I'd like to see Abigail's response (perhaps with some revision based upon subsequent discussion on this list) submitted to the Ithaca Journal.
I think it very unfortunate that Eric Banford was misinformed about the proposed Enfield wind tower law and appeared to base everything on John Ranchich's views. In some sense, John Ranchich is his own worst enemy. As a developer, he is going to ask for the minimum set back as well as ample clear cut in wooded areas. John is a likeable guy and I believe he has good intentions. However, he is the developer and when wind power proponents uncritically adopt the positions of the developer, they may make matters worse. Here is a chance to communicate to the public a less strident and more balanced approach before a rash of letters. Folks on this list might also consider posting some of their reasoned comments on the Ithaca Journal Story Chat. That way, you can engage a larger community and the archive will be there for anyone searching for more information on the Ithaca Journal web site. --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
