Note: counts do not include items in sub-categories
Far from offering residents any real protection, this latest proposal will have the likely outcome of inviting smaller turbines, in larger numbers, that can still be legally sited in very close proximity to residents. Current zoning bylaws in Fairhaven permit citing turbines in every type of zone as a so-called municipal project.
Ten of the 19 proposed turbines would violate Bureau County Zoning ordinances, mostly on being too close to homes, property lines and housing communities like Normandy. The developers have asked for variances to these ordinances. It is curious that developers could not find other spots for these 10 turbines in the thousands of surrounding acres.
It was a government subsidy industry where in exchange for creating conscience-soothing but otherwise inefficient windmills and solar panels, the government gave the makers piles of cash consumers never would. ...The reason the Spanish example is so important is that it demonstrates how the whole green energy "revolution" was really an ideologically driven green boondoggle from the start.
The facts are, that in no other place are turbines like these as close to as many homes. They do make noise and obviously they do have an impact on property values. If the wind is blowing in your direction you will hear a constant jet plane sound ...Whenyou see those 400-foot towers with their spinning blades above your roof you can think about the loss of home equity town officials have cost you.
The Lee County Zoning Board ...blatantly ignored its statutory responsibilities by recommending that the current 12-year-old, 1,400-foot setback distance between homes and wind turbines remain unchanged. ...this recommendation was made with absolutely no consideration or compassion for the harmful health effects that today's huge wind turbines would wreak upon Township families.
The issue for residents of Spring Creek, as well as outlying areas around the city of Elko, is largely about obstructing views and creating noise. SCA board member Bob Collyer wrote last fall that, "A 135-foot turbine could easily interfere with views, aesthetic values and cause some noise disturbance.
We've seen the debris that was thrown by a malfunctioning turbine in DeKalb County. We've seen the blade that was left hanging after a lightning strike there, too. We've read about problems at other sites. We're concerned about the noise and sound that is created by the huge turbines.
We hoped and expected that these individuals [county commissioners] could find a middle ground for our community, to keep peace which is required in continuing the social contract.
Instead, we have found, they are unwilling to listen to professional advice on the placements of these wind turbine towers and the sound that will flood neighboring abutters.
It's true that wind turbine critics wanted a farther setback -- one figure that gets thrown around is a 2-kilometer setback, or more than 6,000 feet. But that the PSC's figure is less than critics wanted and more than developers proves nothing about the process that produced the PSC's rule.
Was, in fact, the process fair?
If the PSC guidelines didn't reflect the state real estate association data on decreased property values, and if the industry cannot guarantee acceptable sound levels prior to construction, then the risk is all mine.
As long as there is not a clear and easy recourse to be sure my rights and property values are protected, I will object.
The concerned citizen expects his or her protection to be the guiding principal employed when examining ALL projects, no matter their location. A power plant has it's own unique package of ills. It's comedic classification as a waste water treatment plant has served to bypass those ills, by-pass planning, zoning and health board review, and by-pass the special permit process design to give the common, concerned citizen their say!
The board probably thought this story was finished when they passed the so-called ridgeline protection ordinance on a 3-2 vote last February. But Dominion Resources is still in town, and they say they are committed to developing the newly dubbed Bluestone River Wind Farm. They are classifying it as a long-term project without an actual construction timeline.
Cape Vincent has no agreement of any kind on setbacks, no agreed-on ambient background sound levels and no discussion of noise complaint policy ...It is reckless and irresponsible to enter Site Plan Review without first coming to some consensus on setbacks and ambient sound levels.
We chose Dixmont's ordinance as a starting point because it was the most protective. These limits are in line with the World Health Organization's European section, where a long history of wind development has provided ample opportunity to discover where health-impacting mistakes were made.
Also filed under [
Many residents and people passing through are outraged and appalled at the ruination of their aesthetic view of the Stuart Mountain range. The 410-foot towers are visible from all over the valley ...They are not yet operational, but already people are complaining about the muddy drinking water from wells from the blasting, the increased rattlesnake activity and the influx of mice and rats.
It should be noted that two other Planning Board members have wind conflicts, and the lack of a specific wind law would be of great advantage to wind leaseholders like Mr. Edsall and the wind developers. With no wind law, this would bring the control of wind development almost entirely under the control of Mr. Edsall and his conflicted board allowing wide latitude for turbine placement.
The law as originally developed does not adequately protect residents from the damaging effects of low-frequency noise. The law does not protect residents from the significant devaluation of their property that is a virtual certainty with industrial-scale wind development. The law does not provide for dispute resolution if noise or flicker effects exceed the limits.
After the failures of BP, does anyone honestly believe that a developer-drafted law provides for the protection of the community better than that recommended by the town- appointed citizens committees, recommendations rejected by those boards because the developers such as BP, Acciona and PPM tell them so?
This brings us back to the conflict of interest. The town boards must remove themselves from debate and accept the recommendations of their citizens committees.
Do we really want less public input on how many, and where large wind turbines will be built in our town?
The Select Board states that these amendments just make the process for wind turbines the same as for other municipal projects. Wind turbines, however, are not like any other projects.
Petitioned language involving Ira's future approach to renewable energy was amended on the floor to add "in accordance with the town plan." ...In the end, people knew exactly what they came for, and exactly on what they were voting. There were no further questions or discussion. The vote was a resounding 89-20 in support of an Ira renewable energy policy that leaves industrial wind turbines off Ira ridgelines.