Zoning Commission Packet 2013 12-18-13
AGENDA
ZONING COMMISSION RESCHEDULED MEETING
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
7:00 P.M.
City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road
1. Welcome
2. Roll Call
3. Citizen’s Comments
4. Approval of October 23, 2013 meeting minutes
5. Old Business:
a) Review and Commentary of Proposed Revised Zoning Chapter
Chapter 20: Signs
6. New Business:
a) Review and Commentary of Proposed Zoning Chapter
Chapter 19: Alternative Energy Systems
b) Tentative Zoning Commission 2014 Meeting Schedule
7. Adjournment
8. Next meeting date: January 22, 2014
United City of Yorkville
800 Game Farm Road
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
Telephone: 630-553-4350
Fax: 630-553-7575
ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
7:00 p.m.
Yorkville City Hall Conference Room
800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL 60560
Meeting Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mr. Crouch and he welcomed everyone.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken; a quorum was established.
Committee Members in Attendance
Michael Crouch Phil Haugen
Gary Neyer Jeff Baker
City Officials in Attendance
Krysti Barksdale-Noble - Community Development Director
Jason Engberg – Community Development Intern
Citizen’s Comments
There were no citizens in attendance.
Previous Minutes
Mr. Crouch asked for a motion to approve both the July 24 and the August 28, 2013 minutes. Mr. Baker
made a motion to approve both minutes at the same time. It was seconded by Mr. Neyer. Mr. Crouch
asked if there was any discussion on the motions; hearing none, he asked for approval by saying, “Yes.”
They were both approved unanimously; motion carried on both minutes. Mr. Crouch then turned the
meeting over to Mr. Engberg to cover Old Business.
Old Business:
Chapter 16: Review Off-Street Parking and Loading: Mr. Engbarth said the line dealing with
commercial vehicles in residential driveways has been deleted (10:16:3) by agreement of the
Commission at the last meeting.
Chapter 17: Fencing and Screening: For the barbed wire in “Industrial and Utilities,” the language
was clarified to read, “starting at a minimum elevation of 6’ above grade.”
A. CHAPTER 18 – Telecommunication Towers and Antenna Regulations: Mr. Engbarth
said the attorney took a couple of things out such as 10.18.5, the “Q” was taken out because
it wasn’t necessary; and added Private Schools and Churches for R-1 and R-2. In 10.18.6,
the statement about a single family home on the lot (The parcel must not have a single family
home on the property;) was removed. In Table 10.18.01, after Major highways, (as defined
in the Yorkville Comprehensive Plan) was added. At this point, Mr. Baker asked if “Major
highways” should be added to the definitions. It was agreed by the committee to not do that.
Ms. Noble pointed out the most recent changes to the telecommunication act was included as a printed
slide show for information purposes. Mr. Crouch asked if the City was all in compliance and Ms. Noble
confirmed that it was.
Moving on to, “Signs,” Mr. Crouch asked for confirmation that all signs are in the Building Code and
Ms. Noble confirmed. There are no substantive changes, but more graphics will be added. Mr. Neyer
questioned 8.11.5, H. Real estate signs, and suggested four (4) square feet or less in area should be
changed to five (5) square feet or less. Since the committee had questions about mountings, they agreed
to do some research on a typical real estate sign.
Mr. Baker asked if permitting was going to stay the same, and Mr. Noble answered that the next time the
committee sees the chapter on signs, it will be re-formatted like the other chapters. There will also be a
lot more graphics.
While they were discussing signs, Ms. Noble asked Mr. Baker if the committee’s parameters were in
line with the ZBA’s. He asked if the Dairy Queen sign out by Route 34 was legally conformed and Ms.
Noble said it was, probably because of the PUD. It is not a standard.
Mr. Neyer asked how other communities compared to permitted size (8-11-9 A.1. ‘one freestanding
business sign sixty-four (64) square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height shall be
allowed.’). Ms. Noble said she did not change that and that it was typical for larger lots to have a larger
sign area. Mr. Baker questioned why 8’ was the maximum height (crown of the road). Ms. Noble
wasn’t here when that was decided but assumes it was for uniformity. She is going to check to see if
there is any mandatory landscaping involved.
Mr. Neyer suggested that perhaps on larger lots to allow 64 square feet, with 12’ heights. Ms. Noble
reiterated that currently it is allowed to let the sign areas get larger for lots that are larger, but it’s not
currently allowable for the height to get taller. She suggested allowing 12’ in height and leaving the
sign area at 64 square feet.
With the completion of the committee drawing near, Ms. Noble brought up the subject of engaging the
public more before going before the City Council and has contracted out a company, Civic Artworks.
They have received an APA award for their vision for Plainfield’s Division Street and they are going to
do the City’s civic engagement. It will all be an interactive, web-based commentary. They are actually
going to send out press releases in the mail to get people more engaged. The website is not yet
complete, and Ms. Noble showed the committee a sample of what to expect (possibly next week).
Alternate Meeting Date discussion: Ms. Noble suggested the next meeting date be Wednesday,
November 20 instead of the day before the Thanksgiving holiday. The committee agreed.
Mr. Crouch asked for a motion to adjourn. A motion was made by Mr. Neyer; it was seconded by Mr.
Baker; all voted in favor; and the meeting adjourned at 7:56 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by:
Bonnie Olsem, Administrative Secretary
Staff has prepared the following revisions:
Old Business
Chapter 20
• 10-20-5 Signs Exempt from this Chapter
o Added “mounted” to letter C when describing height of a sign
o Changed size of retail signs from 4 square feet to 6 square feet on letter H
• 10-20-9 Permitted Signs; Business Zoning Districts
o Changed height to 12 feet for height in second paragraph
• 10-20-10 Permitted Signs; Manufacturing Zoning Districts
o Changed height to 12 feet for height in second paragraph
• Reformatted and added graphics for entire Chapter.
New Business
The previous Chapters 16 and 17 have been attached to this packet and will be combined to form
Chapter 19. A model ordinance has also been attached to this packet and we will discuss and review
these documents at the meeting.
Please look over these items and be ready to discuss at the Zoning Commission meeting.
Memorandum
To: Zoning Ordinance Commission
From: Jason Engberg, Planning Intern
CC: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: November 20, 2013
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Update – Notes
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 1 ]
CHAPTER 20
Signs
10-20-1 Principles
The provisions of this chapter recognize that:
A. There is a significant relationship between the manner in which signs are displayed and public safety and the value,
quality of life and economic stability of adjoining property and overall community.
B. The reasonable display of signs is necessary as a public service and necessary to the conduct of competitive commerce
and industry.
C. Signs are a constant and very visible element of the public environment and as such should meet the same high standards
of quality set for other forms of development in the community. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
10-20-2 Purpose
The regulation of signs by this chapter is intended to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare by:
A. Enhancing the economic condition of the city by promoting reasonable, orderly and effective use and display of signs.
B. Enhancing the physical appearance of the city.
C. Protecting the general public from damage and injury which might be caused by the faulty and uncontrolled and
inappropriate construction and use of signs within the city.
D. Protecting the public use of streets and rights of way by reducing advertising distractions that may increase traffic
accidents and congestion.
E. Preserving the value of private property by assuring the compatibility in design and scale of signs with adjacent properties
and uses. Accordingly, it is deemed necessary and in the public interest to regulate signs. To this end, this chapter:
1. Establishes minimum standards for the display of signs in direct relationship to the functional use of property and
to the intensity of development as permitted within the zoning districts which are provided in this chapter.
2. Regulates the size, location, height, installation and other pertinent features of new signs.
3. Requires the removal of derelict signs and the amortization of nonconforming signs.
4. Provides for the effective administration and enforcement of these regulations. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
10-16-3 Scope
The regulations of this chapter shall govern and control the erection, enlargement, expansion, alteration, operation,
maintenance, relocation and removal of all signs within the city and any sign not expressly permitted by these regulations
shall be prohibited.
The regulations of this chapter relate to the location of signs, by function and type, within zoning districts and shall be in
addition to provisions of the city of Yorkville building code and the city of Yorkville electrical code. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 2 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
10-16-4 Definitions
ANIMATED, FLASHING OR MOVING SIGN: Any sign that
uses lights that flash or alternate or which include action
or motion or the appearance of action or motion either
physically or electronically.
AWNING, CANOPY OR MARQUEE SIGN: A sign that is
mounted or painted on, or attached to, an awning,
canopy or marquee that is otherwise permitted by this
chapter. The construction materials and the manner of
construction of all awnings, canopies and marquees shall
be in accordance with the Yorkville building code.
BANNER: Any sign made of vinyl, fabric, or similar material
that is displayed on a pole or building. National, state or
municipal flags, and official flags of any institution or
business shall not be considered banners.
BILLBOARD: A structure for the permanent display of
off premises advertisement which directs attention
to a business, commodity, service or entertainment
conducted, sold, or offered at a location other than the
lot on which the sign is located. For the purposes of this
chapter, this definition does not include off premises
sponsorship banners.
BUSINESS SIGN: A sign which directs attention to a business
or profession conducted, or to a commodity or service
sold, offered or manufactured, or to an entertainment
offered, on the premises where the sign is located or to
which it is affixed. A business sign shall be a wall, canopy,
awning, marquee, or window sign.
COLD AIR INFLATABLE DEVICE: An inflatable device, without a frame, used as a portable sign for promotions, sales or
special events. A cold air balloon shall be ground mounted.
CONSTRUCTION SIGN: A sign erected on a lot on which construction is taking place, indicating the names of the architects,
engineers, landscape architects, contractors, and similar artisans, and the owners, financial supporters, sponsors and
similar persons or firms having a role or interest with respect to the structure or project. Said sign shall be erected only so
long as construction is occurring on the lot. A construction sign shall be a wall or freestanding sign.
ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY PANEL: A separate portion of a lawful sign capable of displaying fixed or changing text,
characters, figures or images using light emitting diodes (LEDs), liquid crystal display (LCD), fiber optics, light bulbs or other
illumination devices that can be electronically changed by remote or automatic means. The following terms for electronic
message display panels shall be defined as follows:
Animation: The illusion of movement to drawings, models or inanimate objects by putting separate pictures
together to form the illusion of continuous motion.
Character: A letter, number, punctuation mark or decimal point.
Dissolve: Where static messages are changed by means of varying light intensity or pattern, where the first
message gradually appears to dissipate and lose legibility simultaneous to the gradual appearance and legibility of
the subsequent message.
Fade: Where static messages are changed by means of varying light intensity, where the first message gradually
Awning
Canopy
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 3 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
reduces intensity to the point of not being legible and the subsequent message gradually increases intensity to the
point of legibility.
Nits: A luminance unit equal to one candle per square meter measured perpendicular to the rays from the source.
Scrolling: Where the message is changed by the apparent vertical movement of the letters or graphic elements of
the message.
Static: Graphics having no motion or movement of any type.
Text: Graphics consisting of letters, words, numbers, punctuation or decimal points only that do not include any
animation or video.
Travel: Where the message is changed by the apparent horizontal movement of the letters or graphic elements of
the message.
Video: Moving images that are a sequence of images of continuous motion and breaking it up into discrete frames
for subsequent display.
FREESTANDING SIGN: Any sign supported by structures or supports that are placed on or anchored in the ground and that
are independent from any building or other structure.
GRAND OPENING TEMPORARY SIGN: A temporary sign used for the purpose of advertising a grand opening of a new
business. A grand opening temporary sign may be a wall, marquee, canopy, awning, or freestanding sign. Promotions,
anniversary sales, special sales, or going out of business sales do not apply.
GROUND MOUNTED/MONUMENT SIGN: A sign that is supported on a base that is equal in width and depth to the frame
of the sign itself. A ground mounted/monument sign must be constructed of materials to match the principal structure.
IDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign giving the name and address of a residential building, business, development, industry, or
other building or establishment. Such signs may be wholly or partly devoted to a readily recognized symbol. An identification
sign shall be a freestanding, wall, canopy, awning, or marquee sign.
Monument SignMENU BOARD SIGN: A sign at a remote location on
a lot giving product and price information about
products sold on the lot to motorists in a waiting
vehicle.
MESSAGE BOARD SIGN: A sign designed so that
characters, letters or illustrations can be changed
manually without altering the face or surface of
the sign.
OFF PREMISES SPONSORSHIP BANNER: Temporary
signs which display advertisement for sponsors of
an event or facility, such as an athletic event or
field, on the location where the sign is located.
POLE SIGN: A freestanding sign supported by a
column or columns whose total width is less than
fifty percent (50%) of the sign face depth.
PORTABLE SIGN: A movable sign, excluding trailer
signs, that is not attached to a structure or affixed
to the ground or surface upon which it is located.
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 4 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
PROJECTING SIGN: A sign which in whole or in part is dependent upon the
building for support and projects more than twelve inches (12”) from such
building, except for awning, canopy and marquee signs.
REAL ESTATE SIGN: A sign indicating the sale, rental, lease, or development of
the lot, a portion of the lot, or a building on the lot on which the sign is located.
A real estate sign shall be a wall or freestanding sign.
ROOF SIGN: A sign that is wholly dependent upon a building for support or
mounted on the roof, which projects more than six inches (6”) above the highest
point of a building or roof to which it is attached.
