Indiana Renewable Energy
Community Planning Survey and
Ordinance Inventory Summary
Tamara M. Ogle
Regional Educator
Purdue Extension Community Development
togle@purdue.edu
Kara Salazar
AICP, CC-P, LEED AP ND, NGICP, PCED
Assistant Program Leader and Extension
Specialist for Sustainable Communies
Purdue Extension
Illinois – Indiana Sea Grant
Purdue University Department of Forestry and
Natural Resources
salazark@purdue.edu
Acknowledgments
Sponsor
The authors thank Hoosiers for Renewables and Indiana Farm Bureau for their support of this
research project. We also thank Dr. Sarah Banas-Mills, Darrin Jacobs, and Steve Yoder for their expert
review and feedback. We appreciate the me and contribuons from municipal and county planning
departments and plan commissions from across the state that made the report possible.
3
Background
In 2021, Purdue Extension conducted a comprehensive
overview study of land use regulaons for wind and
solar energy. Purdue Extension's Land Use Team
plays a crical role across Indiana through the work
of Agriculture & Natural Resources Educators serving
on Advisory and Area Plan Commissions either as
vong or advisory members. Team members also
serve as Community Development Educators, faculty,
and specialists working on land use issues. The Land
Use Team's primary purpose is to develop and deliver
educaonal resources to assist Plan Commissions and
other related instuons and organizaons in making
informed land use planning decisions.
The Purdue Land Use Team idened a state-
wide need for research-based technical assistance
informaon focusing on local renewable energy and
land use decision making, specically for ordinance
development. Mulple feedback mechanisms
informed the needs assessment and ordinance
inventory study design. These included feedback
survey results from the 2019 and 2021 Indiana Land
Use Summits, listening sessions with Indiana Land
Resource Council members and stakeholders, Purdue
Extension Land Use Team advisory board members,
and feedback collected during Purdue Extension land
use planning program eorts.
This report provides a summary and snapshot of
state-wide renewable energy ordinances and the
accompanying inventory study. It is divided into the
following secons:
• Introducon and overview of renewable energy
planning and zoning in Indiana
• Study methods
• Summary of community percepons
• Inventory of zoning ordinances
• Appendices
o Survey instrument
o How to read the snapshots
o County snapshots
The report summaries and county snapshots can
be used as a reference for plan directors and plan
commission members to compare other renewable
energy zoning ordinances and zoning tools used
in counes across Indiana. Plan commissions can
dra ordinances that eecvely address concerns
and development goals of the community based on
dialogue between counes and with local stakeholders.
Furthermore, this report should be used for
educaonal purposes only and should be adapted
to each community's local context, as appropriate.
The informaon is not intended to provide specic
recommendaons for policies or decisions.
Addionally, communies connually update
ordinances based on new technology and local needs.
4
Introducon and Overview
Indiana communies are faced with complex decisions
related to land use planning, parcularly for renewable
energy. This complexity and the unique characteriscs
of each community result in a patchwork of land use
policies across the state. Addionally, many local
communies are experiencing an increased interest
in solar due to federal, state, and ulity incenves
(SUFG, 2021). Based on local decisions, some Indiana
communies embrace wind and solar renewable
energy as a part of their land use policies, while
others restrict their development. This is a theme
occurring across the United States as renewable
energy producon increases (Ahani & Dadashpoor,
2021; Milbrandt et al., 2014; Sward et al., 2021). This
increased interest in renewable energy, especially
the sing of wind turbines and solar elds across the
state, has highlighted a gap in research-based land
use planning and technical assistance informaon for
Indiana plan commissions and local government sta.
According to the U.S. Energy Informaon
Administraon, Indiana ranks 12th in the United
States in total energy use per capita due, in part, to
weather extremes. The state consumes approximately
three mes the amount of energy it generates, with
the industrial sector accounng for one-half of energy
consumpon, transportaon and residenal using
one-h of the state's energy, and commercial users
comprising the rest of energy consumpon (US EIA,
2021a). In Indiana, renewable energy generaon has
increased with ulity-scale projects connecng to the
main transmission grid. Indiana began the process for
wind development in 2005 with the rst 1,036 MW of
wind capacity installed by the end of 2009 (Tegen et
al., 2014). In 2020, wind contributed 7% of the state's
electricity net generaon with 2,940 megawas (MW)
of wind capacity state-wide (US EIA, 2021a). Currently,
there is a similar amount of wind development
proposed in the interconnecon queue (3,631 MW)
as was installed at the end of 2020 (2,940MW) (US
EIA, 2021b; MISO, 2022; PJM, 2022). Solar currently
contributes approximately 2% of the state's electricity
net generaon, mostly from ulity-scale facilies
found throughout Indiana (US EIA, 2021; SUFG,
2021). There is approximately 146 mes more solar
development proposed in the interconnecon queue
(40,979 MW) as was installed at the end of 2020 (279
MW) (US EIA, 2021b; MISO, 2022; PJM, 2022). While
not all proposed renewable energy development
within the queue will be built, it indicates increasing
interest in renewable energy development in Indiana.
Inventories of state-wide solar and wind projects can
be found through the State Ulity Forecasng Group's
2021 Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study:
https://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/sufg/docs/
publications/2021%20Indiana%20Renewable%20
Resources%20Report.pdf. Addionally, Hoosiers
for Renewables maintains a map of operaonal
and proposed solar and wind projects throughout
Indiana: www.hoosiersforrenewables.com/indiana-
renewable-energy-map.
There are three types of electric ulies in Indiana,
investor-owned ulies, municipal ulies, and rural
electric membership cooperaves (REMCs). Investor-
owned ulies serve the majority of the state and
are divided into ve service territories. Investor-
owned ulies generate power, transmit electricity,
and distribute to customers. There are 72 municipal
ulies across the state, with several of these
represented by the Indiana Municipal Power Agency
(IMPA). IMPA is a wholesale power provider which sells
electricity to its members. IMPA communies can also
develop their own renewable energy projects directly
distributed to customers. REMCs include two primary
generaon cooperave organizaons in the state. The
cooperaves generate and transmit electricity from
facilies across Indiana and deliver it to customers in
their service areas. (OED, 2022).
State-Level Renewable Energy Policy
The Indiana Oce of Energy Development plans and
coordinates state energy policies and administers
grant programs funded by the U.S. Department of
Energy (OED, 2022). Addionally, the Indiana Ulity
Regulatory Commission (Commission) oversees
ulies that operate in Indiana for electric, natural
gas, steam, water, and wastewater (IURC, 2022). The
Commission approved the voluntary clean energy
porolio standard program, which outlines that ulity
companies choosing to parcipate need to acquire
10% of electricity from clean energy sources by
2025. Ulies also need to provide net metering for
customers generang renewable energy of less than
5
1 MW of capacity (US EIA, 2021; IOUCC, 2022; IURC,
2022). For example, the average capacity for a wind
turbine built in 2020 was 2.7 MW, and 1 MW of solar
panels covers approximately 4-7 acres (EERE, 2021).
Addionally, renewable energy projects require a
Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to contract supply
with a ulity company when generang more than 1
MW of capacity and more than the annual average
electricity consumpon (Marn, 2021).
Zoning Provisions for Local Renewable Energy
Planning and Development
While state agencies guide policies and ulity
regulaons, oversight of renewable energy
development and land use planning processes
currently occurs locally. Eighty-two of Indiana's 92
counes (89.1%) have adopted both planning and
zoning. These zoning ordinances govern land use in
the unincorporated areas of these counes and in
some municipalies where area planning has been
adopted by the county and one or more cies or towns
within the county. Counes can create standards and
processes through the zoning ordinance to regulate
their jurisdicon's land use and development.
Counes create zoning districts and specify the
permied uses within that district. Uses can be
classied as permied by right, permied by special
excepon (somemes referred to as special uses or
condional uses), or not permied. Permied uses
can apply for improvement locaon permits through
the planning oce and must follow all district and
use standards. However, they do not require approval
from the plan commission or board of zoning appeals
(BZA).
The BZA must approve a use permied by special
excepon (IC 36-7-4-918.2). This requires a public
hearing and allows the county to review the details
and parcular applicaon and parcel to ensure
the development will be compable with their
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Criteria
for approving special excepons are set in the zoning
ordinance, which can be general or specic for a
parcular use. Special excepons must also adhere to
any zoning district or use standards.
If a use is not permied in a district, the peoner may
apply for an amendment to the zoning map, commonly
referred to as rezoning. Rezoning requires a public
hearing before the plan commission, which gives either
a favorable, unfavorable, or no recommendaon to
the legislave body. The legislave body then votes
to approve or deny the rezone (IC 36-7-4-607). In a
jurisdicon under advisory planning law, an applicant
seeking to develop a use that is not permied in their
zoning district could also pursue a use variance from
the board of zoning appeals.
Overlay districts are another zoning tool used to
regulate commercial renewable energy development.
Overlay districts are layered on top of the exisng
zoning district. The current or underlying zoning
districts standards apply to all development. In
addion, the overlay district standards apply to uses
that are permied in the overlay district but not the
underlying district. An overlay district for renewable
energy can be applied proacvely to guide renewable
energy development to preferred areas (Beyea, 2021).
If the community establishes an overlay without
proacvely applying it to the zoning map, an applicant
may have to go through the rezoning process to put
the overlay district in place before applying for a
permit for a commercial renewable energy system.
Development is primarily regulated through
developmental standards in the zoning ordinance.
Each zoning district will have developmental standards
that apply to all uses within that district. In addion,
zoning ordinances can also create standards specic to
certain uses or use standards. Commonly these dene
a buer or separaon between the use and another
conicng land use, addional setbacks, height
restricons, and various other standards to regulate
the look and impact of the use on the surrounding
property. If an applicant cannot meet one or more
of the standards, they can seek a variance from
developmental standards from the board of zoning
appeals.
The zoning ordinance may also require dierent
plans submied or studies conducted to permit
commercial renewable energy. This includes but is
not limited to economic development agreements,
maintenance plans, and transportaon plans. These
plans can be an addional part of the process or
something already required by other agencies that
the planning oce wants to see to determine if other
6
regulaons are being followed. A site plan or scaled
drawing of the development is generally required for
any improvement locaon permit so that planning
sta can ensure standards will be met. Some zoning
ordinances may require a specic use to go through
a development plan review. This process will be
delineated in the zoning ordinance and may be done
by sta, a commiee, or the plan commission.
Solar Energy Development
The following 36-month example meline outlines
the solar sing and development process (Hoosiers
for Renewables, personal communicaon, December
2021). The general outline below is a snapshot of
milestones and overarching melines. Delays and
updates can occur within each step, which could
extend the meline. For example, although the
project is sll underway, a step could be stalled with
no visible progress pausing the meline. Several
risks and unknowns can extend the meline, such as
compleng and receiving reports back from ulity
companies, availability and transportaon costs
of materials, labor costs, and market demands.
Addionally, solar developers have to post leers
of credit at key milestones. A meline may need to
be restarted if there are too many changing aspects
related to the development.

