The Lansing State Journal posted this today:
Suit challenges townships' powers in $120 million wind project
An excerpt:
But William Fahey, the Okemos-based attorney for Dallas and Essex townships, said the state legislature has granted townships broad powers to regulate conduct for the public health, safety and general welfare.
“Our constitution says the powers of townships shall be liberally construed,” Fahey said. “Unless there is some specific statute out there that takes these powers away, the townships continue to have the powers and can exercise them.”
Clinton County’s new zoning ordinance also addresses the issue, Fahey said, stating in three places that the ordinance “does not take away any power the townships have independently to regulate activities in these townships.”
You can also read Forest Hill Energy's complaint here.
Showing posts with label forest hill energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forest hill energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Cape Cod community considers removing turbines due to noise and illness
Today Fox News published this article: 'Cape Cod community considers taking down wind turbines after illness, noise'.
Journalist Molly Line writes:
"Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings -- but they've created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.
"It gets to be jet-engine loud," said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They're suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they've lived for more than 20 years.
"Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse," said Andersen. "And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It's extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave."
The first turbine went up in 2010 and by the time both were in place on the industrial site of the town's water treatment facility, the price was $10 million. Town officials say taking them down will cost an estimated $5 million to $15 million, but that is just what Falmouth's five selectmen have decided to move toward doing.
"The selectmen unanimously voted to remove them. We think it's the right thing to do, absolutely," Selectman David Braga said. "You can't put a monetary value on people's health and that's what's happened here. A lot of people are sick because of these."
Now the matter will go to a town meeting vote in April and could ultimately end up on the ballot during the municipal elections in May.
"It's highly likely that what the voters will be determining is are they willing to tax themselves at an appropriate amount to cover the cost and dismantle and shut down the turbines?" Falmouth Town Manager Julian Suso said.
In the meantime, the turbines are being run on a limited schedule as the selectmen respond to the concerns of nearby neighbors. The turbines only run during the day -- from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. -- which means they're operating at a loss.
The dispute has been a bitter three-year battle in the seaside town where officials argue the project was thoroughly vetted, researched and put to public vote multiple times."
You can read the rest of the article here.
This is with only TWO turbines. What will it be like here with 30, 40, or more?
Journalist Molly Line writes:
"Two wind turbines towering above the Cape Cod community of Falmouth, Mass., were intended to produce green energy and savings -- but they've created angst and division, and may now be removed at a high cost as neighbors complain of noise and illness.
"It gets to be jet-engine loud," said Falmouth resident Neil Andersen. He and his wife Betsy live just a quarter mile from one of the turbines. They say the impact on their health has been devastating. They're suffering headaches, dizziness and sleep deprivation and often seek to escape the property where they've lived for more than 20 years.
"Every time the blade has a downward motion it gives off a tremendous energy, gives off a pulse," said Andersen. "And that pulse, it gets into your tubular organs, chest cavity, mimics a heartbeat, gives you headaches. It's extremely disturbing and it gets to the point where you have to leave."
The first turbine went up in 2010 and by the time both were in place on the industrial site of the town's water treatment facility, the price was $10 million. Town officials say taking them down will cost an estimated $5 million to $15 million, but that is just what Falmouth's five selectmen have decided to move toward doing.
"The selectmen unanimously voted to remove them. We think it's the right thing to do, absolutely," Selectman David Braga said. "You can't put a monetary value on people's health and that's what's happened here. A lot of people are sick because of these."
Now the matter will go to a town meeting vote in April and could ultimately end up on the ballot during the municipal elections in May.
"It's highly likely that what the voters will be determining is are they willing to tax themselves at an appropriate amount to cover the cost and dismantle and shut down the turbines?" Falmouth Town Manager Julian Suso said.
In the meantime, the turbines are being run on a limited schedule as the selectmen respond to the concerns of nearby neighbors. The turbines only run during the day -- from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. -- which means they're operating at a loss.
The dispute has been a bitter three-year battle in the seaside town where officials argue the project was thoroughly vetted, researched and put to public vote multiple times."
