Showing posts with label planning and zoning commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label planning and zoning commission. Show all posts

27 November 2018

Eatinger Amendment Public Hearing Held at Valentine

November 15, 2018. Grant County News 134(16): 1, 5.

A decision on a submitted amendment that would prohibit industrial wind turbines in Cherry county was tabled at the November 6 meeting by the Planning and Zoning Board. Any decision will occur at its next meeting.

The amendment submitted in February, 2018 would repeal section 613 clauses in the county zoning regulations and replace them with language indicating that only personal use turbines of 80 feet or a lesser height would be allowed in Cherry County.

Rancher Wayne Eatinger explained his reasons for filing the amendment at the start of the public hearing, indicating why the change was necessary. He also submitted several documents prepared as testimony for the public hearing held November 6th, including commentary that would be discussed later by others.

Twenty people testified in support of the amendment including Le Roy and Carolyn Semin of Kilgore, Mike Young, Wanda Simonson representing her family, Gary and Glenda Phipps from north of Whitman, Craig Miles at Brownlee, Rick Weber, Sherri Bacon, golf aficionado Cleve Trimble and young rancher Brock Moreland who had to hurriedly leave behind chores at the ranch near Merriman to get to the hearing.

Dave Hamilton was the only one that spoke against the amendment.

Proponents of the amendment to prohibit industrial wind turbines referred to common themes that have been regularly discussed at several previous public hearings. These topics included: preserving the unique values of the sandhills including its notable viewscapes and life-style features so appreciated and important to residents and their friends and so many others including a regular multitude of visitors, avoiding impacts on tourism and recreation, negative impacts of turbine noise, loss of property value, negatives of turbine flicker, decommissioning of no longer useful turbines, loss of dark skies, “red-light” districts where the aircraft flight warning lights atop turbines would blink incessantly, threats to the endangered Whooping Crane and other wild birds of conservation concern, potential threats to groundwater quality, etc.

A common theme was that the Sand Hills are superb cattle country and should remain that way. There were many heartfelt words shared by some speakers as they shared experiences of people that have experienced negative impacts associated with industrial turbine facilities when the structures became prevalent to their place in the country in other states.

A few minutes of the hearing need to be especially appreciated and recognized. Bob Stetter has decades of life experiences in the sandhills. He waited until nearly the end of the hearing to speak. While sitting at the long end of the courtroom bench, when someone else would get up to speak, he sat down and patiently waited for the right time, which was an iconic moment in the courtroom. He slowly walked past other fine folks seated on the bench to his left to get to the desk where he would speak. After some more moments he slowly wrote his name twice on a page provided so there would be an officialist’s list of those giving testimony. Cattleman Bob sat in a hard wooden chair in front of the microphone and spoke significant words why there should be no wind turbines in the Sandhills. He said he would never take any amount of money in the world for turbines on any property he ever owned. Everyone was listening but there were no comments on one obvious misspoken word. There were a lot of busy eyes, because everyone realized the slip, but kept silent as it was very soon self-corrected. Details he presented were spot-on. These were Bob’s true words: “Cherry County is cattle country and not a place for industrial wind turbines.” His commentary was carefully typed and he read most of its details. One zoning board member tried to stop him from speaking because he had exceeded the five minute speaking limit, but the distinctive words continued for a short time. Upon conclusion, board members were given a copy of his written comments. Stetter has been a stalwart activist against wind turbines at many public hearings at Valentine.

The single opponent to the amendment touted supposed economic benefits and that turbines are a changing paradigm and need to be allowed. This speaker stated that the referendum was a “stalling tactic” by people “clinging to the past.”

There were at least 75 people attending the hearing, and when one speaker asked that those in favor of the amendment to prevent wind turbines stand to indicate their view, everyone stood except for three people associated with the turbine facility development company or the local group promoting turbines.

Those attending were predominantly ranchers from all sections of Cherry county and spoke with authority and knowledge. They also provided ample documentary proof, so obviously they had been doing much more than ranch chores. Some of the speakers indicated how industrial wind turbines could be a threat to their livelihood.

The hearing lasted from 4:30 p.m. until 6:10 p.m. Everyone that wanted to speak was allowed five minutes to present their testimony.

