VIENNA — Montgomery County Planning and Zoning Administrator Donna Viehmann and University of Missouri Extension Agronomy Field Specialist Rusty Lee joined the Aug. 21 Maries County Commission meeting to discuss how their area has handled the rise in solar energy projects leasing land.

The commissioners have expressed concerns about solar projects since receiving a letter last December from solar energy company Azimuth Renewables that asked for clarification about Maries County’s planning and zoning regulations. The county does not have any regulations.

Since receiving the letter, the commissioners have had meetings and phone calls with representatives from Azimuth Renewables, which is developing a project near Dixon, and Vesper Energy, which owns the Vichy Solar project.

Presiding Commissioner Victor Stratman said that though the solar companies come to talk to the commission when they request a meeting, communicating with them can be frustrating because sometimes it seems like they do not share enough information.

“We just feel like we’ve been kept in the dark,” he said. “There are some things we don’t think they’re telling their potential signees.”

Viehmann said she had noticed similar things in her interactions with solar companies. Montgomery County spent 18 months putting together a new zoning chapter to govern solar panels in the county.

“At that time, three private companies would come in with their project development, attorneys from their office and attorneys from Washington D.C.,” Viehmann said. “We had every walk of life in those meetings. They would tell you some things. They wouldn’t tell you some things.”

Viehmann recommended that the commissioners research the solar companies and how local governments regulate what those companies can do. She said the biggest question guiding her when she helped to draft zoning regulations for solar was “What do the people of the county want?” She conducted surveys at the county fair and on Facebook to collect opinions from residents that would inform the zoning plans.

The consensus Viehmann found in her surveys was that Montgomery County residents did not want solar energy projects in the county, but they wanted cheaper energy bills. The zoning committee had to find a balance.

“The other thing is you can’t stop someone from doing something on their ground that they want to do,” Viehmann said. “As long as it’s safe to the environment, to the people, it’s not illegal, you have to allow them to do it.”

Viehmann said her zoning board viewed money as a way to deter companies from bringing solar projects to Montgomery County. First, they implemented an extra annual fee of $2,500 per megawatt produced. When the companies had no problem with the fees, the zoning board set a price of $10,000 for commercial solar project permits. Again, the companies said that would not be a problem, so the board realized money would not be an issue for the solar companies.

“It’s mind-numbing, the number of dollars involved in this,” Lee said. “We do not think on the same scale that they are operating. It is hard to get your head wrapped around how much money is involved in this thing.”

Fagre asked if the money comes from government programs.

Viehmann said she does not know because none of the companies say how they make their money.

Lee said the increase in interest from solar companies could be a point in favor of planning and zoning regulations.

“It has really helped protect the county: the regulations, the rules and the stipulations,” he said.

Lee said the zoning board also required a soil test to gauge what contamination if any, solar panels bring to the land. Gathering that data helps to form a comparison when the solar company decides to decommission the project.

Viehmann said setback rules are another way the planning and zoning board helped to look out for the best interest of residents. Requirements include staying a certain amount of feet away from homes and property lines and creating landscaped screenings that the companies must maintain. Lee advises the companies on what plants work best for screenings. The vegetation rules also require the grass to be suitable for cool-season livestock forage.

Lee said he expected forage production to decrease by at least half after the solar panels went on the land. Instead, forage production only decreased by between 10 and 20 percent.

“There’s a great opportunity to continue utilizing this land in an agronomic fashion as well as generating some power,” he said.

Lee said between paying for plants from local nurseries and paying to have nearby flocks of sheep graze the land around solar panels, the solar companies have helped to stimulate the local economy.

During a conversation earlier in the month with a development manager from Vesper Energy, the commission heard about the practice. Lee told the commission to make sure farmers know that companies are willing to pay for sheep to graze on the land rather than making farmers pay for their livestock to graze.

Lee recommended that the commission consider the optics of the solar companies because from his experience the companies value public opinion. The commission may not have to worry about forcing anything with planning and zoning regulations if they can come to agreements with the solar companies that work for everyone.

Eastern District Commissioner Doug Drewel asked what happens to the power that the solar panels in Montgomery County generate.

Viehmann said the power goes to the grid. From there, companies buy it, so it is difficult to track where it goes.

Lee said the Montgomery County planning and zoning board also decided to limit the total number of acres available in the county for solar projects. The original recommendation was for no more than one percent of the county’s acreage to go toward solar development. The Montgomery County Commission’s final decision was for a maximum of two percent, which is about 6,500 acres.

Viehmann said the plans include an opportunity for revisions every five years, so the zoning board could lower the maximum acreage.

The Montgomery County zoning board also required solar companies to put up a bond worth 110 percent of decommissioning costs. Every five years, the companies and the zoning board reevaluate the number.

“The p-and-z board in Montgomery (County) is made up of farmers, landowners, service provider employees, a lot of people with just common sense,” Lee said. “They just spent time trying to think of every way you could get hoodooed and they tried to have something to counteract it.”

Western District Commissioner Ed Fagre said after listening to some of what Viehmann and Lee had to say he thought the county should look a little deeper into planning and zoning.

Viehmann told the commissioners they could find more information about requirements for a planning and zoning board by looking into Missouri State Statute 64.620, which outlines the rules for building restrictions in third-class counties.

Drewel asked if new planning and zoning rules would affect solar projects already in progress.

Viehmann said that would be a legal question to ask the county’s attorney.

Stratman said he wondered if the county could adopt planning and zoning restrictions for commercial projects and exclude residential projects. He said he had “nightmares” about all the permits and inspections people needed before they could build a deck.

Viehmann said Montgomery County keeps it simple. Residents only need to come into the zoning office for enclosure projects or projects that cover more than 850 square feet. Other projects such as open-air decks, new roofing or new windows do not require permits.

“Keep it simple enough that people will want to follow the rules and they have no problem with doing it,” Viehmann said.

Stratman asked if Viehmann was pleased with what Montgomery County had done with solar companies and planning and zoning.

Viehmann said in her professional opinion, the county had done everything it could to put together a compromise that worked for all the stakeholders.

Stratman asked if some companies walked away after Montgomery County added the zoning regulations on solar projects.

Viehmann said companies had walked away from the county, but they still call to ask if the county is willing to change its zoning rules. She said one of the most important parts of planning and zoning is having a backbone and sticking to a decision after making it.

Drewel asked what landowners in Montgomery County had to say when the county started working on planning and zoning rules.

Viehmann said the people of Montgomery County expressed a whole spectrum of opinions for and against solar panel projects. She said it did not seem like the public thought the zoning board was coming up with too many rules because as long as the residents of the county were still able to lease to solar projects they were satisfied.

Fagre asked how long it takes to set up planning and zoning in the county.

Viehmann said the process took about two years after the vote passed.

Before leaving, Viehmann recommended the commission get in contact with officials in Audrain County because it does not have planning and zoning. Beginning next year, it will be the site of an Ameren Missouri solar energy facility.

Lee said he could try connecting the commission with someone else from MU Extension if they had more questions about planning and zoning.

“I’m sure glad we had you guys to come in,” Stratman said. “You’ve been a whole different perspective than what we’ve been hearing on the other side.”