On the agenda: Tippecanoe County meeting — data center (Apr 1)

1

THE

AREA PLAN COMMISSION
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY

ORDINANCE & BYLAW COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE .......................................................................................................... APRIL 1, 2026
START TIME ............................................. Immediately following the 4:30pm Exec Committee mtg
MEETING END TIME ............................................................................................ 7:00PM
PLACE ........................................................................................... TIPPECANOE ROOM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
20 NORTH 3RD STREET
LAFAYETTE, IN 47901
AGENDA
I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
From the March 4, 2026 meeting.

II.

UPDATING OUR SOLAR ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
This will be the second Ordinance Committee discussion of an amendment to
the UZO regarding solar energy requirements. It is the product of the work of
our solar energy committee that has been meeting twice a month from
September, 2025 to its latest meeting on February 26th.
1. Review of proposed ordinance draft (see attached)
a. Overview by staff
b. Review/approval of staff recommended edits
c. Review/approval of decommissioning section
2. Ordinance Committee discussion / Public Comment
3. OC votes to forward draft to the April 15th APC meeting

III.

CITIZEN COMMENTS

IV.

ADJOURNMENT

APC \ AGENDAS \ OC
In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the
Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County will not discriminate against qualified individuals with
disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities. For more information visit
www.tippecanoe.in.gov/ada

2

Membership of the APC Ordinance & Bylaw Committee:
(Committee members are appointed by the APC President to one-year terms starting each January.)
Larry Leverenz
Jackson Bogan
Tom Murtaugh
Gary Schroeder
Vicki Pearl
Diana Luper
Kathy Parker
Jerry Reynolds

APC \ AGENDAS \ OC
In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), the
Area Plan Commission of Tippecanoe County will not discriminate against qualified individuals with
disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities. For more information visit
www.tippecanoe.in.gov/ada

3

AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY
ORDINANCE & BYLAW COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
DATE ...................................................................................................................................... March 04, 2026
TIME ................................................................................................................................................. 4:40 P.M.
PLACE............................................................................................................. COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
20 N. 3RD STREET
LAFAYETTE, IN 47901
This meeting was held in-person. Members of the public could watch the livestream of the meeting at
https://www.youtube.com/c/TippecanoeCountyGovernment

MEMBERS PRESENT
Diana Luper
Vicki Pearl
Tom Murtaugh
Gary Schroeder
Kathy Parker

MEMBERS ABSENT
Jackson Bogan
Larry Leverenz
Jerry Reynolds

STAFF PRESENT
Ryan O’Gara
Kathy Lind
Amanda Esposito Eric Burns, Atty
Nathan McBurnett

Gary Schroeder called the meeting to order at 4:40 PM.
I.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Kathy Parker moved to approve the minutes from the February 4, 2026, public hearing. Diana Luper
seconded, and the minutes were approved by unanimous voice vote.
II. UPDATING OUR SOLAR ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
This will be the first discussion of a conceptual amendment to the UZO regarding solar energy
requirements. It is the product of the work of our solar energy committee that has been meeting
twice a month from September, 2025 to its latest meeting on February 26th.
A. Report by APC staff
B. Questions from the Ordinance Committee
C. Public comments (limited to 3 minutes per person)
D. Comments from the Ordinance Committee
The Ordinance Committee will continue this discussion at its April 1st meeting.
Report by APC Staff:
Ryan O’Gara, APC staff, stated that a memo and draft were created with recommended changes from the
solar study committee. It was organized into the following areas: sections where no changes were
recommended, sections with changes recommended with different alternatives, and sections where a
consensus was not reached. The goal was to take the choices the Ordinance Committee voted on, put
them into proper ordinance format, and present them at the April 15th Area Plan Commission (APC)
meeting. Solar is currently addressed in the Unified Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Comments from the Solar Study Committee:
Katherine Sobieralski, 938 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, stated that the point of zoning ordinances
was to balance the interests of adjacent property owners and to collocate harmonious uses. The focus
was health, safety, safety, and welfare of direct stakeholders. When homeowners living next to the fields
ask about classic zoning protections, that is a land use conversation. Another conversation deals with
other members of the community who live entirely elsewhere and want to have a policy talk about the
virtues of solar. The most important voices in the zoning conversation are the farmers and their direct
neighbors. Almost 70 ordinances from the state of Indiana were reviewed and the following areas have
not been addressed for Tippecanoe: provisions on emergency responders, provisions on road use
standards, provisions on an application fee for the county to hire outside review at the time of special
exception, and others. Counties like Benton, Boone, Madison, Huntington, and Jasper have ordinances
that give rural neighbors increased protection without banning projects.

4

Kenny McCleary, 942 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, referred to the solar moratorium as an opportunity
to have common sense guard rails put in place in the ordinance to avoid the harm and negative impact
that similar projects have created elsewhere to participants, property owners, county infrastructure, and
the environment. He had created a 12-point plan as an accumulation of what other counties in Indiana
have done. A fact-based approach should be taken by observing actual facilities, including other states,
looking at completed projects, talking to people in counties where projects have been completed, and
looking at battery energy storage system facilities. He did not agree with all the conclusions that were
tagged as consensus items. They were good starting points, but there was more work to be done. There
were critical community voices missing from the discussion including the Tippecanoe County citizens who
do business or make their living from agri-business and farm service. Emergency responders, realtors,
and smaller communities have not been represented in conversations.
Dr. Jane Frankenberger, 2640 Newman Road, West Lafayette, a professor of agricultural engineering at
Purdue specializing in soil and water engineering and management, serves on the solar ordinance study
committee to bring her expertise to the deliberations. The committee's goal was to create a clear,
defensible, and balanced solar ordinance by drawing on the diverse expertise of its members,
incorporating scientific evidence, and compromising where necessary to achieve consensus. Despite
meeting together 9 times since September 2025, she didn’t feel that they were successful in those goals.
They had carefully reviewed concerns about the existing ordinance and examined potential solutions in
good faith. They believed they had reached a compromise on several key provisions, including a limit on
total project acreage in the county that many found quite restrictive, but agreed to as a better alternative
than individual project caps. However, that compromise broke down during the final meeting when
alternatives that had not been discussed, or supported by evidence, were presented. An example was the
setbacks in Chapter 4 where alternative one included a set of tiered distances ranging up to 600 ft from
an occupied structure. While some believed this distance exceeded what was necessary given the low
expected noise and visual impacts of modern solar facilities, it was agreed to it in the interest of
compromise. Despite that, another alternative was added that would require a 1,320 ft setback. This
distance exceeds setbacks required for junkyards, adult entertainment facilities, mining, motor vehicle
raising, and shooting ranges with no evidence to justify it. What was presented was one alternative that
reflected significant compromise and another that reflected an extreme position. The document presented
a range of alternatives for several decisions with some appearing to be motivated primarily by a desire to
deter large-scale solar development, disregarding the county's well-balanced approach to solar energy
planning. She plans to provide clarification supporting the solar study committee’s recommendations for
the ordinance committee's consideration.
Joseph Sobieralski, 938 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, addressed the acreage cap. A 400-acre project
is 2/3 of a square mile or over 300 football fields and solar projects can operate successfully on this scale.
Data from the Clean Grid Alliance showed there were currently 117 commercial solar farms operating in
Indiana, 104 of those, or nearly 90%, were 300 acres or less. At a 400-acre cap, that is still larger than
most solar farms already operating in the state. The developer that applied last year, GenX, had a list of
their operating projects online and nearly half of them were less than 200 acres. The idea that these
aren't economically viable at smaller scales is unfounded. Project size matters because impacts increase
as projects get larger. Larger facilities need to spread panels out, have more inverters which have more
potential for noise, and a greater chance that glare could negatively impact residents. As project size
grows, more non-participating landowners are exposed to these impacts. Project size also has public
safety implications. Extremely large solar facilities can make emergency access more difficult for
firefighters, EMS, etc. Reasonable size limits help ensure that projects remain manageable in the event of
an emergency. A 400-acre cap does not stunt or forbid solar development. It simply ensures projects
remain at a reasonable scale for rural areas.
Larry Nies, 2221 Huron Road, West Lafayette, a licensed professional engineer and a professor in
environmental engineering at Purdue University, worked with a firm that developed, constructed, and
operated utility scale solar facilities. Demand for electricity has grown approximately 3% annually
nationwide and more than doubled that rate in some regions. According to the US Energy Information
Administration, more than half of all new generating capacity coming online is solar. There are already
more than 5,000 utility scale solar facilities operating successfully across the United States and many

