The following letter was emailed to Mr. Terrinoni by Mrs. Newhouse, wife of former board member, Marshall Newhouse; Mr. Terrinoni forwarded it to each member of the Boone County Board.
2:24 PM 12-19-2012 Apparently Mrs. Newhouse sent the letter directly to board members according to Mr. Newhouse’s recent update. Per Mrs. Newhouse’s request her letter is presented in its entirely and then with Ms. Del Rose’s comments.
After my initially posting of this letter, Ms. Del Rose responded to several accusations by Mrs. Newhouse’ criticizing Mr. Del Rose’s actions in the Planning Department. Ms. Del Rose’s two emails are presented in whole following Mrs. Newhouse’s letter. I have taken the liberty of placing in yellow highlighted bold type Ms. Del Rose’s statements with Mrs. Newhouse’s letter
original email from Mr. Newhouse:
Dear Boone County Board members,
The red font indicates my responses to Ms. Glass’s letter to the
county board concerning the proposed WECS code changes.
Ms. Glass’s first assertion: the proposal is too specific.
The specificity of the code amendments is a courtesy to the
applicant- they should know where the county stands before they
commit thousands of dollars in application fees, exploration money,
and signed contracts. At PZB and ZBA meetings it was stated more
than once that there should be no surprises for the WECS applicant.
Please recognize these are multi-million dollar decisions so the
county should be courteous and clear.
1. Have you asked the Planning Department to take the proposed
changes and map out exactly where wind turbines will be able to be
situated based on the proposed setbacks? Illinois state law permits
wind turbines, therefore the county cannot legislate them out of
existence. So, where can they be situated if these proposed setbacks
are adopted?
Answer: While state law permits wind turbines, there is no state code
that says individual counties have to have them. Lake County is an
example of a county that decided against wind turbines. That was
correctly stated by Kristine Schnoor at the Boone County Planning
Commission. Regardless, a map created by the planning department
could not indicate whether a WECS project could proceed without
input of landowner signed contracts and/or good neighbor contracts.
For example, if a cluster of landowners signed, a project could
proceed. The maps the planning staff could produce at this point
would model each potential turbine field as an island - and that simply
is not true. Knowledge of landowner and neighbor agreements is
essential to determine potential turbine sites.
2. Can the State’s Attorney SUCCESSFULLY defend a legal
challenge? It will be her job to defend Boone County, when or if, a
lawsuit is filed…but will she be successful? Is it likely that a judge will
strike down the ordinance and implement changes to which Boone
County has no control? We have quarries in this county that are in
existence because the court ordered it so. This leaves Boone County
with little or no control over them.
Answer: Several other counties in the state and nation have setbacks
with waivers. Our proposed decommissioning language was initially
drawn from Champaign County, Illinois. State's Attorneys in those
counties approved theirs and I am not aware of any county in the
state that has been sued and lost over their own code. Special use
conditions are tried in court, but not county code. Fear should not be
a motivating factor in deciding what is in the best interest for the
county unless it is fear from its own residents. Our State's Attorney
should make every effort to make sure the code is written
professionally and cleanly but it is the County Board that legislates.
3.What precedent are you setting by placing these restrictions (i.e.
setbacks, decommissioning plans, etc)? What about future
companies that want to develop here?
Answer: We are not even close to being the first or the most
restrictive in creating codes related to wind turbines, and the code
applies to any and all wind turbine companies - not just Mainstream.
There will probably be more companies interested in developing
Boone County - DeKalb county, to our South, already has a project in
its first phase development and county lines are often crossed.
4. What does the EDD say about wind turbines? Boone County
provides financial support to the EDD to encourage regional and local
economic development. The EDD specified alternative energy as one
of their Top Ten Targeted Industries. (page 6 Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategies 2009-2014 ">">">">">">http://
www.rockfordil.com/CEDSdraft.pdf)
Answer: This is about code - does the present WECS code reflect
today's turbine heights and match the criteria set by our findings of
facts in the special use conditions? No. Does it reflect the
comprehensive plan? No. Does the code protect the rights of RLA's?
No. Does the code protect the rights of farmers to aerial spray? No.
