A unanimous eight-member vote by the Porter County Plan Commission at a special meeting Wednesday is the first step for revising and recommending a new ordinance for solar projects in Porter County.
Plan commission member Kevin Breitzke, the county surveyor, made the motion, seconded by Brian Damitz, for Ordinance No. 20-11, which was passed three years ago, to be repealed and revised allowing for further research and considerations from vocal residents both in support of the ordinance and of solar projects and also those opposed.
County attorney Scott McClure reminded members of the plan commission and the nearly 100 residents in attendance Wednesday that the vote and further consideration was unrelated to any specific solar projects, including those already in process or connected with contracts already signed based on the existing ordinance.
Plan commission member Bob Gilliana, who served on a subcommittee to explore the existing ordinance and gather research on residents’ concerns, presented his group’s report with McClure Wednesday before robust public comment from residents.
“It’s important to remember that we are not here tonight at the direction of any one (solar) project or any one township, but instead, to consider this ordinance as it impacts any and all of Porter County,” Gilliana said.
NextEra Energy Resources has proposed a solar array farm in Morgan Township south of Smoke Road, dubbed Malden Solar, and already has several farmers committed to leasing their land for the project. The project has garnered detractors, many of whom spoke at a commissioners meeting on the proposal that generated a standing-room-only crowd at the Porter County Expo Center in late February.
NextEra has other similar projects in Indiana, including one in Wheatfield in Jasper County meant to make up for the loss of revenue and power generation from NIPSCO’s R.M. Schahfer Generating Station, which is scheduled for shutdown in the coming years.
The considerations the subcommittee recommended the plan commission investigate further ranged from the impact of solar panel projects on wildlife and property concerns, as well as noise factor, the density of the number of panels allowed on land parcels and soil studies to conclude if potential contracted land is better suited for growing crops rather than dedicated to solar farming.
Plan commission member Greg Simms, who also served on the subcommittee and represents District 3 on the county council, agreed with fellow members a more in-depth analysis of long-term concerns for all impacted by any solar project is warranted.
“We need and welcome this public input we are hearing from everyone and we appreciate it,” Simms said.
“We want to make sure everyone is happy with whatever the final version of this ordinance is, once presented to the Porter County commissioners, or at least, as many people as possible, are happy with it.”
Daniel Straka of Munster, a field representative with the Indiana Land and Liberty Coalition, addressed the plan commission during public comment explaining his organization “represents farmers, landowners, and other stakeholders concerned about protecting their property rights, building their communities through job creation and economic opportunity, and being good stewards of the land.”
“The current ordinance in place in Porter County more than adequately balances the interests of both participating and nonparticipating landowners,” Straka said.
“We encourage you to leave the ordinance as it is, without revision or amendment. Embarking on a road of repeal or restrictive revision would be unfavorable to private landowners and result in a loss of the positive economic benefits Porter County would receive from utility-scale solar development. Let’s keep property decisions in the rightful hands of landowners.”
Attorney Brianna Schroeder of Indianapolis attended Wednesday’s meeting representing landowners of Morgan Township, including the Maxwell and Patterson families, who have already started the contract process with solar farm firms.
“There are already signed contracts recorded and in place (based on the existing ordinance) with these families with these organizations, which need to be considered,” Schroeder said.
Paula Brown of Morgan Township spoke during public comment with a passionate plea for why the ordinance needs to be repealed and reconsidered, citing her personal exchanges with landowners in neighboring Jasper County who are affected by the new solar farm panel installations in their county, with Brown describing in detail “how these solar energy operations have hampered the surrounding areas.”
“What was originally described by these solar companies as what seemed to be a promised Garden of Eden is just the opposite in Jasper County,” Brown said.
“After more than two and half years of these projects underway, the evergreens which were supposed to be planted to hide the barbed wire fencing have never been planted, and now neighboring farmers are having drainage problems for their own nearby fields.”
Following the public comment, Damitz promised a much more thorough examination of the ordinance and impact to others would be included in the recommendation and any revision presented to the Porter County Board of Commissioners, along with ample opportunity for further public comment and review before any future ordinance on solar projects were presented.
The plan commission also clarified that Porter County government has neither the jurisdiction nor authority to put a halt or moratorium on solar projects currently in progress, though such projects would need to adhere to any revisions and clarification of future stipulations, if forthcoming.
Philip Potempa is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.