SANDWICH SIGN OR A-FRAME SIGN: A temporary, portable sign constructed of
two (2) boards hinged together toward the top to permit the sign to stand when
the bottom edges of the boards are spread; each side of which is no more than
twelve (12) square feet.
SNIPE SIGNS: A temporary or permanent nongovernmental sign in a public right of way which is tacked, nailed, posted,
pasted, glazed or otherwise affixed to a pole, stake, fence, traffic sign, traffic control device, utility pole, tree or the ground.
TEMPORARY SIGNS: Any sign, banner, pennant, streamer, or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric,
cardboard, wallboard, or other lightweight material.
TRAILER SIGN: A sign mounted on a chassis with or without wheels.
VEHICLE SIGN: Any vehicle primarily situated to serve as a sign rather than as transportation. An automobile, van, or truck
displaying the name and/or other information regarding the related establishment used for normal business operation or
for employee transportation is not a vehicle sign.
WALL SIGN: A sign fastened to or painted on the wall of a building or structure in such a manner that the wall becomes the
supporting structure for, or forms the background surface of, the sign and which does not project more than twelve inches
(12”) from such building or structure.
WIND FEATHER (Also Known As WIND FLAG, TEARDROP BANNER AND BLADE): Fabric or plastic attention getting devices
supported by a single pole and having a tall, narrow orientation whose rotation is determined by the wind direction.
WINDOW SIGN: A sign which is applied or attached to or located within three feet (3’) of the interior of a window, which
sign may be seen through the window from the exterior of the structure. (Ord. 2010-04, 1-12-2010; amd. Ord. 2010-18,
4-13-2010; Ord. 2010-25, 6-8-2010; Ord. 2012-38, 10-23-2012)
Projecting Sign
Wall Sign
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 5 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
10-16-5: Signs Exempt From this Chapter
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as exempting the following signs from the building code or those portions of this
code applicable to signs. The following signs are otherwise exempt from regulations of this chapter:
A. Flags, symbols or crests of nations, states, cities or political, fraternal, religious or civic organizations. One logo flag
of a business shall be permitted on a lot provided that it is flown with the American flag and shall not be larger than
the American flag.
B. Decorations customarily and commonly associated with a national, local or religious holiday, celebration or
anniversary provided that such decorations shall not be displayed for more than sixty (60) consecutive days.
C. Signs four (4) square feet or less in area and mounted five feet (5’) in height or less on private property regulating
on premises traffic and parking.
D. Bulletin boards, message boards, and similar devices no greater than thirty two (32) square feet in area, five feet
(5’) high and not in the vision triangle, used solely to give information about and accessory to a public, charitable,
educational or religious institution located on the lot.
E. Legal notices, identification, informational, directional, traffic or other sign erected or required by governmental
authority.
F. Memorial signs or tablets eight (8) square feet or less in area, containing the names of a building and the date of
construction, when cut into any masonry surface so as to be part of the building or when constructed of bronze or
some other noncombustible material and permanently attached to a building.
G. Nonilluminated window signs painted on or covering no more than fifty percent (50%) of the window area, excluding
glass doors.
H. Real estate signs six (6) square feet or less in area, provided that no more than one such sign shall be permitted in
each yard abutting a street. Real estate signs shall be freestanding signs and set back a minimum of five feet (5’) from
any lot line and shall be five feet (5’) or less in height and shall not be illuminated.
I. Menu boards accessory to a restaurant drive-up window facility, provided such signs are thirty six (36) square feet
or less in area.
J. Signs used to identify the type of model home when used in conjunction with a developing residential subdivision.
Each type of model home is allowed one sign not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area and five feet (5’) in height.
Such sign shall be located on the lot where the model home is located and shall be removed upon occupancy of the
home for normal residential use.
K. “No Trespassing”, “Beware of Dog” and other similar warning signs four (4) square feet or less in area.
L. Name and address plates which give only the name and address of the resident(s) of the building less than three (3)
square feet on single- and two-family dwellings and five (5) square feet for multi-family dwellings.
M. Garage sale, farm produce sale signs provided there is only one sign per lot and it is present only during the duration
of the sale and is less than four (4) square feet in area.
N. Building interior signage.
O. Political signs. Signs sixteen (16) square feet or less in area and announcing candidates for political office or political
issues, provided that such signs shall not be displayed more than sixty (60) days before any election and shall be
removed within five (5) days after said election.
P. Construction signs under eight (8) square feet.
Q. Window signs covering no more than sixty percent (60%) of the window area excluding glass doors.
R. Permanent, nonflashing signs on vending machines, gas pumps, ice and propane storage units. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-
2009)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 6 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
10-20-6 General Provisions
A. Sign Area: The area of the sign face which is also the sign area of a wall sign or other sign with only one face shall be
computed by means of the smallest square, rectangle, circle, triangle or combination thereof that will encompass the
extreme limits of the writing representation, emblem or other display, together with any material or color forming an
integral part of the background of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop or structure against
which it is placed. It does not include any supporting framework, bracing or decorative fence or wall when such fence or
wall otherwise meets zoning ordinance regulations and is clearly incidental to the display itself. A double faced sign shall
count as a single sign.
B. Sign Height: The height of a sign shall be computed as the distance from the grade of the centerline of the adjacent
street to the top of the highest attached component of the sign.
C. Yard Requirements: Except as otherwise provided, signs shall be located at least five feet (5’) from any driveway and
lot line. Furthermore, no sign shall be erected or located in a public right of way except as established by the authorized
public entity responsible for the right of way. No sign having a height more than thirty inches (30”) shall be located within
that part of the yard or open area of a corner lot included within a triangular area of twenty five feet (25’) from the point
of intersection of two (2) street right of way lines forming such a corner lot.
D. Illumination Of Signs: The illumination of all signs shall be diffused or indirect and shall be so arranged that there will
be no direct or reflecting rays into the public way or any lot on the perimeter of the premises on which the sign is located.
Exposed light bulbs, neon tubing, flashing, blinking, traveling and similar illumination, including illuminated canopies are
not permitted.
Illuminated signs permitted in or adjacent to residential areas shall not be illuminated between the hours of eleven o’clock
(11:00) P.M. and five o’clock (5:00) A.M. unless the use to which the sign pertains is open.
E. Sign Maintenance: The owner of a sign and the owner of the premises on which the sign is located shall be jointly and
severally liable to maintain such sign or signs subject to the following standards:
1. Signs shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition and good working order, including illumination sources,
at all times.
2. Signs shall be properly painted unless galvanized or otherwise treated to prevent rust or deterioration.
3. Signs shall conform to maintenance provisions of the building and electrical codes as adopted by the city of
Yorkville.
F. Abandoned Signs: Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any temporary sign installed for a period of thirty (30) days
or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which no longer applies, shall be removed. Permanent signs
applicable to a business because of change in ownership or management of such business shall be deemed abandoned if
the property remains vacant for a period of six (6) months or more. An abandoned sign is prohibited and shall be removed
by the owner of the sign or owner of the premises within thirty (30) days.
G. Removal Of Signs: Any sign found to be improperly maintained, abandoned or otherwise in violation of this chapter
which is not removed or repaired within thirty (30) days of written notice of the code official may be removed by the code
official. Any expense incidental to such removal or repair shall be charged to the owner of the property upon which the
sign is located and shall constitute a lien upon the property. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
10-20-7 Prohibited Signs
The following signs shall not be permitted:
A. Moving, animated and flashing signs, except electronic message boards.
B. Roof signs.
C. Vehicle signs.
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 7 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
D. Signs which constitute a hazard to public health or safety.
E. Signs which obstruct ingress or egress from any fire escape, door, window, or other exit or entrance.
F. Signs which, by reason of size, location, content, color, or manner of illumination, obstruct the vision of motorists or
interfere with the visibility or effectiveness of any traffic sign or control device on public streets.
G. Signs which make use of words such as “stop”, “look”, “one-way”, “danger”, “yield” or any similar word, phrase,
symbol or light so as to interfere with or confuse pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
H. Billboards.
I. Trailer signs, except directional or informational signs exempted by subsection 8-11-5E of this chapter.
J. Searchlights, except searchlights for grand openings and special civic events.
K. Snipe signs.
L. Signs displaying obscene or indecent matter.
M. Moving, rotating or animated signs except traditional barber poles not exceeding two feet (2’) in height and
projecting not more than twelve inches (12”) from the building utilized only to identify a haircutting establishment.
(Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
10-20-8 Permitted Signs; Agricultural, Flood Zone and Residential Zoning Districts
A. Permanent Signs:
1. Freestanding Identification Or Business Signs: All nonresidential uses in the agricultural, flood zone and
residential zoning districts may have one freestanding business or identification sign. Nonresidential uses in the
agricultural, flood zone and residential zoning districts on a corner lot with entrances on both streets may have one
freestanding sign on each street frontage. Said sign shall be thirty two (32) square feet or less in area, five feet (5’)
or less in height and set back at least ten feet (10’) from the street or entrance drive.
Freestanding signs must be constructed with the base and supporting columns, if present, constructed of the
same brick, stone or masonry material that the exterior walls of the principal building are made of. The sign panel
containing the type and the type must match the color and type used on any wall mounted signage.
No more than fifty percent (50%) of the freestanding sign area may be composed of a message board sign.
2. Building Mounted Identification Or Business Signs: All nonresidential uses in the agricultural, flood zone or
residential zoning districts shall be permitted to have identification or business signage for each exterior wall of
that part of the building facing a public right of way. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the building mounted sign
area may be composed of a message board sign. Building mounted signage cannot extend more than seventy five
percent (75%) of the building facade of the building to which it is attached.
3. Subdivision And Residential Complex Identification Signs: Two (2) permanent subdivision or residential complex
identification signs, one on each side of the street, at primary entrances to a residential subdivision or complex
containing no commercial advertising is permitted. Such signs shall be thirty two (32) square feet or less in area
and eight feet (8’) or less in height and constructed out of premium building materials such as brick or stone. For
the purposes of this provision this sign may be installed in two (2) components, one on each side of the street.
B. Temporary Signs:
1. Real Estate Signs: On nonsingle-family residential lots, one real estate sign per street frontage no greater than
thirty two (32) square feet in area or five feet (5’) in height.
2. Residential Marketing Signs: Residential marketing signs at major entrances to residential subdivisions not to
exceed one hundred (100) square feet and twelve feet (12’) in height. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 8 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
3. Off Site Marketing Signs: Residential off site marketing signs to call attention to and give directions to residential
developments in Yorkville shall be allowed at no more than four (4) off site locations, and shall be no greater
than one hundred (100) square feet in area and twelve feet (12’) in height. Signs for a given development may be
located in any zoning district provided that there is at least one-fourth (1/4) mile separation from the other off site
marketing signs of that development and that no off site marketing sign be closer to a residence than one hundred
feet (100’). Off site marketing signs for different developments must be at least two hundred fifty feet (250’) from
any other off site marketing sign. (Ord. 2010-04, 1-12-2010)
4. Grand Opening Signs: One grand opening sign not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and eight feet
(8’) in height.
5. Construction Signs: One construction sign per nonsingle-family lot not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in
area and five feet (5’) in height. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
6. Off Premises Sponsorship Banner: Banners shall be on city property. Individual banners shall be mounted on an
outfield fence, backstop or scoreboard. Banners mounted on an outfield fence shall be a dimension of three feet
by six feet (3’ x 6’) in size and shall face the playing field. Banners mounted on a scoreboard or backstop shall be a
maximum area of thirty two (32) square feet. (Ord. 2010-04, 1-12-2010)
10-20-9 Permitted Signs; Business Zoning District
A. Permanent Signs:
1. Freestanding Business Signs: On lots less than three (3) acres with one street frontage, one freestanding business
sign thirty two (32) square feet or less feet in area and twelve feet 12’) or less in height shall be allowed. If the lot
has more than one street frontage, one freestanding business sign thirty two (32) square feet or less in area and
eight feet (8’) or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed.
On lots three (3) acres or larger with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign sixty four (64) square feet
or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height shall be allowed. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one
freestanding business sign sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height per street
frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed.
On lots three (3) acres or larger that have a street frontage(s) in excess of eight hundred feet (800’) with two (2)
entrances/exits at least six hundred feet (600’) apart may have two (2) freestanding business signs sixty four (64)
square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height on each street frontage.
Freestanding signs must be constructed with the base and supporting columns, if present, constructed of the same
brick, stone or masonry material that the exterior walls of the principal building are made of. The sign panel color
and type must match the color and type used on any wall mounted signage.
No more than fifty percent (50%) of the freestanding sign area may be composed of a message board sign. (Ord.
2010-04, 1-12-2010)
2. Building Mounted Business/Identification Signs:
a. Single Use Building:
i. A business having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a
public right of way shall be permitted to have building mounted identification signage or building
mounted business signage for each exterior wall of that part of the building in which it is located,
provided said wall contains a public entrance or faces a public right of way. The maximum area of such
sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each one linear foot of the facade of the building with a
public entrance. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of the
building facade to which it is attached.
ii. In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2a(1) of this section, a business on an exterior wall
not having a public entrance or facing a public right of way may have a building mounted business/
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 9 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
identification sign on such a wall not exceeding in size one square foot in area for each one linear foot
of the width of that exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of
that exterior wall. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign faces
residential land uses.
b. Multi-Tenant Buildings:
i. Each tenant having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a public
right of way shall be permitted to have building mounted business or building mounted identification
signage for each such exterior wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises. The
maximum area of such a sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area for each one linear foot of the
tenant’s exterior wall. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of
that part of the tenant’s exterior wall.
ii. In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2b(1) of this section, a tenant on an exterior wall
not having a public entrance or facing a public right of way may have a building mounted business/
identification sign, on that portion of a wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises.
