From: Subject: Date: To:
Norm Stephens norm_stephens@hotmail.com five wind ordinances March 3, 2021 at 9:01 PM montcalmtwpclerk@gmail.com
1. The Almer Twp AND the Ellington Twp Commercial wind ordinances are attached. They are very similar to each other. Ellington Twp is our sister township abutting Almer Twp and we helped each other out in 2016-2017. You may not want to read the wind ordinances all the way through, but the most important issues are SETBACK, sound, shadow flicker and decommissioning. The Board may consider these TOO restrictive but the Pierson Twp IS restrictive. We want to try to avoid that if at all possible. If that's the case, I can make suggestions to modify and lessen the restrictions but still make it plenty "safe". I've helped over a dozen townships draft wind ordinances.
I would recommend our Almer Twp wind ordinance because it has been used as a template for several other townships without any issues from WIND companies or from their attorneys. I sent our wind ordinance to Casnovia Twp and they used it as a template and made our wind ordinance even more restrictive. They then shared it with Pierson Twp. Pierson Twps wind ordinance is OUR wind ordinance but on STEROIDS and they made it VERY difficult if not impossible for townships to build wind turbines. It's available on their website. so that would be a 6th wind ordinance. You can also go to kawkawlin twps website (Bay County) and read their most recent wind ordinance. 2019 I think is the date for that one. Any of the township wind ordinances shown here (Almer, Ellington, Larkin, Monitor and Novesta) would be absolutely excellent In terms of better and stronger regulations. I would say Pierson Twp's wind ordinance in Montcalm County is the most restrictive, then Almer, Monitor, Ellington, Novesta, and Larkin Townships. I can access more, but I doubt any township would seriously consider others after reading all of these. If you want a few more wind ordinances, I'll round them up. 3. Larkin Township ----> (Midland County) The COMMERCIAL wind ordinance starts on page 10. http://www.larkintownship.org/downloads/ordinance_269.pdf ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4. Monitor Township ----> (Bay County) The COMMERCIAL wind ordinance starts on page 102. https://monitortwp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Zoning-Ordinance-67Adopted-3-25-2019_Effective-4-29-2019.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. Below is Novesta Twp's COMMERCIAL wind ordinance (located in Tuscola County). You now have ample samples. (love those two words together) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oXWRz9zohYoEPpeAVy9k_hcVlGyU-mSc/view ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------All of wind ordinances are excellent and you would be safe with ANY of them. If I took the most restrictive regulation from each of these wind ordinances AND from Pierson Twp, I would create the best wind ordinance in the country. If your officials take time to read and adopt the Almer Twp wind ordinance, for example, they could save HOURS of meetings and MONEY---especially if they were to make FEW, if any changes to it. The Larkin Twp wind ordinance has a different approach compared to the others, but it's just as restrictive. Questions? Let me know. 989 598 1859 Norm Stephens Almer Twp Caro, MI-------in the middle of the Thumb
Almer Township Wind O…(6).pdf
From: Subject: Date: To:
Norm Stephens norm_stephens@hotmail.com Highlites of 31 (not 35) recently approved MI wind ordinances March 4, 2021 at 9:44 AM montcalmtwpclerk@gmail.com
One more email, Sorry, There are only 31 highlights not 35 highlights/summaries of wind ordinances. And, please let me know that you received this email also. Norm S. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Here are nine more wind ordinances: 1. Kawkawlin Twp Wind Ordinance: (Bay County) http://kawkawlintwp.org/kawkawlin_wind_august2019_adopted.pdf
