Article

A setback distance of 1.5 x the turbine height is not enough!

Why does the CT Siting Council refuse to listen to the public and our legislators? It has dragged its feet for 2 1/2 years with 4 drafts of industrial wind regulations that do not protect public health and safety. If the Council wants support, then write good regulations!

738 feet will not protect your family from the noise and shadow flicker of a 40-story industrial wind turbine (assumes a 495 foot turbine from base to blade tip).

Why does the CT Siting Council refuse to listen to the public and our legislators? It has dragged its feet for 2 1/2 years with 4 drafts of industrial wind regulations that do not protect public health and safety. If the Council wants support, then write good regulations! Learn from the experience of other towns in New England — Falmouth, Fairhaven, Scituate, Sheffield, Mars Hill. Learn from other countries, such as Ireland, which is promoting setbacks of 10 times the height of a turbine to protect homes from noise and shadow flicker.

Why should unlimited shadow flicker be allowed anywhere on your property except at an “occupied structure location?” Why is the Council giving itself the ability to approve more than 30 hours of shadow flicker per year at an occupied structure? Why should this agency be allowed to decide that some property rights begin inside your home, not at property lines?

The Council has already shown it doesn’t care about the land behind your house — it approved placing the tip of 492-feet-tall industrial wind turbines 14 feet and 9 feet from single family residential lot lines in Colebrook. The Council has already shown it doesn’t care what happens on abutting preserved land when it approved placement of 492-feet-tall industrial wind turbine 150 feet from the property line of Beckley Bog, a National Natural Landmark in Norfolk owned by The Nature Conservancy.

Connecticut’s noise law dates to 1978, and the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is charged with monitoring noise and developing regulations. During the 2013 legislative session, DEEP tried to eliminate the law; this year, the governor’s office tried to eliminate both the regulations and DEEP’s responsibility for them. It is a fact that industrial wind turbines make noise. Who in government will take responsibility for regulating this noise and ensuring that setbacks are protective of health and safety? A distance of 738 feet will not protect your family from a 40-story turbine. The laws of physics are the same everywhere — if almost twice that — 1,300 feet — doesn’t work for people in Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts, it’s not going to work in Connecticut.

The CT Siting Council has submitted the 4th draft of wind regulations to the Regulations Review Committee for its April 22, 2014 meeting. The Council refused to change the setback distance once again. If approved, these would be the most lenient industrial wind regulations in New England. Contact Co-Chairs Representative Selim Noujaim and Senator Andres Ayala and urge them to insist on a larger setback.


Source: http://fairwindct.com/

APR 23 2014
http://www.windaction.org/posts/40351-a-setback-distance-of-1-5-x-the-turbine-height-is-not-enough
back to top