Omega 2nd Application For Rehearing

BEFORE
THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD

In the Matter of the Application of
6011 Greenwich Windpark, LLC for a
Certificate to Construct a Wind-Powered
Electric Generation Facility in
Huron County, Ohio.
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN
SECOND APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AND

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
OMEGA CROP CO., LLC, AN OWNER OF PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO THE WIND FARM PROPERTY
____________________________________________________________
Samuel C. Randazzo (Reg. No. 0016386)

(Counsel of Record)
Scott E. Elisar (Reg. No. 0081877)
MCNEES W ALLACE & NURICK LLC
21 East State Street, 17TH Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-8000
Telecopier: (614) 469-4653
sam@mwncmh.com
(willing to accept service by e-mail)
selisar@mwncmh.com
(willing to accept service by e-mail)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
{C48181:2 }
ATTORNEYS FOR OMEGA CROP CO., LLC
BEFORE
Huron County, Ohio.
)
)
)
)
)
SECOND APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF OMEGA CROP CO., LLC, AN OWNER OF PROPERTY
ADJACENT TO THE WIND FARM PROPERTY
Omega Crop Co., LLC (Omega) hereby respectfully requests the Ohio Power
Siting Board (Board) to grant rehearing for purposes of remedying the unreasonable
and unlawful aspects of the Opinion, Order, and Certificate (Order) as such
unreasonable and unlawful aspects were expanded in the Boards August 27, 2015
Entry on Rehearing (Entry).
The grounds on which Omega considers the Order and the Entry to be
unreasonable and unlawful are as follows:
In Addition to the Errors Previously Raised in Omegas Application
for Rehearing, the August 27, 2015 Entry on Rehearing is Unlawful
and Unreasonable Because It Leaves Open the Opportunity to
Commence Construction if the Wind Farm Developer Secures
Waivers from the Minimum Setback Requirements in Circumstances
Where Such Waivers Are Precluded by Operation of Law and
Because it Unlawfully Limits the Scope of Any Waivers that the Wind
Farm Developer Would Have Had to Obtain to Evade the Minimum
Setback Requirements.
Accordingly, and for the additional reasons set forth in the attached
Memorandum in Support incorporated herein, Omega requests that the Board grant
{C48181:2 }
rehearing and vacate the Order, rescind the certificate, hold, as a matter of law, that
Greenwich cannot commence construction of the proposed wind farm, and provide such
other relief as may be warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Samuel C. Randazzo
Samuel C. Randazzo (Reg. No. 0016386)
(Counsel of Record)
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-8000
Telecopier: (614) 469-4653
sam@mwncmh.com
selisar@mwncmh.com
{C48181:2 }
BEFORE
Huron County, Ohio.
)
)
)
)
)
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
The Boards August 27, 2015 Entry is unreasonable and unlawful because it
perpetuates the Boards unreasonable and unlawful disregard of its statutory obligations
regarding certification of an electric generating plant that consists of wind turbines and
associated facilities (wind farm) thereby violating Omegas rights.1
The purpose of this Second Application for Rehearing is not to repeat the
statement of errors (legal and other) that the Board may have discussed in its Entry.2
The purpose of this Second Application for Rehearing is to contest the Entrys
unsupported and unsupportable new assertion that it is possible that Greenwich
Windpark, LLC (Greenwich) may commence construction of its proposed wind farm
once it secures minimum setback waivers.
Ohio Adm.Code 4906.-17-01(B)(2) states (emphasis added):

Wind-powered electric generation facility" or wind-energy facility or facility means all
the turbines, collection lines, any associated substations, and all other associated
equipment.
R.C. 4906.13 states that economically significant wind farm means wind turbines and associated
facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid and designed for, or capable of, operation at an
aggregate capacity of five or more megawatts but less than fifty megawatts. R.C. 4906.201 states that
[a]n electric generating plant that consists of wind turbines and associated facilities with a single
interconnection to the electrical grid that is designed for, or capable of, operation at an aggregate capacity
of fifty megawatts or more is subject to the minimum setback requirements established in rules adopted
by the power siting board under division (B)(2) of section 4906.20 of the Revised Code.
2
If need be, these errors will be the subject of an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
{C48181:2 }
While Omega agrees that the Board cannot unilaterally grant Greenwich a waiver
of the minimum setback requirements,3 the Boards Entry unreasonably and unlawfully
holds open the opportunity for Greenwich to secure such waivers in circumstances
where that opportunity is now precluded by operation of law.
The Entry states:
The Board notes that R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) provides that the setback shall
apply in all cases except those in which all owners of property adjacent to
the wind farm property waive application of the setback to that property.
R.C. 4906.20 does not grant to the Board or the ALJ the authority to waive
the minimum setback requirement. Further, Ohio Adm.Code 4906-1-03
states the Board or the ALJ may, for good cause shown, as supported by
a motion and supporting memorandum, waive any requirement, standard,
or rule set forth in Ohio Adm.Code Chapters 4906-1 to 4906-17 except
where precluded by statute. Moreover, the Board notes that, consistent
with the statute, the Stipulation, as approved by the Board, requires that,
for any wind turbine that does not comply with the minimum setback
requirements stated in the statute, Greenwich must secure an executed
waiver of the minimum setback. If the necessary waivers are not
obtained, Greenwich shall not build the turbine. Accordingly, the Board
finds that Omega's arguments to the contrary are without merit and the
request for rehearing on this issue should be denied.4
In its Application for Rehearing, Omega did assert that Greenwich did not request
a waiver of the minimum setback requirements contained in Ohio Adm.Code
4906-17-08.5
But this assertion was part of Omegas effort to direct the Boards
Entry at 14.
Entry at 14-15 (internal citation omitted).
Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c) states:

