Campbell County board OKs 2 conditional use permits related to wind farm

About 50 Campbell County residents and others filled the courtroom in Mound City for the public hearing on the conditional use permits related to the Wind Farm 2 project. Prairie Pioneer photo by Orland Geigle

The Campbell County Board of Zoning and Adjustments approved two conditional use permits but tabled a zoning variance at a meeting held Nov. 7 at the courthouse in Mound City.

The approved measures allow for the construction of meteorological towers, wind turbines and associated facilities in conjunction with a second wind farm in western Campbell County. The third, a conditional use permit to allow a variance on the zoning ordinance decibel level, was postponed for decision until the group’s Dec. 3 meeting.

“I want to reiterate the economic benefits this project brings to the county and school districts.”

“Your job is to protect your constituents. If you approve this variance it opens the floodgates for others.”

Those two quotes are just a sample of the divergent opinions that were expressed by Campbell County residents at the meeting.

The public hearing was held on the conditional use permits and one zoning ordinance variance that were submitted by RWE Clean Energy related to the construction of CC Wind Farm 2. RWE has been working on CC Wind Farm 2 (CC2) for the past several years. The project has advanced to the stage where it is seeking the permits.

Conditional use permit 2024-20 allows the construction and operation of up to 29 wind turbine generators and associated facilities. Conditional use permit 2024-22 allows the construction and operation of four temporary and one permanent meteorological tower.

Permit 2024-21 would allow a variance to exceed the noise level of 45 dBA as established in the county’s zoning ordinances. The request for the noise variance drew the bulk of the discussion at the public hearing.

Sue Hansen, development manager with RWE, and other RWE representatives, described various aspects of the proposed project. There would be 29 turbines that would generate about 98.6 megawatts of electricity. If the permits are approved, construction would begin in 2025. The project has a life expectancy of 35 years.

Timm Carson, sound/acoustics engineer, said that RWE uses information from American National Standards Institute for the sound readings. When CC2 is considered just by itself there are no places where readings exceed the 45 dBL levels. However, because RWE also owns the original wind farm, the sound levels need to be taken together in what is called “constructive interference.”

When the two wind farms are considered together, there are 23 structures that exceed the 45 dBL level. A structure can be anything from an occupied house to buildings such as a barn or grain bin. One of those structures is an occupied farm home (Josh and Katelyn Larson residence), and the other is a currently unoccupied farm/grain bin site (Paul and Jeff Fjeldheim).

In terms of haul/construction roads, Jason Scrimshaw, civil/roads engineer, stated that GE (builders of the turbines for the project) requires specific road conditions to be in place before allowing deliveries to leave their plant. Two of the specific requirements are typically a 25-mph speed limit on gravel roads and a surface application to suppress dust issues.

In conclusion, Hansen summarized the economic benefits of the project for both Campbell County and the local school districts. Twenty-eight of the proposed towers are in the Herreid school district, and one is in the Mobridge-Pollock school district. She said the project would generate about $161,000 per year during the life of the project for Campbell County. The Herreid school district would get approximately $155,400 per year in new tax revenue and the Mobridge-Pollock School District would get about $5,500 per year.

In addition, there would be 150 or more new jobs during the construction phase of the project. These workers would provide various economic benefits to the local businesses, etc.

Public discussion

About 50 Campbell County residents crowded into the Campbell County courtroom for the public hearing. Of that group, about 10 individuals spoke in favor of granting the variance. There were about nine people who expressed concerns about granting the variance or were opposed to the idea.

Those who spoke in favor generally noted the economic impact the project would have in the county, including new tax revenue for both the county and the Herreid school district. Others noted the economic benefit to families that will have towers on their property, as well as the creation of new jobs and an opportunity for local people to stay in the county.

Arnie Hanson, chairman of the Campbell County Economic Development Board, presented the Zoning Adjustment Board a letter of support for the project that was passed unanimously by their board.

“We believe the financial and economic impact of the project is a plus for the county,” he said.