• Determine potenal sites with transmission access & capacity
• Sign contracts with landowner(s)
• File for interconnecon
• Preliminary due diligence and site inspecons

• Receive interconnecon feasibility report
• Finalize land control
• Begin full site analysis
• Begin county, state, and federal perming process
• Begin negoaons with investors

• Receive interconnecon system impact report
• Finalize project meline
• Complete perming process
• Finalize negoaons with investors

• Execute interconnecon agreement
• Choose contractors for site construcon
FINAL STEPS
• Construcon generally runs 12 – 24 months
• Project comes online
7
The community development process for solar energy projects also includes communicaon between the
renewable energy development company and county government planning and zoning, outreach with
landowners, local businesses, and community members.
Wind Energy Development
Wind energy development is also a long-term process. There are several phases that local government ocials
and community members should ancipate as part the wind energy development process (Constan & Beltron,
2006; Marn, 2021). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service example, "Lifecycle of a Wind Energy Facility," from
Marn (2015) describes the following meline of wind energy from prospecng through decommissioning. The
melines from prospecng through operaon can be extended or stopped due to several factors, including
perming, zoning, and market factors, among others.

PROSPECTING
• Idenfy site
• Collect wind data
• Idenfy project boundary
• Coordinate land lease agreements with landowners
• Conduct environmental and feasibility assessments Idenfy routes for trans-
mission lines
• Create design map of turbine locaons

DEVELOPMENT
• Conduct evaluaon of project design and plan with interdisciplinary team
• Finalize perming and approvals at federal, state, local levels
• Receive Condional Use Permit or Land Use Permit (LUP) from local
government for project

CONSTRUCTION/
COMMISSIONING
• Grading plan and earthwork
• Construcon of electric cables from turbines to substaon
• Road construcon
• Construct turbine pads
• Transmission line construcon
• Permanent met-towers constructed
• Assemble turbine towers and generators
• Substaon construcon