You can read the rest of the article here.
This is with only TWO turbines. What will it be like here with 30, 40, or more?
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Hello, turbines. Goodbye, eagles.
This article, 'The Fish and Wildlife Service Is Not for the Birds', was printed in today's Wall Street Journal. Here is an excerpt. You can read the entire article here.
-------
On June 20, 1782, the Continental Congress, after nearly six years of haggling and numerous design changes, finally approved the Great Seal of the United States. In doing so, it made the bald eagle our national symbol. This year, in the name of clean energy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering changing federal rules so that a wind-energy developer can be granted an "incidental-take" permit allowing wind projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.
On Jan. 15, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the New Era Wind Farm—a proposed project near Red Wing, Minn.—might kill as many as 14 bald eagles per year. Despite that toll, the agency said the developer of the 48-turbine wind farm could go ahead and apply for an eagle-kill permit. If granted, it could be the first project to get one. At least one other wind-energy concern, Oregon's West Butte Wind Project, also has applied for an incidental-take permit, and others are sure to follow.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that its estimate for bald eagle kills at the New Era facility was a "worst-case scenario" that "would not damage" the local population of bald eagles. That might be true. Nevertheless, the possibility that federal authorities are willing to issue such a permit once again exposes the double standard at work when it comes to renewable energy.
For years, the wind industry has had de facto permission to violate both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects 1,000 species) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federal authorities have never brought a case under either law—despite the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate that domestic turbines kill some 440,000 birds per year.
While the wind industry enjoys its exemption from prosecution under these federal wildlife laws, the Interior Department has aggressively brought cases against the oil-and-gas industry. In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service filed criminal indictments against three drillers who were operating in North Dakota's Bakken field. One of those companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird (a Say's Phoebe) that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This law was adopted in 1918, at a time when several bird species were being decimated by hunters.
Compare the action taken against Continental Resources with the Pine Tree wind project, a three-year-old facility owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Since 2009, nine golden eagle carcasses have been recovered at the project and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Los Angeles Times reporter Louis Sahagun reported on Feb. 16, 2012, that at least six of the birds had been struck by turbine blades. Yet there have been no indictments. Jill Birchell, special agent in charge of law enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service in California and Nevada refused to comment on the Pine Tree case, other than to tell me that "it is an ongoing criminal investigation."
-------
This article is particularly disturbing because we have just seen a resurgence of bald eagles in our area. After personally not seeing them for the last 30 years, we now have a family of bald eagles that we've frequently been seeing. Neighbors have been trading stories of bald eagle sightings, and people have been emailing around pictures of them when they're able to take them.
Now, with the turbines coming, they will most likely be wiped out. Not to mention the other birds.
There was an article in the Clinton County News today by Steven Reed about the commission passing the wind turbine resolution. Project developer Tim Brown of Forest Hill Energy "declined to comment when asked about the remaining obstacle - special ordinances passed by the Essex, Dallas, and Bengal Township boards."
Our desire to protect ourselves, our homes, and our wildlife from turbines is just an 'obstacle'.
-------
On June 20, 1782, the Continental Congress, after nearly six years of haggling and numerous design changes, finally approved the Great Seal of the United States. In doing so, it made the bald eagle our national symbol. This year, in the name of clean energy, the Fish and Wildlife Service is considering changing federal rules so that a wind-energy developer can be granted an "incidental-take" permit allowing wind projects to kill bald eagles and golden eagles for up to 30 years.
On Jan. 15, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the New Era Wind Farm—a proposed project near Red Wing, Minn.—might kill as many as 14 bald eagles per year. Despite that toll, the agency said the developer of the 48-turbine wind farm could go ahead and apply for an eagle-kill permit. If granted, it could be the first project to get one. At least one other wind-energy concern, Oregon's West Butte Wind Project, also has applied for an incidental-take permit, and others are sure to follow.
