Wells County planners deny request by wind farm to raise height of turbines

The APC members — what was left of them, that is — voted early Friday morning to deny Apex Wind Energy the option to change the height of 87 turbines in a wind farm that had been approved last November.

A second decision, to approve the development plans for either 56 or 69 additional turbines, was tabled until the start of the APC’s May meeting.

The meeting adjourned shortly after midnight, more than five hours after it had begun. Many people — most of them residents of southern Wells County — came to the lectern to express their feelings, usually strong feelings, about the two Apex petitions.

There were about 400 people in attendance at the Thursday night/Friday morning meeting, which was held at the Wells County Community Center at the 4-H Park. Those who spoke against Apex’s plans were rewarded with applause from the partisan crowd. Those few who spoke in favor of the plans received, for the most part, stone-cold silence.

The wind farm discussions took place with only seven APC members present. Of the 11 members of the commission, three had conflicts of interest with family members signing up for wind turbine lease agreements. A fourth member was ill and did not attend the meeting.

So as Thursday was about to turn into Friday, the reduced number proved to be significant. Any APC decision has to be approved by a majority of the commission members, which meant that six votes of the seven remaining members were required to approve any motion.

In addition, Apex’s attorney Mark GiaQuinta was adamant that approval of Apex’s development plan for the second group of wind turbines was required unless the APC could note specific violations — and when those violations were corrected, there would be absolutely no basis for denial. Given the fervent opposition, that did not go over well with those who remained until the end of the meeting.

APC member John Schuhmacher, at one point before the votes, began to speak. Believing that the members had no choice, he said, he would move to approve the development plan with conditions that the turbines that were not in compliance be moved so they would conform to the terms of the WECS ordinance.

As he began to speak, opponents of the plan began to murmur and shout their opposition: “No!” “Don’t let him bully you.”

Jerome Markley, president of the APC, then had a question for Schuhmacher: “Do you want to make a motion?”

Schuhmacher thought a minute. “Not really,” he said.

A vote to deny the development plan for the second set of turbines, the sites of which had originally been secured by Wind Capital and are now known as Wells County Wind II LLC, failed on a 4-3 vote.

That vote took place approximately 25 minutes after more than 90 minutes of discussion on the plan. No one would make a motion, with several minutes of awkward silence punctuated by the occasional question for APC Director Michael Lautzenheiser Jr., APC attorney Andrew Antrim, or an Apex representative.

After the first vote was taken, a reversal was made — a motion to approve. The voting pattern remained the same, as each of the seven members held their positions.

That put the matter into another holding pattern.

Lautzenheiser had said that 13 of the 69 requested turbines were not in compliance with the terms of the county’s wind energy conversion systems ordinance. It was those turbines that led several of the APC members to oppose the entire development plan. After the two votes, Apex representatives said they would withdraw the turbines from the plan that Lautzenheiser had deemed to be in violation. That would have taken the 69 turbines down to 56.

That led to yet more awkward silence from the APC members. Finally, the idea of tabling the development plan for the second set of turbines began to gain momentum.

That led GiaQuinta to ask if the 13 turbines deemed not to be in compliance could be modified for presentation to the APC next month. That will apparently be the case.

The case for the second group of turbines was presented by Rob Propes, development manager for Apex. He said that the company had gone above and beyond the requirements of the county’s WECS ordinance in preparing the petition. The plan, he said, had been “designed with the same set of standards and protocols” that had met the APC’s approval for the first group of turbines in November.

The first decision was a little more straightforward, although it was clear that Apex’s request to increase the height of the previously-approved turbines irritated many of those in attendance.

GiaQuinta termed the request to eliminate the 479-foot restriction on the 87 turbines previous approved “not a significant change.” He said that the height of a turbine, except in the case of a Federal Aviation Administration regulation, would be determined by regulations on shadow flicker, noise, and setbacks.

Many begged to differ. Concerns were raised about migratory birds, about the fact that setbacks were not increased, about the belief that if the height restriction was raised to a requested 540 feet it would probably go higher, about “ice throw” — ice coming off of the blades in winter.

“Apex has tipped its hand,” said Tera Fredrickson. Noting the company’s goal of being a “green” company with “clean energy,” Fredrickson opined: “The only thing green about this is the money that’s changing hands.”

In all, 27 people spoke to the board about the additional height. Only two spoke in favor of it.

When it came time to take a vote, five of the APC members voted in favor and one voted against. Schuhmacher attempted to abstain from the voting; after he was told he couldn’t, his vote pushed the total over the top.

The APC is scheduled to meet again May 2 to reconsider the development plans for the 69 turbines.