Lee County Board Votes Against Changes to Wind Zoning Ordinance

It's been a 18-month process of ad-hoc committees, subcommittees, reviews and protests, but this week the Lee County Board finally voted not to make changes to its wind zoning ordinace. According to an article from Sauk Valley Media:

The board voted 18-4 against a new ordinance drafted by the Zoning Board of Appeals.

"We're under the old ordinance," Chairman Jim Seeberg said after the vote.

Also Tuesday, a representative of Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power said his company turned in an application for 60 turbines the day before.

The turbines are planned for Hamilton and East Grove townships, in the southwestern part of the county.

John Martin, the project manager, said his company's proposal "largely" followed the zoning board's recommended ordinance. Doing so, he said, would appeal to the body that spent months drafting the proposed rules.

He said his company's wind farm would comply with the setback requirements under the proposed ordinance – 1,400 feet away from homes or 3.5 times the height of turbines, whichever is greater.

Mainstream also plans noise and shadow flicker studies up front, as the proposed rules called for, Martin said.

"We trust the Zoning Board of Appeals and the county will provide appropriate scrutiny," he said.

When the proposed ordinance came up during Tuesday's County Board meeting, Seeberg, R-Ashton, wanted no discussion. He call for an immediate up-or-down vote.

Member David Gusse, R-Dixon, quietly asked, "No discussion?"

He didn't speak loud enough for Seeberg to hear him.

Member Lisa Zeimetz, R-Paw Paw, asked State's Attorney Henry Dixon whether the board could legally vote on the ordinance. He said yes.

Only four members voted for the ordinance – Gusse, Ed Fritts, Steve Kitzman and Bill Palen, all Dixon Republicans.

Afterward, Vice Chairman John Nicholson, R-Franklin Grove, said he voted against it because it would have opened up the process to amendments that would effectively ban new wind farms.

He was referring to the objections of Hamilton and Willow Creek townships. They wanted a 2,000-foot distance between turbines and the property lines of nonparticipating landowners.

"This would have been the strongest wind ordinance in Illinois, yet we had people objecting to it," Nicholson said.

He said the zoning board "worked their butts off for 21 months" yet was chastised from both sides.

Member Rick Ketchum, D-Amboy, said he opposed the ordinance because it included a home seller protection program. That program involved a complex process in which wind companies would compensate neighboring landowners struggling to sell their homes.

Mainstream opposed it mainly for the same reason. Its representative said the costs of the program would be too unpredictable.

The existing ordinance requires a setback of 350 feet away from the boundaries of nonparticipating landowners.

Over the years, however, the county has mandated that wind turbines be 1,400 feet away from homes on a case-by-case basis.

Anti-Wind Attorney Rich Porter Attempts "Legalized Extortion"

The drama continues as Lee County considers changes to its wind zoning ordinance, with the State's Attorney stating that anti-wind attorney Rich Porter is attempting "legalized extortion" and "coerced compromise" in his charge to virtually ban wind energy in the county. According to an article in Sauk Valley Media:

Lee County State’s Attorney Henry Dixon contends that an attorney representing objectors to a proposed wind ordinance is attempting “legalized extortion” – or maybe just “coerced compromise.”

In an April 18 letter to County Board Chairman Jim Seeberg, Dixon said Hamilton and Willow Creek townships had failed to properly submit their objections to a proposed wind energy ordinance.

If the objections are deemed valid, a supermajority of 75 percent of the 28-member board must approve the ordinance for passage. Otherwise, only a simple majority is needed.

Dixon’s letter said Rockford attorney Rick Porter, who has helped Hamilton Township with its objection, was trying “legalized extortion, and I don’t mean that in a bad or evil sense.”

He said Porter was using the objection process to get the board to amend the proposed ordinance to Hamilton’s liking.

“I suppose rather than ‘legalized extortion,’ I might more delicately use the term ‘coerced compromise,’” the state’s attorney wrote.

Dixon couldn’t be reached for comment Thursday.