Does it protect the rights of non-participating landowners? No. Surely
the EDD doesn’t seek to encourage regional and local economic
development at any expense.
5. What is missing? Are the terms sufficiently defined. For example,
what is a pipeline? Is It defined in the Zoning Code?
Answer: It is too bad that staff decided to "refuse to work on the
revision." Gina Del Rose said that to me in front of Ken Freeman
after the last PZB meeting. It will be up to the States Attorney to
officially clean it up.
6. A government should never pit neighbor against neighbor. This
proposal does exactly that. It permits a non-participating landowner to
determine what a neighbor can do. The County Board should do what
it is intended to do--legislate. Then they need to step up and take
responsibility for their decisions. To place this on the backs of
neighboring landowners is simple inexcusable. Additionally, find one
other instance in our Code where the non-participating landowner has
the authority to make this kind of determination? And now ask
yourself what kind of precedent will you be setting for potential
(currently unknown) development.
Answer: Our zoning process has always allowed neighbors to weigh
in on special use requests. Neighbors have proved in the past that a
special use would take away their rights and special uses have been
denied. Ms. Glass should be familiar with this given all the opposing
neighbor testimony she has had the opportunity to hear.
It is helpful to note that even our present WECS code absolutely pits
neighbor against neighbor, using non-participating land as health,
safety and noise buffers. Our present WECS code allows the
landowners with wind turbines to determine where the nonparticipating
landowner could enjoy their property with no flicker or
additional noise, build, use aerial spraying, and even use their private
air strips.
Conversely, multiple counties and states have setbacks with waivers.
The code is intended to protect people who live here already. The
code is not designed to honor businesses that want to invade their
space, change their lives, and take away their rights. Instead we can
and should create code that grants the non-partiticipating landowner
to choose to voluntarily waive his/her rights. Understand that WECS
companies are willing to give volunteers money because they realize
people are selling their rights. Did you read the good neighbor
contract in the evidence, where the non-participating landowner
surrenders his/her rights?
7. Let me bluntly state that the proposed changes to the code were
NOT researched by experts. The proposed changes came at the
hands of the previous PZB committee. Those PZB members
(including myself) had preconceived ideas of wind turbines. It is
reasonable to consider the fact that the research that led to the
creation of the proposed changes may lean one way or another. Ask
yourself who created the setbacks? How and why? What relationship
did she/he have to potential non-participating landowners? Who
created the decommissioning section? What is his/her personal
opinion of wind farms? Who created the current proposed changes?
Why did they select that portion of the code? How did they come to
the conclusions they came to?
Answer: Ms. Glass has falsely claimed she knows what kind of research
we did. She has ascribed motive in our work and has asserted our inability
to move beyond preconceived ideas. This is a remarkable testimony of her
desire to focus on personal preferences and shy away from issues herself.
In terms of research, e-mails and phone bills to local, state, and federal
experts (all pro-wind) are all available, as are hundreds of bookmarks on
our computers. There are piles of pro-wind information in our bags of wind
information. We have spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars on
research. We drove to multiple wind project sites. Marshall sat through
hours of testimony at the Illinois Windworking conference on Siting,
Zoning, and Taxing Wind Farms in Illinois. Marshall arranged for county
officials to go to Lee County and listen to their experiences. Ms. Glass did
neither. Ask David Loomis, Jolene Willis, Darin Burk, American Wind
Energy Association and Illinois Wind if they know the Newhouses
and the answer will be yes. Ask every county in Illinois with a WECS if they
have been contacted by us and they will answer yes. We participated in
ongoing communication with several of those counties. Ask the Federal
Dept. of Transportation, the Dept. of Energy, the Dept. of the Interior,
Pipeline Safety Trust, Illinois Commerce commission, Soil and Water, Farm
Bureau, American Petroleum, Area contractors, salvage yards, gravel
yards . . . the list goes on for a long time. And because staff did not do the
research- citizens spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to
present the piles of evidence. Each of us were cross examined. Anyone
could have asked us any question. I think Ms. Glass would have found it
hard to make us look uninformed.
