The Clinton County Area Plan Commission finalized wind farm setbacks at their Monday meeting, much to the chagrin of residents from the eastern part of the county who were in the audience.
After debate among the commission members and input from attendees, the APC arrived at two changes to the three-layer setback rule. One layer, which is the road setback rule, stayed put at 1.1 times the height of turbine.
The two setback rules for homes, public schools and libraries were changed in response to research of the board, input from the audience and input from experts that wind developer E.ON Climate and Renewables brought to the meeting. The first change allows turbines to be no closer than 1,520 feet to a home, school or library.
The board was originally going to compromise with audience members who wanted to see the setback be from a property line rather than a home by adding an acre buffer zone to the protect the yard surrounding a home. However, the APC decided to add the equivalent of an acre to the setback because adding an acre buffer was a complicated calculation.
The APC decided against making the setback from a property line because the majority of the members believe that a property line setback disproportionately protects large landowners.
The board originally suggested 1,320 feet, per a safe distance cited by a wind turbine manufacturer. The board arrived at 1,520 after they did the math to determine that adding 200 feet to the setback would be roughly equal to a one-acre buffer zone.
The second setback change relates to the sound emitted by a turbine or a group of turbines. The APC decided to set that limit at a level no louder than 45 decibels as measured from the outside of a home, school or library.
One of the most vocal audience members protesting the sound setback was Elizabeth Landis, who presented research and spoke at length at the meeting. She, like others in attendance, chose to do her own research since the commissioners, without Commissioner and APC member Cory Boyles in attendance, voted “no” to hiring a sound engineer to examine the ordinance.
“Since the county wouldn’t pay $5,000, I thought I would do the legwork for you,” Landis said.
There was concern from several members of the audience, citing a study by hearing researcher Alec Salt, about low frequency sound. The study alleged that there was some evidence to believe that infrasound, or sound emitted by turbines that is too low to be audible, could be a public health concern.
However a medical doctor and a sound engineer brought to the meeting by E.ON said the study is inconclusive and not accepted by the medical community. Salt himself, in the study, said more research is warranted in the field of hearing science.
“This is being presented as gospel, if you will,” said Mark Roberts, a renewable energy consultant and medical doctor. “But a number of committees have formed to examine the results of this study, and they have determined that there is no documented effect – beyond annoyance – for humans exposed to wind turbines.”
Other research presented to the APC by Landis included an affidavit signed by the sound consultant that the APC had hoped to hire, Paul Schomer. In the affidavit, Schomer concludes, based on research he has viewed, that a sound level limit should be 37 or 38 decibels and the adequate setback is 3,000 feet.
In the affidavit, Schomer suggests that the sound limit be based on annoyance level, which, he said, is usually set at 37 or 38 decibel level, which would annoy about six percent of the population.
“Do you really want Clinton County to be annoyed?” Landis asked rhetorically.
However, elsewhere in the affidavit, Schomer says that the average level of daytime rural noise is 45 decibels. Based on that metric, the APC made 45 the maximum decibel level allowed for any future wind development.
If the maximum allowed noise is the same as daytime levels, the level of noise inside a home would be in the high 30 decibel range, sound engineer Mike Hankin said, noting that this number approximates the range suggested by Schomer.
On the sound issue, Boyles sided against the majority of the APC. Boyles reminded the audience of his previous “no” vote on wind farming in Clinton County. He said the reason he said “no” before still applies now – there are just too many unknowns.
“My original ‘no’ vote as a commissioner was because there was not enough information. What you’ve said with your trumpet from the mountain tops I agree with,” Boyles said, speaking to Landis. “We need to figure out some kind of metric for our commissioners to deal with going forward.”
However the other five members of the APC agreed on the sound setback. Audience members could be heard saying, “Cory is the only one who represents us” and “They don’t care about us.”
Compared to where the ordinance was to begin with, APC member and County Council member Steve Woods said the new setback rules are much more protective of county residents than were the previous ones. Even if the rules are not perfect in the eyes of many, Woods said the new ordinance is a win for compromise.
“This is a good compromise,” Woods said. “It allows wind farms to be viable in the county, and it provides ample protection for homeowners.”
By voting for the setbacks, the APC is not endorsing wind farms. The APC is only tasked with revising the standards and procedures of the ordinance to allow a possible pathway to wind development as an accessory structure in agriculture-zoned districts. Like confined feeding operations and other farm-based businesses, wind turbines are considered a complementary structure for ag. land in the county’s comprehensive plan.
The APC also decided to add a provision instructing the county commissioners to negotiate a property value guarantee with any future wind developer to provide homeowners insulation if their property value should drop as a result of the wind development.
APC Attorney Jay Moore researched the feasibility of offering a guarantee and drew up a model for the guarantee form based on the guarantee negotiated for property owners living near the landfill. Moore advised the APC that there are a number of ways they could go about the guarantee.
Because the majority of members felt negotiating a property guarantee was a commissioners’ issue, they opted to leave the final details up to future commissioners, who would be responsible for negotiating the guarantee along with many other facets of a future wind project.
After adding their final revisions to the ordinance, the APC set a date and time for a public hearing on the updated ordinance. A location for the meeting has not yet been finalized, but the hearing will take place on Nov. 21 at 6 p.m.