By Jim Collar • Post-Crescent staff writer •

CHILTON — Calumet County officials are awaiting word on whether the
state Supreme Court will review a decision that invalidated its
restrictions for wind turbine construction.

While they wait, supervisors are working on ordinance changes they say
would make their rules valid should justices decline to take the
case.

The county filed its petition for review to the Supreme Court
regarding a July appeals court decision that again stirred a
years-long debate on wind energy.

Wisconsin’s 2nd District Court of Appeals found the County Board
overstepped its authority in creating a blanket ordinance setting
forth restrictions for all turbines proposed within the county’s
zoning jurisdiction.

The county’s Planning, Zoning and Farmland Preservation Committee will
hold a public hearing Thursday on proposed changes. It placed a
moratorium on construction last month that would be lifted upon
passing an ordinance that fits the requirements of the court
decision.

Committee chairman Chester Dietzen said revisions would regulate
construction through conditional use permits. He hopes the county
moves slowly given the divide in opinion on wind energy.

“There’s been so much controversy,” he said. “I think it’s best to be
relaxed and take our time on this.”

Calumet County’s wind turbine ordinance dictated required setbacks and
maximum heights and sound levels for turbines. The appeals court ruled
that each proposed project had to be reviewed on its own merits.

The appeals court decision stemmed from a 2006 lawsuit filed against
Calumet County by a Town of Stockbridge farmer. Marvin Ecker Jr.
sought to add four turbines to his property. The county, however,
placed a moratorium on construction after Ecker declared his
intention, and then passed the ordinance that tightened requirements.

A circuit court judge initially tossed out the lawsuit on a procedural
error. Ecker failed to provide the county with a written notice of
claim.

Ecker couldn’t be reached for comment.

The appeals court found the written notice wasn’t necessary because
the county understood the nature of the dispute. It also found the
county’s broad ordinance went against laws crafted by the state
Legislature that show support of alternative energy systems.

The county’s petition to the Supreme Court argues that the appeals
court ruling on the claim notice was wrong, because the county didn’t
know Ecker intended to sue.

The petition also argues that the court read beyond the plain language
of state statutes and imposed limits on municipalities that weren’t
contemplated by the State Legislature.

“Supreme Court review will clarify the proper role of municipalities
in the regulation of wind energy systems,” the petition says.