The Register Star tried to prove a bias motivation, but discovered nothing
because there was nothing to discover. Marshall has three cousins and
several friends who have signed contracts with Mainstream and he
focused on decommissioning as he sought to protect them from having an
abandoned turbine on their property. Their signed contracts have no
financial guarantees. If Ms. Glass had listened to every word Marshall
stated, she would of heard his concern for the participating landowners,
the county, and the neighbors. If you were to ask any Newhouse family
member or like-minded citizen if they liked Marshall's compromise on
setbacks you would hear a resounding no because it fails to protect
personal property rights. Even his own mother stands against him.
Marshall took the middle ground on setbacks but he was unwilling to risk
anyone in the county concerning decommissioning. Marshall led the
board to a 2000 foot setback from property lines to protect wind rights in
the last WECS project. At that time Ms. Ward had proposed two setbacks
in the past WECS proposal, one for participating and one for nonparticipating.
Marshall listened and moved to the center to protect the nonparticipating
and grant the participating landowners a greater opportunity
to have turbines
8. We, here in Boone County, often blame Rockford and Winnebago
for not being conscientious of Boone County when it relates to
economic development. Perhaps it is time to question how and why
we continue to undermine ourselves.
Answer: If you have not asked or answered these questions, then perhaps
you need to ask if you have done due diligence. Only you can determine
that. If I understand this comment- I believe Ms. Glass would suggest that
we, for the love of money, throw out the rights of the people we represent
and neglect the protection of our county from potential financial burdens in
the form of road damage, tax burden shifts, and decommissioning. I doubt
Ms. Glass, or any resident of Boone County, would enjoy increased taxes
as the turbines are allowed to depreciate at a accelerated rate. And what
about the the lawsuits? Every county with a wind project in Illinois has
faced lawsuits. Some were settled out of court, some were dismissed,
some are pending, and some have cost the county plenty.
For those who oppose the proposed setbacks, why do you oppose
them? For those who support them why do you support them?
Is it your intent to legislate them to the point where they cannot be
built? Is it legal to do so?
There is no proposed legislation that would stop the project if people
are favorable toward wind projects. Again it is legal to legislate
turbines unfavorably
.
Have you ever really searched for evidence that contradicts your preformatted
opinions or did you just seek out data that supports your
beliefs? Lets face it, the “anti wind-farm” advocates would never
present evidence that opposes their ideals: nor would the “pro windfarm”
advocates. It is reasonable to believe that most people will seek
out answers that prove what they want to prove.
Answer: Ms. Glass finds it hard to believe that people looked at the
issue from both sides, as we did. Ms. Glass seems to state that she
did not.
Ms. Glass claims to be well educated on wind farms but frequently
provides false statements about the same. Even in her letter to you
she claims Illinois has established a base setback. That is an outright
lie. The state has no base state setback for commercial wind farms
connected to the grid. It would be interesting to know where her
misinformation is being generated. Ms. Glass claims there is no
conclusive evidence on health, safety, and effect on property values.
Since these issues are being settled in courts all over the world and
damages are being awarded, I believe Ms. Glass has shown herself
not to be a legal judge and/or an expert.
Boone County Board members, I would ask that you base your
decision on the evidence presented, not on this last-ditch effort to
undermine the earnest work of many people over many months.
If Ms. Glass had done as the law required and presented the
statements in this letter in the open ZBA hearings, her “facts” and
implications would of been cross-examined and answered and found
to be ungrounded. Instead, she contends she knows more than the
rest of us who courageously (and rightly) presented our facts in a
public hearing and effectively faced cross-examination.
Julie Newhouse
**********************************************************
Mr. Newhouse’s letter with Ms. DelRose’s comments in yellow; Ms. DelRose’s emails follow.
Dear Boone County Board members,
The red font indicates my responses to Ms. Glass’s letter to the
county board concerning the proposed WECS code changes.
Ms. Glass’s first assertion: the proposal is too specific.
The specificity of the code amendments is a courtesy to the
applicant- they should know where the county stands before they
commit thousands of dollars in application fees, exploration money,
and signed contracts. At PZB and ZBA meetings it was stated more
than once that there should be no surprises for the WECS applicant.
Please recognize these are multi-million dollar decisions so the
county should be courteous and clear.
