‘…too much strain on our community’

July 15 public hearing switched to cover property value impacts

There’s a growing sentiment among some of the Henderson City-County Planning Commission that enough information has been shared in recent public hearings and the body should find a way to vote on a draft ordinance and send that recommendation to the Henderson Fiscal Court more quickly than the current schedule in place.

“It’s caused too much strain on our community, having to deal with this on a daily basis,” said Curt Hamilton, a member of the planning commission.

Hamilton broached the subject after Executive Director Brian Bishop went through HB 677, a little publicized state statute that went into effect on April 14 that established state-level setback and height requirements for wind turbines. (More on that in a minute.)

In the end, the planning commission approved another switch in the order of the scheduled public hearings and held off on any measures that might quicken the process, though that might come later.

The sixth planned meeting, which will cover “Regulatory and Administrative framework” and will deal more specifically with the effect wind farms have on property values, was approved to be bumped up to the next meeting at 6 p.m. on July 15.

The July 15 meeting had been scheduled for a public hearing on “Environmental and Ecological Impacts.” That subject matter was switched to where “Regulatory and Administrative Framework” had been scheduled, on Jan. 20, 2027—if the process makes it that far, which after Tuesday’s meeting seems doubtful.

Several ideas to improve the process were mentioned, but one that appears will stick came from Tommy Joe Fridy, the planning commission’s attorney. He advised that that the planning commission hold one meeting at the end of the process in which a draft ordinance is presented to the public, then take several weeks off before holding another public hearing to allow residents and stakeholders to comment on the draft ordinance.

He said people would need 20-30 days to digest the draft ordinance and then return to comment on it. The planning commission could then, if it chooses, make changes to the ordinance, Fridy said.

At this point, the ordinance would most likely contain staff recommendations from the previous two public hearings.

In the first, held in March, planning commission staff recommended setting a height limit at 200 feet; only allowing commercial WECS on land zoned heavy industrial; a minimum one-mile setback from occupied structures, rivers, wildlife refuges, publicly-owned nature reserves, dedicated natural areas, and other such areas; a setback of 1,640 feet of 1 ½ times the turbine height or the ice throw distance plus 250 feet (whichever is greater) from property lines, public roads, above-ground-utilities, transmission facilities private access easements or driveways serving non-participant properties and occupied structures that have entered into waiver agreements waiving the one-mile setback.

In the second meeting, held on May 17, planning commission staff recommended that sound levels measured at nonparticipating structures—those whose owners didn’t sign a lease to locate a wind turbine on their land—not to exceed 35 decibels. And the staff recommended a setback of at least one mile or ten times the diameter of rotor diameter between a wind turbine and a nonparticipating occupied structure as a way to mitigate shadow flicker at buildings nearby wind turbines.

The above-mentioned regulations would be a part of a draft ordinance. There were no representatives of the Rock Bluff Energy Park, which is a proposal for a wind farm project in eastern Henderson County, at the May 17 meeting. But at the March public hearing, representatives of the project said the regulations that the planning commission staff recommended that night would be too restrictive for its proposed project.

Hamilton Tuesday night said enough information has been presented thus far to draft an ordinance and do right by the people of Henderson County. He also suggested that a public hearing for all the remaining topics included in the schedule be lumped into one meeting so that the process doesn’t continue to drag out.

But Planning Commissioner Frank Boyett didn’t think that was a good idea. He said it’s a public relations matter, with some residents saying that the planning commission has already made up its mind, and it’s “already in the bag.”  If the planning commission were to rush through the process, Boyett said, it would only reinforce that. He recommended that the planning commission do what it can so that every person who wants to speak on the matter can.

“I want to make sure we have enough public hearings so that happens,” Boyett said.

Additionally, Planning Commissioner Gary Gibson said he wants to hear information about how the county could impose a prohibition on wind turbines.

Fridy recommended that after the July 15 public the planning commission could then consider consolidating topics of other scheduled meetings into one meeting

Currently, the remaining public hearing schedule is as follows:

• Regulatory and administrative framework (property values): 6 p.m., Wednesday, July 15, 2026
• Health and annoyance impact review: 6 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2026
• Safety, engineering and infrastructure: 6 p.m., Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2026
• Environmental and ecological impacts: 6 p.m., Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2027
• Post draft ordinance public engagement and transparency: 6 p.m., March 17, 2027

HB 677

Bishop introduced HB 677 Tuesday evening in the meeting, comparing the restrictions in place in the state law with what the planning commission staff has thus far recommended be a part of what will be the local ordinance.

He said local ordinances regarding wind energy conversion systems can be more stringent than what the state has put in place with HB 677, but local regulations cannot be less stringent.

The recommendations made by the planning commission staff thus far are more stringent than what is mandated by HB 677.

For example, HB 677 mandates a maximum turbine height of 350 feet measured from the ground to the top of the central hub whereas the planning commission staff’s recommendation is for a 200 feet maximum height from the ground to the highest tip of the blades.

Additionally, the planning commission staff recommends a one-mile setback from occupied structures and the state default is 1,000 feet from adjoining property boundary and 2,000 feet from residential neighborhood, school, hospital or nursing home.

Planning commission staff also recommends the zoning of land where a wind turbine will be located to be heavy industrial while HB 677 says projects should comply with local planning and zoning requirements.

See how the planning commission staff recommendations compare to HB 677 here.