5

counties have adopted well-grounded ordinances that align with established codes and standards while
providing meaningful protection for residents. Larger facilities produce lower overall impacts than multiple
smaller ones. Smaller parcels significantly increase the ratio of perimeter to land area which means more
shared boundary with neighboring properties. Having fewer larger facilities reduces that exposure. They
also cost significantly less to develop per megawatt which improves project viability and potentially allows
more development resources to return to the county.
Comments from the Public:
Anna Sorg, 122 North Street, West Lafayette, spoke on behalf of students in the Sustainable Energy Club
of Purdue, the Purdue Climate Action Collective, the Purdue Student Sustainability Council, and the Boiler
Green Initiative Club. Collectively, that is over 250 students representing the future generation. Her
generation is invested in seeing solar technology used in Tippecanoe County and urged the committee to
go forward with amendments to the solar ordinance that would benefit the future production of solar
energy. She discussed solar myths and rebuttals pertaining to the proposed alternatives in the new
ordinance. The first solar myth is that solar farms create glare. Manufacturers utilize anti-reflective
coatings on panels that manipulate and reduce the amount of light that bounces back off the surface. The
glass surface is textured to diffuse the light reflected instead of a concentrated beam. Studies show that
the following are more reflective than solar panels: asphalt, standard windows, standard window glass,
water, and snow. In the new subsection proposed in the UZO Chapter 4, one of the alternatives suggests
that large-scale SES shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles yet at midday in no shade the sun emits 10,000
footcandles. This is not a fair suggestion for solar to only admit 0.5 when the sun causes 20,000 times
more natural glare. The second solar myth is that solar creates heat islands. A study by the University of
Arizona found that the temperature of soil in full midday sun is often hotter than the same solar soil under
solar panels. Per a study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, planting native seed mixes
below solar arrays will absorb heat naturally and ultimately support soil health. The third solar myth is that
citizens within Tippecanoe County are against utility scale solar development. For the past 5 months,
deep canvassing and phone banking showed that citizens are in support of utility-scale solar.
Dr. Darrrell Schulze, 1815 Woodland Ave, West Lafayette, a soil scientist and retired professor of
Agronomy from Purdue, talked about how when solar farming is done right, it can improve soil health. It is
beneficial to plant perennials under solar panels such as pasture grass or a mix of plants with deep
fibrous root systems. These roots are alive all year round and distribute organic matter deep within the
soil. This promotes diverse communities of soil microorganisms, insects, and earthworms and in turn
supports a diverse community of small mammals, birds, and other wildlife. Soil structure improves over
time and as soil structure improves, water infiltration improves, and soil erosion and runoff water
decreases. In contrast, maintaining and/or improving soil health under row crops is difficult. With corn and
soybean rotations, crops are actively growing only 3-4 months of the year. If the soil is tilled after harvest,
the soil is bare for more than half the year. In summary, solar farms are a win-win situation. Not only do
they convert much more solar radiation into usable energy than corn and soybeans, having perennial
vegetation under solar panels greatly improves soil health, promotes water infiltration, and reduces
erosion and runoff. It is critical for solar farms not to compromise soil for future uses. Unnecessary
stripping of the topsoil and grading for ease of construction should be prohibited. The removal of topsoil
for access roads and pads for equipment is acceptable, but the topsoil should be saved on site for future
restoration. A handout he distributed addressed other inaccurate and misleading soil related assertions.
Sallie Fahey, Morehouse Road, West Lafayette, representing the League of Women Voters of Greater
Lafayette, stated that the League has had a long-standing position supporting renewable energy,
including large-scale solar. That position is based on extensive study followed by adoption. That position
was reiterated last June to the county commissioners in support of the existing solar ordinance. The
league supported compromise if it resulted in tweaks to the UZO that produced a better ordinance for all
involved. However, the league does not support compromise in this instance if the compromise is so onesided that it deters large-scale solar companies from seeking to locate in Tippecanoe County. Because of
the late publication of the solar study committee's report, the league reserved the ability to thoroughly
review the report's recommendations and alternatives and either submit a written statement prior to the
next ordinance committee meeting or to speak to those recommendations and alternatives at the next

6

meeting. There may be some concern in the community about accountability regarding compliance with
the ordinance. There are numerous county departments with authority to enforce pertinent ordinances.
Those departments include the Area Plan Commission, its Board of Zoning Appeals, the APC staff zoning
inspector, the County Permits Office, the County Highway Department, the County Surveyor, and the
Drainage Board. She has worked with these departments for 47 years and can state with absolute
assurance that they all work well together, support each other's mandates, and are not timid about
enforcing the available ordinances for the benefit of our community.
Angie Delworth, 2908 Wilshire Ave, West Lafayette, spoke in support of a solar ordinance that allows new
solar farms in Tippecanoe County and agreed with the study committee's recommendations to limit
development to no more than 5% of premium agricultural land. She wanted to focus on fiscal stability and
the rights of property owners, particularly considering the property tax relief bill passed by the Indiana
General Assembly in 2025. According to the Indiana Legislative Services Agency, Tippecanoe County is
projected to lose about $24 million in revenue in 2026 due to SB1 with losses increasing in future years.
These reductions will inevitably affect services relied upon by county residents. Purdue agricultural
economist, Larry DeBoer, found that the solar farms he studied in 2023 generated roughly $900 to $1,000
per acre per year more in property tax revenue than the same fields if used for crops. A 1,000-acre
development would generate approximately $915,000 in additional tax revenue annually. Using these
same numbers, the proposed 1,700-acre Rainbow Trout project could have provided about $1.6 million
per year for the county and other local taxing units. She has spent most of her career managing budgets
at Purdue. When facing revenue reductions, academic units had to make the hard decision to reduce
expenditures or identify new sources of revenue. Solar farm development represents a very practical way
to help offset the anticipated losses of SP1. She spoke on property rights as a co-owner of farmland in a
neighboring county that has been in her family for more than 150 years. She was raised on that land in a
rural community where landowners were trusted to use their land responsibly to support their families and
communities. For solar farms that meet established codes and requirements, they should likewise trust
the Tippecanoe County landowners to make decisions that best serve their situations and their
operations. While nearby residents have expressed concerns, those concerns have been addressed in
the ordinance language. It is therefore appropriate to also consider the broader public benefit of the
increased tax revenue from these farms. These decisions require balancing individual preferences with
property rights, fiscal responsibility by the county, and long-term economic impact. She urged the
committee to adopt a solar ordinance that supports the development of solar farms in the county allowing
them to operate at full capacity, strengthening the local tax base, supporting infrastructure and public
services, and delivering sustained economic benefits to the broader community.
Benjamin Davis, 5105 Snap Dragon Court, Lafayette, spoke in favor of large-scale solar and has had
solar on his roof for 4 years. He enjoyed knowing that he has a fixed amount of energy produced over the
next several decades regardless of rates. He would love to see solar in his backyard. A lot of people are
afraid of having solar near them as they think it would block their view and would generally prefer crops
like corn. After building his home in 2016, the neighboring property was sold 2 years ago and is now
farmed. For a few months out of the year, instead of the clear view that he chose their lot for, he sees a
wall of corn. He has dreamed of seeing that land having solar on it, improving the view with silent, clean
energy production. Large solar developments provide numerous benefits for residents, including
increased property taxes for the project, potential for community benefit agreements for additional local
investments, and decreased need for expensive long-distance transmission lines.
Nicole Duttlinger, 511 Kerber Road, West Lafayette, spoke to what she saw as a logical inconsistency in
how land use policies are approached in Tippecanoe County. In comparing data centers and industrial
solar she referenced the moratorium that was placed on data centers by the APC which would give
maximum public scrutiny to the process. The same should be done with ordinances for industrial solar.
Many in the community strongly support strict ordinances for data centers. The concerns are similar: land
consumption, environmental impact, strain on infrastructure, long-term community benefit, and
transparency in the approval process. The inconsistency when it comes to industrial solar, is those same
standards are often relaxed or even dismissed entirely. If the principle is that large industrial
developments require strict oversight because they affect land use, infrastructure, aesthetics, and
community character, then that principle must be applied consistently regardless of whether the project

