Michael Lautzenheiser Jr., director of the Wells County Area Plan Commission, is recommending that the APC approve the request put forward by Apex Wind Energy for an amendment to a previously approved development plan and a material amendment to a previously filed development plan for wind turbines in southern Wells County.
The APC is meeting to discuss the wind turbine plans at 7 p.m. Monday in the Wells County Community Center at the 4-H Park.
The plans filed by Apex now call for 128 turbines, down from 156 in the two plans filed previously. The first filing, which Apex first presented to the APC in March 2012 and then revised in November 2012, is asking for 60 turbines — down from the original 87 — but wants the turbines to be larger, at 495 feet from the ground to the tip of its blade at its highest point. The second plan, originally filed by Wind Capital Group before Apex bought out Wind Capital in March, was first presented to the APC without resolution in April. The company now wants to knock that plan down from 69 to 68 but is again asking that it be allowed to put the larger turbines in place.
Lautzenheiser’s opinion, which has been circulated to APC members, commends Apex on its work, saying that it is “by far the best filing we have received as it concerns ordinance compliance.”
He goes on to recommend that the APC approve Apex’s request.
“My recommendation at this time after reviewing the plan is to approve the plan as designed and submitted,” Lautzenheiser said. “This modification and amendment should be approved with at least the same conditions and commitments as written in the approved petition in November.”
Apex has also asked that the reciprocal setback requirements be taken out of the APC’s requirements for it to locate wind turbines in Wells County. Those requirements force neighboring property owners to go to the APC or the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances if they want to build within setback requirements of a wind turbine.
Lautzenheiser also recommends that this be approved, but he does issue what he calls “a slight bit of caution” on that idea.
“When the rule was put in the ordinance it was done to protect people in the future, not just in the past and present,” he said in his prepared remarks for Monday night’s meeting. “If you see it as ‘buyer beware,’ waive it. If you see it as our job to protect the public in the future, then the rule works as written.”
Lautzenheiser also notes the existing conditions and commitments placed upon the wind turbine plans — noise testing protocol, noise complaint procedures, shadow flicker complaint procedure, turbine movement, turbine model change, and collection line and access road movements.
Lautzenheiser’s opinion also emphasized what APC Attorney Andrew Antrim covered at the commission’s June 5 meeting — that if a petition is denied, there must be concrete evidence that the petition doesn’t meet one or more of the ordinance requirements. If that is the case, the reason for the denial must be made clear in the motion, the motion must receive a second, and the motion must receive the required six votes.
“It is imperative, if time allows, for the board to come to a conclusion for these projects,” Lautzenheiser said. “No action can be construed as a ‘no’ vote without cause, which prior court cases despise.”
Lautzenheiser’s opinion comes with the disclaimer — that it is, after all, an opinion.
“This opinion does not in any way bind the APC towards approving or disapproving a petition,” he said. “They are my professional opinion as the APC director and a trained urban planner.” -
© 2024 Bluffton News-Banner