Information about (BESS) Battery Energy Storage System Public Hearing
Slow down and know the facts.
1. Currently there is no application pending for solar or battery storage in Lockport Township
2. Lockport Township has had a solar ordinance and overlay district in this same area since 2023. At that time battery storage was not being discussed. The local municipalities created an ordinance to prevent the State from taking over the permitting and approval process. Well guess what the State passed PA 233 and PA 235 which gives a utility solar company permission to go directly to the State of Michigan for various reasons
3 Public Act 233 indicates that any Utility Solar Company over 50 megawatts can bypass the local municipality and go to the State of Michigan for approval with local municipalities having no say. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/publicact/htm/2023-PA-0233.htm
https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Bills/Bill?ObjectName=2023-SB-0235
4. If the local municipality does have an ordinance and it is more restrictive than the States, it is an automatic pass to the State. Our ordinance is more restrictive that the States.
They can call it a name plate project and scatter (sprawl) them all over the Township as long as they are connected together. Again the State could make that decision. Lockport or its residents would have no say in the matter.
5. No this does not have an effect on the Three Rivers Airport. The Indianapolis Indiana Regional Airport has one of the largest systems in the State of Indiana and are still expanding https://www.ind.com/about/media/media-releases/largest-airport-based-solar-farm-in-the-world-now-operating-at-the-indianapolis-international-airport
6. This amendment regulating battery storage is the same ordinance that adjacent township either have or will be passing as well.
Lockport Township as well as other local municipalities are merely trying to protect the Township’s local interests and avoid pre-exemption. If you want total local control, that would take a repeal of PA 233 and PA 235 which could only be done by our legislators, not by the local municipalities. Our State Representative and State Senator would be the one that would have to attempt to get such repeal passed which I can only image would be a extremely difficult task if at all possible.
It should be noted that when PA 233 and PA 235 were voted on, both State Represenaive Steve Carra and Senator Jonthan Lindsey vote NO and did not support these public acts.
Some peopole are not understanding the difference between a (BESS) Battery Energey Storage Systems with a data center. These battery storage units are typically associated with a renewableenergy (solar) projects, whereas a data center is more data storage (computer data storage) that typically consumes significant electric consumpton, and high volumne of water for cooling..
The ultimate control are the property owners. PA 233 and PA235 does not override a property owners rights to madate such use if the property owner does not want to participate. If no property owner consents then it can’t happen.
Urgent Local concerns
Please get involed in you local government. A State Representative out of the Grand Rapids area is proposing legislation listed below that would affect the entire State. Whereas this might work in the more metropolitan areas, it could cause severe negative impacts on our more rural area where we live. A cookie cutter approach for the entire State of Michigan is certainly not the answer. We need to keep local control on zoning matters.
She is citing zoning regulations as the cause for the housing shortages in the State.
1. Allow residential duplexes in single family residential zones.
2. Require local governments to allow for accessory dwelling units. This would be a second
dwelling space on a parcel or lot.
3. Prohibit local municipalities from requiring more than 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for
a residential use of property
4. Set a Statewide minimum lot size of 5,000 sq ft, prohibiting local municipalities from setting a
minimum that is higher.
5. Prohibit local municipalities from imposing a minimum dwelling size of more that 500 sq ft.
6. Require construction code commission to recommend modification to the code that would
allow for a single exit stairway to serve multi family residential structures up to 6 stories.
7. Require construction code commission to recommend modification to the residential code to
allow for construction of 3-4-5-6 plex dwelling, rather than the commercial code.
8. Expand the definition of “near neighbor” on a protest petition of a zoning ordinance from 100
feet to 200 feet. Increase the threshold of protest petitions on “upzoning from 20% to 50%
and lower the supermajority requirement of overriding a protest petition to a 3/5 majority.
Attached, are her proposals. Many residents have indicated that they would like to support Lockport Township n opposing such legislation.If you would like to support this opposing, please sign the attached letter and return it to the Township. You can email it to municipalzoning@gmail.com.
Thank you for your support on this matter.