7

involves servers or solar panels. It cannot be argued that data centers demand rigorous review because
they are industrial in scale yet claim that industrial solar is fundamentally different simply because it
produces renewable energy. Both occupy large tracks of land. Both alter the landscape. Both involve
long-term contractual and infrastructural commitments, and both deserve thoughtful consistent standards.
Good policy is consistent and applies the same criteria to similar impacts. If the concern is land
preservation, let's preserve the land. If the concern is community character, let's protect it.
Dan Collins, 7602 Amanda Lane, West Lafayette, spoke on behalf of people living in the Shelby Township
who value the quiet beauty, wildlife, and ambiance of the surroundings and the farmland that supported
families for generations. The land, property values, and chosen way of life are being threatened. The
revised ordinance in question needs to protect the property values of over 200 residents that are very
near the proposed section and the residents themselves. They need to protect the surrounding
environment with its abundant flora and fauna and preserve some of the most fertile productive farmland
in the world. The protections needed to mitigate foreseeable harm to township and county homeowners
were presented last August. Protections need to be included like other counties have by developing an
appropriate and applicable ordinance as intended by the county commissioners’ moratorium.
Suzanne Collins, 7602 Amanda Lane, West Lafayette, shared her concern that the proposed ordinance
did not address energy storage systems. Most large-scale utility solar facilities use lithium-ion batteries
which are volatile. An ordinance is needed that will put controls and guidelines on how these batteries are
set up within the solar energy area. Should there be a fire resulting from battery usage, emergency
systems need to be in place to handle it. Large-scale fires can have a 3–4-mile evacuation circumference
because of the poisonous gases that are emitted. When local fire departments testified in August, they
were concerned about having to fight these fires. For the immediate fire, a particular foam is needed, but
sometimes it takes massive amounts of water to cool the remnants. Water contamination that then goes
into the ground and wells is something to be considered.
Marlee Brimner, 24 Hilltop Drive, Apt. 6, West Lafayette, as Vice President of the Business Law and
Compliance Society, spoke to the importance of government as it relates to the larger conversation about
solar energy. Some of the ordinance revisions prioritize community protection over community guidelines.
Community guidelines and ordinances have been shown to make communities happier and more
prosperous. She spoke about her changing views on government as she grew up. A phenomenon in
environmental sciences sees students dropping out when they learn about what's happening and the
science behind climate change because they find it too devastating and discouraging to continue to fight
and make a difference. She spoke about the hope and belief that differences can be made on a local
level. Solar energy gives the government a chance to prove itself and to prove that it works for the
people. She offered to personally oversee the regulatory compliance of these businesses to make sure
that communities are not hurt by these arrangements but are the beneficiaries. She challenged everyone
to research what a community benefit agreement can offer when it's paired with utility-scale
developments.
Lisa Tarkin, 110 Windmill Court, Lafayette, spoke about the difficulty of trying to downsize from her current
home to a place that won’t be next to potential developments like solar farms. Solar farms have a place
but need to be considered with caution.
Del Craig, 6817 S 700 W, West Point, provided a handout with recommendations to consider in terms of
the ordinance with data he pulled from the Farm Service Agency detailing the registered farmland here in
the county. He addressed Section 1 of the ordinance that outlined permitted uses by special exception.
Alternative 3 of the proposed ordinance suggests 10% of crop and pastureland be used for solar. This
amounts to 20,000 acres, since there are currently 200,000 acres of row crops and pastureland in
Tippecanoe County. He found this amount of farmland loss to be scary. He wrote a letter back in August
on behalf of the Tippecanoe County Farm Bureau and its 800 members to express concern regarding the
proposed Rainbow Trout solar project that was under review for special exception. While they supported
renewable energy development and recognized its importance, they believed the project raised significant
issues that merited careful consideration, further analysis, and accurate answers. He thanked the
commissioners for getting the ordinance committee together to talk about it. He wanted to emphasize that

8

the concerns about this specific project do not reflect opposition to renewable energy, but these
developments need to be done in non-agricultural zoning areas.
Geoffrey Sanchez, 8343 N Homers Drive, Monticello, a PhD candidate at Purdue University, spoke about
solar energy and agriculture coexisting. The way the ordinance is currently being proposed makes it a
choice between renewable energy and farming. The role of a county solar ordinance is to protect the local
landowners while encouraging development to occur. County ordinances need to ensure that solar
developers are not driven purely by profit but are required to design projects in ways that support the local
stakeholders. Tippecanoe County houses Purdue University, a world-class agricultural research
institution, that studies how solar and agriculture can coexist. The research shows that solar sites can be
designed in ways that allow farming to continue. The thoughtful and proper execution of ordinances which
encourage dual land use has already been found in other states. For example, Maryland mandates that
for a solar developer to receive property tax cuts, a suitable agriculture project must be installed. A solar
array casts shadow patterns based on their configuration. In row crops, dense configurations may reduce
yield substantially, while more open configurations create lighter shadow and allow crops to perform
closer to normal levels. Farmers and landowners should not have to navigate these risks on their own.
Solar developers should be required to fund an independent, impartial agricultural representative who can
help farmers understand the implications of a solar project before agreements are signed. Farmers
deserve access to clear, unbiased information about how a project will affect their crops and soil. Tools
that model the impacts of shading already exist. That information should be provided to farmers upfront
and it should be the obligation of the developer to provide it. Farmers should also be aware how these
installations will interact with their existing equipment and farming practices. Understanding that crop yield
and array density are inversely related, land lease agreements between farmers and solar developers
should be determined by the density of a system and the capability for a farmer to continue farming. Solar
development can provide a new source of economic stability for family farms in rural communities. That
can only happen if our ordinances ensure that developers share responsibility for supporting the
agricultural systems that already exist.
Kevin Kircher, 614 New York Street, Lafayette, an assistant professor in Mechanical Engineering and
Electrical Engineering at Purdue University, spoke about the popularity of solar. In terms of polling, solar
consistently outperforms almost every other type of energy source nationwide. A recent poll in Canary
Media reached out to 800 Republicans, Trump voters, and Republican-leading independents, and found
that more than half view utility scale solar favorably. That number rises to 70% favorability among
Republicans if the panels are made in America. Another poll by Pew Research recently found 77%
favorability across all Americans of utility scale solar, 91% among Democrats, and 61% favorability among
Republicans. In addition to comments from Tippecanoe County residents, polls and surveys also show
support for solar. The range of options on the table runs from extreme to no regulation of solar. The
proposed document has half a dozen provisions in it that would amount to effectively banning solar in
Tippecanoe County. A non-ban solution needs to be considered that provides solar opportunities for
developers and the farmers who want it on their land, while continuing to be good stewards of the land.
Solar is now the cheapest and cleanest source of new electricity generation. We are in a moment of
unprecedented electricity demand from data centers, electric vehicles, and electric heating. Those that
live near coal power plants and gas power plants that will make up the gap if solar isn’t taken advantage
of, are going to face real impacts. If clean energy isn’t made, dirty energy will be which will cause real
health impacts for the people like lung cancer, heart disease, and other serious illnesses.
John Ade, 8640 W 125 N, West Lafayette, presented a handout showing his property of 12-acres with 60
acres surrounding it that could be affected by the proposed ordinance. The Tippecanoe County proposed
ordinance is 12 pages. Boone County’s solar ordinance is 26 pages, Fountain County’s is 32 pages, and
Carroll County’s is 26 pages. The Boone County ordinance addresses both residents and farmers,
landowners, and proper setbacks. A 1,500-1,700-acre project for this community has a tremendous
impact. There is opportunity for review and consideration on this project.
AR Lane, 127 Westwood Drive, West Lafayette, had written a letter to the Journal & Courier in support of
large-scale solar. His hope was that the decisions in the ordinance would be guided by evidence,
fairness, and long-term local value. Large-scale solar power is often framed as land loss, but it can