(i)
The distance from a wind turbine base to the property line of the wind farm property
shall be at least one and one-tenth times the total height of the turbine structure as
measured from its tower's base (excluding the subsurface foundation) to the tip of
its highest blade.
(ii)
The wind turbine shall be at least seven hundred fifty feet in horizontal distance
from the tip of the turbine's nearest blade at ninety degrees to the exterior of the
nearest habitable residential structure, if any, located on adjacent property at the
time of the certification application.
{C48181:2 }
attention to the larger and more fundamental problem with the Order which Omega
identified in its Application for Rehearing.
Omegas reference to Ohio Adm.Code
4906-17-08 was a subset of Omegas larger demonstration that the Board was without
authority to issue the certificate to Greenwich based on the specific language in this
Boards rule as well as the commands of R.C. 4906.20.
More specifically, Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c)(iii) states (emphasis
added):
Minimum setbacks may be waived in the event that all owners of property
adjacent to the turbine agree to such waiver, pursuant to rule 4906-1-03
of the Administrative Code. (emphasis added).
Omegas Application for Rehearing includes the following assertion:
The opportunity for Greenwich to obtain a waiver from the minimum
setback requirements was foreclosed by Greenwichs failure to comply
with Rules 4906-17-08 and 4906-1-03, O.A.C. Greenwich did not even
attempt to comply with such rules.6
Omegas citation to Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08 was joined with the uncontested fact
that Greenwich made no setback waiver-related request, pursuant to rule 4906-1-03
of the Administrative Code, despite the fact that Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08 directs
that any setback-related waiver opportunity be perfected through Ohio Adm.Code
4906-1-03. 7 Omegas reference to Ohio Adm.Code 4906-1-03 was not, as suggested
by the Entry, due to some interpretational license taken by Omega. It was based on a
literal reading of the Boards rule, Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08.
At page 12, the Entry states:
Greenwich notes that Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c) contains the minimum
setback requirements required by R.C. 4906.20(B), and the setback was applied in this
case.
6
Omegas Application for Rehearing at 25 (September 23, 2014).
On April 19, 2013, Greenwich did file a Motion for Waivers pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 4906-01-03. But
Greenwichs Motion for Waivers included no request pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c)(iii).
Greenwichs Motion for Waivers was granted by a June 17, 2013 Entry issued by the Administrative Law
Judge.
{C48181:2 }
As already mentioned, the Entry states:

