Entries in wind turbine setback (2)
2/18/12 Not willing to let it go to a jury trial, Big Wind settles resident's lawsuit out of court. Terms of settlement? What else? Confidential.
From Michigan:
RESIDENTS SETTLE UBLY LAWSUIT WITH WIND COMPANIES
By Kate Hessling, Assistant News Editor,
Source Huron Daily Tribune, www.michigansthumb.com
February 18, 2012
The count claimed the intrusions included:
• Low frequency and impulse noise created by the wind turbines, which range between 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.
• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.
• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.
“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit stated.
Adverse health effects listed in the lawsuit included: the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.
BAD AXE — The 20 Huron County residents who filed a lawsuit claiming the Ubly-area Michigan Wind I development has harmed their quality of life and lowered their property values have agreed to settle with the wind companies.
As a result, the jury trial that was set to get under way next week in circuit court has been canceled.
The plaintiffs were seeking in excess of $25,000 and an injunctive relief ordering the companies to cease and desist their activities in the lawsuit filed May 11, 2010, in Huron County Circuit Court. The defendants were John Deere Renewables, Deere & Co., Noble Environmental Power LLC, Michigan Wind 1 LLC and RMT Inc.
Messages seeking additional information about the settlement were left with attorneys from Dykema Gosset PLLC, a Detroit-area firm representing the defendants, and Braun Kendrick Finkbeiner PLC, which represents the plaintiffs. No messages were returned as of late Friday. It’s expected the terms of the settlement will be confidential.
The thrust of the lawsuit was that construction and operation of the wind farm caused the plaintiffs to suffer adverse health effects, emotional distress and economic damages, according to court documents from the Huron County Clerk’s office. It consisted of four counts: Private nuisance, public nuisance, negligent design of a wind farm and negligent misrepresentation. RMT Inc. was named only in the negligent design claim.
Some of the counts — for negligent design and misrepresentation — were dismissed by Judge M. Richard Knoblock in Huron County Circuit Court in August 2010.
RMT Inc. constructed the wind farm, which was developed by Noble Environmental Power. Noble sold the development to John Deere, which later sold it to Exelon Wind.
The plaintiffs in the case are Ubly area residents David Peplinski, Marilyn Peplinski, Frank Peplinski, Georgia Peplinski, Terry Peplinski, Christine Peplinski, Curtis Watchowski, Lynda Watchowski, James Czewski, Delphine Czewski, Dennis Mausolf, Darcy Mausolf, Dale Laming, Elaine Laming, Lynn Sweeney, Pam Sweeney, Alger Nowak, Mary Nowak, Randy Weber and Angela Weber.
Agreements were reached between the plaintiffs and two of the defendants, which resulted in Noble being dismissed from the case Sept. 19, 2011, and RMT being dismissed Oct. 24, 2011.
Court records show both the plaintiffs and John Deere Renewables, Deere & Co. and Michigan Wind 1 agreed to dismiss the count for public nuisance.
The only count left unresolved prior to this week was a claim of private nuisance, which alleged the wind companies interfered with the plaintiffs’ rights, including their property rights, by creating and operating the wind farm.
The count claimed the intrusions included:
• Low frequency and impulse noise created by the wind turbines, which range between 1,100 and 1,700 feet away from each plaintiff’s home.
• Sustained and highly disturbing audible noise created by the wind turbines.
• A flicker/strobe light effect that covers the plaintiffs’ properties when sunlight passes through the rotating turbine blades.
“The intrusions caused by the turbines in the wind farm cause plaintiffs actual physical discomforts and would cause such physical discomfort to a person of ordinary sensibilities,” the lawsuit stated.
Adverse health effects listed in the lawsuit included: the inability to sleep and repeated awakening during sleep, headaches, dizziness, stress and tension, extreme fatigue, diminished ability to concentrate, nausea and other physiological cognitive effects.
Earlier this month, Deere and Michigan Wind I filed a motion asking the court to dismiss claims regarding adverse health effects because the plaintiffs failed to provide a witness other than themselves to support an injury claim. Because the plaintiffs did not provide a single expert or medical record, the health claims were based on conjecture and speculation, according to court documents.
In January, the defendants filed motions seeking to have a number of items excluded as evidence in the trial, including evidence about shadow flicker, sound studies provided by the plaintiffs, easements and lease agreements with landowners not party to the lawsuit; and allegations and claims or nuisance actions concerning wind farms other than Michigan Wind 1.
The wind companies previously attempted to exclude opinions and testimony of the plaintiffs’ property valuation expert, L. Mark St. Clair, who inspected the residences and outbuildings at the plaintiffs’ properties and said there was a $829,545 combined loss in property value since Jan. 1, 2009.
“In terms of damages as they may relate to the subject property, it appears that there have been damages that have resulted from this project,” St. Clair wrote in a retrospective value loss opinion.
The wind companies sought to excluded St. Clair’s opinions and testimony, challenging St. Clair’s methodology and data relied upon in rendering his opinion that Michigan Wind 1 has negatively impacted the plaintiffs’’ property values.
Because Knoblock denied the motion to exclude St. Clair’s opinions and testimony on Dec. 23, the above information could have been included in the jury trial.
Even though the lawsuit was whittled down to just about one count, court documents indicate the matter could have resulted in a lengthy trial, as the witness list for the defense had more than 100 names alone. A decision on the other items (noise studies, shadow flicker, etc.) that the defense sought to exclude as evidence was not made before the settlement was confirmed. So it’s not known whether those matters would have been considered by a jury.
