JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP — Recent criticism by a lawyer representing an incoming wind farm of restrictions proposed by the Town of Jefferson Plan Commission when considering a wind system siting ordinance has raised concerns by residents already questioning the intention of EDF Renewable Energy.
Jefferson resident Steve Mayer raised concerns during a public hearing Thursday night at Juda Community Center regarding a drafted wind siting ordinance currently being considered by the Jefferson Town Board.
He said a letter sent from Madison-based Pines Bach LLP attorney Christa O. Westerberg on behalf of EDF to township attorney Dan Bartholf of Voegeli, Ewald & Bartholf Law Offices, S.C. in Monroe regarding the town Plan Commission suggested edits to the originally drafted ordinance was an obvious indicator that the company does not think residents should be making decisions for their own safety.
“They came in and now they’ve threatened the community,” Mayer said.
After reviewing suggested changes to the draft ordinance by members of the town Plan Commission, Westerberg wrote in opposition to the modifications because, she argued, they are more stringent than state law. In PSC 128, which outlines restrictions a municipality is allowed to create regarding wind turbine project siting, it states that any town, city or county cannot be more restrictive in its law than the Public Service Commission rules.
“While we appreciate that the Ordinance states that the Town Board may not impose any restriction that is more stringent than Wis. Admin. Code ch. PSC 128… certain provisions of the Plan Commission’s suggested modifications appear to do just that,” Westerberg wrote in the letter obtained by the Times via an open records request.
According to informal meeting minutes, on Feb. 19, members of the Town of Jefferson Plan Commission met at 7 p.m. and reviewed examples of wind system ordinances from multiple communities. Discussion included setbacks, property owner rights, the history of PSC 128 and potential updates as well as studies regarding issues brought up by opponents of the EDF project, like property valuation, infrasound, noise, shadow flicker, stray voltage and site placement next to land owners not contracted with EDF but who could be be affected by turbines.
A proposed change by the commission has a bigger distance for setbacks from the property line of a nonparticipating land owner. PSC 128.13 notes that it can be the lesser of 1,250 feet or 3.1 times the total blade tip height. Opponents have noted they would prefer larger proposed setbacks to protect against possible health concerns, noting that the sound lessens over distance.
Kathy Lincicum, who lives near the site of a proposed turbine but does not have a contract to lease land to EDF, said her concern is over whether the encroachment on her own property will infringe upon her Constitutional right to do what she wants with her own property. She noted that she had been considering allowing her son to build a home on the land, but with the outlined plans, they could not build there despite it being her land.
While the Plan Commission suggested the setbacks at 3.1 times the blade height, Westerberg notes that in PSC 128, the measurement is not from property lines, but the foundation of residence. She wrote that “While EDF is generally aiming for 3 times blade tip setbacks for non-participating residences,” the modified ordinance is too restrictive in its measurements and calls for the setbacks to be measured from a different location. Westerberg also noted opposition to a laydown yards setback requirement of 1,550 feet from nonparticipating owners’ property lines because there are no restrictions for it laid out in PSC 128. Her final issue with the proposed changes was the amendment referring to requiring third party testing for things like stray voltage and shadow flicker; PSC 128 does not require it.
“In EDF’s case, the company has had expert consultants conduct many of these tests as reflected in its wind siting permit application, but it appears the ordinance requires something more, which would run contrary to PSC 128,” she wrote, adding that a proposed property value guarantee program is “at odds” with current PSC 128 wording.
She noted that Green County lawmakers have been working on a similar ordinance and suggested the town turn to the county for more guidance to adhere to PSC 128 rules.
“We think they indicate that at a minimum, the ordinance as amended by the Plan Commission is vague and may either wittingly or unwittingly run afoul of PSC 128,” Westerberg wrote.
Members of the Jefferson Town Board will vote on a drafted ordinance March 20.