OPERATION
• Wind energy project monitored and managed daily

DECOMMISSIONING
• Decommission wind farm
• Sell parts for scrap
• Opon to repower with new technology
8
Methods
This project focused on the following queson to
understand local planning policies for renewable
energy.
What types of land use policies and strategies have
Indiana communies adopted to plan for renewable
energy?
Electronic surveys were sent to 161 contacts of Indiana
county and municipal planning departments and plan
commissions in the summer of 2021. The survey was
open for six weeks from May-June 2021 and sent
through mulple modes, including direct emails and
listservs such as the American Planning Associaon,
Indiana chapter. There were 84 survey responses with
a 52% response rate.
The survey was used to idenfy provisions in zoning
ordinances specic to climate change and renewable
energy, factors considered when adopng or rejecng
policies, and the level of public parcipaon and
conict. Respondents were also asked to link or upload
content from wind and solar ordinances and zoning
maps for the inventory. Ordinances were collected
through the survey and direct county contacts from
summer 2021 through winter 2022 and coded to
idenfy common aributes of climate change and
renewable energy land use policies to compare
dierent local policies and summarize to create
county snapshots. The study focused on commercial
solar and wind development and looked at zoning
ordinances for unincorporated areas that regulate
these as unique uses.
This study draws from the methodology used by
Ebner (2015) to inventory land use regulaons of
conned feeding operaons. Ordinance provisions
for commercial solar and wind were divided into four
categories:
• districts and approval process;
• buers and setbacks;
• other use standards; and
• plans and studies required.
This study uses similar categories to Ebner (2015)
to categorize the dierent review and approval
methods for CWECSs and CSESs: permied use,
permied use with addional use standards, special
excepon, rezoning required, and rezoning required
and special excepon. This study adds a category:
overlay district. Several counes use overlay districts
to regulate commercial renewable energy systems. In
these counes, parcels would need to be rezoned to
include the overlay district; standards for the overlay
district and underlying zoning district would apply to
the development. Counes can have dierent permit
processes for use depending on the district. For this
study, counes are categorized based on the process
required of CSESs and CWECSs for land currently
zoned agricultural. The categories specify the process
required, not the diculty level in sing a commercial
renewable energy system.
Standards that are easily quaned, like buers and
setbacks, are classied and compared. However, for
more descripve use standards and plans and studies
required, this study uses a binary approach of whether
such provisions are included in the ordinance or not.
Summary of Community Percepons
Community percepon quesons of renewable
energy included topics related to types of conict
and conict resoluon, factors inuencing policy
changes, and resources needed to make informed
decisions about renewable energy planning. Out of
the 84 responses for community planning aliaons,
50 represented county government, 16 mul-
governmental units, 10 towns, and eight cies (Figure
1). Respondents addionally represented 49 advisory
plan commissions, 33 area plan commissions, and two
metro plan commissions.
9
Community planning representaves responded (n=41) with the extent that renewable energy regulaon acvies
for solar ordinances, wind ordinances, solar development, and wind development resulted in conicts over the
last ve years (Figure 2). No conicts were idened with 23 community solar ordinances, 16 wind ordinances,
20 solar development projects, and 18 wind development projects. Fieen communies experienced solar
ordinance eorts resulng in conict, while the process of developing wind ordinances also resulted in conict
in 18 communies. Solar and wind development eorts iniated conicts in 15 communies each. Communies
that experienced some level of conict (very lile, somewhat, to a great extent) were asked to respond to
how conict was resolved (or not) through policy changes (n=12) or facilitated discussions (n=11) (Figures 3
and 4). Community conicts resulted in changing policies with eight solar ordinances, 11 wind ordinances, four
solar development projects, and seven wind development projects. Facilitated forums or community discussions
were used in six communies for solar ordinance development, seven with wind ordinances, two with solar
development, and ve with wind development projects. For communies that did not have a nal agreement
or policy change for renewable energy regulaons, work is in progress or stalled. For example, a county wind
ordinance eort resulted in a moratorium on wind development projects. In another county example, wind
development projects are stalled due to the plan commission and wind company not reaching an agreement for
road use or economic development.
Figure 1: Type of government unit aliaon for community planning
Figure 2: Renewable energy regulaon acvies resulng in community conicts within the last ve years
Community Responses
0
5
10
15
20
25
Not at all Very lile Somewhat To a great extent
50 (60%)
County
City
Town
Mul-governmental
Solar Ordinances
Wind Ordinances
Solar Development
Wind Development
8 (9%)
10 (12%)
16 (19%)

