Residents urge Allen County to adopt pro‑solar ordinance as commissioners consider rules

Several residents asked the Allen County Board of Commissioners on July 18 to write a county ordinance that encourages solar energy development, arguing it would improve energy security and economic development; other speakers warned against using prime farmland for large solar arrays. The public-comment period at the county’s legislative session drew five speakers who emphasized both opportunity and caution as county staff and the planning commission prepare a draft ordinance.

John Gardner, a Fort Wayne resident, told commissioners: "I want to encourage you to be creative and visionary and to be leaders." He said the county had been "cautious, tepid at best" in earlier planning‑commission hearings and urged action so Allen County could "lead the state."

John Hoffman, of north Fort Wayne, framed his remarks around energy supply and cost. "There are small nuclear reactors coming… but they are not going to solve our problems in the near future," Hoffman said, urging a mix that includes solar. He told commissioners that unsubsidized solar is "a third of the cost" of projected small‑modular nuclear generation and said large industrial and housing growth will increase electricity demand.

Phil Goss, a farmer with what he described as a 46‑kilowatt, 100‑panel noncommercial system at 6311 Smith Road, said his installation provides local resilience: "When the sun shines, I charge my batteries. I export energy to the grid." He asked for a "regulatory environment which will be friendly" to new technologies and investment while protecting public interests.

Two other speakers urged limits. Doug Gusey said he was "not against" solar but opposed using good farmland for solar farms, saying "Farmers are our future." Denny Stuisenberger urged preservation of agricultural land, saying "This land is our inheritance" and cautioning that decommissioning large arrays remains unproven.

No formal action on a solar ordinance was taken at the meeting; the public comments were part of the scheduled public‑comment period. Commissioners and staff mentioned earlier planning‑commission review and a departmental recommendation during the session, but no ordinance language or vote was presented for consideration.