[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

To be continued …  

Credit:  By Barb Kromphardt, Bureau County Republican, www.bcrnews.com 1 March 2011 ~~

PRINCETON – A final decision on whether to extend the conditional use permits for the proposed Walnut Ridge wind farm will not be made until at least March 17.

More than 100 people filled the large courtroom in the Bureau County Courthouse Monday night for the resumed Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The meeting had begun Feb. 17, but was recessed after 30 minutes because the developer of the project did not have legal counsel.

Project manager Bill French was back for the 7 p.m. meeting with his legal counsel, Jim Griffin, at Monday’s meeting as were attorneys Tom Boswell and Rick Porter. Boswell and Porter were representing a coalition of Friesland Farms, Larry Gerdes and other objectors to the Walnut Ridge project.

The Walnut Ridge conditional use permits and associated variations were granted to the Midwest Wind Energy developers in August 2008, November 2008 and December 2008 for 150 turbines, two staging areas, two substations and 99 transmission line support structures. The permits and variations expire after three years, so Walnut Ridge came before the board to request an extension of the permits until Dec. 31, 2014.

Bureau County State’s Attorney Pat Herrmann said the board would first consider whether Walnut Ridge had a “vested interest” in the project. According to Bureau County rules, if a conditional use permit has not been acted upon or exercised within three years, and if “there is little or no vesting of interest,” the permit becomes null and void.

Griffin said Walnut Ridge was continuing with the development of the project, but wanted confirmation the permits would remain valid.

“We want absolutely no uncertainty as to our zoning rights,” he said.

Griffin said Walnut Ridge has spent $3.2 million on the project since receiving the permits, and is moving forward to full development.

Griffin then called French to testify. French said that, to date, the company has executed leases with landowners, erected four more meteorological towers, conducted soil borings and environmental studies, analyzed the electric grid connection, negotiated underground pipeline and highway crossing agreements, and was soon to purchase the substation sites.

French said part of the reason the project isn’t further along is that the country is still coming out of a huge economic downturn. French said that downturn caused lending institutions to change their requirements before lending.

But French said the $500 million project would be completed.

“It’s not a matter of if Walnut Ridge gets built,” he said. “It’s a matter of when.”

But just how vested the developers are in the project was the theme of Porter’s cross examination.

Porter led French through a lengthy, and sometimes heated, series of questions. He pointed out no turbines or substations have been built, no building permits have been requested, and no turbines have even been ordered.

Porter then pointed out many of the projects that have been conducted since Walnut Ridge received the permits either could have or possibly should have been done before the permits were issued.

Porter questioned why more meteorological towers were erected and studies conducted after the permits were issued, and said virtually nothing done had required the use of the permit.

Porter then questioned the significance of the $3.2 million figure. He said on a $500 million project, that was significantly less than 1 percent of the total.

“The percentages are relevant, but that’s still a lot of money,” French said.

During closing statements, Griffin repeated that Walnut Ridge had already spent millions of dollars on the project, and therefore had a vested interest.

Porter disagreed, and cited case law that said the amount of money spent proportionate to the total amount of the project needed to be considered.

After a recess to allow Herrmann to examine the case laws, the meeting resumed at 9:55 p.m. Herrmann said his advice to the board was that proportionality needed to be considered. And how much was enough? One case showed a 27 percent investment was a vested interest, while another case ruled that one-half of 1 percent was not a vested interest.

After going into closed session, the board returned to open session at 10:40 p.m. On a 4-1 vote, board members that Walnut Ridge did indeed have a vested interest in the project. Board members Jim Rapp, Kerry Jaggers, Barry Welbers and Keith McLane voted in favor, while Jamie Nickelsen voted in opposition.

But the objectors and their witnesses are going to get a chance to be heard. Porter frequently tried to bring the questioning back to whether the permits should be extended because of issues such as declining property values and quality of life issues, but Herrmann consistently sustained Griffin’s objections that the questioning was irrelevant. Herrmann said the board needed to decide first if Walnut Ridge was vested, because if it wasn’t, the permits would not be extended.

So the meeting was recessed until 7 p.m. March 17, at which time the debate will resume and the objectors will be heard.

Source:  By Barb Kromphardt, Bureau County Republican, www.bcrnews.com 1 March 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.