Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 491 North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 4761 Forester Rd Carsonvillc, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Regular meeting March 3, 2015 Bokach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Meeting called to order at 7:07 pm. Members present: Sonck, Bokach, Wallace, lnnes. and Smith. Members absent: McCarty, Paling, and Smith. Guest: Rob Eggers Spiccr Group Sonck handed out minutes from the February to?, 2015 Meeting. Hearing no exceptions, minutes automatically entered into record. Pnzsentation from Rob Eggers ot?the Spiecr Group. I lad a good overview presentation ot?the services they offer for Wind Farm development management. Potentially planning on the June Meeting for a Public Hearing on Wind Farm ordinance amendments. Motion to adjourn 8:09pm by Sonck. Seconded by lnnes, All present saying motion carried. Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 491 North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 476] Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Regular meeting. April I. 20l4. Bokaeh asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Meeting called to order at 7:15 pm. Members present: Sonck, Bokaeh. lnnes, McCarty and Smith. Members absent: Paling and Wallace. Guest: Sue Bower Mar) introduced our new Township Clerk. Sue Bower. New Mailing address for the tonnship is: 476! Forester Road, Carsonville, Ml 484l9. Reviewed minutes from the February meeting, with no exceptions noted automatically accepted into record. 80an handed out a binder lilled with Wind Farm Ordinance infomation for members to review. Bokaeh received a call from a Sarah Kostyu from the Melvindale area regarding acreage they are possibly buying on llunt Road, was asking about any oridnances for Large Animals in particular. Reviewed the list to be sent to her. Motion to adjourn by lnnes (ti; 7:57pm, Seconded by McCarty. Motion passed by all members present saying Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 491 North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 476l Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Regular meeting April 7, 20 I 5 Bokach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Meeting called to order at 7:05 pm. Members present: Sonck, Bokach, Wallace. lnnes. McCarty. Paling. and Smith. Guest: Michael Haggeny Sonck handed out minutes from the March 2015 Meeting. Hearing no exceptions. minutes automatically entered into record. Michael handed out copies of our updates for Article 3 of our ordinance from the attorney. Michael updated us on wind farm activities. We will have a special meeting May 12", 2015 at 7:00pm. Spicer group will be in attendance. Motion to adjourn ?51) 7:37pm by Paling, Seconded b) Wallace. Motion approved by all members present saying Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 491 North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 4761 Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Regular meeting June 6, 20M. Bokaeh asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Meeting called to order at 7:06 pm. Members present: Sonck, Bokach, lnnes, Wallace, Paling and Smith. Members absent: McCarty. Sonck handed out minutes from the April 1, 20? Meeting Hearing no exceptions. minutes automatically entered into record. Update from Michael: Craig Fahs land use permit. wants to add new workshop, however he is having issues with permits from the county. Mary will send shed permitting update. Zoning ordinance updates: Proposed changing Article 9.08.05 C-l -- revised the setback from l.000 feet to L320 feet and added un-leased properties. Proposed adding cable depth in Article 9.08.05 l3 -5 Added Cable Depth of 8 foot Minimum. Motion by Wallace. Seconded by Paling, to accept change to setback for Windmills from Structures and Un-leascd properties from 1,000 feet to 1.320 feet. in Article 9.08.05 GI and Adding Cable Depth of 8 foot minimum to Article 9.08.05 86. Motion passed by all members present saying None opposed. Motion to adjourn by 80an if; 7:52pm, Seconded by lnnes. Motion passed by all members present saying Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 49] North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 476l Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Special Meeting 6-9-2015. Bokach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. Members present: Sonck, Bokach, Wallace, lnnes, McCarty, Paling, and Smith. Guest: Michael Haggerty. Alan Detgen Discussions regarding the setbacks currently set in the updates for the Zoning Ordinances. Michael expressed that the developer is concerned that our current setbacks would make their projeCt No longer ?nancially viable. 'lhey are especially eoneemed about the 1600 feet from inhabited structure. and the 1320 from Non- participating parcels. Discussion regarding the reasons for l320 from Non-participating, Sonclt stated that in his opinion allowing them any closer to non- participating was creating an encroachment over property that the project has no right to as they are not leased. Data is needed to determine what is actually a safe distance from turbines. Huron County is currently changing their setback to I340 from Non- partieipating properties. Alter all ot?the discussion all members of the Planning commission were asked it they wished to make any changes. all members stated no, leave them as printed. Public hearing is scheduled for June 18", at 7:00pm. Motion to adjourn by Bokaeh. Seconded by Paling. Motion approved by all members present saying Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 49] North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 4761 Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Regular meeting Decem her 2, 2014. liokach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. Members present: Sonck, Bokach, Inncs, Paling and Smith. Members absent: Wallace and McCarty. Sonck handed out minutes from the October 20l4 Meeting. Hearing no exceptions. minutes automatically entered into record. Revicning checklist for wind farm ordinances. Motion to adjourn by Bokach 7: 7pm. Seconded by Smith. Motion passed by all members present saying Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 491 North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 4761 Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Public Hearing 8-2015. