ZBA vote a tie on proposed Mount Pulaski wind farm

Send a link to a friend  Share

[July 10, 2015]  MOUNT PULASKI - On Wednesday night, the Zoning Board of Appeals resumed listening to testimony on a new application by Meridien Wind Farm. The hearing was held at the high school in Mount Pulaski. The company recently sought to construct a wind farm in Logan County, and needs to be granted a conditional use permit to do so.

A prior application was denied by the Logan County Board in February due to a tie vote among the members.

In April, Relight returned to the county to hold public meetings on their proposed revisions to the project and gather feedback on the potential project. Following those meetings Relight filed a new application, which then required a new hearing process.

In June, the Logan County Regional Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approving of the new wind farm application.

Wayne Woo and William Kelsey were present at the hearing on behalf of Relight. Relight is based in Italy, and they are the developers behind the Meridien Wind Farm. Woo is one of the owners of Relight, and Kelsey is a consultant Relight has hired for the project.

In total, including a one-quarter mile footprint, the project would encompass 22,500 acres. The project would represent a $300 million investment in the county, including $44 million in property taxes over twenty-five years.

The hearing opened with time allowed for more comments from the general public. Lisa Leonard was the first to speak. Leonard said she has been talking with people living in Emden near the Railsplitter Wind Farm in recent months. Leonard said she asked both participating and non-participating landowners about living near wind towers. Leonard said that the longer she spoke to people around Railsplitter, the more people became willing to admit that they experienced a lot of irritation living near a wind farm.

Cheryl Martin spoke next. Martin said she wanted to remind everyone that the school board in Mount Pulaski recently voted four-to-two against entering a legal agreement with Relight to receive additional financial compensation from the company.

“They wanted to exchange our voice for a contract,” said Martin.

Terry Coppinger said he thinks Relight should hire a third party to conduct a study on their decommissioning plan. Woo said that although Relight already did so, they would be willing to get a second opinion, and would be open to hiring whoever the county designated to do so, as per Coppinger’s suggestion.

Renee Martin said that among her concerns is that of shadow flicker affecting roads and drivers on those roads. Brett Farmer asked if that was a problem that Relight had considered. Woo said Relight had not analyzed shadow flicker and roads, because they did not think it was necessary for study. Mount Pulaski Road Commissioner Leslie Hilt said he had asked other commissioners about it, and that the consensus seems to be it is not a problem for drivers and it would be too difficult to mitigate.

“It’s such a short period of time, that if the sun is that bright, the sun itself is more of a problem than the flicker,” said Hilt.

Derek Martin asked Woo if Relight has attempted to contact all of the leaseholders in the area since the previous application. Martin said that a lack of communication has been a big problem surrounding this potential project. Woo said he has not been able to contact everyone with the information he has currently, but he has tried to contact as many people as he could.

Tom Martin spoke to a similar problem he has had since the beginning of this process. Martin said there has been a lack of communication with Relight because nobody from the company is in the area aside from hearings and public meetings. Martin also said the previous representatives that have come to Mount Pulaski have not tried to build any trust with the community. On the topic of finances, Martin said he understands that as a private company, Relight’s finances are their business, but they should be able to provide evidence of financial capability to support such a large project.

Chairman Doug Thompson reminded Martin that no requirement to provide such information is in the zoning ordinances. The only financial information that needs to be provided concerns any road-use agreements and a decommissioning plan. “If they couldn’t do that, then it wouldn’t go on,” said Thompson.

Corey Leonard reiterated that he feels the application is incomplete, as a new noise study was not done by a third-party, nor was a new migratory bird study completed. Thompson said that a noise study does not have to be conducted by a third party under zoning ordinances.

Sarah Cooper said her family does intend to stay in Mount Pulaski should the farm be built. Cooper said she is responding to those who have said families with children will move away.

“We’ve decided as a family that’s fine for our children to be in the footprint,” said Cooper. Cooper said her family also intends to continue their livestock operations within the footprint.

