Library filed under Zoning/Planning from USA

NYS PSC: Order Granting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Providing for Lightened Regulation

Nys_psc_flat_rock_thumb "In a petition filed on March 12, 2002, Flat Rock Windpower LLC (Flat Rock or the company), requests that it be issued a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) pursuant to Public Service Law (PSL) §68 for its proposed wind powered generating facility (Facility) to be located in Lewis County, in the Towns of Lowville, Martinsburg, and Harrisburg. Flat Rock also requested that it be lightly regulated as an electric corporation under the Public Service Law. Flat Rock moved for an expedited proceeding on a non-contested application for its CPCN, pursuant to 16 NYCRR §21.10. "
5 May 2004

Counsel for the Environment comments on Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (KVWPP) Draft Environmental Impact Statement:

Deiscomments1-2_thumb Counsel for the Environment (CFE) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the Kittitas Valley Wind Power Project (KVWPP) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). CFE takes no position in support or opposition of the KVWPP at this time. The following comments seek to ensure the Final Environmental Impact Statement provides the public with the most detailed information possible on the environmental impacts of the proposed wind power project.
20 Jan 2004

Land Use and Zoning Issues Related to Site Development for Utility Scale Wind Turbine Generators

Land_use_and_zoning_issues_thumb Shadow Flicker Shadow flicker is caused by the sun rising or setting behind the rotating blades of a turbine. The shadow created by the rotating blades can cause alternating light and dark shadows to be cast on roads or nearby premises, including the windows of residences, resulting in distraction and annoyance to the residents. A related phenomenon, strobe effect, is caused by the chopping of sunlight behind moving blades, similar to the effect of the setting sun behind trees when driving along a roadway in the winter. Both of these phenomena are factors in the visual impact of a wind turbine project, and some argue that they are a threat to health and safety. They could also be considered a nuisance to nearby property owners.
19 Jan 2004

Otsego County Planning Commission White Paper: Land Use Issues of Wind Turbine Generator Sites

Otsegowindlfnoise_thumb Low Frequency Noise Low frequency noise is generated at very low frequencies, generally accepted to be at levels below 100 Hz and the audible range. There is presently no commonly accepted metric or standard for measurement, although several have been proposed or used in specific situations. Low frequency noise has been associated with wind turbine developments, as well as road, rail, sea and air traffic and other industrial applications such as cooling towers. It creates a large potential for community annoyance, and it is most often experienced inside of homes and buildings where resonance amplifies the sound, which is less easily heard outside. Because the frequencies are so low, the noise is often “felt” as a vibration or a pressure sensation. Reported effects include annoyance, stress, fatigue, nausea and disturbed sleep. Low frequency noise can be a factor at much greater distances from the noise source than audible noise. A case study in North Carolina in the 1980’s near a wind turbine installation documented low frequency noise problems at residences located over ½ mile from the turbine.2 While the phenomenon was originally believed to be associated with the older, down-wind designed turbines, the problem persists with newer wind farms. It has received particular attention in Denmark, and has been a topic considered in the UK, Scotland and Wales through a commissioned government project in 2001.
19 Jan 2004

Deposition of Clay White, Planner II, Kittitas County Community Development Services

Claywhitetestimony_1__thumb Q. Has the applicant demonstrated a good faith effort to resolve noncompliance issues? A. The brief answer is no. When Zilkha Renewable Energy applied to EFSEC for permits in January 2003 they made no attempt at that time to apply to Kittitas County in a timely manner in order to resolve non-compliance issues. It took the applicant five months to complete a short application. The (initial) applications to the County were not complete. They had major flaws like the application not being signed, not providing a list of property owners within 300' of the project site, not providing the signatures of the landowners within the project area, and stating that they were only applying for certain permits from the County but not those required (to achieve compliance). The major flaws within each submittal were the most basic elements of the application and listed on the front page of the application. In all the years I have been a Land Use Planner I have never had an applicant provide an application with so many fundamental flaws so many times. I cannot help but think that this was a strategy of Zilkha's all along. This issue was even brought up to the applicant when they continually delayed submitting a complete application to the County. When a complete application was finally received I sent out the Notice of Application within one week. This was the first and only action that the County had control over and it was completed in a timely manner. Zilkha Renewable Energy knew that we were relying on the DEIS to be published which is why we could not give them a conclusive date when the County would hold hearings. On numerous occasions between June and October 2003 we let Zilkha know how much time it would take the County to process their application once an adequate DEIS was complete and the process was in our hands. When the DEIS completion date was pushed back so was our timeframe.
1 Jan 2004

Kittitas County Desert Claim Wind Power Project: Final EIS

Health___safety_thumb 3.8 Health & Safety Affected Environment, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures "A number of comments submitted for the scoping process for the Desert Claim project EIS addressed concerns relating to potential health and safety issues. Specific topics indicated in these comments included certain possible hazards that are uniquely associated with wind turbines, such as blade throw and ice throw; health and safety issues associated with electrical and magnetic fields; more common hazards such as fire; and the incidence and impacts of shadow flicker, another phenomenon specific to wind turbines. Section 3.8 addresses these wide-ranging health and safety topics that have been identified as concerns for the environmental review. "
1 Jan 2004

Comments pertaining to the accuracy and completeness of the Kittitas Valley Wind farm Project DEIS

Efsecdeis-robertsontestimony_thumb This document [DEIS] has not provided any demonstrable public need for the insignificant amount of power this facility is capable of producing. No valid, compelling local (or even statewide) economic reasons were offered to potentially offset the overwhelming negative impacts that will result if built. This DEIS is abundant in quantity, but extremely lacking in quality of scientific analysis and entirely deficient in analysis in certain areas. Various mitigations offered are unacceptable or unworkable. The following are areas of analysis that were either deficient or not performed at all:............
1 Dec 2003

http://www.windaction.org/posts?location=USA&p=337&topic=Zoning%2FPlanning
back to top