Respondents (n=49) rated factors that inuenced changes to renewable energy regulaons/ordinances over
the last ve years from 1 = did not inuence at all to 10 = greatly inuenced (Figure 5). Several factors did
not inuence changes to regulaons. Concerns from neighbors (n=34) was the most frequently selected, with
34.29% indicang the factor greatly inuenced changes. Concerns about climate change (n=18) and concerns
about energy availability (n=19) were selected with over 60% indicang this factor did not inuence changes
in regulaons or ordinances. Other responses not listed included adding solar to a joint zoning ordinance,
receiving a sol smart award to modernize solar ordinances, and including larger setbacks from non-parcipang
landowners.
Figure 3: Community conict leading to renewable energy policy changes in community
Figure 4: Facilitated forums or discussions used for renewable energy policy agreements
Solar Ordinances
Wind Ordinances
Solar Development
Wind Development
Solar Ordinances
Wind Ordinances
Solar Development
Wind Development
Yes
Yes
No
No
I don't know
I don't know
Community ResponsesCommunity Responses
0
0
2
1
4
2
6
3
8
4
10
5
7
12
6
8
11
The types of informaon community planning representaves need to help make decisions when developing
or amending renewable energy regulaons/ordinances (n=47) was split in frequency between the two ends of
a scale from not needed to greatly needed (Figure 6). The impact on property values had a higher frequency
(n=46; 26.09%) selected as a need for more informaon over all other informaon types. Conict management
received the lowest selecon for need (n=43; 23.26%).
Figure 6: Types of informaon needed to make renewable energy regulaon/ordinance decisions
Figure 5: Factors inuencing changes to renewable energy regulaons/ordinances in the last ve years.
0% 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 4 0% 50% 6 0% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 100%
Other
Concerns from neighbors
Aesthetics
Concerns about property values
Loss of farmland
Economic development opportunities
Concerns about fiscal impact to the county
Co nce rns ab ou t nois e
Proposal for new or expansion of existing development
Co nce rns ab ou t pub lic he alth
Routine zoning ordinance update
Concerns about energy availability
Concerns about climate change
1 = did not influence 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = greatly influenced
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Impact on public health
Impact on property values
Impact on environment
Impact on aesthetics/view
Fiscal impact to the county
Energy reliability
Co nf lic t ma na geme n t
1 = not needed 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 = greatly needed
12
Overview of Zoning Provisions Used to Regulate CWECSs and CSESs in Indiana
Of the 82 counes with planning and zoning, this study idened 46 (56.1%) county zoning ordinances with
standards specic to commercial solar energy systems and 51 (62.2%) with standards specic to commercial
wind energy conversion systems. Eight of these counes currently do not permit commercial wind in any zoning
districts. The ordinances vary in the tools they use to regulate renewable energy and even in how they dene
commercial solar and commercial wind as uses. The ndings organize and compare commercial solar and wind
regulaons within the following four categories:
• districts and approval process;
• buers and setbacks;
• other use standards; and
• plans and studies required.
Informaon used to support decision-making for local renewable energy regulaon and planning is found from
mulple sources by local planning sta (n=54). Planning organizaons (n=43), colleagues and peers (n=39), state
government agencies (n=33), cizen groups (n=31), and cooperave extension (n=31) were frequently selected
opons. Other sources (n=5) listed examples of peer communies and renewable energy industry companies
with popular press (n=8) and social media (n=5) selected among the least (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Sources of informaon used to make decisions for developing renewable energy regulaons
ordinances
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Pl annin g organizat io ns
Colleagues and peers
State government agences
Citizen groups
Cooperative Extension
Federal government agencies
Universities
Consultants
Environmental organizations
Popular press
Other
So cial Media
Community Responses
13
Use Denions and Zoning District
This study looks specically at ordinances regulang
commercial wind and solar operaons. Each
jurisdicon can set its own denion for these
uses. Some counes dierenate commercial solar
energy systems (CSESs) and commercial wind energy
conversion systems (CWECs) from small-scale or
personal renewable energy systems.
Use Denions for CSESs
Twenty-seven of the 46 counes (58.7%) that regulate
CSESs dene them by how the power produced is used.
Common phrases include: "primarily for o-site ulity
grid use,” "delivers electricity to a ulity's transmission
lines," and "primary purpose of wholesale or retail sale
of generated electricity." Thirteen counes (28.3%)
dene CSESs from small-scale systems by their size,
such as lot size, square footage of panels, or electricity
generated. Two counes regulate all SESs similarly,
and one county regulates all ground-mounted SESs
as commercial solar. Two counes have standards for
CSESs but do not have a specic denion for this use
in their ordinance.
Use Denions for CWECSs
Commercial wind denions look similar to their CSES counterparts. Just under half (n=25; 49.0%) of the counes
regulang CWECS dene them by how the power produced is used. These phrases are similar to those seen in
CSES denions, including: "primarily for o-site ulity grid use,” "delivers electricity to ulity's transmission
lines," and "generates electricity to be sold in retail or wholesale markets." One county regulates all wind
energy conversion systems similarly. Six counes regulate CWECSs but don't dene them. The other 19 counes
(37.3%) use a size criterion to dene commercial systems from others. Common size measures include kilowas
produced, height, and number of towers.
Zoning Districts and Approval Methods
Sixteen counes permit CSESs by right in an agricultural district (Figure 8). Of these counes, Clark County is
the only county that does not require addional use standards. Twenty-three counes permit CSESs by special
excepon in an agricultural district. Seven counes would require rezoning to permit a CSES. Five of these
counes use overlay districts, and one would need a special excepon aer rezoning. While an overlay district
would not require rezoning if the community applied it proacvely, the study did not nd this was the case in
counes with wind or solar overlay districts.
Seven counes permit CWECs by right in an agricultural district with addional use standards. In 24 counes,
CWECs are permied by special excepon. Rezoning would be required in 12 counes. Nine of these counes use
an overlay district. The other three would require both rezoning of agricultural land and special excepon. Eight
of the counes do not permit commercial wind projects in any district. One of these counes, Carroll County,
does not specify any districts in which commercial or non-commercial wind is permied or not permied, but
has adopted use standards for both of these uses. This may have been an oversight in the amendment.
Figure 8: Map of land use regulaons for
commercial renewable energy
developments in Indiana
14
Figure 9: Approval methods for CSESs and CWECSs
a
in general ag districts.
a
Eight counes do not permit wind in any district. These counes are not included in the gure.
Solar
Wind
Permied
by right
Rezoning
Required
Permied
with use
standards
Rezoning
& Special
Excepon
Special
Excepon
Overlay
District
0
5
10
15
20
25
No. of Counes
Figure 10: Number of counes with buer requirements for commercial solar (n=32) and wind
developments (n=34) from various uses
Buers & Setbacks
Buers and setbacks are common tools in zoning
ordinances for developments. Allowing for space
between conicng land uses (or a structure) and
a property line can reduce conict between uses.
This study denes a buer as the required distance
between a use and a diering use, zoning district, or
municipality. A setback is a required space between
a structure and a property line or right of way. While
setbacks are common provisions in zoning district
standards that apply to all structures built in the
district, this secon explores setbacks and buers
specic to commercial wind and commercial solar
energy systems.
Figure 9 shows the number of counes with buer
requirements for CSESs and CWECs from various uses.
Thirty-two of the 46 counes (69.6%) with commercial
solar standards require a buer between a CSES and at
least one other use. Thirty-four of the 44 ordinances
(77.3%) containing standards for CWECSs require a
buer from at least one other use. The seven counes
that do not permit commercial wind in any district
are excluded from the analysis of developmental
standards. Carroll County is included in this analysis
because they do have use standards for CWECs.
Commonly buered uses for wind and solar include
residences, schools, and churches. Buers from
municipalies and conservaon land is also common
for commercial wind developments. Addional
setbacks were found in 33 of the 46 counes (71.7%)
for commercial solar and 37 of the 44 counes (84.1%)
for commercial wind.
Solar
Wind
Residences
Businesses
Cemeteries
Churches
Public Buildings
Conservaon
Land
Schools
Primary
Structures
Residental Zone/
Plaed...
Municipalies
0
5
10
15
20
30
25
35
No. of Counes
15
Buered Uses from Commercial Solar
Twenty-eight of the 46 counes (60.9%) that regulate
commercial solar through their zoning ordinance
have a buer for residences. Required buers from
residences range from 140-660 feet, with a median
of 200 (Figure 10). Wabash County bases its buer on
the size of the CSES site (with a range of 450  for sites
less than 5 acres to 1,320 for sites between 90.1-100
acres). In some ordinances, this buer applies only
to non-parcipang residences or can be waived by
parcipang residences. Dekalb County has a buer
of 400  from residences but allows for a shorter
distance if a landscaping buer is installed. A few
counes specify where the inverter should be located
within the solar energy array.
Five counes specify buers from residenal zones. In
two of these counes (Johnson and Montgomery), this
buer is equal to the county's required buer between
a CSES and residences. It would extend the residenal
buer to property that is zoned or intended for
residenal use but does not currently have a residence
on it. Two other counes (Fountain and White) do not
have specied buers for residences, so residences in
residenal zones would be buered, but residences
outside of residenal zones would not. Randolph
County requires a larger buer for residenal zones
than for individual residences. Finally, two counes
specify a buer for plaed subdivisions: Kosciusko
County at 5,280  and Randolph at 500 .
Figure 11: Range of Buer Requirements () in Zoning Ordinances (n=28)
a
between CSES and
Residenal Uses
b
a
One addional ordinance species a range for the buer requirement based on CSES size. It is not included in this gure.
b
Median: 200 ; mean: 257 .
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
1 00
1 50
2 00
2 50
3 00
4 00
6 50
6 60
No. of Counties
Buffer (ft)
Three counes require a buer between a CSES and municipalies. Kosciusko and Posey Counes require a
buer of 5,280  from municipalies, while Wabash County requires a buer of 1,320 . Churches and schools
are buered in 10 counes (Table 1). Businesses and public buildings are buered in seven and six counes,
respecvely. Four counes specify buer requirements for all primary structures. Wabash County buers from
businesses, public, and recreaonal uses with the same range as residences. Addionally, one county requires
a buer of 250  from cemeteries, another requires a buer of 500  from airports, and one county requires a
buer from campgrounds.
16
Commercial Solar Energy Systems Setbacks
Thirty-three counes with commercial solar regulaons (71.7%) require setbacks (Figure 11). Setbacks from
property lines (n=31) range from 20 - 330  (median: 50 ; mean: 88 ). Setbacks from the rights of way (n=13)
range from 16.5 to 150 (median: 100 ; mean: 95 ). Two counes specify a setback from just the right of
way, and 20 counes specify a setback from just the property line. Thirteen counes require specic setbacks for
CSESs from rights of way and property lines. Seven of the 13 counes have a higher setback from rights of way,
and four of the 13 counes have a higher setback from the property line.
Figure 12: Setback Requirements () in Zoning Ordinances (n=13) Specifying Standard Setbacks between
CSESs and Adjacent Property Lines (n=31)
b
and Rights of Way (n=13).
c
Table 1: Range of Buer Requirements in Ordinances Requiring Buers between CSESs and Churches,
Schools, Businesses, Public Buildings, and Primary Structures.
b
Median: 50 ; mean: 88 .
c
Median: 100 ; mean 95 .
a
One addional ordinance species a range for the buer requirement based on CSES size. It is not included in this gure.

