On Wednesday, October 28, the Richland Township Planning Commission meets again at the Township Hall at 7401 N. 32nd Street to keep deliberating on Consumers Energy's Liberty Farms Solar project. Many neighbors are treating that meeting as the moment the question gets settled. Under Michigan law, it may not be. A 220-megawatt project like this one can reach the state Public Service Commission by more than one route. On the same night, the commission will also hold a hearing on a moratorium proposal, and state law connects moratoria to how much say a township keeps. If you're comparing Richland with other parts of Kalamazoo County and looking at rural property on the township's north side, a vote on October 28 won't settle the question.
What's proposed, and where
According to the township's application narrative, Liberty Farms covers 2,268 acres, with 1,189 acres inside the project fence. Those parcels fall in Richland's A-1 Agricultural-Residential, D-1 Commercial-Industrial, and E Industrial zoning districts. A property-value report prepared for Consumers places the site between Cressey Road to the north, M-43 to the south and west, and M-43 and N. 32nd Street to the east. It describes the project as about 2,300 leased acres across 26 parcels.
For anyone looking at a house along those roads, these are the terms that matter most, as they appear in the March 2026 application narrative and the revised decommissioning estimate:
| Item | What Consumers proposed |
|---|---|
| Setback from roads, exterior parcel lines, wetlands and water | 50 feet |
| Setback from parcel lines with an existing residence | 100 feet |
| Fencing | Seven-foot game fence |
| Screening | Three rows of evergreen and deciduous plantings where existing vegetation doesn't screen nearby homes, planted spring 2027 |
| Decommissioning | $24.8 million in direct costs, with $1.686 million in possible scrap credits listed separately; a bond posted before construction |
The township ordinance summary reproduced in that decommissioning report requires removal and restoration within 365 days, with the soil returned to its pre-development condition or better. At an August 26 presentation, Consumers said the township could receive a payment in lieu of taxes of $7,000 per megawatt, about $1.54 million a year for 20 years. It also said Richland could qualify for a $5,000-per-megawatt Renewable Ready Communities award, roughly $1.1 million. Consumers described both as possibilities, not commitments.
Ten months of meetings and no vote yet
The local process has run long. WMUK reported that the first hearing in January had to be postponed because the crowd exceeded the township hall's fire capacity. WWMT reported that hundreds attended the March 25 session and that most public comments opposed the project. The April 29 meeting moved to Gull Lake Middle School, and the minutes record at least 250 people in attendance. WMUK covered the May 27 session, where the hearing finally closed after hours of comments. Opponents cited farmland loss, property values, and environmental concerns, and one labor union speaker supported the project for its jobs and infrastructure.
Deliberations followed on July 22 and August 26, and the September 23 agenda carried them again. The township's home page lists October 28 as the next session.
What happens after a denial
Michigan's Public Act 233 of 2023 took effect November 29, 2024. It covers solar facilities of 50 megawatts or more, so a 220-megawatt project qualifies. As the Michigan Court of Appeals described it, the law doesn't require a developer to go to the state. A developer can still seek local zoning approval, and Consumers did that here through a special exception use and site plan application.
How the state route opens depends on whether a township has what the law calls a "compatible renewable energy ordinance," or CREO. That means a local ordinance whose requirements are no more restrictive than the state standards in Section 226(8). Even when a township has one, the statute lists three situations in which the developer can take the application to the Michigan Public Service Commission:
- The township fails to approve or deny the application on time.
- The application meets the Section 226(8) requirements, and the township denies it anyway.
- The township amends its zoning after declaring a CREO, and the amendment adds requirements stricter than Section 226(8).
If the state then grants a certificate in one of those situations, the township is treated as no longer having a CREO. The exception is when the commission finds the denial was reasonably tied to the developer leaving out required information.
Which of these paths applies in Richland depends on whether the township holds CREO status, and the township clerk is the person to ask. One detail suggests the answer may be complicated. Richland's solar ordinance took effect June 5, 2024, and caps solar component height at 15 feet. The PA 233 solar standard allows 25 feet. The Court of Appeals upheld the commission's reading that a CREO can't be more restrictive than the state standards.