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. Roll Call: Alan Detgen Present Alan McCarty Present Alan lnnes Present Mary Bokach Present Diana Wisienski Present Leo Sonck Present David Paling Present Boltach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Guests: Rob Eggers - Spieer Group Kristen Ottemess lixelon Tara Corbett Arcadis - (Exelon group) Tim Vought - lixelon Brian Iammers - E.\elon Randall Kraker Vamum (Exelon group] Jeff Haines (Exelon group) Randy Stone 'l'ottmhip Resident Craig Stone Township Resident Cunis Render - Area Resident Carl Trigger Township Resident Jim Klaty Township Resident Kathy Kelly Township Resident. Board member Dianne Detgen Township Resident, Board member Suzanne Bower Township Resident, Board Member Darlene Innes - Township Resident Don Rickett - Landowner, Area Resident Jen'y Ostrowski Township Resident Verne Dumaw Township Resident Mark Spencer Township Resident Linda Spencer ?I?ownship Resident Sally McConnachic Township Resident Clint Stoutenburg Landon ner. Area Resident Carol Seifferlein Sanilat: County News Michael introduced himself as Township Supervisor, and also introduced the Township Board members, Alan lnnes. Suzanne Be is er. Diane Detgen. and Kathy Kelly. Michael asked our guests to introduce themselves?s Rob Eggers from Spiccr Group, Tim Vought. Kristin Ottemess, and Brian Lammeis from l-Lxelon, Randall Kraker. Vamum (with Exelon Group), Tara Corbett. Arcadis (with lixelon Group) and Jell'llaines (nith Exelon) Michael Haggerty announced the rules for the meeting. Mary called the public hearing to order at 7:l0pm. Mary read an overview of the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinances. Building permit changes removal of the wind overlay from the Zoning Ordinance, the addition of the Exclusion zones for Mdiregor, the Village of (farsonvillc, and the Carsonville High School. The Changes to the Wind Farm loning changes including setbacks, impact study changed to approved engineer, Cable bury depth increased to 8? from and removal of hub height. See amended documents for all of the detail. Carl 'l?rigger -Asked about the exclusion zones. Sonck answered that it is a safety buffer for higher density areas and said that Rob ngers would have more about this included in his presentation. Rob liggers from the Spicer Group gave a presentation of the changes with a powerpoint to show the impact the changes would have. He gave a good overview of where the zoning ordinance started from and why it was time for us to review the zoning ordinance based on what we have learned in the past years since it?s original writing. Tim Vought - asked il'Exelon could give a presentation, Michael said that we would allow them to give their presentation after we have heard the public?s questions. Don Ricket - Asked if we were trying to deter the projecL Mary responded that they are not set in stone, and not trying to deter the project.just trying to do what is right for all of the residents. without residents input we based the decisions on data that we could ?nd, the public needs to attend more meetings to give us their input. Don also mentioned that Moore township having reduced their setbacks from 1295 to 750. based on the newspaper article it appeared to be for both homes and property lines. Sally McConnachie asked about people who have already signed wind leases weather or not the wind company would have to comply with new zoning ordinance changes. Mary answered that yes they would have to comply with the new ordinances. Curtis Render - answered Moore township setback changes the 750 is from non participating property, from homes is I320. Linda Spencer Likes the proposals 1600 feet away is but for her. Vern Dumaw - Upset about setbacks. claims it will prevent any from coming. Clint Stoutenburg upset with timing of the changes, referring back to the original wind ordinance writing 8 to IO years ago. thinks that the changes should have been done much wlier. Said he is not a proponent of turbines. but does think small acreage homes should be protected. Craig Stone - would rather see expansion from 1000? to I200 or I300 instead of 1600?. Tammy Colcssa asked why we were making changes and did not have input from the public why were we making changes Mary answered we had decided to make the changes based on information from the surrounding areas that has turbines and has given as input about what they felt needed improvement. Sally McConnaehie asked if the wind turbines could use eminent domain. Alan clari?ed that they can not use eminent domain as they are not a utility. Alan lnnes - Asked Exelon about their lease already includes a 1320 foot setback from homes. Tim from Exclon responded that they generally have a commitment to their landowner regarding the distance from their home and stated they would get back to that later in their presentation. Clint Stoutenburg - Asked for the basis on the higher setback numbers compared to lluron county currently changing to l640?. Diane Det