Number of
Ordinances
  
Churches
a
9 100-660 200 246
Schools
a
9 100-660 200 246
Businesses
a
7 60-660 200 253
Public Buildings
a
6 100-660 200 268
All Primary Structures 4 200-660 250 340
Property
Line
Right of
Way
16.5
0 63 91 74 102 85
20
25
30
50
100
75
150
60
140
95
200
330
Setback (.)
No. of Counes
17
Thirteen counes include a buer from either a residenal zoning district or plaed subdivision ranging from
1,000 to 5,280 feet (Figure 13). In some cases, the buer from a residenal zoning district or plaed subdivision
is the same as the county's buer from residences. This likely provides a buer for planned residenal areas
that have not been developed yet. In other counes, the buer for residenal zones or plaed subdivisions
is greater than for residences. Two counes require a buer from residenal zones and plaed subdivisions
but not all residences. In both situaons, the county may consider residenal zones and plaed subdivisions a
higher intensity residenal use that would benet from a larger buer from commercial wind energy conversion
systems. This also might be why 23 of the 44 counes (52.3%) that regulate commercial wind require a buer
from municipalies. These buers range from 1,500  to two miles (Figure 14).
Buered Uses from Commercial Wind
Residences are a buered use from commercial wind in 30 of the 44 counes (68.2%) with commercial wind
standards. Nine of the 30 counes base the size of the buer on a factor of the wind tower height (e.g., the
buer is 1.1 mes the tower height). Six of these ordinances also include a minimum buer. A wind tower height
of 600 was used to compare residenal buers for the study. According to the USGS, the largest wind towers in
Indiana are 591 tall (Hoen, 2022). Figure 12 shows the range of required buers between residenal dwellings
and wind towers 600  tall.
Figure 13: Range of Buer Requirements () in Zoning Ordinances (n=30) between WECS (600  tall) and
Residenal Uses
a
a
Buers are calculated for towers 600  tall.
18
a
Buers are calculated for towers 600  tall.
Zoning regulaons for commercial wind development also frequently contain buers for schools (n=16, 36.4%),
conservaon land (n=14, 31.8%), and churches (n=12, 27.3%). Several of these are based on wind tower height,
like buers from residences. For this study, a height of 600 feet was used to compare buer requirements across
dierent uses and counes. Buer requirements from schools have the largest range, from 660 feet to two miles,
with a median of 1,630 feet (Table 2). The denion of conservaon lands varies by county. Some counes require
a buer only from federally-owned conservaon land, while others dene the term more broadly. Buers from
conservaon land range from 510-2,640 feet, with a median of 1,125 feet. Addionally, some counes include
buers from specic wildlife areas or rivers in their community. Buer requirements from churches range from
1,000 to 3,960 feet, with a median of 1,500 feet. Other less frequently buered uses include public buildings
(n=11), businesses (n=9), and cemeteries (n=1).
Figure 14: Range of Buer Requirements () in Zoning Ordinances (n=13) between WECS (600  tall) and
Residenal Zones or Plaed Subdivisions
a
Figure 15: Range of Buer Requirements () in Zoning Ordinances (n=23) between WECS (600  tall) and
Municipalies
b
b
Buers are calculated for towers 600  tall.
19
Commercial Wind Energy Conversion System Setbacks
Like use buers, setbacks for CWECSs are frequently calculated based on a factor mulplied by the tower height.
Most counes calculate tower height as the blade's p at its highest point. This would be higher than the hub
height, which is oen used by industry professionals in describing a wind turbine. Figure 15 shows the various
types of setbacks counes employ. Addionally, one county requires the BZA to set the setback of a WECs tower
from a property line within a given range (2,640-3,200 ). Figure 16 shows the distribuon setbacks that would
be required from property lines for 600  wind towers (range: 205 to 3,960 ; median: 660 ; mean: 1,067 ).
Table 2: Range of Buer Requirements in Ordinances Requiring Buers between WECS and Churches,
Schools, Businesses, Public Buildings, and Conservaon Land
a
Figure 16: Types of Setback Requirements in Zoning Ordinances (n=38)
b,c
for WECs

Number of
Ordinances
  
Churches 12 1,000-3,960 1,500 2,025
Schools 16 660-10,560 1,630 2,794
Businesses 9 660-3,960 1,160 1,631
Public Buildings 11 1,000-3,960 1,500 1,858
Conservaon Land 14 510-2,640 1,125 1,254
b
One county requires that the BZA set the setback from property lines within a given range. This county is not included in this gure.
c
One county requires a setback from interstate ROW in addion to their property line setback. The property line setback is included in this gure, but
the interstate ROW setback is not.
a
Buers are calculated for towers 600  tall.
No. of Counes
0
2
12
4
14
6
16
8
18
10
20
Factor from
Property Line
Factor from
ROW
Set
Measurment
Factor from
Property Line w/
Minimum
Factor from
Property Line w/
Minimum from
ROW

