Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I now call to order the Wednesday, May 27, 2026 meeting of the Outland City Planning Commission. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Roll call of membership has been taken and all are represented with the exception of Commissioner Robbins, who is excused. Need a motion to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. So moved. We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the previous meeting. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? With that, the minutes have been approved. On to public hearings and appearances. This is 26-0674, Text Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 23, Zoning, Article 3, General Provisions, Sections 23 through 43, Accessory Uses, Buildings, and Structures to Add Language Pertaining to Solar Energy Systems. And to tell us about that is Colin.

Three? All right, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. So this was brought before the Plan Commission as an informational item back in April, April 22nd. We have not made any changes to the proposed tax amendment that was before you at that meeting. Quick recap, this is really driven from the comprehensive plan, some guidance that was provided by our comprehensive plan to basically amend the zoning code to ensure that there's clear regulations around solar panels. as well as also establish a framework for permitting those solar energy systems. As it stands today, solar energy systems are just looked at as an accessory use, whether it's mounted on a building or on the ground as an accessory structure. So the intent of this proposed text amendment is to really establish some clear definitions and provide a framework for permitting beyond a handful of small tweaks. The code would really just be kind of affirming the status quo of how we evaluate and interpret accessory solar structures in the City of Appleton. Happy to answer any questions, but staff is recommending approval of this proposed text amendment.

Thank you. We'll hold any questions from the Commission in discussion until we've completed the public hearing. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? Hearing none, I declare this public hearing closed. We'll move now to the associated action item. This is 26-0675, request to approve text amendments to the municipal code chapter 23 zoning article three general provisions sections 23 through 43 accessory uses buildings and structures to add language pertaining to solar energy systems. Is there a motion? So moved. And just to clarify, I hear a motion. To approve. Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve. We'll open the floor for discussion.

Any discussion?

Right. Commissioner Doherty.

Which mic do we have there? Clerk.

Yep, go ahead.

Sure. Just kind of reading the overall, it says the purpose of this ordinance is to oversee the permitting of solar energy systems and preserve and protect public health and safety without significantly increasing the cost or decreasing the efficiency of solar energy systems. Can you explain how this text amendment does that? Because when I read it, how does this protect public safety? or public health and increase or decrease the, you know, it seems like having a standalone use of a solar system would help the efficiency, not decrease it. So this seems kind of in conflict with that.

So in order to regulate solar energy systems, we have to first ensure that In order for any of our ordinance to apply that one of these three thresholds is first of all met so therefore If for example we were going to enforce the setback requirement We would first have to show that that setback requirement is necessary to protect the public health and safety for example and

Understood, but not having them as standalone uses, which is what this is doing, how is that, where is that being the threshold for public health and safety? Isn't that, it says on the end here, you can't have this as a standalone use? It is only accessory? Am I misunderstanding something?

Okay.

So the health and safety is about the setbacks of the accessory use, whether it is a permitted versus accessory use is a policy decision of the council. It would be staff's recommendation, given that we are a city, not to have solar as a primary use, i.e. not have solar farms where we've invested significant amounts of funds into public infrastructure. But ultimately, that's a policy decision. the public safety and health is making sure where we put the accessory uses isn't in a vision corner, isn't impeding on the ability of like fire and emergency services to get around buildings and respond to an emergency, if that makes sense. We don't want it impeding on setbacks where structures aren't allowed.

I think I'm trying to just to make sure we facilitate the discussion and get your question answered. I'm just trying to understand where the hangup is.

Well, I mean, if you go to Wisconsin, you're referencing Wisconsin State Statute 660401. And then that has rules on the regulation. It has the three criteria where you can install solar systems. And we're saying that's what we're doing this. When I read this, how does this meet the purpose of that initial statement, I guess, is what I'm wondering. I'm getting a lot of blank looks. But the purpose of these ordinances is to oversee the permitting of solar energy systems and preserve and protect public health and safety without significantly increasing the cost or decreasing the efficiency of solar systems. How does that?

Well, yeah, I hear where you're coming from. So what this purpose statement is also suggesting is that the city, in applying the standards, can't arbitrarily make decisions that would make an installation unreasonably more expensive than it would be without, right? So basically, we, in applying this, have to ensure that we're meeting the letter and spirit of ordinances and any relevant statutes, but that we're not allowed to dictate to a property owner or someone looking to install a system that they have to do things that are beyond that level of reasonableness. So it really just establishes, and the purpose just establishes that. What really matters from a code application perspective is is what follows in terms of what's permitted. The purpose just basically sets the conditions. So another example would be we could not arbitrarily say that an array must be smaller than would ordinarily be permitted because we don't like it. That'd be another example to set. So when we talk about... Increasing the cost or decreasing the efficiency of a solar system, that would be an example where we wouldn't have the latitude in a staff review and recommendation to say, Yeah, you could, based on the setbacks that you have available to you or the land you have available to you and the setbacks, you could do it this way. However, we don't really like that. And we think your solar array should be half of the size, which would decrease the efficiency that's available or the amount of energy that could be produced. So that's what those statements are really trying to get at is just protecting the community of our residents from sort of arbitrary and capricious decision-making on the part of the city. Does that help clarify? Sure.

Yeah.

Okay. Any other questions or discussion on this? I would just say I appreciate the effort of staff to more clearly codify our existing practices by having these more firmly established. It offers folks who are interested in doing projects like this a great starting point with respect to how do I design this in a way that's going to help me meet compliance requirements and get my project done without having to start with, well, okay, what can I do? What can't I do? Or in the absence of clarity, can I just go and do whatever I'd like to? So I appreciate the the effort of staff, and I'm glad we're getting this more firmly codified. Further discussion? All right. Hearing none, we have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, with none opposed, the ayes have it, and that item has been approved. We have no information items on our agenda, so I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Move to adjourn.

We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?

All right, we are adjourned. Thank you.