From: Curt Burbrink
Columbus
I want to commend the County Plan Commission for their work developing a solar ordinance, but it needs some work to actually allow solar projects to be built in this county.
Bartholomew County is “Different by Design.” But I think we need to remember how that motto originated. J. Irwin Miller, a pragmatic local visionary, recognized that to attract the best and brightest from around the world, our community needed to be welcoming, forward-thinking and willing to forge our own path. He welcomed new ideas, new ways of doing things and new opportunities.
I can’t speak for Mr. Miller, but I doubt he would be against solar farms, especially since Cummins, the company he helped elevate to global renown, chooses to buy renewable power, some of it generated here in Indiana.
As a Hoosier farmer, I strongly believe I have no say in what my neighbor does with their property, and I feel I should be afforded the same right and privilege. The proposed ordinance limits what our neighbors can do with their farms and makes it harder to pursue new opportunities for their property — particularly decisions that help keep the farm with their families. Farming is tough enough to make a living year-to-year. Don’t make it tougher.
It’s also important to understand the history of residential lots. Historically, when farmers like me had family or friends that needed or wanted a place to build a home, or we needed money to help keep the farm going in leaner years, they parceled out and sold sections of their property to generate revenue from new housing. This ordinance seems weighted against the spirit of residential lots — that the farmer or landowner may legally generate revenue from their property as they see fit.
Specifically, the setback requirements in the proposed ordinance don’t make sense. A total prohibition of any commercial solar facilities within a half-mile of a municipality is unreasonable; each community in our county should be able to make that decision. The property line setbacks from adjacent properties are also not reasonable or reflect the spirit of allowing farmers and landowners to generate revenue on their property. Solar project setbacks that are 10 to 20 times greater than heavy industrial developments seems like a way to prohibit solar development by making it so onerous that the project isn’t feasible. If neighboring landowners want those kinds of setbacks, let them pay the farmer for that privilege.
Am I in favor of a reasonable solar ordinance? Absolutely! It allows me to protect my farm for future generations. It allows me to rejuvenate the soil to make it more productive. It allows me to adapt to changing times and needs, both locally and globally. It allows me to run my business with more predictable certainty. I encourage the Plan Commission and Commissioners to amend the proposed solar ordinance and adopt one that is reasonable, that facilitates and encourages solar project development and helps farmers like me.