The settlement was confirmed this week in a letter the plaintiffs’ attorney, Craig Horn, faxed to the circuit court.
The BPRC Research Nerd
in wind farm noise, wind farm shadow flicker, wind turbine noise, wind turbine setback
|
Comments Off
2/1/11 Walker's wind siting bill: What's the big deal? AND Contact your legislators AND Today's Extra Credit Reading List
Wisconsin Home in a Wind Project: Fond du Lac County
WISCONSIN GOVERNOR'S APPROACH TO WIND: BACK OFF A BIT
Source: Renewable Energy World
February 1, 2010
By Jim Cummings, Acoustic Ecology Institute.
When Scott Walker was inaugurated as Wisconsin’s new Governor earlier this month, his first order of business was fully in keeping with his Republican priorities: he called a special session of the state legislature, dubbed the “Wisconsin in Open for Business” session. All bills will be focused on improving the state’s business climate, which in these tough economic times has widespread support.
As part of his job-creation agenda, he submitted a regulatory reform bill, which came with a wild card tucked inside: a new and stricter setback standard for industrial wind farms. While some in the state have attacked the stricter standard as a job-killer, it appears to me that the Governor has his pulse on one of the key avenues that the wind industry should be pursuing in order to gain widespread acceptance in the years to come: strong protections for the private property rights of wind farm neighbors, combined with provisions for mutually agreeable closer siting.
In response to tough local rules that were seen as anti-wind, in 2009 the Wisconsin legislature called for statewide regulations that localities cannot exceed; the state’s PSC recently adopted a new statewide standard of 1250 feet from homes. Governor Walker’s bill would increase setbacks statewide to 1800 feet from property lines.
While this would not protect neighbors from hearing wind turbines, which are often audible at a half mile and can be heard to a mile or more in some situations (some activists and acousticians suggest setbacks in these larger ranges), Walker’s proposal is a substantial increase, and a reasonable middle ground. This sort of approach could well be the clearest path forward for an industry that has been beset by community resistance in recent years, with Wisconsin being one of the most active centers of concern about the effects of wind farm noise.
Critics immediately slammed the change, claiming that it would basically preclude new wind farms in the state. These critiques ignore a key provision of the Governor’s proposal: neighbors closer than 1800 feet can agree to let turbines go up, presumably in exchange for some compensation from the wind company.
It appears that Governor Walker understands that the way to move the wind industry forward is regulations that help local communities to feel more comfortable with the likely impacts of new wind farms, rather than standards designed primarily to ease the placement of turbines. Like it or not, there is increasing concern about noise levels once considered moderate, e.g., 45dB.
Communities nationwide are coming to grips with the fact that wind farms come with some audible noise issues; pushing siting standards too close to homes will only continue to feed the growing stream of “horror stories” that multiply and magnify the problem into ever more communities where wind farms are proposed.
Adopting setbacks that truly do protect the most noise-sensitive community members, while allowing turbines to go up closer to folks who have no problem with them, could well be the smoothest, and fastest, way forward. Governor Walker’s combination of larger setbacks, and provisions for neighbors to sign waivers, is the right direction for growing this industry without threatening the quality of life of rural communities.
See AEINews for ongoing coverage of wind noise issues.
WHAT'S AT ISSUE WITH GOVERNOR WALKER'S WIND SITING BILL:
Pictured Above: Setbacks between 400 foot tall wind turbines and homes in a PSC-approved wind project Fond du Lac County Wisconsin. The yellow circles indicate the 1000 foot safety zone around each turbine.
Pictured Below: PSC approved Glacier Hills Wind Project under constrution in Columbia County. In this map from WeEnergies, red dots are turbine locations. Each yellow circle containing a small red square is a non-participating home.
When they permitted the wind project, the PSC admitted that there were too many turbines around some homes but instead of asking for fewer turbines in those areas they asked the wind company to offer to purchase the homes. They did.
The PSC wind rules allow safety zones to cross property lines and allow a wind company to automatically use a neighbor's land as part of that safety zone. This creates a no-build and no tree planting zone on the property of a non-particpating land owner who must to get permission from the wind company to build a structure or plant a tree on his own land.
Senate Bill 9 helps to correct this problem.
The PSC statewide siting rules are to take effect on March 1st, 2011. They have setbacks of 1250 feet between homes and a 500 foot turbine. The rules allow a wind company to use a non participating landowner's property as a safety setback zone.
Senate Bill 9 increases the setback to 1800 feet between turbines and property lines. If a landowner wants a turbine closer he can enter into an agreement with the wind company. This bill gives some choice and a little more protection to the rural Wisconsin families who have no choice about living beneath the turbines.
PICTURED ABOVE: a map showing the noise level predicted for residents in Invenergy's proposed Ledge Wind Project in Brown County. The yellow dots are homes. The black dots are wind turbine locations. The World Health Organization says nighttime noise should no louder than 35 dbA for healthful sleep. The deep blue areas indicate predicted turbine noise levels above 50 dbA. The purple areas indicate turbine noise levels of 50dbA.
EXTRA CREDIT READING LIST
THE DIRTY COST OF CLEAN WIND
CLICK HERE to read the whole story
"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."
The BPRC Research Nerd
in Wind farm, Wind farm construction, Wind farm health effects, Wisconsin public service commission, walker wind siting wisconsin, wind energy, wind farm noise, wind farm noise, wind farm property value, wind siting, wind siting rules legislation and policy, wind turbine health effects, wind turbine noise, wind turbine setback, wind turbine wisconsin
|
Comments Off