1. Have you asked the Planning Department to take the proposed
changes and map out exactly where wind turbines will be able to be
situated based on the proposed setbacks? Illinois state law permits
wind turbines, therefore the county cannot legislate them out of
existence. So, where can they be situated if these proposed setbacks
are adopted?
Answer: While state law permits wind turbines, there is no state code
that says individual counties have to have them. Lake County is an
example of a county that decided against wind turbines. That was
correctly stated by Kristine Schnoor at the Boone County Planning
Commission. Regardless, a map created by the planning department
could not indicate whether a WECS project could proceed without
input of landowner signed contracts and/or good neighbor contracts.
For example, if a cluster of landowners signed, a project could
proceed. The maps the planning staff could produce at this point
would model each potential turbine field as an island - and that simply
is not true. Knowledge of landowner and neighbor agreements is
essential to determine potential turbine sites.
2. Can the State’s Attorney SUCCESSFULLY defend a legal
challenge? It will be her job to defend Boone County, when or if, a
lawsuit is filed…but will she be successful? Is it likely that a judge will
strike down the ordinance and implement changes to which Boone
County has no control? We have quarries in this county that are in
existence because the court ordered it so. This leaves Boone County
with little or no control over them.
Answer: Several other counties in the state and nation have setbacks
with waivers. Our proposed decommissioning language was initially
drawn from Champaign County, Illinois. State's Attorneys in those
counties approved theirs and I am not aware of any county in the
state that has been sued and lost over their own code. Special use
conditions are tried in court, but not county code. Fear should not be
a motivating factor in deciding what is in the best interest for the
county unless it is fear from its own residents. Our State's Attorney
should make every effort to make sure the code is written
professionally and cleanly but it is the County Board that legislates.
3.What precedent are you setting by placing these restrictions (i.e.
setbacks, decommissioning plans, etc)? What about future
companies that want to develop here?
Answer: We are not even close to being the first or the most
restrictive in creating codes related to wind turbines, and the code
applies to any and all wind turbine companies - not just Mainstream.
There will probably be more companies interested in developing
Boone County - DeKalb county, to our South, already has a project in
its first phase development and county lines are often crossed.
4. What does the EDD say about wind turbines? Boone County
provides financial support to the EDD to encourage regional and local
economic development. The EDD specified alternative energy as one
of their Top Ten Targeted Industries. (page 6 Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategies 2009-2014 ">">">">">">http://
www.rockfordil.com/CEDSdraft.pdf)
Answer: This is about code - does the present WECS code reflect
today's turbine heights and match the criteria set by our findings of
facts in the special use conditions? No. Does it reflect the
comprehensive plan? No. Does the code protect the rights of RLA's?
No. Does the code protect the rights of farmers to aerial spray? No.
Does it protect the rights of non-participating landowners? No. Surely
the EDD doesn’t seek to encourage regional and local economic
development at any expense.
5. What is missing? Are the terms sufficiently defined. For example,
what is a pipeline? Is It defined in the Zoning Code?
Answer: It is too bad that staff decided to "refuse to work on the
revision." Gina Del Rose said that to me in front of Ken Freeman
after the last PZB meeting. It will be up to the States Attorney to
officially clean it up.
Del Rose: That is not what I said whatsoever and I think it is extremely wrong to misquote me for one’s gain. At some point in the conversation I was having with Mr. Freeman, Julie came up to me to argue my comment about the decommissioning plan coming from PZB. I told her I spoke honestly when I said that the plan that the PZB (in color copy) had before them that night was not the plan produced by the PZB and approved by the PZB, it had been further amended by her husband.
I told her, that staff had given their input to the PZB about how they felt the code should read, it is an opinion that I have shared with many when asked. A comment was made which I don’t remember well enough to quote but my response was that after trying to explain staff’s position that the zoning code should be a well-rounded document I was told by a county board member that “I was not paid to think, I was paid to do as I was told” After that, staff has let the ZBA and PZB take over the amendments and only suggested something when asked. In no way did I say I refused to work on the revision, staff has spent countless hours working on the revisions and have attended meetings last week and this week about the revision, giving input upon request.