Noise Limits
Several counes regulate noise levels for both
commercial solar and wind. Counes measure sound
levels in a variety of ways. Some counes set a limit
based on decibels (dB), while others use A-weighted
decibels (dBA), a measure of loudness perceived by
human ears. Counes also dier on where the sound
level is measured, such as at the property line or a
nearby structure. Because of these variables, it is
more challenging to compare noise restricons across
the counes.
Noise Limits for Commercial Solar
While solar panels don't create noceable noise, the
equipment necessary for converng solar energy to
electricity, such as invertors, does. Twenty-one of the
46 counes (45.6%) that regulate CSESs have a noise
limit. In 19 of the counes, this is a nite limit (dB or
dBA). This limit ranges from 32 to 60 dBA for the counes
that use the A-weighted measurements(mean: 50.2
dBA; median: 50 dBA). Randolph County uses a range
depending on the adjacent property use, and Posey
County sets a limit of 45 dBA or 5 dBA above the
ambient baseline.
Noise Limits for Commercial Wind
Noise is regulated in 84.1% of the counes (n=37)
with CWECs standards. Like solar, the noise limits
imposed for counes using A-weighted decibels range
from 32-60 dBA (mean: 48.1 dBA; median 50 dBA).
Twenty-two counes use a nite limit. Seven counes
use a range of limits--ve based on the hertz of the
sound produced, and two based on adjacent uses.
The remaining six counes limit how much the noise
produced can exceed the ambient baseline.
Other Common Commercial Solar Standards
Thirty-three counes (71.7%) have a maximum height
restricon for CSESs. Allen County regulates height as
they would an accessory structure. White County uses
a range. Height restricons in the remaining counes
range from 12-35 at maximum lt (mean: 22.6 ;
median 20 ). Less common than height restricons,
Figure 17: Range of Setback Requirements () in Zoning Ordinances (n=37)
a
between WECS (600  tall)
and Residenal Uses
b
a
One county requires the BZA to set the setback of a WECs tower from a property line within a given range. This county is not included in this gure.
b
Range: 205-3,960 ; median: 660 ; mean: 1,067 
21
11 counes require a minimum lot size. Five acres is
the minimum lot size in nine of the counes. Warrick
County has a minimum lot size of one acre for CSESs,
and Blackford County requires 10 acres.
Ground cover standards for CSESs are found in 23
ordinances (50.0%). These range from specifying the
use of perennial, noxious-weed-free seed mixes to
requiring the use of nave plants. Eleven of these
counes require pollinator-friendly ground cover.
Several ordinances also contain language in the zoning
ordinance regulang signage and warnings (n=30,
65.2%), fencing (n=36, 78.%), landscaping (n=35,
76.1%), and glare (n=23, 50.0%) for CSESs.
Other Common Commercial Wind Standards
Thirty-eight counes (86.4%) regulate the commercial
wind tower's blade clearance from the ground. Two
counes specify a minimum blade clearance of 50
or one-third of the tower's height. The rest of the
counes have minimum blade clearances ranging from
15 - 75 with a mean of 31 and median of 25 . Only
ten counes regulate the height of commercial wind
towers. Most oen in ordinances, this is measured
by the blade's p in the vercal posion. Maximum
heights allowed range from 200-600 (mean: 430;
median 450).
Twenty-three counes (52.3%) have standards for
shadow icker. Some of these are statements such as
"no shadow icker," while other counes include more
descripve language on what buildings or uses are
to be protected from shadow and how long shadow
icker can occur per day or year. Many counes (n=40,
90.9%) regulate the color of wind towers. The language
is similar across all counes, with non-reecve white
or gray turbines. Some counes specify that blades
can be black to help with deicing. Other common
standards include braking systems (n=34, 77.3%),
signage/warnings (n=36, 81.8%), fencing or climb
prevenon (n=35, 79.5%), interference (n=27, 61.4%)
and lighng (n=23, 52.3%).
Plans and Studies
Requiring dierent plans and studies before approving
a renewable energy project is another tool found in
zoning ordinances. Some of these plans or studies
may be required by other regulatory agencies or an
industry standard, while others are specic to the
county and project. Oen, plans and studies may be
needed for the county to ensure other use standards
will be met.
Decommissioning plans are required in 40 counes for
CSESs (87%) and CWECs (90.9%). Decommissioning
plans provide specicaons on how the renewable
energy structure will be removed and the land restored
at the end of its useful life. Counes may have various
requirements for decommissioning and oen require
a surety bond or leer of credit from the renewable
energy company to ensure decommissioning costs are
covered. Economic Development Agreements (EDAs)
are oen required for both CSESs (n=15, 32.6%) and
CWECs (n=19, 43.2%). EDAs are an agreement between
the county and developer to various condions such
as the compleon of the project, payments to the
county, investments in infrastructure, and incenves.
Transportaon or road use agreement may be a part of
the EDA or required separately. Thirty-three counes
require this type of agreement for CSESs (71.7%), and
39 counes require it for CWECSs (88.6%). Figure 17
shows many other standard plans required, including
drainage or erosion control plans, emergency plans,
vegetaon plans, and (less commonly) property value
protecon plans.
Communicaon studies to look at potenal
interference, sound studies, environmental
assessments, and visual impact analyses are
commonly required for commercial renewable energy
projects (Figure 18). Glare analysis is required for
CSESs in some counes, and shadow icker analysis is
somemes required for CWECSs. Liability insurance,
with the county named as an insured, is required in
18 counes for CSESs (39.1%) and 32 counes for
CWECSs (72.7%). Cercates of design compliance are
another common requirement for both CSESs (n=15,
32.6%) and CWECSs (n=29, 65.9%). Addionally, 22
counes (50.0%) require cercaon by an engineer
for commercial wind towers.
22
Figure 18: Common plans required by zoning ordinances for CSESs and CWECSs
Figure 19: Common studies and assessments required by zoning ordinances for CSESs and CWECSs
Solar
Wind
Solar
Wind
Decomissioning Plan
Environmental
Assessment
Transportaon Plan
Visual Impact Analysis
Drainage/Erosion
Control Plan
EDA
Communicaons
Study
Vegetaon Plan
Shadow Flicker
Analysis
Maintenance Plan
Sound Study
Emergency Plan
Glare Analysis
Property Value
Protecon Plan
0
5
10
15
20
30
40
25
35
45
No. of Counes
No. of Counes
0
2
12
4
14
6
16
8
10
23
Ahani, S. & Dadashpoor, H. (2021). Land conict management measures in peri-urban areas: A meta-synthesis
review. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 64(11), 1909-1939.
Bednarikova, Z., Hillberry, R., Nguyen, N., Kumar, I., Inani, T., Gordon, M., & Wilcox, M. (2020). An examinaon
of the community level dynamics related to the introducon of wind energy in Indiana. hps://cdext.purdue.
edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Wind-Energy_Final-report.pdf
Beyea, W. Fierke-Gmazel, H., Gould, M. C., Mills, S., Neumann, B., & Reilly, M. (2021). Planning & Zoning for
Solar Energy Systems: A Guide for Michigan Local Governments. hps://www.canr.msu.edu/planning/uploads/
les/SES-Sample-Ordinance-nal-20211011-single.pdf.
Constan, M. and Beltron, P. (2006). Wind energy guide for county commissioners. U.S. Department of Energy
- Naonal Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wind Powering America. hps://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07os/40403.
pdf
Ebner, P., Ogle, T., Hall, T., DeBoer, L., & Henderson, J. (2016). County Regulaon of Conned Feeding
Operaons in Indiana: An Overview. hps://ag.purdue.edu/extension/cfo/Reports/_Overview.pdf.
Hoen, B. D., Diendorfer, J. E., Rand, J. T., Kramer, L. A., Garrity, C. P., & Hunt, H. E. (2022). United States Wind
Turbine Database (v4.3). U.S. Geological Survey, American Clean Power Associaon, &Lawrence Berkeley
Naon Laboratory, hps://doi.org/10.5066/F7TX3DNO.
Indiana Code [IC] 36. Arcle 7. Chapter 4., Local Planning and Zoning. (2021). hp://iga.in.gov/legislave/
laws/2021/ic/tles/036#36-7-4. Accessed December 2021.
Indiana Oce of Energy Development. (2022). About OED. hps://www.in.gov/oed/about-oed/
Indiana Oce of Energy Development. (2022). Electricity. hps://www.in.gov/oed/about-oed/
Indiana Oce of Ulity Consumer Counselor. (2022). Voluntary Clean Energy Standards. hps://www.in.gov/
oucc/electric/key-cases-by-ulity/voluntary-clean-energy-standards/
Indiana Ulity Regulatory Commission. (2022). Research Policy & Planning Division. hps://www.in.gov/iurc/
Kumar, I. (2017). A Planning and Zoning Glossary. hps://cdext.purdue.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ID-
228-W.pdf.
Marn, C. 2021. Community Planning for Agriculture and Natural Resources: A Guide for Local Government,
Renewable Energy Integraon for Sustainable Communies. hps://cdext.purdue.edu/guidebook
References
24
Marn, K. (2015). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lifecycle of a Wind Energy Facility. hps://www.fws.gov/
midwest/endangered/permits/hcp/r3wind/pdf/DraHCPandEIS/MSHCPDraAppA_WindProjectLifecycle.pdf
Midconnent Independent System Operator, Inc. (2022). Generator interconnecon queue. hps://www.
misoenergy.org/planning/generator-interconnecon/GI_Queue/
Milbrandt, A.R., Heimiller, D.M., Perry, A. D., & Field, C.B. (2014). Renewable energy potenal on marginal
lands in the United States. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 29, 473-481.
Oce of Energy Eciency & Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. (2021). Wind turbines: The bigger,
the beer. hps://www.energy.gov/eere/arcles/wind-turbines-bigger-beer
PJM. (2022). New services queue. hps://www.pjm.com/planning/services-requests/interconnecon-queues.
aspx
State Ulity Forecasng Group. (2021). Indiana Renewable Energy Resources Study. hps://www.purdue.edu/
discoverypark/sufg/docs/publicaons/2021%20Indiana%20Renewable%20Resources%20Report.pdf
Sward, J.A., Nilson, R.S., Katar, V. V., Stedman, R. C., Kay, D. L., I, J. E., & Zhang, K. M. (2021).
Integrang social consideraons in mulcriteria decision analysis for ulity-scale solar photovoltaic sing.
Applied Energy, 288, 116543.
Tegen, S., Keyser, D., Flores-Espino, F., & Hauser, R. (2014). Economic impacts from Indiana's rst 1,000
megawas of wind power. Naonal Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. hps://www.
nrel.gov/docs/fy14os/60914.pdf
U.S. Energy Informaon Administraon. (2021). Indiana state prole and energy esmates: Prole analysis.
hps://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=IN
U.S. Energy Informaon Administraon. (2021). Electricity: Analysis & projecons. hps://www.eia.gov/
electricity/data/eia860/
25
These denions were adapted from a previous Purdue Extension report (Ebner, 2015).
: Separaon distance between two uses or a use and zoning district or municipality. Used as a tool to
reduce land use conict between uses oen considered incompable.
: A use dened within a local zoning ordinance that generally consists
of all necessary devices to convert solar energy into electricity. Commercial SESs may be dened as producing
energy delivered to a ulity's transmission lines or for o-site use. Their size may also delineate commercial
SESs in the zoning ordinance from small-scale or personal SESs.
: A use dened within a local zoning ordinance that
generally consists of all necessary devices to convert wind energy into electricity. Commercial WECs may be
dened as producing energy delivered to a ulity’s transmission lines or for o-site use. Their size may also
delineate commercial WECs in the zoning ordinance from small-scale or personal WECs.
Decommissioning Plan: Decommissioning plans provide specicaons on how the renewable energy structure
will be removed and the land restored at the end of its useful life. Counes may have various requirements for
decommissioning and oen require a surety bond or leer of credit from the renewable energy company to
ensure decommissioning costs are covered.
Development plan review: A process by which a plan commission, commiee, or sta reviews an applicant's
development plan to ensure the predetermined standards on the zoning ordinance have been met as allowed
by IC 36-7-4-1401.5.
: An agreement between the county and developer to various
condions such as the compleon of the project, payments to the county, investments in infrastructure, and
incenves.
Ordinance: A law, statute or regulaon enacted by a local government unit. For this study, ordinance will refer
to a jurisdicon’s zoning ordinance.
: A standard that requires that new uses, i.e. residences, follow the same buer as required of
a new renewable energy development to that buered use.
Screening: Provides a visual barrier between a use and adjoining properes. Shelterbelts, fencing, or earthen
mounds are some of the methods of use.
Setback: The distance from building/improvements from the property line or specied right of way.