9

function as economic development. Local construction creates skilled jobs and projects can provide
ongoing tax revenue through economic development agreements or community benefit agreements that
directly support public schools, infrastructure, and services. From a land use perspective, solar is not the
end of agriculture. Soil beneath panels typically experiences less erosion and improved water retention
due to reduced compaction and runoff. Agrosolar expands the value further by providing sheep grazing
and shade, protecting pollinators and beekeeping habitats, which can all coexist with energy production,
and preserve working land while diversifying farm income. Considering energy efficiency, in 2024, roughly
43 to 48% of Indiana's corn went to ethanol production. Yet solar produces 14 to 17 times more usable
energy per acre and can offset demand within the local energy grid with appropriate legislation and
oversight. That doesn't diminish agriculture but highlights an opportunity to balance food, fuel, and
economic opportunity with family values and environmental sustainability. Participation is voluntary and
landowners negotiate leases and solar agreements which can keep farms fiscally sustainable. A
thoughtful ordinance should allow responsible development while protecting neighbors and property
rights. We can support farmers, strengthen the tax base, and diversify energy production all at the same
time.
David Byers, address redacted, County Commissioner, thanked the committee members and staff for the
time that they put into the proposed ordinance. He believed AA zoned land should be off limits to solar
because it is considered prime agricultural ground. Jasper County has a scoring system that rates the
value of the production of land. They use solar on less viable ground to use the most productive ground
for agriculture.
Patty Jischke, 967 Westminster Circle #521, West Lafayette, shared that the main concern for the
community, the state, and the country is the need for electricity. The average farmer in Indiana is about 56
years old. There are about 712 farms in Tippecanoe County with the average farm around 334 acres. In
2022, the average Tippecanoe County farmer had a net cash income from their farm of about $78,000.
Farm income decreased in 2025 and there was a negative income per acre with the same expected for
2026. Solar panels can yield about $900 to $1,000 per acre for 30 years. This means a farmer could put
100 acres into solar panels, a third of what they own for an average farm, have an annual payment of
$90,000- $100,000, and still have another 230 acres to farm. This money could mean the difference
between losing their farm or keeping it for another generation. Given the future need for electricity, we
must do all we can to grease the skids to generate as much electricity as possible. Solar is clean, cheap,
and is not as vulnerable to disruption. Installing solar should be a streamlined process with simple
regulations that are straight forward.
Zacaria Martinez, Emergent Solar, 1281 Win Hentschel Blvd, West Lafayette, discussed how the
proposed recommendations to the ordinance were created by the solar study committee to create real,
enforceable protections for neighbors, roads, farmlands, and taxpayers while rewarding solar contractors
that have proper prerequisite knowledge and financial stability. The objective was to recommend
ordinance changes that prevent taxpayers from carrying abandoned project risks.
Dean Craig, 3492 E 1400 N, Attica, a farmer with around 1,000 acres in the southwest part of Tippecanoe
County, believed anybody should be able to do what they want with their land. He discussed the benefits
of small molecular reactors (SMRs). An SMR can do the equivalent of 3,500 acres of solar fields and
should be considered given that they have a smaller footprint.
Phil Farrar, 491 Kerber Road, West Lafayette, spoke about his firsthand experience with solar fields
working for a company that has built them. He had seen the removal of topsoil and trees so that farmers
could place more solar panels or build access roads. Along with noise issues, there are fire concerns with
the solar storage units and where the liability belongs if an accident happens. These are issues the
county needs to think about.
Lindsey Payne, address redacted, Go Greener Commission, a member of the solar ordinance study
committee, grew up in rural Indiana. She trains future engineers to collaboratively work with stakeholders
to analyze, design, and implement practical system-based solutions while learning to create sustainable
communities and make hard decisions. During study committee meetings, there were many hard

10

conversations that needed to be made with the eye towards public health and safety, while also allowing
for the economic development and diversification of energy systems. Some of the alternatives in the
ordinance are evidence-based and for the common good of Tippecanoe County while others are not. For
example, a compromise was reached on the limit of total project acreage for the county of no more than
6,000 total acres. This would represent 3% of agricultural land and allow for solar energy systems to be
built where they are most efficient and provide willing landowners the ability to lease their land. The
6,000-acre cap was proposed as a number that would respond to residents’ concerns about limiting solar
development in the county. Other unvetted alternatives would eliminate areas zoned AA in the southern
and western parts of the county, totaling nearly a thousand acres or half of the county's farmland. Some
land within these areas is likely to be very appropriate for solar energy systems. The soil in these areas is
no more productive than other areas of the county. Additionally, capping a single solar project at 400
acres would be a near de facto ban on solar. Project size is largely dictated by the amount of power the
grid can accept at a given location without triggering expensive upgrades. This helps limit the size of
some projects while maximizing beneficial impact for the grid and the community. While it's possible to
build on a smaller scale, that doesn’t mean it makes financial sense for the developer or grid operator.
These are hard decisions and the alternatives need thoughtful consideration with evidence-based
decisions to set policy for the common good of Tippecanoe County.
Susan Schechter, 1001 Ferry Street, Lafayette, talked about how farmland is a limited natural resource.
Once land is developed for housing or commercial buildings, it is unlikely to be farmland again. Farmers
have an option to continue farming while leveraging the land to earn solid income from hosting a solar
project. Ground-based solar panels are not permanent structures and are designed to be
decommissioned. Most solar projects have plans to remove equipment and restore land to its original
state. Even more beneficial, agrivoltaics, the simultaneous use of land for agriculture and solar power
generation, harvests photons from the sun while sheep or poultry graze under the panels. The 1.3gigawatt mammoth Solar project in Pulaski County is implementing sheep grazing under panels and crop
production in buffer areas. Gunthorp Farms, a northern Indiana organic meat producer, has been raising
sheep under panels. Purdue University has an active agrivoltaics program. Corn is fermented to blend
ethanol into fuel, but it is a very inefficient way to produce energy relative to solar. Considering the oneyear moratorium the county commissioners placed on utility-scale solar, she hoped other protections
would be considered for similar businesses like fuel stations and factories.
Peter Bermel, 1011 Elm Drive, West Lafayette, professor at Purdue University, spoke about agrivoltaics
being a key future technology in development at Purdue to benefit the local community. Solar is a vital
technology to solve some of the key challenges that society is facing, including on the local scale in
Tippecanoe County. The energy supply has not been keeping up with the demand. Solar, wind, and
batteries are the three leading energy sources that are being added to the grid. Solar is increasingly
compelling because, through a learning curve, cost reduction is improving along with installation and
decommissioning processes. Compared to 10 or 20 years ago, solar has become mainstream technology.
If we prevent ourselves from being able to use solar power, we are putting ourselves behind the curve in
terms of ability to keep up economically both within the Midwest, across the country, and on a global
scale. It is essential for the future of Tippecanoe County to have this capability and setting a limitation to
400 acres per location is not in best interests. There should be a more flexible approach to accommodate
concerns from locals but also be able to make it economically attractive for developers.
Comments from the Ordinance Committee:
Ryan O’Gara reviewed the following non-consensus items from the solar committee that showed what
was currently in the UZO along with the proposed alternatives.

