> 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 This is precisely how I understand the proposed Enfield law handles set-backs. The opinion piece writer was misinformed.
--Cris Abigail Krich wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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