The Fish and Wildlife Service said that its estimate for bald eagle kills at the New Era facility was a "worst-case scenario" that "would not damage" the local population of bald eagles. That might be true. Nevertheless, the possibility that federal authorities are willing to issue such a permit once again exposes the double standard at work when it comes to renewable energy.
For years, the wind industry has had de facto permission to violate both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (which protects 1,000 species) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Federal authorities have never brought a case under either law—despite the Fish and Wildlife Service's estimate that domestic turbines kill some 440,000 birds per year.
While the wind industry enjoys its exemption from prosecution under these federal wildlife laws, the Interior Department has aggressively brought cases against the oil-and-gas industry. In 2011, the Fish and Wildlife Service filed criminal indictments against three drillers who were operating in North Dakota's Bakken field. One of those companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird (a Say's Phoebe) that is protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. This law was adopted in 1918, at a time when several bird species were being decimated by hunters.
Compare the action taken against Continental Resources with the Pine Tree wind project, a three-year-old facility owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Since 2009, nine golden eagle carcasses have been recovered at the project and reported to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Los Angeles Times reporter Louis Sahagun reported on Feb. 16, 2012, that at least six of the birds had been struck by turbine blades. Yet there have been no indictments. Jill Birchell, special agent in charge of law enforcement for the Fish and Wildlife Service in California and Nevada refused to comment on the Pine Tree case, other than to tell me that "it is an ongoing criminal investigation."
-------
This article is particularly disturbing because we have just seen a resurgence of bald eagles in our area. After personally not seeing them for the last 30 years, we now have a family of bald eagles that we've frequently been seeing. Neighbors have been trading stories of bald eagle sightings, and people have been emailing around pictures of them when they're able to take them.
Now, with the turbines coming, they will most likely be wiped out. Not to mention the other birds.
There was an article in the Clinton County News today by Steven Reed about the commission passing the wind turbine resolution. Project developer Tim Brown of Forest Hill Energy "declined to comment when asked about the remaining obstacle - special ordinances passed by the Essex, Dallas, and Bengal Township boards."
Our desire to protect ourselves, our homes, and our wildlife from turbines is just an 'obstacle'.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Report for Jan 10 meeting
This letter and new report were sent to the Clinton County Planning & Zoning Commission today.
The cover letter explains the "new evidence [that] has come to light that confirms that significant defects remain in FHEFF’s Application which preclude the grant of a Special Use Permit in this matter."
Due to the completed study, which is explained, the letter also says:
"The argument about whether wind turbines produce infrasound and LFN sufficient to cause adverse health effects (as this study unequivocally demonstrates they do), has taken a big step forward with this study. This Report establishes that infra and low frequency sound is a primary characteristic of Wind turbine acoustic emissions. The wind industry and its supporters can no longer say that Wind turbines do not produce significant levels of infra and low frequency sound just because the sound
pressure levels do not rise to the thresholds of perception of audible sounds. The argument raised by the Wind industry that infrasound, produced by modern upwind Wind turbines, does not have sufficient amplitude to reach the threshold of hearing is now thoroughly discredited."
It continues:
"The Report from Shirley Wind demonstrates that we have now reached the point where the non-participating residents can no longer be used as "test subjects." Instead, it is clear that these non-participating residents are victims. Approval of the Fowler Farms Wind park would make Clinton County complicit in these actions."
Please read the interesting and valuable documents, as they will be discussed at the January 10 meeting. Thank you.
Read the letter
Read the Shirley Wind Report
The cover letter explains the "new evidence [that] has come to light that confirms that significant defects remain in FHEFF’s Application which preclude the grant of a Special Use Permit in this matter."
Due to the completed study, which is explained, the letter also says:
"The argument about whether wind turbines produce infrasound and LFN sufficient to cause adverse health effects (as this study unequivocally demonstrates they do), has taken a big step forward with this study. This Report establishes that infra and low frequency sound is a primary characteristic of Wind turbine acoustic emissions. The wind industry and its supporters can no longer say that Wind turbines do not produce significant levels of infra and low frequency sound just because the sound
pressure levels do not rise to the thresholds of perception of audible sounds. The argument raised by the Wind industry that infrasound, produced by modern upwind Wind turbines, does not have sufficient amplitude to reach the threshold of hearing is now thoroughly discredited."