gen - stated she was part of the original writing of the ordinance. believes it was fine, wants her property considered for a windmill and the updates will exclude her. Question front unnamed member of the audience - She asked why we were moving to a bury depth of 8? on the power cables. she said when people die, they are buried 6 foot, not 8? and wanted to know what our reasoning was for the depth. Mary explained that since we have deeper and deep er frost every year, and how huge rocks show up in the spring because the frost has brought them to the surface that we wanted the cables buried deep enough to ensure that they will not come up and in an effort to prevent our farmers from ?nding them with equipment and being electrocuted. Sonck added that a couple of planning commission members were at a meeting where the of?cials in Minden Township were explaining that their cable bury depth was 4' on their ?rst project, some 01? those lines were found to be actually at 2 foot below the surface. they indicated that the wind farm developer simply hauled in dirt to add cover to the lines rather than remove and replace them. As a result they were in the process of changing their bury depth to ll'anyone hits an energized cable. they are not going to the hospital, they are going to the morgue. Cable depth at 4? is clearly not deep enough. Vern Dumaw Spoke in relation to the cable depth, indicated there clearly was issues with the ?rst development in Minden, he believes the cable was simply never actually buried at 4? due to them trying to install the cables in conditions that should never have been allowed. Vern has turbines on his land on the 2"l project. his cables are ?ne on his property. Michael added that we also have hired the Spicer Group to monitor and report all ?eld installations for us so that we and the land owners will have a very good record of where everything is located. Craig Stone Asked if the 8? bury would complicate their construction, and he asked if there was a compromise to like 6' instead of Mary asked if there were no more questions if we could open up the ?oor to the wind developers for their presentation. Tim Volkert commented that they have been looking at the township for the several years or so and that they have concerns about the proposed changes. Tara Corbett Arcadis. a planning and coordinating ?rm gave a presentation showing their comparisons and concerns about the changes to the zoning ordinances. Cable depth would cost them more to complete. Setbacks with their currently leased properties are causing them Leo Sonck. Asked about one of the slides which showed their leased property. and unleascd property. with an overlay with the setbacks which limited their allowable build area to a few windmills. Sonck asked if there was the potential that some of those unleascd owners may be open to leasing a portion of their property, but have not leased as they do not want a turbine or access road, or power lines on their property. Forcing people who have chosen not to lease to have large portions of their property encroached on by a turbine they did not agree to is not the right thing to do. Offered to the Exelon group that they may want to consider approaching these owners with options to increase their buildable areas. Alan Detgen Stated that unleased property owners should have no more power over the leased land. The unleascd man should have no ability to tell him what he can do with his property. Michael Haggerty asked Tim Volkert about the standard setback excelon has in their leases. Tim answered they generally have a larger setback than our current zoning ordinance has in it. Their current lease has and he added they would honor that sam distance from unleascd homes as well. Also stated their typical setback from non participating is times tip height, stated their standard. for safety and to keep any incidents on host property. Craig Stone What are the safety concerns on turbines from non participating properties- Mary stated we are concerned about accidents, ice throw. etc. Craig asked lixcelon to give their feedback on what a safe distance is. Exelon rep stated that it is dif?cult to answer based on environmental concerns, stated that you can ?nd information on the intemet that will say it could throw part of a blade a quarter or half mile. but in reality that never happens. Stated there were safety mechanism?s to stop the turbine. claims parts break off will fall straight down, stated with ice throw it will fall straight down, in most conditions. Kathy Kelly asked how if it is spinning how does it fall straight down. Mary Bokach asked what their regular maintenance schedules were, answer was approximately every 6 months. Also indicated they have a remote monitoring center to shut down turbines in case of issues. Randy Stone concerned about cable depth thinks 8' is too deep, just need to make sure they actually put it at the proper depth. Randy would want them at least 4' deep. Clint Stoutenburg said 4' is ?ne. .lerry Ostrowski would prefer 6' depth. Clint Stoutenburg mentioned that some people may have modi?ed their lease which may already require 6? depth on their properties. David Beck - concerned citizen part of the minden dte project, works under the turbines. has not yet seen major ice throw issues, did say that there was people monitoring cable depth on Michigan Wind 2, cables were maintained at 4? depth. Happy with the project. Mary asked us to schedule a meeting next week. Wednesday (it) 7:00pm. Someone asked whether or not our next meeting will result in a decision, Michael answered that it could, but may not. If there is, it then goes on to the Township Board at their next meeting on July 9" at 