Zoning board denies solar project request

The Bartholomew County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) voted against a commercial solar energy system in Clay and Flat Rock townships Monday after nearly five hours of testimony in a packed meeting room at Columbus City Hall.

A motion by board member Arnold Haskell to approve Arevon Energy’s request for a conditional use approval to construct Swallowtail Solar LLC failed to get a second.

That vote was followed by a motion from BZA member Eric Scheidt, who proposed denying Arevon’s application that would have resulted in a 200-megawatt commercial solar energy system built across 21 privately-owned properties.

Although city and county planners say Swallowtail meets all four criteria the BZA must use in making decisions, Scheidt said he disagreed with their assessment.

“I’m going to address Criteria No. 4, Goal No. 1 of the (Bartholomew County) Comprehensive Plan, which is to preserve and protect farm land and maintaining the productive capacity for a strong county agricultural community,” Scheidt said. “I do not believe that has been met.”

In addition, Scheidt said the proposal violates a policy that states direct development should be kept away from more productive farmland and agricultural areas. He also cited another policy that requires development to take place in a manner that allows for preservation and conservation of farmland, open land and significant natural features.

Prior to the vote, Haskell reminded other BZA members the Bartholomew County commissioners have determined that existing solar ordinances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.

He also said local ordinances on solar projects are considered the most strict in Indiana, calling for much greater setbacks from homes than factories, transmission towers and even some concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

However, Scheidt’s motion was seconded by long-time board member Roger Glick, as well as approved by presiding officer David Flohr. Haskell was the only BZA member to support Arevon’s plans. A fifth board member, Mike Speaker, left the room after declaring he had a conflict of interest and would not vote on the proposal.

Monday night’s vote came nearly five months after the BZA denied a similar proposal from Carina Solar LLC to build a solar farm on about 1,880 acres leased from more than two dozen landowners.

As was the case this week, only Haskell supported the Carina proposal during the Feb. 26 BZA meeting. A short time after the vote, both Carina and a group of about two dozen landowners filed lawsuits against the board for rejecting the application.

On Monday, about 140 people were in the first floor meeting room at Columbus City Hall, while an additional dozen watched a live video feed inside the city council chambers. A total of 36 individuals, including members of the Hauser High School FFA chapter, spoke against the proposed development.

Fifteen individuals spoke in favor of the application. Within the room, about 75% of those in attendances were opposed to the solar project, while 25% was urging the BZA to approve the conditional use proposal.

The property that was in question is roughly bordered by county roads 500E to the west, 275N to the south, 650E to the east and parts of 400N to the north.

The opponents were highly organized. For over an hour, their names would appear in a PowerPoint presentation – often before they approached the microphone. Graphics, quotes and photos matched points each speaker was attempting to make, which seemed to make the public hearing look like one presentation. A logo for the Bartholomew County Citizens Concerned About Commercial Solar Fields (B4CSF) appeared frequently within the presentation.

Several opponents said using farm land for solar power systems will take food away from people. In reply, advocates stated 40 to 50% of corn grown in Indiana is used for producing ethanol.

Some other points of opposition were voiced by:

• Tim McNealy, who said a large-scale solar farm would displace four tenant farmers, and eventually result in a loss of $243 million from the local economy.
• Mel Hasler, who argues the solar energy system would hurt farmers fighting rising land costs.
• Emily Welsh, who expressed concern the development would harm wildlife and the environment.
• Henry Wischmeier, who claimed the plans for Swallowtail are 57% larger than what was proposed by Carina last winter.
• Caitlin Murphy, who says adverse weather could damage solar panels and spill harmful chemicals into the ground.
• Katie Stoner, a recent Hauser FFA officer,who said removing farm land from production will harm young people pursuing an agricultural career in Bartholomew County.

Fort Wayne attorney Jason Kuchmay, who specializes in both business and real estate litigation, represented 11 clients at the public hearing. He told the BZA that experts employed by solar companies have admitted their projects will result in a net loss of jobs.

“These are industrial utility plants that can change the face of your county long-term,” Kuchmay said.

According to the attorney, studies show that industrial solar utilities will negatively impact neighboring property values.

“The impact is generally seen within three miles and closer,” Kuchmay said.

That argument was challenged by Rich Kirkland, a land appraiser from Raleigh, North Carolina who is certified in Indiana. Kirkland, who claims to have researched over a thousand solar projects, said he used an well-accepted methodology utilized in every state to conclude solar energy systems don’t have an adverse impact on neighboring property values.

“In Indiana, we found 10 home sales next to solar projects,” Kirkland said. “From those, we found a range that went from minus 2% to plus 7% (in neighboring property values).

But Columbus Realtor Jeff Hilycord accused Kirkland of omissions and cherry-picking information.

Saying that he used the same studies mentioned by Kirkland, Hilycord suggested neighboring property values within a half-mile of solar energy systems are between 4% to 6% lower, compared to homes two to four miles away.

However, Hilycord said he used home sales in Minnesota, North Carolina and New Jersey, rather than Indiana.

In addition, he said Kirkland used residential property values at times when he should have utilized agricultural land values.

When project advocates began addressing the BZA, many reminded the opposition that farmers had traditionally championed landowner’s rights.

Farmers are currently facing a financial crisis, according to Greg Daily, a sixth-generation farmer owns Daily Feed and Grain in Petersville.

“It currently costs more to produce a bushel of corn, soybeans or wheat than what a farmer can sell it for,” according to Daily.

Due to a large supply of crops being grown at the global level, Daily said supply is overshadowing demand, sending grain prices “into a tailspin.”

Leasing property for solar power would supply farmers with financial stability for the current farming generation, as well as allow future generations to farm the same ground later,” he told the BZA.

Rather than alternative energy projects, Cindy Finkel said most farm land is lost to residential development. Between 2012 and 2022, Bartholomew County lost over 14,000 acres of agricultural properties, averaging almost 1,300 acres annually, she told the BZA.

“If you are strictly adhering to the comprehensive plan in your decision-making, than how is it than any development has been approved in Bartholomew County?” Finkel asked. “The loss of 14,000 acres indicates the comprehensive plan is meant to be a strategy – not an edict.”

Agreeing with local planners, Lois Bonnell said the Swallowtail development fits conditions approved at both the city and county level.

“Allowing solar into Bartholomew County will create a diversified tax base and provide a reliable income to farming businesses while keeping the land from being developed (into permanent buildings) and allowing it to stay in the family,” Bonnell told the BZA.