Commissioners pass Plan Commission Permit Fee Ordinance on first read, hear public comments on solar projects
MARSHALL COUNTY — Marshall County Plan Director Ty adley presented a proposal for Ordinance 23-PC-12 Marshall County Plan Commission Fee Ordinance to the Marshall County Commissioners during their regular meeting Monday, May 15.
The Plan Commission proposed amending the existing fee schedule to take some financial burden off the tax payer for administration of cases and place that fiscal responsibility on the permit seeker for their personal projects. Those fee increased impact the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning appeals. The fee amendments include the addition of a fee for a Solar Project application as well along with a Flood Hazard Variance.
Fee schedules in the surrounding counties were reviewed and compared with Marshall County’s current fees and proposed fees; and assessed for fairness.
The fee schedule had not been adjusted since 2017.
a public hearing was held during which Paul Levett from Culver raised a question regarding the Wind Farm applications. “I don’t understand where it says wind farm application. I thought that all wind farms were banned from Marshall County per our ordinances back in 2013?”
President Stan Klotz and member Kevin Overmyer confirmed that they are currently banned. Levett expressed confusion.
Overmyer said, “We aren’t funding it. It’s better to have it there even though they are banned. It’s better to have something in place because something may change in the future.” Levett said, “What?” Overmyer said, “Well, I’m just saying that things change. So, it’s better to have it in here now to protect the county even though they are banned.”
attorney James Clevenger noted that the General assembly could make changes that the County cannot overpower.
Overmyer added, “That’s what happened two years ago. The General assembly was going to take it out of our hands and allow Wind Farms and Solar Farms, so if we didn’t have this in place and the General assembly said we can’t stop it - well, at least, yeah.”
Klotz said, “It is what it is Paul.”
Klotz asked if there was any more public input. There was none. The public hearing was closed.
The Commissioners unanimously approved Ordinance 23-PC-12 on first reading, That Ordinance did contain fees proposed for both Wind and Solar Farm applications. The fees proposed in the Ordinance will be advertised in compliance with the law.
During public input later that same meeting, Deborah Vandemark of Culver and Levett approached the Commissioners regarding solar farms.
Vandemark recommended that the Commissioners amend the Solar Farm Ordinance to remove or postpone solar on agriculture, address the battery storage, liability, and add a violation section.
It was discussed that for the past three years, some farmers have been signing leases to rent large amounts of ground to outof-state companies.
“Many of the neighbors and fellow members of the community have voiced their concerns with large commercial solar projects including environmental impact, neighboring liabilities, benefits to the County, property tax impacts, commercial tax for the lease holders, loss of farmland and property values; and these are all very concerning to me,” said Vandemark.
“I have had five offers for my property from leasing companies wanting to rent our farm for solar. We’ve turned them down because it’s not what’s best for our county. Even if it were, how do you know which company would do the best job? How do you know who you can trust? I believe we should preserve our agricultural land. Once it is gone it is gone. I have been on a farm all my life. I have a passion for farming and farms.”
Vandemark has been a member of Indiana Farm Bureau since she was 16 years old. She referenced the May 2023 issue of Hoosier Farmer and a survey that illustrated that renewable energy projects and farmland use are among the greatest concerns among members. She read the following paragraph, “When asked about renewable energy projects, 64% of those surveyed said they support such projects in their county. However, 70% of respondents said they didn’t want those projects happening on farmland and were very concerned or extremely concerned about farmland being transitioned away from agriculture for renewable energy projects.” She added, “It’s a concern across the state right now.”
She then referenced a letter she received from Cordelio Power, an energy company from Canada, with an offer to buy or purchase ten acres of her farmland for battery storage; according to Vandemark she was offered $300,000 for those ten acres of her land. She said that while the money may help her personally, the project would not be in the best interest of Marshall County. “I’ve done some research on the batteries. They can fail for many reasons including environmental problems, poor construction, electrical abuse, physical damage, or temperature issues. The failed system could cause the battery to explode, catch fire or emit poisonous gas. They are not 9-volt batteries. They are the size of a semi. And one of Commissioners signed a lease on his property to do this. This isn’t addressed in the Ordinance. So that’s really concerning for me.”
In response to community concerns, Vandemark has conducted hours of research with neighboring counties, state representatives, attorneys and environmental consultants. “Wind and Solar are not practical. Many studies have proven that they are not efficient forms of energy. Many other counties have prohibited Solar from Agriculture as well, including one neighboring county. I’m not sure why we have the hesitation to preserve our valuable farmland, maintain our neighboring property values and why we want to destroy the character.”
Vandemark stated, “May 20, 2013, the Marshall County Commissioners signed an ordinance prohibiting large wind systems on agricultural districts but now are reluctant to do that with solar. You signed a moratorium Feb. 17, 2020, and you signed a Large Scale Farm Scale Solar Farm Ordinance on Jan. 19, 2021. The fact that landowners have signed leases to these commercial energy companies should not dictate that the County should allow commercial solar. Just because they signed leases - that’s not a good reason to do this.”