The size of such a sign shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one linear foot of the width
of the tenant’s exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of the
tenant’s exterior wall. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign
faces residential land uses. (Ord. 2012-39, 10-23-2012)
3. Electronic Message Display Panel:
a. There shall only be one permitted sign per lot that may contain an electronic message display panel.
b. A permanent freestanding business sign may be composed of an electronic message display panel.
c. The electronic message display panel shall not make the sign otherwise not in compliance with all the
requirements of this title and this code.
d. Except for an electronic message display panel in a permitted sign for a movie theater, all other electronic
message display panels shall not display video but may display static text and animation that dissolves, fades,
scrolls or travels. Between each display shall be the delay indicated in the chart in subsection A3i of this
section. (Ord. 2012-38, 10-23-2012)
e. The brightness of the electronic message display panels shall not be more than five thousand (5,000) nits in
the daytime and one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) nits in the nighttime.
f. Prior to issuing a permit for a sign that contains an electronic message display panel, the applicant shall
provide a written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not
to exceed the levels specified in this section and the intensity level is protected from end user manipulation by
password protected software or other method deemed appropriate by the city.
g. Malfunctioning electronic message display panels shall automatically turn off or be turned off within twenty
four (24) hours of the malfunction.
h. A sign with an electronic message display panel shall be constructed with the other components of the sign
in a natural material in the same brick, stone or masonry construction of the principal building’s exterior walls.
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 10 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
i. Table 10.20.01 shows the maximum size of the electronic message display panel.
Table 10.20.01
Size of Electronic Message Signs (Commercial)
Type of Commercial Building and Location
Maximum Area of
Electronic Message
Display Panel
Minimum Time
Between Video,
Animation or Static
Text
Single commercial tenant building on parcel adjacent to major arterial
(Illinois Routes 47, 126, and 71, and U.S. Route 34) 32 sq. ft.5 seconds
Multiple commercial tenant building on parcel adjacent to major arterial 32 sq. ft.5 seconds
Single commercial tenant building on parcel not adjacent to major
arterial 32 sq. ft.8 seconds
Multiple commercial tenant building on parcel not adjacent to major
arterial 24 sq. ft.8 seconds
Commercial planned unit development
Maximum sign height - 10 feet 75 sq. ft.5 seconds
(Ord. 2012-38, 10-23-2012; amd. Ord. 2012-42, 11-13-2012)
B. Temporary Signs:
1. Searchlights: Searchlights.
2. Cold Air Inflatable Devices: Cold air inflatable devices.
3. Grand Opening Signs: One grand opening sign not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and eight feet
(8’) in height.
4. Commercial Real Estate Signs: On commercial lots, one real estate sign per street frontage no greater than thirty
two (32) square feet in area and five feet (5’) in height.
5. Construction Signs: One construction sign per lot not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and five feet
(5’) in height.
6. Wind Feathers: No limit on the quantity per lot. Time period not to exceed thirty (30) days.
7. Banners: One special business event sign per business not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area.
8. Portable Signs: One portable sign per business not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area. (Ord. 2009-31,
6-9-2009)
9. Off Premises Sponsorship Banner: Banners shall be on city property. Individual banners shall be mounted on an
outfield fence, backstop, or scoreboard. Banners mounted on an outfield fence shall be a dimension of three feet
by six feet (3’ x 6’) in size and shall face the playing field. Banners mounted on a scoreboard or backstop shall be a
maximum area of thirty two (32) square feet. (Ord. 2010-04, 1-12-2010)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 11 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
10-20-10 Permitted Signs; Manufacturing Zoning Districts
A. Permanent Signs:
1. Freestanding Business Sign: On lots less than three (3) acres or on lots that face a residentially zoned or used
lot with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign shall be allowed. Said sign shall be thirty two (32)
square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one
freestanding business sign thirty two (32) square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height per
street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed.
On lots three (3) acres or larger with one street frontage, one freestanding business sign shall be allowed. Said
sign shall be a maximum of sixty four (64) square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height shall be
allowed. If the lot has more than one street frontage, one freestanding business sign sixty four (64) square feet
or less in area and ten feet (10’) or less in height per street frontage with an entrance/exit shall be allowed.
On lots three (3) acres or larger that have a street frontage(s) in excess of eight hundred feet (800’) with two (2)
entrances/exits at least six hundred feet (600’) apart may have two (2) freestanding business signs sixty four
(64) square feet or less in area and eight feet (8’) or less in height on each street frontage.
Freestanding signs must be constructed with the base and supporting columns, if present, constructed of the
same brick, stone or masonry material that the exterior walls of the principal building are made of. The sign
panel containing the type and the type must match the color and type used on any wall mounted signage.
No more than fifty percent (50%) of the freestanding sign area may be composed of a message board sign.
(Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
2. Building Mounted Business/Identification Signs:
a. Single Use Building:
i. A business having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing a
public right of way shall be permitted to have building mounted identification signage or building
mounted business signage for each exterior wall of that part of the building in which it is located,
provided said wall contains a public entrance or faces a public right of way. The maximum area of such
sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet for each one linear foot of the facade of the building with a
public entrance. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%) of the width of the
building facade to which it is attached.
ii. In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2a(1) of this section, a business on an exterior wall
not having a public entrance or facing a public right of way may have a building mounted business/
identification sign on such a wall not exceeding in size one square foot in area for each one linear foot
of the width of that exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of
that exterior wall. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign faces
residential land uses.
b. Multi-Tenant Buildings:
i. Each tenant having a public entrance in an exterior building wall or having an exterior wall facing
a public right of way shall be permitted to have building mounted business or building mounted
identification signage for each such exterior wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased
premises. The maximum area of such a sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area for each one
linear foot of the tenant’s exterior wall. No wall sign shall extend more than seventy five percent (75%)
of the width of that part of the tenant’s exterior wall.
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 12 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
ii. In addition to the signs permitted in subsection A2b(1) of this section, a tenant on an exterior wall
not having a public entrance or facing a public right of way may have a building mounted business/
identification sign, on that portion of a wall that is adjacent or a part of its owned or leased premises.
The size of such a sign shall not exceed one square foot in area for each one linear foot of the width
of the tenant’s exterior wall and shall not extend more than fifty percent (50%) of the length of the
tenant’s exterior wall. Such a sign shall not be illuminated either internally or externally if that sign
faces residential land uses. (Ord. 2012-39, 10-23-2012)
3. Electronic Message Display Panel:
a. There shall only be one permitted sign per lot that may contain an electronic message display panel.
b. A permanent freestanding business sign may be composed of an electronic message display panel.
c. The electronic message display panel shall not make the sign otherwise not in compliance with all the
requirements of this title and this code.
d. Except for an electronic message display panel in a permitted sign for a movie theater, all other electronic
message display panels shall not display video but may display static text and animation that dissolves, fades,
scrolls or travels. Between each display shall be the delay indicated in the chart in subsection A3i of this section.
e. The brightness of the electronic message display panels shall not be more than five thousand (5,000) nits in
the daytime and one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) nits in the nighttime.
f. Prior to issuing a permit for a sign that contains an electronic message display panel, the applicant shall
provide a written certification from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been factory preset not
to exceed the levels specified in this section and the intensity level is protected from end user manipulation by
password protected software or other method deemed appropriate by the city.
g. Malfunctioning electronic message display panels shall automatically turn off or be turned off within twenty
four (24) hours of the malfunction.
h. A sign with an electronic message display panel shall be constructed with the other components of the sign
in a natural material in the same brick, stone or masonry construction of the principal building’s exterior walls.
i. Table 10.20.02 shows the maximum size of the electronic message display panel.
Table 10.20.02
Size of Electronic Message Signs (Manufacturing)
Size of Parcels
Maximum Area of
Electronic Message
Display Panel
Minimum Time
Between Video,
Animation or Static
Text
Manufacturing parcel of 3 acres or less 32 sq. ft.8 seconds
Manufacturing parcel of more than 3 acres 36 sq. ft.8 seconds
(Ord. 2012-38, 10-23-2012)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 13 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
B. Temporary Signs:
1. Real Estate Signs: On industrial lots, one real estate sign per street frontage no greater than thirty two (32)
square feet in area or five feet (5’) in height.
2. Construction Signs: One construction sign per industrial lot not to exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area and
ten feet (10’) in height.
3. Banners/Special Business Event Sign: One banner/special business event sign per business not to exceed thirty
two (32) square feet in area and ten feet (10’) in height.
4. Portable Sign: One portable sign per business not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet in area.
5. Wind Feathers: No limit on the quantity per lot. Time period not to exceed thirty (30) days. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-
2009)
6. Off Premises Sponsorship Banner: Banners shall be on city property. Individual banners shall be mounted on an
outfield fence, backstop or scoreboard. Banners mounted on an outfield fence shall be a dimension of three feet
by six feet (3’ x 6’) in size and shall face the playing field. Banners mounted on a scoreboard shall be a maximum
area of thirty two (32) square feet. (Ord. 2010-04, 1-12-2010)
10-20-11 Nonconforming Signs
A. Any sign for which a permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this or any subsequent amendment
to the sign ordinance and which does not comply with the provisions of such amendment may nonetheless be completed
in accordance with the approved plans, provided construction of the sign is started within ninety (90) days after the
passage of the ordinance amendment and is completed within sixty (60) days after beginning construction.
B. Whenever a nonconforming sign has been discontinued for a period of six (6) months, or whenever there is evidence of
a clear intent on the part of the owner to abandon a nonconforming sign, such sign shall not, after being discontinued or
abandoned, be reestablished and the sign hereafter shall be in conformity with the regulations of this chapter.
C. Normal maintenance of a nonconforming sign is permitted, including necessary nonstructural repairs or incidental
alterations which do not extend or intensify the nonconforming features of the sign.
D. No structural alteration, enlargement or extension shall be made in a nonconforming sign except when the alteration
will actually result in eliminating the nonconformance.
E. If a nonconforming sign is damaged or destroyed by any means to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
replacement value at the time, the sign can be rebuilt or used thereafter only for a conforming use and in compliance with
the provisions of this chapter. In the event the damage or destruction is less than fifty percent (50%) of its replacement
value based upon prevailing costs, the sign may then be restored to its original condition and the use may be continued
which existed at the time of such partial destruction until the nonconforming sign is otherwise abated by the provisions of
this chapter. In either event, a permit for restoration or repair must be applied for within a period of thirty (30) days from
the date of damage or destruction, and be completed within sixty (60) days after beginning restoration or repair.
F. Existing temporary signs shall expire at the termination date specified on the permit, but in no case later than six (6)
months from the passage date hereof. New temporary signs shall be allowed only in conformance with the provisions
contained in this chapter. Such signage must be removed by the close of business of the day the temporary sign permit
expires. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 14 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
10-20-12 Permitting Procedures
Permits for permanent and temporary signs: (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
A. Permit Required: No sign shall be erected, enlarged, expanded, altered or relocated unless the person proposing to
erect, alter or move such sign shall obtain a permit from the code official. Such permit shall be issued only when the sign
complies with all of the applicable provisions of this chapter.
The fee for granting such a permit for signs shall be established by the city council. The schedule of fees for signs shall be
posted in the city offices and may be amended only by the city council. A deposit of fifty dollars ($50.00) shall be required
at the time of permit application for any temporary banner sign, which deposit shall be returned to the applicant upon
removal of the temporary banner sign, unless the applicant is in violation of the provisions of this chapter.
Routine sign maintenance, changing of parts designed for change, or changing the content of a sign in any manner which
does not change the functional classification of the sign shall not, standing alone, be considered an alteration of the sign
requiring the issuance of a permit, unless such change of parts or content relates to or is occasioned by a change in the
ownership or nature of the activity to which the sign relates or which is conducted on the premises on which the sign is
located. (Ord. 2010-25, 6-8-2010)
B. Application For Permit: Any person desiring a permit for a permanent or temporary sign shall file a permit application
which shall contain or have attached the following information:
1. A copy of plans and specifications showing the method of construction, illumination, if any, and support of such
sign. Calculations showing the sign is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount
required by other applicable laws and ordinances of the city may be required.
2. A plat of survey showing the location of the sign(s) on the lot and a drawing indicating the location of the sign(s)
on any building or structure on the lot.
3. A sketch, drawn to scale, showing sign faces, exposed surface areas and the proposed message and design,
accurately represented as to size, area, proportion and color.