It continues:
"The Report from Shirley Wind demonstrates that we have now reached the point where the non-participating residents can no longer be used as "test subjects." Instead, it is clear that these non-participating residents are victims. Approval of the Fowler Farms Wind park would make Clinton County complicit in these actions."
Please read the interesting and valuable documents, as they will be discussed at the January 10 meeting. Thank you.
Read the letter
Read the Shirley Wind Report
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Two articles in the Lansing State Journal
Today's Lansing State Journal has an update on the wind turbine issue in Clinton County:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
ST. JOHNS — In a few days, another year will end without approval or rejection of a Chicago company’s proposal to erect 40 towering, utility-grade turbines to convert the winds of Clinton County to power for households, farms, industry and business.
And while 2013 is likely to see a decision on the $123 million project that dates to 2008, approval by the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners still would not initiate construction.
Years of litigation might be a more accurate forecast.
“We’ve put forward a project that meets the requirements of the (county’s) zoning ordinance,” Tim Brown, managing member of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms LLC, said in a telephone interview from his Chicago office. “We hope the county’s ready to make a decision. It’s been quite some time.”
Planning Commission action was expected Dec. 13. Brown and about 150 other people, mostly landowners opposed to the project, gathered at the Clinton County Courthouse to hear whether Forest Hill’s application for a special-land-use permit would be endorsed or denied.
They departed quickly after only three of seven planning commission members showed up and the meeting was canceled.
The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 10.
If approved, the permit request would advance to the Board of Commissioners, probably in February.
Brown said he does not have a problem with the county’s “very deliberate” review process.
Ordinances passed by the Dallas, Essex and Bengal township boards requiring towers to be shorter than the 427-foot-tall structures planned by Forest Hill and allowed by county zoning are of greater concern.
The township ordinances limit the height to 400 feet in Bengal, and 380 feet in Dallas and Essex. The townships also have stricter rules for noise and require greater setbacks than the county.
To read the rest of the article go here:
Clinton County wind turbine project awaits decision
They also published an article on the issue yesterday:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
"ST. JOHNS — Ken Wieber, 49, grew up on the mixed-use dairy and cash-crop farm he operates on 540 acres in Clinton County, a few miles north and west of Forest Hill Energy-Fowler Farms proposed wind-turbine project.
An active leader of the opposition, Wieber said he focused on the health, safety and property rights of residents living near the proposed project after the county “failed miserably” to do so in the recent revision of its zoning ordinance.
Wieber said the project’s opponents compromised on the zoning ordinance because “we realize we can’t stop these things (wind-turbine developments).”
“We understood early on that if we propose something that is entirely restrictive and unrealistic then we’re not going to get anywhere,” he said. “We have to allow wiggle room. We have to have a compromise in there somewhere.”
One of the biggest compromises, he said, was a zoning provision that allows neighboring landowners to waive the setback requirements that otherwise would prohibit erection of a tower on land leased to Forest Hill Energy.
If Forest Hill then had “to go out and get more waivers from the neighboring people and if that costs them more money, so be it,” Wieber said.
Apart from noise, tower heights and setbacks from property lines, Wieber questions the fundamental economics of industrial-grade wind-turbine farms.
“They always talk about this as ‘harvesting the wind’ or one more crop that they can harvest. The only thing being harvested here is the federal incentives. That’s what’s being harvested and that’s being done by Forest Hill Energy,” he said.
“Do we really want as a county or state or nation to base our future economy on an industry that provides an expensive, intermittent and inefficient product and is entirely depending on government subsidies for its existence?”
In floor remarks delivered to his U.S. Senate colleagues on Dec. 14, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, echoed Wieber by criticizing the federal government and “the brazenness of those who have been receiving this giveaway money.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine opponents criticize federal subsidies for wind energy
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Failure to comply
The Clinton County Planning Commission received six documents on December 11.