The County Board is expected to vote on the proposed ordinance at its May 15 meeting.

Dixon’s letter recommended that Seeberg call for an up-or-down vote on the ordinance, which includes more regulations for wind farms than exist now.

The letter comes on the heels of a move by the County to disband an ad-hoc panel of the Board, which was charged with considering changes to the ordinance. From the article:

Earlier this week, a special committee designed to review the proposed ordinance, which was drafted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, disbanded after Dixon told members that the panel had not been “properly constituted.”’

In the letter to Seeberg, Dixon wrote that he didn’t know where the Shippert committee came from, referring to its chairwoman, Marilyn Shippert, R-Dixon.

He also said he was disappointed that no one on the committee asked him to attend to provide legal advice. That panel met a couple of times before he found out about it, he said.

He said that when he heard that Zoning Administrator Chris Henkel was “strongly urged” not to attend, “I realized not informing me of those meetings and not inviting me to attend was not accidental.”

Shippert said Thursday that she informed Henkel through his office that he was welcome to attend the meetings, but that he wouldn’t sit at the head table as he has at Zoning Board meetings.

As for Dixon, she acknowledged she hadn’t specifically asked the state’s attorney to attend, but said that wasn’t intentional.

His opinion on whether the objections were properly filed likely would stand, Shippert said.

“He’s the legal expert of the county,” she said. “We have to go by his word.”

Vermillion Co Board Approves GDF Suez Wind Farm Proposal

From an article in the Danville Commercial-News:

At Tuesday’s board meeting, the county’s second wind farm successfully passed despite opposition from some board members.

Representatives from GDF SUEZ Energy North America Inc. attended the meeting to answer questions from board members prior to the board vote. The permit for the project was first scheduled for vote at the county board’s February meeting, but was postponed with company representatives were unable to attend.

John Givens, development manager for the Hoopeston Wind Project, answered questions from board members.

The project calls for the construction of 43 wind turbines along a stretch from around 3 miles east of Illinois Route 49 to the area near the Hubbard Trail Country Club north of Rossville.

Development of the Hoopeston Wind Energy Farm has been ongoing since 2008. Prior to being dropped from February’s agenda, the timetable called for it to be completed by 2014.

Among the board members to vote against permit approval for the wind farm was Green. Green said in February he would consider the company’s permit incomplete unless it had obtained a Natural Resource Information report.

On Tuesday, he thanked Givens for his attention to the report, but still refused to support the permit for the project, referring to his stance simply as a “vote of conscience.”

In addition to Green, two other board members voted against the permit: Terry Stal of District 4 and Mike Marron of District 2. Marron also expressed appreciation for the company including information on drainage laws in its application.

But he also said not all property owners in the large swath of land covered by the wind farm were supportive of the project, contending it was a 50-50 split between supporters and non-supporters.

Givens told board members during the meeting the company is in discussions with utilities to purchase the energy produced by the wind farm once the turbines are erected and functioning.

The wind turbine project is the second to be approved in Vermilion County. A permit for Invenergy LLC’s California Ridge project was approved in July. Preliminary work on that project began late last year.

Appraisers Discuss Turbines' Impact on Property Values in Whiteside Co

The zoning panel of the Whiteside Co Board heard testimony from two property appraisers this week, and not surprisingly, the appraiser for the developer argued that wind projects cause little to no permanent property value declines, while an anti-wind appraiser argued all sorts of horrible impacts are possible.

However, the appraiser hired by the developer was backed by a host of research supporting his position, while anti-wind appraiser Michael McCann (seemingly the only appraiser in Illinois willing to attest to this position) made his claims based on emotion and innuendo. According to a story from Sauk Valley Media:

Appraiser Michael Crowley has argued for years that wind farms don’t hurt nearby property values. He stuck to that position this week.

Crowley, a Spring Valley-based real estate appraiser, has been hired by wind energy companies for at least 5 years to testify before zoning commissions.

