“Fear and apathy are the biggest things that people have to fight when facing a government entity. … Yes, my voice may be shaking, there may be some fear in my heart, but my voice will be heard. Today, I’m expecting a different outcome.”
So Bengal resident Zonda Stead stood before the commissioners again to request they approve the revised solar ordinance, send it back to the Plan Commission for further revision, and impose a six-month moratorium to give the Plan Commission time to further revise the ordinance.
The Shelby County Commissioners approved the revised solar ordinance 2-1, but they did not send it back to the plan commission and they did not impose a moratorium.
The revised ordinance doubled the length of the old one. It includes new items such as setback requirements, increased landscape requirements, an airport provision, a ground cover requirement, a county road bond, and further outlines what the solar company needs to maintain over the duration of the project and the decommissioning process.
The provision does not include drainage requirements, groundwater and soil testing, what materials can comprise the panels, or an acreage cap on the projects. For these reasons, Commissioner Don Parker made a motion to send the revision back to the Plan Commission to add these provisions.
His motion failed to pass. Parker would then vote against adopting the amended ordinance. Commissioner Kevin Nigh cast his vote over the phone, as he was unable to attend due to a “COVID situation.”
Several concerned citizens spoke prior to the vote.
Sean Fogarty spoke first via phone. Fogarty is a Spotsylvania County, Virginia, resident who lives near sPower’s 6,350 acre solar facility, which is under construction. He cautioned the commissioners to sPowers intentions and behavior in his county.
“I would like to provide some information on just a few of the problems we have experienced with this sPower facility for your consideration,” he said. “sPower’s Special Use Permit specifies 100-foot buffers around the perimeter of the project. Six days after the permit was approved, sPower submitted a site plan depicting 50-foot buffers.”
“That issue is in Spotsylvania Circuit Court for resolution, which is an expensive and time-consuming process for the County, the landowners involved and sPower,” he continued.
He also pointed out how they continue to violate county restrictions. He claimed the company continues to operate tractor-trailers on narrow roads during school bus hours (which is prohibited in that county) and operates heavy vehicles on unapproved haul routes. They are also land clearing too close to a cemetery, pile-driving prior to establishing the vegetative buffer and unauthorized clearing of a large section of the property, he said.
“They also violated the permit restriction on not disturbing more than 400 acres at a time,” Fogarty said.
The issues are so bad, the neighboring Orange County filed a civil lawsuit against sPower and Spotsylvania County for counts related to road damage, land use violations, trespassing and traffic congestion. This case is still active.
Lastly, Fogarty said the county has experienced significant stormwater runoff problems from sPower’s property since the project started.
“The problems were so extensive that sPower was forced to purchase a three-acre residential property from a couple who had lived there for over 30 years,” he said.
These issues are what the members of the Citizens Against Industrial Solar Plants in Southwestern Shelby County expressed fear about over the last few months.
Group member and Bengal resident Rachel Barlow filed a public records request to obtain the multitude of emails concerned residents sent to Plan Director Desiree Calderella prior to the Plan Commission’s public hearing on the revised ordinance last week.
“They were supposed to be read into the minutes,” she said. “They were given a 30-second synopsis.”
So she read them into the minutes for the commissioners meeting. There were more than 20 emails.
“I feel betrayed by these local officials who I mistakenly voted for in the past and who now stand to ruin much of what I’ve worked for my entire life,” she read from an email sent by Jim McCain.
She read from an email by Danny and Judy Nicholson: “My question to the landowners and farmers of Shelby County would be how much is enough? Are you willing to risk your farm ground for money? Are you willing to accept the decrease in your property values for a promise of money that may never be realized? Do you not care for your neighbors safety if these solar panels are compromised or if your water supply is contaminated?”
She read from Jessica McCain’s email: “The solar ordinance remains inefficient. We need to manage brush and other vegetation. Onsite batteries need to be managed. Safety and aesthetic concerns regarding onsite battery storage the county has not addressed. The county should require all elected officials disclose how they will be benefiting from the commercial solar developments, as it seems that several of the public servants working to move the projects forward … will have financial and non-monetary benefits from the project.”
Noise and property values were two additional issues these emails mentioned, in addition to the reasons Parker voted against the revisions.
“These people deserve to be heard, regardless of COVID, regardless of room restrictions, regardless of refusal to change the venue,” Barlow concluded. She had to leave after she spoke, because she had to return to her job as a teacher.
Group leader Kyle Barlow read Justin Parker’s speech, which pertained to the setback requirement set by the ordinance.
The revised requirement sets the solar panels to be 660 feet back from a primary structure on a neighboring property. The primary structure can be anything from a house to a barn to a church.
“I suggested wording that to read 660 feet back from the property line of any non-participating land owner,” Parker wrote. “The reason I made this suggestion is because if we leave it as it is written now, it only protects residential structures that are existing.”
“Let’s say I recently bought a piece of property and I am in the process of paying it off so I can build my dream home there in five to 10 years,” Kyle Barlow continued, reading Parker’s words. “If I go build that dream home after a [solar plant] is built on the neighboring property, then I am no longer afforded that same protection, because a [solar plant] can be built in much closer proximity, because there was no existing structure to go off of.”
Commissioner Don Parker reiterated this concern, questioning why the solar ordinance goes off of a primary structure instead of the property line, when the other county ordinances utilize property lines as boundaries.
Kyle Barlow himself spoke last, showing a drone video of the solar plants in Spotsylvania, Virginia. The video showed the more than 6,000 acre solar plant in the county. They are on prime farm ground, where timber is the primary crop, meaning the plant is surrounded by trees. The ground under the panels appears to be dirt, without vegetation.
“That sure looks like it’ll go back into farming, won’t it? Temporary project right here,” he said.
“It will tear this county apart,” he told the Shelby County Commissioners.
Copyright © 2024 The Shelbyville News