We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
  • RTO Insider
    • CAISO
    • ERCOT
    • MISO
    • PJM
    • ISO-NE
    • NYISO
    • SPP
    • FERC & Federal
  • ERO Insider
    • NERC & Committees
    • FERC & Federal
    • Regional Entities
    • Standards/Programs
  • NetZero Insider
    • Federal Policy
    • State & Local Policy
    • Building Decarbonization
    • Transportation Decarbonization
    • Transmission & Distribution
    • Generation & Fuels
    • Equity & Economics
    • Technology
  • Calendar
    • RTO Insider Events
    • ERO Insider Events
    • NetZero Insider Events
  • May 23, 2022
  • Log In
  • Register
  • Log Out
  • My Account
  • Subscribe
  • May 23, 2022
May 23, 2022
  • Log In
  • Register
  • Log Out
  • My Account
Home » Mich. Appeals Court Rules for Wind Turbines near Airport

Mich. Appeals Court Rules for Wind Turbines near Airport

Tuscola County Airport Aerial View (Tuscola County Airport) Alt FI.jpg
The Tuscola County Airport, which includes a paved runway and a turf runway, is in a region of Michigan's "thumb" that is home to numerous wind turbines. | Tuscola County Airport
Mar 6, 2022
John Lindstrom and Rich Heidorn Jr.

LANSING, Mich. — In a case that could have statewide implications, Michigan’s Court of Appeals ruled that a Tuscola County Airport board improperly denied variances for eight new wind turbines near the airport, the latest decision in a number of court actions involving the wind farm operated by NextEra Energy Resources’ (NYSE:NEE) Pegasus Wind.

Pegasus operates several wind farms in Michigan’s Thumb region, the location of the greatest concentration of wind farms in the state. Some local governments in the multicounty agricultural region have welcomed wind farms, but others have resisted vigorously. Pegasus’ efforts to locate a wind farm near Tuscola County’s airport have engendered more than a dozen legal cases in both state and federal court, said Heidi Stark, a member of the county’s Planning Commission.

In November 2019, the Tuscola Circuit Court reversed the Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Board of Appeals’ (AZBA) decision rejecting variances for 33 Pegasus turbines, which are now operating. A month before that decision, Pegasus submitted variance applications for eight additional turbines within the airport’s zoning area.

In this case, Pegasus Wind v. Tuscola County and Tuscola County Airport Zoning Board of Appeals (Docket No. 355715), the Tuscola County circuit judge ruled the AZBA had authority to deny the eight variances, although the Federal Aviation Administration and Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) had issued “determinations of no hazard.”

But Appeals Judge Michelle Rick, joined by Judge Douglas Shapiro, ruled that the circuit court erred in its ruling and the variances should be granted. Judge Christopher Murray dissented.

‘Practical Difficulty’ vs. ‘Unnecessary Hardship’

The Michigan Airport Zoning Act requires zoning boards of appeals to allow a variance “if a literal application or enforcement of the regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and the relief granted would not be contrary to the public interest, but would do substantial justice and be in accordance with the spirit of the regulations.”

The Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Ordinance, in contrast, requires the AZBA to grant a variance if a petitioner establishes any one of those factors, as long as the FAA and MDOT’s Aeronautics Commission has found no hazard.

The court said that the circuit court improperly “conflated” the terms “practical difficulty” and “unnecessary hardship.” It said many of the zoning cases cited by the circuit court and the parties on appeal did not differentiate between practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship because the prior zoning law allowed variances for both reasons.

Tuscola County Airport Variance map (Michigan Court of Appeals) Alt FI.jpgThis "variance map" included in the court's ruling shows numerous wind turbines (blue rocket shapes) around the Tuscola County Airport (center). | Michigan Court of Appeals

 

That changed with the 2006 Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, which said only a showing of practical difficulty — and not unnecessary hardship — is required to justify the grant of “nonuse” variances, which are concerned with the area, height and setback requirements of structures.

“Because there appears to be confusion between the requirements of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship, we use this case as an opportunity to distinguish those requirements in the application of variances,” the court said. “The law is clear that practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship are two separate things, and being unique to or inherent in the property is a requirement of hardships, not practical difficulty.