Moreover, the Board notes that, consistent with the statute [R.C. 4906.20],
the Stipulation, as approved by the Board, requires that, for any wind
turbine that does not comply with the minimum setback requirements
stated in the statute, Greenwich must secure an executed waiver of the
minimum setback. If the necessary waivers are not obtained, Greenwich
shall not build the turbine.8
Despite the fact that Greenwich never acted pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code
4906-1-03 to secure the ability to evade the minimum setback requirements [whether
those setback requirements are contained in R.C. 4906.20 or in Ohio Adm.Code
4906-17-08(C)(1)(c)], the Entry appears to allow Greenwich to evade the minimum
setback requirements by securing executed waivers of the minimum setbacks.
Any waiver-related evasion of the minimum setback requirements in Ohio
Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c) is precluded by operation of law, however, because
Greenwich did not pursue an opportunity to perfect the opportunity to obtain setback
waivers pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c)(iii).
Additionally, any waiver-related evasion of the minimum setback requirements in
R.C. 4906.20 is precluded by operation of law unless the setback waiver is obtained
pursuant to a procedure the board shall establish by rule .9
Also, the
setback waiver opportunity provided by R.C. 4906.20 is precluded entirely if the Board
finds, in a particular case, that a setback greater than the minimum is necessary. In this
particular case, the uncontested evidence shows that setbacks greater than the
minimum were necessary (as explained previously and again below).
R.C. 4906.201 became effective on September 29, 2013, well before the date on
which the Board issued the Order, several months prior to the date on which Greenwich
Entry at 15.
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) replaced by R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c) (emphasis added, see discussion below).
{C48181:2 }
began to file its application,10 and several months before the Board Chairman notified
Greenwich that its application complied with applicable requirements (a necessary step
before Greenwich could proceed with its certificate application). As relevant here, R.C.
4906.201(A) states:
An electric generating plant that consists of wind turbines and associated
facilities with a single interconnection to the electrical grid that is designed
for, or capable of, operation at an aggregate capacity of fifty megawatts or
more is subject to the minimum setback requirements established in rules
adopted by the power siting board under division (B)(2) of section 4906.20
of the Revised Code.
Thus and with regard to Greenwich, there was and is a clear and specific statutory
requirement that the minimum setback requirements in R.C. 4906.20 control. At the
time R.C. 4906.201 was added to Ohio law, the statutory language defining
Greenwichs
opportunity
to
evade
the
minimum
setback
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) was also part of R.C. 4906.20(B)(2).
requirements
in
More specifically,
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) stated (emphasis added):

The setback shall apply in all cases except in those in which all owners of
property adjacent to the wind farm property waive application of the
setback to that property pursuant to a procedure the board shall
establish by rule and except in which, in a particular case, the board
determines that a setback greater than the minimum is necessary.
While the minimum setback distances were increased in House Bill 59, 130th
General Assembly, and House Bill 483, 130th General Assembly, and the waiver-related
text of R.C. 4906.20 has been moved to a separate division [R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c)]
since the effective date of R.C. 4906.201, the Board was obligated, in this particular
case, to subject Greenwich to setbacks of no less than the minimum setback
requirements in R.C. 4906.20.
10
Based on the Boards case records, Greenwich began to file its application for a certificate on
December 23, 2013 and the filing process continued through December 27, 2013. Entry at 1.
{C48181:2 }
In the Entry, the Board agrees that it has no power to grant a waiver from the
minimum setback requirements.
Such a waiver cannot be secured by Greenwich
unless all owners of property adjacent to the [Greenwich] wind farm property waive
application of the setback to that property11 pursuant to a procedure the board shall
establish by rule.12
As Omega has previously observed and the Board has previously ignored, the
Board has never established, by rule, the procedure by which Greenwich might be able
to lawfully secure a waiver of the minimum setback requirements in R.C. 4906.20.
Indeed, the Board has never prescribed any of the reasonable regulations that it was
required to initially have in place, in accordance with the directive in R.C. 4906.20,
beginning one hundred twenty days after June 24, 2008.13
Because the Board has never satisfied its duty to prescribe reasonable
regulations and rules in accordance with R.C. 4960.20, there is no procedure
established by rule which Greenwich could have followed in the past or may now follow
in the future to obtain setback waivers from all owners of property adjacent to the
wind farm property .14
11
Entry at 14.
12
R. C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)].
13
R.C. 4906.20(B).
14
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)]. In cases where the Public Utilities Commission
of Ohio (Commission) has received an application prior to the finalization of rules mandated by the
General Assembly to define the means by which the Commission shall process and evaluate such an
application, the Commission has indicated that the application is substantially inadequate and must be
refiled and then, in lieu of requiring a refiling after the completion of the required rules, it suspended the
commencement of the statutory timeframe for processing the application until completion of the required
rules. In the Matter of the Application of FirstEnergy Corp. on Behalf of Ohio Edison Company, The
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and The Toledo Edison Company for Approval of their Transition
Plans and for Authorization to Collect Transition Revenues, Case Nos. 99-1212-EL-ETP, et al., Entry at 2
(October 14, 1999). In this case (and many others involving applications for certification of proposed wind
farms), the Board accepted the certificate application and then granted certificates without first doing
anything to finalize rules which the General Assembly mandated be used by the Board to process and
{C48181:2 }
The language in R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(a) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)] and

