Logan Davidson Resigns from Plan Commission Moments after taking Oath of Office
- Nathaniel Smith | Editor-in-Chief
- May 7
- 8 min read
Updated: May 15
After several months of not holding meetings due in part to the proposed zoning ordinance fiasco that occurred earlier in the year, the Washington County Planning Commission finally reconvened once again on Tuesday, May 6. The meeting, however, took an immediate and unexpected turn.
Logan Davidson, who had been appointed to the Planning Commission at the end of April, decided to resign after taking his oath of office only moments before. He had a prepared statement that he read aloud after Commissioner Todd Ewen announced him.
“Before we approve the minutes of the previous meeting, I would like to welcome our newest board member, Logan Davidson. We are very, very happy to have him fill that vacancy. So welcome, and do you have anything you’d like to say?” asked Ewen.
“I definitely thank you for the opportunity, but I have a message today that I want to share,” began Davidson. He then continued by reading his prepared statement.
“I cannot in good conscience belong to an organization that shows such ruthless disregard for the twin principles of true conservatism: fiscal responsibility and small government. Additionally, the right to one’s property and the sacred right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn’t encroach upon a neighbor is a bedrock of our nation,” he said. “I originally contemplated joining the commission under the misguided belief that I could fight from within. To resist the kind of guerilla politics that we saw on full display today, and to help stymie government overreach like the latest attempted ordinance. But I thought it laughable that you were perfectly fine handing out heavy-handed fines against poor people, yet you shrugged off pollution of residential property in the name of knowing the risk of building in an agricultural zone. I found it absurd that you spent time worrying about regulating the adult entertainment industry – which doesn’t even exist here and won’t given the realities of a small, rural county and the free market: the Internet. I found it infuriating that you sought to regulate local businesses and the local food movement when many of my friends are Amish, and I, myself, own a local food business.
“This isn’t conservatism,” Davidson continued. “It is government overreach. I am also concerned about solar farms, but I am also concerned that if I have my own property, I should be able to do with it as I please. In my opinion, the Planning Commission should be disbanded altogether. We need to return to a common sense government where people are trusted to manage their own property and lives without unnecessary interference. Hopefully, we can achieve that through the democratic process,” he concluded. “That is my statement.”
“Could you repeat the first line of your original statement?” asked Commissioner Ewen. “I’m a little confused.”
“The first line is that I swore in five minutes ago before this meeting started, and I’m officially resigning now,” said Davidson.
“Okay,” laughed Ewen. “That’s what I thought you said.”
With that, Davidson exited the room, and business continued as normal.
“Everyone, I assume, has had time to review the meeting minutes of the last meeting, which was January 7 with a special meeting on January 23. They’re all in front of you, if you’d like to take a couple of minutes to review those. Then I’ll ask for a motion to approve,” Ewen said.
After a few silent minutes of review, the motion was then made by Danielle Walker and was seconded by Kevin Baird. It then passed without opposition.
“Okay,” Ewen began. “The purpose of tonight’s meeting is to jump back into the document (proposed zoning ordinance). With all the public comments – good, bad or otherwise – I think it has been a learning experience for all of us, and I think we’re ready to look at things in a bit of a different manner. Things like this tend to do that, but we do have a job to do. We do have some very important aspects of this document that we need to address. One of the most important ones – which should be a fairly straightforward and valuable document as far as how it affects the people of Washington County – is the subdivision ordinance. Many people on both sides of this issue have stated repeatedly that they certainly don’t see much of a problem at all with this document and with the way it’s written now. We have made some minor changes, and at this time, I’ll call Conner Barnette forward to go over the finer points of the document. Once again, I want to reiterate that contrary to what some may think, this is a far cry from government overreach. This is simply to protect everyone; in this case, from developers. In the past, developers have taken advantage of a lot of people in this county. I’ve seen it over the past 40 years, and we do need some rules regarding this. I think this is a really good start.”
As Conner Barnette took the stand, he recommended a brief overview of the subdivision document as well as recommending that the Planning Commission publish the document for community comments and questions.
“We want to make sure everyone is heard,” added Ewen. “Not everyone will get what they want, but there’s no way to please everyone. However, I think generally speaking that we can come up with a document in regard to the subdivisions that will be very fair and will fall in line with what many other counties have had for many, many years.”
Barnette began to give an overview of what a subdivision control ordinance is.
“I think when some people hear ‘subdivision’ they are thinking ‘mass subdivisions’ – 20, 30 lots – this would apply to any subdivision of property in the county,” said Barnette.
For instance, that would include a scenario such as splitting an acre out of a five acre farm. That would fall under this particular subdivision control ordinance.
“It would be broken down into three levels," he added. "So, administrative review would just be reviewed by whoever the planning commission designates… That would be up to five slits from a piece of property no less than whatever we decide, and there has been some conversation there whether that would be a one acre or two acre minimum.
