What You Can Do

Dear Garfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals,

I am writing as a resident of Garfield Township to respectfully request that the Zoning Board of Appeals UPHOLD the Township Board’s decision to deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Sylvan Solar project.

I believe the record clearly shows that the denial was a proper exercise of local authority for the following reasons:

1. Incompatibility with the Master Plan: Our Master Plan prioritizes the preservation of prime agricultural land. Removing 1,200+ acres for industrial solar is inconsistent with our rural vision.

2. Impact on Neighbors: The visual blight and potential loss of property values for non-participating neighbors is a significant concern that was well-documented in the public hearings.

3. Infrastructure and Safety: Our local roads and first responders are not equipped to handle the long-term industrial impacts and safety risks of a project of this scale.

I urge the ZBA to respect the integrity of our local zoning process and uphold the findings of our elected officials.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

[Your Address]

Dear Sheridan Charter Township Board Members,

I am writing as a concerned resident of Sheridan Township to formally request that the Township Board intervene at the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) level should Sylvan Solar (AES) apply for a certificate under Public Act 233.

As discussed during the previous board meeting, local control over utility-scale energy projects is currently being challenged at the state level. If Sylvan Solar applies directly to the MPSC, Sheridan Township must have a "seat at the table" to ensure our community’s specific interests and agricultural heritage are protected.

I urge the Board to consider the following points regarding intervention:

• Legal Representation for Residents: Without formal intervention, the MPSC will only hear the developer's side of the story. Intervening allows the Township to hire legal counsel and experts to represent the residents' concerns regarding property values, drainage, noise, and safety.

• Funding Availability: Under PA 233, an "intervener compensation fund" is established. The developer is required to provide up to $75,000 to local governments to offset the costs of legal and expert fees associated with the MPSC process. There is a clear financial mechanism in place to ensure this does not become a burden on our local taxpayers.

• Protecting Our Rural Character: Our Master Plan and Zoning Ordinances were created to protect the rural residential and agricultural nature of Sheridan. The MPSC needs to be held accountable to these local standards, which can only happen if the Township is an active participant in the case.

The residents of Sheridan Township are looking to the Board for leadership and protection in this matter. We ask that the Board proactively authorize the pursuit of intervener status to ensure our voices are not silenced by state-level mandates.

I look forward to hearing the Board’s decision on this critical issue at the upcoming meeting on April 21st.

Respectfully,

    [Your Name]

    [Your Address]

I. Conflict with the Master Plan (The "Harmony" Test)

• Agricultural Preservation: The 2025 Master Plan Update (Section 3.0) explicitly prioritizes "preserving the agricultural heritage" of Garfield. 2,400 acres of industrial equipment is the opposite of preservation.

• Rural Character: The Master Plan defines Garfield by its open spaces and scenic views. Industrial-scale solar changes the "character" of the township from rural to industrial.

• Incompatible Future Growth: The Master Plan is a "shared vision" for the future. Residents did not envision a massive power plant when they updated the plan in 2025; they envisioned a stable, quiet farming community.

• Loss of Prime Farmland: Replacing productive soil with glass and steel for 35+ years violates the Master Plan’s goal of protecting the local food production economy.

II. Zoning Ordinance & CUP Standards

• "Injurious" to the Neighborhood: Section 18.12 states a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) cannot be "injurious to the general welfare." A project of this size is an injury to the peace, quiet, and lifestyle of every neighbor.

• Aesthetic Desirability: Section 1.3.l of the Ordinance aims to "enhance the aesthetic desirability of the environment." Miles of 7-foot fencing and thousands of panels do not enhance our natural beauty—they degrade it.

• Industrial Nuisance: This is an industrial use in an Agricultural/Rural Residential zone. The noise, glare, and scale are "nuisances" that the Zoning Ordinance was written to prevent.

• Property Value Stability: Section 1.3.k requires "conserving the taxable value of land." The ZBA must consider if an industrial neighbor of this scale will lower the resale value of the surrounding family homes.

III. Environmental & Wildlife Concerns

• Habitat Fragmentation: The Michigan DNR warns that large solar projects "fragment travel corridors" for wildlife. A 2,400-acre fenced area effectively cuts the township in half for deer, turkey, and other mammals.

• Incomplete "Desktop" Science: The developer’s own report (Summary of Environmental Due Diligence, Page 2) admits they used "desktop studies." They didn't do the deep field work required to prove there is no "detrimental impact" (Section 2.2).

• The "Lake Effect": Solar panels can mimic the appearance of water, confusing migrating birds and insects (the "Lake Effect"). The developer has not proven this won't kill local or migrating species.

• Soil Compaction: Years of construction and heavy equipment can permanently damage the "soil structure," making it harder to return this land to farming in the future.