2. Pierson Twp Wind Ordinance: https://4896ad60-76c0-4823-a2a7143a21d9c59a.filesusr.com/ugd/7ad804_517de115416d46538a7f1d8530e219 7a.pdf 3. Vassar Twp Wind Ordinance: (Tuscola County) https://www.vassartownship.org/documents/ordinances/zoning_1202 0.pdf (Pg. 29of 63 pages) 4. Dallas Twp Wind Ordinance: (Clinton County) http://dallastwp.com/Amend2013_1.pdf 5. Seville Twp Wind Ordinance (GRATIOT COUNTY): https://secureservercdn.net/166.62.108.196/qnx.0e7.myftpupload.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/Wind-Energy-Facilities-Jan-8-2020-WindOrdinance.pdf 6. Fulton Twp Wind Ordinance (GRATIOT COUNTY) http://fultontwp.com/go.php?id=674&table=page_uploads 7. Shiawassee County Wind Ordinance: https://www.shiawassee.net/Docs/Planning-Zoning/WindEnergy/2018-0511%20PLANNING%20COMMISSION%20RECOMMENDATIONS%20TO%20 THE%20BOARD%20OF%20COMMISSIONERS%20(REVISED%20MAY%20
THE%20BOARD%20OF%20COMMISSIONERS%20(REVISED%20MAY%20 11%202018).pdf 8. Bridgehampton Twp Wind Ordinance: (Sanilac County) https://www.bridgehamptontwp.com/Art%209%20%20Amended%205-9-2018.pdf (Pg. 21 of 37) 9. Essex Twp Wind Ordinance: (Clinton County) http://nebula.wsimg.com/c926c2f95e0be43506aa50a2991ba514? AccessKeyId=5FDCE42237B0340372EF&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
From: Norm Stephens Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:21 PM To: montcalmtwpclerk@gmail.com <montcalmtwpclerk@gmail.com> Subject: Highlites of 35 recently approved MI wind ordinances
Hi again Jessica, One point. The lawsuit against our township's OLD wind ordinance from 2012 occurred because of weak sound language. Our ordinance said, "sound shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line". Shall not exceed to the normal person means SOUND SHALL NOT EXCEED. But, since Lmax wasn't attached to the 55dba to read "55dba Lmax"---NextEra said they could AVERAGE the sound over an hour. Our township officials , both the PC, the Board, Spicer Engineering, the acoustician HIRED BY NEXTERA, our own acousitician and the Concerned Citizens Group all said SHALL NOT EXCEED means SHALL NOT EXCEED. The Federal Court Judge ruled in OUR favor and against NEXTERA, but at great cost to the township----------all because the previous conflicted Board members didn't do their research and didn't add Lmax to the 55dba regulation. (It may have been 45dba -- I don't remember now.) But, the use of SHALL NOT EXCEED without using the sound metric of Lmax was the primary reason for the lawsuit. The judge said that SHALL NOT EXCEED is for all practical purposes identical to an Lmax sound metric--------Unfortunately it took a very expensive lawsuit to make that a legal determination. If you have any questions, if anyone PC member or a Board member has a question in the wind ordinance, I can help. If you have a question about legalese, you shoud contact your own attorney or OUR attorney, Mike Homier, from the Grand Rapids office of Foster and Swift. (He is the attorney we used when NextEra sued us) I believe he is also the attorney Sidney Twp is using to review their wind ordinance draft as I type this. Please let me know that you received this email AND the first one with complete wind ordinances attached.
the first one with complete wind ordinances attached. By the way, I think 22 of the townships used Lmax at the property line. Don't hold me to that number, but it's close anyway. The 46dba Leq one second sound restriction in our Almer Twp is effectively Lmax. If you call me, I can explain Leq one second. If I were one of the officials, I would use Lmax instead of Leq one second------------only because Leq one second is difficult for the person on the street to understand. I understand it and the engineer who drafted that understands it as did our attorney, Mike Homier. Questions? I'm retired--fire away. Norm Stephens Almer Twp Caro, MI 989 598 1859.