Larry Baker asked if the layout of the towers is set by the application, and whether or not towers can move from what the map shows. Zoning Officer Will D’Andrea said the towers are “relatively locked in,” meaning that there is no set limit on moving a tower. D’Andrea added that changes would require new noise studies to be conducted. Furthermore, major modifications would require a new hearing process for any towers being moved.

When asked who would make the call for when a hearing is needed, D’Andrea said that as Zoning Officer, it is his responsibility. “We try to honor what was brought before the hearing, and not subvert the process,” said D’Andrea.

William Kelsey added that towers may have to be moved during construction for the sake of efficiency. Kelsey said each of the landowners will need to be consulted during construction to determine if changes would need to be made. Additionally, towers may need to be removed entirely if no agreement can be made as to where the towers can go.

[to top of second column]

The ZBA members spent an hour deliberating over the conditions and whether or not they should recommend the permit to be approved. An initial list of 38 conditions was attached to the permit by a unanimous vote of the members.

After the vote on the 38 conditions, a few additional conditions were attached to the project. These conditions include:

  • A mitigation plan for shadow flicker on homes owned by non-participating landowners in the footprint.
     

  • An agreement to help mitigate issues in applying aerial pesticides on farmland. Relight would consider shutting down turbines at certain times for pesticide applications, or aiding in payment for increased application costs. Thompson asked Cheryl Baker, who lives in Emden near the Railsplitter Wind Farm, about aerial applications in the area. Baker said applications near the towers do cost extra money, but Railsplitter will shut down towers at certain times for pesticide sprays.
     

  • The agreement to pay $750 per parcel per year to participating and non-participating landowners within one-third of a mile of the project. For participants, this would be in addition to money paid due to a lease agreement.
     

  • The agreement to pay $250 per year per household to non-participating occupants in the same range for every turbine within 3,000 feet.
     

  • A five year sunset clause which would require a new application if Relight does not begin operation within five years. Rick Sheley asked if Relight would be willing to take a three-year clause. Woo said he is not authorized to do that for a three-year plan, but he can authorize five years.

In addition to these conditions, the ZBA members also discussed a couple of other items that had no apparent solution in front of them. One of these is whether or not Relight’s proposed additional financial donations could be made as a condition for the permit. Woo said he had imagined that would be the case, meaning Relight would be obligated to make their proposed additional donations in order to receive and hold a permit.

Thompson said if that became a condition, it would be up to the county to enforce those conditions. Because of that, Thompson said it might be better if these donations were handled via contracts. Thompson said it would seem easier for those groups to take their complaints directly to the company rather than potentially shut down everything. Woo said he is unsure of what else could be done, unless they could find some way to bond the money.
 


“This is outside the ordinance, so I think that we might be better off to pass this to the county board,” said Thompson. D’Andrea added that this would be a third-party agreement, and it would be the county board’s call on whether or not they want to get involved.

The other issue discussed in their deliberations was any kind of property value insurance provided by the company. Property values have been a constant topic of discussion during the hearing process for the Relight project as many people have voiced the concern that their property values will diminish near the wind farm.

As part of their second application, Relight has agreed to provide money for a property value insurance plan. However, Woo said that Relight has never worked with something like this before. “We’re venturing into the unknown here,” said Woo. Because of the uncertainty, the condition was not added, but the county board will be told of their discussion on it.

All of these conditions would be added for any company in the future that owns the wind farm should Relight sell the project.

During their deliberations, the ZBA members agreed that the enjoyment of nearby property, which has been another frequently mentioned concern of the public, is a very subjective part of their decision. Graff said that she thinks the population of the area is too dense for a project of this size. Property values are also a very subjective topic, as there are many things that affect property values, not just the presence of a wind farm.

Following their deliberations, the ZBA took a vote on whether or not to recommend approving of the conditional use permit itself. There was a split vote, with Thompson and Farmer voting yes; Graff and Sheley voting no. As a result, there will be no recommendation either way sent to the county board, who will make the final decision.

ZBA members present at the meeting were Doug Thompson, chairman; Judy Graff, Brett Farmer and Rick Sheley. Zoning Officer Will D'Andrea was also present.

[Derek Hurley]

Back to top