“Up to five parcels out of the parent parcel being subdivided. If it’s over ten acres it would be exempt from that, so it would not count against your five parcel split. A minor subdivision would be between five and eight splits from a track. Those can include access easements.”
Barnette went on to explain that a major subdivision would entail major development. “12, 20 lot subdivisions with streets and potential sewage extension and larger infrastructure.”
“This ordinance is 12 pages – 14 total – but 12 that break down what the requirements are.”
As Barnette continued, he described some of the current issues in regard to parcels and subdivisions. He mentioned things such as mortgage issues, survey problems, and access easement disputes (multiple property owners having to access their land through the same easement).
“I know we’re putting some regulations in place, obviously some people are very unhappy about that, but this is to protect the public and make sure that some of these boxes are getting checked before more issues happen,” Barnette said.
The Planning Commission then spent the next hour discussing various elements of the subdivision control ordinance amongst themselves, Conner Barnette, and Daniel Blann. They decided that the document is not yet ready to be released to the public for review and needs to be further revised, and they then moved on to a discussion regarding minimum acreage within the ordinance.
After much discussion, the members of the commission tentatively decided that a minimum of one acre (with some members leaning toward two acres) was ideal for most current and future landowners in the rural areas of the county. The conversation then migrated to solar farms.
“There was a two year moratorium on commercial solar farms passed today (May 6) by the commissioners, and I believe we have some gentlemen here who are representing a company out west of town… We’ll at least give you the courtesy of five minutes to tell us what your plans are and how well you’re willing to work with us here in Washington County,” said Ewen.
“Hi, we’re with the company Ranger Power,” said the representatives. “We are a Chicago-based rural developer. We have been working in the midwest since 2016 and in Indiana since 2017. We have had projects and construction in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Missouri. We started exploring projects just west of the two mile fringe outside of Salem, and when we heard that there was interest in a two year moratorium, we wanted to come introduce ourselves and offer ourselves as a resource… I understand that this is new to the county and that there’s a lot to hash out, but I think this is something that we can accomplish in much less than two years,” said the Ranger Power representative. “We have sort of a limited time based on our connection to the grid to get these projects moving, and they cost a lot more the longer it takes. So, we would be very interested in trying to help Washington County find an ordinance that works for commercial solar energy systems as soon as possible.
“There is a pretty wide variety of ordinances that work well with our projects, and by that I mean: it sits well with the community that hosts them,” the Ranger Power representative said. “But in general, we are looking for the county to let us know the envelope or the boundaries of where we can build. Typically, the less restrictions generally means the less expensive the project is. Usually if somebody is not happy, the county has a 150 foot setback. If they feel that is too short, we always try to work with them.”
Ranger Power then went on to say that they are looking at approximately 2,000 acres of land for the solar farms.
“That is of parcels owned by landowners interested in participating. The reason I put it that way is because the actual size of the project would be much smaller than that. We’re studying a 200 megawatt project, which means that is the most we can build in that project. So, our rule of thumb is typically ten acres per megawatt should be able to handle that. So, that’s the reasoning for the 2,000 acres. The actual footprint for a 200 megawatt project is likely going to be much smaller than that.”
Vice President Kevin Baird and County Surveyor Emily Rodman raised a number of questions, one of which was if Ranger Power would require surveys to be completed to ensure that solar panels would not be accidentally placed on neighboring land.
“We hire a firm to do an ALTA survey, and we fly the area and do one-foot topo. Basically, we create an ALTA that shows us what exactly is out there,” said the Ranger Power representative. “We have to cure that (property line errors) in order to use that area. It can be very expensive and very difficult, but these are issues that come up and it is why we lease more land than what typically ends up getting used. It sometimes takes a while to figure out what is there.”
When asked about the life expectancy of the project, the representative said it essentially depends on how well the equipment is able to hold up. However, he said that the panels have a 30 year warranty and said a typical power-purchase agreement lasts approximately 20 to 35 years.
Commissioner Ewen ended the discussion by saying there will be plenty of time and opportunities to ask further questions as this is navigated.
“There will be plenty of opportunities in the future for questions. We’ve got two years – hopefully it won’t take that long. Hopefully we can get something done in the next six to nine months regarding the solar ordinance and move on. I’d entertain a motion to adjourn,” Ewen concluded.
In a meeting marked by both dramatic resignation and substantive policy discussion, the Planning Commission’s return to the table underscored a few of the issues and topics that were left in limbo following the zoning ordinance fiasco. Logan Davidson’s abrupt and pointed departure served as a sharp reminder of the ideological divide that has complicated the county’s zoning efforts. Yet, in the wake of his exit, the commission pressed forward, tackling concerns surrounding the subdivision control ordinance and hearing from Ranger Power in regard to solar farms. While consensus remains elusive, the meeting attempted to reflect a renewed commitment to transparency, public engagement, and the work of balancing growth with the values of a rural community still deeply invested in the rights of property owners. Following the recent decision to not declare the Planning Commission vacant, the commission has clearly signaled that, despite controversy, the work will continue.
Comments