding

[3:47:13] out, I think that those are the main things that are mitigating solar's

[3:47:17] impact to the community. Otherwise, we need to ask the question of like what

[3:47:22] value to health, safety, and welfare are we doing when it's coming at the expense

[3:47:26] of a restriction of a landowner's use of their property. Um, I think Bobby's

[3:47:31] reference to the comprehensive plan is is accurate, but there are also

[3:47:34] competing interests within that comprehensive plan. Two of which are

[3:47:38] economic development and and tax revenue that help the county fund itself and

[3:47:42] fund roads and schools and all the other things that we want that you guys want

[3:47:45] to do with your community. We I I I'm not speaking specifically on the

[3:47:49] project. We just want to say that um reasonable regulation is what we're for

[3:47:54] and we just give us the standard and and we want to meet it. Thank you.

[3:48:13] Shauna Drake, Dearborn County, live on Kboy Drive.

[3:48:18] I want to know if any of you have children with asthma.

[3:48:22] I >> have a wife.

[3:48:25] How hard is it for her to breathe when it's 105

[3:48:28] outside? >> Same as me.

[3:48:31] » You can't breathe either. >> I have I have a heart condition.

[3:48:35] » Me, too. >> All right.

[3:48:38] » I've lost half my body parts to a Crohn's.

[3:48:43] » Yep. All about >> and blood clots.

[3:48:47] » Yep. >> I come from a health side.

[3:48:52] What is the what's the heat difference over farmland compared to solar?

[3:48:57] » Please direct your questions to us. >> Oh, well, I thought she was part of you.

[3:49:03] » Direct question. >> Do you know what? Do you know what the

[3:49:07] heat is that is that comes off of a solar plant compared to a farmland?

[3:49:10] » I do know. I think it would be really beneficial to look at that

[3:49:17] because the heat that is produced is something that causes people who have

[3:49:23] asthma, who have health conditions, who have chronic illnesses

[3:49:29] to be in the hospital because of people's mistakes.

[3:49:37] Our diseases come from environmental. It's it's something that we have we hand

[3:49:43] off to our kids and their kids. And we have to look at him in the face and say

[3:49:48] that we're not doing anything about it. And I just want one of you to tell my

[3:49:53] 10-year-old granddaughter that her asthma doesn't matter because he wants

[3:49:57] his property because he's getting a check for it. She don't get a check for

[3:50:01] it. He doesn't pay her bills. step up here.

[3:50:06] » And and I'm saying from anybody who's benefiting from it. This is why we

[3:50:12] elected you guys once again to protect us. Think of my 10-year-old

[3:50:19] granddaughter with severe asthma that I have to give nebulizing treatments to

[3:50:26] every 10 minutes to keep her alive.

[3:50:32] I just want you to sit back and think about that for a while because that's

[3:50:35] who we are talking about. We are talking about the future of our county

[3:50:41] and the future is in our children and our grandchildren.

[3:50:46] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[3:50:58] Lisa Lee Wisburg Road. I'm just going over some of this with this wooded area.

[3:51:03] You're saying all but 30%. I was just at a meeting down here a couple months ago

[3:51:08] that Nicole had given that Dearborn County is thriving to get at least 40%

[3:51:14] tree coverage. Now, if it's for Dearborn County, it

[3:51:19] should not just be for the town of Lburg, right? Each one dividing because

[3:51:24] she's dividing Lburg right now. trees down here.

[3:51:28] » We want our trees out there. Also, >> take how many acres you're doing?

[3:51:32] Thousand. >> That was a little different. Um I

[3:51:35] believe that was from the urban foresters.

[3:51:37] » Yes, it was. We are We're out there in the country. It's Dearborn County,

[3:51:41] though. We need our oxygen, too. We need our oxygen, too.

[3:51:46] » Trees cool. They protect your land. They keep from water shedding areas eroding

[3:51:54] in the wet. There's a piece of that property that's under this contract or

[3:51:58] 57year lease that he has hardwood trees there. They cleared some of them which

[3:52:03] is fine. But do you know the previous owner which is actually going to be an

[3:52:07] owner of this stuff was getting paid by the government not to even put cattle on

[3:52:11] that farm? >> And also he's got his mother-in-law's

[3:52:16] earn buried there. And you're going to take out them trees that she's

[3:52:21] » I'm not taking out any trees. Well, that's what they're talking about. All

[3:52:25] but 30% of them. All but 30%.

[3:52:31] » I understand your point, but I'm still stating the fact that I'm not taking out

[3:52:36] any >> fencing at six foot high. Deer, adult

[3:52:39] deer can jump out of it, but little deer will be going to get stuck.

