ALEXANDRIA — A decision on the proposed Lone Oak Solar Farm in
northern Madison County has been delayed again by the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
A divided crowd of several hundred people attended the Thursday night meeting at the Madison County 4-H Fairgrounds.
The project has pitted neighbor against neighbor.
Invenergy,
the company proposing the 120-megawatt solar farm, and opponents of the
$110 million project renewed their arguments for and against the
project.
The Madison County board continued consideration of a
special use request and two variances by the company until May 28 at
8:30 a.m. at the Madison County Government Center.
The company is
seeking two variances: one from a setback requirement across multiple
property lines secured through leases with local property owners and to
have more three years to construct the project.
Katya Samoteskul, project manager for Invenergy, outlined several points the company will include in the project area.
It
included a 250-foot setback from the nearest residential property,
instead of a 50-foot setback required by county ordinance; a $100,000
surety bond for repairing any damaged drainage tiles for five years;
hiring an independent third-party company to monitor groundwater on the
site; and testing every two years.
“We have worked hard to exceed the requirements of the ordinance in terms of setbacks and landscaping,” she said.
Tami
Davis, a member of the Frankton-Lapel Community School Corp. board,
said the Lone Oak Solar Farm will provide $400,000 per year to the
school system.
Opponents raised concerns about possible
contamination from the solar panels, lower property values and the loss
of prime farm land.
Samoteskul said there is a signal when a panel
fails for it to be replaced and there have never been any concerns
about toxic levels at existing solar farms.
Attorney Terry Hall,
representing the opponents, presented additional conditions that they
want the BZA to consider if a special use permit is approved.
They are asking for a 500-foot setback, testing groundwater on adjacent properties and a $1 million drainage bond.
“We
admit the county passed an ordinance,” Hall said. “There are very few
conditions. In other states the conditions are more stringent.”
When the county approved the solar farm ordinance, she said, it didn’t envision a project of this size.
“This is prime farm land that is poorly drained,” Hall said.
She said developers have been encouraged to locate in the Midwest because of the cheapest land and fewest conditions.
Hall admitted that the opponents didn’t have experts to support their positions.
“The
company has provided you with the minimum amount of information,” she
said. “We are asking for reasonable conditions to protect the
neighbors.”
Mike
MaRous, an appraiser for Invenergy, said there is no evidence of a loss
of property values when a solar farm project is completed.
He said a 100-megawatt facility in Minnesota was one of several sites researched along with several in Indiana.
“A Texas study found no proven economic drop in value where solar farms are located,” MaRous said.
Hall countered that there is not enough information available on the impact on property values.
The
proposed 850-acre site is between county roads 350 West and 600 West
and 1000 North and 1300 North in Pipe Creek and Monroe townships.