Leeward showing a pattern of disregard for Blackford County approvals

Across its work in Blackford County, Leeward Renewable Energy has followed a recurring sequence. Work moves forward on the ground, and the county learns the details afterward.

The most recent example reached the Board of Zoning Appeals on September 15. Blackford Solar, a Leeward project, had installed solar panels on a strip of land that was not correctly identified in its 2022 zoning approval. The company identified the gap in 2024. It then leased the land, built an access road and installed the panels. All without the county knowing until 2026.

The county's first public hearing on the missing parcel issue happened in September 2026 at a BZA hearing, when Leeward asked the Blackford County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) to correct the initial special exception to cover what had already been discovered by the company two years ago.

Built without the ILP

The strip of land is about 18 feet wide and 2,000 feet long, running north between two parcels in the project. It did not appear on the list of properties in Leeward's 2022 application. Leeward's representatives told the board the company did not know the strip had a separate owner until 2024.

After learning that, the company signed and recorded a lease with the owner, secured an access easement and built the owner a driveway. A board member asked whether the company notified the county before building on the land. The representative said it had not.

According to the company, the project is about 90 percent complete and expected to begin producing power in October.

BZA member Kelly Earle, who voted for the project in 2022, raised a concern during the hearing: "I mean it was four years ago when I voted to push this through, and I'm nervous about what else might pop up on us."

The board voted to include the parcel. The vote allowed the county to complete the permitting process for the parcel, the project's 24th improvement location permit. The panels were already installed.

This, by itself, could be seen a simple mistake; the strip of land was small and could've been easily confused as being attached to a neighboring parcel. Possibly a "scrivener's error?" Maybe.

But it isn't the first reported issue about Leeward's Blackford Solar project.

More than just missing details

In 2022, when Leeward filed for the special exception, Leeward told the BZA it would install a wildlife-friendly agricultural fence around the Blackford Solar site as a condition of approval. The fence that went up is chain-link topped with barbed wire. The response to the incorrect fence came as a letter from Warren Brown, the Executive Director of the Blackford County Economic Development Corporation (BCEDC). This type of letter is typically issued by the county's Executive Director of Planning and Zoning, Samantha Dick, who is meant to enforce county ordinances and construction permits. According to an email from Dick, Commissioner President John Lancaster directed her to contact Brown, who has helped with the drafting of the development agreement between Leeward and the county but lacks authority to enforce county ordinances.

The contents of that letter have yet to be established.

At the September 8 Commissioners meeting, two landowners described problems with the company. They said crop damage from 2025 and 2026 had not been paid, a contract payment arrived later than the agreed-upon deadline, buried lines were shallower than one contract specified, and a fence cut one landowner off from his own woods. Both said others had similar experiences. Most of their concerns were referred to their attorneys.

Despite the commissioners stating they meet with Blackford Solar project leaders weekly, in each case, the county and residents learned the details after the work was done. By then the fence stood, the lines were buried and the panels were installed.

The county's response has followed its own pattern. The fence that went up in place of the approved design is still standing. The landowners who brought complaints to the Commissioners were largely directed to their own attorneys. And when the parcel came before the board, members confirmed the approval without attaching conditions.

Each time Leeward has built beyond what it was approved to do, the result has been accepted after the fact, not challenged by the county to hold Leeward responsible to its agreement with the county. The Ledger's requests for comments on Leeward-related issues have gone unanswered.

Earle's question about what else might surface has not been answered, but only time will tell if more is yet to come.