From: Subject: Date: To:
Norm Stephens norm_stephens@hotmail.com Highlites of 35 recently approved MI wind ordinances March 3, 2021 at 9:21 PM montcalmtwpclerk@gmail.com
Hi again Jessica, One point. The lawsuit against our township's OLD wind ordinance from 2012 occurred because of weak sound language. Our ordinance said, "sound shall not exceed 55 decibels at the property line". Shall not exceed to the normal person means SOUND SHALL NOT EXCEED. But, since Lmax wasn't attached to the 55dba to read "55dba Lmax"---NextEra said they could AVERAGE the sound over an hour. Our township officials , both the PC, the Board, Spicer Engineering, the acoustician HIRED BY NEXTERA, our own acousitician and the Concerned Citizens Group all said SHALL NOT EXCEED means SHALL NOT EXCEED. The Federal Court Judge ruled in OUR favor and against NEXTERA, but at great cost to the township----------all because the previous conflicted Board members didn't do their research and didn't add Lmax to the 55dba regulation. (It may have been 45dba -- I don't remember now.) But, the use of SHALL NOT EXCEED without using the sound metric of Lmax was the primary reason for the lawsuit. The judge said that SHALL NOT EXCEED is for all practical purposes identical to an Lmax sound metric--------Unfortunately it took a very expensive lawsuit to make that a legal determination. If you have any questions, if anyone PC member or a Board member has a question in the wind ordinance, I can help. If you have a question about legalese, you shoud contact your own attorney or OUR attorney, Mike Homier, from the Grand Rapids office of Foster and Swift. (He is the attorney we used when NextEra sued us) I believe he is also the attorney Sidney Twp is using to review their wind ordinance draft as I type this. Please let me know that you received this email AND the first one with complete wind ordinances attached. By the way, I think 22 of the townships used Lmax at the property line. Don't hold me to that number, but it's close anyway. The 46dba Leq one second sound restriction in our Almer Twp is effectively Lmax. If you call me, I can explain Leq one second. If I were one of the officials, I would use Lmax instead of Leq one second------------only because Leq one second is difficult for the person on the street to understand. I understand it and the engineer who drafted that understands it as did our attorney, Mike Homier. Questions? I'm retired--fire away. Norm Stephens Almer Twp Caro, MI 989 598 1859.
Updated recent
Updated recent list of…20.pdf
From: Kathy Jo VanderLaan VanderLaanK@rightplace.org Subject: TOMORROW NIGHT!!: PLEASE RSVP: Wind 201 (Potential Ordinance Language) with Kevin Beeson (Pine River Township Supervisor) Date: June 24, 2020 at 2:26 PM To: Bill VanTil bm4c69@gmail.com, nkohm3@gmail.com, jnward2@frontier.com, Assessor (assessor@piersontwp.org) assessor@piersontwp.org, Jan Amsterburg jamsterburg@giresd.net, belvidere@ispmgt.com, catoclerk@gmail.com, kemler1151@gmail.com, cstratton@hometownship.net, sanders49@charter.net, montcalmtwpclerk@gmail.com, clerk@piersontwp.org, pinetownshipclerk@gmail.com, clerk@reynoldstwp.org, clerksidneytwp@gmail.com, wintwp@casair.net, todd.bloomer@gmail.com, bushnelltwpclerk@cmsinter.net, clerk@crystalmi.com, ljruw@yahoo.com, dkg@casair.net, staciepribble@gmail.com, ferrisclerk17@yahoo.com, lldarmody@cmsinter.net, fairpln@pathwaynet.com, rstearns1900@gmail.com , Rod Roy (rroyeureka@gmail.com) rroyeureka@gmail.com, trufant29@yahoo.com, montcalmsupervisor@gmail.com, supervisor@piersontwp.org, f5cornrs@gmail.com, aaronrkindel@gmail.com, plarson@alphacomm.net, larryg@casair.net, mwilkin60@yahoo.com, albert.jongewaard@apexcleanenergy.com, Donald Schurr schurrdc@yahoo.com, mfalcon@howardcity.org, citymanager@stantononline.com, bnollfarms@casair.net, harmony.nowlin@cmsenergy.com, joshuakirkgibbs@gmail.com, Brian O'Shea brian.oshea@apexcleanenergy.com Cc: Dan Calverley dcalverley@wpsci.com, Lisa Black jlblack@casair.net, chaskins@realenergyservice.com
Please take advantage of this unique opportunity to find out from your peer what language could be used to allow for renewable energy projects in your community. See attached documents for reference, and join us next Thursday evening at 7! Click “ACCEPT” so I know how many are attending – thanks. Kathy Jo VanderLaan is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86330957424? pwd=OTcrYTNXMm81aUZUR2x4SWg3MHNPdz09 Meeting ID: 863 3095 7424 Password: 467821
Mail Attachment.ics
Pine River Twp Zoning…ies.pdf
PineRiver Ordina…AL.pdf