“The question is whether Pegasus has any use for this land under the current zoning — it does not — and whether entering into the agreements with knowledge that the land was subject to the zoning ordinance rendered these hardships self-created — also no,” the court continued. “Accordingly, none of the AZBA’s three stated reasons for concluding that Pegasus failed to establish a practical difficulty is supported by the record, let alone supported by substantial evidence, and the circuit court misapplied the practical difficulty standard.”

Public Interest

The court said the circuit court also erred by affirming the AZBA’s determination that the variances would be contrary to the public interest and protection of the airport’s approach.

The AZBA said the turbines would require a 300-foot increase in minimum descent altitude and that there was no evidence that the energy generated by the project is needed or would be used in the surrounding community.

The court said, however, that there are already numerous turbines “in and around the airport.”

“The record does not contain any evidence supporting a finding that the addition of these eight turbines would or could create risks and situations different from what is already happening as a result of the numerous wind turbines already built.”

While the case deals directly with Tuscola County, many local governments in Michigan have adopted zoning ordinances to effectively block development of wind and solar farms. The AZBA ordered the case published, which means the ruling must be followed in similar cases unless a higher court overturns it.

Pegasus could not be reached for comment. Lawyers for the county could not be reached for comment on whether it will appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear an earlier case involving Pegasus and Tuscola County.

Agriculture & Land Use / Onshore Wind Power / Michigan
KEYWORDS Michigan Court of Appeals (MI COA) NextEra Energy Resources Wind Power
John Lindstrom

Mich. Adding EV Chargers to State Parks

More from this author
Rich heidorn jr rto website final
Rich Heidorn Jr.

Corporate Buyers Decry Renewable Caps in Southeast, Renew Call for Market

More from this author
You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Popular Stories

  • Solar Developers: NJ’s Aging Grid Can’t Accept New Projects

    May 17, 2022
    Transmission Operations
    By Hugh Morley
  • SunZia Transmission Project: Not a ‘Unicorn,’ but not ‘Repeatable’

    May 16, 2022
    CAISO/WEIM
    By Rich Heidorn Jr.
  • Southern Co. Takes Heat over SEEM, Opposition to RTO

    May 16, 2022
    Alabama
    By Rich Heidorn Jr.
  • Offshore Wind Conference Highlights NY, NJ Transmission Plans

    May 2, 2022
    Conference Coverage
    By Rich Heidorn Jr.
  • Humility, State Support Seen as Keys to Transmission Buildout

    May 3, 2022
    FERC
    By Rich Heidorn Jr.

Want us to be your eyes and ears?

Let us put you "inside the room."
Sign Up Today

Upcoming Events

  • 23May

    WATT Coalition - Grid Enhancing Technologies Summit

    Dallas, TX
  • 01Jun

    NW Energy - Decarbonizing the Northwest: Webinar Series

  • 08Jun

    EBA Northeast Chapter 2022 Annual Meeting

    Boston, MA
Tweets by rtoinsider
  • Publications
    • RTO Insider
      • CAISO
      • ERCOT
      • ISO-NE
      • MISO
      • NYISO
      • PJM
      • SPP
      • FERC & Federal
    • ERO Insider
      • NERC & Committees
      • FERC & Federal
      • Regional Entities
      • Standards & Programs
    • NetZero Insider
      • Federal Policy
      • State & Local Policy
      • Building Decarbonization
      • Transportation Decarbonization
      • Transmission & Distribution
      • Generation & Fuels
      • Equity & Economics
      • Technology
  • Additional Links
    • About Us
    • Why Subscribe?
    • FAQ
    • Terms
    • Privacy Policy
    • Cookie Policy
  • Contact Us
    • Rich Heidorn Jr.
      Editor-in-Chief & Co-Publisher

      Merry Eisner
      Chief Operating Officer & Co-Publisher

      10837 Deborah Drive
      Potomac, MD 20854
      (301) 658-6885

    • Facebook Twitter Linkedin
Copyright ©2022. All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing