Neighbors ask for say in Rainbow Trout Solar’s court challenge of BZA vote

11 neighbors file to intervene in companies’ legal attempt to reverse a vote that stopped a 1,700-acre solar project in western Tippecanoe County

• Support for this edition comes from the Art Museum of Greater Lafayette, hosting its Halloween Bash on Oct. 31. The event will feature a costume contest, a concert, art activities and trick-or-treating. For more information and tickets, click here or check the link below.

Get tickets here

---

NEIGHBORS ASK TO INTERVENE IN RAINBOW TROUT’S COURT CHALLENGE OF BZA VOTE

Neighbors who fought a proposed 1,700-acre solar installation in western Tippecanoe County have re-entered chat, late last week filing a motion to be heard in the Rainbow Trout Solar Project’s court challenge of an August vote by the Board of Zoning Appeals that sidelined development plans.

Rainbow Trout Solar, a 120-megawatt project proposed and rejected near Montmorenci, made its first appearance in court Oct. 7, as the companies behind the project looked to reverse the 4-3 Board of Zoning Appeals vote in August.

(Photo: Dave Bangert)

Attorneys for Geenex and RWE Energy – the companies behind Rainbow Trout Solar – filed for the review in September, arguing that the Board of Zoning Appeals “committed errors and abused its discretion” when it voted “without any rational basis” against a special zoning exception necessary for what would have been the county’s first utility-scale solar installation.

Last week, Tippecanoe Circuit Judge Sean Persin gave attorneys for Rainbow Trout and the Board of Zoning Appeals 30 days to decide whether the case will need additional evidence or the matter will be a straight judicial review of the BZA vote. The case is scheduled for a Dec. 1 hearing to discuss that.

In an Oct. 10 filing, 11 residents filed a motion to intervene, arguing that their interests should be represented in Rainbow Trout’s case. According to the filing, the 11 people own 10 properties adjacent to land Rainbow Trout plans to lease or within one-third of a mile away.

They argued in the filing that their land values would be affected if the court overturns the BZA vote and the solar project advances. They argued that “the BZA does not adequately represent the intervenors’ interests.”