[3:52:43] » They're going to jump in there, have their babies jump out, and that little

[3:52:46] baby's going to be stranded. If you're going to build a fence, at least build

[3:52:49] it like around Jefferson proving grounds that they can't get out.

[3:52:53] or in people that really want in or out of

[3:52:58] there is going to come over a sixoot fence, too.

[3:53:01] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[3:53:08] » Come on, Ed. >> I'll be quick about it. I was going to

[3:53:12] talk about the trees, too, but she did a good job. There is some

[3:53:17] hardwood there. that's in question. And u

[3:53:21] I think instead of 30% it ought to be at least 75%.

[3:53:26] » I like trees and u there was something on here that

[3:53:30] we didn't get to and it talked about fire protection and

[3:53:34] » we're saving that for the next meeting. That's actually

[3:53:36] » Well, I just I I'm here's want to talk about burm

[3:53:41] and dirt. >> Go ahead. I'm not going to hold you.

[3:53:44] Just speak your mind. Well, you know, they talk about building BMS and where

[3:53:49] they can get their dirt at on site would be a retention pond or them can be used

[3:53:55] for fire protection also. So, just I'm just throwing that out there.

[3:53:59] » Sure. Sure. >> And and furthermore,

[3:54:02] uh some of these projects or some of these areas that that they're talking

[3:54:06] about doing, one of the gentleman's talked about is pretty hilly. I think

[3:54:10] that uh they need to go in and it needs to be uh site developed

[3:54:15] controlled drainage you know and uh waterways

[3:54:19] um works a lot of them sites like that and um got contractor a year with soil

[3:54:25] conservation that's all you heard enough

[3:54:30] you've still got three minutes

[3:54:35] everybody else go all Hi, >> come on up.

[3:54:45] » Hi, my name is Lisa Brian and I live on Weisberg and um I heard a couple of our

[3:54:50] Prolineia people talk about they didn't like the 10 miles between the solar. So,

[3:54:54] it might be in your backyard. It might be coming to you guys next. So, um you

[3:54:59] want you said it's you want to re represent all of Dearborn County, Denny.

[3:55:04] I mean you got you it might be you know coming somewhere else they have to be

[3:55:09] protected. Um I believe in property rights. I also believe it's the right

[3:55:14] thing to do when when your neighbors are being surrounded completely by solar to

[3:55:20] to care about them and to care about their children and care about why did

[3:55:24] they move out here to begin with. There were so many people that I know that

[3:55:28] moved out farther into the west side of Dearborn County to to live in

[3:55:32] agricultural land. That's why we moved out farther west. That's why our

[3:55:36] children are moving out farther west. That's why several people that built

[3:55:40] their homes theirelves, they moved out here

[3:55:44] and we expect you to protect us. I've been to zoning meetings for years and

[3:55:48] years here and you're like so picky about everything and now we're going to

[3:55:51] let a company come in from out of town and just do whatever.

[3:55:55] No. Please protect us. >> Do not be afraid. Be courageous. Protect

[3:56:00] the people.

[3:56:05] » Thank you.

[3:56:17] » I was just about I just about did I just about did I just about pulled the

[3:56:22] trigger on him. You were too slow.

[3:56:27] Chris Mer, Lawrenburg Township. I'm not in Manchester, but this this ordinance

[3:56:32] affects all of us. And I guess my question to you is this. I haven't heard

[3:56:36] anything yet in this new revised version about what happens in the conditional

[3:56:42] use situation that you have in the original ordinance. you have a

[3:56:46] conditional use for solar this solar farm in agricultural and a homestead

[3:56:53] use. If you are or are not going to do that, is that anywhere in the picture?

[3:57:03] » Utility scale and community scales require additional use.

[3:57:09] um

[3:57:16] » 1920. >> So, it's still there as a conditional

[3:57:19] use in egg. >> All right. My personal opinion is that

[3:57:23] when you put conditional uses down, they sound really good. It sounds like you

[3:57:28] can put something in there. You have things that you can say about it um to

[3:57:32] restrict and limit and make sure that you protect some of the neighbors and so

[3:57:37] forth. When you get into that, I understand that when you get to

[3:57:40] something this big, it's clearly an industrial use that you're talking

[3:57:44] about. And so, you're taking an industrial kind of use and you're

[3:57:48] putting it in another area and you're attempting to control it in that area,

[3:57:53] but it actually doesn't really belong there. If they really wanted to do it,

[3:57:58] they would come in and they would say, "I want to put in this solar farm, and

[3:58:03] I'm going to ask you for a zone change." And at that point in time, then you

[3:58:08] might be saying, "Okay, part of Manchester Township is going to become

[3:58:11] industrial because we want it to be industrial." But that's not what you're

[3:58:15] saying. What you're saying is we're going to let you come in here and we're

[3:58:19] going to try to control this industrial thing so it doesn't affect them so much.