6. A government should never pit neighbor against neighbor. This
proposal does exactly that. It permits a non-participating landowner to
determine what a neighbor can do. The County Board should do what
it is intended to do--legislate. Then they need to step up and take
responsibility for their decisions. To place this on the backs of
neighboring landowners is simple inexcusable. Additionally, find one
other instance in our Code where the non-participating landowner has
the authority to make this kind of determination? And now ask
yourself what kind of precedent will you be setting for potential
(currently unknown) development.
Answer: Our zoning process has always allowed neighbors to weigh
in on special use requests. Neighbors have proved in the past that a
special use would take away their rights and special uses have been
denied. Ms. Glass should be familiar with this given all the opposing
neighbor testimony she has had the opportunity to hear.
It is helpful to note that even our present WECS code absolutely pits
neighbor against neighbor, using non-participating land as health,
safety and noise buffers. Our present WECS code allows the
landowners with wind turbines to determine where the nonparticipating
landowner could enjoy their property with no flicker or
additional noise, build, use aerial spraying, and even use their private
air strips.
Conversely, multiple counties and states have setbacks with waivers.
The code is intended to protect people who live here already. The
code is not designed to honor businesses that want to invade their
space, change their lives, and take away their rights. Instead we can
and should create code that grants the non-partiticipating landowner
to choose to voluntarily waive his/her rights. Understand that WECS
companies are willing to give volunteers money because they realize
people are selling their rights. Did you read the good neighbor
contract in the evidence, where the non-participating landowner
surrenders his/her rights?
7. Let me bluntly state that the proposed changes to the code were
NOT researched by experts. The proposed changes came at the
hands of the previous PZB committee. Those PZB members
(including myself) had preconceived ideas of wind turbines. It is
reasonable to consider the fact that the research that led to the
creation of the proposed changes may lean one way or another. Ask
yourself who created the setbacks? How and why? What relationship
did she/he have to potential non-participating landowners? Who
created the decommissioning section? What is his/her personal
opinion of wind farms? Who created the current proposed changes?
Why did they select that portion of the code? How did they come to
the conclusions they came to?
Answer: Ms. Glass has falsely claimed she knows what kind of research
we did. She has ascribed motive in our work and has asserted our inability
to move beyond preconceived ideas. This is a remarkable testimony of her
desire to focus on personal preferences and shy away from issues herself.
In terms of research, e-mails and phone bills to local, state, and federal
experts (all pro-wind) are all available, as are hundreds of bookmarks on
our computers. There are piles of pro-wind information in our bags of wind
information. We have spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars on
research. We drove to multiple wind project sites. Marshall sat through
hours of testimony at the Illinois Windworking conference on Siting,
Zoning, and Taxing Wind Farms in Illinois. Marshall arranged for county
officials to go to Lee County and listen to their experiences. Ms. Glass did
neither. Ask David Loomis, Jolene Willis, Darin Burk, American Wind
Energy Association and Illinois Wind if they know the Newhouses
and the answer will be yes. Ask every county in Illinois with a WECS if they
have been contacted by us and they will answer yes. We participated in
ongoing communication with several of those counties. Ask the Federal
Dept. of Transportation, the Dept. of Energy, the Dept. of the Interior,
Pipeline Safety Trust, Illinois Commerce commission, Soil and Water, Farm
Bureau, American Petroleum, Area contractors, salvage yards, gravel
yards . . . the list goes on for a long time. And because staff did not do the
research- citizens spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to
present the piles of evidence. Each of us were cross examined. Anyone
could have asked us any question. I think Ms. Glass would have found it
hard to make us look uninformed.
The Register Star tried to prove a bias motivation, but discovered nothing
because there was nothing to discover. Marshall has three cousins and
several friends who have signed contracts with Mainstream and he
focused on decommissioning as he sought to protect them from having an
abandoned turbine on their property. Their signed contracts have no
financial guarantees. If Ms. Glass had listened to every word Marshall
stated, she would of heard his concern for the participating landowners,
the county, and the neighbors. If you were to ask any Newhouse family
member or like-minded citizen if they liked Marshall's compromise on
setbacks you would hear a resounding no because it fails to protect
personal property rights. Even his own mother stands against him.
Marshall took the middle ground on setbacks but he was unwilling to risk
anyone in the county concerning decommissioning. Marshall led the
board to a 2000 foot setback from property lines to protect wind rights in
the last WECS project. At that time Ms. Ward had proposed two setbacks
in the past WECS proposal, one for participating and one for nonparticipating.