11

Alternative 1: by Special Exception in OR, A, AW only
Alternative 2: No change (current UZO)
Permitted by
Special Exception:
OR, A, AA, AW

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 3: No change to SE zones, but add footnote to
Permitted Use Table: "No more than 6,000 total acres of the
county shall be developed for Large-Scale Solar Energy Systems."
Alternative 4: No change to SE zones, but add footnote to
Permitted Use Table: "No more than 10% of all crop and
pastureland defined by the most current USDA Census of
Agriculture."

Tom Murtaugh discussed how owners with AA zoning could be participating property owners if that zone
was removed.
Ryan O’Gara clarified that a developer could represent multiple owners, with consent forms, to submit a
single rezone petition.
There was discussion that the committee will bring the different options to the floor to see if there is a
majority vote for a preferred alternative. Recommendations may then be revisited for more input without a
final decision yet.
Ryan O’Gara clarified that the committee was free to craft their own alternatives and were not limited to
the suggestions from the solar study committee.
There was discussion on the alternatives and combining aspects of multiple alternatives. Existing
language allowing large-scale solar to be permitted “by right” in zones I1, I2, and I3 had no changes and
would move forward.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to craft alternative 5 which will allow solar by special exception in OR, A, AW
only and no more than 6,000 total acres in the county shall be developed. Diana Luper seconded, and the
motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
Ryan O’Gara introduced the next non-consensus item dealing with setbacks on large-scale energy
systems.

(A) All solar panels,
mounting devices,
and inverters shall
be set back 50 feet
from all property
lines.

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 1: Unless waived by written consent of the owner,
all solar panels and mounting devices shall be set back: (1) a
minimum of 100’ from all nonparticipating property lines, 50'
from roadways, and (2) A minimum of 300’ of linear distance
from nonparticipating occupied structures. If two property lines
of a nonparticipating property is within 200' of the project
boundary, the minimum property line setback shall be 200' and
minimum occupied structure setback shall be 400'. If three
property lines of a nonparticipating property are within 200' of
the project boundary, the setback shall be 300' from
nonparticipating property lines and 500' from the
nonparticipating occupied structure. If four property lines of a
nonparticipating property are within 200' of the project boundary,
the setback shall be 400' from nonparticipating property lines
and 600' from the nonparticipating occupied structure.
Alternative 2: Unless waived by written consent of the owner,
all solar panels and mounting devices shall be set back 1,320'
from all nonparticipating property lines.
Alternative 3: No change to current UZO language

12

Ryan O’Gara pointed out that definitions had previously been agreed to by the solar study committee for
participating person vs. nonparticipating person. The concept of staggered setbacks was taken from
ordinances in other counties.
Nathan McBurnett clarified that in alternative 1 the written consent of the property owner is referring to a
nonparticipating property owner.
There was discussion on possible financial benefits to being a participating property owner and the
difference between participating vs nonparticipating.
Ryan O’Gara clarified the intended goal of the meeting was to achieve a majority vote on the nonconsensus items so that by the April Ordinance Committee meeting, the results could be presented in
ordinance form for further discussion. Changes could then still be made before a formal recommendation
was sent to the full APC.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to move forward with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion
carried by unanimous voice vote.
Ryan O’Gara introduced the next non-consensus item dealing with only inverters for large-scale energy
systems.

(B) Solar
inverters shall
be set back a
minimum of 200
feet when
abutting a
residential use
property line or
residential zone.

Alternative 1: Unless waived by the nonparticipating property
owner, solar inverters and any proposed transformers shall be
setback back a minimum of 500' from all nonparticipating
occupied structures and shall be located interior to the SES
project such that they are completely surrounded by solar panels
and mounting devices.
NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 2: Unless waived by the nonparticipating property
owner, all solar inverters and any proposed transformers shall be
set back 2,640' from all nonparticipating property lines.
Alternative 3: Unless waived by the nonparticipating property
owner, all solar inverters and any proposed transformers shall be
located in such a way to maintain a noise level of 45dbA
measured from all nonparticipating property lines.
Alternative 4: no change to current UZO language

There was discussion on differences between inverters and power substations or transformers.
Peter Bermel, 1011 Elm Drive, West Lafayette, clarified that a transformer is for a high voltage connection
directly into a power grid. Inverters operate at a lower voltage and are typically found in households.
Microinverters can be installed on individual solar panels.
There was discussion on noise, decibel limitations, and inverter placement.
Zacaria Martinez, Emergent Solar, 1281 Win Hentschel Blvd, West Lafayette, said that string converters
are typically within the 45-55 dB range. Distance is a better standard than decibels, but that depends on
the size of the inverters. The AC/DC ratio from inverter to panel is 1.2.
Nathan McBurnett added that a proposal to regulate noise for all components would be addressed later in
the presentation.
Eric Burns pointed out that this part of the ordinance referenced property lines as opposed to an occupied
structure.

13

Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
Ryan O’Gara introduced the next set of non-consensus items which were proposed new subsections, not
currently in the ordinance, that would address smaller, community-scale solar.

New subsection noise

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 1: The noise level measured at all nonparticipating
property lines shall not exceed 45dbA
Alternative 2: The maximum permitted sound level shall not
exceed 55 dbA between 7:00am and 9:00pm and 45 dbA
between 9:00pm and 7:00am.

There was discussion and clarification that this subsection addressed the normal operations and
equipment of the facility and was unrelated to activities, repairs, and construction.
Ryan O'Gara said it was anticipated that the county would execute agreements with the developer
regarding the construction aspect of the project.
Nathan McBurnett added that alternative 2 was consistent with the industrial performance standards in
the existing ordinance.
There was discussion on the difference in decibel ranges and what would be an appropriate noise level.
Kenny McCleary, 942 Chepstow Lane, West Lafayette, said 55 dB is essentially 10 times more powerful
than 45 dB and that 55 dB could be compared to an office environment. Whereas a new commercial
refrigerator runs around 35-32 dB. He referenced standards by the World Health Organization and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative one. Diana Luper seconded.
Vicki Pearl agreed because she didn’t know how management of alternative 2 would work.
Ryan O’Gara agreed that enforcement should be taken into consideration.
The motion carried by a four in favor to one in opposition voice vote.
Alternative 1: Glare produced from the Large-scale SES
shall not cause illumination in excess of 0.5 footcandles
when measured at any nonparticipating property line.

New subsection glare

NO CONSENSUS

Alternative 2: a Large-scale SES system installed by a
project owner shall be designed and constructed to: (1)
minimize glare on adjacent properties and roadways; and
(2) not interfere with vehicular traffic, including air traffic. If
after construction of the SES, APC staff receives a
complaint related to interference with glare, the APC staff
shall notify the owner or operator and provide thirty (30)
days to respond as to how the complaint will be addressed.
The SES owner and/or operator shall take reasonable
steps to respond to minimize the complaint.

Eric Burns commented that alternative 2 would be a difficult standard to enforce.

14

There was discussion on what method was appropriate to measure glare. This will receive more focus at
the next meeting.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.

New subsection lighting

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 1: Exterior lighting for the Large-scale SES project
shall be shown on the proposed development plan and shall be no
more than the minimum necessary for security. Any such lighting
shall be shielded and/or oriented to prevent direct or indirect
lighting on a dwelling of a nonparticipating parcel. Light shall not
exceed one-half (0.5) foot candles at the nonparticipating property
line.
Alternative 2: No requirement

Nathan McBurnett clarified that the 0.5 footcandles limit was taken from the industrial performance
standards in the ordinance.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.

New subsection liability insurance

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 1: A. The owner or operator of any Large-scale SES
project shall maintain a current general liability policy covering
bodily injury and property damage and may be required to name
Tippecanoe County as an additional insured with dollar amount
limits per occurrence, in the aggregate, and a deductible, as
follows:
1. Owners that have electrical generating equipment of 10kw or
less on their property are required to carry $100,000.00 of liability
insurance.
2. Owners of any electrical equipment generating over 10kw that
is directly connected to the electrical grid are required to carry
liability insurance with limits of a minimum of $2,000,000.00 per
occurrence and $5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, with a
deductible of not more than $100,000.00
B. The applicant, owner, and/or operator of a Large-scale SES
shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Tippecanoe County
and its officials from and against any and all claims, demands,
losses, suits, cause of action, damages, injuries, costs,
expenses, and liabilities whatsoever, including attorney's fees,
without limitation, arising out of acts or omissions of the
applicant, owner, and/or operator associated with the
construction and/operation of the Large-scale SES.
Alternative 2: No requirement

Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.

