ESCANABA — After much discussion — and more than one last-minute change — the Delta County Board of Commissioners approved an ordinance that allows large-scale solar developments across much of the Delta County. The changes made to the draft ordinance submitted to the board by the county planning commission earlier this month were significant, with perhaps the most drastic change being the board’s decision to allow utility-scale solar developments as a permitted use in five zoning districts rather than a conditional use.

In essence, the change means a solar developer has the legal right to construct a development in C-1, C-2 and C-3 commercial districts, as well as industrial (I), resource production (RP) and agricultural (AP) districts, so long as the development meets the requirements outlined in the solar ordinance. Had the board left utility-solar operations as conditional uses, developers would have needed to seek a permit, have the development reviewed by the planning commission, and allow neighboring property owners to voice their concerns in a public hearing. If those concerns were considered significant enough by the planning commission, the development could have been blocked.

According to Delta County Planning Commission Chair Chris Williams, who spoke at Tuesday’s board meeting, the conditional use designation also had potential benefit for developers. For example, if a developer approached neighboring property owners and they were willing to accept less-stringent setback requirements for the development, a developer could theoretically have a conditional use permit issued that allowed them to place solar panels closer to lot lines

The decision to make solar developments a permitted use was not unanimous, however. Commissioners Theresa Nelson and John Malnar oppose the change, while Commissioners Bob Barron, Dave Moyle and Board Chair Patrick Johnson voted in favor of the change.

After a significant amount of public comment, the setback requirements outlined in the draft ordinance were also relaxed Tuesday. The original draft had a detailed setback system, which required panels be placed a minimum of 30 feet from all existing property lines — the standard minimum for developments in the township — but included enhanced setbacks when a neighboring property was not participating in the solar development. In those cases, solar panels needed to be 75 feet from the property line and 125 feet along the profile of a home on the non-participating parcel.

In the interest of conformity to the rest of the county’s zoning, the board moved to make all setbacks 30 feet. Again, Nelson and Malnar opposed the change.

It was noted by Johnson that a developer could seek to relax the development requirements outlined in the ordinance by going to the county’s zoning board of appeals and seeking a variance. A variance is essentially special permission for a development or land use that would not typically be allowed because it is “nonconforming” with the county’s code of ordinances. Typically, the ZBA grants variances only after a project or use is rejected by the planning commission, but because the board opted to make solar projects a permitted and not conditional use, the planning commission has no process by which to relax the requirements of the ordinance on its own.

“I don’t think that that’s the best way to do it. I think that it’s appropriate … to have a public hearing, to be in front with your neighbors, talking with your neighbors, getting the entire area that’s affected by this development (to be) a part of the conversation and to be a part of this rather than just going to the board of appeals and getting a variance,” said Williams.

The process of seeking a variance from the ZBA also requires hearings and input from neighbors, but variances are generally more difficult to get. That’s partly because, unlike a conditional use, there is no board-approved guidance on what should or should not warrant approval.

The only change to the ordinance that passed unanimously — though not without verbal objections — was an enhancement to the decommissioning rules. Prior to Tuesday’s meeting, the proposed ordinance allowed for electrical cables run more than four feet underground to be left in place when a solar project is decommissioned at the end of its lifespan. However, Johnson raised concerns about the possibility of unknown contaminants leaching into the soil.

“My worry is that, by leaving something in the ground that today we don’t worry about it, is it going to be 100 years when we worry about it or is it going to be a thousand years when we worry about it? And (they’re) swearing at … our generation saying ‘Why didn’t you pull that out of the ground? Why didn’t you make them pull that out of the ground? Now we have to find it,'” said Johnson, who compared the situation to toxic PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” that have historically been used in nonstick coatings and fire-suppression foam and are now widespread in the environment.

The cables that would be used in a utility-solar project are a mostly-copper metallic core insulated in a rubber or rubber-like housing. It is unknown how long it would take for the cables to break down in the soil.

While he did not vote against the change to the decommissioning rules, Barron argued it wasn’t necessary to have any decommissioning rules in the ordinance at all. He claimed that was an issue that should be addressed in a blight ordinance and that it was unfair to require decommissioning rules for solar and not other types of development.

“Are we writing a solar ordinance or are we writing a blight ordinance?” he asked.

Nelson disagreed with Barron’s position.

“We have to have something for decommissioning because who’s going to pay for this? You and I probably won’t be alive, but these people out here that are younger than us, we have to come up with the dollars to make sure that we can cover that decommissioning,” she said.

Under the ordinance, developers must provide the county with the anticipated lifespan of the project and estimated decommissioning costs, as well as method to ensure the funds will be available for decommissioning. Methods approved in the ordinance include surety bonds, a cash payment to the county or an escrow.

After the three changes were made to the draft, the board unanimously approved the ordinance as a whole. The new rules apply to all areas of the county that are subject to the county’s zoning ordinance.

While only a brief portion of the board’s discussion, the board did touch on a plan that could eliminate county zoning altogether. No decisions were made on whether or not to repeal the zoning ordinance, however a committee was formed to discuss what an appropriate fee would be to continue providing zoning to the townships currently under the county’s auspice. The four-person committee will be composed of Malnar, who represents the largest number of townships that would be affected; Barron, who has been an outspoken proponent of eliminating county zoning; and two yet-to-be-named representatives from affected townships. The township representatives will be selected by the Delta County Township Association.