Solar farm gets ‘do not pass’ recommendation

Paddlefish Solar project stimied by Area Plan Commission ruling

By JONATHAN SNYDER

The Wells County Area Plan Commission unanimously agreed to send a “do not pass” recommendation to the County Commissioners for the overlay district requested by Paddlefish Solar. 

The solar project had requested to overlay 49 parcels of agriculturally zoned land in Liberty Center and Chester townships with a P-1 district for energy development. The issue will now go to the Wells County Commissioners, who can vote to approve or disapprove the request regardless of the APC’s ruling. Their next meeting is at 5 p.m. on Monday, March 18.

The APC — over the course of four hours — heard a presentation from Paddlefish Solar and various public comments about the project and its potential tax benefits, impact on property values, and any future large-scale solar projects. Over 15 people spoke during the public comments section, with nearly all of them stating their opposition to the project.

APC member Chandler Gerber made the motion for the “do not pass” recommendation, saying that the project appeared to be inconsistent with the Wells County Comprehensive Plan. The motion was passed unanimously by all other board members, Tyson Brooks, Tim Rohr, Board President Jerome Markley, Board Vice President Bill Horan, Jarrod Hahn, Melissa Woodworth, Geoff Lance, John Potter, John Schuhmacher and Executive Director Mike Lautzenheiser.

Paddlefish Solar is jointly owned by EDF Renewables and Geenex Solar. Representing the group Thursday were Regional Project Development Manager for EDF Renewables Jesse Laniak, Project Developer Lana Gabrilyan and Director of Community and Governmental Relations Trena Roudebush. The group spent the bulk of their time talking about the local impact of the solar grid from a financial and natural standpoint. 

According to Laniak’s projections, the solar grid would have decreased tax rates from 1.18% to 0.96%, with an estimated tax revenue of $90 million. 

Roudebush also mentioned that there would be vegetative screens that would block some of the views from residential areas, game fencing along the perimeter so that farmers and any wildlife would not be hindered, and any land not used by the solar farm would be potentially reverted to tillable acreage.

However, a majority of public comments centered around the potential for other large-scale solar projects to enter the area and siphon land away from farmers. Most every comment against the project was followed by applause from the audience.

Robert Park, Uniondale, stated that while he has no issue with private solar panels for individual houses, the large-scale overlay district could set a precedent for future projects, hindering Wells’ ability to produce crops. Bruce Monce, Chester Township, and Tabby Fate, Warren, echoed those sentiments.

“Once you get the camel’s nose under the tent, then you are going to get the whole camel,” said Jody Holloway, Bluffton.

“There seems to be a gold rush coming to Indiana for solar,” Lance said.

County Commissioner Jeff Stringer, County Council member Brandon Harnish and Bluffton Common Council member Blake Fiechter also expressed their doubts about the project’s benefits for Wells County. Stringer stated that while the tax abatement was approved,  by the County Council public opinion needed to be taken into account. 

Linda Stanton, Poneto, also questioned how the project would affect local property values. However, the Paddlefish representatives later brought out Rich Kirkland, a state-certified appraiser, who said the project would not affect property values.

Also speaking against the request were Kathie Mounsey, Phil Leas, Jarrod Mounsey, Judy Craig, Jim McAfee, Diana Collins, Benjamin Herman and John Maddox. Trent Lehman, superintendent of Southern Wells schools, spoke neither in favor nor against but reaffirmed that the school district should be considered in any tax benefits.

One individual, Stacy Wagner of Posey County, provided a positive take on the project, saying many of the project’s supporters were unlikely to be as loud as its opposition. The Paddlefish team met this with quiet applause. 

The APC also received 20 letters preceding the meeting from various individuals in and out of the county. Of the Wells County residents, four wrote in favor of the request and three wrote against the request.

APC members Lance, Gerber, Schuhmacher, Woodworth and Brooks all expressed their opposition. Gerber stated that the Wells County Comprehensive Plan mentions that the community valuing agricultural background and the lack of public support for solar farms stands in opposition to the solar project.

“It feels inconsistent to support this when I signed off on a comprehensive plan 15 months ago,” Gerber said.

Before the motion was given, the APC was reminded that their role was to pay reasonable regard to the Wells Comprehensive Plan, the current conditions and character of current structures and uses in each district, the most desirable use for the land, the conservation of property values, and responsible development and growth of the land.

“There are five points that we have to give due diligence to,” said Brooks. “We spent a lot of time on property value. I agree with (Paddlefish about the conservation of property values), but (the other) 80%, of other four points, could be equally argued in either direction. But I can’t in good conscience be comfortable with a do-pass recommendation with an 80% argument in not favor of it … The only point that is 100% good is property values.”

jonathan@news-banner.com