5:00 pm at the Township Hall. Motion to adjourn @8:l$pm by Paling, Seconded by Sonck Motion carried by all members present saying Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 491 North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 476] Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Special Meeting 6-24-2015. Meeting called to order at 7:00 pm. Bokach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Guests: Tara Corbett Arcadis (ljxelon group) Tim Vought - lixelon Randy Stone 'l?omrship Resident Dianne Detgen Township Resident. Board member Don Landowner, Area Resident Jerry Ostrowski Township Resident Verne Dumaw 'l'ovmship Resident Clint Stoutenburg Landowner. Area Resident Tami Colesa ?I?ovmship Resident John Tanton Area Resident Tom Roberts - Area Resident Douglas Knoerr Area Resident Cathy Knocrr Area Resident Bill Hoenicke Area Resident Sonck handed out the meeting minutes for the last meeting, 6-9-2015. Hearing no changes, minutes automatically entered into record. Sonck handed out the meeting minutes for the public hearing, 6-18-2015. Hearing no changes. minutes automatically entered into record. Bokach introduced new members of the planning commission and stated they were not included in the previous changes. Roll Call: Alan Detgen - Present Alan McCarty Present Alan lnnes Present Mary Bokach Present Diana Wisienski Present Leo Sonck - Present David Paling - Present Rob cggers sent his recommendations to the planning commission to the ordinances. Suggested to set inhabited structures to 1320 or I400 feet. Change cable depth to 4? or Non participating from or 1.5 tip height. Eliminate setbacks from ag buildings Review exclusion zones. Bokach asked Tara from Arcadis to go over a letter they had sent to the Township with their requests. their concerns for their project if the changes were not made. lnhahited structures requested I320 feel. any further distance would inhibit their project, states it is adequate setback for safety from residential structures. They would also request to allow waivers to reduce the distance from the landowners residence. Collector line depth. they would prefer typical ?eld plows are to l8". Deeper depth can cause more interference with drain tiles. also requested to include the potential for overhead lines if needed Requested setback from non participating properties be reduced from 1320? to tip height or 550'. setback from homes is 1320? any further reduction from 550? would reduce their project. Requested removal of setback from agricultural buildings or reduce to 1.1 tip height to match non participating parcels. Asked weather a corrugated metal shed for turkeys should dictate where a turbine could be placed. Requested the elimination of the exclusion zones. stated that the village is not zoned agricultural so it is already exempt from turbines and the 1320? setback from homes would be sufficient. Requested the third party veri?cation ofenvironmental studies be rem oved, they see no reason for additional review. studies were conducted in 2005, l0 years ago. Update; to those are already contracted and in process. Want the developer to have control of the process at their discretion without requiring others approval. Requested removal of proof of compliance with state and federal laws to be submitted with their application be removed, stated that they have to comply with those laws but having that proof at the time of application would be dif?cult. Most of these perm its follow later. Would be willing to provide them prior to construction. but after the permit is issued. Requested that the decommissioning plan be le? at 24 months not reduced to 12 months, want it left at 24 months to allow for extended down time to wait for parts for repairs. Detgen asked how close to a school they could build a turbine. stating that the High School next to Section 36, Tera stated l320' is sufficient. McCarty asked how big the collector lines are in diameter? 6" or Vought responded they are approximately 2" in diameter. some borings under roads would be in caseman approximately 12? Bokach asked for each members views on the wind project: McCarty - Not against. Cable depth should be 5? to allow for cover. Sonck - Not for or against. but believe everyone?s property rights must be protected, Cable depth was due to hearing of cable depth problems in Mindcn and how those issues were handled. Safety is our primary concern, with the oversight. would prefer 5? depth. Paling Not for or against, depth of cables would prefer 1320? setback would still prefer when one of these turbines fails it will not be far enough. Bokach - Neutral. for residents and township to make sure we get development, would like to see them come. want to make everyone happy but not hinder Exclon in their development. Happy with Rob?s suggestions. lnnes Would like further explanation of overhead line requirement. Vought responded that for some areas weather environmental issues or a cultural resource that they could go overhead instead of boring. Cunently they have very little in their existing parks, but would like to have the option if needed. lnnes Would like to see deeper depths on the cable, prefer Detgen very in favor of wind development, concerned the previous planning commission was eliminating too much land from being able to be developed fought to be put on the planning commission. Does not care about cable depth, 5? would be line. Wisinski In favor of the project for the last 10 years. fought hard and long for it. Not familiar with cable depth. does not want large Bokach asked about 1320? setbacks from inhabited homes. McCarty Would be ok with I320, I600 would be better. would prefer the Township voters to vote