Thank you for sending this column out, Eric. While I find the column heartening overall, I do have to take issue with the claim that there is no reason for setbacks larger than 50'. Since I cannot attend any of the town meetings, I thought I would share my comments with the rest of the group.
For those of you who I do not know, let me say first that I am currently working as a renewable energy developer focused mainly on wind projects. I am not making these statements out of any anti-wind sentiment, but I do think it is important for wind to be developed responsibly seeing as any given project will be around for few decades. I have gone through the process of seeing wind zoning ordinances adopted in other towns in upstate New York where we had projects. The setbacks that are decided upon are always a critical component that can kill a project if that is what the board is after. I have seen 1000' or more proposed! What typically gets settled upon in a town that is not trying to prevent a project is something on the order of 125% - 150% of the total structure height (tower plus blade). There are often larger setbacks from the tower to occupied structures. Though modern wind turbines are very safe, of the roughly 75,000 MW that have been installed around the world, there are a handful of instances where a blade has broken or a tower collapsed. For reasons of public safety, setback from property lines, public roads, or power lines of at least the height of the structure is considered to be a good idea. Anything above that is an extra safety factor. Turbine heights vary, but the structure height for machines being installed in the northeast ranges from 388 feet to 492 feet high, making a 50 foot setback not very effective. Though it is a shame that this discriminates against smaller landowners' ability to host a turbine, the distance the blade reaches out from the center of the tower is going to be between 125 and 164 feet on current machines, again making a 50 foot setback far too small. However, the zoning we have seen developed in areas we have projects typically has a clause stating that these property line setbacks only apply to non-participating neighboring properties. Thus, if two adjacent properties each have a turbine on them, there does not need to be a setback from their mutual property line. Additionally, there is often a clause allowing for property owners to waive a setback requirement. This would require a formal, recorded contract between the developer and the neighboring property without turbines and would include some form of compensation worked out between the parties. Unless these two clauses are included, it can be very difficult to build a project. While a fixed 600' setback seems a bit high to me depending upon what machines are being proposed, it is hard to say how big the machines will be five years from now. A setback as a percentage of the structure height allows the rules to adjust as the machines change in size. Additionally, if the zoning has not been written to distinguish between large and small wind turbines, a 600' setback would surely prevent most landowners from installing residential sized turbines in their back yards. Best regards, Abby On 9/24/07, Eric Banford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Excellent guest column in the Ithaca Journal today from Marguerite Wells: > > > http://ithacajournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070924/OPINION02/709240315 > > Most Tompkins County residents have heard there is a proposed 10-turbine > wind farm in the Town of Enfield. The great majority of Tompkins County > residents and Enfield residents are in favor of it for many reasons, but do > not turn up at Enfield town meetings to speak their minds. There are a small > handful of Enfield residents who are opposed to the wind farm project, who > turn up at every town meeting to voice their opinions, and the rest of us, > who are not such squeaky wheels, are in danger of losing the opportunity to > have a wind farm because of our complacency. > > The issue of concern at the moment is the wind ordinance the town is > discussing. This local ordinance would govern the placement of the towers, > and as such is an important piece of legislation to have in place to make > the wind farm go forward. However, there is one-line item in the proposed > law that is very problematic — it requires a 600-foot setback from any > property line or road. Such a setback may be important for physical > infrastructure such as houses, but property lines are invisible, and > criss-cross the rural landscape with no relation to residences or roads. > There is no safety-related reason for this property setback, and it > effectively prohibits the wind farm from being developed, because almost no > landowner, even those with hundreds of acres, has a parcel large enough and > windy enough to allow a 600-foot setback from all boundaries. The setback > from roads is equally arbitrary; there is no safety reason for this either. > Many wind farms have turbines near roads, with no problems. If the town > intends to prevent the wind development, then it should do so > straightforwardly and because it is unwanted. It should not backhandedly > prevent it through setback restrictions. If, instead, the town would like to > reasonably regulate the wind development, as it should, while allowing it to > go forward, it should remove the property line and road setbacks altogether, > or minimize them to something like 50 feet so that landowners with parcels > of all sizes and shapes can equitably choose to allow a turbine on their > land if they want one. A turbine will pay a landowner several thousand > dollars a year in rent, and if only very large landowners can have one, this > regulation heavily favors them over those of more moderate means. > > The Town of Enfield should welcome the proposed wind farm. It could send > much-needed revenue into the town coffers, to improve the school, roads, and > services, while reducing town taxes to residents. > It would put Enfield on the map, generating jobs, building a wind energy > education center, and being an example of community-owned energy generation > for the whole state. Opponents of the project seem primarily opposed to > change in principle. > > They voice concern over declining property values, although studies show > only increased or steady values near wind farms. If they're honestly > concerned about birds, keep house cats inside and stop driving so much, cats > and cars kill many more birds than turbines. Health and safety concerns, > both for humans and wildlife, are hype, not based on fact. Modern turbines > are very quiet, and do not cause any health problems or disturbance to > neighbors. Would densely populated Europe allow thousands of them in their > midst if they did? > > Enfield town meetings happen on the second Wednesday of the month, and > Oct. 10 is the next one, at 7 p.m. in the community building. Mark your > calendars, and be the squeaky wheel that helps move this project forward. > Otherwise, Tompkins County's best hope for green local energy will be > squashed at the hands of the only five citizens who are exercising > democracy. > > Letters of support can be sent to the Town of Enfield Board, Enfield Town > Hall 168 Enfield Main Road, Ithaca, N.Y. 14850 > > Marguerite Wells lives in Enfield. > > ------------------------------ > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and > hotels<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47094/*http://farechase.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTFicDJoNDllBF9TAzk3NDA3NTg5BHBvcwMxMwRzZWMDZ3JvdXBzBHNsawNlbWFpbC1uY20->with > Yahoo! FareChase. > _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
