The Starke County Commissioners held a regular meeting last night, Monday April 7th. The first item on the agenda was listed as ‘Statement on NextEra permit’.
Commissioner Mike VanDeMark opened the topic by acknowledging that the situation has been frustrating and confusing. VanDeMark stated that the Commissioners had decided to open up the meeting to public feedback from the community, despite the fact that it is not required.
Community concern regarding NextEra revolves around the validity of a permit issued to the company during a moratorium on solar permits, and there was a lengthy discussion revolving around the topic.
The moratorium for issuing solar permits was re-visited several times during the discussion. Some stated that an exemption had been made for NextEra in regards to the moratorium. However, during the February 18th Commissioner’s meeting when the moratorium was voted on and approved, Commissioners asked clarifying questions on whether the moratorium was in effect for all solar companies with no exemptions, and they were answered affirmatively. Additionally, as one citizen stated, the moratorium itself says that there will be no exemptions unless there was a formal permit already issued before the date the moratorium began.
Another concern that came up was the claim that the permit was issued before it was signed; and why that was allowed.
Ultimately, County Attorney Justin Schramm stated that, according to statutes, the legal presumption is that until or unless it is challenged, it is a legal permit since it has already been issued.
Schramm also stated later in the public input section of the meeting that in his legal opinion, revoking the permit at this point would be beyond the scope of ability of the Commissioners because there was a final acion taken (the issuance of the permit) without it being adjudicated, or formally disputed.
The Commissioners were asked if they could file a dispute and while it was acknowledged that they had discussed the matter and that it was a possibility, no official action was taken on the matter at that time.
Schramm stated again at the end of the public comment section of the meeting: “It is an active permit, and someone can always challenge the validity of that, but it is an active permit.”
