Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Motion on Emerson Creek road-use agreement fails as residents voice opposition to wind projects
Summary
The Huron County Board of Commissioners did not approve a road-use agreement for the Emerson Creek wind project after a motion failed for lack of a second; residents also urged commissioners to reject tax abatements for a separate APEX wind proposal and asked townships to resolve conflicts tied to a RUMA.
The Huron County Board of Commissioners considered but did not approve a Road Use Agreement with Firelands Wind, LLC for the Emerson Creek Wind Project on Nov. 18, 2025, after the motion to execute the agreement failed for lack of a second.
The proposal would have authorized the county and engineer to enter an agreement to govern construction-related use and repair of county roads for the Emerson Creek project, which the resolution said may include up to 50 turbines, an electrical substation and other facilities. The resolution cited Ohio Power Siting Board permits in Case Nos. 18-1607-EL-BGN and 21-1055-EL-BGA and said Firelands must make service payments and repair roads, bridges and culverts the county engineer deems affected.
At public comment, Norwich Township resident Walt Poffenbaugh urged commissioners not to approve tax abatements or rush approvals for a related wind proposal by APEX, saying: “You have unique opportunity to say no to this project.” Poffenbaugh told the board that conditions from the Power Siting Board include a RUMA and that if a RUMA is not approved the project may be blocked.
Assistant Prosecutor Randal Strickler cautioned that township trustees with conflicts of interest may be unable to participate in RUMA decisions: “It’s not a problem, it’s a conflict of interest… I wouldn’t want them in to discuss it because they can’t,” he said, and offered to research statutory implications for how conflicted townships could receive or spend mitigation payments.
Commissioners and staff also discussed roles and timing: Engineer Lee Tansey and county officials would inspect and require repairs to restore roads to preconstruction condition, and the board noted that some townships near project sites — Norwich in particular — will face the bulk of construction traffic. Commissioners said they did not want to preempt township deliberations and encouraged trustees to seek legal clarification if needed.
The motion to execute the Road Use Agreement for the Emerson Creek project died for lack of a second. Commissioners did approve unrelated items during the meeting, including a letter of support for CLI Incorporated’s application for ODOT 5310 funding to purchase wheelchair-accessible vans.
The board did not take a subsequent definitive vote on whether the county will sign the RUMA; commissioners said the townships must resolve conflicts and questions before the county acts.