These documents support the request that the Clinton County Planning Commission deny the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Forest Hill Energy Fowler Farms because it fails to comply with the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance.
Feel free to share this information, as it will be discussed at the January 10 meeting.
Some excerpts - see the link below to read all the details:
A. REPORT FROM RICK JAMES OF E-COUSTIC SOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
In support of this request, please find attached December 10, 2012, correspondence from Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions. As Mr. James points out, several defects mandate that FHEFF’s Application be denied, such as:
FHEFF’s failure to comply with Sections 1341(A)(4) and (B)(3)(a) are fatal and its Application must be denied.
B. REPORT FROM K & S DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
C. OTHER “CONDITIONS” FOR CONSIDERATION.
In the event that the Clinton County Planning Commission chooses to disregard the considered opinions of both Mr. James and its own consultants, K & S, FHEFF’s Application, there are two other “conditions” that should be placed upon FHEFF’s Application before it receives final approval: (1) a study of low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines and (2) a valid interconnection agreement.
D. CONCLUSION
Article 13 of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) addresses “Special Land Uses.” Section 1301(B)(4) states, in pertinent part,
[i]t shall be incumbent upon the applicant to furnish adequate evidence in support of the proposed Special Land Use complying with the provisions of this Ordinance. It shall be the obligation of the
applicant to furnish evidence, or proof, of present and future compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the burden of proof is on FHEFF to demonstrate compliance with all provisions in the Ordinance.
FHEFF has simply failed to meet the requirements for approval of its Application. FHEFF has acknowledged that it failed to comply with ANSI when conducting its background sound study, in violation of Section 1341(A)(4). Furthermore, FHEFF cannot demonstrate compliance with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth Section 1341(B)(3)(a).1 FHEFF has been given ample opportunity to produce information confirming compliance with Clinton County’s Zoning Ordinance, but has failed to meet its burden. As such, the time has come for the Clinton County Planning
Commission to deny FHEFF’s Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Joshua J. Nolan
NOLAN LAW, LLC
Please click here to read the six documents.
These documents support the request that the Clinton County Planning Commission deny the Special Use Permit Application submitted by Forest Hill Energy Fowler Farms because it fails to comply with the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance.
Feel free to share this information, as it will be discussed at the January 10 meeting.
Some excerpts - see the link below to read all the details:
A. REPORT FROM RICK JAMES OF E-COUSTIC SOLUTIONS DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
In support of this request, please find attached December 10, 2012, correspondence from Rick James of E-Coustic Solutions. As Mr. James points out, several defects mandate that FHEFF’s Application be denied, such as:
- Failure to comply with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth in Section 1341(B)(3)(a) of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance;
- Failure to comply with ANSI standards in conducting background sound study, as required by Section 1341(A)(4) of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance;
- Inappropriate application of average sound in order to artificially inflate background sound values.
FHEFF’s failure to comply with Sections 1341(A)(4) and (B)(3)(a) are fatal and its Application must be denied.
B. REPORT FROM K & S DEMONSTRATES FHEFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CLINTON COUNTY’S 45 dBA SOUND LIMIT.
C. OTHER “CONDITIONS” FOR CONSIDERATION.
In the event that the Clinton County Planning Commission chooses to disregard the considered opinions of both Mr. James and its own consultants, K & S, FHEFF’s Application, there are two other “conditions” that should be placed upon FHEFF’s Application before it receives final approval: (1) a study of low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines and (2) a valid interconnection agreement.
D. CONCLUSION
Article 13 of the Clinton County Zoning Ordinance (“Ordinance”) addresses “Special Land Uses.” Section 1301(B)(4) states, in pertinent part,
[i]t shall be incumbent upon the applicant to furnish adequate evidence in support of the proposed Special Land Use complying with the provisions of this Ordinance. It shall be the obligation of the
applicant to furnish evidence, or proof, of present and future compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added.)
