Logan County Board postpones decisions on two proposed Trajectory Energy Community Solar projects

 

[September 22, 2022] 

At the Logan County Board’s Regular meeting on Tuesday, September 20, Planning and Zoning Committee Chairman David Hepler motioned to postpone action on the Redbird Solar and Stovepipe Solar projects. He said the project attorney has asked for time to work out some procedural issues.

Earlier this month, Trajectory Energy Project Manager Kiersten Sheets updated the Planning and Zoning Committee on the proposed projects.

For Stovepipe Solar, Sheets shared the findings of facts from the project. The Stovepipe project would be located south of the Lincoln Park District and is a community-driven project. Trajectory has a partnership with Community Action Partnership of Central Illinois (CAPCIL) to provide community solar.

Hepler said CAPCIL had recently voted to endorse the project.

At the August 3, Zoning Board of Appeals hearing, there were some concerns raised about proposed solar projects. Sheets said she has been trying to address these concerns.

The first issue the ZBA had said they wanted Trajectory to address is that the developers and community members had not heard from the park district. Sheets met with Lincoln Park District Executive Director Becky Strait and her operations staff on Tuesday, August 23. Sheets went through the entire project with them. She said the county board should be receiving a letter from the park district showing they have no opposition to the project moving forward.

The Park District has a prairie garden that is like a pollinator garden that is near the project’s fence line. Sheets said those at the park district are kind of excited about the expansion of the garden. The Park District told Sheets they are not worried about drainage, traffic or the project impeding on their ability to continue as a park district.

The second piece Sheets discussed is that the conditional use will not be substantially injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity.

At the public hearing, Sheets heard from a neighboring homeowner about an issue with the interconnection line being directly across from their property.

After Sheets met with the homeowner the company decided to move their interconnection equipment. She provided a brand-new stamped drawing to committee members and asked board members to amend that part.

In addressing traffic flow, Sheets said this requirement is standard procedure when they come to the building permit stage.
 

The Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement (AIMA) sheets brought to the committee meeting showed how AIMA dictates drainage and soil plus different aspects of construction in wet conditions. Sheets said this agreement provides a lot of limitations to development.

Before asking for a building permit, Sheets said the company would file the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Agreement and decommissioning plan.

To address concerns about ingress and egress, minimize traffic congestion on public streets, Sheets said her company would be required to meet with all the required road officials to come up with a road agreement. They will need to come with a plan for construction traffic during the nine months to a year it will take to build the project.

Before the project can begin, Sheets said they will have to get board approval for building permits. The zoning ordinance says that after the site is constructed, developers must make the site available to the zoning officer and any county officials who want to come on site and inspect it.

For the entire life of the project for as long as the special use permit exists, Sheets said the company is open to that inspection.

In addition to those inspections, Sheets said the solar ordinance has some hefty fines for violations. For every violation it is $1,000 per week. Every violation after that first $1,000 is another $500.

Issues with weed management, trash in the fence and not attending to the prairie plot are areas Sheets said would be violations of the solar ordinance. These are good ways to manage the project much beyond what is required.

Next Sheets shared the findings of fact for the second 43 acre, five MW solar project called Redbird.

The first concern with the Redbird project is about the airport. Sheets met with Airport Manager Gene Rohlfs; and county board member Jim Wessbecher, who is in charge of the Airport and Farm Committee. Sheets showed them things like the Indianapolis International Airport with multiple solar fields all over the runways.

In addition, Sheets talked to Rohlfs and Wessbecher about the report that they specifically requested called a 7460. Sheets said a 7460 is required when someone is going to bring a crane onto the construction site.
 

Solar construction is mostly done by skid steer, so Sheets said they will not have a crane on site. The 7460 is also required when the project is going to be going over a certain height or width in an airport approach. Sheets said there are so many feet high one can go above the approach area and so many feet wide one can go beyond the approach area.

With the Redbird Solar Project, Sheets said they are not going to get into that airspace at all with their skid steer or any construction equipment.

While a 7460 is not required to be filed with the FAA, Sheets said they would be happy to fill the form out and give it to the airport manager if he wants it. If that is a condition that the board would like to impose on the project, Sheets said they are open to that.

The other thing Sheets said the airport manager had asked for was a glare study. Glare studies are addressed in the county’s solar ordinance. Sheets said their project design shows they are well beyond 500 feet from the airport. They are way outside of the required area pointed out in the solar ordinance for a glare study.

