By Robert Tomlinson
News Director
LOCKPORT TWP. — One month removed from unanimously voting to get rid of its solar ordinance, there are now calls in Lockport Township for considering a revised and revamped version of it.
At their meeting Monday, the Lockport Township Board agreed to let Planning Commission Chair Sherrie Nowicki convene her board for work sessions in March to explore the possibility of drafting a new solar ordinance for the township. A decision on whether or not they will begin the drafting process is expected by the Planning Commission’s next meeting in April.
In the meantime, Nowicki said, she would be attending classes and webinars through the Michigan Townships Association and the University of Michigan, and learn more from officials locally, prior to those meetings to get more insight into state laws, renewable energy, and the impact of data centers from a governmental perspective.
“I’m hoping to get a little better clarification over what the township is expecting from us, what Matt [Jorgensen, zoning administrator] is seeing, what I’m seeing at the state level, and all of that good stuff. Hopefully we’ll get enough information from all of these different areas to put together something concrete,” Nowicki said following the meeting.
The decision comes just a month after the Lockport Township Board, after pressure from community members on overlay districts, large-scale solar projects and battery energy storage systems (BESS), voted to completely repeal its 2023 solar ordinance. No direction was given at the time on whether they would consider drafting a new one right away; Supervisor Mark Major said in an interview following that meeting he would want to revisit regulations once two controversial state laws, Public Acts 233 and 235, were repealed.
Repealing the ordinance means there are currently no local standards or regulations governing large-scale solar energy systems in the township, and means any potential developers can go straight to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) under Public Acts 233 and 235 to get a permit to build such a project anywhere in the township, if they find the land to do so, with little input from the Planning Commission or township officials.
Discussion on the topic of considering a new solar ordinance came early on in the meeting, as during the public comment section, one resident expressed concern about the township not having an ordinance anymore.
“This is not a good idea. I had hoped the township board would direct the Planning Commission to begin the process of reconfiguring our ordinance, along with reviewing at least parts of the master plan given the fairly recent discussion of not only renewable energy generation, but the storage needed for those projects and most recently data centers,” resident Linda Baker said. “This should not just be defaulted to the state.”
Then, during a report on the Planning Commission’s activities in the last month, which included the repeal, the topic was broached again. Trustee Rick Daniels said he now feels like the township went from “one extreme to the other” when it comes to allowing renewable energy where “we had too much, now we don’t have enough.” He asked Nowicki her thoughts on where the township stands, and whether they should put something together “in case the state shows up.”
“At the last meeting, we basically revoked everything, so we have nothing, it’s plain Jane, come in as you are. But now, is that the right attitude? Is that the right thing to have, or should we have something in place in case they do show up?” Daniels asked.
Nowicki replied, saying there is “discussion to be had,” but she wasn’t sure what that discussion would look like, hence her taking the classes and webinars.
“I don’t know what the answer is. I just don’t know, because there’s just so many variables. If we do one thing, it’s going to piss somebody else off, if we do this, it’s going to piss them off. This is a no-win situation,” Nowicki said. “Whatever that looks like, I’m doing the best of my ability to figure that out. … It probably depends on what the state does, too. We’re always battling the state at this point. If it gets repealed, we probably have to do something, take some sort of action.”
Jorgensen, the zoning administrator, addressed the situation, noting the township has what’s called a “permissive zoning ordinance,” meaning that if something isn’t in the township’s zoning ordinance, it is not allowable. However, he said that could land the township in “hot water,” because a township cannot ban any “legal economic use of land,” and would allow potential large-scale renewable energy developers to go straight to the MPSC.
He then recommended putting something in the zoning ordinance regarding large-scale renewable energy, especially if Public Acts 233 and 235 get repealed, which Township Treasurer Mike Friesner posited later in the meeting has little chance of occurring.
“If PA 233 gets overturned, like we all hope it does, and gives local control back to the township, you’re going to need to have something in the ordinance to allow it, especially if it gets overturned halfway through the middle of a project trying to work their way through the state, and then they come to you and they already have a ton of money invested, they’ll bring legal action in a heartbeat if that’s their only option moving forward,” Jorgensen said. “Lockport Township needs to, as a government, look at having something in their ordinance, and then you have a choice to make: Do you want to put something in your zoning ordinance to try to make the best of the situation you have today, or do you want to have something in your zoning ordinance looking forward to hopefully getting PA 233 removed?”
Nowicki said there weren’t any conversations at the last Planning Commission meeting regarding whether to consider a new ordinance, as many of her classes/webinars on the subject happened only recently. She added the Planning Commission is “unaware” of “anything that is in my thought process at the moment.”
Daniels then suggested that the board’s May meeting be a sort-of deadline for when to figure out what to do with potentially going for a new ordinance.
“I don’t care what side of the fence you’re on, I don’t. I just think we should give the folks out here an answer,” Daniels said. “If the answer is, ‘Well, our best answer is not to do anything,’ then that’s what we’ll tell them. They may like it, they may not like it, but at least we’ll have an answer.”
After further discussion, the board allowed the Planning Commission to meet twice in March, at dates to be determined, to work through such a conversation about whether to go for a new ordinance. One resident in the audience asked whether or not they would be choosing another site for solar and battery storage, however board members clarified that the conversations were going to be about whether or not they would even consider drafting a new ordinance.
In the end, Nowicki asked to have patience with the Planning Commission as they sort things out with something that’s still unfamiliar to them.
“Obviously, this is new to all of us, so it’s a learning curve, so you’re going to have to have patience,” Nowicki said.
In other business…
- The board approved an amendment to St. Joseph County’s early vote site agreement, which includes a detailed budget and an extension of hours for early voting for upcoming elections later this year for a total of $7,252 over two years. More details will be in next week’s edition.
- The board tabled adoption of a “Principles of Governance” pledge created and recommended by the Michigan Townships Association. The document is a set of principles for local governments to embrace, including pledges to “insist on the highest standards of ethical conduct,” “bring credit, honor and dignity to our public offices through collegial board deliberations and diligent, appropriate responses to constituent concerns,” “treat all persons with dignity, respect and impartiality,” “practice openness and transparency in our decisions and actions,” and “cooperate in all reasonable ways with other governmental entities,” among others. Daniels and Major were hesitant to vote in favor of it because, Major said, “I think we already do this.”
Robert Tomlinson can be reached at 279-7488 or robert@wilcoxnewspapers.com.