Those who spoke against granting the variance brought up a variety of concerns. Josh Larson, one of the property owners that would be directly affected by allowing the variance, noted the quality of life issues they face and the effect on property valuations if their family would ever decide to sell their residence.

He noted they have been trying to work with RWE on an agreement, but that has not been accomplished yet.

“If we change the rules, why do we have them in the first place?” he asked.

The farmstead of Paul and Jeff Fjeldheim is the other property where the noise level would exceed 45 dBL. They stated they are not opposed to promoting growth in the county, but also noted that laws are in place to protect people who would be affected by the project.

They said they were not contacted by RWE about the noise issue at their property until after a news article about the project appeared in the Prairie Pioneer. That story covered discussion between RWE and the commissioners about the noise issues at the two affected properties. They also said it was unfair to put their names in the paper as they felt it “put a target on our back.”

The Fjeldheims also noted that, while no one currently lives on the farm, someone might build there in the future and would have to deal with the sound issue.

Other speakers also said they were not necessarily opposed to the project, but they encouraged RWE to try and reach an agreement with the affected property owners. The other main concern was the precedent that granting a variance for this project would set for other projects going forward.

Following the statements by the proponents and opponents to the variance, there was a question-and-answer period.

Board chairman Scott Rau asked RWE if there were some alternate sites for towers in CC2 and if using those sites would help with the issue for the Larsons. Carson responded that the towers couldn’t be moved far enough away to eliminate the problem.

In addition to the towers, there is also a substation that contributes to the noise level issue at the Larsons’ farm. A second substation will be built at that site to gather the electrical generation from CC2.

Board member Lynn Deibert asked the RWE representatives to visit with the two affected families to try and get to a compromise. Hansen responded that they have been negotiating and offers have been made but not accepted at this time. She added they are still trying to negotiate.

There were some questions as to the possibility of RWE “throttling back” some towers in CC1, especially at night, to help with the noise issues. Ann Smith, legal counsel with RWE, said they have contractual obligations to provide a certain amount of energy production, and the possibility of arbitrarily cutting back production was something they could not do.

Board member Bob Shadwell came back to the issue of negotiating with the two families. He asked if RWE would still try to negotiate with the two families even if the board approved the variance. Hansen responded that they would, but that offers need to be reasonable.

As the public testimony portion was drawing to a close, board member Brent Odde said that a lot of concerns he had heard were related to construction issues, especially with county gravel roads, from the CC1 project. He said that those concerns are “under control” with the new road haul agreement that will be in place if the project proceeds.

Board of Zoning Adjustment actions

Prior to the start of the public discussion on the variance, the board approved two of the conditional use permits.

The first action taken by the board was on conditional use permit 2024-22 to allow the construction of one permanent and four temporary meteorological towers. Board member Bob Shadwell moved to approve that permit and member Bryan Fjeldheim seconded the motion. That motion passed unanimously.

The second action taken by the board was on conditional use permit 2024-20 for the construction and operation of up to 29 wind generation turbines and associated facilities. Shadwell again made the motion to approve that permit. No member immediately seconded the motion, but after board chairman Scott Rau asked a second time, member Brent Odde seconded it. That motion also passed unanimously.

The third motion, to approve the conditional use permit 2024-21 to allow a variance on the zoning ordinance decibel level, was made by Shadwell and seconded by Fjeldheim. Following that motion an extended discussion took place.

“We really have two options,” chairman Rau stated in summation. “We can deny the permit outright, and RWE can reapply in six months if they would desire to do so. The other option is for the Zoning Adjustment Board to postpone a decision until our next meeting. I like that option best as it would give RWE time to work with the two affected property owners to try and reach an agreement.”

After further discussion, the board moved to postpone a decision on the variance (conditional use permit 2024-21) until 10:05 a.m. at its Dec. 3 meeting.

Later in the meeting, board members clarified that the public comment period on the variance was over as of the conclusion of the Nov. 7 meeting. However, as is the case with all board and commission meetings, the Dec. 3 meeting is open to the public. As part of their discussion at that meeting the board members may ask questions of various people or entities prior to making their final decision on the variance.