15

New subsection plantings preconstruction

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 1: if the site includes tilled land, project site shall be
planted with native perennial vegetation 3 months prior to site
disturbance to reduce erosion.
Alternative 2: if the site includes tilled land, project site shall be
planted with native perennial vegetation 3 years prior to site
disturbance to reduce erosion.

Tom Murtaugh said erosion controls are already addressed with the drainage board.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
Alternative 1: Require that the Large-scale SES project area be
entirely contiguous
New subsection
- project size
limit

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 2: No single Large-scale SES project shall exceed 400
acres
Alternative 3: No change to current UZO language

This standard is currently unregulated. The stipulation that the area be contiguous was pulled from
Clinton County’s ordinance.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with alternative 1. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.

Proposed fee
schedule amendment

NO
CONSENSUS

Alternative 1: the committee recommends that the fee
schedule be updated to include an application fee that is
unique to a Large-scale SES Special Exception application.
This fee should be at a level that takes into account the staff
time required to review and process the application materials.
Alternative 2: fee schedule remains the same, but it should be
noted that there is an existing proposal to provide language in
Chapter 4 of the UZO that empowers staff to hire third party
consultants at the developer's expense

Ryan O’Gara explained that the fee schedule is in county ordinance, not in the zoning ordinance.
However, there will be considerable work needed on solar applications and the fee schedule may need to
be updated and allow for third party consultants.
Eric Burns discussed the importance of having the right fees and the ability to hire experts for a new
zoning standard.
There was discussion on how similar boards pass the review fees onto the developer and having a presubmission meeting could establish what is needed in terms of third-party groups and costs.
Tom Murtaugh motioned to proceed with combining alternative 1 and alternative 2. Diana Luper
seconded, and the motion carried by unanimous voice vote.
The last section to be approved dealt with decommissioning and will be addressed at the April meeting.

16

Eric Burns suggested that the committee approve all items that were consensus items to be
recommended to APC.
Tom Murtaugh moved to approve all consensus items. Diana Luper seconded, and the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote.
III. ADJOURNMENT
Tom Murtaugh moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:04 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Danielle Bistline
Recording Secretary
Reviewed By,

Ryan O’Gara
Executive Director

17

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems

ORDINANCE NO.__________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO.______
BEING THE UNIFIED ZONING ORDINANCE
OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY.
Be it ordained by the (County Commissioners of Tippecanoe County, Indiana; the
Common Council of the City of Lafayette, Indiana; the Common Council of the City of
West Lafayette, Indiana; the Town Council of the Town of Battle Ground, Indiana; the
Town Council of the Town of Dayton, Indiana; and the Town Council of Clarks Hill,
Indiana), that Ordinance No._____, being the Unified Zoning Ordinance of Tippecanoe
County is hereby amended as follows:
Section 1:

Change UZO Section 1-10 DEFINITIONS as follows:

The definition of “ABANDONED” shall be amended by adding to it the following phrase,
underlined and in red: “Regarding solar energy systems, an fully or partially
constructed SES that does not generate electricity for a continuous twelve (12) month
period, or any solar energy system falling into a state of disrepair for twelve
consecutive months shall be deemed abandoned.
The following definitions shall be added:
“SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM (SES).” A system (including solar collector surface and
ancillary solar equipment) either affixed to a permanent primary or accessory building
or functioning as a freestanding structure, that collects, stores, and distributes solar
energy for uses including but not limited to heating or cooling, generating electricity, or
heating water. An SES shall not include battery energy storage systems with an
aggregate capacity of greater than 100MWh.
“OCCUPIED STRUCTURE”: Any structure that is (1) used as a residence or (2) is
intended to be occupied by members of the public or (3) is used by on-site employees
for periods greater than eight hours per week.
“PARTICIPATING” (Property or Landowner): Property or the property-owner of land
that is participating in a Solar Energy System project as Co-Applicant.
“NON-PARTICIPATING”: Any property or property owner (exclusive of public right-ofway) that has not entered into a lease, easement, or other written agreement (other than
a waiver from the standards of the UZO) with the SES owner or operator and is within a
distance of two parcels or 200 feet, whichever is greater.
Section 2:

Change UZO Section 3-2-6 as follows:

SIC 4911 “Large-Scale Solar Energy System” shall be allowed by right only in I1, I2,
and I3 zones and by Special Exception in OR, A, AA, and AW zones. The
1

18

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
following footnote shall also be added (footnote 75) to this defined use:
“No more than an aggregate of 6,000 total acres of the county shall be
developed for Large-Scale Solar Energy Systems.”
Section 3:

Change UZO 4-5-1-d-2 as follows:

Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall have a maximum height of 15 feet except
in rural zones, where the maximum height of 20 feet shall be permitted. 16 feet.
Section 4: Sections 4-11-1 through 4-12 shall be reorganized. All existing text will
remain the same for all Sections other than 4-11-14 and 4-11-15, which will be relocated
to Section 4-12. Sections 4-11-1 will be reorganized as follows:
4-11-11 WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS METEROLOGICAL TOWERS
4-11-12 METEOROLOGICAL TOWERS TRANSIENT GUEST ACCOMODATIONS
4-11-13 TRANSIENT GUEST ACCOMODATIONS SHIPPING CONTAINERS
4-11-14 LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS CONTRACTORS
REQUIREMENTS
4-11-15 COMMUNITY-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS AGRICULTURAL RENTAL
HALLS
4-11-16 SHIPPING CONTAINERS FUELING CENTERS and TRUCK STOPS
4-11-17 CONTRACTORS REQUIREMENTS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS or ADUs
Section labels 4-11-18 and 4-11-19 will be removed, but the text of both sections will
remain as shown in the new section sequence above.
Section 5:
Section 4-11-14 LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS and 4-1115 COMMUNITY-SCALE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS will be combined and relocated
to Section 4-12 as follows:
4-12 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS or ADUs RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS
4-12-1 WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS (the text from the existing Section 4-11-11 will be
relocated here without edits).
4-12-2 SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS:
(a) Pre-submission Requirements
The following pre-submission requirements apply to both Large-Scale SES and
Community-Scale SES:
(1) At least one pre-submission meeting is required before submitting a
special exception request or an improvement location permit
application, whichever applies first. The property owner(s) and/or their
representative shall attend and be prepared to explain the justification for
an SES proposal at the pre-submission meeting. Before a pre-submission
meeting can be scheduled, the following items shall be submitted:
2

19

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
(A) For any property owner(s) who do not attend the pre-submission
meeting, the project representative must provide a notarized
consent form, signed by each property owner, to APC staff.
(B) The prospective applicant shall submit all required application
materials to the checkpoint agencies a minimum of 30 days prior to
the scheduled pre-submission meeting for preliminary review. The
prospective applicant shall provide proof of submission to APC staff
prior to the pre-submission meeting.
(2) At the pre-submission meeting, APC staff shall provide a sign-in sheet that
is made available to any member of the public upon request. Any notes
taken by APC staff during the meeting shall also be made available to any
member of the public upon request.
(3) Additional pre-submission meetings may be requested by checkpoint
agencies to address outstanding comments before an application for a
Special Exception or an ILP can be filed, whichever applies first.
(b) Development Standards:
As part of the Special Exception or Improvement Location Permit application
materials for a Large-Scale SES or Community-Scale SES, the following
development standards shall be met and clearly shown on the site plan and/or any
supplementary application materials:
(1) Large-Scale and Community-Scale solar energy systems are exempt
from UZO 4-6 and lot coverage requirements.
(2) Driveway entrances shall comply with UZO 4-7.
(3) Any installations surrounding airports shall conform to UZO 5-3.
(4) Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall have a maximum height of
16 feet. The height shall be calculated as the distance from ground level to
the top of the solar panel at its greatest incline (tilt).
(5) All solar panels, as well as all mounting devices, shall be a minimum of 36
inches above ground level as measured from any ground point to the
closest point of any solar panel or mounting devices.
(6) A security fence at least 6’ high shall be installed around the groundmounted solar energy system with emergency access allowed 24/7. To
protect the migratory patterns of wildlife, the security fence shall contain no
barbed wire and must be made of welded wire, unless an alternative
material is approved by the Administrative Officer, with a minimum of 6”
by 6” openings and provides for 6" of continuous clearance from grade.
(7) Power transmission lines from a ground-mounted solar energy system
shall be underground and shall be completely shielded against shock
hazard. Lines that connect one panel to another or from the system to the
main transmission lines are not required to be underground. Transmission
lines between rows of panels must be located underground.
3

