Mixed views pepper long hearing on tighter rules for solar farms in St. Joe County

Among the more than 40 people who spoke Tuesday on changes that would tighten up St. Joseph County’s ordinance on solar farms — for or against — many had mixed views.

Three hours of public comment led the county’s Area Plan Commission to vote 6-0 to give the changes a favorable recommendation. It now heads to the county council for a final vote on July 9.

Commission member Robert Kruszynski echoed what several had said — that the changes are a “good start” as a protection for neighbors of solar farms who see them as industrial intrusion on their rural lives. But he urged council members — many of whom were there — to “slow down and make sure we get everything in it,” because, he said, “there’s a lot more that can be done.”

Several North Liberty-area residents spoke as part of the recent opposition to Virginia-based Hexagon Energy’s plans to erect solar farms on 2,300 to 2,500 acres of farmland near them.

But farmer Mike Wagner, who is among the farmers signing 35- to 40-year leases with Hexagon to allow the solar panels, spoke firmly of his “property rights.” He spoke of the risks and expenses of growing crops every year, with no control over the weather.

June 16, 2024: Large solar farm plans in North Liberty stir opposition and perhaps tighter county rules

“Solar can give me the chance to diversify my farm, a chance for my family to prosper,” Wagner said. “I’m fighting to keep the farm.”

Because his land sits next to the powerful DuMont Substation, where Hexagon wants to feed its electricity into a regional grid, he said there are power lines that prevent him from swinging irrigators across his soil.

He said he uses “tons of pesticides,” along with phosphates and fertilizers, which he looks forward to stopping so that the soil can “rest.”

APC President Adam DeVon reiterated that the commission could only vote to give the proposals a favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation. They couldn’t change the wording. Nor could they, on Tuesday, add a moratorium.

But, just before the vote, DeVon, who is a building contractor, said he’d rather make changes to the ordinance over time than “put life on hold” with a moratorium.

County council member Amy Drake is pushing for such a moratorium, beyond the proposed changes, so the county has a longer chance to evaluate all of the possible impacts of solar.

Council members Joe Thomas, Randy Figg, Bryan Tanner and Dan Schaetzle all spoke in support of the proposed changes.

Schaetzle argued against a moratorium, saying that it would leave the solar issues “hanging over our heads” when county officials “don’t know what will happen in two years.”

Thanks to geography, Thomas pointed out that the North Liberty project would place homes close to solar, which he said differs from the Honeysuckle Solar Farm that was erected in the past couple of years on about 1,000 acres near New Carlisle.

What are the proposed changes?

Several officials described the proposed changes as a “compromise” after select members of the county’s Board of Commissioners, council, APC and planning staff met to see how they could amend the current solar ordinance.

As the ordinance is written now, solar farms can set up without ever coming to the county council for a hearing. The changes would retighten regulations passed in 2020 by a different council that had been relaxed to actually encourage such large-scale solar operations on farmland.

The proposed changes would require a special use permit for agriculturally zoned land — thus, a council review and vote.

The changes also would set requirements for landscaping between the solar panels that benefit pollinating insects and birds, along with clarifying the agreement for how the solar panels will be removed once the land leases end decades later.

The changes would require that the solar panels are set back at least 250 feet from a “non-participating” neighbor’s home or 150 feet from that neighbor’s property line, whichever is greater. Plus, there would have to be a visual buffer of evergreen trees when solar panels are next to a subdivision with more than 10 plots.

Some speakers Tuesday liked parts of the changes but quibbled with other parts.

Darrin Jacobs with Lightsource BP, which developed the Honeysuckle project, said he had some concern for the setbacks as being potentially unviable. His company typically uses a setback of about 75 feet that he believes works.

Scott Remer, senior director of development for Hexagon Energy, said the changes are reasonable, though he’d prefer “slightly shorter” setbacks. He’d also like some exemption that would allow Hexagon to continue with the North Liberty projects that his company has invested in developing over the past few years.

John J. Bogucki, who spoke for his parents and their interest in leasing farmland for solar, said it’s “not fair play” for the county to change the rules halfway into the process. He believes solar can be done with a conscientious and “nature-focused design.”

Mixed feelings emerge

Opponents often said they weren’t against solar but felt this farmland is the wrong place for it. But, in the packed council chambers, at least a dozen seemed to fully support solar.

“I don’t think solar panels are ugly,” Greg Weis of North Liberty said. And noting the effect of pesticides, he added, “I don’t think solar is more invasive than farming.”

Tom McCormick of North Liberty, who lost the Republican primary bid to run for county commissioner this spring, told the audience, “Neighbors, … this is a tough topic.”

He has several questions, like: Could the land be returned to farming after it’s used for solar?

A renewable energy expert from an agency in Cicero, Ind., said that, apart from pollinator-friendly plants, some solar farms grow mint or melons between the panels or allow sheep to graze.

Fort Wayne-based attorney Jason Kuchmay represented opponents, many of them organized as Rethink Industrial Solar in St. Joseph County. Having dealt with other solar issues in 22 Indiana counties, he argued for stronger restrictions. He argued that property values decrease around solar farms.

APC member Gene Matzat recused himself and stepped out of Tuesday’s meeting because his property sits amidst the potential solar farms. He and his wife had turned down Hexagon’s request for a lease because they’re concerned for how solar panels would or wouldn’t affect the many acres of native habitat that they preserve.

South Bend Tribune reporter Joseph Dits can be reached at 574-235-6158 or jdits@sbtinfo.com.

This article originally appeared on South Bend Tribune: Mixed views on solar farm ordinance change in St. Joseph County hearing