on it. Only hearing from people who want turbines at the meeting. Bokach stated a special election would cost money, the people who do not want them should have come to the meeting. Land owners. who do not live in the township would not get a vote. McCarty - 0k with I320. Sonek No. Safety concerns and current issues in Huron County and other areas. not far enough. Paling No. liokach Yes lnnes - Yes Dctgen Yes. would prefer l000' Wisinski Yes, as long as her 120 acres allows her to have one. Yeas 5, Nays 2 for opinion. Discussion: - Detgen asked why why not l000? asked how many blades have gone further than 1000?? Volker and Corbett stated none they know of. Innes added leases already include 1320?. Detgen made a motion to eliminate all ot'the proposed changes, revert back to the original wind overlay ordinance, without the overlay map included. Discussion about the motion - reviewed existing overlay, Wisinski wanted to know if l2t) acres with one house would there be enough land for a turbine at 1320'. Volker stated that it would work. Bokach added that we could add the waivers back in for landowners to allow turbines closer to their homes. Detgen made a motion to eliminate all of the proposed changes, revert back to the original wind overlay ordinance. without the overlay map included. Seconded by Wisinski. Me (.?arty - No Sonek No Paling No Bokach - No lnnes - No Detgen - Yes Wisinski Yes Motion failed 5 No, 2 Yes. Motion by Wisinski to Set the lnhabited Structures setbwk to 1320' with the option for landowners to sign a waiver for lesser setback on their property. Seconded by: Detgcn. Me Carty - Yes Sonck No Paling - Yes Bokach - Yes lnnes No Detgen Yes Wisinski Ya Motion passed 5 Yes. 2 No. Bokach asked about cable depth at 4? Me Carty 4? No, 5' Yes Sonck -- No l?aling No Bokach - Yes lnnes - No Detgen Yes Wisinski - Yes Discussion on Depth. McCarty. would be safer at 5? depth. Bokaeh asked Exelon was ok with 5? depth. they stated it would be ?ne. Anything beyond 5? would require special equipment. Installing 3 lines per circuit, plus a communications cable, including a safety ribbon approximately I above the cables. asked if it was a problem for them at Exelon indicated it was not. McCarty stated that he was told the collector lines were 10? in diameter. Exelon states they have 2" diameter lines. but there are 3 ol?them. and an additional communications cable in the bottom of the trench. Also explained the safety ribbon. Marion township - Discussed depth ot?eables. was concerned about 8? depth due to tile crossings, would be prefer 4 or Bokach explained to him that we had already thrown out 8? depth last week. we are at 5' at the moment. Tammy Colessa - wondered if anyone had heard of anyone hooking the line at the 4? depth. Paling stated we are trying to avoid than He also 15de if they had seen lines hit. Volker responded they have seen lines hit by people who were digging deep and who had not called to have the lines located properly. - at 5.5? they went thru one of his tiles, at 5? they would have been above it. Motion to change depth to 5? by Detgen seconded by Paling. Me Carly - Yes Sonck - Yes Paling Yes Bokach . Yes Innes Yes Detgen Yes Wisinski - Yes Motion carried All Yes. Clint wanted a land owner waiver to allow them to only bury cable at 3? depth, he has seen gas mains above county drain bottoms. Asked who stakes the lines on private property. Response was they have a number to call and a company that will go out and mark the locations for them. Mary asked for everyone's opinion of the idea of adding a waiver for eable depth. McCarty No Sonck - No Paling No Bokach - No Innes No Detgen Yes Wisinski No Discussion - Detgen Landowners right, let them do it, if they sell the property have it as a documented disclosure. Bokach - Allowing someone a waiver to install the lines at an unsafe depth. and if the landowner or their employee were to get killed by hitting that line it would weigh heavily on her conscious If she had allowed them to do so knowing it was not safe. Bokach ended discussion without a motion on this issue offered. Bokach asked about peoples input on changing Setbacks from Non participating parcels. Discussion - Wisinski Asked what the distance is currently l.5 hub height. Exelon wants l.l tip height, Spicer recommended l.2 to 1.5 tip height. Paling asked if they could install new blades longer than the initial set if they were replaced. Volkert stated that it could be possible, they buy units with a 25 year life cycle. but he has never seen a replacement set ol?blades bigger than the original. Foundation design is all based on the initial unit set and incmsi ng blade length would likely exceed the design of the foundation and tower. Exelons request is 550? from NON-Participating property or 1.1 tip height. Paling asked what their requirement was for the FAA from Airports. Volkert stated there is no set distance. Paling asked what the distance was from Sandusky Airport. Volkert stated they are proposing 5 miles from the Sandusky Airport. l-?iled with the FAA, and Michigan Aeronautical Authority. 'l'ara added that the Michigan tall structures limits structure height to 499, for the entire state. Poll of members for Exelon?s recommended distance from NON-Participating property lines to times tip height or 550? from the current ordinance 490?. Wisinski - Yes Dctgen - Yes Innes not sure Bokach - not sure Paling - No Sonck No McCarty - No Discussion on LI Motion to set at Tip height by wisinski, seconded by detgen. Sonck Database with incidents for safety of turbines. Turbines damaged blade parts thrown 400 meters. I600 feet. Bokach asked where these were. argued we do not care about incidents not in Michigan 80an continued - Germany parts 300 meters. 