ITHACA — Gratiot County commissioners voted 5-0 on Aug. 11 to tell a solar developer, in writing, that the county’s own zoning ordinance does not meet the minimum the state now requires — a finding that can let the project skip county and township approval entirely and go straight to state regulators.
How it started. ibV Energy Partners, LLC, of Dallas, Texas, is proposing a solar farm called the Honeyoey Creek project in Sumner and Seville Townships. Under a 2023 state law, the Clean and Renewable Energy and Energy Waste Reduction Act, large solar, wind and battery-storage projects normally go through the Michigan Public Service Commission rather than local zoning — unless the local government has adopted what the law calls a “compatible renewable energy ordinance,” one no stricter than the state’s own minimum standards.
County records show ibV sent a certified letter July 14 invoking that provision. Board Chairman Dave Owens and other county officials met with Honeyoey Creek representatives July 22. At that meeting, according to the resolution the board later adopted, the developer identified four places where Gratiot County’s solar ordinance is stricter than the state standard. The county was then required, within 30 days, to tell the developer in writing whether it agreed.
What the county’s own comparison shows. A “code analysis” table filed with the meeting packet compares the county’s ordinance, adopted in 2018, against the state’s minimum. It lists four differences as making the county ordinance more restrictive than the state allows:
- Fencing. The county requires a mandatory 8-foot chain-link fence with signage around solar farms. The state standard only requires compliance with the National Electric Code and sets no specific fence requirement.
- Panel height. The county caps solar panels at 20 feet at full tilt. The state allows up to 25 feet.
- Noise. The county limits solar farms to 50 decibels, measured at the property line and not averaged. The state standard allows 55 decibels, averaged hourly and measured at the nearest dwelling — a higher and more leniently measured limit.
- Where solar can go. The county permits solar farms only by special-use permit in four zoning districts. The state standard sets no zoning-district limits on where solar can be sited.
The same table shows two other areas where the county’s ordinance is silent — it sets no specific setback from occupied buildings and no “dark sky” lighting standard — and one area, setback from neighboring property lines, where the county’s rule (25 feet) is actually less strict than the state minimum (50 feet).
The vote. Commissioner Steve Sopocy moved to approve Resolution 26-450, seconded by Commissioner Tim Gay; it carried 5-0 on a roll call of Sopocy, George Bailey, Jan Bunting, Gay and Owens. The resolution states the board “concurred with” the developer’s finding and directed Chairman Owens to notify ibV Energy Partners that Gratiot County does not have a compatible renewable energy ordinance. The notification letter, dated the same day, was sent to ibV senior project developer Eric Wedesky.
What that means next. Under the state act, when a local government’s ordinance is found not compatible, a developer can seek a siting certificate directly from the Michigan Public Service Commission instead of going through county or township zoning. The law separately requires a developer who files with the commission to make a one-time payment to each affected local government — capped at $75,000 per local unit and $150,000 in total — for the unit’s costs in the state review. We are describing the general mechanism in the state law here; the county’s own resolution and letter do not discuss what the developer will do next, and nothing in the record says Gratiot County is barred from later adopting a compliant ordinance of its own.
What residents said. The meeting drew comment on both sides, according to the minutes. Speaking in favor: Scott and Jake Apple, who said the permit “needs to be granted” and “would make a positive impact on our community,” and Elaine Bigelow, who said the project would help with the cost of property taxes. Speaking against: Barbara Litwiller, “against having Solar around her home”; Sheila Salmon, “against the Solar Project”; and Todd Bennett, who said he worried about “a mess after they are gone.” Jordan Block raised concern about property values and asked the board to “make it right for the people.”
The subject had come up at earlier meetings, too. At the July 7 regular meeting, a resident identified in the minutes as Bonnie Gustavison asked whether the county has “plans to spot check the Solar Farms,” and a resident identified as Stacey Karry Jenksons said farmers had been approached to sign leases and asked commissioners to have the planning commission listen. At the Aug. 4 meeting, Commissioner Gay reported that a resident had called Administrator Tim Dolehanty about the project, and that the administrator “doesn’t want to see our farmland going to Solar,” according to that meeting’s minutes.
What we don’t know. The county’s letter and resolution don’t give the proposed project’s size, the number of acres involved, or a timetable. We have not independently confirmed any of those details, and neither ibV Energy Partners nor Honeyoey Creek, LLC has been asked for comment. Both are welcome to respond at contactus@gcwhistleblower.com, and any response will be published.