Marshall listened and moved to the center to protect the nonparticipating
and grant the participating landowners a greater opportunity
to have turbines
Del Rose: The planning staff did do research and have stated our research several times to those WILLING to listen. The planning staff has contacted several counties that have actual wind farms to seek their guidance. The planning staff did look up studies online and for every study found to say one thing, another one was found to dispute the information. There was no consensus whatsoever. Therefore, we respected the advice we received from our counterparts that have are experienced and honest. I would also like to note that most of the evidence submitted during the public hearing boiled down to hearsay evidence, something that staff does not generally present.
8. We, here in Boone County, often blame Rockford and Winnebago
for not being conscientious of Boone County when it relates to
economic development. Perhaps it is time to question how and why
we continue to undermine ourselves.
Answer: If you have not asked or answered these questions, then perhaps
you need to ask if you have done due diligence. Only you can determine
that. If I understand this comment- I believe Ms. Glass would suggest that
we, for the love of money, throw out the rights of the people we represent
and neglect the protection of our county from potential financial burdens in
the form of road damage, tax burden shifts, and decommissioning. I doubt
Ms. Glass, or any resident of Boone County, would enjoy increased taxes
as the turbines are allowed to depreciate at a accelerated rate. And what
about the the lawsuits? Every county with a wind project in Illinois has
faced lawsuits. Some were settled out of court, some were dismissed,
some are pending, and some have cost the county plenty.
For those who oppose the proposed setbacks, why do you oppose
them? For those who support them why do you support them?
Is it your intent to legislate them to the point where they cannot be
built? Is it legal to do so?
There is no proposed legislation that would stop the project if people
are favorable toward wind projects. Again it is legal to legislate
turbines unfavorably
.
Have you ever really searched for evidence that contradicts your preformatted
opinions or did you just seek out data that supports your
beliefs? Lets face it, the “anti wind-farm” advocates would never
present evidence that opposes their ideals: nor would the “pro windfarm”
advocates. It is reasonable to believe that most people will seek
out answers that prove what they want to prove.
Answer: Ms. Glass finds it hard to believe that people looked at the
issue from both sides, as we did. Ms. Glass seems to state that she
did not.
Ms. Glass claims to be well educated on wind farms but frequently
provides false statements about the same. Even in her letter to you
she claims Illinois has established a base setback. That is an outright
lie. The state has no base state setback for commercial wind farms
connected to the grid. It would be interesting to know where her
misinformation is being generated. Ms. Glass claims there is no
conclusive evidence on health, safety, and effect on property values.
Since these issues are being settled in courts all over the world and
damages are being awarded, I believe Ms. Glass has shown herself
not to be a legal judge and/or an expert.
Boone County Board members, I would ask that you base your
decision on the evidence presented, not on this last-ditch effort to
undermine the earnest work of many people over many months.
If Ms. Glass had done as the law required and presented the
statements in this letter in the open ZBA hearings, her “facts” and
implications would of been cross-examined and answered and found
to be ungrounded. Instead, she contends she knows more than the
rest of us who courageously (and rightly) presented our facts in a
public hearing and effectively faced cross-examination.
Julie Newhouse
**********************************************************************************
Gina DelRose associateplanner@boonecountyil.org
to Bob, kfree1011, zebrasnot, me, Cathy, Brad, Paul, Michael, Ken, Michelle, assistantplann.
Julie States:
Answer: Ms. Glass has falsely claimed she knows what kind of research
we did. She has ascribed motive in our work and has asserted our inability
to move beyond preconceived ideas. This is a remarkable testimony of her
desire to focus on personal preferences and shy away from issues herself.