Wednesday, he spoke to the Whiteside County Planning and Zoning Commission, which is holding hearings on Mainstream Renewable Power’s plan for nine turbines in the southeastern part of the county.

He consulted with real estate appraisers from wind areas in Midwestern states, he said, and based on his analysis, the proposed turbines near Deer Grove would not “adversely affect property values of surrounding real estate.”

He acknowledged an “anticipatory decline” in property values after a project starts, but said that “tends to be alleviated” relatively soon after.

Shari Batten, who lives within a half-mile of the proposed turbines, asked Crowley if he was saying that her property value wouldn’t go down because of the turbines.

He stopped short of that.

“I can tell you that it hasn’t anywhere else,” he said, adding that other factors influence property values.

Another Illinois appraiser, Michael McCann, has gone to communities around the state to argue just the opposite – that wind turbines do cause nearby property values to drop.

He has suggested a 2-mile distance between homes and turbines – much farther than Whiteside County’s 1,400 feet, which is a little more than a quarter-mile.

“Impacts are most pronounced within the ‘footprint’ of such projects, and many ground-zero homes have been completely unmarketable ...,” he said in a report to the Adams County Board in 2010.

The Whiteside commission has made no decision on the Mainstream proposal, which also includes turbines in Lee and Bureau counties.

The panel will meet again May 2.

Ambiguous State Zoning Law Could Cause Dispute in Whiteside Co

An ambiguity in state law is causing a disagreement in Whiteside County, with tiny Deer Grove claiming it has the power to regulate wind turbines outside the town, and one wind developer claiming the regulation of those unincorporated county lands rests with the county. According to an article from Sauk Valley Media:

Deer Grove’s village board believes it can regulate wind turbines within 1.5 miles of its boundaries.

But a wind energy company disagrees. It is planning two of its nine turbines within the 1.5-mile area, and it’s not seeking the village’s approval.

On Wednesday, the Whiteside County Planning and Zoning Commission continued its ongoing hearing for Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power’s proposal to build nine turbines in the far southeastern part of the county.

More than 80 people attended Wednesday’s session, including 17 of the 27 County Board members, who will make the final decision.

Late last year, Deer Grove, population 48, passed a zoning ordinance, which officials said was legally required before the village could regulate activities in the 1.5-mile area.

During Wednesday’s testimony, John Martin, Mainstream’s project manager, said the village’s zoning ordinance didn’t meet the “regulatory requirements” to keep out turbines. He didn’t provide details.

At issue is a 2007 state law that gives municipalities the power to regulate wind turbines within 1.5 miles of their "zoning jurisdiction." However, towns like Deer Grove (population 48) have no zoning code, and therefore have no legal right to zone wind turbines. The Village disagrees. Developers argue that towns like Deer Grove DO have the power to regulate wind turbines, by passing a zoning code.

Allowing Deer Grove to regulate wind turbines without a zoning code presents a host of problems. Namely, that it allows a town to control land use outside its boundaries, even though it has chosen NOT to control land use inside its boundaries (by establishing a zoning code). Plus, it would only apply to wind energy. Allowing a municipality to control a single type of land use is also a slippery slope, as it sets a precedent where all sorts of land uses can be singled out.

Further, it sets up the potential for conflict between counties and municipalities, who may have conflicting regulations for unincorporated county lands that lie within the 1.5 mile radius. Watch for the issue to heat up in Whiteside and other counties as wind development moves forward in the state.

Woodford Co Refusal to Clarify Ordinance Raises Concerns for Gamesa

A decision last week by the Woodford County Board not to provide a clarification in their wind zoning ordinance could cause headaches for Gamesa's proposed Minonk wind project, and the developer is apparently not ruling out legal action to secure the necessary clarification, says a story from the Peoria Journal-Star. 

The issue arose when Woodford County passed changes to its wind ordinance in February. The 200MW Minonk project was already nearing construction at that time, as the Board had approved the project a number of years ago. The company asked that the Board provide simple clarification (via an ordinance amendment) that the Minonk project would be grandfathered from the new regulations, but the Board refused to provide that clarification. 

