|
 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]
 |