The developers want to be compliant in whatever way the county board wishes them to be. If the board wants a glare study done before issuing a building permit for Redbird Solar, Sheets said they would be happy to do that.

What Sheets said they agreed to at the end of the discussion was that this project will in no way impede the airport from functioning during construction or the life of the project.

Through multiple conversations with landowners and the project attorney, Sheets said they have tried to create a legal agreement. With some landowners, they have not been able to come to an agreement.

One neighbor, Ron Hall, said Sheets and project attorney Seth Uphoff have been truthful and accommodating as they sat at his table to explain everything. However, Hall said his property near the airport has drainage issues. In 2009, the airport decided to enclose a ditch and buried concrete pipe stopping the ditch behind Hall’s house. The Hall’s got flooded out and they have continued to have water in their crawl space.

Previous county board members and township officials told the Hall’s they would take care of the problem. Federal officials had plans for how to correct the problem. Hall said nothing has been done and they still get water.
 

Since there were some issues, Sheets said she got the project attorney Seth Uphoff involved because she wanted to create a legal agreement. Sheets wanted an agreement that had “teeth” because the Hall’s had had so many poor interactions with officials. They have not been able to come to an agreement, however.

Something else Jean Hall is worried about is chemicals and run off. They farm with her brothers and sisters and feel solar should go where there is not good farm ground.

When there are issues, Sheets said they fully intend to address them.

The last thing Sheets passed out was a letter of support “from your economic development director” saying these projects are financially impactful to the county.

Finally, Sheets shared a representation of how much from ground the project would be taking out of agricultural production. Sheets said there would still be 99.9 percent of farm ground available when using just over 40 acres for Stovepipe. There would still be 99.9 percent of farm ground available with Redbird.

Even if the project had 3,500 acres, Sheets said there would still be 98 percent of farm ground available.

No action was taken at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting. Hepler said the requests for both projects would be brought forward at the Board Workshop and Regular Board Meeting.

Discussion at Board Workshop

In the packets at the Logan County Board Workshop, Sheets said board members had forms showing the economic benefits of the project. The company will make sure the solar is available to Logan County residents. They are partnering with Community Action Partnership of Central Illinois (CAPCIL), who has voted to endorse both projects.

As far as economic benefits, Hepler said these solar farms would save the county between $200,000 and $250,000 a year on utility bills. They would bring in $40,000 to $50,000 annually for schools and other taxing bodies in the county.

In addition, Hepler said there would be tens of thousands of dollars of economic benefits via CAPCIL to their clients. He feels the benefits of these projects are overwhelming. Hepler said it is a way for the average person to enjoy the benefits of solar.

Concerns Board member Jim Wessbecher expressed are that the projects will not really create local jobs and will affect prime farm ground.
 

Each of the project sites are around 42 acres. Hepler said there would be a small amount of land affected. The area is about four percent of what was used for Mulligan Solar.

Actions taken at Regular Board Meeting

During the public comments section of the Regular Board meeting, a few people addressed the rezoning requests for the solar projects.

Landowner Nancy Martin said she feels the solar project would be good. No chemicals are used and there would be plants under and around the solar panels. Since better utility costs would be provided for low-income people, Martin feels the solar project would be good for the community. She was in support of the project.

Ron Hall, who lives near the proposed project site, expressed the same concerns at the Board Workshop and the Regular Board meeting that he had expressed at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting. Hall has lived in that area for 33 years and their land has problems with drainage. Though Hall does not have a problem with solar, he feels the project will likely aggravate the issue. Even though the project developers have plans in place to address drainage, Hall said he is opposed to the project.

Another landowner, Rod Quisenberry, owns the property where they plan to build Redbird Solar, and he supports the project. He had not realized there was a problem with drainage and said he would do everything in his capability to rectify the problem if the project is approved.

When it came time for motions, Planning and Zoning Committee Chairman David Hepler motioned to postpone action on Trajectory Energy Community Solar Rezoning requests for Redbird Solar until October. He said that will make it possible for procedural issues to be resolved between the attorneys.

The question for Schaffenacker was how postponing an issue is different from tabling an issue.

If something is tabled, Uphoff said there has to be a motion to take it off the table. Postponing just mean the item is being moved to a future date. It can be put back on the agenda without a motion to take it off the table.

Hepler next motioned that the board postpone the decision on Trajectory Energy Community Solar Rezoning for Stovepipe Solar. There are possible procedural issues that need to be resolved by attorneys for this project too.

The board approved postponing both motions. They may vote on the projects at their October meeting.

[Angela Reiners]