LOCATION/TYPE

NEWS HOME

[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]



Archive
RSS

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Get weekly updates

WHAT TO DO
when your community is targeted

RSS

RSS feeds and more

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate via Paypal

Donate via Stripe

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Campaign Material

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

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

News Watch Home

Exclusionary zoning is against the law 

Credit:  03/07/2014 | www.cadillacnews.com ~~

In a number of editorials concerning wind energy in Sherman Township, there have been a number of assertions that I would like to clarify. As chairman of the planning commission, I would take issue with SOS’s claims that the commission has continued to ignore the pleas of those opposed to wind turbines. Just because this group has not been able to vote out wind turbines, which is against the law, they cry “foul” and blame township officials for not letting them get their way.

First of all, in coming to the conclusions of both of our setbacks, we did listen, and acted on the concerns and information we had from citizens on both sides. At that time, the state’s recommendation was one and a half times the height of a tower. After considering citizen concerns, and knowing that by law we could not zone out wind towers, our first setback was over three times the height of a tower. This setback was aggressively opposed by the wind friendly group, who cited that it was unreasonably restrictive. That setback was rejected by a referendum and we again tried to find a “fair” setback that would address major SOS concerns, without excluding the ability for a business to exist. However, even with a setback of four and a half times the height of a tower, it was again defeated.

What most people don’t realize is, that if a setback of one mile or more was adopted as has been suggested by SOS, this could easily be viewed as “exclusionary zoning,” which is against our state law. As chairman of our planning board, I do not plan on leading our board, directly or indirectly, down a path that might be interpreted as breaking any law.

Ronald W. Moesta

Tustin

Source:  03/07/2014 | www.cadillacnews.com

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 Funding
   Donate via Paypal
(via Paypal)
Donate via Stripe
(via Stripe)

Share:

e-mail X FB LI TG TG Share


News Watch Home

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

 Follow:

Wind Watch on X Wind Watch on Facebook

Wind Watch on Linked In Wind Watch on Mastodon