MONROE — The application for a wind farm of 24 turbines spanning 5,580 acres of agricultural land has officially been filed with the Green County Zoning Department, prompting the county Land Use & Zoning Committee to recommend a siting ordinance it had previously held from the Green County Board of Supervisors.
Submitted at the very end of January, if the application meets all of the requirements laid out by the state Public Service Commission, it will automatically be approved. In a previous meeting, county Corporation Counsel Brian Bucholtz noted that counties are meant to be “arms of the state,” which means more local lawmakers are beholden to state restrictions.
Supervisor Paul Beach, who serves on the zoning committee, echoed the sentiment and referenced a recent large-scale dairy construction which the county had little oversight because of overruling state law.
Beach voted to move the original ordinance draft, which is no more restrictive than state rules laid out in Wisconsin Administrative Code PSC 128, to ensure there was some sort of law passed by the county. Beach wants to see stricter setback requirements from residences, essentially requiring a half-mile of distance rather than the quarter-mile as written in PSC 128. It would reduce health risks to some of the population of Jefferson Township, he said.
“Sound waves deteriorate with distance,” Beach said.
The Sugar River Wind Farm project was submitted by EDF Renewables, a France-based company with regional offices throughout the United States. EDF experts had previously been courting landowners for contractors to place the 500-foot wind turbines. The plan includes a substation and two permanent meteorological towers. Contracts to lease the area occupied by turbines will span 20 years.
According to the application prepared by Westwood Professional Services of Minnetonka, Minnesota, the farm will produce 65 megawatts and operations will begin in mid-August 2021. “The power is anticipated to largely be consumed by Wisconsin utility customers,” it notes.
EDF has claimed the project area was selected for wind production, land used primarily for agriculture, few “significant environmental constraints,” landowners interested in leasing and “favorable power delivery prices,” as well as other reasons. The application states that 24 acres of the 5,870 total acres to be used during the project life will no longer be viable for agricultural production. It is less than 1 percent of the total acreage.
EDF also posits in its application that the project “would directly inject more than $550,000 per year into the local economy, resulting in positive socioeconomic impacts.” It will also generate more than $250,000 annually for the county and the township under the Wisconsin utility revenue sharing program once it begins running, according to the application, and the 42 percent Jefferson receives from the funds is about 39 percent of its 2019 tax levy.
Opposition has arisen among local residents who have expressed health concerns over the low-frequency sound. Opponents of the wind farm have cited large quantities of bat deaths near wind turbines and recent concerns added to guidelines by the World Health Organization noting that sound may have a significant impact on human health.
The plan to move the original ordinance draft to the county board will help ensure the county has some type of wind siting ordinance in place. The proposed changes could take until April to reach the board, and even then, could be rejected with little time for approval before the 90-day deadline before the application is automatically approved if it meets all of the state requirements.
Beach said he was confident it will be approved because it meets requirements laid out by the state.
The original ordinance had been tabled by the zoning committee in December for further evaluation of amending the document. It was not discussed during the January committee meeting. However, Beach plans to continue discussing possible changes with health protections in mind.
Beach said a challenge to the county could result in little control by local lawmakers if the ordinance is not adopted. It will be considered by supervisors during the board’s March meeting.