Menu
Plan Commission considers question of wind farms
As anyone who’s driven north of Lafayette in the last 10 years can verify — you can see a wind farm from a long way off.
The Putnam County Plan Commission is hoping to use such foresight to tackle the issue while it is still on the horizon locally.
Following a discussion on the matter during its most recent meeting, the Plan Commission will consider adding wind farms as a special exception in the county during its Thursday, April 11 meeting at the Putnam County Courthouse.
The Plan Commission will meet at 6:30 p.m., a change in time moving forward for the rest of 2019.
County Planner Don Hatfield said that while there haven’t been any wind farm inquiries that have gone too far, he has taken calls regarding the county’s policy.
“We’ve gotten some calls about people who are interested in having them,” Hatfield said.
As it stands, there is no policy.
As such, County Attorney Jim Ensley presented the commission with ordinances on the matter from Montgomery, Clinton and Tippecanoe counties.
“Our current ordinance doesn’t really address it,” Ensley said, adding that there is some language regarding public utilities, but this doesn’t exactly fit. “The zoning ordinance that was written 10 years ago and never passed does address wind farms.”
There is an idea that it could be shoehorned in as a use variance, but more directly addressing it is preferred.
The county could be on the verge of updating its entire zoning ordinance, so some members asked why even address this specific question at this time.
“Since there’s not an interested party in the wind farms right now, I don’t see why we should address it,” Bee said.
However, Hatfield said with calls trickling in, having a solid answer would be preferable.
“What we’re trying to do is get ahead of the ball here before people start coming in here and trying to do it,” Hatfield said. “It’s going to happen sooner or later.”
Speaking from the audience, Jim Luzar, who worked as an extension agent in multiple counties, said from what he’s seen, a good ordinance regarding the matter is a good idea, as it allows the community to set the standards.
“I think a wind ordinance, longer term, would be useful,” Luzar said. “I know in White County it really shaped the way the companies formulated their towers and it was for the good of the community.”
For these reasons, the commission will consider adding wind energy conversion systems as a special exception to all zones.
The commission asked Ensley to advertise a public hearing for the April 11 meeting so that interested parties can either be at the meeting or send letters with opinions on the matter.
Adding the matter to special exceptions would not give companies carte blanche to begin building windmills in Putnam County.
Instead, each case would have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for consideration. Even if it allows a special exception, the BZA is able to place specific requirements on any granted exception.
“I want to add one thing,” Hatfield said, “we already have three wind towers in the county.”
It was noted, however, that none of these are the behemoths that are commonly associated with a wind farm.
There was further discussion of broader changes in the county zoning ordinance.
The county is still operating on the original county zoning ordinance, which was adopted in the early 1990s. Beyond this, a new comprehensive plan was adopted 10 years ago, but the accompanying zoning ordinance was never put in place.
Regardless, updates are now needed.
“The items we’re working from now were done 30 years ago,” Bee said. “And what Jim is talking about is 10 years ago. Even that needs and update.”
At that time, the county was working with American Stucturepoint, a planning and engineering firm headquartered in Indianapolis.
After a long process, something broke down between the county and the firm and both sides walked away, despite the money already spent.
“Whatever went wrong 10 years ago, a lot of work went into that,” Ensley said, saying he plans to extend and olive branch to Structurepoint. “I don’t know how you could pass the comprehensive plan and yet the ordinance that was supposed to support it never went into effect.”
One possible sticking point was that the proposed changes by Structurepoint made the ordinance more complex, such as adding a number of new zones.
“I don’t know that we had expectations of what the end product was going to be because it was so new to us,” longtime Plan Commission member Kevin Scobee said.
In the meantime, one other matter that will be addressed in the shorter term will be a possible change to the development in the Agricultural Protection District (A1).
Under consideration is reducing the minimum parcel size from five acres and 350 feet of road frontage down to three acres and 200 feet of frontage.
The matter has been discussed for the better part of a year, but was advertised to be official considered in February. However, that meeting was canceled due to lack of forum.
It was back on the agenda in March, but again delayed. Commission member Jill Bridgewater was not in attendance, while the seat formerly occupied by Nancy Wells is currently vacant.
Commission member David Berry suggested delaying the decision until April so that he and his fellow county commissioners could appoint someone to replace Wells during their April 1 meeting.
“That way, I feel like we can get the board back to full strength and the new member up to speed,” Berry said.
There was extended discussion on this matter.
County Surveyor David Penturf (also a commission member) said that further delays are affecting his ability to do his job, and likely doing the same to local private surveyors Alan Stanley & Associates (ASA).
“I don’t know about ASA, but I‘ve got a person waiting on this,” Penturf said. “We need to do something in April.”
“We’ve been talking about this for at least nine months,” Scobee pointed out.
Questions were even asked about why to do this if there’s going to be an entirely new zoning ordinance coming later.
“Because we’ve got people right now who are waiting on that,” Bee said. “If we pass it right now, it’s a band-aid and then we go back and look at zoning and it could supersede that.”
Bee went further in saying that if eight of the nine members are in attendance (seven were present in March), they should move forward.
In other business:
• A pair of residents spoke about the potential change in development standards during public comments.
“I’m a little bit concerned that the people I talk to across the county weren’t even aware of (the proposed change), Mark Legan said. “That’s a pretty big change.”
He went on to point out that A1 is considered “Ag protection,” so any changes should be taken seriously.
“I have more than a little bit of concern about making the county a large lot development standard,” Legan said.
He went on to wonder if the county might instead consider expanding the A2 district and thereby better control were development occurs.
Luzar echoed Legan’s sentiments.
“We just celebrated Ag Week last week and talked about the ag industry and how it’s important here in the county,” Luzar said. “I’m pro-growth but it’s got to be smart growth.”
He added that any changes need to be intelligent in the long run.
“I would encourage you to really take a long look at that,” Luzar said. “I think we’ve got to look ahead on this and ask, ‘What’s this going to do to us 20, 30, 40 years down the road?’”
• New officers were elected for the Plan Commission in 2019.
Wendell Underwood will serve as chairman, while Randy Bee will be vice chairman and Eric Hayman will serve as secretary.