R.C. 4906.201 compel the Board to require, in all cases, an economically significant
wind farm (a defined term which includes the wind turbines and associated facilities) 15
or an electric generating plant that consists of wind turbines and associated facilities to
comply with nothing less than the minimum setback requirements. 16 By the force of
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)] and the criteria in R.C. 4906.10,
the Board must issue a certificate subject to setbacks greater than the minimum setback
requirements where, as is the case here, the facts and circumstances show that the
minimum setback requirements are not sufficient or reasonable.17
evaluate applications for wind farm certificates. R.C. 4906.12 requires the Board to follow the procedures
of the Commission.
15
See footnote 1 at 3.
16
At page 1 of the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted by the Board in this proceeding, it
states that Greenwichs wind farm may include up to 25 wind turbines for a total generating capacity of up
to 60 megawatts. Each turbine will have a nameplate capacity of 2.4 megawatts (MW), for a total
generating capacity of 60 MW. Order at 4.
17
The safety manual provided by the manufacturer of Greenwichs turbines warned that even the
minimum setback requirements were not adequate in case of fire. Greenwichs Exhibit R is the turbine
safety manual. At page 53 of 134 and regarding fire danger, the manual states that (emphasis added):
FALLING TURBINE PARTS

In case of a fire in the nacelle or on the rotor, parts may fall off the wind turbine.
In case of a fire, nobody is permitted within a radius of 500 m [1640 feet] from the
turbine.
Gerald Oney, one of Omegas owners, submitted a handwritten letter dated August 10, 2014 to the Board
(filed in the public comments on August 21, 2014) in which he respectfully alerted the Board to the fire
risks presented by the proposed wind farm, risks elevated by the wind farms closeness to grain fields,
schools and residences. The Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted by the Board in this
proceeding states that the certificate issued by the Board is subject to a number of conditions. The list of
conditions identified in the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation includes (at page 8 of the Joint
Stipulation and Recommendation) the following:
The Applicant [Greenwich] shall comply with the turbine manufacturers most current
safety manual and shall maintain a copy of that safety manual in the O&M building of the
facility.
There is nothing in the Joint Stipulation and Recommendation adopted by the Board in this proceeding
that asserts that there is any information in the record to determine that the wind farm proposed by
Greenwich satisfies any setback requirements, let alone the minimum setback requirements in R.C.
{C48181:2 }
But regardless of whether the minimum setback requirements or something

greater than the minimum control in the case of Greenwich, Greenwich had no (and
presently has no) opportunity to lawfully secure setback waivers from all or any owners
of property adjoining the Greenwich wind farm property. Because of the comprehensive
failure of the Board to follow the directives of the General Assembly, that opportunity is
precluded by operation of law.
As the Board knows, this is not a case where just one of many turbines fails to
meet the minimum setback requirements. As stated above and previously explained
without contest, 62% of the 25 proposed turbines violate the minimum setback
requirements.18
4906.20. Except in the case of gas and hazardous liquid pipelines which are referenced on page 8, the
Joint Stipulation and Recommendation does not specifically identify any setbacks.
18
At pages 12 and 13 of the Order, the Board stated:

Consistent with R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) and Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(l)(c), as effective
at the time the Greenwich application was filed, the minimum distance from a wind
turbine to the exterior of the nearest habitable residential structure located on an adjacent
property must be no less than 1,125 feet in horizontal distance from the tip of the
turbine's blade at 90 degrees to the structure. The maximum rotor diameter of turbines
under consideration for the facility is approximately 383 feet. Using the maximum blade
lengths presented in the application, this minimum setback calculates to 1,312 feet from
the turbine base to the exterior of the nearest habitable residential structure.
One residential structure is currently under construction on property owned by a
participating landowner. Turbine 9 is 1,117.5 feet from the residence under construction.
The location of this residential structure was determined by the participating landowner
after lease agreements were executed, and the landowner was aware of the proposed
infrastructure associated with the project. Greenwich intends to execute a waiver of the
minimum setback with this landowner. Staff recommends that, if a waiver is not executed,
the turbine not be built.
The minimum distance from a turbine's base to the property line of the wind farm facility
must be at least 1.1 times the total height of the turbine as measured from its base to the
tip of the blade at its highest point. Assuming a maximum turbine height of 490.5 feet as
proposed in the application, this minimum property line setback equates to a distance of
539.55 feet. For 16 of the 25 proposed turbine locations, the minimum setback of 1.1
times the structure height to the nearest adjacent property boundary is penetrated. The
adjacent landowners to each of these turbines are participating landowners in the project,
who have leased parcels to Applicant. Greenwich has executed a waiver of the minimum
property line setback with each of these landowners.
{C48181:2 }
10
Greenwich Exhibit O, Figure 2 Showing 906 Non-Participating Residential