[3:58:23] So my real question to you is does that kind of use actually even belong

[3:58:28] anywhere in a rural area or are we actually trying to convert that rural

[3:58:33] area into something else? And I want you to think about that when you finish what

[3:58:39] you're doing because I think that conditional use is the root of a lot of

[3:58:42] the problem that you're seeing right here right now. Wouldn't be here in that

[3:58:48] rural area without that. And I think the only

[3:58:51] reason you're having a trouble with it is because they want to lease land. They

[3:58:55] don't want to own the land. So those two things are affecting this a lot.

[3:59:02] » Yeah. I don't know that our ordinance addressed leasing versus owning

[3:59:07] specifically. >> Well, it would be hard to reszone land.

[3:59:10] The Lana wouldn't be reszoning it. The owner would be

[3:59:13] » We don't have an application for Lana. But but I'm just saying a solar farm

[3:59:18] company would not be the one if they're leasing instead of owning.

[3:59:22] » The person who has to request change is the owner, right?

[3:59:25] » If if

[3:59:29] think a zone change anywhere out >> in the western part of the county to

[3:59:35] industrial is going to be a hard >> cell because for the most part there

[3:59:41] aren't utilities available that would support an industrial zone chain.

[3:59:46] Yep. >> And therefore,

[3:59:49] » I'm back to my point. I want you to think about what you're putting in here.

[3:59:53] And yet, you did get a request just last month

[3:59:57] for an industrial use in >> We'll see where that goes.

[4:00:02] » Okay. I'm just saying. All right. Thank you.

[4:00:05] » Thank you, Chris.

[4:00:09] I'll allow I say allow one more person this evening and then

[4:00:16] I'd like to wrap the meeting up. >> Anyone wants to speak?

[4:00:23] Guess I'm not the only one that wants to go home this evening.

[4:00:27] » Public discussion. >> I'll second that.

[4:00:38] That's right. >> Have a motion by Russ for the coast.

[4:00:44] Public discussion. A second by Eric Lang. All in favor say I.

[4:00:47] » I. >> Any opposed?

[4:00:52] Motion carried. >> Hold.

[4:00:57] » Motion dies for lack of a second. just real quick um because it's on the

[4:01:05] website but also there we're having another special meeting here at six

[4:01:10] o'clock on September 21st which is a Monday

[4:01:13] » is a vote possible >> and I will not be here

[4:01:15] » no I do not have it advertised as a vote >> I've got a conference

[4:01:21] » so I do not have it advertised as a vote >> I have Farm Bureau's annual meeting same

[4:01:26] time >> so

[4:01:29] » I emailed you already I won't be able to make that meeting either. So if you have

[4:01:32] any questions about anything leading into that meeting, just let me know.

[4:01:36] » You want to make that date later in the week.

[4:01:38] » Yeah. >> Well, we have the plan commission on the

[4:01:40] 28th. So >> what

[4:01:44] » we also already have a plan commission meeting on the 28th as well,

[4:01:48] » right? >> It was just trying to get through some

[4:01:50] additional >> either.

[4:01:56] All right, we're not done yet. If you can

[4:02:01] » No, they didn't. >> It wasn't seconded. So, we don't have to

[4:02:07] meet >> the lady.

[4:02:10] The couple are supposed to come and share them.

[4:02:12] » Might have to talk. >> We're not done yet.

[4:02:14] » Oh, I'm not eyeing.

[4:02:19] » Um, so just as far as um but no, it's not advertised as a meeting. So or

[4:02:25] advertised as a vote. So there will be no voting at that one either.

[4:02:30] » Well, there will be no voting forwarding an ordinance to the commissioners. We

[4:02:35] may pull the board for things in the order.

[4:02:38] » Absolutely right. Yes. >> Yes. Because the first one that I

[4:02:42] advertised just because would be the 28th

[4:02:46] » because it is very specific. So even if there doesn't have to be at that

[4:02:51] meeting, it also says in the code that that can continue on, but I have to

[4:02:56] advertise it no matter how far we keep going.

[4:02:59] » Right. >> So I like to just cover ourselves.

[4:03:02] » Okay. >> So we're meeting on the 21st or not.

[4:03:06] » Yes, we are.

[4:03:10] » Still move to adjourn. >> Second.

[4:03:12] » All in favor of going home say I. I. >> Anybody want to stay?

[4:03:18] Now you can talk.

[4:03:23] » Okay. But it ended up

[4:03:29] » normally came and shared.

[4:03:36] » I had lady

[4:03:42] one.

Plan Commission Meeting 9/9/26

Transcript