20

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems

4-12-2-(b)-8: Table of minimum setbacks for ground-mounted SES
Project
Number of nonparticipating property lines within 200’ of Minimum
Components SES project boundary
setback from
public right1
2
3
4
of-way
from
non- from
non- from
non- from
nonparticipating participating participating participating
property line: property line: property line: property line: Based
on
Solar panels
100’
200’
300’
400’
zone
and
and
from
non- from
non- from
non- from
non- road
mounting
participating participating participating participating classification
devices
LARGEoccupied
occupied
occupied
occupied
SCALE SES
structure:
structure:
structure:
structure:
300’
400’
500’
600’
Solar
from
non- from
non- from
non- from
non- 100’¹
inverters
participating participating participating participating
and
occupied
occupied
occupied
occupied
transformers structure:
structure:
structure:
structure:
500’¹
500’¹
500’¹
500’¹
Solar panels from
non- from
non- from
non- from
non- Based
on
and
participating participating participating participating zone
and
mounting
property line: property line: property line: property line: road
25’
25’
25’
25’
classification
COMMUNITY- devices
SCALE SES
Solar
See footnote¹ See footnote¹ See footnote¹ See footnote¹ Based
on
inverters
zone
and
and
road
transformers
classification¹
¹In addition to any setback requirement, solar inverters shall be located interior to the SES such that they
are completely surrounded by solar panels and mounting devices.

(8) The following development standards for Large-Scale SES shall be met:
(A) The Large-Scale SES project boundary shall be entirely
contiguous except where divided by public right-of-way.
(B) Unless waived by the nonparticipating property owner by written
consent, all solar panels and mounting devices shall be setback
(as shown in table above):
4

21

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
i.
ii.

50’ from all public right-of-way;
If the SES project is within 200’ of one property line of a
nonparticipating property, a minimum setback of 100’ from
the nonparticipating property line and 300’ from
nonparticipating occupied structures shall be maintained.
iii.
If the SES project is within 200’ of two property lines of a
nonparticipating property, a minimum setback of 200’ from
the nonparticipating property lines and 400’ from
nonparticipating occupied structures shall be maintained.
iv.
If the SES project is within 200’ of three property lines of a
nonparticipating property, a minimum setback of 300’ from
the nonparticipating property lines and 500’ from
nonparticipating occupied structures shall be maintained.
v.
If the SES project is within 200’ of three property lines of a
nonparticipating property, a minimum setback of 400’ from
the nonparticipating property lines and 600’ from
nonparticipating occupied structures shall be maintained.
(C) Unless waived by the nonparticipating property owner by written
consent, all solar inverters and any proposed transformers shall
be setback a minimum of 100’ from public right-of-way and 500’
from nonparticipating occupied structures. Solar inverters shall
be located interior to the SES project such that they are completely
surrounded by solar panels and mounting devices.
(D) Unless waived by the nonparticipating property owners by
recorded agreement, for all nonparticipating properties improved
by an occupied structure, one of the following standards shall be
met:
i.
a Type A bufferyard, comprised of plantings outlined in the
approved vegetative management plan, shall be installed
between the Large-Scale SES and all nonparticipating
property lines. This bufferyard shall be located between the
required fence and the SES project boundary; or
ii.
All panels, mounting devices, inverters, and transformers
shall be set back 1000’ from all nonparticipating property
lines.
(9) The following development standards for a Community-Scale SES shall
be met:
(A) For a ground-mounted SES, all solar panels and mounting
devices shall be set back a minimum of 25' from all
nonparticipating property lines.
(B) For a ground-mounted SES, all solar inverters and any proposed
transformers shall be setback according to the standards dictated
by the zoning district from all nonparticipating property lines.
5

22

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
(C) Unless waived by the nonparticipating property owners, for all
nonparticipating properties improved by an occupied structure,
a Type A bufferyard, comprised of plantings outlined in the
approved vegetative management plan, shall be installed between
a ground-mounted SES and all nonparticipating property lines.
This bufferyard shall be located between the required fence and
the SES project boundary.
(c) Additional Application Requirements
In addition to the development standards provided in 4-12-2(b), the following items
shall be submitted as part of an application for a Large-Scale or ground-mounted
Community-Scale SES:
(1) Special Exception application requirements for a Large-Scale SES:
(A) A preliminary stormwater management plan.
(B) A preliminary road use agreement
(C) A vegetative management plan, reviewed and approved by a thirdparty technical consultant, at the SES project developer’s expense,
and approved by the Administrative Officer that includes the
following requirements:
i.
Pollinator-friendly seed mixes and native plants
approved by a biologist or rural/district conservationist
are required around/under a Large-Scale SES.
ii.
If applicable, a plan detailing any agrivoltaic use of land
included within the project boundary.
iii.
A preliminary maintenance agreement that specifies
the party responsible for administering the vegetative
management plan over the life of the SES.
iv.
A plan detailing how the site will be maintained in such
a way as to remain free of all invasive species as listed
by the Indiana Invasive Species Council.
(D) A Generator Interconnection Agreement (GIA) or a Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) or a comparable document.
(E) A decommissioning plan as outlined in 4-12-2(f)
(2) If an SES project is pursued by right, or has received an approved Special
Exception, in addition to the development standards provided in 4-1114(b), the following items shall be provided as part of an Improvement
Location Permit application for a Large-Scale SES or ground-mounted
Community-Scale SES:
(A) A stormwater management plan approved by the participating
jurisdiction.
(B) A road use agreement approved by the participating jurisdiction.
(C) A vegetative management plan, which includes the following
requirements:
6

23

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
i.

A list of pollinator-friendly seed mixes to be used within
the project boundary. Native plants approved by a
biologist or rural/district conservationist are required
around/under the SES.
ii.
If applicable, a plan detailing any agrivoltaic use of land
included within the project boundary.
iii.
A maintenance agreement approved by the
participating jurisdiction that specifies the party
responsible for administering the vegetative
management plan over the life of the SES.
iv.
A plan detailing how the site will be maintained in such
a way as to remain free of all invasive species as listed
by the Indiana Invasive Species Council.
(D) For a Large-Scale SES, a Generator Interconnection Agreement
(GIA) or a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or a comparable
document.
(E) A decommissioning plan as outlined in 4-12-2(f)
(F) For a Large-Scale SES, proof of a current general liability
insurance policy covering all components of the SES project. The
general liability policy shall cover bodily injury and property damage
and shall be required to name Tippecanoe County as an additional
insured with dollar amount limits per occurrence, in the aggregate,
and a deductible, as follows:
i.
Owners that have electrical generating equipment of
10kw or less on their property are required to carry
$100,000.00 of liability insurance.
ii.
Owners of any electrical equipment generating over
10kw that is directly connected to the electrical grid are
required to carry liability insurance with limits of a
minimum of $2,000,000.00 per occurrence and
$5,000,000.00 in the aggregate, with a deductible of
not more than $100,000.00
iii.
The applicant, owner, and/or operator of a LargeScale SES shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
Tippecanoe County and its officials from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, suits, cause of
action, damages, injuries, costs, expenses, and
liabilities whatsoever, including attorney's fees, without
limitation, arising out of acts or omissions of the
applicant, owner, and/or operator associated with the
construction and/or operation of the Large-scale SES.
(d) Construction and Maintenance Requirements
7

