Solar panel development decision in Collinsville postponed until Sept. 2
by Randy Pierce • Postponement of a decision regarding a special-use permit request that, if approved, would allow for the development of a solar energy facility at a site in unincorporated Collinsville was supported unanimously by members of the Madison County Board Building and Zoning Committee earlier this month which has deferred this matter to its next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Sept, 2.
One of eight items on that committee’s Aug. 5 agenda, four of which concerned such proposed solar developments, the permit request referenced above was initially considered by the county’s zoning board appeals in late July with the result being a recommendation for denial by a vote of four to one.
A limited liability company called Madison County Solar FEI, is seeking to locate a commercial solar energy facility on property three-quarters of a mile north of the intersection of Lebanon Road and Clay School Road, southwest of Troy, which is owned by Daniel and Debra Wilson whose address is listed west of there at 1727 California Avenue, Collinsville.
At the building and zoning committee meeting which was dominated by discussion concerning solar energy projects, the others being one near Alton (subject to two different pieces of legislation) and on property close to New Douglas in Olive Township, Kate Herman, who resides on Pleasant Ridge Road not far from the site east of Collinsville, asked questions related to how the zoning for that property is currently listed as manufacturing which makes it different from the others being addressed at that time and classified as agricultural.
Herman referred to the zoning board hearing where it was pointed out that there are state laws designed to protect landowners which require solar project developers to restore the land to its original state upon the expiration of the useful life of such a development, which is commonly set in the range of 35 to 40 years, or if there is a failure based on finances or other reasons or a subsequent property sale of some sort that is protected by a bond put up early on.
Saying she had done a lot of research, Herman wished to make sure the restoration provisions would cover this site even though the state regulations in this regard designate applicable property as being that which was originally designated as agricultural.
Another point she made deals with the proximity of Canteen Creek running “down the center” of the site where the solar energy project would be located. There have been times when the creek rose up to its banks and it once flooded, she said, damaging some vehicles and tractors parked close by in and near a barn, causing her family to be concerned about the impact from the possible solar development.
“I want to make sure that the board is looking at the things that’s required,” Herman went on, “that they really look closely at that creek for us because it’s hard to see by maps that it does get hostile.”
Other speakers who came to the committee meeting regarding the various solar projects made comments suggesting that the county board not be intimidated by the developers, expressed concerns about the impact on property values and, something which is not the case regarding the Wilson site, regretted the potential disappearance of farmland.
One of the development team members for that project, Kevin Long, said the land they are looking at east of California Avenue is an old reclaimed mine unsuitable for farming, adding, “You can’t build houses on it. You can’t do anything with it. We’re going to put it into productive use.”
He further explained the closest home would be more than 600 feet away plus there is a “tree fence” that is not going to be disturbed or affected should the project be developed there.
Further trying to put a positive spin on the project, Long said it would generate over $1.3 million in additional tax revenue for Madison County “with no burden” on any of applicable first-responder agencies such as police and fire protection.
When it came time for the building and zoning committee members to decide how to proceed, the consensus focused on wanting to know more about the site because, as an abandoned mine location, it is uniquely different from many others in the county, including visiting it to get a better idea of what it looks like, plus there was mention of concerns about a matter surfacing at the ZBA hearing in regard to how it would be accessed for the development and if one of the property owners affected would or would not allow an easement.