In terms of research, e-mails and phone bills to local, state, and federal
experts (all pro-wind) are all available, as are hundreds of bookmarks on
our computers. There are piles of pro-wind information in our bags of wind
information. We have spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars on
research. We drove to multiple wind project sites. Marshall sat through
hours of testimony at the Illinois Windworking conference on Siting,
Zoning, and Taxing Wind Farms in Illinois. Marshall arranged for county
officials to go to Lee County and listen to their experiences. Ms. Glass did
neither. Ask David Loomis, Jolene Willis, Darin Burk, American Wind
Energy Association and Illinois Wind if they know the Newhouses
and the answer will be yes. Ask every county in Illinois with a WECS if they
have been contacted by us and they will answer yes. We participated in
ongoing communication with several of those counties. Ask the Federal
Dept. of Transportation, the Dept. of Energy, the Dept. of the Interior,
Pipeline Safety Trust, Illinois Commerce commission, Soil and Water, Farm
Bureau, American Petroleum, Area contractors, salvage yards, gravel
yards . . . the list goes on for a long time. And because staff did not do the
research- citizens spent thousands of hours and thousands of dollars to
present the piles of evidence. Each of us were cross examined. Anyone
could have asked us any question. I think Ms. Glass would have found it
hard to make us look uninformed.
The Register Star tried to prove a bias motivation, but discovered nothing
because there was nothing to discover. Marshall has three cousins and
several friends who have signed contracts with Mainstream and he
focused on decommissioning as he sought to protect them from having an
abandoned turbine on their property. Their signed contracts have no
financial guarantees. If Ms. Glass had listened to every word Marshall
stated, she would of heard his concern for the participating landowners,
the county, and the neighbors. If you were to ask any Newhouse family
member or like-minded citizen if they liked Marshall's compromise on
setbacks you would hear a resounding no because it fails to protect
personal property rights. Even his own mother stands against him.
Marshall took the middle ground on setbacks but he was unwilling to risk
anyone in the county concerning decommissioning. Marshall led the
board to a 2000 foot setback from property lines to protect wind rights in
the last WECS project. At that time Ms. Ward had proposed two setbacks
in the past WECS proposal, one for participating and one for nonparticipating.
Marshall listened and moved to the center to protect the nonparticipating
and grant the participating landowners a greater opportunity
to have turbines
The planning staff did do research and have stated our research several times to those WILLING to listen. The planning staff has contacted several counties that have actual wind farms to seek their guidance. The planning staff did look up studies online and for every study found to say one thing, another one was found to dispute the information. There was no consensus whatsoever. Therefore, we respected the advice we received from our counterparts that have are experienced and honest. I would also like to note that most of the evidence submitted during the public hearing boiled down to hearsay evidence, something that staff does not generally present.
Gina DelRose
Associate Planner
Belvidere-Boone County
From: Gina DelRose
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:56 PM
To: Bob Walberg; 'kfree1011@aol.com'; zebrasnot@hotmail.com; 'bill.pysson@gmail.com'; Cathy Ward; Brad Fidder; Paul Larson; Michael Schultz; Ken Terrinoni; Michelle Courier; kmiller@boonecountyil.org
Subject: I was horribly misquoted
In reading Julie Newhouse’s email that she sent to the County Board, I noticed that I was misquoted, horribly.
Julie states:
5. What is missing? Are the terms sufficiently defined. For example,
what is a pipeline? Is It defined in the Zoning Code?
Answer: It is too bad that staff decided to "refuse to work on the
revision." Gina Del Rose said that to me in front of Ken Freeman
after the last PZB meeting. It will be up to the States Attorney to
officially clean it up.
That is not what I said whatsoever and I think it is extremely wrong to misquote me for one’s gain. At some point in the conversation I was having with Mr. Freeman, Julie came up to me to argue my comment about the decommissioning plan coming from PZB. I told her I spoke honestly when I said that the plan that the PZB (in color copy) had before them that night was not the plan produced by the PZB and approved by the PZB, it had been further amended by her husband.
I told her, that staff had given their input to the PZB about how they felt the code should read, it is an opinion that I have shared with many when asked. A comment was made which I don’t remember well enough to quote but my response was that after trying to explain staff’s position that the zoning code should be a well-rounded document I was told by a county board member that “I was not paid to think, I was paid to do as I was told” After that, staff has let the ZBA and PZB take over the amendments and only suggested something when asked. In no way did I say I refused to work on the revision, staff has spent countless hours working on the revisions and have attended meetings last week and this week about the revision, giving input upon request.
Gina DelRose
Associate Planner
No comments:
Post a Comment