Mercer County planners opt to keep separate wind and solar ordinances, debate setback and shadow-flicker limits
December 22, 2025 | Mercer County, North Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Mercer County Planning Commission on Dec. 22, 2025 decided to keep proposed land-use rules for wind and solar power in separate ordinances and to retain the county’s existing wind setbacks after public feedback, commissioners said.
Chair Mike Eslinger said the commission’s goal is to finish ordinance drafts so they can be published by Dec. 31 and heard at a public hearing on Jan. 15, 2026. Attorney Mark Kaffar, who is drafting the ordinances, told the board he had initially proposed lower wind setbacks but received substantial input from the public to keep the current setbacks in place.
Commissioners also debated a numerical standard for shadow flicker, the intermittent strobing effect that wind turbines can create when blades pass between the sun and a fixed point. Kaffar said a 30-hour-per-year figure came from state guidance; Eslinger proposed a 24-hour limit (a one-day equivalent) as a local standard, while resident and participant Keith Kessler argued that the limit should be zero, saying it is difficult to document flicker hours reliably.
The commission discussed an exclusion zone north of Highway 1806, which Eslinger described as a designated scenic highway; he said state rules influence what is allowed and referenced a possible two-mile consideration tied to state designations. Kaffar cautioned the commission not to simply adopt McLean County’s model because McLean has organized townships that Mercer does not, and he warned that following another county’s ordinance could invite litigation unless adapted for local conditions.
Other technical matters under consideration include deeper burial requirements for collection lines and progressive bonding requirements to ensure the county holds reclamation guarantees. Kaffar said he will continue to refine the draft ordinances and incorporate public input ahead of the January hearing.
The commission approved the agenda amendment and the minutes of Dec. 8 by unanimous votes earlier in the meeting; no final vote on the substantive ordinances occurred on Dec. 22.
Chair Mike Eslinger said the commission’s goal is to finish ordinance drafts so they can be published by Dec. 31 and heard at a public hearing on Jan. 15, 2026. Attorney Mark Kaffar, who is drafting the ordinances, told the board he had initially proposed lower wind setbacks but received substantial input from the public to keep the current setbacks in place.
Commissioners also debated a numerical standard for shadow flicker, the intermittent strobing effect that wind turbines can create when blades pass between the sun and a fixed point. Kaffar said a 30-hour-per-year figure came from state guidance; Eslinger proposed a 24-hour limit (a one-day equivalent) as a local standard, while resident and participant Keith Kessler argued that the limit should be zero, saying it is difficult to document flicker hours reliably.
The commission discussed an exclusion zone north of Highway 1806, which Eslinger described as a designated scenic highway; he said state rules influence what is allowed and referenced a possible two-mile consideration tied to state designations. Kaffar cautioned the commission not to simply adopt McLean County’s model because McLean has organized townships that Mercer does not, and he warned that following another county’s ordinance could invite litigation unless adapted for local conditions.
Other technical matters under consideration include deeper burial requirements for collection lines and progressive bonding requirements to ensure the county holds reclamation guarantees. Kaffar said he will continue to refine the draft ordinances and incorporate public input ahead of the January hearing.
The commission approved the agenda amendment and the minutes of Dec. 8 by unanimous votes earlier in the meeting; no final vote on the substantive ordinances occurred on Dec. 22.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