26
: Also somemes referred to as condional use or special use. Generally understood to be a
use of property that is allowed under a zoning ordinance under special condions – something that needs to
be considered on a site-specic base- and must be approved by the board of zoning appeals.
Standards: Provisions of the zoning ordinance regulang the characteriscs of development of a parcular use
or zoning district.
Site plan: A scaled drawing that shows the placement of buildings and infrastructure of a development.
Zoning: Land use regulaons enacted by a local jurisidicon as a tool to implement their comprehensive plan.
(Kumar, 2017)
Zoning District: Designated districts based on the predominant use of land (e.g. residenal, commercial,
industrial, and agricultural). Each district has a set of uses that are permied by right or by special excepon
and a set of standards which determine he character of the district.
27
Purdue Extension, through the support of Hoosiers for Renewables, is conducng a comprehensive overview
study on land use regulaons for wind and solar energy and trends related to climate change planning. As
a primary contact for the county plan commission or local planning department, please help us understand
how Indiana communies make decisions about these complex issues and their associated impacts on local
planning and policies.
You will be asked to link to or upload content from wind and solar ordinances and zoning maps. You may also
need to reference Improvement Locaon Permits (ILPs) and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) records. It will be
helpful to have access to these documents during the survey as applicable.
Your parcipaon in this survey is voluntary. The survey should take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete
per plan commission. We recommend responding to this survey on a computer rather than a mobile device.
Please read each queson and page carefully before advancing. The back buon is not available throughout
the survey.
For informaon regarding the survey, please contact Tamara Ogle or Kara Salazar. This survey research is
referenced as IRB # 2021-685.
1. Please list the name of the plan commission(s) you serve. Leave any rows you don't need blank.
Survey Instrument Sent to County Plan Directors
Type of Plan Comission Type of Government

commission serves
Select one:
Area
Advisory
Metro
Select one:
Town
City County
Mul-Governmental
Select one:
Area
Advisory
Metro
Select one:
Town
City County
Mul-Governmental
Select one:
Area
Advisory
Metro
Select one:
Town
City County
Mul-Governmental
Renewable Energy and
Climate Change Community Planning Survey
28
Renewable Energy Ordinances
2. Does the county where you serve in a planning role have land use regulaons for renewable energy,
specically wind or solar?
3. Are there currently any proposed/pending ordinances or other regulaons for renewable energy
operaons?
4. When was the commercial solar or wind ordinance last updated?
Commercial Solar ______________________
Commercial Wind ______________________
5. Which of the following are included in the renewable energy ordinances?
Solar Wind
Small Scale Y/N Y/N
Commercial Y/N Y/N
Solar Wind
Small Scale Y/N Y/N
Commercial Y/N Y/N
Solar Wind
Buers Y/N Y/N
Design standards Y/N Y/N
Fencing requirements Y/N Y/N
Height restricons Y/N Y/N
Noise restricons Y/N Y/N
Setbacks Y/N Y/N
Screening Y/N Y/N
Vegitaon types Y/N Y/N
29
6. Do development agreements for renewable energy include the following:
7. Do you have a reciprocal buer for other development from renewable energy operaons?
8. In which zoning districts are commercial renewable energy systems considered a permied use or
special excepon. Is there land currently zoned for this district?
9. What ndings of fact do you consider in the special excepon (condional use) process?
__________________________________________________________________________
Solar Wind
Decommission plan Y/N Y/N
Economic development agreement Y/N Y/N
Maintenance plan Y/N Y/N
Road use and ditch maintenance agreement Y/N Y/N
Vegetaon plan Y/N Y/N
Other_______________ Y/N Y/N
Solar Y/N
Wind Y/N
District Name




Is there land available for
development zoned for
this district?

