York County Press Release
YORK COUNTY – This week, the York County Planning and Zoning Board met to discuss several topics, including the county’s proposed zoning regulations for solar fields.
After some public comment and conversation among the zoning board members, the topic still remains on the table and will be readdressed during their next meeting, in December.
This topic has been an active one for three years and the county still has no zoning regulations pertaining to solar projects.
After many hearings, the county’s planning and zoning board created pages of regulations and sent those on to the county board for review.
Then the county commissioners made changes of their own to those proposed regulations. Marvin Consulting also sent recommendations regarding their concerns about classifications of projects and there are questions about whether the setbacks are too stringent.
Those regulations and recommendations were then sent back to the planning commission, which they addressed this week.
There was a time for public comment before planning and zoning members talked.
Dustin Marvel, representing the Omaha Public Power District (which intends to construct a large solar project near McCool Junction) said, “York County is ready to make changes. We can do that with this solar project. We can bring this together for all stakeholders and it’s important we acknowledge all viewpoints. We have this opportunity now. We need to address what we’ve heard over the last three years. We can talk about all of that. We need to work through these things as one. We need to have courage to talk to all the stakeholders involved. We appreciate all you are doing as it is important for Nebraska and York County.”
Another representative of OPPD, who said he lives in Wayne, noted “there are pros and cons to all generation sources. Many are working to keep our electrical rates stable and affordable. You are tasked with balancing multiple rights of many and we want to make sure you are as informed as possible. York County has a rich agricultural history, I understand that. Farmers are tough people, resilient and innovative. That’s what farmers have done here, some have chosen to a new type of technology.”
Willard Peterson of Bradshaw told the board, “I’ve been to every meeting but one, I’ve read north of 100 articles over the last three years. I found many against and for, but I’m thinking regarding these terms, well, I never understood the setbacks as some super setbacks appear to try to zone solar out. I don’t have a problem with setbacks around residences but fence to fence where there are fields I don’t understand. I’ve talked with people on both sides – those in favor (of solar projects) are the ones who don’t show up to talk about it.”
Galen Real from McCool Junction said if this project goes in, “I will be able to see the panels from my living room windows. I have some concern about the project being right up next to where I am farming – as an example, when I am farming by the existing substation, I sometimes lose my GPS and wonder if that will happen when these solar panels are there. I know two people who signed up their land for this and now would like to get out of it.”
Jim Jackson from Hays Township in rural York County noted, “This is almost the third anniversary of this conglomeration. This project should be called a solar industrial compound.” He also questioned the “secrecy” surrounding the project when the original company, EDF, began to get easements from property owners.
“Transparency, we’ve had none,” said Gene Jackson. “We have concerns and questions about water, soil erosion, soil pollution. We need to go back to the original regulations you first sent forward.”
York County Planning and Zoning Chairman Aaron Kavon acknowledged, “We have had numerous public hearings and meetings and the commissioners have now sent these regulations back.”
“They sent them back to us to review setbacks, correct?” asked Planning and Zoning member Karl Heine.
“And to review the project classifications,” added Planning and Zoning member Luke Gruber.
They were given recommendations from Marvin Planning, with some of them saying that was the first they had seen them.
“Our options are that we can completely start over, make adjustments to these or rubber stamp them and send them back to the commissioners as they are,” Kavon said.
The other members of the commission collectively said they didn’t want to start over
“Just because the commissioners sent these back to us doesn’t mean we have to make adjustments,” Kavon explained.
“It was also noted we don’t have any mention of battery storage in these regulations and maybe we need Marvin Consulting here to help us with that,” Heine said. “And there is the question if there is too much power in the setbacks for the residential people. Do they have too much say?”
“Have any of you been able to witness a couple thousand-acre array?” Kavon asked.
“I have, in Texas,” Heine said, “and it is overwhelming.”
“It is,” Kavon said. “And we don’t want to encapsulate anyone’s yard. There is really no hurry here as this situation has drug on for three years.”
“Let’s throw it back to the commissioners and they can do what they want to do,” Heine said. “They have the ultimate say anyway.”
“I’d like to ask Marvin Consulting more questions,” Gruber said.
“Well, we have to be damn sure whatever we put in place is done right and we have to cover all our bases,” Kavon added.
“For our next meeting, we will need the Marvin group to be here with more information and it not just be us,” Heine said.
“Yes, we need some questions answered,” said Planning and Zoning Member Chad Hirschfeld.
They tabled the matter until their next meeting, which will be held Monday, Dec. 16.
