Board halts company's proposed solar field project

Project stalled by 3-2 vote, company can reapply in 6 months

The Howard County Board of Zoning Appeals put a stop —at least for now — to the proposed Emerald Green Solar project.

The five-person board Tuesday voted 3-2 against multinational electric utility company ENGIE’s special exception permit request to operate a power generation facility that, if approved, would’ve allowed the company to kickstart its desire to install a solar field project just southeast of Greentown. Board members Richard Byrum, Jeff Miller and Michael Imbler voted against the permit request, while Frank Faulkner and newly-appointed member Michael Schroeder voted in favor.

The decision is a major — but not necessarily fatal — blow to the project. ENGIE can submit the same exact application for the special exception permit after 180 days, but there’s no guarantee the BZA will change its mind six months from now.

The board’s decision is a victory for its opponents, who have been persistent in their opposition to the project since it first became public in February of last year, often wearing bright red shirts that read “Stop Big Solar” on the front and “Save our Countryside” on the back to public meetings.

The opposition’s concerns have largely stemmed around the solar project’s possible negative effects on nearby property values, who would decommission the project if ENGIE were to go out of business and the reduction of some of the county’s farmable land.

On the other side, ENGIE touted the project’s financial benefits for both the county government and Eastern Howard School Corporation. The company estimates the solar project would generate $30 million in tax revenue for Howard County — including nearly $20 million for the Eastern Howard School Corporation — over its 30- to 40-year lifespan.

Property owners who agreed to lease their land to ENGIE also came out in support of the project, with most arguing that they saw the project as an ample opportunity to diversify their farmland revenues and provide stable revenues for them and their children into the future. Other non-directly affected residents said they supported the project as a way for the county to show it supports renewable energy.

As previously reported, the project entailed nearly 2,000 acres just southeast of Greentown, south of U.S. 35 and mostly east of Duke Energy’s Greentown substation. About 1,300 acres would house solar panels, according to ENGIE. If built as currently proposed, the project would generate 200 megawatts of electricity — enough to power more than 53,000 homes — and will be an investment of $150 million and generate 300 to 350 temporary construction jobs and “minimal” permanent jobs, according to the company.

If the company had received the special exception permit, it would have been the beginning of a process between it and the county where other development details — such as site plan approval, drainage, road use agreements, economic agreements and more — would be hashed out over the next several months. Without the special exception permit, though, the project is stuck at the starting line indefinitely.

Tom Green, director of development for ENGIE Solar, told the Tribune after Tuesday’s meeting that the company was “disappointed” in the board’s decision but still under the belief that the project was a beneficial one for Howard County. When asked if the company planned on reapplying for the special exception permit after the 180-day deadline, Green said the company will “take a good look” at whether or not to reapply.

Imbler, the board’s president, cast the deciding vote. He told the Tribune after the meeting that his decision came after hours of research and listening to both sides at both public meetings.

When asked what made him vote “no,” he said it wasn’t just one reason, but several. He added, though, that the nearby residents’ pushback and the solar panels’ closeness to nearby property lines “had a lot to do with” the reasoning behind his vote. In its special exception permit request, ENGIE listed the project’s setback from adjacent residential property lines to 200 feet, an increase in setback from what the company originally had in mind.

“I believe people have their right to do what they want with their property as long as it’s not a major effect on other people,” Imbler said. “If I got a farm out here, and I’m a farmer of pigs and somebody builds a house next to it, that’s OK, because I was there first. ... Now if you got a housing addition and somebody wants to put a pig farm in the housing addition, that’s not good.”