Following the hearing, and during subsequent board discussion, member Gary Swanson posed the situation as being two conflicting visions for the county. “Someone wants to impose their will on somebody else.”

One future would mean no turbines in the county. The alternative would result in wind turbine facilities and associated industrial powerlines crossing the land.

Another concern discussed by the board is the difficulty of getting enough members to attend meetings to make certain there is the required quorum, such as the five members present on the 6th. There are currently two vacancies. It was expressed that hopefully more members could be present at the next meeting scheduled for December 4th.

Following any decision on the Eatinger amendment by the Planning and Zoning Board, their recommendation will be submitted to the county commissioners for their yes or no vote after another public hearing.

At the pending December meeting there is an expected public hearing on the William Weller amendment requested a change in zoning regulations. Language which currently indicates commercial/utility grade wind energy conversion systems would be revised to industrial grade wind energy conversion systems. This amendment was submitted July 19, 2018.

The Eatinger amendment public hearing was held at the Cherry County courtroom along north Main Street, Valentine.

23 July 2018

Request Filed to Classify Wind Turbines as an Industrial Feature in Cherry County

A request to amend the Cherry County, Nebraska, zoning regulations was filed July 19, 2018 to revise the designation associated with wind turbines. The request was to change the regulations so wind turbines are an industrial feature, rather than the currently classification as “commercial/utility”. An additional request was to have industrial wind turbines specifically indicated as an industrial use as referenced by section 303 of the county regulations.

The request was filed by Cherry County landowner William R. Weller – whose property adjoins many parcels owned by a land-owner who has signed an agreement to allow wind turbine placement on their property. Mr. Weller also paid the $50 filing fee early in the morning on July 19 at the county offices. A two-page attachment was included in the filing, indicating where changes in the regulatory text were being requested, mostly associated with section 613 of the zoning regulations.

When the was submitted to the county zoning administrator, a request was made that the item be placed on the agenda for the August 7th Planning and Zoning Board meeting to indicate a specific date and time for a public hearing and an active public consideration of this proposal.

This is the request filed with the zoning administrator by Mr. Weller.

Request for Revisions to the Cherry County Zoning Regulations

July 19, 2018; changes are indicated by bold text. This online document has been slightly changed for formatting purposes, but there were no substantive changes in content.

303.42 INDUSTRIAL USE: Of, relating to, concerning, or arising from the assembling, fabrication, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, or processing of goods, or mineral extraction.

Revise to:

303.42 INDUSTRIAL USE: Of, relating to, concerning, or arising from the assembling, fabrication, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, or processing of goods, mineral extraction or any WECS with a wind turbine(s) height above ground exceeding 100 feet.

SECTION 613 WIND ENERGY CONVERSION FACILITIES

613.03 Commercial/Utility Grade Wind Energy Systems

Revise to: 613.03 Industrial Grade Wind Energy Systems

Purpose: It is the purpose of this regulation to promote the safe, effective and efficient use of commercial/utility grade wind energy systems within Cherry County.

Revise to:

It is the purpose of this regulation to promote the safe, effective and efficient use of industrial grade wind energy systems within Cherry County.

Definitions

2. Commercial/Utility WECS shall mean a wind energy conversion system of equal to or greater than 100 kilowatts in total name plate generating capacity.

Revise to:

2. Industrial WECS shall mean a wind energy conversion system of equal to or greater than 100 kilowatts in total name plate generating capacity.

Requirements

Commercial/Utility Grade wind energy systems shall be permitted as a Conditional Use within any district where...

Revise to:

Industrial Grade wind energy systems shall be permitted as a Conditional Use within any district where...

Table on Setbacks; column title

WE-CS Wind Turbine Commercial/Utility WECS

Revise to: Wind Turbine Industrial WECS

Special Safety and Design Standards

All towers shall adhere to the following safety and design standards:

Section 1. The Commercial/Utility WECS owner(s) and/or operator(s) shall conduct an analysis on potential shadow flicker at any occupied...

Revise to:

The industrial WECS owner(s) and/or operator(s) shall conduct an analysis on potential shadow flicker at any occupied...