4. The written consent of the owner(s) or agent of the building, structure, or land on which the sign is erected.
5. The name, address and phone number of the applicant.
6. The name of the person, firm, corporation or association erecting, altering or moving the sign. (Ord. 2009-31,
6-9-2009)
C. Temporary Sign Permit Frequency And Duration Per Business:
Table 10.20.03
Temporary Sign Permit Frequency and Duration
Type of Sign Maximum Duration Maximum Frequency
Banners 30 days 5 times per year
Sandwich board or A-frame 6 months Renewable
Commercial real estate 6 months Renewable
Industrial real estate 6 months Renewable
Residential marketing 6 months Renewable
Grand opening 45 days Once per business
Cold air inflatable device 72 hours Once per year
Searchlights 72 hours Once per year
Wind feather (per property)30 days ($25.00)Renewable ($5.00 fee)
Construction During active building permit issuance
Off premises sponsorship banner 8 months: March through October
(Ord. 2010-18, 4-13-2010; amd. Ord. 2010-25, 6-8-2010)
[ United City of Yorkville Zoning Ordinance ][ 15 ]
Chapter 20: Signs
10-20-13 Sign Variations
In addition to the procedures and standards listed in section 10-14-5 of this code regarding variations from the requirements,
the zoning board of appeals shall also consider the following factors in hearing testimony and making decisions regarding
sign variance requests:
A. If the sign was erected legally with a sign permit.
B. If there are any unique physical characteristics of the property.
C. If there are limited available locations for signage on the property.
D. The cost to the applicant of complying with the sign ordinance requirements.
E. If the sign is on or faces a street with a forty (40) mile per hour or higher speed limit.
F. If the sign is on a street with twenty thousand (20,000) or higher vehicle trips per day.
G. If the sign would be blocked by existing or required landscaping.
H. If it is a wall sign facing a public right of way without a public entrance. (Ord. 2009-31, 6-9-2009)
Staff has prepared the information below for discussion at our rescheduled meeting on December
4, 2013:
New Business Items:
a) Review and Commentary of Proposed Chapter 19: Alternative Energy Systems
Provided in your packets is the existing Chapter 16: Wind Energy Systems and Chapter
17: Small Energy Systems of the City of Yorkville’s Zoning Ordinance. Staff is seeking input on the
current chapters prior to drafting a final comprehensive Chapter 19: Alternative Energy Systems which
will provide regulations for wind and solar energy sources. Also included are articles which discuss
various view points of wind energy (mainly Wind Turbines) and their impact on birds.
WIND POWER SOLAR POWER
Memorandum
To: Zoning Ordinance Commission
From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director
CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator
Date: November 26, 2013
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Update – New Business Items
Wind Farms
Horizontal Axis
Vertical Axis
Public Furniture
Roof Mounted Solar Panels
Public Furniture
Solar Farm
Chapter 16
WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
10-16-1: PRINCIPLES:
10-16-2: GENERAL PURPOSE:
10-16-3: SCOPE:
10-16-4: DEFINITIONS:
10-16-5: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
10-16-6: ROOFTOP WIND ENERGY SYSTEM:
10-16-7: OTHER WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS:
10-16-1: PRINCIPLES:
The provisions of this chapter recognize that:
A. There is a significant relationship between wind energy systems and public safety and the value,
quality of life and economic stability of adjoining property and overall community.
B. Wind energy systems are a very visible element of the public environment and as such should
meet the same high standards of quality set for other forms of development in the community.
(Ord. 2009-41, 8-11-2009)
10-16-2: GENERAL PURPOSE:
A. The regulation of wind energy systems by this chapter is intended to promote and protect the
public health, safety and welfare by:
1. Requiring the installation of wind energy systems to be consistent with current property development
standards of the city.
2. Protecting the general public from damage and injury which may be caused by the faulty and
uncontrolled and inappropriate use of wind energy systems in the city.
B. Accordingly, it is deemed necessary and in the public interest to regulate wind energy systems.
To this end, this chapter:
1. Regulates the size, location, installation, maintenance and other pertinent features of wind energy
systems.
2. Provides for effective administration and enforcement of these regulations. (Ord. 2009-41, 8-11-
2009)
10-16-3: SCOPE:
The regulations of this chapter shall govern and control the site design, erection, enlargement,
expansion, alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all wind energy systems
defined by this chapter within the united city of Yorkville.
The regulations of this chapter relate to the location of wind energy systems, by function and type,
within zoning districts and shall be in addition to provisions of the international building code,
national electrical code, federal aviation administration (FAA) requirements, and all federal and state
statutes, laws, rules, and regulations and all city codes. (Ord. 2009-41, 8-11-2009)
10-16-4: DEFINITIONS:
ROOFTOP WIND ENERGY SYSTEM: A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind
turbine, a tower or post, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity
of not more than ten (10) kW, and which is intended to primarily reduce on site consumption of utility
power.
WIND ENERGY SYSTEM: Equipment that converts and then stores or transfers energy from the
wind into usable form of electric energy, commonly referred to as a wind turbine. This equipment
includes any base, blade, foundation, generator, nacelle, rotor, tower, transformer, vane, wire,
inverter, batteries, or other component used in the system. (Ord. 2009-41, 8-11-2009)
10-16-5: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A. Permitting:
1. The installation of any wind energy system requires a building permit from the united city of Yorkville.
2. In order to receive permit, wind energy systems must be approved by a small wind certification
program recognized by the American Wind Energy Association such as the emerging renewables
program of the California energy commission or the small wind certification council.
3. Prior to permit issuance, the owner shall sign an acknowledgement that said owner will be
responsible for any and all enforcement costs and remediation costs resulting from any violations of
this chapter. These costs include, but are not limited to, removal of system, property restoration
necessary upon removal of the system, city legal expenses and hearing costs associated with
violations of this chapter.
4. A permit is valid for two (2) years following issuance or renewal. At the end of the two (2) year
period, the wind energy system must be inspected by the city code official. Following inspection, the
code official will:
a. Renew the permit if found to be in compliance with this chapter, or
b. Order any actions necessary for the wind energy system to be in compliance with this chapter; or
c. Determine the system abandoned per subsection G of this section.
B. Compliance: Wind energy systems shall meet or exceed current standards of the international
building code and federal aviation administration (FAA) requirements, any other agency of the
state or federal government with the authority to regulate wind energy systems, and all city
codes.
C. Building Code/Safety Standards: Any owner or operator of a wind energy system shall maintain
said system in compliance with the standards contained in the current and applicable state or
local building codes and any applicable standards for wind energy systems that are published by
the international building code, as amended from time to time. If, upon inspection, the united city
of Yorkville concludes that a wind energy system fails to comply with such codes and standards
and constitutes a danger to persons or property, the city code official shall require immediate
removal of the system at the owner's expense.
D. Noise: The maximum noise level allowed for all wind energy systems shall not exceed fifty five
(55) decibels at frequency of one hundred twenty five (125) hertz measured at all property lines.
E. Fencing: Requirements will be evaluated with each individual wind energy system application.
Fencing requirements will be determined by, but not limited to, location of the system, system
type, system design, and location of electrical equipment.
F. Design: Wind energy systems shall be painted a nonreflective color that conforms to the
architecture of the structure to which it is attached.
G. Abandoned Systems: All abandoned or unused wind energy systems shall be deemed a
nuisance and the united city of Yorkville may act after one month of the cessation of operations
unless an extension is approved by the city council. If an extension is not approved, the city may
act to abate such nuisance and require its removal at the property owner's expense. After the
wind energy system is removed, the owner of the property shall restore the site to its original
condition, or to an approved improved condition within thirty (30) days of removal. (Ord. 2009-41,
8-11-2009)
10-16-6: ROOFTOP WIND ENERGY SYSTEM:
A. Permitted Use: Rooftop wind energy systems shall be considered allowable in all zoning districts
except F-1 floodplain district.
B. Fees:
1. Permitting Fees:
a. Rooftop wind energy systems will be subject to a one hundred dollar ($100.00) building permit fee.
The permit fee will be payable at the time of the application submittal by the petitioner.
C. Mounting: All rooftop wind energy systems shall be controlled in a manner consistent with local
building code and as approved by the city code official. A rooftop wind energy system shall be
mounted upon the rear face of a sloped roof or to the side or rear facade of a structure.
Freestanding towers are prohibited.
D. Height: The maximum height of a rooftop wind energy system is eight feet (8') above the highest
point of the roofline of the structure it is mounted upon regardless of the zoning district height
requirement.
E. Diameter: The maximum diameter of the blades or rotor shall be five feet (5').
F. Quantity:
1. Residential Districts: Only one rooftop wind energy system is allowed per property.
2. Commercial, Manufacturing And Agriculture Districts: Only one rooftop wind energy system is
allowed per property. Any additional rooftop wind energy systems desired by the petitioner shall
require special use approval and subject to the special use provisions contained within section 10-
14-6 of this title and applications for special use approval shall be subject to the procedures and
requirements of this title. (Ord. 2009-41, 8-11-2009)
10-16-7: OTHER WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS:
A. Special Use: A wind energy conversion system having a rated capacity of more than ten (10) kW
shall require special use approval and be subject to the special use provisions contained within
section 10-14-6 of this title. (Ord. 2009-41, 8-11-2009)
Chapter 17
SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS
10-17-1: PRINCIPLES:
10-17-2: GENERAL PURPOSE:
10-17-3: SCOPE:
10-17-4: DEFINITION:
10-17-5: GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS:
10-17-6: SYSTEM REGULATIONS:
10-17-1: PRINCIPLES:
The provisions of this chapter recognize that:
A. There is a significant relationship between wind energy systems and public safety and the value,
quality of life and economic stability of adjoining property and overall community.
B. Wind energy systems are a very visible element of the public environment and as such should
meet the same high standards of quality set for other forms of development in the community.
(Ord. 2009-58, 10-13-2009)
10-17-2: GENERAL PURPOSE:
A. The regulation of wind energy systems by this chapter is intended to promote and protect the
public health, safety and welfare by:
1. Requiring the installation of wind energy systems to be consistent with current property development
standards of the city.
2. Protecting the general public from damage and injury which may be caused by the faulty and
uncontrolled and inappropriate use of wind energy systems in the city.
B. Accordingly, it is deemed necessary and in the public interest to regulate wind energy systems.
To this end, this chapter:
1. Regulates the size, location, installation, maintenance and other pertinent features of wind energy
systems.
2. Provides for effective administration and enforcement of these regulations. (Ord. 2009-58, 10-13-
2009)
10-17-3: SCOPE:
The regulations of this chapter shall govern and control the site design, erection, enlargement,
expansion, alteration, operation, maintenance, relocation and removal of all wind energy systems
defined by this chapter within the united city of Yorkville.
The regulations of this chapter relate to the location of wind energy systems, by function and type,
within zoning districts and shall be in addition to provisions of the international building code,
national electrical code, federal aviation administration (FAA) requirements, and all federal and state
statutes, laws, rules, and regulations and all city codes. (Ord. 2009-58, 10-13-2009)
10-17-4: DEFINITION:
SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEM: A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine, a
tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity of not more than
one hundred (100) kW, and which is intended to primarily reduce on site consumption of utility
power. (Ord. 2009-58, 10-13-2009)
10-17-5: GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS:
A. Permitting:
1. The installation of any wind energy system requires a building permit from the united city of Yorkville.
2. In order to receive permit, wind energy systems must be approved by a small wind certification
program recognized by the American Wind Energy Association such as the emerging renewables
program of the California energy commission or the small wind certification council.
3. Prior to permit issuance, the owner shall sign an acknowledgement that said owner will be
responsible for any and all enforcement costs and remediation costs resulting from any violations of
this chapter. These costs include, but are not limited to, removal of system, property restoration
necessary upon removal of the system, city legal expenses and hearing costs associated with
violations of this chapter.
4. A permit is valid for two (2) years following issuance or renewal. At the end of the two (2) year
period, the wind energy system must be inspected by the city code official. Following inspection, the
code official will:
a. Renew the permit if found to be in compliance with this chapter, or
b. Order any actions necessary for the wind energy system to be in compliance with this chapter; or
c. Determine the system abandoned per subsection G of this section.
B. Compliance: Wind energy systems shall meet or exceed current standards of the international
building code and federal aviation administration (FAA) requirements, any other agency of the
state or federal government with the authority to regulate wind energy systems, and all city
codes.
C. Building Code/Safety Standards: Any owner or operator of a wind energy system shall maintain
said system in compliance with the standards contained in the current and applicable state or
local building codes and any applicable standards for wind energy systems that are published by
the international building code, as amended from time to time. If, upon inspection, the united city
of Yorkville concludes that a wind energy system fails to comply with such codes and standards
and constitutes a danger to persons or property, the city code official shall require immediate
removal of the system at the owner's expense.
D. Noise: The maximum noise level allowed for all wind energy systems shall not exceed fifty five
(55) decibels at frequency of one hundred twenty five (125) hertz measured at all property lines.
E. Fencing: Requirements will be evaluated with each individual wind energy system application.
Fencing requirements will be determined by, but not limited to, location of the system, system
type, system design, and location of electrical equipment.
F. Design: Wind energy systems and associated tower shall be a nonreflective color. The city council
may impose such conditions as are necessary to eliminate, if at all possible, any adverse affects
such system may have on surrounding properties.
