ANDERSON — The requested two-year extension for the construction and operation of the proposed Lone Oak Solar Energy facility has been denied.
The Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals voted Tuesday to deny the request of Invenergy, the project developer, for an additional two years to complete the project.
Currently the project has to be operational by Dec. 31, 2023.
Invenergy is hoping to construct a $110 million solar energy facility on approximately 1,249 acres in Monroe and Pipe Creek Townships. The project would produce 120 megawatts of electricity.
Curt Stephenson, a member of the BZA, made the motion to deny the extension.
“There will be an impact to property owners,” he said. “I’m opposed to this project.”
The requested extension would have allowed the company until Dec. 31, 2025 to complete the project.
Interim Madison County Planning Director Rachel Christenson had recommended approval of the extension because litigation filed by the opponents of the project was not resolved until June 2021.
Attorney Mary Solada and Invenergy officials declined to comment on the decision to deny the extension.
Solada said during her presentation that approval for the project was granted in 2019 and the extension is needed because of the prior litigation and the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in supply chain issues.
“The extension should be granted in fairness to the project,” she said. “They would like to build this project because of the demand for solar energy.”
Project manager Hanna Paelczyk said the options to lease the land took into account the delays caused by the litigation.
“The two-year delay because of the litigation caused problems with obtaining financing,” she said. Opponent Bethany Keller said the delays was caused by Invenergy and indicated it was going to renew a request with the Madison County Council to approve a tax abatement for the project.
“They have not applied for a tax abatement following the litigation,” Keller said. “They’re delaying in hopes there will be a change on the county council and the granting of a tax abatement.”
Denise Spooner, a leader among the opponents, said no one knows if some of the land owners want to go forward with the project.
“The litigation is not an excuse,” she said of the requested extension. “There was no injunction or stay granted. “They (Invenergy) have not secured Drainage Board approval or requested a tax abatement,” Spooner continued. Lee Walls said Invenergy has been working and testing on the leased property.
“They have been moving forward ever since the project was approved,” he said.
During rebuttal, Solada said testing could be done during the litigation and the project was not financeable with the pending litigation.
Paweiczyk said the tax abatement was not needed for the project at this time.
© 2024 Community Newspaper Holdings, Inc.