At last week’s Starke County Commissioner’s meeting, the board meticulously went over two current ordinances in regards to solar projects, section by section.
The first ordinance Commissioners dissected was in regards to Battery Energy Storage Systems, or BESS.
Part of the discussion in regards to this ordinance centered on defining “construction” versus “work”. It was noted that vague language has previously caused confusion and disputes during inspections, and that the distinction matters because it can affect requirements for permitting, compliance enforcement, and which exemptions, if any, apply. A motion was passed to establish a clearer distinction between the two terms, including some specific wordage that will be sent to legal counsel for review.
Commissioners voted to require applicants to get all preliminary permits from state and federal agencies , such as environmental offices or highway departments, before a county permit can be issued.
Next, board members cleaned up how the review process works. They decided that if a technical review committee isn’t used, the Plan Commission will automatically step in. They also fixed a few wording issues in the battery ordinance, so it matches the rules that are already set into place in the solar ordinance, to keep things consistent between the two.
Commissioners also voted to change renewal rules; instead of allowing two renewals for a permit, they changed it to one renewal. This also matches the solar ordinance.
After some debate, the board voted to require a 2,500-foot setback from non-participating property owners for any new BESS projects.
They also decided that for consistency, other features such as ditches, waterways, and wells will also follow the 2,500-foot standard.
Commissioners next discussed how setbacks should apply when a landowner does agree to participate in a battery storage project. They voted to require a minimum 500-foot setback from participating landowner’s home or well, depending on whichever is closer to the facility.
Commissioners talked about noise limits next, agreeing that stronger enforcement tools are needed, including the ability to issue fines if noise problems are not fixed quickly. It was stated that noise should be measured using clear standards such as dBA and vibration levels, so an engineer can test for compliance if needed. A motion was approved to add language that enforcement and testing would be at the company’s expense.
Additionally, members voted to strengthen the enforcement language in the ordinance so violations can be clearly addressed with stop-work orders, correction deadlines, and escalating fines for ongoing problems.
Discussion moved to landscaping requirements, and commissioners voted to require a stronger visual buffer around battery facilities, including a double row of evergreen trees and a minimum planting size/height requirement in order to make sure the buffer is effective. An additional enforcement measure requiring a performance bond for landscaping passed as well.
Commissioners voted to replace the existing drainage section with a more detailed set of requirements, covering stormwater permits, regulated drain maintenance, inspections, documentation, and enforcement responsibilities.
Permit renewal fees were voted on next, with the commissioners deciding the renewal cost should match the original permit fee rather than a flat amount.
Next, discussion moved on to road standards. After lengthy discussion, commissioners decided the current language is not usable as written. It was stated that the road repair standards are vague and technically incorrect; meaning the ordinance could be unenforceable and costly as drafted. Commissioners decided to work with the County Highway Department to completely revise the road standards section of the ordinance, using proper county engineering standards.
The next section of the ordinance was in regards to insurance, and ultimately got pushed back for a full rewrite. Debate was held over whether or not a requirement of $2 million per occurrence was realistic in what it would cover. It was decided to re-work the section in order to make it match real insurance industry standards, and also to consider things such as environmental and pollution coverage.
Commissioners discussed specifics for enforcement of violations. They settled on a 10-day cure period with a $2,500 per day per violation fine following the 10-day period. They also built a clear escalation path, including a notice of violation, fines beginning after 10 days, followed by possible reconsideration or revocation of permits.
In regards to Commercial Solar Energy Systems, or CSES, commissioners discussed a similar setback framework to the BESS ordinance, with a modified provision for berms/visual screening reducing setbacks.
Board members voted to mirror their earlier approach to noise mitigation before revisiting buffer requirements.
There was debate on whether to allow more flexibility inside fenced-in solar areas in regards to agriculture, with concerns raised about berms versus trees.
Board members approved additional language that will strengthen drainage and environmental protections for battery storage facilities, and add clarification to more closely align the ordinance with already-existing engineering standards.
A Property Value Protection Program was also approved, intending to provide a formal way to address any potential impacts to property associated with energy projects.
As with the BESS ordinance, Commissioners voted to enact an annual $50,000 payment to emergency services per project while it is being constructed.
Commissioners discussed needing another visit of the ordinances before scheduling a public hearing for the final versions.