G. Abandoned Systems: All abandoned wind energy systems shall be deemed a nuisance and the
united city of Yorkville may act after one month of the cessation of operations unless an
extension is approved by the city council. If an extension is not approved, the city may act to
abate such nuisance and require its removal at the property owner's expense. After the wind
energy system is removed, the owner of the property shall restore the site to its original
condition, or to an approved improved condition within thirty (30) days of removal. (Ord. 2009-58,
10-13-2009)
10-17-6: SYSTEM REGULATIONS:
Example of a small wind energy system in Oak Hills, CA. Courtesy of Bergey Windpower
A. Special Use: Small wind energy systems shall be considered a special use in A-1 agricultural
district, estate district, B-4 business district, M-1 limited manufacturing district, M-2 general
manufacturing district, and PUD planned unit development district as defined by this title. Special
use requests shall be subject to the special use provisions contained within section 10-14-6 of
this title and applications for special use permits shall be subject to the procedures and
requirements of this title, except as modified in this chapter.
B. Approval: All small wind energy systems shall be subject to site plan approval, requiring review
and recommendation by the united city of Yorkville plan commission and approval by the united
city of Yorkville city council. Also, in granting a special use permit the plan commission may
recommend conditions to the city council, and the city council may impose such conditions as
are necessary to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed small wind energy system on
adjoining properties.
C. Fees:
1. Permitting Fees:
a. Small wind energy systems will be subject to the fee schedule for special use applications as defined
by section 10-14-9 of this title. Said fee will be payable per wind energy system at the time of the
application submittal by the petitioner.
b. In addition, small wind energy systems will be subject to a one hundred fifty dollar ($150.00) building
permit fee. The permit fee will be payable at the time of the application submittal by the petitioner.
D. Ground Clearance: The tip of any blade shall, at its lowest point, have ground clearance of not
less than fifteen feet (15') or one-third (1/3) of the tower height, whichever is greater,
aboveground at the base of the tower.
E. Distance:
1. The minimum distance between a small wind energy system from all property lines, aboveground
utility lines, and roadways shall be a distance equivalent to 1.1 times the total height of the system.
2. Any application which is a part of a small wind energy system, including guywires, shall be set back
from all property lines no less than thirty feet (30').
F. Height: All small wind energy systems will be bound by the height restrictions as established per
zoning district as defined by this title.
G. Yard: Small wind energy systems shall not be permitted in any front yard area as defined by this
title. (Ord. 2009-58, 10-13-2009)
Wind Energy Threat to Birds Is Overblown
Wind energy is one of the cleanest,
most abundant, sustainable -- and
increasingly cost-effective -- ways to
generate electricity. It is also one of
the fastest growing electricity
sources around the globe. In the
United States alone, more than
13,000 megawatts of new capacity
was installed in 2012, and by the
year's end, there were enough wind
turbines to power 15 million typical
American homes -- without toxic
pollutants or carbon emissions.
Still, wind has its detractors. One of
the most prominent is Robert Bryce,
a senior fellow at the Manhattan
Institute, a New York City-based, pro
-market, anti-government think tank
backed by ExxonMobil and Charles
Koch, the billionaire co-owner of the coal, oil and gas conglomerate Koch Industries. Over the last few years, Bryce has been
bashing wind energy in the pages of the New York Post, Wall Street Journal and other publications, charging that wind turbines
are, among other things, ugly, noisy and a threat to public health.
But what really seems to stick in his craw is their purported impact on birds.
Bryce's October 11 Wall Street Journal column is typical, rehashing an argument he made in a September 2009 column in the
same newspaper, in the National Review last May, and the Wall Street Journal again last February. Bryce contends that the
wind industry kills a "vast" number of birds every year -- especially eagles -- and insists the Obama administration is playing
favorites, allowing wind developers to go scot-free while "aggressively" prosecuting the oil and gas industry for the same
infraction. He calls it a "pernicious double standard."
But before you let Bryce's charges ruffle your feathers, you should know that they're wildly overblown. Yes, wind turbines
unfortunately do kill some birds, including eagles, and the industry needs to address that fact. But how big a threat do they
pose compared with other culprits? You wouldn't know by reading Bryce. Nor would you know that, if you compare the damage
various energy technologies do to the environment, wildlife, public health and the climate, wind is one of the most benign.
In other words, context is everything, and Bryce doesn't provide it.
The Main Culprits
Given how Bryce portrays the wind industry, one would assume it's one of the nation's top bird killers. In fact, wind turbines are
way down in the pecking order.
Besides habitat degradation and destruction, the top human-built environmental threat to our feathered friends are buildings.
As many as 970 million birds crash into them annually, according to a June 2013 study in the Wilson Journal of Ornithology.
Other studies, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), estimate that every year as many as 175 million birds die
by flying into power lines, which electrocute tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands more; 72 million are poisoned by
misapplied pesticides; nearly 6.6 million perish by hitting communications towers; and as many as 1 million birds die in oil and
gas industry fluid waste pits.
By contrast, a March 2013 study in the Wildlife Society Bulletin estimates that land-based wind turbines killed as many as
573,000 birds in 2012. That's not insignificant, but certainly not the scourge that Bryce implies.
What about the threat wind turbines pose to bald and golden eagles? Turbines certainly are a particular problem for raptors.
When they're hunting, they primarily train their eyes on the ground, scanning for prey, and they can be distracted by other
November 25, 2013
Posted: 11/22/2013 9:06 am
158 people like this.Like
Page 1of 3Wind Energy Threat to Birds Is Overblown | Elliott Negin
11/25/2013http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wind-energy-threat-to-bir_b_4321113.html?...
raptors encroaching on their territory. Eagles also have limited peripheral vision. All of these factors can spell trouble,
especially given the fact that turbine blade tips can spin as fast as 180 miles per hour.
In his October 11 column, Bryce cited a study in the September 2013 issue of the Journal of Raptor Research that found that
wind turbines in 10 states killed 85 eagles between 1997 and the end of June 2012 -- 79 golden eagles and six bald eagles.
That's an average of less than six a year, but most of the deaths occurred between 2008 and 2012 due to industry growth, and
the study's authors were quick to point out that the number of turbine-related eagle deaths is likely much higher. The study
didn't include wind industry-related eagle deaths in three other states as well at the 1980s-era Altamont Pass in Northern
California, which has been killing an average of 67 eagles a year.
For discussion sake, let's add the 67 eagle deaths a year at Altamont Pass to the 85 the study confirmed. Over a 15-and-a-half
-year period, that would amount to 1,124 dead eagles. That sounds like a lot. But how does that compare with overall non-
natural eagle deaths?
When an eagle is killed and people find a carcass, FWS asks them to send it to the National Wildlife Property Repository near
Denver. About 2,500 show up every year, according to FWS, although certainly more go unreported. Using that number as a
benchmark, the number of dead eagles annually from 1997 through June 2012 would amount to approximately 38,750 birds.
Based on these admittedly crude estimations, at least 97 percent of the eagle deaths were attributable to causes other than
commercial, land-based wind turbines. Often FWS can't determine the exact cause of death, but apparently poachers,
transmission lines, pesticides, and lead poisoning from bullet-ridden carrion killed significantly more than turbines.
Same Old Same Old
FWS is currently investigating 18 wind industry-related bird-death cases and has referred seven of them to the Justice
Department. Even so, as Bryce constantly complains, the Obama administration has yet to prosecute a wind developer under
the two main federal bird protection laws, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(Eagle Act). Both the Eagle Act and the MBTA, which covers more than 800 bird species, prohibit anyone from "taking"--
hunting, capturing, selling or killing -- a bird without a permit.
As Bryce acknowledges, however, no previous Justice Department -- not even under the fossil fuel-friendly George W. Bush
administration -- ever took a wind developer to court for violating either bird law. Building and communications tower owners
also have been spared. Meanwhile, federal prosecution of the oil and gas industry and pesticide applicators goes back to the
1970s, and the government brought its first case against an electric utility for electrocuting birds in 1998. So perhaps there's a
better explanation for the way the laws have been applied than what Bryce calls an Obama administration double standard.
The MBTA, which was enacted in 1918, is a strict liability law. That means if you accidentally kill a migratory bird with your car,
for example, or a bird slams into your living room picture window, technically you have committed a misdemeanor, despite the
fact it was unintentional. But it's impractical to enforce the law that way. The Justice Department will consider legal action only
if a violator repeatedly breaks the law and is in a position to take reasonable steps to prevent further harm. Oil and gas
companies can easily prevent birds from dying in their waste pits by stretching nets over them. Electric utilities can insulate
their transmission poles to prevent electrocutions. But it is much more difficult to remediate skyscrapers or communication
towers -- or wind turbines, for that matter -- once they are in place.
Unlike the MBTA, the Eagle Act, which was enacted in 1940, doesn't protect eagles from lawful activities that kill them
unintentionally. It only applies to individuals or corporations without a permit that "knowingly, or with wanton disregard for the
consequences" take a bald or golden eagle. That makes it much more difficult for the government to prosecute violators than
under the MBTA.
Prosecution as a Last Resort
With either law, prosecution is a last resort. FWS -- which has only 230 field agents monitoring wildlife deaths nationwide --
tries to work with violators to fix the problem before it refers a case to the Justice Department.
For example, for decades FWS inspectors have been routinely checking for bird carcasses in oil and gas company liquid waste
pits, which kill as many as a million birds annually. When FWS agents discover dead birds, they generally notify the
responsible company and give it the opportunity to rectify the problem by installing netting or screening to keep birds from
landing on the pits. If the company pays a modest fine--usually $500 and an additional $250 per bird--and corrects the problem,
FWS will not file a case with a U.S. Attorney's office. That happens only after repeated violations. And even if a company is
ultimately convicted and put on probation, the fine is relatively small.
Bryce actually cited one of these cases involving repeat offenders as evidence that the Obama administration is "aggressively"
prosecuting the oil and gas industry, but he left out some key information that would have undermined his argument.
In 2011, FWS filed criminal charges against three companies drilling in North Dakota's Bakken shale formation. "One of those
companies, Continental Resources, was indicted for killing a single bird" that died in one of its waste pits, Bryce squawked in
the Wall Street Journal in February and again in the National Review in May.
One bird?! Pretty outrageous, no? But Bryce failed to mention that Continental Resources and the two other companies,
Brigham Oil & Gas and Newfield Production Co., had been flouting the law -- and killing birds -- for years. The Justice
Department merely charged them with violations based on the number of dead birds FWS agents found when they made their
last site visit following years of imploring the companies to install nets. No matter, the district court ultimately dismissed the
charges, issuing a ruling that squarely conflicts with how the government has traditionally interpreted the MBTA.
Making Turbines More Bird-Friendly
In his zeal to disparage wind power, Bryce also doesn't credit the Obama administration and the wind industry for what they're
doing to address the problem. In response to concerns about increasing turbine-related bird deaths, FWS issued new voluntary
guidelines in March 2012 for wind developers to minimize harm to birds and their habitats. The guidelines, which cover siting,
Page 2of 3Wind Energy Threat to Birds Is Overblown | Elliott Negin
11/25/2013http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wind-energy-threat-to-bir_b_4321113.html?...
construction, monitoring and operation, were developed with the help of an advisory committee composed of experts from
universities, industry, government agencies and conservation groups, including Defenders of Wildlife and the National Audubon
Society. (I should note, however, that some groups, such as the American Bird Conservancy, insist those guidelines should be
mandatory.)
Besides collaborating on the FWS guidelines for new wind farms, the industry is working with conservationists, science groups
and government agencies to make their currently operating facilities more bird-friendly. For example, a number of leading wind
companies and other industry players are partners in the American Wind Wildlife Institute, which the Union of Concerned
Scientists helped launch in 2008. The institute's mission is to "facilitate timely and responsible development of wind energy,
while protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat." The main point? You can do both.
Other remediation efforts, some admittedly due to lawsuits, also are underway. As a part of a settlement with the California
state government and environmental groups, for example, the largest wind power company in the Altamont Pass is replacing
thousands of outdated turbines with a lot fewer, taller, more-efficient ones that pose less of a threat to the golden eagles,
hawks and other birds that patrol the skies in the area. So far those efforts and other modifications appear to be producing
results.
Finally, there's one last critical point that Robert Bryce conveniently ignores: Climate change threatens hundreds of migratory
bird species, which are already stressed by habitat loss, invasive species and other environmental threats. A 2010 report by
FWS and other federal agencies in collaboration with such conservation groups as the National Audubon Society and
American Bird Conservancy found that global warming will have an increasingly devastating effect on migratory birds in all
habitats. And earlier this year, the National Wildlife Federation published a similar report that concludes unequivocally that
climate change today is the most serious threat facing America's migratory birds.
Regardless, Bryce -- who has called himself an "agnostic" on climate science -- likely will continue to attack renewable energy
at every opportunity on behalf of his benefactors. And I'm sure the ideologically driven editors at the Wall Street Journal's
opinion section and the National Review will continue to run his columns. But there's no getting around the fact that we have to
wean the world off fossil fuels as soon as possible, and one of the answers, my friend, is blowing in the wind.
Update: I posted this blog on Friday morning, November 22, and at the time, no U.S. wind energy company had ever been
prosecuted for violating federal bird protection laws. That changed later in the day when the Justice Department announced it
had reached a settlement with Duke Energy, which pleaded guilty to killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind
farms. As I mentioned in my blog, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been investigating 18 wind industry-related bird-death
cases and referred seven of them to the Justice Department. Presumably one of those seven was the case against Duke. For
more on the Duke plea agreement, click here. - E.N.
Elliott Negin is the director of news and commentary at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Page 3of 3Wind Energy Threat to Birds Is Overblown | Elliott Negin
11/25/2013http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/wind-energy-threat-to-bir_b_4321113.html?...