24

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
Additional requirements for Large-Scale and ground-mounted CommunityScale solar energy systems:
(1) Hours of construction for all components of a ground-mounted SES shall
be limited to between 7:00AM-7:00PM.
(2) Ground-mounted SES shall be designed and installed to follow the natural
contours of the land to the maximum extent practicable. Grading shall be
limited to that necessary for access roads, foundations, and drainage
improvements. Mass grading and extensive cut-and-fill operations are
prohibited except where required to address public safety or stormwater
management requirements. Removal of topsoil from the project boundaries
is prohibited.
(3) All tilled land within the SES project boundary shall be planted with native
perennial vegetation, as described in the vegetative management plan,
three months prior to site disturbance to reduce soil erosion.
(4) The project owner and/or their designee shall promptly repair all public and
private drainage infrastructure damaged during the project lifetime. If
damage occurs, the project owner and/or their designee shall notify the
Administrative Officer (AO) to establish a reasonable timeline for repairs
to be completed.
(5) Prior to issuance of an ILP, the developer, at their own expense, shall hire
a third party technical consultant that is selected by County staff to ensure
that the SES project conforms to all federal, state, and local agency
requirements that reflect established industry standards. County staff
reserves the right to retain this consultant, at the SES project owner’s
expense, to draft/negotiate any additional agreements deemed necessary
by the participating jurisdiction prior to ILP issuance.
(6) All components of a Large-scale Solar Energy System shall meet the U.S.
EPA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) limits for
hazardous waste.
(e) Industrial Performance Standards
The following industrial performance standards shall be met for Large-Scale and
ground-mounted Community-Scale solar energy systems:
(1) Glare produced from the SES shall not cause illumination in excess of 0.5
footcandles when measured at any nonparticipating property line.
(2) Light produced from any exterior lighting installed on the SES project site
shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles when measured at any nonparticipating
property line.
(3) Noise produced from the SES shall not exceed 45dbA when measured at
all nonparticipating property lines.
(f) Decommissioning Plan Requirements
(1) A decommissioning plan for a Large-Scale or ground-mounted
Community-Scale solar energy system shall be approved by the ABZA
8

25

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
when a special exception is required or by the Administrative Officer for
systems permitted by right, prior to issuance of the improvement location
permit. An approved decommissioning plan shall be recorded in the office
of the Tippecanoe County Recorder.
(2) A decommissioning plan shall include removal of all solar electric systems,
buildings, cabling, electrical components, security fence, driveway
entrance, foundations, pilings, and any other associated facilities, pollinator
friendly seed mixes and native plants, facilities, plantings, and ancillary solar
equipment installed as part of the SES so that any agricultural ground upon
which the facility or system was located is again tillable and suitable for
agricultural uses. All underground components of facilities, plantings, and
ancillary solar equipment shall be removed unless such removal would
cause excessive soil disruption. However, the landowner at time of
decommissioning may request in writing that the existing pollinator friendly
seed mixes and native plants, driveway entrance, security fence or other
land surface areas not be restored, and this request shall be approved by
the ABZA if granted by special exception or by the Administrative Officer
if granted by right. Hazardous materials, including mounting devices from a
large-scale solar energy system shall be disposed of in accordance with
federal and state law.
(3) A final decommissioning plan shall be certified by a Professional Engineer,
or a Registered Land Surveyor, or a Registered Landscape Architect.
(4) An applicant or a property owner shall provide an itemized cost estimate
using the template in Appendix L to decommission the large-scale solar
energy system. prepared by a Professional Engineer who has expertise in
the removal of solar facilities to the ABZA or the Administrative Officer. A
cost estimate shall not include any estimates or offsets for the resale or
salvage values of the large-scale solar energy system equipment and
materials.
(5) For a Large-Scale SES, two independent professional engineers approved
by the Administrative Officer and agreed upon by the project owner shall
be retained and compensated by the project owner to separately determine
the amount of the initial surety, and the average of the two determined
amounts shall be utilized so long as the two estimates for removal expenses
and site restoration do not vary more than ten percent (10%). If the two
estimates of the cost of removal and restoration vary more than ten percent
(10%), the surety shall be in an amount equal to the higher of the two
estimates. The surety shall be equal to the estimated amount of the cost of
removing the project facilities and restoring the property to its
preconstruction state. The cost estimate shall include but not be limited to
the current market conditions, labor, equipment, disposal, and site
restoration costs.
(6) For a Community-Scale SES, the cost estimate shall be certified by a
professional engineer in an amount acceptable to the Administrative
9

26

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
Officer. The surety shall be equal to the estimated amount of the cost of
removing the project facilities and restoring the property to its
preconstruction state. The cost estimate shall include but not be limited to
the current market conditions, labor, equipment, disposal, and site
restoration costs.
(7) An applicant or a property owner shall be required to file a the surety using
a form in Appendix L, acceptable to the APC’s legal counsel or
Administrative Officer, for the estimated amount, approved by the ABZA
when special exception is required or by the Administrative Officer for
systems permitted by right, prior to the issuance of an improvement
location permit. The applicant or property owner shall ensure such surety
is transferable to any future owner of the SES project.
(8) A decommissioning cost estimate shall include a mechanism for calculating
increased removal costs due to inflation. This cost estimate shall be
recalculated every five years and the surety shall be updated to reflect the
change. Failure to renew the cost estimate and update the surety every five
years shall void the grant of special exception.
(9) Prior to decommissioning, baseline soil testing conducted by a certified
professional approved by the Administrative Officer shall be conducted to
determine if there is reasonable evidence of contamination from facility
operations. Testing parameters shall be limited to constituents reasonably
associated with solar facility operations, including metals from equipment
corrosion if warranted. Post-decommissioning verification testing may be
required if pre-decommissioning contamination was identified. The facility
owner is responsible, at their sole expense, for remediation of
contamination directly caused by facility construction, operation, or
decommissioning, as determined by applicable local, state, and federal
agencies. Pre-existing contamination or contamination from other sources
is not the responsibility of the facility owner.
(10)
An applicant or a property owner shall file and receive an approval
for a demolition permit before decommissioning begins. Before filing for the
demolition permit, the applicant or property owner shall submit a minimum
of 30 day notice to checkpoint agencies. This notice shall contain the
approved decommissioning plan as well as any agreements with
participating property owners detailing any facilities, plantings, or ancillary
solar equipment that will remain on the landowner’s property. The project
property must be made available for inspection by County officials prior to
decommissioning and following decommissioning before the surety is
released.
(11)
When a decommissioning is complete, an applicant or a property
owner shall submit the final report outlining the completion of the
decommissioning plan to the ABZA if granted through special exception, or
to the Administrative Officer if granted by right, for approval. The ABZA
or the Administrative Officer shall then release the surety.
10

27

UZO Amendment 126
Solar Energy Systems
(12)
If an applicant or a property owner fails to meet the requirements set
in the decommissioning plan or the large-scale solar energy system is
abandoned, the ABZA or the Administrative Officer may request the
county to declare the surety in default and use the proceeds to complete
the decommissioning plan.
Section 6: Amend UZO 6-4-4(i) as follows:
(1) if that use (for any use other than a wind farm or solar energy facility) is not
established within 1 year of the date the special exception was granted; or
(2) if that use is a wind farm and is not established within 18 months of the date the
special exception was granted or if that use is a solar energy facility and not
established within 3 years of the date the special exception was granted; (Amend 73)

Section 7: Amend Appendix L as follows:
Remove Appendix L-1 “Breakdown of Cost for Removal of SES:” and relabel Appendix
L-2 through L-4 as “Appendix L-1 through L-3.”

11