IV. Health, Safety & Welfare

• Constant Noise: The Noise Assessment (Page 39) predicts 41 dBA. In our quiet rural environment, a constant 24/7 industrial hum is an intrusion that violates the "healthful surroundings" promised by Section 1.3.g.

• Glare Hazards: While the study says "no glare," residents can challenge the models. Glare on 48th Street or other local roads creates a safety hazard for drivers that has not been fully mitigated. There also were no aviation receptors in the study.

• Emergency Access: 2,400 acres of fenced land creates a massive obstacle for emergency services. How will fire or rescue reach the middle of the site or get around it quickly in an emergency?

• Heat Island Effect: Massive arrays of dark panels can raise the local temperature (the "Solar Heat Island Effect"), potentially impacting nearby crops or residential cooling costs.

V. Financial & Long-Term Risks

• Inadequate Decommissioning: If the scrap value of steel drops or the company goes bankrupt, the Township is stuck with the mess. The Board was right to deny a plan that puts the financial risk on the taxpayers.

• Taxpayer Burden: Large-scale projects often require more from local infrastructure (roads, emergency services) than they pay back in taxes. The Board's denial protects us from "extraordinary public expense."

• Corporate Transiency: Section 6 of the Ordinance allows for "Transfers" of ownership. We aren't just dealing with AES; we are dealing with whoever they sell the project to in 5 years. The Board was right to be cautious.

VI. Proximity Impacts (For those within close proximity)

• Loss of Quiet Enjoyment: Neighbors have a legal right to the "quiet enjoyment" of their land. An industrial neighbor removes that right.

• Visual Blight: For those living across the street or right next door, the "viewscape" is permanently destroyed, which is a direct violation of the Ordinance’s intent to protect residential life.

• Drainage and Runoff: 2,400 acres of panels will change how rainwater hits the ground. Neighbors have a right to worry about "unnatural" runoff or flooding on their property.

1. Property Values & Economic Impact

• Loss of Equity: "Our homes are often our largest financial assets. Studies of utility-scale solar in rural areas suggest a potential decrease in property values for adjacent residential homes. We are asking the Board to intervene to protect the 'taxable value of land' within our township."

• No Benefit to Local Taxpayers: "Most of the energy generated here will be exported to other regions, while Sheridan residents are left with the industrial footprint. We bear the burden while the developer takes the profit."

2. Noise & Construction Nuisance

• The 'Industrial Hum': "The Noise Assessment predicts levels up to 41 dBA. In our quiet, rural Sheridan environment, this represents a constant, 24/7 industrial hum that interferes with the 'quiet enjoyment' of our properties."

• Construction Chaos: "A project of this scale involves months—if not years—of heavy machinery, pile driving, and massive truck traffic on our local roads (like 48th Street). This will cause significant wear and tear on our infrastructure and disrupt our daily commutes."

3. Drainage & Soil Integrity

• Runoff Concerns: "Replacing thousands of acres of naturally absorbing earth with glass and steel panels will change the way water hits the ground. We are concerned about 'unnatural' runoff, erosion, and potential flooding onto neighboring farms and residential yards."

• Soil Compaction: "The heavy equipment required for construction can permanently compact the soil, making it nearly impossible to return this land to productive farming after the project's life is over."

4. Safety & Emergency Response

• Access Barriers: "2,400 acres (This includes Garfield) of fenced-off land creates a massive obstacle for our local emergency services. In a fire or medical emergency, these miles of fencing could delay response times for neighbors on the other side of the project."

• Fire Hazards: "Lithium-ion battery storage or electrical fires in a rural area require specialized training and equipment. Does our local fire department have the resources to handle an industrial-scale electrical fire? Is there a guarantee that BESS will not be added in the future?"

5. Wildlife & Environmental Fragmentation

• The 'Great Wall' of Sheridan: "The proposed 7-foot fencing acts as a total barrier for large mammals. This fragments the natural travel corridors for deer and turkey that we enjoy in our township. The developer’s 'desktop science' doesn't account for the actual movement of wildlife we see every morning."

• Lake Effect: "Massive arrays of dark panels can confuse migrating birds and insects, leading them to collide with panels. We need the Board to intervene to ensure a site-specific environmental study is conducted, not just a generic summary."

6. Glare & Visual Blight

• Traffic Hazards: "Even 'low-glare' panels can create significant reflection during certain times of the day. This poses a safety risk for drivers on our local roads and a daily nuisance for neighbors whose homes face the array. Have aviation receptors been added to the glare study?"

• Loss of Rural Identity: "Sheridan is known for its open vistas and scenic beauty. Replacing those views with an industrial 'sea of glass' permanently destroys the rural character that brought us all here."

7. The Call to Action (The "Close")

• Request to Intervene: "The developer has an army of lawyers and engineers. Sheridan residents only have you. We are formally requesting that the Sheridan Board vote to intervene at the MPSC level. We need a seat at the table to ensure our community standards are upheld and our residents are protected."