Bingham County resident appeal of Ridgeline Energy wind project
Justin B. Oleson|October 1, 2007
Application for appeal from the decision of Planning and Zoning regarding the special use permit submitted by Ridgeline Energy, LLC Rendered on September 26, 2007.
Application for appeal from the decision of Planning and Zoning regarding the special use permit submitted by Ridgeline Energy, LLC Rendered on September 26, 2007.
This appeal letter was filed with the Bingham County Commissioners following the County's decision to grant a special use permit to build 81 miles of road and erect 150 wind turbines. The conclusion of the document states:
It is apparent that the Planning Commission improperly approved Ridgeline's special use permit. First, the notice was deficient as only two signs were posted for a permit which was to affect land owned by six (6) separate individuals and covered 17,640 acres. Second, the application did not contain a Site Plan Drawing as required. In addition the application was vague and misleading as it did not provide information required by law. Third, the Planning Commission failed to adequately consider the factors set forth under Bingham County Ordinance 10.3, and particular the impact the granting of this special use permit will have on the scenic and historic uses of the area, along with the impact on wildlife. Fourth, the decision of the Planning Commission was arbitrary as it misinterpreted the applicable standards and definitions and failed to consider the appropriate factors as set forth by the Bingham County Zoning Ordinances. A claim made clear by the fact that Planning Commission gave Ridgeline absolute discretion on the placement of towers and roads, after arbitrarily cutting the number of towers in half. Due to the numerous and glaring deficiencies in both Ridgeline's application and the Planning Commission's decision making process, it is clear that the granting of the special use permit was in error, and the special use permit must be denied.
The developer withdrew the application after it was verified that a number of affected landowners were not notified of the project. The other outstanding questions pertaining to the application and cited violations were not addressed by the County Commissioners.