Section 3. All Commercial/Utility WECS shall have a sign or signs posted on the tower, transformer and substation

Revise to:

3. All industrial WECS shall have a sign or signs posted on the tower, transformer and substation...

4. All wind turbines, which are a part of a commercial/utility WECS, shall be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower.

Revise to:

All wind turbines, which are a part of an industrial WECS, shall be installed with a tubular, monopole type tower.

6. Color and finish:

All wind turbines and towers that are part of a commercial/utility WECS shall be white, grey, or another non-obtrusive color. Blade finishes shall be matte or non-reflective.

Revise to:

6. Color and finish:

All wind turbines and towers that are part of an industrial WECS shall be white, grey, or another non-obtrusive color. Blade finishes shall be matte or non-reflective.

12. ... each Commercial/Utility WECS shall have a Decommissioning plan...

Revise to: 12. ... each industrial WECS shall have a Decommissioning plan...

13. Noise:

No Commercial/Utility WECS shall exceed 50 dBA at the nearest structure occupied by humans.

Exception: a Commercial/Utility WECS may exceed 50 dBA during periods of severe weather as defined by the US Weather Service.

Revise to:

No industrial WECS shall exceed 50 dBA at the nearest structure occupied by humans.

Exception: an industrial WECS may exceed 50 dBA during periods of severe weather as defined by the US Weather Service.

13 November 2017

Testimony on Proposed Regulation Changes for Wind Turbines in Cherry County


Comments read November 7, 2017 during public hearing held by the Cherry County Planning and Zoning Board. While reading this, additional comments were conveyed on the need for turbine facility owners to have greater responsibility to extinguish any wind turbine fire.

Although I am personally opposed to the placement of any wind turbines within Cherry county, some of the proposed changes to the county zoning regulations are steps in the right direction.

Notably deficient, however, is the review of impacts on land values due to wind turbines. This bare perspective is not thorough and in no way reflects what should be a comprehensive review of the topic. For one, there have not been enough comparisons and the details given are so sparse as to be misleading.

I am supportive of the proposed changes that will increase setbacks, including to a two mile distance from non-participant dwellings -- as needed as a bare minimum based upon experience of residents near turbine facilities in Holt county -- and a mile from the nearest nonparticipating property owner. Keeping turbine flicker off any county roads is also essential.

Also important is setting a 35 dba noise level for the nearest nonparticipating dwelling.

Addressing turbine fire concerns, the stance that the fire departments will only secure the area is reasonable. There does however need to be active involvement by the turbine owner to suppress any fire in the quickest manner possible. A turbine fire should not just be left to burn as this allows toxic fumes to spread and places a undue burden on the fire crew volunteers needed to monitor the site.

It is essential that the development of any wind turbine facility first and foremost respect the essential values appreciated by residents and that any facility not degrade the land and rural settings essential to the citizens of Cherry county as well as others which enjoy this country.

04 January 2017

Comments on Wetland Regulations in Cherry County Development Plan and Zoning Regulations


Submitted at monthly meeting of Planning and Zoning Board; January 3, 2017. The comments herein indicated have been slightly modified from those provided at the meeting.
After reading my statement, none of the members of the board made any comment, and the chairman moved to the next agenda item. When a question was asked later in the meeting on how the board would address this matter, this request was once again basically ignored as no member of the zoning board made any effort — nor indicated any interest — to address this issue. It was obvious that the planning and zoning board members basically ignored this request to get the comprehensive plan and zoning regulations to have similar details.

The planning and zoning policy of Cherry county needs to be revised to indicate an accepted regulation based upon a clause indicated by the Cherry County Comprehensive Plan. Currently, this is not the situation.

Denoted in Implementation Strategy for Policy 4; Point A. Item 2 in the Cherry County Comprehensive Development Plan:

“All development (again, development does not include agriculture) potentially affecting wetlands must comply with state and federal wetlands protection programs.” (Cherry County Comprehensive Plan, 1997) “Development shall leave a naturally vegetated buffer surrounding all wetlands. Roads and utility lines may cross these buffers, but the project’s site plan should minimize such crossings.”

The verbiage is different in the zoning regulations where the provision indicates that all wetlands will be identified. Yet, there are no further indications of the purpose(s) for this clause.

The discrepancy is obvious. Therefore the variance needs to be actively considered and changed to indicate current conditions.

