ANDERSON — Opponents of the proposed Lone Oak Solar Energy Center have filed an appeal of the decision to affirm the county’s approval of the project.
Last month, Madison Circuit Court Division 6 Judge Mark Dudley affirmed the Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals decision to approve the proposed $110 million project that is expected to generate 120 megawatts of electricity in northern Madison County.
Attorney Jason Kuchmay filed the notice of appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals last Wednesday.
Kuchmay responded to The Herald Bulletin in an email that the details on the basis of the appeals will be contained in the appellate briefs.
“I am not at liberty to discuss at this time,” he wrote.
The Madison County Council voted earlier this year to deny a request for a tax abatement for project developer Invenergy. The company has since announced it is delaying the start of construction.
Dudley denied the request for judicial review by the opponents of the proposed solar farm.
“The court’s role in this judicial review case is to determine whether there existed a reasonable evidentiary basis for the BZA’s decision,” Dudley wrote. “The court is to presume that the BZA’s decision is correct, and the court is directed to give weight to the decision of the BZA due to its experience and expertise in this given area.”
The decision states to overturn the BZA decision, the court must find that it was arbitrary, contrary to the law and did not follow the procedures.
“The court’s ruling merely determines that Lone Oak presented evidence that was more than speculation and that the BZA’s reliance on it was proper and not arbitrary or capricious,” Dudley wrote.
The court decision addressed several issues raised by the opponents of the project including impact on property values and the ability of former BZA member Mary Jo Baker to vote to approve a special exception for the project and two variances.
Dudley’s ruling indicated that Invenergy presented an impact study on property values done by consulting firm MaRous & Company and the staff report that indicated there would be no impact on property values.
“Petitioners (opponents) have presented no argument or evidence that the Staff Report and the Cohn Reznick study on which it relies, and which also were submitted as evidence are somehow unreliable,” Dudley wrote. “Instead at the hearing, Petitioners simply took the position the Staff Report is not evidence on which the BZA may rely.”
Dudley said that just considering the Staff Report is competent evidence of the BZA’s finding that the project would not negatively impact property values.
The opponents of the Lone Oak Solar Farm wanted the decision by the BZA to grant a special use for the project reversed and proponents want the decision to stand.
Opponents point to the county’s comprehensive plan statement of the desire to maintain farmland and not be targeted for growth.
The initial 850-acre special use was approved in May 2019. It included a 500-foot setback from nonparticipating property owners and a second for an additional 350 acres.
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.