984 feet. Germany parts 400 meters. 1312 feet. Interruption by Dctgen. Wisinski. Bokach asking yws. manufacturer, Bokach interrupted again and allowed Clint to cut in and talk about the tornado damage. Continued interruptions Sonck attern pied to continue with examples of safety issues. DTE - Ubly area. blades broke and fell down, however they did break in low wind. Volkert - Claims these accidents are much rarer now. but admitted the damage can still happen at greater distance than their requested distance. Paling asked if they had one fail during a storm, and it broke at the top of the are. how far the W15 would go? Volkert - stated that is the perfect disaster and would rarely happen. Bokach poll vote for I .l Wisinski - Yes Detgcn - Yes lnnes Yes Bokaeh No Paling No Sonck - No McCarty - No Motion failed 4 no. 3 yes Motion for LS tip height or 750? by l?aling, Seconded by McCarty: Discussion: Volkert stated that they are already giving l320? from homes. stated it would cause them grief if we increased the setback from their requested 550' it would impact their project- Stated that it" we require setbacks from non-participating properties that caused them issues with their currently planned project. McCarty added that if that was the ease, that Exelon had not gotten enough signed leases yet. Volkert stated they had enough leases to meet the existing ordinance. added that the ordinance changes are the problem. stated now we are trying to change the game. Someone in the audience complained that the original ordinance was a lesser setback. now the current planning commission was trying to make much larger setbacks. Detgen stated trying to change the game in the quarter. McCarty stated the original ordinance 6 or 8 years ago, there has been change, based on what is currently happening with the windmills in the area. and a lot of people have backed down from what they have seen. also stated people who are not for the windmills are not at the meeting but are out there. 80an stated the original ordinance was upon what we knew at the time. and that we were guided by the wind developer in the area at the time. Based on what is currently happening in Huron County. who?s original ordinance was based on our initial ordinance. they have proven it was a failure and are currently in a moratorium, and updating their ordinance to even longer setbacks than our original proposed changes. Wisinski complained that if we make the setbacks so severe that they can only build 4 or 5 turbines then the entire project would be eliminated. Bokach called for a vote on the 1.5 Wisinski - No - No Innes - No Bokach - No Paling - Yes Sonck Yes McCarty - No Failed 5 No, 2 yes. Bokach asked what impact would I.2 tip height have on their project. Volkert responded that 1.2 would be 600? and that would have an impact on their project. Bokach asked what impact it would have Volkert responded that it would make it much morc dif?cult than at Ll . 50? makes big difference. Bokach stated that the 1.1 is Exclon's only option. Motion to revisit l.l tip height or 550' From NON-Participating property lines by Bokach, Seconded by Detgen: Wisinski - Yes Detgcn Yes Innes ch Bokach ch Paling - Yes Sonck - No McCarty - Yes Passed 6 Yes, 1 No. Discussion to eliminate 1000" setback from ag buildings Wisinski ch Detgen ch Innes Unsure Bokach - Yes Paling Yes Sonck Yes McCarty - Yes Motion to eliminate setback from ag buildings by Paling, Seconded by Detgen. Wisinski ch Yes Innes - Yes Bokach Yes Paling Yes Sonck -. Yes McCarty - ch Motion Carried 6 Yes. 0 No. Discussion of exclusion zoncs. Innes added that with the setbacks there is not much lc? in the sections included. Detgen stated there was 500 acres in section 36 oxmcd by Gary Schultz. Innes stated it does not add much property into the project due to setbacks. Volkert stated they are buod on 3 turbines per section. Motion to eliminate exclusion zones by Detgen, Seconded by Wisinski. Wisinski Yes Detgcn Yes Innes ch Bokach Yes Paling - Yes Sonck No McCarty - Yes Motion Carried 5 Yes, I No. Tara Corbett reviewed Exclon?s other requests. Eliminate the third party quali?ed professional review their environmental impact studies, be approved by the planning commission or our engineer, They would prefer to have their ?rm be allowed to determ inc who should do the studies. Request no intervention on the township or engineers part as it would make it more dif?cult for them as they started their studies several years ago. Motion to remove the requirement for outside approval of the environmental studies by lnnes, Seconded by Detgcn wisinski Yes Detgen - Yes lnnes - Yes Bokaeh - Yes Paling - Yes Sonck Yes McCarty - Yes Motion Carried 6 Yes, 0 No. Next item, Request that the developer not provide compliance data to the township as it creates an administrative burden on the developer to deliver proof that they have complied with laws they have to comply with any way. They would prefer other agencies do their own job. Want the township to allow them to relieve the township of the burden of reviewing the documents. They will provide if the township wishes. but request it be provided before construction. not at the time of permit application as they would not have them at the time ofapplication. They would prefer it go away. Motion to replace Item number 6 under 7.0 9.08.07 with a provision for a certi?cation with intent to comply with applicable regulations at the time of the special use permit application by lnnes, seconded by Detgen McCarty Yes Sonck ?Yes Paling Yes Bokach - Yes lnnes Yes Detgcn Yes Wisinski - Yes Exelon would request that the decommissioning plan he left at 24 months. not