Letter to Editor | Did OPALCO think we wouldn’t read the report?

||| FROM DAWNI CUNNINGTON |||

OPALCO is currently attempting to overturn recorded deed restrictions that were already in place when it purchased the Decatur Island property.

OPALCO used our money to purchase a 20-acre parcel without even a feasibility period. At the time of purchase, the property was already encumbered by protected areas, including:

   •   A 3.84-acre Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) covenant (AFN#2010-0810007)
   •   Nearly 7 acres of dedicated open space
(AFN#2012-0611001)

At a minimum you would think that they would have read the title report.

In addition there are Nine wetlands and their required setbacks as documented in the required Critical Areas Review.

Despite these known restrictions, OPALCO proposed expanding the existing 3-acre solar array by attempting to use a Provisional Use Permit. Only after substantial community pressure was OPALCO required to use the correct process — a Conditional Use Permit, as required under the land use table for Areas zoned RGU-5.

OPALCO has continued to spend large amounts of member money pursuing this application while ignoring the two recorded deed restrictions. Their site plans show that portions of this industrial-scale solar facility would be located directly within the protected areas.

When this was formally challenged, OPALCO abruptly changed its position and stated that the Native Growth covenant would simply be “removed or revised.” In a letter to the County Council, OPALCO proposed to “increase” the protected area from 0.31 acres to approximately 0.5 acres.

Let that sink in.

The covenant legally protects 3.84 acres.
Not 0.31.
Not 0.5.

This is either a serious misrepresentation of the facts — or a stunning failure to understand the property they purchased.

OPALCO then cited SJCC 18.70.070(F)(2)(x)(iii) as justification. That section has nothing to do with Native Growth covenants. It applies only to subdivisions and short subdivisions and merely acknowledges that private covenants may exist in addition to County code. It provides no authority whatsoever to alter or extinguish a recorded land covenant.

Did OPALCO really believe no one would read the code?

In the same letter, OPALCO claims that “the commercial building for which the original building permit was issued was not fully constructed.” Whether true or not, this is irrelevant.
This is not a performance bond.
This is a permanent land covenant recorded on title. It is legally binding and was accepted by OPALCO at purchase.

OPALCO is also ignoring the larger open space covenant that was required in 2012 during a Simple Land Division. If they succeed in eliminating the Native Growth covenant, it is reasonable to expect they will attempt to undo the open space covenant next.

This cannot be allowed.

Allowing a developer — even a co-op — to erase recorded environmental protections would set a dangerous precedent and undermine every conservation covenant in this county.

On the attached map, you can clearly see OPALCO’s proposed solar footprint (in red) overlapping protected areas (in green).

This is not responsible stewardship.
It is an attempt to rewrite binding land protections after the fact — using your money.

I just want to fully emphasize two facts
Decaturites are not against Solar. We are against clear cutting a healthy forest.
Decatur adores and appreciates the crew that comes here and takes care of our islands needs