Structures within One-Mile of the Project Area
As explained herein, the Board has never adopted the rules that the General Assembly required the
Board to adopt to establish the procedure by which any minimum setback waiver must be obtained. As
also explained herein, the Boards failure to adopt these rules means that Greenwich could not and
cannot secure a lawful waiver of any setback requirements.
{C48181:2 }
11
Greenwich Exhibit Q, Illustration of Visual Impact on Residence

Nearest Turbine to Viewpoint is .8 Miles, with 7 Turbines Visible.
With regard to the above illustration, Greenwich asserted that the due to the proximity of the viewpoint
to the turbines, the overall contrast they create is strong. Undaunted, Greenwich then said: However, the
presence of the turbines does not alter the agricultural character of the landscape.
Greenwichs Exhibit 2b (submitted at the hearing) identifies the adjoining

property owners as follows (emphasis added):
ADJACENT PROPERTY OW NERS
Owner Name(s)
Mailing Address
City
State
Zip
Ashland County Park District
1763 State Route 60
Ashland
OH
44805
Baker, Julie A.
3360 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Barnett, Monroe
3622 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Barnett, Tammy
3622 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Blackburn, William A. & Carol L.
7144 Norwalk Road
Medina
OH
44256
Board of Trustees
31 Main Street
Greenwich
OH
44837
Bond, Leon & Deloris
2908 N. Main Street
Mansfield
OH
44903
Brown, Tony L.
3196 Base Line Road
Shiloh
OH
44878
Brubaker, Ray M. & Joy E.
295 Baseland Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Brusacoram, Donald H. & Paulette A.
4360 Rome-Greenwich Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
{C48181:2 }
12
Burrer Family Land LLC
9908 Oberlin Road
Elyria
PJ
44035
Coburn, Basil R. & Anna J.
1413 East Plymouth Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Copsey, Terry
Greenwich
OH
44837
Cotterman, M. Scott & Judi L. Seidel
63 S. Kniffin Street
Greenwich
OH
44837
CROSSROADS VENTURES LLC
7316 Amstutz Road
Shiloh
OH
44878
Damron, Dawn E.
2860 US Highway 224 E
Greenwich
OH
44837
Duffield, Bettina
2823 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Eaton, Melvin L. & Lenora J.
3837 Townline Road 79
Greenwich
OH
44837
Felver, Larry E.
2663 US Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Ferber, Edward K. & Shirley J.
3233 State Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Field, David B. & Joan MJ.
1210 Pineridge Road
Marion
OH
43302
Fox, Elsie F.
2501 US Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Fry, L. Dean
3987 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Glasser, David R. & Charlene A.
81 New Street
Greenwich
OH
44837
Goodrich, David P.
3461 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Greenwich Twp. Trustees
3019 State Route 224 E
Greenwich
OH
44837
Gruss, Michael C.
18 Tracy lane
Fermont
OH
43420
Hale, Grover C. & Delphia
3240 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hale, Melvin E. & Teresa D.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hale, Seldon & Charlene M.
3074 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hanshaw, Scott H. & Rosalie
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hartley, Phillip C. & Debra J.
3663 Townline Road 79
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hicks, K. Ruben
PO Box 65
New London
OH
44851
Hicks, Marion M. & Julia J.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hiltbrunner, George H.
921 Maplewood
Willard
OH
44890
Hoge, Patricia G. & Donald M.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Holland, Dudley E. Jr. & Sandra K.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hoover, Aaron N. & Marian W.
3470 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Hoover, Lawrence L. & Elva Jane
4363 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Huffman, Gerald D. Jr. & Martha
2382 E. Plymouth Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
H unter, Carola C. & Gerald R.
175 Shady Lane #209
Norwalk
OH
44857
Hunter, Gary D. & Janis P.
157l East Pl ymouth Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
H unter, Richard Clark & Bonnie Deane
4916 Greenwich-Milan Townline
Greenwich
OH
44837
In mon, Orville & Jerilyn M.
4575 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Jaskiewicz, J. Marc
Greenwich
OH
44837
Jones, Gary
5210 I Stewart Road
New London
OH
44851
J une, R. Charles & K. Lacy Michelle
3031 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
J u ne, Randy
2949 Aloha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
{C48181:2 }
13
J une, Roger Scott & L May Eileen June
39 Orchard Street
Greenwich
OH
44837
Kelsey, Edward & Carol
4869 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Keysor, Craig
3142 Plymouth East Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Keysor, Larry A.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Keysor, Lena Fem & Philip Keysor
21 9 Crestwood
Willard
OH
44890
Kilbane, Marcia J.
229 Weaver Road N W
WA
98110
Kilgore, Tinal & Le Eileen M. June
2949 Alpha Road
Bainbridge
Island
Greenwich
OH
44837
Kimble, Timothy J. & Kimberly A.
2504 Baseline Road
Shiloh
OH
44837
Krikke, Arthur C. Trustee & Sipkje Krikke
5001 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Kurz, Frederick A. & Rebecca L.
4982 Rome-Greeenwich Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Lay, E. Eileen
3267 US Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Leber, Walter H. Jr. & Faye A.
5151 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Leber, Walter H. Sr. & Helen M.
784 Townline Road
Willard
OH
44890
Ledet, Kevin & Marcia
3205 Omega Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Lee, Ronald L. & Bonita L.
3990 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Leinbach, Amos H. & Erma Z.
1693 East Pl ymouth Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Lucas, Doug
3580 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Lugli Investments LLC
1309 County Road
New London
OH
44851
Madison, Brian & Lisa
Greenwich
OH
44837
Martin, Harlan & Lois
Greenwich
OH
44837
Maurer, John 0.
1283 County Road 16
Willard
OH
44851
McGahhey, Matthew C.
4863 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
McMillian, Robert D. & Rebecca Ann
2183 US Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Miller, Constance J.
2606 Townline Road 1 2
Willard
OH
44890
