[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

when your community is targeted

Get weekly updates

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Stripe

Donate via Paypal

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005.

News Watch Home

Better wind rules still needed 

Credit:  By Steve Robery, Franklin Grove, www.saukvalley.com 15 June 2012 ~~

Last month, the Lee County Board voted 18-4 against adopting a new wind energy ordinance that was recommended by the Lee County Zoning Board.

At first glance, this would appear to show a strong consensus on the issue, until you discover that “no” votes came from both sides of the debate.

Some board members voted “no” because they thought the proposed ordinance was too stringent. The ordinance included a setback of 1,400 feet or 3.5 times the height of the turbine, not significantly different than existing guidelines.

To these board members, I ask, What evidence do you have that this recommended setback is sufficient to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of Lee County?

Absolutely no evidence to this effect has been presented to our county officials during this review process. All the evidence demonstrates this setback is severely deficient, and adding a couple hundred feet isn’t going to fix the problems people have with noise, shadow flicker, signal interference, etc.

Those thinking the ordinance was too stringent are in denial and are ignoring the evidence.

Others voted “no” because they recognized the zoning board didn’t quite get the job done, and their recommended ordinance needed some more work before it was ready to be adopted.

SVM reporter David Giuliani has reported, “The new ordinance would be much more restrictive than the existing one.” I really do not believe this to be the case.

The shadow flicker requirements are not measurable.

The noise requirements are not any more restrictive than the existing guidelines, except they specifically required noise measurements – measurements that would be completed anyway.

The decommissioning clause does not sufficiently protect the citizens of Lee County from having to pay for the dismantling and removal of the turbines.

And finally, the property value guarantee does not actually protect property values.

If you read the county code, you’ll find two primary functions of our zoning ordinances are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people and to preserve property values throughout the county. Unfortunately, the zoning board’s wind energy ordinance failed miserably in this regard. The zoning board may have started with good intentions but then somehow lost its way and ultimately fell short of the finish line.

So, what’s next for Lee County? Will the work that has been put in during the past 2 years be a wasted effort? A reasonable person couldn’t possibly conclude that the 18-4 “no” vote means that Lee County doesn’t need a more restrictive wind energy ordinance. No one has made a convincing argument to this effect.

The existing ordinance is deficient: no property value protection, no decommissioning provisions, no shadow flicker restrictions, and inadequate setbacks.

Unfortunately, the proposed ordinance didn’t fully address those issues.

It’s time to get back to work. Find a handful of people who want to solve this problem and do it. Citizens have suggested reasonable compromises that have thus far been ignored.

The ball is in your court again, Mr. Seeberg.

Note to readers – Steve Robery is a licensed professional engineer with 26 years of experience, employed for the past 10 years by the Illinois Department of Transportation in Dixon. He lives with his wife, Kelly, in rural Franklin Grove.

Source:  By Steve Robery, Franklin Grove, www.saukvalley.com 15 June 2012

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 educational 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 Contributions
   Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)
Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)


e-mail X FB LI M TG TS G Share

News Watch Home

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


Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook Wind Watch on Linked In

Wind Watch on Mastodon Wind Watch on Truth Social

Wind Watch on Gab Wind Watch on Bluesky