Any applicant should be required to provide written documentation with any Conditional Use Permit request to indicate compliance with, most notably, federal regulations, as well as any applicable state regulations regarding wetlands.

According to a representative of the Nebraska regulatory office of the Corps of Engineers at Omaha: "In order to determine if a wetland is isolated, and that the Corps does not have jurisdiction," an Approved Jurisdictional Determination should be completed by the person proposing the work, or the landowner. This determination would determine "whether a wetland or pond is a Waters of the U.S. (jurisdictional) or Waters of the State (not jurisdictional). "If it is jurisdictional a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is required for impacts." ... "For the most part, the type of wetland is irrelevant to jurisdiction." The Corps cannot require that this determination be completed. An email response also indicated that only the Corps of Engineers can determine the "jurisdictional" status.

The zoning regulations should be updated to conform with the clause given in the county plan.




04 August 2016

Updating Cherry County Development Plan

An update of the Cherry County Comprehensive Development Plan has been initiated by the county Planning and Zoning Commission. At their meeting on August 2nd — in the commissioner’s room at the county building on Main Street — the five members present discussed the steps needed. Several county residents were also present.

An initial step would be that commission members review the current plan, and then come to the next scheduled meeting and ask questions.

It was noted that some portions of the Cherry county development plan have — since the original plan was issued many years ago — have been superseded by state of Nebraska regulations. This pertains notably to feed lots and hog confinement facilities, according to the comments made at the Tuesday afternoon meeting. The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality now addresses these issues, and have recently undertaken a regulatory action north of Valentine.

It was conveyed during discussions at the meeting, that the update may require that only a few pages at a time be closely considered.

A request to have comprehensive development plans for adjacent counties was met with comments that they could be reviewed online. The request was to have plans available for review at the zoning administrator’s office. Thus any comprehensive plans will have to be reviewed via personal effort, perhaps via online access.

An initial consideration of the “plan” will first occur during a meeting scheduled for September 6th.

It was noted that the review and update of the county plan will likely require many months. Also mentioned was that the Planning and Zoning Commission should, as a result, have monthly meetings instead of their quarterly meetings.

Any “official” changes to the development plan would require public hearings, with a public notice needing to be issued for any date(s) that would be indicated.

The issued county development plan indicates that there will be an annual review of the document, which will include public input. Minutes for the planning commission indicate that this review has not occurred for the past many years.

One of the first items considered by the commission at this meeting were letters from county residents Carolyn Semin and Sherri Bacon. They expressed their thanks to commission members and the zoning administrator Joel Mundorf for activities and how the recent public hearing was conducted on the conditional use permit request to place a wind turbine facility near Kilgore.

At the meeting, an eight-page transcript for the public hearing on July 19 at Valentine High School Auditorium for conditional use permit 01-16 as prepared by secretary of the commission, Lynell Stillwell, was considered. There was one change made in regards to a Gary Swanson statement about how people should refer to regulatory agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and Nebraska Game and Parks Commission regarding wetland and wildlife issues.

These minutes were approved, with this one requested revision.

The minutes provide multiple pages of details for the meeting, including a summary of each of the comments made, including submitted letters as read.

The duration of the meeting was less than one hour. Jim Buer was the “chairman” as there was a discussion regarding how the county commissioners will select someone that will be a volunteer member since there was an obvious spoken resignation at the last meeting of the commission at the county building on July 19th.

Public participation is a key aspect as this county plan is updated. A letter to the editor in the August 3 issue of the Valentine Midland News conveys this perspective.

At the July 26 meeting of the Board of Commissioners, some names were mentioned in consideration as a new member of the planning and zoning commissioner. There was no decision made with further evaluation to occur.

One of the names suggested by a commissioner, is a business partner in the winery at Nenzel, according to comments made by property owners in the vicinity. These ranchers stated that the person mentioned would not be acceptable.

Other names mentioned at the commissioners meeting were from southern Cherry county, northward of Mullen. The commissioners asked that any candidates from the public should be submitted.

There is no information available on the qualifications needed to be selected as a new member of the planning commission. Based upon attendance at multiple board of commissioners meetings, it is seemingly based upon personal perspectives?