Miller, Gary L. & Annette S.
4751 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Montgomery, Deboria L.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Moore, Stacy E. Trustee & Stacy Kick
3596 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Moss, George Timothy
3378 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
M undell, Gerald R. Sr. & Jacqueline I.
3011 US Route 250
Greenwich
OH
44837
Nead, Everett and Rita F. Kuhlman
3638 Old State Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Newswanger, Loren B. & Al ma S.
3065 US Route 250
Greenwich
OH
44837
Omega Crop Co LLC
3496 Rome Greenwich Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Pennell, Barney & Sarah
3435 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Rand, John P. & Mary J.
4436 State Route 1 3
Greenwich
OH
44837
Reed, E. Royce 0 & Lori
Greenwich
OH
44837
Risner, Glaster & Al va
Greenwich
OH
44837
Robinson, Kenneth W. & Michelle R.
3505 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Robinson, Michael & Denise
Greenwich
OH
44837
Roscoe Farms LLC
30 Winding Creek Place
Sylvania
OH
43560
Rural Coonhunters Inc.
3221 Pl ymouth East Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Schlarb, Billy Dean et al
1610 Base Line Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Schlarb, Christopher R. & Terri
6850 Miller Road
Brecksville
OH
44141
Shepherd, Anita K.
4825 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
Oil
44837
{C48181:2 }
14
Shepherd, K. Choya
Greenwich
OH
44837
Shoup, Kerstin B.
1 176 State Route 99
Monroeville
OH
44847
Smith, Denise R.
1898 S Edwards Road
North Fairfield
OH
44855
Smith, Kathleen A.
4084 US Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Smith, Zachary Ryan
PO Box 1 1 7
New Haven
OH
44850
Somsak, Leslie B. & Loretta S.
Greenwich
OH
44837
STEINER, NEVIN L.
3065 US Route 224
Greenwich
OH
44837
Stevens, Gaylord F. & Mary A.
1502 Base Line Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Teats, Lois I.
1 637 East Plymouth Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Tegeder, Herbert R. Jr.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Thompson, Gayle (aka Gayle Macron)
351 2 US Route 224 E
Greenwich
OH
44837
Tipple, Eric J & Veronica
3498 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Ux II, Joh n W.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Vogel, John W. & Audrey G.
Greenwich
OH
44837
Warrick, Randal W. & Christina M.
4511 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Waugh, Anthony Wayne
91 0 Decatur Street
Sandusky
OH
44870
Waugh, R. Clifford
Greenwich
OH
44837
Weatherbie, Wealtha June
Greenwich
OH
44837
Westmoreland Carl M. & Lucille
3385 Alpha Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
White, Arthur and Donna Jean
11 Maplewood Drive
Greenwich
OH
44837
White, Joshua and Melissa
Greenwich
OH
44837
White, Michael and Donna
Greenwich
OH
44837
White, Timothy and Laura
Greenwich
OH
44837
Willett, David E. & Bobbi
4855 Nineveh Road
Greenwich
OH
44837
Williamson, Todd and Charity
6041 Georges Park Drive
OH
43110
Wi reman, Paul
3333 Pl ymouth East Road
Canal
Winchester
Greenwich
OH
44837
Wireman, Viney Marie
4253 State Route 13 South
Greenwich
OH
44837
Wise, Nancy
Greenwich
OH
44837
Zi mmerman, David W. & Faith A.
7172 State Route 13
Greenwich
OH
44837
Zimmerman, Emory O. & Ella A.
1190 State Route 603 W
Shiloh
OH
44878
Zimmerman, Irvin O. & Martha S.
414 Baseline Road
Shiloh
OH
44878
Based on this this list of owners of property adjacent to the Greenwich wind farm
property, it is also clear that the Boards disregard for its statutory obligations denies
many property owners, including Omega, the minimum statutory protections regarding
the location of wind farms and interferes with the exercise of inalienable rights these
property owners hold as documented by the Ohio Constitution. Such rights include
{C48181:2 }
15
acquiring, possessing and protecting property, as well as seeking and obtaining safety
and happiness.
The Boards Entry also unlawfully specifies the nature and scope of a setback
waiver that Greenwich could have lawfully obtained pursuant to a procedure the
board shall establish by rule 19 because the scope of the waiver described in the
Entry is focused on individual turbines rather than the wind farm property.
In
accordance with R.C. 4906.13, R.C. 4906.201 and Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-01(B)(2), a
wind farm includes more than turbines. It includes associated facilities, collection lines,
any associated substations, and all other associated equipment.20
As already quoted, the Entry states:
Moreover, the Board notes that, consistent with the statute [R. C.
4906.20], the Stipulation, as approved by the Board, requires that, for any
wind turbine that does not comply with the minimum setback
requirements stated in the statute, Greenwich must secure an executed
waiver of the minimum setback. If the necessary waivers are not
obtained, Greenwich shall not build the turbine.21
Any lawful waiver that Greenwich might have been able to obtain (had the Board
first adopted the required rules establishing the procedure by which any waiver must be
obtained) would have had to have been executed by all owners of property adjacent to
the wind farm property. Thus, the Entry is also unlawful and unreasonable because it
indicates that Greenwich may be able to evade the application of the minimum setback
requirements to the entire wind farm property by securing a waiver from just the owners
19
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)].
20
The proposed Greenwich project will consist of up to 25 wind turbine generators, access roads,
underground electrical interconnection, an interconnection substation, a laydown yard for construction
staging, an operations and maintenance (O&M) facility, and two meteorological towers to be located in
Greenwich Township, Huron County. Order at 4. The Greenwich wind project will include
approximately 9.1 miles of access roads. The access roads would be up to 40 feet wide during
construction. Id. at 5.
21
Entry at 15 (emphasis added).
{C48181:2 }
16
of property adjoining individual wind turbines that do not meet the minimum setback
requirements.
The
plain
language
in
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c)
[previously
R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)] imposes the minimum setback requirements on Greenwich unless