The Possible Effects
of Wind Energy on
Illinois Birds and Bats
Report of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to
Governor Rod Blagojevich and the 95th Illinois General Assembly
June 2007
Cover Photo: Wind turbines at Mendota Hills, Lee County, Illinois.
Photo by Penny L. Shank
The Possible Effects of Wind Energy
on Illinois Birds and Bats
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702
June 2007
200/2007
2
Executive Summary
Utility-scale wind-powered electrical generation facilities are rapidly expanding in Illinois, with
feasibility studies underway for installations in no fewer than 37 of the State’s 102 counties;
construction completed for approximately 300 MW of capacity; and construction for an additional
900 MW or more pending in the next two years. The wind-generation industry estimates Illinois
can provide up to 9,000 MW from up to 6,000 turbines.
Adequate scientific data does not yet exist to affirm or refute the potential biological significance
of mortality directly caused by utility-scale wind turbines. While birds are killed through collisions
with wind turbines, it is rare that such losses may be significant to particular species. Bats may be
in greater jeopardy from wind turbines because two to three times as many bats are killed. Losses
of both animals are higher during migration periods.
Only one mortality study has been performed at an Illinois wind energy installation. In that case, it
is estimated that only one bird per turbine is killed per year. While other avian species were killed,
only one raptor (a red-tailed hawk) was killed. However, three times as many bats were killed
through collisions. No remains of threatened or endangered avian or mammal species were found.
It remains unclear how significant this level of attrition may be.
While public attention centers on the apparent threat to birds from collisions with wind turbines,
collision mortality is only one of many potential adverse effects to wildlife posed by wind energy
installations. Habitat displacement and fragmentation are of potentially greater significance to a
wide array of wildlife, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and invertebrates. Similarly,
natural areas could be adversely affected by erosion, sedimentation, water quality degradation, and
shadowing associated with wind turbine construction and operation.
One area of concern for Illinois is Lake LaSalle, a cooling lake for a nuclear reactor that is located
in an area that has high potential for wind projects. The lake has become an important wintering
area for migratory waterfowl because the lake rarely freezes, and surrounding lands provide
sufficient food resources if snow cover is not too deep. Impacts to foraging birds could prove
significant if a wind project is sited in the area. Although no turbines have been suggested for the
Lake Michigan area, this could be another location of concern because it is a known flyway for
birds and bats.
To better understand the impact of wind farms on Illinois birds, the state could:
Develop a map of areas of concern to highlight protected natural resources and wildlife areas
where developers should take extra precautions when developing wind farms,
Fund a major study of bird abundance and richness before and after turbines are constructed at
representative sites in the state, and
Fund a comprehensive study of bat mortality around existing wind farms.
Until the impacts are better understood, regulatory action for wildlife protection is not
recommended.
3
Introduction
The Possible Effects of Wind Energy on Illinois Birds and Bats was requested by House Resolution
943 to assess the danger of wind turbines to birds, including threatened and endangered species, in
Illinois. While a small post-construction mortality study was just completed in Bureau County (see
below), no major on-the-ground study has been conducted in Illinois. To complete this report, staff
of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) consulted the scientific literature to try to
determine what impact the proliferation of wind turbines could have on birds and bats in Illinois.
The wind industry estimates that, on average, two
birds are killed by each modern wind turbine in a
year’s time. This estimate is based on studies at
widely-spaced projects around the country. The
IDNR does not have the statutory authority to order
wind developers to conduct mortality studies after a
project is constructed, but it can recommend such
studies under the consultation requirements of the
Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act and the
Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act. These laws
require units of state and local government to consult
with IDNR to determine if proposed actions could
adversely affect listed species or natural areas. If
impact is likely, IDNR recommends steps to
minimize or avoid such effects.
During consultation with Bureau County for the 33-
turbine Crescent Ridge wind project, IDNR
recommended that a post-construction mortality study
be undertaken. The county board adopted the
recommendation and added the study as a condition
for obtaining a permit to construct the facility.
The developer hired a private consultant to collect data at the Crescent Ridge facility between
August 2005 and July 2006, covering a complete avian migration cycle. The final report estimates
that about 31 birds (including one raptor, a red-tailed hawk) and 93 bats were killed during the
study period, or an average of one bird and three bats killed per turbine. No carcasses of
endangered or threatened species were found.
Wind Power in Illinois
Electricity derived from alternative sources is a subject of rapidly increasing interest and
investment on an economically significant scale. Consequently, converting the kinetic energy of
wind to electricity has become a major growth industry.
The first requirement for this technology is wind of sufficient intensity and duration to sustain
electricity production on an industrial scale. The U. S. Department of Energy has mapped the
United States according to five levels of wind resources. Generally, regions experiencing Class
Three to Class Five winds are deemed suitable for large wind energy systems. While Illinois has no
Class Five winds, it does have a small area with Class Four winds (0.4% of IL with the potential
Figure 1. A lone turbine generates 1.5 MW
northwest of Pittsfield, Pike County.
Photo: Penny L. Shank
4
Figure 2.
for 3,000 MW of power), in largely rural agricultural areas southeast of Quincy, the Bloomington
area, an area north of Peoria, the Mattoon area, and between Sterling and Aurora (Figure 2). Illinois
also has a number of areas with Class Three+ winds (0.8% of IL with the potential for 6,000 MW
of power). All of these areas occur in the central and northern parts of the State.1 Figure 3 shows
that most of the rest of the state has either fair or marginal wind resources.
It might be thought that Class Five and Class Four wind areas in other states would be developed
before the Illinois potential was tapped, but Illinois meets the two other requirements for a viable
installation: a market, and the means to convey the electricity to it. Most Class Five and Four wind
areas are located in areas remote from markets and lack the infrastructure to transport the
electricity. Illinois, however, has both the existing power grid infrastructure and nearby markets, as
1 The US DOE wind maps excluded urban lands and environmentally sensitive lands such as state parks and
wildlife refuges
5
Figure 3.
well as public policies promoting alternative energy sources, making it a regional focus of activity
in this emerging industry.
With an estimated capacity of 9,000 MW, assuming 1.5 MW machines, Illinois eventually could
support roughly 6,000 utility-scale wind turbines on 1,800 square kilometers (about 695 square
miles, or 445,000 acres). Each square kilometer could support about 5MW in installed wind
capacity.
Illinois’ Existing Wind Energy Projects
Since wind power is not regulated at the state level, the following numbers have been obtained
from personal communication with the subject counties. At present, Illinois’ utility-scale wind-
power capacity is approaching 300 MW. Facilities range from a single 1.5 MW turbine operated by
a rural electrical co-op near Pittsfield (Pike Co.) to the recently completed 110-turbine 150 MW
6
Phase I High-Trails facility east of Bloomington. Smaller arrays such as the 33-turbine 50 MW
Crescent Ridge project (Bureau Co.) and the 62-turbine 50 MW Mendota Hills facility (Lee Co.)
are also in operation.
Construction permits have also been issued for the following:
110-turbine 150 MW Big Sky project in Lee County,
110-turbine 150 MW White Oak project in McLean County,
100-turbine 200MW Camp Grove project in Marshall and Stark Counties,
110-turbine 150 MW Phase I Bishop Hill project in Henry County,
160 turbine >200 MW High Trails Phase II in McLean County.
When completed in 2007 and 2008, Illinois turbine arrays will be producing about 1,200 MW of
wind-generated electricity.
Projects vary in ownership from fairly small local corporations to consortiums of large
multinational energy and investment firms. Typically, a wind-power developer will execute long-
term leases with existing landowners rather than purchase land outright. The developer will then
pursue zoning and permitting with local governments (usually counties). Once a project is built, it
is not unusual for it to be sold or transferred to another corporation that specializes in operations.
Typically turbines must be spaced about one-quarter mile apart to avoid turbulence from adjacent
machines. Each turbine is mounted on a deep foundation and is serviced by a gravel access road.
This requires about one-quarter acre per machine. Turbines are linked to each other through land-
lines that run underground and feed electricity to a step-up transformer at a substation, which
boosts the voltage to be compatible with the receiving electrical grid.
Most turbines in use today are mounted on tubular steel towers without external supports, usually
about 260 feet high to the nacelle containing the generator. Each turbine mounts three blades, or
vanes, up to 120 feet long, the pitch of which can be varied to control the generator’s speed. The
maximum height for any turbine proposed in Illinois is about 465 feet when a vane is in the vertical
position, and the blade sweep is usually more than 100 feet off the ground. Turbines can begin
operating in winds as light as 8-10 mph, but the blades must be “feathered” in winds higher than
48-50 mph to avoid damage to the generator. Most are designed to withstand wind speeds up to
100 mph and have an expected life-span of up to 30 years.
Three distinct markets exist for wind energy technology: residential, small business, and
commercial utility. Residential systems typically produce power sufficient to supply all or some of
the needs for a single-family home and are scaled accordingly. Their environmental effects are
highly-localized, but could be significant if such turbines become common or highly concentrated.
Small business systems supply the energy needs of individual farms and small businesses, ranging
from a few kilowatts up to one megawatt in capacity. Usually, such installations consist of single
turbines which create little apprehension about their adverse environmental effects. Utility-scale
wind generation systems employ large turbines, usually with a capacity of one megawatt or greater,
in tandem arrays covering many square miles. They produce electrical power for wholesale
distribution to consumers via the national power grid. It is concern about the individual and
cumulative environmental effects of commercial utility systems that prompted this report.
Potential Projects
The Illinois Endangered Species Protection Act and the Illinois Natural Areas Preservation Act
require local governments to evaluate, by consulting with the IDNR, whether actions they
authorize, fund or perform will jeopardize threatened or endangered species or adversely modify
their habitat, or adversely modify a natural area on the Illinois Natural Areas Inventory. If an
impact is likely, IDNR recommends steps to minimize or avoid the impact. Developers also
7
frequently submit ‘Information Requests’ during
facility planning to determine what protected
natural resources might be in a proposed project
location.
Over the past several years, requests for either
information or consultation have been submitted
to IDNR for portions of 37 counties (Figure 4).
Through personal communication with county
officials, the IDNR is aware that zoning has been
approved or is being sought for a number of
significant projects in Henry, Lee, Ogle,
Stephenson, and Woodford Counties. Feasibility
and environmental studies are underway for
projects in Adams, Champaign, Logan, DeKalb,
Iroquois, LaSalle, Livingston, Ford, Knox,
Mercer, Warren, Jo Daviess, Bureau, and Coles
Counties. Henry County expects to issue
construction permits for up to 700 turbines within
the next year.
Some areas, however, are setting limitations on
wind energy development. The Boone County
Board denied a 15-turbine project, citing concerns
about impacts to adjacent agricultural operations.
Ogle and Stephenson Counties are defending
lawsuits against zoning decisions in favor of wind
facilities which have created uncertainty about
several projects. The Town of Chatsworth in
Livingston County has banned wind turbines
within 1.5 miles of the city limits, while the Town
of Normal formally opposes any turbines within
seven miles of the city.
Potential Effects on Wildlife
The following summary is based on recent authoritative review articles (see Bibliography)
available to Illinois Natural History Survey staff. Much of it is based on findings in other states and
countries because no scientific studies on flying bats and birds near wind turbines have been
conducted in Illinois. The only study available is the mortality monitoring study at the 33-turbine
Crescent Ridge Wind Power project in Bureau County. It should also be noted that because limited
research is available about the behavior and ecology of many of the species in question, most of the
studies do not provide conclusive information.
Direct impacts
Both the wind turbines and the power lines associated with them are possible hazards for flying
wildlife. Collisions, probably with the moving turbine blades, are evidenced by finding dead or
injured bats and birds on the ground in the vicinity of turbines. Other bats and birds could be
injured and die later some distance away, but these remain undocumented. The following
information is organized by groups of species that could be most impacted by wind energy in
Illinois.
Figure 4. Blue counties have confirmed or
potential wind projects.
8
Bats
Bats are probably the creatures most affected by wind turbines in areas like Illinois. They appear to
be especially subject to harm during migration to hibernation sites or to southern regions in August
and September. Although migratory bats are many fewer in number than night-migrating birds,
perhaps 10 times as many bats as birds are killed at wind turbines at upland sites. Substantial bat
fatalities are documented in Europe; on mountain ridges in the eastern USA; in agricultural areas in
Minnesota, Iowa, and Alberta, Canada; and in Oklahoma. According to the latest summaries, bat
fatalities in open areas (such as the Midwest) are somewhere between the low values in the West
(1-2 bats/turbine/year) and the high values in the Appalachians and Alleghenies (46 or more
bats/turbine/year), and are concentrated around the month of August.
Data from Alberta and Oklahoma suggest that the presence of nearby trees does not add to the
hazard for bat kills at wind power facilities; wind turbines in open areas kill bats. Indications are
that bats are killed or injured as they actively approach or remain near the turbines in some
undefined fashion. The migrating bats fly close—and may actually be attracted—to the rotating
blades and perish close to the turbine support structure, particularly in the first part of the night.
Sometimes, but not always, they show evidence of injury caused by impact.
Very recent scientific studies have used special equipment to film bats flying very near turbine
blades and being knocked out of the sky.
