|
|
The Pipestone County Board of Appeals recently denied a request for a variance that would have allowed a solar garden to be built on the area shaded orange on this map, which is just west of the Pipestone city limits. Several residents expressed objections to the variance during a public hearing held prior to the Boards’ decision. Source: Pipestone County
The Pipestone County Board of Appeals, during their Aug. 28 meeting, denied a variance that would have allowed Pivot Energy MN Solar 24 LLC, which is owned by US Solar, to build a 1 megawatt (MW) community solar garden less than 400 feet from the foundation of a non-participating occupied dwelling, as required by the county’s zoning ordinance. Emily Neuharth, project developer with US Solar, said the nearest property would have been about 155 feet from the solar garden.
The solar garden would have been located on land owned by Jerry Remund in the south half of the northeast quarter of Section 11 of Sweet Township, just west of the Pipestone city limits in what is now crop land. The plans called for 2,184 solar panels on 6.5 acres of land with a 10-foot fence around the solar garden, and prairie grasses and flowers planted below the solar panels.
Neuharth said the land would be leased from Remund for 25 years with three possible five-year extensions, for a potential total term of 40 years. She said US Solar would pay for the decommissioning of the solar garden at the end of its use, as is required by county ordinance. She said the solar garden could have provided power for around 200 homes and that people in the area could have subscribed to it.
About a dozen people attended the public hearing, held to take comments on the variance request. Nine people spoke during the hearing and all of them, except Remund and his son, were opposed to the solar garden. They expressed concerns about a potential negative impact on property values and aesthetics, as well as the glare of the sun off the panels and potential health effects from the electromagnetic field generated by a solar garden.
“We have a backyard and we sit back there and we can see rural land and we love it out there,” said Mark Mahik, who lives nearby. “I don’t really want to look at a solar farm every day.”
Jim Morgan, who said his property would have been the closest to the solar garden, referenced a previous plan to put solar panels at the same site in 2015. That project would have been part of the 100 MW Aurora Distributed Solar Project, which initially included 24 sites across 16 Minnesota counties. The Pipestone site for that project would have been larger than proposed this time, with a 14.7-acre solar garden generating 2 MW of solar energy, and would have stretched into the city limits. The Minnesota Public Utility Commission (PUC) was the permitting agency for that project due to the size and rejected the Pipestone site due to local land-use objections.
“The issues with the Pipestone site that caused the PUC to reject the site application 10 years ago still exist today and will forever,” Morgan said.
In addition to the comments at the hearing, the city of Pipestone submitted a letter opposing the variance, citing the opposition of residents in the area, the potential to hinder future residential development in the area and potential damage to city streets.
Remund contended that most residents wouldn’t see the solar array due to a hedge row and pointed out that the county’s setback requirement for a project of this size was 150 feet prior to 2017. If that was still the case, no variance would have been needed for the proposed project. Regarding the potential impact on property values, Neuharth referenced studies that indicated there was no negative impact. She also said that modern solar panels have very little glare.
In the end, the Board of Appeals voted to deny the variance request, finding that the solar garden would restrict development in the area, that Remund would not be deprived of a reasonable use of his property without the variance, that the proximity to city residents caused an issue and that it would alter the character of the area by restricting residential development.