Part 2 of York County Commissioners’ conversation about solar zoning – negotiations underway for setback regulations

Editor’s note: This is the second part of an ongoing series regarding zoning regulations for solar projects in York County. Due to the hours-long conversation held this week, it is being published in segments.
​

​YORK – After the York County Commissioners, in a split vote, rejected the proposed regulations handed to them by the county’s planning and zoning board, the members embarked on a negotiation session to see how they could come to some sort of agreement. While they seemed to find common ground when it came to determining regulations for smaller solar operations (Classes 1, 2 and 3), it was the issue of setbacks (especially for non-participating dwellings) for large Class 4 industrial solar operations where they differed.
“Our main stumbling block is the issue of setbacks for Class 4,” said Commissioner Randy Obermier. “Regarding the regulations as a whole, are there places we can agree on? I think we should start with the smaller ones first and get through those, to see if we can we agree to put those behind us?”
Commissioner Joe Burgess at first said he felt setback distances for schools, cemeteries and churches for Division 2 projects were unnecessary, with Commissioner Andy Bowman saying he felt they were needed. Bowman also said he felt schools, cemeteries and churches needed to be treated the same as non-participating properties. Commissioner Daniel Grotz said he could compromise to allow churches, schools and cemeteries to be closer to smaller solar projects than dwellings.
“So we are talking 150 feet for non-participant properties with screenings included,” Grotz said, regarding the smaller sized solar projects. The other commissioners agreed.
Once the regulations for the smaller projects seemed to be agreed up, they dove into the tough waters of Category 4 large projects.
Obermier asked if 330-foot setbacks could be considered for non-participating properties (not dwellings).
“I’d like to add screening and erosion control requirements with those,” Bowman said.
“I could live with that,” Grotz noted.
Then the contentious issue of non-participating dwellings was next.
“I’m assuming this will be our biggest stickler,” Obermier said.
In the original proposed regulations (from the planning/zoning commission), the setbacks were ½ mile for non-participating dwellings, churches, schools, with 660 feet setbacks for cemeteries.
Grotz said he could get on board with 330-foot setbacks for churches, schools and cemeteries if the half-mile setback remained for non-participating dwellings.
Bowman said he wanted schools to have 660-foot setbacks.
Obermier said he could live with 660 feet for schools and 330 feet for churches, cemeteries, etc.
“I can too, if we agree to the ½-mile setback for non-participating dwellings,” Grotz said.
Obermier asked if there was a way Grotz and Bowman would agree to different distances for the front, sides and back of a non-participating dwelling.
“Can I compromise to 330 feet (as suggested earlier by Burgess through his proposed draft)? Absolutely not,” Grotz said. “But I could compromise with differentiations for front, sides and back.”
“We could go with setbacks of ½ mile on the front and 660 feet on the sides and back,” Obermier said.
“It still seems like a lot but I could go with it,” Burgess said.
“I’d recommend a front setback of ½ mile with sides and back at ¼ mile,” Grotz said. “If we could agree on that, I could concede to 330 feet on state recreation properties, cemeteries and churches.”
“Well, I don’t want one of these any closer than a half-mile from my house, I just don’t,” Bowman said. He also noted if someone wanted to sign on to allow a solar project to be closer to their house, they could.
“I agree we need reasonable setbacks, could you live with a quarter mile all around?” Obermier asked.
“I like the half-mile for the front,” Grotz said.
“Well, this is really the last piece, we are close, we are very close,” Obermier said.
“We have to decide this – if we allow all the landowners in York County to put in solar, then York County dies,” Grotz said.
“We then let’s ban it,” Obermier said.
“I don’t think that’s true,” Burgess said to Grotz.
“You don’t think if York County was covered in solar panels that York County wouldn’t die?” Grotz asked Burgess.
“We are just deciding what the regulations are,” Burgess said.
“We are saying you can put a solar project on your land in certain areas,” Grotz noted.
“I can tell you if we allowed quarter-mile setbacks for livestock facilities we would have five times the number we have now,” Bowman said. “And they would bring in a lot more economic benefit.”
“We have been at this for a couple of hours now, do we want Nate (York County Zoning Administrator Heinz) to write up what we have agreed on and then bring that back, or do we want to tackle the Class 4 now?” Grotz asked.
“I think we are at an impasse right now,” Bowman commented.
“I think my draft is more concise, I will add our notes from today to that and bring that back,” Burgess said.
Bowman turned to Burgess and said, “I also recommend that you should drive around out in the country to get a better sense of what we do in York County, as opposed to just driving from your house in York to the interstate to go to Lincoln. You need to know more about what goes on in York County, which is the county you are representing.”
“We have kicked this can down the road so many times,” Obermier said. “It appears to me we could make a motion to agree or disagree on the last points. We know one of us (Deb Robertson) will be gone at the next meeting so I think we should commit to making a decision at the next meeting after that.”
“At that next following meeting, we can come to a consensus and depending on how drastic that change is, we could set a public hearing for this board or send it back to the planning/zoning committee to review,” Grotz said. “And we could give them a timeline in which to come back to us.”
“So, on April 14, we need to come up with our numbers as a motion and they could be distributed out to them,” Obermier said.
“We could give the planning/zoning committee a month to make a recommendation and then we could have a public hearing in mid-May,” Grotz said.
Grotz maintained he wants to see a half-mile setback for non-participating dwellings (near large industrial solar fields) with quarter-mile setbacks on the sides and back. “If we get that, I could concede to 330 feet for churches and cemeteries and 660 feet for schools.”
Bowman said he wanted to see the half-mile setback be for all four sides for dwellings.
“I think for today, this is where we will have to be,” Grotz said.
The matter will be on the next agenda but if Robertson is unable to attend – as is expected – the matter will be tabled for another two weeks.
Editor's note: The next installment will include public comment regarding solar zoning regulations.