reduced to l2 months. Allows operational ?exibility and gives more time to issues to be resolved if needed. Motion to discuss leaving decommissioning at 24 months by paling. seconded by wisinski. Sonck asked that if a turbine was idle for 24 months. would that not also mean that the land owner would not receive their royalty check. Volkert responded he would not discuss land owners terms and contracts, and added it would impact their income. McCarty asked il?there was a fund setup for decommissioning. There is a bond in the ordinance to accommodate this. McCarty Yes Sonck -Yes l?aling Yes Bokach - Yes lnnes Yes Detgcn Yes Wisinski - Yes Motion Carried 6 yes, 0 no. Bokach asked to setup a special meeting to review the changes for approval. July at 7:00pm. Motion to adjourn by Bokach, seconded by Wisinski at 8:57 pm. Motion carried. Bridgehampton Township Planning Commission 49] North Ruth Road Mailing Address: 4761 Forester Rd Carsonville, Michigan 48419 Planning Commission Special Meeting 7-l3-2015. Meeting called to order at 7:02 pm. Bokach asked for a pledge to the ?ag. Roll Call: Alan Detgcn - Present Alan McCarty Present Alan Innes - Present Mary Bokach - Present Diana Wisienski Present Leo Sonck - Present Day id Paling Present Guests: Carole Rexford John Rexford Carl Trigger Sweet Doug Sweet Jim Hartford Karen Hartford Phil Whitman Deb Wilson 'l'ami Colcsa Clint Stoutenburg Judy Bowerman Jim Bouerman Kathy Kelly Don Rickett Jr .leff Haincs Linda Spencer Mark Spencer Tim Vought 'l'ara Corbett Sonck handed out the meeting minutes for the last meeting, 6-24-2015. Hearing no changes, minutes automatically entered into record. Wisienski handed out the meeting minutes for the meeting on 7-7-2015. llwing no changes, minutes automatically entered into record. Bokaeh handed out a review ol'the changes from the Township Attorney. llaggerty read and reviewed the changes from the township attorney. lnnes asked if the Township attorney gave any indication ol'defending the ordinance in court with or without his recommended changes. Linda Spencer commented that the commission should consider reviewing the setbacks from non-participating properties that 550? is allowing the turbines to encroach further onto non-participating properties than it is on the property that has been leased. She showed a drawing showing just how far the turbines are cncroachin onto properties that are not leased for this use. Kay Hartford asked for the reasons to allow these setbacks. Arcadis talked about how it would impact their project if the setbacks were extended to require them to lease all the property required to not encroach on others properties. Sonck made a motion to change setbacks to l320? from Non-participating properties. Seconded by Paling. Wisienski No Detgen No lnnes No Bokaeh No Paling Yes $10an Yes McCarty abstain Motion failed 4 2 abstain. Doug Sweet spoke asking why it was that the planning commission members property use is more important than their neighbors. Very upset that these setbacks will eliminate his ability to build on his property in the future as his neighbors wind turbine will encroach over most of his property. Jim Bowerman spoke that he was very disappointed by the actions of several members of the commission. Motion by lnnes to add Attorneys verbage change only, and ignore the rest of his recommendations, and send Articles 3. 8 8L 9 on to the county planning commission. Issue #2 Change ?Utility Grid Wind Energy System? to ?Wind Energy Conversion Facility". Issue #3 Move De?nition down on own line. Issue #5 9.08.07 Deeomissioning from "Surety Bond" to Surety Bond or equavilant ?nancial instrument?. Seconded by Detgen. Wisienski Yes Detgen - Yes lnnes Yes Bokach Yes Paling Yes Sonek No McCarty Yes Motion passed Motion to approve document and send articles 3. 8, 9 to the township board by Bocach, Seconded by Wisienski Wisienski - Yes Detgen - Y6 lnnes Yes Bokach Yes Paling No Sonck No McCarty No Motion passed 4 I 3 Motion to adjourn by detgen. seconded by lnnes Motion passed by all saying Sum Bower Alan lanes Michal Eagerly Kathy Kelly Dlannc Detgen Shelly Bannister Clerk Treasurer Supervisor haste: Trustee Assessor atom-um 810-316-8173 810-657-9379 8106573951 8100764402 810-378-6776 l0. 90m anaemimde mammal?; medm'n BRIDGEHAMPTON TOWNSHIP 491 North Ruth Road Mailing address: 4761 Forester Road Carsonville, Michigan 48419 May 29, 2015 T0: Flaming Commission Members FROM: Michael llaggerty, Supervi. RE: Public Hearing 1 have been trying all week to ?nd a different time for the Planning Commission to hold their Public Hearing. 1 have had dif?culty ?nding a time that Exelon and Spicers were both available. lhavc cancelled the Public Hearing for June 9, 2015. With the Memorial Day holiday, the required posting was not possible. Mary Bokach and I met and looked at several options. The best one I came up with was Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 7:00 pm. hope everyone will be able to make it. The meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 2015 will be held as a special meeting. This will give the Planning Commission needed time to revisit some of the proposed changes regarding distances. The wind companies are concerned that the increased distances are very limiting. have a concern that the proposed changes will cut out many smaller farmers. The ?large farmers were going to get the windmills? has been a concern expressed to me by many of our residents. The proposed change does just that. Using the prepos?ed changes makes it almost impossible to ?nd the space needed for windmills on many parcels. We did not impose those distances on the Solar Farm out on Fitch Road when Mr. Black made his request. We must