The idea of going to the state has also come up in the room. According to the township's July 22 minutes, one resident told the commission that Consumers had confirmed it would go to the state if the commission denied the application. That was her account of what Consumers said, recorded during public comment.
The other items on the October 28 agenda
The hearing notice for October 28, dated September 30, sets a 6 p.m. start for three other items:
- A 12-month moratorium on data centers, so the township can study them as a land use
- A 9-month moratorium on considering Battery Energy Storage Systems
- Step I site condominium review of Hidden Lake Real Estate's proposal for 48 single-family home sites on about 110 acres. The land sits north of the existing Hidden Lake subdivision and The Ranch at Hidden Lake, south of Meadowshire, with access proposed from 28th Street.
The battery storage item ties back to the solar question. PA 233's definition of a CREO ends with this sentence:
A local unit of government is considered not to have a compatible renewable energy ordinance if it has a moratorium on the development of energy facilities in effect within its jurisdiction.
Energy storage facilities of 50 megawatts or more with at least 200 megawatt-hours of discharge capability are among the facility types the law covers. How the statute would treat Richland if it adopted a storage moratorium is a question for the township's attorney and, possibly, the commission. The moratorium hearing and the solar deliberations are on the same night's agenda, and they affect each other.
The Hidden Lake item is the housing story on that agenda. Step I is an early, tentative review. If it moves forward, it would add 48 new home sites in the same township while the solar decision is still open.
The state rules are still being contested
The statute itself is still in litigation. On May 7, 2026, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion that upheld most of the Public Service Commission's implementing order, including its CREO interpretation. It reversed the commission on a notice deadline and on which local units count as affected. The townships and counties that challenged the order applied for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court on June 18, and commission-side parties filed cross-applications on July 16. An August 7 filing in the commission's docket describes both as pending.
In Lansing, House Bill 4027 and its companion, House Bill 4028, would undo the state siting framework. Both passed the House on April 30, 2025, went to the Senate Government Operations Committee on May 6, 2025, and show no action since. The state route is also in actual use. The commission's siting page lists the 90-megawatt Acceleration Solar project in Ingham County, Case U-21932, as "Certificate Granted."
What the property value research measured
Property values came up repeatedly in public comment. The largest independent study is a 2023 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory analysis of more than 1,500 large solar projects and over 1.8 million home sales in six states, none of them Michigan. It found that homes within half a mile of a project sold for about 1.5% less than homes 2 to 4 miles away. On the sample's mean price of about $400,000, that's roughly $6,000.
The averages hide how much the results varied. The statistically significant effects showed up only for projects on former farmland, homes in rural areas, and projects larger than the study's median of about 12 acres. Liberty Farms fits all three. The authors also note that they measured correlation, not causation, and that their analysis didn't account for setbacks or landscaping. Those happen to be the two things Richland's commission is weighing in this application. Consumers commissioned its own study from CohnReznick, which concluded the data it reviewed showed no consistent measurable negative impact. That report names Consumers Energy as its client.
If you're looking at a home near Cressey Road or M-43
Treat October 28 as one step. Whatever the commission decides, there may still be a state process, a Supreme Court ruling, or both before anything is built or permanently ruled out. Before you make an offer, it helps to do three things:
- Look at the parcel exhibits on the township's Liberty Farms application page to see how close a specific property is to the leased land.
- Read the screening and setback terms that would apply along that property line.
- Sign up for the township's text alerts on richlandtwp.net so you hear about the next step when it's posted.
This post is general information about public proceedings and state law, not legal advice. If a pending land-use decision affects a property you're considering, talk to a real estate attorney about your situation.
If you're weighing a home on Richland's north side and want help working out how Liberty Farms could affect a particular parcel, offer, or timeline, Mary Noneman can go through the township documents with you and help you plan around what's still undecided.