and until it has secured a valid waiver from:
all owners of property adjacent to the wind farm property waive
application of the setback to that property pursuant to a procedure the
board shall establish by rule
Even if Greenwichs opportunity to secure waivers from the minimum setback
requirements was not precluded by operation of law, the Entry unreasonably and
unlawfully limits the scope and nature of any setback waiver that Greenwich would have
had to obtain to evade the minimum setback requirements.
CONCLUSION
The Boards actions in this case regrettably imply a resilient preference for
operating outside its delegated authority and without regard to the duties imposed on
the Board by the General Assembly. In effect, the Board has unilaterally transformed
itself from a creature of statute into a creature that is untethered by the law.
But Omegas actions in this proceeding are not motivated by a desire to win a
legal point; they are the byproduct of the injury that the Board has inflicted and
continues to inflict on Omega and the many other people and businesses that live, work
and recreate within and around the footprint of Greenwichs proposed wind farm. While
some of these citizens might be able to escape by selling their property and moving
elsewhere, the Boards persistent indifference to the concerns powerfully expressed in
the hundreds of public comments opposing this wind farm is an unauthorized monument
to the risk that any potential buyer would undoubtedly factor into an offer price.
{C48181:2 }
17
Through circular reasoning that diverts attention from the Boards comprehensive
failure to comply with the requirements of R.C. 4906.20 (including the numerous
rulemaking requirements), the Entry evades responding to a squarely put question:
How can Greenwich commence construction of a proposed wind farm where the
certificate that must be obtained before such construction can commence has been
issued by the Board without complying with R.C. 4906.20? In doing so, the Board has
left a cloud hanging over the interests of the local citizens and property owners and their
constitutionally protected rights to acquire, possess and protect property, as well as
seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.
Accordingly, and for the additional reasons set forth herein, Omega requests that
the Board grant rehearing and vacate the Order, rescind the certificate, hold, as a
matter of law, that Greenwich cannot commence construction of the proposed wind
farm, and provide such other relief as may be warranted.
Respectfully submitted,
Samuel C. Randazzo
(Counsel of Record) (Reg. No. 0016386)
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: (614) 469-8000
Telecopier: (614) 469-4653
sam@mwncmh.com
selisar@mwncmh.com
{C48181:2 }
18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Second Application for
Rehearing and Memorandum in Support of Omega Crop Co., LLC, An Owner of
Property Adjacent to the Wind Farm Property has been served via electronic mail upon
the following parties of record this 24th day of September 2015.