10. Have zoning districts in which commercial renewable energy systems are permited been restricted in
the last ve years?
10a. Please explain the restricon of zoning districts for perming commercial wind energy conversion
systems?________________________________________________________________
12. Has your community had any renewable energy developments proposed or built in the last ve years?
Y/N
12a. How many applicaons for Improvement Locaon Permits for commercial solar or wind in your in the
last ve years have required the following:
12b. How many commercial renewable energy projects have been approved and developed in your county
in the last ve years?
11. Please upload a copy of the ordinance, exisng moratoriums, rules or any other related documentaon
pertaining to guidelines for renewable energy or include a web link below.
___________________________________________________________________________
Solar Y/N
Wind Y/N
Solar and Wind Developments
Solar- Number of
ILPs granted
Solar-Number

denied
Wind-Number of
ILPs granted
Wind-# of

denied
Use Variance
Developmental
standards variance
Rezone
Special Excepon
Solar Wind
Number of permits
Acres
Energy Capacity in Megawas
31
13. Does your community have or have had a moratorium on commercial solar or in the last ve years?
13b. What was the me frame of the moratorium on commercial solar systems?
13c. What was the me frame of the moratorium on commercial wind systems?
14. To what extent have the following renewable energy regulaon acvies resulted in conicts in your
community within the last ve years? (Likert scale: 1=not at all; 2=very lile; 3=somewhat; 4=to a great
extent.)
14a. Indicate how the conict was resolved.
Solar Y/N
Wind Y/N
Renewable Energy Community Percepons
Solar Ordinances
Solar Development
Wind Ordinances
Wind Development

changes in your community?
Y/N/I don't know
Were there facilitated
forums or discussions to
come to an agreement?
Y/N/I don't know
Was there another

Solar Ordinances
Solar Development
Wind Ordinances
Wind Development
32
15. If changes were made in the last ve years to renewable energy regulaons/ordinances which (if any)
of the following factors inuenced those changes? (1=did not inuence at all; 10= greatly inuenced)
16. When was the comprehensive plan for your community last updated?__________________
17. Does the current comprehensive plan include goals or objecves related to climate change? Y/N
18. Indicate whether or not the current plan addresses the following topics to specically address climate
change. Also, indicate if the following topics will address climate change in the next plan update.
Aesthecs
Concerns about climate change
Concerns about energy availability
Concerns about scal impact to the county
Concerns from neighbors
Concerns about noise
Concerns about property values
Concerns about public health
Economic development opportunies
Loss of farmland
Proposal for a new or expansion of exisng development
Roune zoning ordinance update
Other _________________________
Climate Change Planning
Current plan Y/N Next Plan Y/N
Economic Development
Energy
Green infrastructure
Hazards management
Land use
Natural resources management
Public health
Public infrastructure
Social jusce
Transportaon
33
19. Indicate whether or not the current plan for your community includes the following adaptaon
strategies for addressing climate change. Also, indicate if the strategy will be addressed in the next plan
update. List up to three addional adapon strategies not listed.
20. Indicate whether or not the current plan includes the following migaon strategies for addressing
climate change. Also, indicate if the strategy will be addressed in the next plan update. List up to three
addional adapon strategies not listed.
Current plan Y/N Next Plan Y/N
Shiing development from ood prone areas
Installing green stormwater infrastructure pracces, such as
rain gardens, bioswales, etc.
Incorporang natural heat reducon strategies, such as
increasing tree canopy
Using built environment heat reducon strategies, such as
alternave building materials
Updang infrastructure for extreme weather events
Other________________________
Other________________________
Other________________________
Current plan Y/N Next Plan Y/N
Construcng mul-use trails and/or complete streets
Increasing mass transit opons
Incenvizing mass transit use
Installing roundabouts
Improving energy eciency in government opons
Creang policies that incenvize energy eciency in private
properes
Preserving green space
Increasing green space
Improving waste reducon in government operaons
Creang policies that incenvize waste reducon in private
properes
Other________________________
Other________________________
Other________________________
34
21. Please indicate to what extent the following statements occur in your community. (Likert scale:
Never(0%); Rarely(1-20%); Somemes (21-49%), Oen (50-99%); Always (100%)
22. Which of the following statements best reects the informaon available to you to help make decisions
when developing or amending renewable energy regulaons/ordinances?
Solar
o Reliable informaon is generally not available.
o Reliable informaon is available for some issues, but not for many of them.
o Reliable informaon is available for most issues.
Wind
o Reliable informaon is generally not available.
o Reliable informaon is available for some issues, but not for many of them.
o Reliable informaon is available for most issues.
The following survey secons were repeated for each plan commission the respondent entered in queson 1.
• Renewable Energy Ordinances
• Solar and Wind Development
• Renewable Energy Community Percepons
• Climate Change Community Planning
Decision makers in my community are well informed about climate change.
Decision makers in my community are a barrier to making progress on climate
change.
Community members are well informed about climate change.
Community members are a barrier to making progress on climate change.
In my community, strategies related to climate change are well funded.
In my community, strategies related to climate change are a polical priority.
Renewable Energy and Climate Informaon Resources
35
23. Which of the following sources of informaon do you use to help make decisions when developing or
amending renewable energy regulaons/ordinances? (Select all that apply)
25. Which of the following sources of informaon do you use to help make decisions about climate change
planning? (Select all that apply)
□ Cizen groups
□ Colleagues and peers
□ Consultants
□ Cooperave Extension
□ Environmental organizaons
□ Federal government agencies
□ Planning organizaons
□ Popular press
□ Social media
□ State government agencies
□ Universies
□ Other____________________________
□ Cizen groups
□ Colleagues and peers
□ Consultants
□ Cooperave Extension
□ Environmental organizaons
□ Federal government agencies
□ Planning organizaons
□ Popular press
□ Social media
□ State government agencies
□ Universies
□ Other____________________________
24. Please indicate whether you feel more reliable informaon is needed on the following issues to help
you make decisions when developing or amending renewable energy regulaons/ordinances. (Likert
scale 1=not needed; 10=greatly needed)
Conict management
Energy reliability
Fiscal impact to the county
Impact on aesthecs/view
Impact on environment
Impact on property values
Impact on public health
Concerns about public health
36
26. Please indicate whether you feel more reliable informaon is needed on the following issues to help
you make decisions about planning for climate change. (1 = not needed; 10 = greatly needed)
28. Which of the following units of government in the county employ professional planning sta
credenaled by the American Instute of Cered Planners (AICP)? (Y/N/I don't know)
29. Please ll out the following contact informaon.
30. Thank you for compleng this survey! Please use the space below for any comments or quesons
related to this survey. _______________________________________________________________
Climate change impacts
Climate change adapon strategies
Climate change migaon strategies
Communicang to the public about climate change
Communicang to local government ocials about
climate change
City
Town
County
Name
County
Phone Number
Email Address
Community Planning Informaon
27. Are you a cered planner credenaled by the American Instute of Cered Planners (AICP)?
o Yes
o No
o In the process of becoming cered
37
The following snapshots provide an overview of the land use regulaons of commercial solar and
wind developments in the unincorporated area of each county. This ordinance informaon is paired
with demographic informaon such as populaon, farmland percentage, and county type, which
may impact the likelihood or scale of renewable energy development. These snapshots reect use
standards specic to CSESs and CWECs. All development must sll comply with the district standards
of the zoning district where they are located. In 53 of the 82 counes with planning and zoning,
county planning oces reviewed their snapshot for accuracy. The ordinances used to create the
snapshots were collected from May-October 2021. Commercial renewable energy zoning standards
can be detailed. Contact the county planning oce for the most current and complete ordinance.
County Snapshots