MOUNT VERNON — After six-and-a-half hours of testimony, the Ohio Power Siting Board suspended the April 4 hearing on the Frasier Solar project.
One hundred and forty people registered to testify; around 25 had done so by the 7:30 p.m. break. After a second break, Administrative Law Judge David Hicks announced it was obvious there was not enough time for everyone to speak.
Because it needed to vacate the Memorial Theater by midnight, Hicks said the board would hear testimony until 11:30 p.m. The OPSB will schedule a second meeting in Mount Vernon to hear the remaining comments.
Hicks assured residents they will announce meeting details with plenty of notice.
He also noted officials will likely push an April 29 hearing in Columbus to a later date.
An estimated 800 people packed the theater for the 5 p.m. hearing, lining up as early as 3:30 p.m. Some left at the 7:30 p.m. break. About 17 who registered to speak left after the second break and were not present when Hicks called their name to testify.
However, they will have a chance to speak at the second meeting.
Thursday night, priority was given to individuals who are not intervenors in the case. An intervenor is a third party who has a special interest in the case. Intervenors will speak at the second meeting.
Solar hearing testimony
Property owner rights, clean energy vs. fossil fuels, farmland vs. residential housing, and environmental conditions were the topics testifiers cited most frequently.
Property owner rights
“My big concern is property rights,” said Richard Piar, a third-generation farmer in Miller Township. “It’s a family decision.”
The Vance Road resident has multiple parcels leased in the project. He negotiated a lease that addresses concerns about drainage, panel disposal, topsoil, and water use/runoff on his property and his neighbors’ properties.
He feels comfortable that Open Road Renewables will follow through on the lease conditions.
Nanette Cales took a different view, asking, “What about the property rights of the neighbors?”
Cales lives in Monroe Township but notes her parents live in the project area. She said she is “the future of their property.” Cales also voiced concerns about lower home values.
Environmental effects
Ron Butcher opposes the project, noting it takes up prime farmland. He said his family’s agritourism business would suffer because heat from the solar panels could affect the trees used in maple syrup production.
Jim Heironimus of Howard said solar offers renewable energy and provides an economic boost. Regarding solar subsidies, he noted that the oil and gas industry, along with many other industries, also receive subsidies.
“The risk to groundwater is not worth it.”
Darrell Bebout, Miller Township
Many testifiers expressed concerns about the inverters’ noise, the effect on wildlife, and potential chemical leakage if the solar panels are damaged or broken.
One noted the lack of additional payments for fire coverage, and many referenced the 17 of 22 townships that have passed exclusionary zone resolutions.
Advocates pointed to the opportunities for native wildflowers, bee pollination, clean energy, and reduced health effects from fossil fuel pollution. Many said there is a lot of misinformation floating around.
Residential vs. agriculture
Howard Township resident Donald Comis supports the solar project, saying it will “rest the land, help keep farmers farming, and save farmland from residential development for at least 40 years.”
Debbie Van Breeman Wells lives on Sharp Road in Clinton Township, opposite a field that is in the solar project. Acknowledging that she prefers no change at all, she said her scenic view will change, and she prefers solar over housing.
Harrison Township resident John Norris says no to Frasier Solar on farmland but said residential solar is fine.
“Farmland is the strength of our country,” he said.
“The biggest threat to rural development is sprawling housing. When that land goes to housing, it’s lost forever.”
Daniel Laskin, Pleasant Township
Under an agreement with Open Road, Miller Township sheep farmers Brad and Katie Carothers plan to maintain vegetation in the project through sheep grazing and mowing.
They note a dual ag land use and cite a need for domestic sheep production in their support of Frasier Solar.
“Just because you put sheep under solar panels doesn’t make it agriculture,” Bob Marsell countered.
Marsell lives on Carson Road but works in Clinton Township.
Demographics
At the hearing’s onset, Zachary Weigel, attorney for Knox Smart Development, asked the board to deny consideration to testimony of individuals outside of Knox County.
“It is our opinion it was the intention of SB 52 to make this a local issue … Comments from outside Knox County will not reflect the feelings of Knox County,” he told the board.
Legal counsel for Preserve Knox County Ohio, Jack Van Kley, concurred, saying, “Persons outside of Knox County are not relevant.”
Open Road Renewables’ attorney, Michael Settineri, opposed the motion, citing the example of a Morrow County resident driving to Knox County to work on the project.
Hicks denied the motion.
Demographics of the 63 people who testified:
• 25 live in Clinton or Miller township, the site of the Frasier Solar project. Ten supported the project; 15 opposed it.
• 30 county residents outside of the project area; 18 supported the project, and 12 opposed it.
• 4 from outside Knox County; they split 50-50 on the issue.
• 4 from outside of the county with an interest supported the project; three are workers, and one is buying a house in Mount Vernon.
Below are photographs from the hearing. Photo credits: Grant Ritchey.