In other words, the burden of proof is on FHEFF to demonstrate compliance with all provisions in the Ordinance.
FHEFF has simply failed to meet the requirements for approval of its Application. FHEFF has acknowledged that it failed to comply with ANSI when conducting its background sound study, in violation of Section 1341(A)(4). Furthermore, FHEFF cannot demonstrate compliance with the “shall not exceed” 45 dBA sound limit set forth Section 1341(B)(3)(a).1 FHEFF has been given ample opportunity to produce information confirming compliance with Clinton County’s Zoning Ordinance, but has failed to meet its burden. As such, the time has come for the Clinton County Planning
Commission to deny FHEFF’s Application.
Respectfully submitted,
Joshua J. Nolan
NOLAN LAW, LLC
Please click here to read the six documents.
Monday, November 26, 2012
Lansing State Journal article on Clinton County turbines
Today on the front page of the Lansing State Journal is an article by Steven R. Reed:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
The beginning of the article reads:
For four years, the developers of a $123 million, Clinton County wind-turbine farm have steered the project through opposition from some residents who learned their homes and property could be subject to the noise, ice throws, flickering shadows and financial impacts of 40 whirling towers each standing 427 feet tall.
At various times, Forest Hill Energy LLC has advanced, compromised and stood firm, depending on the reasonableness and financial consequences of the demands made by its leaseholders, local governments and project opponents.
By February, all of the local ordinances and licensing requirements created to address such developments likely will be finalized.
At that point, Forest Hills manager Tim Brown of Chicago and his investors could be forced to decide whether to build a smaller, quieter, safer — and therefore less profitable — project than envisioned.
Or, they might decide to abandon the project, sell it, or up the ante in an expensive court fight with no guarantee of success.
“It is a little surprising to see this project running into controversy when the Clinton County standards are far, far stronger than those in Gratiot County, where a much larger wind project, with taller turbines, is moving forward and seems to have widespread acceptance and no evidence of the kind of health and safety issues that the opponents to our project contend are common,” Brown said.
Or, as some opponents suggest, perhaps Forest Hill Energy’s attempt to build an industrial-grade wind-turbine farm in a more populous and prosperous suburban county predictably was perceived as a threat to the health, quality of life and financial well-being of homeowners living near the project and those in the path of its future expansion.
Project timeline
In summary, the last four years witnessed:
• The announcement of a 29-turbine project in 2008 and its expansion to 40 turbines in 2010.
• The sign-up by Forest Hill Energy of an estimated 27 or 28 landowners willing to host turbines in their fields in exchange for a signing bonus and a share of revenues from the future sale of electricity.
• The organization of grass-roots opposition centered in Dallas, Essex and Bengal townships.
• Creation in 2010 of a Clinton County zoning ordinance and the revision of the ordinance in 2011 to tighten the restrictions.
• Application to the county by Forest Hill Energy for a still-pending, special-use permit to build and operate the wind turbines.
• Passage by the Dallas (September) and Essex (October) township boards of wind-turbine ordinances that are more restrictive than the county’s. Bengal Township has a similarly more-restrictive ordinance under consideration.
Ordinances key
Those for and against the project agree the township ordinances are forcing the issue like nothing else had.
The township ordinances “are not intended to facilitate the development of the wind farms” and “would not work for a project like ours,” said Brown, the developer. “We’re going to have to examine the situation with the townships pretty extensively.”
The townships’ setback provisions and height restrictions would prevent placement of 427-feet-tall turbines in the townships, Brown said.
“They (township boards) know exactly what our heights are … so they’re deliberately picking heights that don’t accommodate what our plan is,” he said.
If Forest Hill’s plans comply with the county’s ordinance but conflict with the townships’ ordinances, which ordinance rules?
“There’s really no doubt about that particular issue. Townships can adopt stricter ordinances,” said Okemos attorney William Fahey, who wrote the “police protective ordinances” adopted by the Dallas and Essex township boards.
