Vermillion County removes carbon-sequestration language from UDO after months of public comment

Vermillion County commissioners voted April 8 to adopt a new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) while striking three specific sections that would have regulated carbon sequestration projects.

The move follows months of public comment, a legal review by an outside land-use attorney and concern among commissioners that some draft language could be interpreted as an outright ban on the Wabash Valley Resources pilot project.

Area Plan Commission project lead Brad Johnson told the commissioners the APC had hired a land-use law specialist to assess litigation risk and advised removal of sections 5.24(c), (d) and (e) because they might be interpreted as an effective ban. "Our attorney advised us to remove those three sections," Johnson said, and recommended sending the revised ordinance back to the APC for final consideration. Penny Carpenter, executive director of the Area Plan commission, emphasized the document still contains material the county needs: "There's been hours upon hours on this document. We've done our due diligence," she said.

Public commenters urged stronger local controls over carbon sequestration during the meeting's public-comment period. Whitney Boyce, who identified herself as representing concerned citizens, cited an administrative decision remanding an EPA permit for Wabash Valley Resources back to regional EPA staff and said adjudicatory judges found gaps in the agency nd company nalyses. "The judges felt the EPA and WVR neglected to provide sufficient data," Boyce said. Susan Strelkos and other residents urged the county to adopt protective ordinances and to require proof Wabash Valley had obtained the acreage required by statute without eminent domain or forced pooling.

Commissioners discussed options including adopting the UDO intact, rejecting it entirely or approving the APC recommendation to strike the three paragraphs. Commissioner Bill Peebles moved to approve the APC recommendation to accept the ordinance with those sections removed; Misty Hess seconded. The motion passed with a voice vote recorded as "Aye" and the chair declared the motion carries.

Johnson reminded the board the APC had a statutory 90-day clock: once the planning commission gives a favorable recommendation and the commissioners take no action within that period, the ordinance becomes effective. He told commissioners that clock would expire on the ninth of the month if the county did not act.

The APC and county staff told commissioners they are also exploring a limited moratorium and additional non-zoning ordinances that could regulate truck routes, emergency response and other operational matters related to carbon projects. Those measures would require separate actions and, staff said, are intended to provide additional mitigation without attempting a local ban.

Commissioner RJ Donovan said the county has to balance community concerns with legal risk: "We want to do what's best for the citizens," he said, noting the difficulty of predicting court outcomes on novel zoning language. The board returned the UDO to the APC for final action at its April 10 meeting, per the normal adoption process.

The new UDO as adopted will take effect under the county's adoption rules; the removed sections are listed in the agenda materials as 5.24(c), (d) and (e).