LORDSTOWN — The village “has not identified any reasonable grounds” for the Ohio Power Siting Board to act on a complaint Lordstown filed with the regulatory agency over the construction of Trumbull Energy Center, a $1.2 billion natural gas-fired power plant.

That’s according to an eight-page response attorneys for the center filed Tuesday — the deadline to answer claims made in July that the center is not in compliance with a certificate the board granted in October 2017 that allows its owners to build, operate and maintain the facility.

Lordstown asked for the permit to be suspended as well as for an order requiring the facility to comply with Lordstown’s site plan review and zoning permit processes.

At the heart of the complaint filed by village was the siting board approval was based on the project site being zoned industrial when much of the site is zoned residential.

The center, however, claims the validity of the certificate is not dependent on the village’s local zoning and the application “adequately described” the zoning designations of the property, including a 34-acre parcel that is zoned residential.

“The board was fully aware of the zoning designations and issued the certificate with that understanding,” the filing states, adding the certificate did not include any condition for a zone change and was issued by the siting board “based on an accurate and holistic description” of the project site.

The village, according to the document, alleges there is an error in the certificate, however, “the time for challenges to the certificate has long since passed,” it states.

The response also claims the village is trying to usurp the siting board’s jurisdiction.

“Despite the siting of CEF-T (Clean Energy Future-Trumbull) falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the board, the VOL (Village of Lordstown) admits that it has continuously interfered with” the company’s rights granted by the certificate, the filing states.

It points to a village-issued stop work order June 9, which the response claims is a violation of Ohio law that prevents any political subdivision, like Lordstown, from “requiring ‘any approval, consent, permit, certificate, or other condition'” to build or operate a major utility facility.

The response continues that Lordstown’s request to issue an order for the facility to comply with the village’s site plan and zoning permit process, likewise, violates state law.

“This request is unlawful, and it is also a bait-and-switch,” the filing states.

Complying with the local zoning permit process “would prevent the project from being built altogether.”

Lordstown “is not simply seeking ‘more involvement in oversight of this type of a facility’ as it claims,” but “it is seeking the ability to kill a properly certificated facility altogether by withholding local permissions and permits,” the document states.

The company filed a request with the village in February to rezone the site, but village council rejected the request in June after hearing concerns from residents.

OTHER ALLEGATIONS

Other matters raised in the July complaint include a well to access the village’s water system being drilled without approval of the village, Trumbull County Combined Health District, the Ohio Department of Health or the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.

Drilling the well, the complaint claims, violates village ordinances and is not authorized in the siting board’s certificate.

The complaint also alleges the center never provided detailed engineering drawings of the final design to the village, does not appear to have an environmental consultant on site, is violating a wetland buffer and is engaging in construction outside the hours listed in the certificate.

CENTER RESPONDS

Tuesday’s filing states the center “chose to drill a nonpotable water well for construction after being denied a ministerial request” for a connection by the village.

“While the VOL alleges that this ‘violates the VOL’s local ordinances,’ the VOL does not point to any actual ordinance. There is none,” the filing states. “Similarly, the state’s permitting requirements are not applicable because the well is solely for nonpotable water.”

The center, meanwhile, has been submitting phased engineering drawings with the siting board; the site manager has confirmed the center has an environmental consultant on site; and regarding construction during non-permitted hours, the center conducted a continuous concrete pour beyond 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Aug 8, but provided advanced notice to the public — a permit condition — and received no complaints regarding the work, the filing states.

Tuesday’s filing also states Lordstown contradicts itself in the complaint, admitting in it the center “self-reported an encroachment into wetlands by a contractor” and has taken actions to avoid future encroachments.

REQUEST

The village has asked the siting board to consolidate the cases before it involving Lordstown and the center. The center opposes the motion.

Another matter involves the village objecting to a request by the center to amend the certificate to add two temporary laydown yards, which are areas on a construction site used to store vehicles, tools and equipment when they are not in use.

Siting board staff recommended changing the permit to allow for the laydown yards, plus other design adjustments, but not without conditions.

A hearing on the other matter is scheduled for Monday in Columbus.