The ordinance passed by Clinton County’s Board of Commissioners “says in it three different times that it defers to any stricter ordinances that are adopted,” Fahey said.
Though Clinton County has taken a less-restrictive stance, Forest Hill Energy cannot count on the county as a partner in any court fight with the townships.
“What the townships elected to do is their own business,” Clinton County Administrator Ryan Wood said. “We don’t have a conflict with the townships. If their ordinance is challenged, it won’t be by us.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
The beginning of the article reads:
For four years, the developers of a $123 million, Clinton County wind-turbine farm have steered the project through opposition from some residents who learned their homes and property could be subject to the noise, ice throws, flickering shadows and financial impacts of 40 whirling towers each standing 427 feet tall.
At various times, Forest Hill Energy LLC has advanced, compromised and stood firm, depending on the reasonableness and financial consequences of the demands made by its leaseholders, local governments and project opponents.
By February, all of the local ordinances and licensing requirements created to address such developments likely will be finalized.
At that point, Forest Hills manager Tim Brown of Chicago and his investors could be forced to decide whether to build a smaller, quieter, safer — and therefore less profitable — project than envisioned.
Or, they might decide to abandon the project, sell it, or up the ante in an expensive court fight with no guarantee of success.
“It is a little surprising to see this project running into controversy when the Clinton County standards are far, far stronger than those in Gratiot County, where a much larger wind project, with taller turbines, is moving forward and seems to have widespread acceptance and no evidence of the kind of health and safety issues that the opponents to our project contend are common,” Brown said.
Or, as some opponents suggest, perhaps Forest Hill Energy’s attempt to build an industrial-grade wind-turbine farm in a more populous and prosperous suburban county predictably was perceived as a threat to the health, quality of life and financial well-being of homeowners living near the project and those in the path of its future expansion.
Project timeline
In summary, the last four years witnessed:
• The announcement of a 29-turbine project in 2008 and its expansion to 40 turbines in 2010.
• The sign-up by Forest Hill Energy of an estimated 27 or 28 landowners willing to host turbines in their fields in exchange for a signing bonus and a share of revenues from the future sale of electricity.
• The organization of grass-roots opposition centered in Dallas, Essex and Bengal townships.
• Creation in 2010 of a Clinton County zoning ordinance and the revision of the ordinance in 2011 to tighten the restrictions.
• Application to the county by Forest Hill Energy for a still-pending, special-use permit to build and operate the wind turbines.
• Passage by the Dallas (September) and Essex (October) township boards of wind-turbine ordinances that are more restrictive than the county’s. Bengal Township has a similarly more-restrictive ordinance under consideration.
Ordinances key
Those for and against the project agree the township ordinances are forcing the issue like nothing else had.
The township ordinances “are not intended to facilitate the development of the wind farms” and “would not work for a project like ours,” said Brown, the developer. “We’re going to have to examine the situation with the townships pretty extensively.”
The townships’ setback provisions and height restrictions would prevent placement of 427-feet-tall turbines in the townships, Brown said.
“They (township boards) know exactly what our heights are … so they’re deliberately picking heights that don’t accommodate what our plan is,” he said.
If Forest Hill’s plans comply with the county’s ordinance but conflict with the townships’ ordinances, which ordinance rules?
“There’s really no doubt about that particular issue. Townships can adopt stricter ordinances,” said Okemos attorney William Fahey, who wrote the “police protective ordinances” adopted by the Dallas and Essex township boards.
The ordinance passed by Clinton County’s Board of Commissioners “says in it three different times that it defers to any stricter ordinances that are adopted,” Fahey said.
Though Clinton County has taken a less-restrictive stance, Forest Hill Energy cannot count on the county as a partner in any court fight with the townships.
“What the townships elected to do is their own business,” Clinton County Administrator Ryan Wood said. “We don’t have a conflict with the townships. If their ordinance is challenged, it won’t be by us.”
To read the rest of the article go here:
Turbine tension: Ordinances may decide fate of Clinton Co wind-turbine project
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)