With a 3-2 vote, York County Commissioners approve zoning regulations for solar projects

YORK – After years of conversation, hearings, debates, meetings and consultation, the York County Commissioners, with a 3-2 vote, approved zoning regulations for solar projects in the county.

The most contentious aspect of the zoning regulations has been the setbacks for large solar fields. Some have argued the proposed half-mile setback from non-participating properties was unreasonable and would simply create a situation where such projects couldn’t take place. Others said the proposed half-mile setback was appropriate in an effort to protect agricultural operations, agricultural land use and rural residents.
In the end, the regulations including those larger half-mile setbacks were approved.
When the county’s comprehensive plan was last updated, back in 2015, there was no mention of solar projects. When it was discovered an independent company was offering land easements to rural property owners by McCool Junction with the intent to build a large solar project, this conversation started.
The Omaha Public Power District later took over the project and has said 21 landowners have signed on to let their farmland be used for their particular solar project, which would be about the size comparable to half the size of the City of York.
Over the years, county commissioner and planning/zoning committee members have changed several times over, bringing new prospectives and opinions to the ongoing discussion.
Hearings were held and the planning/zoning committee sent to the county board members – several times – a particular set of zoning regulations with those larger setbacks. The commissioners have sent those regulations back to the planning/zoning committee for possible fine-tuning or changes – only to have them come back as they were originally written.
Tuesday, April 1, the regulations were before the board with the intent of taking a vote.
“During the last meeting, we went through the synopsis of where we have been with this over the past three years and before us is what the planning/zoning committee sent to us,” said York County Commissioner Chairman Randy Obermier. “I’d entertain a motion to accept or deny these regulations, then we can discuss it and if we do any changing, my opinion is that we would have to go through the public hearing process again, start over again, to work through these.”
“We have certainly had a thorough discussion over these regulations and it’s been brought up to me, several times, how these zoning regulations must meet our current comprehensive plan,” said Commissioner Daniel Grotz. “Yes, we are in the process of updating our comprehensive plan, but I don’t foresee us making drastic changes to our comprehensive plan. So looking at our existing comprehensive plan, it says York County land use should be continued to be dominated by agriculture, livestock and crop production, and we should minimize other land uses.”
Grotz referred to sections of the comprehensive plan which say: “The preservation of soils which are the most productive in terms of crop production is an important issue in any county planning effort. In Nebraska and other states where the major component in the economy is agricultural production, the issue of preserving prime farmland for future generations is a key component in planning for the future of the rural area. In York County, the majority of soils are classified as prime farmland. The exceptions are soils in highly sloped areas and river and creek channels. If these soils are to be preserved for agricultural production, it would indicate that loss of such prime productive areas through development of non-agricultural uses including commercial, industrial, residential and other non-agricultural developments should be avoided as much as possible. However, the problem in York County is that with the majority of land being comprised of soils that are prime productive soils, loss of some such soils cannot be avoided when sites are needed for non-crop production uses. To minimize the loss of prime productive land, non-agricultural uses should be reviewed with regard to minimizing the land used and, where possible, be concentrated in areas of the county where soils are less productive, such as sites with greater slopes and near less productive drainage areas.”
“We are talking about a change to our comprehensive plan which directs us to minimize impacts with adequate setbacks, as it says in the land use section, and to keep land use which is not agricultural close to municipalities,” Grotz continued. “We have heard how solar arrays can be quite large including half the size of York, so placing a large project in a community would be very difficult. There are two schools of thought – should they be allowed or not? Do we have the ability to tell someone how to use their land? We do have zoning in this county. Now these regulations are new and different and it is up to us to find the balance.
“We’ve heard how if you own four acres you should not be able to tell who owns a nearby 160 acres what they can do with their land,” Grotz continued. “But when it comes to all those rural acreages, there was a reasonable expectation when they were created that they would be near traditional agriculture. We can’t greatly change that expectation is where I think the planning/zoning committee was going when they came up with these regulations.”
“I completely agree with what Daniel said about our comprehensive plan,” said Commissioner Andy Bowman. “We are an agricultural county, that is our bread and butter. Farm ground needs to stay farm ground in York County and I don’t think we should vote against what the planning/zoning committee presented to us. I will make a motion to approve the regulations as they are presented.”
“I will second the motion so we can have more discussion,” said Commissioner LeRoy Ott.
Commissioner Joe Burgess said he had changes he wanted to see, with the proposed regulations. “Some are very small, some are quite large.”
Burgess presented numerous grammatical changes and changes to verbiage to clean up the language. “Those are all very small changes, but I also would like to see bigger changes as I think the setbacks for the larger projects are unreasonable. I think the planning/zoning committee did a great job of hitting on everything that could possibly be a concern and the resulting setbacks might be unreasonable.”
There are varying setback distances for projects classified by size; Burgess said he felt Class 3 and 4 should be consolidated and the Class 4 (largest projects) setbacks should be the same as Class 3. “I’m not sure why there should be such a big jump in setback,” Burgess said. “That’s the biggest change I’d want to see. And I think the setbacks from livestock production are unreasonable.”
“The Class 4 regulations regarding confined animal units, that was a major discussion with the planning/zoning committee – this is for feedlots which don’t have a dwelling; the feedlots are restricted as to their locations and these were to align with those,” responded Grotz.
“I’ve been trying to find a spot between OPPD and the people who don’t want solar projects and people who do want them,” said Commissioner Ott. “There is no middle space. I’ve talked to many of you and read all the letters. It’s difficult to be sitting here. We can’t meet as a group and come up with some consensus and we might have a split vote today, I don’t know. I’d err on the side of caution – you’ve all heard me say I’m a fan of nuclear but that’s not coming for 15 years. The comprehensive plan is the comprehensive plan. And we have a planning/zoning committee. Only two people up here, on the board, have been here through this entire ride. It’s hard for us who have been on for only a year, or a few months or a month.”
“Reasonable expectations depend on the circle you are in,” said Obermier. “I think we need zoning for solar and projects will come to us for conditional use permits and we can deny projects if necessary. As far as what’s before us, my feelings are that setbacks like these are project killers and that doesn’t take away from the planning/zoning commission. I just disagree with it. I disagree with how the regulations are presented to us now. I think changes are in order. I’ll see what the vote is as this board will decide.”
“Daniel brings up a great point about reasonable expectation, but as an American, we all have property rights,” said Burgess.
“I think these regulations protect the people who are not participating in solar projects and I like how these align with our comprehensive plan,” Bowman added.
Then the vote was taken.
Voting yes, to approve the zoning regulations as they were presented with the larger setbacks for commercial/industrial solar projects, were Bowman, Grotz and Ott.
Voting no were Burgess and Obermier.
Following the vote, there was some applause coming from the substantial audience, coming from individuals who have protested against solar projects in York County, including the OPPD project by McCool.
The solar project zoning regulations are now approved and have become official. The larger setbacks are now in place, which could create challenges for entities in finding footprint placement in York County.
Moving forward, entities wanting to have large solar projects in York County will have to apply for conditional use permits and comply with the 23 pages of regulations.
"There will undoubtedly be conversations during the comprehensive plan process," Obermier said, also noting Burgess' grammatical/verbage changes would be addressed.
The entirety of the regulations can be viewed on this site, under the category of Zoning.