Rietbrock seeks county approval of wind ordinance

By Kevin O’Brien

Town of Rietbrock officials are asking the Marathon County Board to review and sign off on its newly adopted wind energy ordinance, but the county’s attorney has requested more time to review the 30-page document before supervisors take action.

Lyonel Wisnewski, Rietbrock’s town chairman, came before the county’s Environmental Resources Committee on April 2, asking supervisors to act swiftly on approving the town’s ordinance, which establishes a local permitting process for wind power operations.

“Our ordinance does not create nor permit any detriment to people, their health, any natural or biological resources,” he said. “In fact, if anything, our ordinance is diametrically opposed to that. We are focusing on the safety and health of not only our people, but our domestic and wild animals, our natural resources and our community.”

Following a year of doing its “due diligence,” Wisnewski said the town board passed a wind energy siting ordinance at a special March 14 meeting, three days after a public hearing attended by the town’s attorney.

Rietbrock is the latest rural township in Marathon County to adopt an ordinance placing restrictions on large wind operations, but it is the first one to ask the county for its blessing.

Supervisor Jacob Langenhahn, chair of the ERC, said he can’t recall his committee previously being asked to weigh in on an ordinance adopted by a township with its own zoning ordinance.

“I don’t know if we’ve ever been asked to do something like this,” he said.

Langenhahn noted that other western county townships have adopted licensing ordinances to address wind farm concerns, but Rietbrock has chosen to amend its zoning ordinance instead.

Corporation counsel Michael Puerner said he reviewed state statute 60.62(3)(a), which states that, in counties with a zoning code, “no zoning ordinance or amendment of a zoning ordinance may be adopted under this section unless approved by the county board.”

From his initial reading of the statute, Puerner said it’s unclear whether the county is supposed to assess the legality of the ordinance, its consistency with the town’s comprehensive plan or some other criteria.

“This is a unique type of amendment to a zoning ordinance that we haven’t seen,” he said. “Because of that, I know I would benefit from some additional time to look into that question, to be able to advise the committee and ultimately the board on what is its scope of approval.”

Supervisor Allen Drabek, however, said the township residents may like to have some type of answer from the county before its annual meeting on April 16, and wondered if the committee could recommend approval of the ordinance, contingent upon Puerner’s review.

Langenhahn said he sees Drabek’s point, but he doesn’t want to move forward too quickly with an ordinance amendment adopted by a township that is not under county zoning, especially if committee’s recommendation is ultimately rejected by the full board.

“I don’t want this committee to get into the business of quashing town ordinances or amendments,” he said. “Otherwise, what’s the point of having town zoning?”

Puerner advised the committee against recommending approval on a contingent basis, simply because it leaves too many unanswered questions for the board to consider.

Wisnewski said he’s OK with telling his residents at the annual meeting that the county is taking the town’s request seriously and also taking its time to properly review the ordinance.

“I respect that, because we too want to do the right thing, for the right reasons in the right way,” he said.

At Langenhahn’s suggestion, the committee agreed to revisit Rietbrock’s request again at its next meeting on April 30.

Rietbrock’s Wind Energy System Siting ordinance is similar to ordinances passed by 13 other county townships, which have all expressed concerns about the impacts of large wind turbines being constructed under the rules set by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC), which have not been updated in over a decade.

“Poor planning by government officials has often resulted in the creation of problem industries that adversely affect public health and quality of life, compromise aesthetics, and degrade town character,” the ordinance states. “Wind Energy Systems are not exempt from those problems, and careful siting and protections are of paramount importance.”

Like other recently adopted ordinances, Rietbrock’s contains regulations, such as setback requirements and noise limits, that are more stringent than what the state requires.

Two other townships, Eau Pleine and Brighton, have been served with legal claims by EDP Renewables, which is demanding that the town boards repeal their ordinances so the company can proceed with a proposed projected called “Marathon Wind Farm.” An EDP executive said the company would prefer to work with the towns to reach a resolution rather than going to court, but a group of rural landowners, Farmland First, has pledged legal support and at least $30,000 to support the towns’ ordinances.

Wisnewski used a cattle metaphor to describe the town’s situation: it can either “stay within the fence” and submit to PSC regulations (Chapter 128 of administrative code), stick its neck out to “test the boundaries” or just “jump the fence” in the name of public health and safety.

“Admittedly, we chose to jump the fence because we believe that PSC 128 and the Wind Siting Council’s 2014 paper is outdated,” he said.