Samuel C. Randazzo
Sally Bloomfield
Dylan Borchers
Bricker & Eckler LLP
100 South Third Street
Columbus OH 43215-4291
Phone: 614.227-2368
Fax: 614.227.2390
sbloomfield@bricker.com
dborchers@bricker.com
ATTORNEY FOR 6011 GREENWICH
WINDPARK, LLC
Chad A. Endsley (Reg. No. 0080648)
Chief Legal Counsel
Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
280 North High Street
PO Box 182383
Columbus, OH 43218-2383
Phone: 614.246.8258
Fax: 614.246.8658
cendsley@ofbf.org
ATTORNEY FOR OHIO FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION
John H. Jones
Ryan P. ORourke
Assistant Attorneys General
Public Utilities Section
Office of the Attorney General
180 East Broad Street, 6th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-3793
john.jones@puc.state.oh.us
ryan.o'rourke@puc.state.oh.us
{C48181:2 }
Sarah Anderson
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Enforcement Section
Office of the Attorney General
Columbus, OH 43215
Sarah.anderson@ohioattorneygeneral.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR THE STAFF OF THE OHIO
POWER SITING BOARD
Greta See
Administrative Law Judge
Ohio Power Siting Board
Columbus, OH 43215
Greta.See@puc.state.oh.us
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
This foregoing document was electronically filed with the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio Docketing Information System on
9/24/2015 8:25:34 AM
in
Case No(s). 13-0990-EL-BGN
Summary: App for Rehearing Second Application for Rehearing of Omega Crop Co., LLC
electronically filed by Mr. Samuel C. Randazzo on behalf of Omega Crop Co., LLC

Omega 2nd Application For Rehearing

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Omega 2nd Application For Rehearing

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

BEFORE

THE OHIO POWER SITING BOARD

Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN

SECOND APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AND

Samuel C. Randazzo (Reg. No. 0016386)

ATTORNEYS FOR OMEGA CROP CO., LLC

Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN

SECOND APPLICATION FOR REHEARING AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

Case No. 13-990-EL-BGN

Ohio Adm.Code 4906.-17-01(B)(2) states (emphasis added):

Entry at 14-15 (internal citation omitted).

Ohio Adm.Code 4906-17-08(C)(1)(c) states:

Omegas reference to Ohio Adm.Code

Omegas Application for Rehearing at 25 (September 23, 2014).

As already mentioned, the Entry states:

R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) was also part of R.C. 4906.20(B)(2).

R.C. 4906.20(B)(2) stated (emphasis added):

Such a waiver cannot be secured by Greenwich

R. C. 4906.20(B)(2)(c) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)].

The language in R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)(a) [previously R.C. 4906.20(B)(2)] and

FALLING TURBINE PARTS

But regardless of whether the minimum setback requirements or something

At pages 12 and 13 of the Order, the Board stated:

Greenwich Exhibit O, Figure 2 Showing 906 Non-Participating Residential

Greenwich Exhibit Q, Illustration of Visual Impact on Residence

Greenwichs Exhibit 2b (submitted at the hearing) identifies the adjoining

Ashland County Park District

1763 State Route 60

3360 Alpha Road

3622 State Route 13

3622 State Route 13

Blackburn, William A. & Carol L.

7144 Norwalk Road

Bond, Leon & Deloris

2908 N. Main Street

3196 Base Line Road

Brubaker, Ray M. & Joy E.

295 Baseland Road

Brusacoram, Donald H. & Paulette A.

4360 Rome-Greenwich Road

Burrer Family Land LLC

9908 Oberlin Road

Coburn, Basil R. & Anna J.

1413 East Plymouth Road

4400 Rome-Greenwich Road

Cotterman, M. Scott & Judi L. Seidel

CROSSROADS VENTURES LLC

7316 Amstutz Road

2860 US Highway 224 E

2823 State Route 13

Eaton, Melvin L. & Lenora J.

3837 Townline Road 79

2663 US Route 224

Ferber, Edward K. & Shirley J.

3233 State Route 224

Field, David B. & Joan MJ.

1210 Pineridge Road

2501 US Route 224

3987 Alpha Road

Glasser, David R. & Charlene A.

3461 Nineveh Road

Greenwich Twp. Trustees

3019 State Route 224 E