Cloudy this morning with thunderstorms developing this afternoon. Gusty winds and small hail are possible. High 74F. Winds WSW at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 60%..
Thunderstorms. Gusty winds and small hail are possible. Low 63F. Winds SSE at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%.
Updated: April 3, 2026 @ 4:21 am
Community members line up to discuss the solar ordinance which was on the agenda during Wednesday’s Area Plan Commission meeting.
Kenny McCleary, a member of the study committee, says he is not satisfied with the changes made to the draft on the solar ordinance during the Area Plan Commission meeting on Wednesday.
A 6,000-acre limit and significant setback distance requirements were just two policies discussed during the second Tippecanoe County solar ordinance review meeting Wednesday evening.
The saga over large-scale solar development has reached a new step with the latest proposal of changes to the county’s unified zoning ordinance. Since the one-year moratorium on solar development was enacted by the Tippecanoe County Commissioners last June, a group of experts and community members have met several times to craft a new ordinance.
The Area Plan Commission Ordinance Committee has held a pair of public meetings to review the proposal, first on March 4 and again on Wednesday. The study committee reportedly could not come to a consensus on certain regulations regarding caps on construction size and distance from properties.
The current proposal would set a 6,000-acre limit on total large-scale solar energy development for the whole county. Commissioner Dave Byers offered support for another restriction: a 400-acre limit per each individual solar project, which some community members debated would serve as a deterrent for commercial solar investors.
“They’re not putting a cap on home building, and they’re not putting a cap on factory building,” said Mark Bennett, a local farmer who stated he had 300 acres of solar panels on his land. “They just need to let the free market decide how big solar is going to be.”
Bennett argued that both the 6,000-acre total cap and 400-acre individual project limit would be too restrictive. Six-thousand acres would be about equivalent to 9.5 square miles, which he saw as a tiny fraction of Tippecanoe County’s 503 square miles.
Community members line up to discuss the solar ordinance which was on the agenda during Wednesday’s Area Plan Commission meeting.
A significant topic of debate was over setback distance, or how far away the solar panels could be from nearby properties. The committee discussed whether the setback distance should be set from property lines or from an “occupied structure” — any kind of home, trailer, or other structure that can house people.
The resolution, by-and-large, was to set it at the property line, which is less likely to change from owner to owner rather than if someone wants to build another structure on their land.
The setback distance varies depending on how many non-participating property lines — or land on which the owner has not signed a lease or agreement with the solar farm operator — the solar development comes near.
Additionally, a standard would have to be met requiring either a bufferyard of planted vegetation or a 1,000-foot setback from non-participating property lines. The minimum distance, ranging from 100 to 400 feet based on how many property lines the development is nearby, would still have to be met if the operator chooses to construct the vegetation buffer. The lack of a bufferyard would dramatically increase how far away the solar panels could be.
Members of the public audibly approved of the distance requirements, as many of them had voiced concerns over noise, ground damage, or property devaluement from having solar projects near them.
Another change to the drafted ordinance came from Commissioner Tom Murtaugh, who said he had been advised to tweak the battery energy system requirement.
The original draft suggested that solar developments should not have battery energy storage systems with a capacity over 100 megawatt-hours, but the committee agreed to change the requirement to not allow battery energy solar systems at all.
Even with progress made on the ordinance ahead of the upcoming April 15 full Area Plan Commission meeting, one member of the study committee was unsatisfied with the section on decommissioning regulations.
“What you see in front of you is a piece of Swiss cheese,” Kenny McCleary said to the committee. “I propose you rip it out and replace it with the original submission that was put together by three very hard working members of this community to try to put a thorough and complete document together that not only protects the county, but draws upon the painful experiences and concerns that many other counties have.”
McCleary, an engineer who has been outspoken throughout the entire solar saga and was placed on the study committee, was primarily concerned with the process of when a solar farm is shut down and needs to be demolished. In recent weeks, he said he had worked with fellow study committee members Zacaria Martinez and West Lafayette City Councilor Rabita Rajkarnikar to suggest strict regulations to hold solar companies accountable in restoring the land the developments used to sit on.
“I’m discouraged and very much frustrated that the decommissioning document … is a hollow shell of what the community team put together,” McCleary said. “It’s a very thorough and comprehensive whole life cycle effort to ensure that the county, property owners, adjacent property owners, the environment, and our county infrastructure are not put at risk by this type of project throughout its entire life cycle and through the restoration and recovery.”
A final resolution for large-scale solar energy development is still in the works after the various amendments and suggestions at the ordinance review meeting. The April 15 APC meeting will serve as the next major landmark before an official proposal can be sent to the county commissioners.
The complete draft as presented at Wednesday’s meeting can be found here.
Every Exponent article goes through checks for accuracy before publication. If you have a concern or questions about this article, please email editor@purdueexponent.org.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
