Gustin Solar:
Who really decides?

The letter states, “Based on information and belief,” that Harrisville Township zones without a master plan, and that “it may be unlawful for the Township to be applying or enforcing its zoning ordinance” (letter, pp. 3, 5). Michigan's Zoning Enabling Act says “A zoning ordinance shall be based upon a plan designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare” (MCL 125.3203(1)). The township's zoning page, as captured Oct 1, 2026, lists its zoning documents; no master plan is among them (township zoning page). The searchable text of the township's May 14, 2025 zoning ordinance does not mention a master plan (ordinance). No record we hold shows a court or agency ruling on the question for Harrisville.

The letter says wetlands and drains exist on the site and, “Based on information and belief,” that wetland delineation “has not been undertaken and/or not submitted,” so the application is “administratively incomplete” (letter, pp. 3, 7). It bases the wetland finding on the federal NRCS Web Soil Survey, which it says lists “Wakeley mucky sand 0% slope in wetland areas” (p. 6). Consumers' application summary says the project “has been designed to avoid the use of delineated wetlands and streams” and points to site plan sheets CV-221-001 to -003 for wetland locations (SUP summary, PDF pp. 13, 17). None of the application files the township posts is titled as a wetland delineation report (township zoning page, Oct 1, 2026). Under the ordinance, the Zoning Administrator decides whether a site plan is incomplete before Planning Commission review (Sec. 15.04).

The letter says that if filling, grading or construction is proposed in regulated wetlands, “a Part 303 permit is required from Michigan’s EGLE prior to Township site plan and/or special land use reviews” (letter, p. 3). The letter cites Part 303 but no provision that sets that order (p. 6). The township ordinance says a site plan “shall be approved if it contains the required site plan data and is in compliance with this ordinance, other Township planning documents, and state and federal statutes” (Sec. 15.04). Consumers' summary says it “will obtain all necessary permits prior to beginning construction of the facility” and that the project avoids delineated wetlands (SUP summary, PDF p. 17).

The letter asks for a hydrogeological study with baseline water quality “before any final Township decision” (letter, p. 3). From eight well logs it reports an average static water level of 34.1 ft below ground (p. 6). The ordinance requires a “Ground water test submitted to Zoning Administrator prior to installation, upon completion of installation and annually until site restoration is completed” (Sec. 3.22.C.1(a)). Consumers has asked the Planning Commission to find that requirement satisfied by the state's spill-prevention (SPCC) program, and says the section “is superseded by Part 31 and Part 201 of NREPA” (Consumers memo, pp. 1–2; SUP summary, PDF p. 9).

The letter says the glare study's panel height of 5.5 ft “is invalid,” citing a maximum array height of 9 ft 10.5 in on the site plans, and asks for receptors at 35 ft for homes and 10 ft for truck cabs (letter, pp. 3, 8). The study lists an “Average Height Above Ground” of 5.5 ft, with homes modeled at 6 ft and roads at 4 and 8 ft (glare study, PDF p. 8). Site plan drawing 8-EP-350 marks a “MAX HEIGHT” of 9 ft 10½ in (Exhibit B, PDF p. 29, drawing 8-EP-350, read from the drawing); Consumers' summary gives “approximately 11 feet” at maximum tilt (SUP summary, PDF p. 15). The modeling tool's documentation says a ground-mount height is “measured to the PV panel centroid” and that “For more accuracy, the user should perform analyses using minimum and maximum values for the vertex heights”; its example observer height is “5-6 ft. for person at ground level” (ForgeSolar help, retrieved Oct 1, 2026). No record we hold sets a height for second-story receptors. The study found one instance of consequential glare, at one residence, and none on roads (PDF p. 10).

The letter says the sound study's receptor height of 5.0 ft “is invalid” and asks for a re-run with receptors at 35 ft, the height of a two-story home (letter, pp. 3, 11). The study lists a “Receptor Height” of “5 feet above grade” and concludes that “The modeling shows that the Project will comply with all applicable noise limits” (sound study, PDF pp. 10–11). The township limit applies “at the property line of an adjacent non-participating lot at 2 a.m.” (Sec. 3.22.C.5); the state standard is “as modeled at the nearest outer wall of the nearest dwelling” (PA 233 Sec. 226(8)(a)(iv)). Neither text sets a receptor height. The letter's 88–96 dBA figures are for “Heavy trucks (35 mph-60 mph)” and appear in its discussion of truck noise at the project's entrances (p. 16).

The letter says that to review the driveway standard in Sec. 16.04.3, “the application should include and the Township should review a valid and reliable traffic study” (letter, p. 3). Sec. 16.04 asks the Planning Commission to consider “Adequate location and design of driveways” and traffic circulation; the ordinance text does not use the words “traffic study” (Sec. 16.04). The mirrored applications contain no traffic study. We searched the Harrisville application (summary, cover letter, Exhibits A–G, groundwater letter) and the 1,233-page Gustin Township application, including scanned pages, for “traffic study,” “traffic impact,” “traffic analysis” and “trip generation”; the only match is the Gustin application’s quotation of that township’s traffic standard (Gustin application, p. 1227). Consumers' summary says operation “will generate minimal traffic” and that entrances follow Alcona County Road Commission design standards; it gives no estimate of construction traffic (SUP summary, PDF pp. 7, 15–16).

The letter says the application should address, and the township should review, the project's “potential impact on all future land uses within the Ag. District” (letter, pp. 3, 15). The ordinance standard it relies on asks the Planning Commission to consider “Any development modifications necessary to ensure the nature of the operation will not be in conflict with the primary permitted uses in the district or neighborhood” (Sec. 16.04.6). Consumers' summary answers that standard and says solar facilities “represent a land use that can be decommissioned and the land restored to a condition that supports the resumption of agriculture in the future” (SUP summary, PDF p. 16).

The letter asks the township to condition any approval on “the provision of the required decommission bond” and to treat permits as “null and void if this bond is not provided prior to any aspect project construction” (letter, pp. 4, 13–14). The ordinance requires a performance (surety) bond of “no less than 150% of the estimated cost of removal,” posted “within fifteen (15) days after approval or before a construction permit is issued” (Sec. 3.22.C.10). Its text does not say an approval becomes void if the bond is not posted; that remedy is the letter's proposal. Consumers' summary says it “will provide a decommissioning bond in an amount equal to 150% of the decommissioning estimate” (SUP summary, PDF pp. 11–12). PA 233 separately requires financial assurance of not less than the estimated decommissioning cost after salvage value in applications for a state certificate, and in applications filed with a township that has given notice of a compatible ordinance. It may be posted in steps: at least 25% by the start of full commercial operation, at least 50% by the start of the fifth year of commercial operation, and 100% by the start of the tenth (PA 233 Secs. 225(1)(r), 223(3)(a)).

The letter says the township “is required to review the project’s compliance with” Part 17 of the state's environmental code, and must make an “affirmative and documented finding” that the project will not “pollute, impair or destroy” natural resources (letter, pp. 4, 10, 17). Part 17 provides that “In administrative, licensing, or other proceedings” the alleged pollution, impairment or destruction of natural resources “shall be determined, and conduct shall not be authorized or approved that has or is likely to have such an effect if there is a feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare” (MCL 324.1705(2)). The township ordinance requires an approved site plan to comply with “state and federal statutes” (Sec. 15.04). No record we hold addresses whether a township's special land use review is such a proceeding, or requires a written finding in the form the letter describes.