There is a chance that solar sanity will ultimately be brought to Howard County. A ruling by Howard County Circuit Judge Lynn Murray for or against the development of a 1,800 acre solar field titled “Emerald” by ENGIE, a French multi-national company, is expected sometime in May.
This comes as a result of several Greentown area residents, who own properties adjacent to the prime agriculture land proposed to be covered with solar panels, taking their case to court. They challenged the legality of the approval of the solar project by the Howard County Board of Zoning Appeals on several grounds.
The ENGIE Emerald project had been denied twice earlier by the BZA. In the interim, one Board member who voted “no” was replaced by a Board member who voted “yes”. This member replacement or maneuver was questionable at the time. The final “yes” vote was a 3-2 yes/no vote; so the Board was split even in its final approval vote. Earlier it had been a 3-2 no/yes vote which denied the project.
The primary case for denial of the special exception for a solar field made by adjacent property residents rests in language found in county zoning ordinance itself. Under the Agriculture (AG) District section the Board of Zoning Appeals is directly addressed. The language states, “Board of Zoning Appeals: allow a special exception use (which specifically includes “power generation facility”) only when it is clearly a benefit to the adjacent properties.”
Further, under 7.08 Special Exception language states, “…. will not permanently injure other property or uses in the same district and vicinity….”
Any reasonable person would readily conclude the presence of a 1,800 acre solar field next door would not be “clearly a benefit” to adjacent properties, but would definitely damage adjacent properties in value and likely in physical ways. Judge Murray, however, need only conclude damage would come in the form of lower value for adjacent properties and not “clearly a benefit”. Who, really, would want to live right next to 1,800 acres of solar panels. The case is really simple as should be the decision by Murray.
Then there is yet another solar field proposal by another company to cover about 1,700 acres more of prime agriculture land. So, the decision by Murray is critical.
And as a former newspaper publisher, there remains a nagging question in my mind. That question is whether any local official or citizen, other than the landowners whose fields would be covered with solar panels, had financial gain from BZA approval of ENGIE: Emerald.