Bat kills also do not appear to be influenced by FAA-mandated flashing or pulsing lights on wind
turbines. Limited information suggests that the rotating blades harm the bats rather than the
stationary support structure (monopole). No specific studies have been completed, but there is
some evidence of lower mortality when blades were feathered. Recent reports of bats “deterred”
from radar facilities are questionable and do not represent a potentially feasible way to repel bats
from wind turbines.
The conservation implications of wind turbines on populations of migratory bats are unknown.
However, most species of bats are especially vulnerable to additional mortality because of their low
reproductive rates. Appendix 1 provides more detailed observations on bat mortality.
Hawks and eagles
Locally-breeding raptors are attracted to prey species that are in turn drawn to the base of the
turbines for certain kinds of shelter and food. The birds are killed while flying near the turbines,
looking downward for prey and failing to avoid the turbine blades. Carcasses of these large birds,
which are protected by statute, attract attention when they fall in open areas.
Daytime-migrating birds
Daytime migrants are most at risk where they concentrate on a narrow migration path, such as at
Altamont Pass in California. Such sensitive migration routes are not numerous in Illinois, but they
do exist. For instance, the western shore of Lake Michigan funnels migrating raptorial birds into
and past the Chicago area every year, as documented by visual counts and by Illinois Natural
History Survey scientists using radio tracking. Some species of birds, notably Blue Jays, follow
restricted, traditional routes in their migration (documented by Richard Graber of the INHS).
Offshore Lake Michigan may be another such location of higher concern for both daytime birds
and nighttime migrants.
Night-migrating birds
While the numbers of night-migrating birds that are killed by one turbine in a year are not expected
to be large, the overall impact of a large number of turbines could be cause for concern. These kills
are prohibited under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, but few serious measures to reduce the
danger have been suggested. Reports in the last few years indicate that the great preponderance of
mortality in at least some populations of songbirds occurs away from the breeding and wintering
9
areas, presumably during migration. This has resulted in a greatly increased appreciation of
migratory hazards in bird conservation.
Like kills of bats, most of the evidence on kills of nocturnally-migrating birds comes from
searching for carcasses at dawn. This provides a crude estimate of the numbers of birds killed but
little indication of the circumstances and cause of the kills. Based on sparse evidence, it is thought
that such mortality is primarily due to chance encounters with a turbine’s revolving blades 100-450
feet above the ground. The number of birds that migrate at these heights is not as well understood
as one might expect, but during cruising flight many or most birds fly higher than the maximum
blade height of current wind turbines. Important exceptions include takeoff (usually at dusk),
descent, and landing (usually in the second half of the night), and perhaps nights with a low cloud
ceiling. Cloud height may induce birds to fly lower and FAA-mandated lighting on wind turbines
may prove to be a factor on some cloudy nights, as it is with tall broadcast towers. Unfortunately,
few studies of bird or bat fatalities at wind turbines have been intensive enough to come to firm,
useful conclusions about the interaction of low clouds, migrating vertebrates, and wind turbines.
Certainly no mass kills in a single night, such as can occur at tall guyed broadcast towers, have
been documented at terrestrial wind turbines in North America.
Local birds in flight
Some studies have documented that local water birds may avoid feeding in areas near wind
turbines. On the other hand, other studies have indicated that wind turbines near wetlands, or other
areas of waterfowl concentration, may pose hazards for arriving or departing birds. On one
November evening, more than 50,000 ducks were observed returning to Lake LaSalle after feeding.
R. Diehl from the Illinois Natural History Survey had to stop counting the ducks when darkness
fell. Figure 5, an image from the National Weather Service radar at Romeoville overlaying the
Illinois Land Cover map, illustrates the masses of ducks at Lake LaSalle. The triangular mass in the
Figure 5. Radar image from Weathertap, Inc.
10
Figure 6. Radar track of part of a display flight of a male Upland Sandpiper in east-central Illinois.
lower part of the image shows the mass of ducks (white area at the top of the triangle) beginning to
arrive at Lake LaSalle, at the bottom of the triangle. Other red and white areas are probably
concentrations of other unidentified flying birds.
Other grassland birds
During a courtship display, birds such as the Upland Sandpiper, a state endangered species, and the
Prairie Horned Lark fly at the height of a rotating turbine. If a male’s territory or display ground
(lek) exists near a turbine, the bird will be at risk. Figure 6 is a radar track of part of a display flight
of a male Upland Sandpiper in east-central Illinois. On an evening in mid-June, the bird was
engaged in typical courtship. It sang while flying and hovering aloft, a behavior that occurs
frequently during breeding season, both day and night. Like most Upland Sandpiper display flights
over eastern Illinois grasslands, this entire track took place within or slightly above the height
range of modern wind turbine vanes.
Habitat disturbance, removal, and fragmentation
In Europe, impacts on bird habitat from turbine construction are generally of greater concern than
direct collision-caused mortality of flying birds, and this is also true in Illinois. In the Midwestern
USA, however, such impacts have not been well studied; the brief bird counts and habitat surveys
that have been conducted do not provide data on subtle but lasting effects.
Forest
In forest, about four acres or more are cleared for each wind turbine, not including access roads and
power lines. This fundamentally changes the nature of the land cover and creates habitat fragments
and edge, which can be deleterious for some important species. For instance, extensive work in
southern Illinois shows that forest-breeding birds exhibit decreased nesting success because of
disturbance by the Brown-headed Cowbird when forest is broken up. Many of these forest-loving
birds are members of species in decline and thus of special concern in the whole region.
Some of the bat species killed by direct collisions with turbines are also adversely affected when
sites for roosting and raising young are destroyed. Currently, no proposed or likely turbine sites in
Illinois are located near large blocks of forested area.
11
Figure 7. Modern wind turbines (center) are visible from a long distance.
Illustration by Rob Manes, The Nature Conservancy, Kansas
Grassland
On grassland, prairie grouse and their relatives, specifically the state endangered Greater Prairie
Chicken, would be at risk in a small area of south-central Illinois. Grouse and their relatives,
including prairie chickens, breed communally on traditional “leks” or booming grounds. In other
states, when large structures have been constructed, the females ceased visiting the breeding
grounds, turning off reproduction for the population. The radius within which this happens has
been estimated at about one mile from the structure for Sage Grouse but is not known for Greater
Prairie Chicken. In addition, prairie chicken mortality from direct collision with obstacles such as
fences and power lines has been a problem in other states.
However, all of the Illinois Greater Prairie Chicken populations exist on lands owned by IDNR and
various conservation organizations that are managed as refuges for the species. The lands are also
dedicated as Illinois Nature Preserves or registered as Land and Water Reserves. It is unlikely that
IDNR or the other steward organizations would allow wind turbines on such land.
Studies in Minnesota indicate that densities of other grassland birds are reduced several-fold near
turbines, but the distance of such effects is poorly understood and little research has been published
in the US. If wind energy facilities were to be built between populations of grassland birds, they
have the potential to isolate populations from each other, thereby creating barriers to genetic
interchange. It is unknown if the noise of wind turbines has any effect on grassland birds. In
general, grassland is relatively rare in Illinois.
Other wildlife besides flying species can be affected by the construction and operation of wind
turbine arrays. No direct information is available on how the state-threatened Franklin’s Ground
Squirrel, a grassland mammal, would react to wind turbines. In the western USA, ground squirrels
in the same genus have displayed altered behavior near wind turbines, perhaps because of the noise
generated by the machines.
12
Agricultural land
Agricultural land continues to be attractive to the wind energy industry in Illinois and wildlife
habitat effects on farmland should be minimal. However, they may not be absent. Wind turbines
generate turbulent wakes that alter local air flow, temperature, and humidity. These alter soil
properties and forest structure downwind and probably have direct effects on plants as well as both
flying and ground-dwelling animals.
Flicker
Sunlight passing through the rotating vanes of a wind turbine creates a periodic shadow, a strobe
effect which has become popularly known as “flicker.” If a three-vane turbine were rotating at 20
rpm, an observer in its shadow could count a passing shadow every second. This rate is low enough
that the alternation between light and shadow is easily perceived by both people and wildlife.
Like other shadows, flicker is experienced for only a few hours (or minutes, very early or very late
in the day) at any given location as the sun traces its arc across the sky. The intensity of its effect is
moderated by atmospheric conditions (e.g., clouds, haze), and refraction and diffusion caused by
air molecules decrease the contrast between light and shadow with distance. In theory, a shadow
from a utility-scale turbine could reach half a mile at sunrise or sunset, but in practical terms
perceptible shadows may extend only half that distance. Because the “path” of the shadow can be
reliably predicted, the flicker effect can be a factor in determining turbine placement.
Flicker’s effect on people is addressed by nearly every local ordinance governing wind turbine
siting. Most ordinances (which also consider noise) require turbines to be sited no nearer than 500
feet from the occupied residence of a participating land owner (who presumably has more tolerance
for any irritation it may cause), and usually require turbines to be sited more than 1,000 feet from a
non-participating land owner. These requirements may require a turbine to be sited in a less-than-
ideal position relative to topography and wind. If equal consideration were to be given to potential
effects on wildlife habitat, turbine siting could become more difficult. Many species tend to avoid
human structures, and are more likely to be present in those areas where turbines are sited.
Flicker is one factor which may affect wildlife and its use of available habitat. Those few studies
which have been conducted generally observe changes in wildlife behavior in response to wind
turbines without attempting to distinguish the effects of verticality, noise, motion, or flicker.
Species of birds and small mammals which require open grasslands and are often preyed upon by
raptors may be most affected by flicker. In such an environment, a rapidly moving shadow can
indicate the presence of a bird of prey. Whether a constantly repeated shadow is tolerated, or
elevates levels of stress in prey species, or even potentially results in habitat exclusion, is unknown.
Verticality
Verticality is not tolerated by some species, probably because vertical objects, be they natural or
man-made, are perceived to offer perches for predators. Prairie Chickens and Henslow’s Sparrows
offer two examples of species which are intolerant of any vertical structure.
Cumulative impacts
Unfortunately, no published projections of cumulative impacts are available for Midwestern states
like Illinois. In the mountainous eastern USA, however, various wind energy facilities are projected
to kill from 6,000 to 25,000 birds (both migratory and resident) each, per year. Total bat fatalities
in the four-state mid-Atlantic region are projected to be approximately 30,000 to 100,000 animals
per year based on projections of growth of wind energy as a source of electricity. Illinois is only a
single state but its projected growth in wind energy is comparable to the vigorous growth on which
the mid-Atlantic projections are based. Many authorities have noted that as wind energy continues
to expand the cumulative rate of mortality of endangered and threatened species rises steadily.
13
Figure 8. The 800 kW turbines at Mendota Hills are the smallest size generally used in a utility-scale project.
Photo: Penny L. Shank
Endangered Species
In the instances when IDNR has consulted on wind energy projects, potential adverse impacts to
state-listed bird species have arisen only once, for Henslow’s Sparrow and Loggerhead Shrike at
the Bishop Hill project in Henry County. The state-threatened Henslow’s Sparrow is an area-
sensitive grassland species that requires large open tracts. Henslow’s Sparrow may be displaced or
excluded from otherwise suitable habitat by vertical structures, such as wind turbines, and by the
incursion of roads, which create breaks in the habitat that they will not tolerate. The Loggerhead
Shrike, also a threatened grassland bird, requires an interspersion of grassland and trees, which is
often provided by fencerows. Shrikes can be affected by the removal of fencerows for construction
or the elimination of wind turbulence. At Bishop Hill, the developer decided to seek Incidental
Take Authorization for both species.
Terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals can also be impacted by turbine arrays. For example, the
Big Sky project in southern Lee County is sited on a long glacial ridge. The original proposed array
impinged on the Ryan Wetlands and Sand Prairie Natural Area, known to support two state listed
species, the threatened Blanding’s Turtle and Regal Fritillary Butterfly. The need for deep
excavations for the turbines raised a concern that the confining layer of clay which created these
perched wetlands might be penetrated, causing the wetlands to drain. There was also concern that
construction could damage or destroy nesting areas, and that construction traffic might kill
butterfly larvae on the ground, collide with adult butterflies, or damage the specific host plants on
which the Regal Fritillary depends.
Through consultation, the developer created a one-quarter mile buffer area around the Natural Area
and relocated several turbines. These measures were sufficient to protect the wetlands from damage
and to avoid the likely densest concentrations of turtles and butterflies. The developer also hired
14
biologists to study the matter further. Based on their findings, the developer sought Incidental Take
Authorization for the Blanding’s Turtle and Regal Fritillary Butterfly, in case the precautionary
measures did not prevent a taking of either species.
Recommendations
The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recently concluded
that, while data are lacking at many sites, so far there is no evidence that wind turbine fatalities will
cause measurable demographic changes to bird populations nationwide.
Even so, in 2003 the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued interim guidelines on avoiding and
minimizing wildlife impacts from wind turbines. It was intended to help Service personnel provide
technical assistance to the wind energy industry. In addition to site development and turbine design
and operation recommendations, the guidelines also recommend:
Site evaluations at potential development sites to determine risk to wildlife,
Post-construction monitoring at all developed sites to identify any wildlife impacts,
Updating bird strike avoidance equipment as it becomes available.
