Anti-wind Trempealeu committee still blocks wind development
From a story by Amber Dulek in the Winona (MN) Daily News:
WHITEHALL, Wis. — Trempealeau County might be two steps away from a future in wind energy development.
The zoning committee will vote tonight on a wind ordinance, which regulates placement, noise and safety for wind developers. If approved, the proposal goes to the Trempealeau County Board for a vote June 18.
Jim Naleid offers a commentary followed by a detailed report on the committee’s vote:
From a developer’s perspective, the entire process that covered eight months from inception to adoption was conducted from an anti-wind development bias. The committee, although giving lip-service to the Wisconsin Model ordinance, and in fact incorporating some aspects of it within its own, as well as the Wisconsin statute 66.0401, gave little credence to the emphasis the law puts on restrictive ordinance articles other than for public health and safety reasons.
Other than Mr. Lien and Mr. Brandt, the three other committee members contributed little if anything to the process and displayed a lack of commitment as to understanding the real issues facing developers and citizens alike.
The ordinance fully restricts small wind generation for personal use by setting height and turbine location restrictions. According to the adopted ordinance, individual landowners are “limited to one turbine per contiguous parcel(s) under common ownership.”
After careful review, we believe the ordinance contains one additional restriction after another. For whatever the reason, this ordinance, as it is written, presumes to know better than the State of Wisconsin, the Public Service Commission, the Department of Transportation and all other agencies that wind developers must answer to with authority over and above that of the county.
The restrictions incorporated go over and above what all of the mentioned agencies here noted have set for wind development projects and do so under the guise of being concerned for ‘public health and safety’ while the restrictions correlated to the concerns cannot be supported with credible scientific data and practical experience.
By this action, the Zoning Committee has set the stage, that if adopted by the County Board on June 18, will send a clear message to all that Trempealeau County Wisconsin is not a place where you will find support for the nation’s and the state’s renewable energy objectives. The county will go on record as one that has created unnecessary barriers to landowners’ rights to free enterprise, say
nothing of the economic impact that development, construction, tax and leasehold revenues the county and its citizens will thus turn away.
Jim Naleid
AgWind Energy Partners
(608) 781-2583
(608) 792-6445
jimn@agwind.com
And Jim’s report:
TREMPEALEAU COUNTY ZONING PASSES RESTRICTIVE ORIDINANCE
TO THE COUNTY BOARD
May 22, 2007, Whitehall, WI – County Zoning Committee Chairman, George Brandt informed interested citizens who packed into the small basement hearing room at the County Municipal building that the committee would be not hearing from the public during the open session but that, “This is the Committee’s night to consider the second draft of the County Wind Facility Ordinance.”
Facing a June 24 deadline to its self-imposed Wind Development moratorium the committee, according to Brandt, was faced with one of three choices; “We can adopt the original ordinance that was presented to the public in April, adopt this current revision of the ordinance, or we can consider extending the moratorium.” On the moratorium issue, Kevin Lien, the County Zoning Administrator explained that he consulted with attorney Bill Theil and that the moratorium could extended for up to two years, however, that in doing so the committee would have to offer a strong, substantial and defensible reason for doing so.”
Mr. Lien covered the items within the ordinance that had been revised since the original draft a month ago and in particular noted that the setback from inhabitable buildings of 2,640 for commercial turbines had been reduced to 1,320 and that, Lien explained, was concluded after he and staff personnel realized that indeed, using the original setback requirement would all but eliminate even one turbine being erected within the county. He added, “At least now, we have opened
the window for possible development.”
Also of note, Mr. Lien commented on the noise limitation requirement for commercial development of wind facilities and explained that in the previous ordinance, a complaint could be filed any citizen but the new revision inserted “if two or more complaints” are documented at a particular sight. In the event of a filed complaint, developers would burden the cost of a sound consultant who would be brought in to verify and substantiate the complaint. There is no provision
for the complainant to cover such costs if the complaint were found to be groundless.
It was also noted by Mr. Lien that the county was comfortable reducing the sound decibels rating threshold to not exceed forty-five (45) decibels even though the Wisconsin state model ordinance recommends a threshold of fifty (50) decibels. Explaining the rationale for doing so Lien cited the county’s non-metallic mining ordinance and believes that level set is appropriate in that regard and so would work equally as well with wind development. “This is a level we can hang our hat on,” he said.
Committee members offered no input and had no questions of either Mr. Lien or the committee chairman, George Brandt. After moments of deliberation, committee member, Geraldine Van Tassel offered a motion to adopt the current ordinance and pass it on the full board. The motion passed without further discussion.
In closing the evening session, Chairman Brandt, thanked the largely partisan, anti-wind attendees for their participation in the government process and noted that whether the committee had decided to pass either the first or second revision of the ordinance, he believed both are “sound and defensible documents in a court of law.”
Immediately following the meeting, opponents to wind development within Trempealeau County circulated a petition for signatures to make their opposition known.
