T-R PHOTO BY NICK BAUR Sue Green from rural Dike makes her case in front of the Board of Supervisors to lessen the proposed restrictions on wind turbine development as part of a public hearing on the recodification of the Grundy County Development Ordinance at the Grundy County Courthouse Tuesday night.

GRUNDY CENTER — Tuesday in Grundy Center marked the final public hearing in the running saga concerning the recodification of the Grundy County Development Ordinance as the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to pass the first reading of the new ordinance.

Supervisors Vic Vandehaar, Mark Schildroth, Heidi Nederhoff, and Lucas Halverson voted in favor of the changes to the ordinance, while Barb Smith was the lone dissenting vote.

Though the ordinance recodification encompasses a variety of regulatory changes for Grundy County, a series of meetings and public hearings within the past year drew citizens from around the area to lobby for greater restrictions on future wind turbine development.

When the ordinance came before the board for a vote on Tuesday, turbines in Grundy County would be required to abide by stricter decommissioning plans, more stringent processes to determine if they are a noise nuisance, and most notably, it would raise the setback limit from residential dwellings from 1,200 feet to five times the height of the turbine, blade included.

Tuesday’s public hearing mirrored many of those past in the Grundy County Courthouse, with a majority of speakers speaking in favor of the new restrictions in a final push to codify the ordinance while a handful of attendees cautioned against the changes, particularly the increase in the setback limit.

With most wind turbines now reaching heights ranging from 400 to nearly 600 feet, the setback increase could double the required distance for wind turbine development, and as Land and Liberty Coalition advocate Thomas Bean said during the hearing, the change would effectively eliminate the construction of future wind turbines in the county.

“That would be what we call a poison pill, where there wouldn’t be development anymore in the county,” Bean said. “We are strongly in the belief that a landowner should have the ability to go into a private dealing with the company for the wind turbine on their property if they so wish, and you as a county board have to decide if you want to provide them with that ability or not.”

Still, many area residents pushed forward with their objections to future turbine development, citing environmental impacts in regards to agricultural land, general discomfort due to living near the structures, and the eyesore caused by the flashing lights and industrial nature of the turbines.

“There is a reason when you live inside city limits that you can’t build a 15 foot privacy fence. There’s a reason for that. It’s for your neighbors,” said John Luhring of Parkersburg. “There’s a reason when you live in the country that you can’t build a 30 foot high building with 30 foot sidewalls. We have those ordinances. We passed them for a reason. They’re passed to protect our neighbors. But yet I can sit 13 miles at my place from the nearest windmill, as the crow flies, 13 miles and I can see the red lights and I can see blades during the day.”

Many of the speakers at the hearing were familiar faces throughout the recodification process, and with the ensuing vote punctuating the finality of the affair, Ted Junker of New Hartford indicated he felt the parties came to a reasonable compromise.

“They didn’t give us everything we wanted. They didn’t give the wind power everything they wanted,” Junker said. “So there is room at some point, if enough people agree that you could have another wind farm here. But you have a little stricter ordinance that would protect people out here that don’t want it.”

Before the official roll call vote, Supervisor Barb Smith introduced five amendments to the new ordinance. She proposed the following:

• Preemptively eliminating the limit on solar panel height.

• Allowing current wind farms to be governed under ordinance.

• Requirements in place at the time of construction.

• Giving landowners the ability to waive setback requirements using a “neighbor waiver” approved by the Board of Supervisors.

• Modify the upfront financial obligations of a public utility that chooses to invest in wind energy.

• Change the setback limit from five times the height to five times the height of the turbine.

A noted holdout throughout the recodification, Smith echoed sentiments that the new ordinance would eliminate any chance for future turbine development and that three times the height was a preferable middle ground.

“A change to three times is more than double what we have now and gives more than adequate protections to landowners,” Smith said. “Let’s face it, if we approved the proposed language of five times the height of the turbine for setbacks, the result is just a thinly veiled attempt at a moratorium on any additional wind turbines in Grundy County.”

She also provided tax revenue generated by the wind farms for Grundy County, with the Wellsburg wind farm generating $1.4 million a year at its current maximum 7-year valuation, and the Ivester wind farm, currently at 20% of its valuation, brings in $311,190 in the past year with a maximum revenue of approximately $700,000.

“For those of us entrusted with funding the county’s budget each year and keeping the county’s tax levy rate as low as possible, while providing for essential county services, those dollars are not insignificant,” Smith said. “However, the bedrock of my belief is my belief that landowners should have the right to decide what use is made of their own land.”

All amendments either failed by lack of a second motion, or were defeated in a roll call vote.

The second and third readings of the ordinance will be voted on at the next two regular meetings of the Board of Supervisors, on March 27 and April 3 respectively.

——

Contact Nick Baur at 641-753-6611 or nbaur@timesrepublican.com.