Loading...
7. a) 3 Hogle comments on Solar Ordinanceb.eklund From: Jan G. Hogle < Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2023 5:06 PM To: b.eklund Subject: tonight's meeting Importance: High I am concerned about the solar discussion tonight and would like to hold off a vote on the ordinance until next month, if possible, given my concerns outlined in the attached comments. Also, I would be amenable to serving as chair for another year if nominated and voted in. Thanks, Jan Solar ordinance Comments: Ordinance is being rewritten based on less than 100 members of the community. Takeaways from the solar survey are extremely limited, and any analysis must recognize that the results cannot be considered valid (that is, representative of the greater population) with only 200 responses. Survey responses were not random, by any measure, requiring a far greater response rate than 5%. These responses were self-selected, requiring a response rate closer to 20% to even suggest validity. Further, no attempt was made to validate the profile of the responses to match that of the greater community, which again makes the 5% response rate extremely limited in usefulness. The most accurate "takeaway" from the survey is that a very small minority of the community (fewer than 100 people) are very much opposed to solar installations, and a very small minority of the community (fewer than 100 people) are very much in favor. The most likely reason for this response rate is that the vast majority, 95% of the community, have no strong feelings about this topic. Also, not noted the survey discussion is that the majority of the non-residents who responded held the opinion that their view of the solar in Scandia was positive, not negative as has been characterized by some members of the community at large. Setbacks are unreasonable and extreme —All current solar installs would be nonconforming —Would eliminate many parcels (potential lawsuits from landowners), thus increasing the probability of rolling blackouts when the King plant is closed in a few years. Rolling blackouts are likely, per Xcel, and could result in lower property values and increased insurance rates. On many of the parcels not eliminated, would push installs to back of property where trees would often need to be removed to accommodate the SES. This would result in potential loss of tree cover, affecting viewsheds and disrupting area ecosystem. It would decrease hunting areas, resulting in increased deer population, further disruption of ecosystems, increased damage to crops, increased incidence of Lyme disease, increased risk of deer/car collisions, increased risk of lawsuits from vehicle owners, environmental groups, land owners. 100% screening is not reasonable, as it is not attainable with vegetation, and again would eliminate parcels lower than the roadway to participate. (potential lawsuits from landowners) 01