She added, “Several members of the community and I have reviewed the language in the Commercial Solar Ordinance.” She added that Levitt would discuss the Ordinance in more detail. “There is nothing in the ordinance for consequences if this ordinance is not followed. There is nothing about liability if there is a natural disaster, or environmental issues, or damages. The field that’s west of me signed a lease. If a tornado comes and tears those panels and throws them on my property, my Farm Bureau Representative says it will end up in court.” She explained that it’s a third party that the panels belong to. “My insurance doesn’t want to cover it. So, there's nothing in there who’s responsible if that ends up on my property.”
She added that there is also nothing to address environmental factors. “There is no requirement for MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) sheets on the panels telling us what environmental concerns are there.”
“Who is responsible if they file bankruptcy and walk away because the Federal Government stopped giving them money?” She asked what will happen to the solar equipment if the government abandons the project. “These are all big concerns that I have. Yes, it is my neighborhood, and it does probably have a little more concern for me, but I would be concerned no matter where they were in this county.”
According to Vandemark a lot of research being done on this including Senate Bill 33 that directed the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) to conduct a study on decommission and the disposal of wind and solar power equipment. The findings are expected to be reported by no later than October 2024.
She noted that although individual property owners stand to gain a substantial amount of money, and that Marshall County will also likely be offered money as well, she emphasized that financial gain is not a good enough reason to bring Solar Power and it’s risks to Marshall
County. She encouraged the commissioners to avoid potential future embarrassment to the county by fortifying the Solar Ordinance to clarify some of the unknowns she discussed to protect all the residents of Marshall County.
According to a letter dated Wednesday, April 5, 2023, written to Levett by Director Adley, Invenergy has been working toward a large scale solar project for approximately four years. They have conducted site analysis in preparation for submission of their project proposal. It is estimated that they have contracted approximately 1,000 acres, but there is no timeline, no contractor, and no confirmed buyers for the electricity. The process of analysis prior to project submission can take several years. A contractor would not be established until the building permit is pursued, which will be after approval given by the Board of Zoning Appeals. A buyer would not usually be established until after that approval as well. At this point, the project is only considered a “concept”.
Levett questioned the stage of a “concept” when leases and agreements are already being signed. He encouraged the Commissioners to look in to the future and not be short sighted. “Solar is not an asset to this county. But I feel like the progress has gone an awful long ways without the public realizing what’s going on. One of the biggest problems of our society, of Marshall County, of everyone - seems like we find out about it after the fact.”
He illustrated that
Ordinances are being established at the same time as solar companies are reaching out to property owners and the process is being pursued by the energy company. He recommended, like Vandemark, that the Commissioners review the ordinances. He said that he had read the ordinances and did feel that they provided a sound starting point; but they weren’t currently strong enough.
He added that it would beneficial for property owners if property values could be guaranteed. He also recommended that a fire safety plan be established for the “monstrous” battery packs.
Levett discussed Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable energy projects. He argued that the PTC incentive has made counties and communities vulnerable to lawsuits in the effort to promote renewable energy programs for financial gain rather than with a focus on what is best for communities and the environment.
He emphasized the need to enhance the ordinances to make them stronger with more detail to protect Marshall County.
According to Levett and Vandemark, the impact of the project - should it be approved once submitted - would impact Marshall County for a minimum of 55 years due to an automatic renewal in the language of the lease.
In a follow-up phone call, Overmyer confirmed that he and his spouse Melodie, have signed an option for their property to be used for battery storage. According to Overmyer, that option can only be finalized if the renewable energy project is submitted and approved which will take several steps; the final outcome is unknown at this time. The process could take years.
In response to an inquiry concerning a possible conflict of interest for Overmyer and his vote on the Plan Commission Fee Ordinance, Attorney Clevenger confirmed that it was not a conflict of interest. “The simple answer is it was not a conflict of interest. The Commissioner does not have a pecuniary interest in or derives a profit from setting a permit fee for a solar farm. As you know, the Plan Commission Fee Ordinance increased the administrative permit fees to be paid to the Marshall County Plan Commission. When the solar farm regulations were established, the fee ordinance was not revised to include solar farms. The setting of fees for solar farms adopted by the Commissioners on Monday set the same fees as was set for wind turbine projects in the county. Both the fees for wind turbines and for solar farms are much higher than any of the other fees owed to the Plan Commission. The beneficiary of the higher fees is the Marshall County Plan Commission.”
Attorney Clevenger concluded, “It is my understanding that Commissioner Overmyer’s option does not pertain to a solar farm per se. It may be more akin to an electric power substation. Nevertheless, I am going to recommend to him that he complete a conflict of interest disclosure form.”