This post by Abby is just the kind of information any legislator looks for. An excellent elucidation of the issues and how to address them. Thanks!
Joel At 01:07 PM 9/24/07 -0400, you 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]> 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 _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