According to the Journal-Star, that action could cause legal difficulties for the company:

The resolution doesn't have quite the same force legally as an amendment, something Gamesa attorney Pauline Doohan and Woodford County State's Attorney Greg Minger noted.

"We don't want to be in violation of the law, or for any other party to say we're in violation," Doohan told the board prior to its vote Tuesday night. "A non-participating owner might say, 'You built a turbine too close to my property.' The reason they would say that is from looking at the February amendments, which don't grandfather in Minonk."

Doohan said failure to pass the amendment would be "of great concern" to her client.

"We literally are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this wind farm," she said. "We may be forced to file delcaratory action for a court to determine what the February amendment did and how it applies to Minonk. We don't want to do that.

"We're not looking for special treatment. We're only looking for what the county promised us when they issued us a special-use permit."

After the meeting, Gamesa Chief Development Officer Jiddu Tapia appeared to downplay the possibilty of litigation.

"I don't think we said as a result of this, we're going to court," Tapia said. "The amendment is something to protect the county and protect the project. We're disappointed it did not pass, but I don't think the next step is to go to court."

Still, a legal challenge was on the minds of some board members -- most notably the only attorney in the group, Tom Janssen.

"The judge is going to rule by reading the ordinance. That's the potential problem," said Janssen, who voted in favor of the amendment. "He doesn't see any exceptions in there, and he can shut them down."

Lee County Again Delays Vote on Wind Ordinance

The saga of the Lee County wind ordinance continued yesterday, with the Board again voting to delay a decision on revisions to the ordinance pending recommendations from a special committee tasked with reviewing it. According to an article from Sauk Valley Media:

Over the past month, the committee held two meetings and requested a month’s delay. In response, Seeberg, R-Ashton, said, “I don’t really care about that [special] committee.”

At Tuesday’s monthly board meeting, member Vern Gottel, R-Sterling, requested to delay a vote on the ordinance, drafted by the Zoning Board of Appeals. But Seeberg said Gottel couldn’t seek such a delay because it hadn’t gone through the Executive Committee, which Seeberg heads.

Others objected. A woman in the audience stepped up to the public microphone to express her opposition. Seeberg ruled her out of order.

“You’re out of order,” the woman shot back.

Minutes later, the chairman allowed a vote on the issue.

After the majority voted for a delay, Marilyn Shippert, R-Dixon, the committee’s chairwoman, asked Seeberg how the committee should proceed.

“Whatever,” the chairman said. “We took a year and a half already. We’ll take another year and a half.”

“I don’t think it’ll take that long, sir,” Shippert said.

The committee had two night meetings last month, but a bailiff had to open up the courthouse and stay during the sessions.

Seeberg said he wouldn’t allow any more night meetings, saying it’s expensive to have a bailiff present.

The committee decided to meet during the mornings of April 24 and 30.

Meanwhile, Ireland-based Mainstream Renewable Power plans to seek permission to put up to 30 turbines in southwestern Lee County. The company had hoped to wait until the county finished its process of enacting a new ordinance.

Outside the meeting, however, Mainstream project manager John Martin said the company would review its options in light of the delay.

Meanwhile, Seeberg is seeking to file charges against one local man who may have violated the state's eavesdropping law in recording a meeting of the Board last week, says another Sauk Valley Media article:

Near the end of Tuesday’s board meeting, Seeberg said Franklin Grove resident John Kelley violated the law by recording last Wednesday’s meeting of the board’s Executive Committee, which Seeberg heads.

Kelley said he recorded the meeting because members discussed a proposed wind energy ordinance, and residents are interested in the issue.

After Tuesday’s meeting, Seeberg, R-Ashton, said he had referred the matter to the state’s attorney’s office, which prosecutes crimes. He said a person couldn’t record a meeting without the consent of those involved.

He said he was awaiting a determination from the state’s attorney.