remember that whether it be solar, wind or some other alternate energy source that we have to work together to find the best ordinance for all of Bridgehampton Township residents. It is our job whether it is solar or wind to balance what?s best for the Township with the property owners rights to make decisions regarding their own property. The Township Board also has concerns regarding the distance issues as outlined above. I have reservations that the Board will approve the Ordinance as written. I would like to resolve these differences prior to the Public Hearing. Everyone involved must be willing to compromise and ?nd an acceptable solution. The challenge will be to ?nd solutions to dif?cult issues. Thank you for your time you spend with the Planning Commission. The Township Board appreciates it. Cc: Township Board i Compose lnbox (999%) Dra?ts Sent Spam (159i Trash Smut View: [ll?pOltJl?l Ln'ead Storm: People Travel Snonpng =.nance Folders 2306 ("ka 2"07 e-mails 2008 e-mails 2:109 e-mads 2010 emu-Is 21m e-ntails 2012 20:3 e-ma-ls Claigslist Ebay ?arm conference horse: Natural Health Personal petty Phone plants name-rt?- dLL'ilC'lt Sosa" Farm Stcus Tradit onal Flowers AI. trip Website Wind arojert Ron-"r (15384 unread) - aunet Mail "f i lid . i Sent Search mDeIete hva Mort~ FYI Loo Send: net> to Michael Haggerty. Alan Innes Aug 13 at a 24AM I know you all have your opinions. and I know that some of you have discussed this in some private non public meetings regarding con?ict of interest. and I was told directly by one that attended that Michael said he was not In con?ict bemuse his contract is not with exceion. have talked to several attorney's and one prosecutor. all of them have said without a doubt that anyone with a wind lease that votes on these issues is absolutely in con?ict of interest and could be sued. I know you all think I am anti wind. not true. simply pro resident's rights. I am sending this just because I think it is only fair that you all know that if you vote you very likely could be sued. Seeing how this entire prowss was manipulated to only do exactly everything that excelon requested and absolutely nothing else. including ignoring the recommendations by the township attorney just adds to the disappointment realizing how much disregard for the residents health. safety and welfare there is in our own township. I would highly recommend that you at least ask your attomey's opinion before you vote on this as it could lead to allot of con?ict for no reason. Take a few minutes. actually read the articles in the Huron Daily Tribune. the lawsuits. and major problems there are going to be here if we do not put in place reasonable setbacks. you think it?s about anti wind. it is not. 1his is reality, if they are too close they cause problems, we all took an oath to represent our residents. it is our duty to protect their safety. health. and welfare. what is happening here does none of that. it only looks to protect the developer. and pad a select few's pockets at everyone's expense. 6 Reply Reply to All IO Forward More I) 5.3 EXPERI SERVICE. UNBEATABI PRICE. Insignia" - Portable Btuetooth Stereo Speaker - Black $1499 FREE SHIPPING ,2 ON EVERYTHING 111(1 Sun- Bowcr Alan lanes Michael [laggerty Kathy Kelly Dlanm Detgcl Shelly Ila-mister (Jerk Treasurer Supervisor Thule: Trustee Assessor 810-404-8406 810o376-l3173 810-657-9379 810-657-8951 810-376-4402 8103786776 hummus! West Momentum 00! TOWNSHIP 491 North Ruth Road Malling address: {76! Forester Road Carsonville, Michigan 48419 May 29, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Michael Haggerty, Supervis RE: Public Hearing I have been trying all week to ?nd a different time for the Planning Commission to hold their Public Hearing. I have had dif?culty ?nding a time that Exelon and Spicers were both available. I have cancelled the Public Hearing for June 9, 2015. With the Memorial Day holiday, the required posting was not possible. Mary Bolcach and I met and looked at several options. "be best one I came up with was Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 7:00 pm. I hope everyone will be able to make it. The meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 9, 2015 will be held as a special meeting. This will give the Planning Commission needed time to revisit some of the proposed changes regarding distances. The wind companies are concerned that the increased distances are very limiting. have a concern that the proposed Ichanges will cut out many smaller farmers. The ?large farmers were going to get the windmills? has been a concern expressed to me by many of our residents. The proposed change does just that. Using the proposed changes makes it almost impossible to ?nd the space needed for windmills on many parcels. We did not impose those distances on the Solar Farm out on Fitch Road when Mr. Black made his request. We must remember that whether it be solar, wind or some other alternate energy source that we have to work together to ?nd the best ordinance for all of Bridgehampton Township residents. It is our job whether it is solar or wind to balance what?s best for the Township with the property owners rights to make decisions regarding their own property. The Township Board also has concerns regarding the distance issues as I outlined above. I have reservations that the Board will approve the Ordinance as written. I would like to resolve these di?erences prior to the Public Hearing. Everyone involved must be willing to compromise and ?nd an acceptable solution. The challenge will be to ?nd solutions to dif?cult issues. Thank you for your time you spend with the Planning Commission. The Township Board appreciates it. Cc: Township Board