Wind farm regulation is still a developing area, and the costs and benefits of such regulation need
to be better understood before they are considered. In the meantime, Illinois could:
Develop a map of areas of concern to highlight protected natural resources and wildlife areas
where developers should take extra precautions when developing wind farms,
Fund a major study of bird abundance and richness before and after turbines are constructed at
representative sites in the state, and
Fund a comprehensive study of bat mortality around existing wind farms.
Bibliography
Arnett, E.B., K. Brown, W.P. Erickson, J. Fiedler, T.H. Henry, G.D. Johnson, J. Kerns, R.R.
Kolford, C.P. Nicholson, T. O’Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R.J. Tankersley. 2007 submitted.
Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife
Management.
Arnett, E.B., D.B. Inkley, D.H. Johnson, R.P. Larkin, S. Manes, A.M. Manville, R. Mason, M.
Morrison, M.D. Strickland, and R. Thresher. 2007 in review. Impacts of wind energy facilities
on wildlife and wildlife habitat. Number, The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland Report
Technical Review 07-01.
Anderson, R, M. Morrison, K. Sinclair, and D. Strickland. 1999. Studying wind energy/bird
interactions: A guidance document. Washington, D.C.: National Wind Coordinating
Committee.
General Accounting Office. 2005. Wind power: Impacts on wildlife and government
responsibilities for regulating development and protecting wildlife. Number, United States
Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C. Report GAO-05-906.
Johnson, G.D. 2005. A review of bat mortality at wind-energy developments in the United States.
Bat Res News 46:45-49.
Kunz, T.K., E.B. Arnett, W.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, M.D. Strickland, R.W. Thresher, and M.D.
Tuttle. 2007 in press. Ecological impacts of wind energy installations on bats: Questions,
hypotheses, and research needs. Front Ecol Environ.
Kunz, T.H, E.B. Arnett, B.M. Cooper, W.P. Erickson, R.P. Larkin, T. Mabee, M.L. Morrison,
M.D. Strickland, and J.M. Szewczak. 2007 in review. Methods and metrics for studying
impacts of wind energy development on nocturnal birds and bats. National Wind Coordinating
Committee, Washington, D.C.
15
Larkin, R.P. 2004. Wind power issues in Illinois. White paper, 2 pp.
Larkin R.P. 2006. Migrating bats interacting with wind turbines: What birds can tell us. Bat
Research News 47:23-32.
Larkin, R.P., B. Cooper, W.P. Erickson, J.P. Hayes, J. Horn, G. Jones, T.H. Kunz, D.S. Reynolds,
and D. Strickland. 2007 submitted. Ecological impacts of the wind energy industry on bats:
Methods and research protocols. Front Ecol Environ.
National Academy of Sciences. 2007. Environmental impacts of wind energy projects. National
Research Council, Washington, D.C.
United States Department of Energy. 2007. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
http://eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/where_is_wind_Illinois.
United States House of Representatives Natural Resources Committee. 2007. Hearing on Wind
Turbine Impacts on Birds & Bats by the Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans Subcommittee.
Washington, D.C.
Wolfe, D.H., M.A. Patten, E. Shochat, C.L. Pruett, S.K. Sherrod. (In Press) Causes and patterns of
mortality in Lesser Prairie-Chickens and implications for management. Wildlife Biology.
16
Appendix. Bats and wind turbines
Many studies indicate that bats are more at risk from wind turbines than are birds, whether resident
or migrating. Following are excerpts from some of these studies.
In the U.S., bat mortality has been documented at wind farms in several states, including Iowa,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Wyoming, California, and
Oregon.
At turbines in southwest Minnesota 177 bat carcasses and 40 bird carcasses were found during a
two-year period. In north-central Iowa, seven bird carcasses and 75 bat carcasses were found in
survey transects during two years. In northeastern Wisconsin, the number of bat carcasses found
at two wind farms was nearly three times higher than the number of bird carcasses.
Most casualties at wind turbines in the U.S. have been members of three highly migratory bat
species, the hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), and silver-haired
bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans). However, at least 11 species have been found dead at U.S wind
turbines. These include four other species known to occur in Illinois: the little brown bat
(Myotis lucifugus), northern bat (Myotis septentrionalis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and
eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus).
Much of the bat mortality at wind turbines has been documented during late summer and
autumn and is thought to coincide with dispersal and migration. Peak bat mortality occurred
during August at wind farms in northeastern Wisconsin and north-central Iowa. However, bat
mortality at those two wind farms also was relatively high during July, presumably prior to
migration. Dead bats were found at Iowa and Minnesota wind farms during June as well.
Few studies have compared bat mortality or activity at different types or arrays of turbines. In
northeastern Wisconsin, bat mortality was higher at a facility where 14 turbines were arranged
in three rows within 1.5 km of each other than at a second facility where 17 turbines were
arranged in two irregular clusters approximately 3.5 km apart. At wind farms in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia, higher than average numbers of dead bats were typically found at turbines
near the end or center of a line. The only turbine (out of 64) at the Pennsylvania and West
Virginia facilities where no dead bats were found was not operational during the study period.
In southwest Minnesota, there was no significant difference in the number of bat fatalities per
turbine at lighted (FAA non-pulsating red lights) and unlighted towers. At Pennsylvania and
West Virginia wind farms there was no significant difference in the number of bat fatalities or
activity at lighted (FAA pulsating red lights) and unlighted towers. In north-central Iowa, bat
mortality and activity did not differ significantly between turbines with pulsating and non-
pulsating red lights.
In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, the majority of bats died during nights when wind speeds
were low, but turbines remained operational. Turbines at one facility in northeastern Wisconsin
were turned off during periods of low wind in 2000. The number of bat carcasses found that
year was one-third of the number found in 1999. The number of bat carcasses at a second wind
farm, where turbines remained on when winds were low, was essentially identical during both
years. Inclement weather did not seem to have an effect on bat mortality at Minnesota wind
farms, but the number of fatalities increased just before and after storm fronts in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia.
A 2004-2009 study coordinated by Bat Conservation International, Inc. determined that bats are
more active on low-wind nights. Activity decreases by 11 to 39 percent for each meter-per-
second increase in wind speed. These results were replicated in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and
New York. Using this information, it has been suggested that "feathering" turbine blades
17
(turning them parallel to wind so they remain essentially immobile) on low-wind nights can
save a great many bats. This strategy needs further testing to determine its true effectiveness and
economic viability.
The highest levels of bat mortality have been documented at wind farms in Tennessee,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, where the turbines are situated on forested mountain ridges.
High mortality could be the result of forest fragmentation or of bats using linear landscape
features as migration corridors. Intermediate levels of bat mortality were found at Midwestern
wind farms in southwestern Minnesota, north-central Iowa, and northeastern Wisconsin, which
are located in agricultural areas. In Minnesota, bat activity was higher in nearby woodlands and
wetlands than at turbines. However, activity was detected at 47% of 135 turbines in 2001 and
38% of 81 turbines surveyed in 2002. Wind farms surveyed in the western United States were
located in open habitats (e.g. short-grass prairie, cropland, desert shrubland) and had relatively
low levels of bat mortality.
As part of an in-depth field study conducted by Bat Conservation International, Inc., the
Mountaineer Wind Energy Center in West Virginia concluded that its 44 turbines on a forested
ridge-top killed between 1,364 and 1,980 bats in just one (1) six-week period in 2004. While
mounting evidence suggests that forested ridges in the eastern United States are "high-risk"
sites, a recent report of high bat kills at a wind farm in Alberta, Canada is especially disturbing
because it is located on open prairie habitat, which, until this point, has been considered safe for
bats.
Several hypotheses about the cause of bat collisions with wind turbines have been advanced.
For example, bats may fail to detect turbines acoustically or visually. Alternatively, bats may
actually be attracted to wind turbines. Thermal imaging at a wind farm in West Virginia has
shown bats flying close to both moving and stationary blades. Bats also were observed landing,
or attempting to land, on non-moving blades and turbine masts.
Some researchers found decreased levels of bat activity at radar installations in Britain and
suggested that electromagnetic fields might deter bats from collisions with wind turbines.
Others have explored the possibility of acoustic deterrence—could an artificially produced
ultrasound signal act as a "no trespassing" sign to keep bats away from turbines? The principle
objective is to produce high-amplitude "jamming" sounds. Initial field tests suggest that the
device does impact bat behavior and that some version of this "jamming" device might help
prevent bat kills at wind turbines.
Appendix Bibliography
Arnett, E.B. (technical editor). 2005. Relationships between bats and wind turbines in Pennsylvania
and West Virginia: an assessment of bat fatality search protocols, patterns of fatality, and
behavioral interactions with wind turbines. Final report submitted to Bats and Wind Energy
Cooperative. Bat Conservation International, Austin, TX. 167 pp.
Crawford, R.L. and W.W. Baker. 1981. Bats killed at a north Florida television tower: a 25-year
record. Journal of Mammalogy 62:651-652.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, and K. Kronner. 2000. Avian and bat mortality
associated with the Vansycle Wind Project, Umatilla County, Oregon: 1999 study year.
Technical report prepared for Umatilla County Department of Resource Services and
Development, Pendleton, OR. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne, WY. 21 pp.
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, M.D. Strickland, D.P. Young, Jr., K.J. Sernka, and R.E. Good.
2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines: a summary of existing studies and comparisons to
other sources of collision mortality in the United States. National Wind Coordinating
Committee Resource Document. National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C.
18
Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, D.P. Young, M.D. Strickland, R.E. Good, M. Bourassa, K. Bay,
and K.J. Sernka. 2002. Synthesis and comparison of baseline avian and bat use, raptor
nesting and mortality information from proposed and existing wind developments. Final
report prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. WEST, Inc., Cheyenne,
WY. 124 pp.
Fiedler, J.K. 2004. Assessment of bat mortality and activity at Buffalo Mountain Windfarm,
eastern Tennessee. M.S. thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Howe, R.W., W. Evans, and A.T. Wolf. 2002. Effects of wind turbines on birds and bats in
northeastern Wisconsin. Report submitted to Wisconsin Public Service Corporation and
Madison Gas and Electric Company. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. 113 pp.
Howell, J.A. 1997. Bird mortality at rotor swept area equivalents, Altamont Pass and Montezuma
Hills, California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 33:2-29.
Jain, A.A. 2005. Bird and bat behavior and mortality at a northern Iowa windfarm. MS thesis, Iowa
State University, Ames. 113 pp.
Johnson, G. 2004. A review of bat impacts at wind farms in the US. Pages 46-50 in Proceedings of
the wind energy and birds/bats workshop: understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts.
S.S. Schwartz, ed. Washington, D.C.
Johnson, G.D., M.K. Perlik, W.P. Erickson, and M.D. Strickland. 2004. Bat activity, composition,
and collision mortality at a large wind plant in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32:1278-
1288.
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, and S.A. Sarappo.
2002a. Collision mortality of local and migrant birds at a large-scale wind power development
at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:879-887.
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, D.A. Shepherd, M. Perlik, M.D. Strickland, and C. Nations. 2002b.
Bat interactions with wind turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota wind resource area: 2001
field season. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA.
Johnson, G.D., W.P. Erickson, M.D. Strickland, M.F. Shepherd, D.A. Shepherd, and S.A. Sarappo.
2003. Mortality of bats at a large-scale wind power development at Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota.
American Midland Naturalist 150:332-342.
Kunz, T.H. 2004. Wind power: bats and wind turbines. Pages 50-55 in Proceedings of the wind
energy and birds/bats workshop: understanding and resolving bird and bat impacts. S.S.
Schwartz, ed. Washington, D.C.
Nicholls, B. and P.A. Racey. 2007. Bats avoid radar installations; could electromagnetic fields
deter bats from colliding with wind turbines? PLoS ONE 2(3):e297.
dol:10.1371/journal.pone.0000297
Timm, R.M. 1989. Migration and molt patterns of red bats, Lasiurus borealis (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae) in Illinois. Bulletin of the Chicago Academy of Sciences 14:1-7.
Tuttle, M.D. 2005. America's neighborhood bats: understanding and learning to live in harmony
with them. University of Texas Press, Austin. 106 p.
Young, D.P., Jr., W.P. Erickson, R.E. Good, M.D. Strickland, and G.D. Johnson. 2003. Avian and
bat mortality associated with the initial phase of the Foote Creek Rim wind power project,
Carbon County, Wyoming: November 1998 – June 2002. Technical report prepared for
SeaWest Energy Corporation and Bureau of Land Management.
Zinn, T.L. and W.W. Baker. 1979. Seasonal migration of the hoary bat, Lasiurus cinereus, through
Florida. Journal of Mammalogy 60:634-635.
The Clerk’s Office is in the process of publishing the City’s master meeting list for 2014. Listed
below is a tentative schedule for the Zoning Commission meetings for 2014. The proposed
schedule has the Zoning Commission meeting the 4th Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m.
Please discuss this schedule at the Zoning Commission meeting and decide if you have any
changes to the proposed dates or meeting time.
Zoning Commission 4th Wednesday – 7:00 pm
January 22 July 23
February 26 August 27
March 26 September 24
April 23 October 22
May 28 November 19* (3rd Wednesday, due to holiday
June 25 December 17* (3rd Wednesday, due to holiday)
Memorandum
To: Zoning Commission
From: Lisa Pickering, Deputy Clerk
Date: November 14, 2013
Subject: Zoning Commission Meeting Schedule for 2014