logo
Article

Judge hears Fayette wind turbine debate

Tribune-Review|Liz Zemba|July 31, 2008
PennsylvaniaTechnology

Attorneys on different sides of a windmill dispute in Fayette County can agree on at least one aspect of the 262-foot-tall turbines: the hulking structures can't be camouflaged. "A wind turbine can be seen. You can't hide it," said Dan Rullo, attorney for Iberdrola Resources, formerly PPM Energy. ...The project has been on hold since March 11, when the zoning hearing board denied the company's request for a special exception and variances for 24 of the turbines. The matter went before a judge Thursday after Iberdrola filed a civil suit appealing the board's denial.


Attorneys on different sides of a windmill dispute in Fayette County can agree on at least one aspect of the 262-foot-tall turbines: the hulking structures can't be camouflaged.

"A wind turbine can be seen. You can't hide it," said Dan Rullo, attorney for Iberdrola Resources, formerly PPM Energy.

Iberdrola wants to place 27 wind-powered turbines over a 3.5-mile section of the Chestnut Ridge in Wharton, Georges and Springhill townships to generate electricity for the company's South Chestnut Ridge Windpower Project.

The project has been on hold since March 11, when the zoning hearing board denied the company's request for a special exception and variances for 24 of the turbines. The matter went before a judge Thursday after …

... more [truncated due to possible copyright]

Attorneys on different sides of a windmill dispute in Fayette County can agree on at least one aspect of the 262-foot-tall turbines: the hulking structures can't be camouflaged.

"A wind turbine can be seen. You can't hide it," said Dan Rullo, attorney for Iberdrola Resources, formerly PPM Energy.

Iberdrola wants to place 27 wind-powered turbines over a 3.5-mile section of the Chestnut Ridge in Wharton, Georges and Springhill townships to generate electricity for the company's South Chestnut Ridge Windpower Project.

The project has been on hold since March 11, when the zoning hearing board denied the company's request for a special exception and variances for 24 of the turbines. The matter went before a judge Thursday after Iberdrola filed a civil suit appealing the board's denial.

Judge Ralph C. Warman did not immediately rule on the matter, but left the record open for another 20 days so attorneys can file additional legal briefs.
Gretchen Mundorff, attorney for the zoning board, noted that no measures can be taken to hide the turbines, meaning they will permanently mar the view of the ridge and jeopardize a tourism industry that pulls in $300 million annually.

"This project is huge," Mundorff said. "Three-and-a-half miles is a great distance of that ridge, and it impacts every resident of Fayette County. That's what makes this case unusual. They can't mitigate the effect of those turbines on that ridge."

Rullo accused the zoning board of ignoring the county zoning ordinance and issuing the denial based on the objections of nearby landowners, who expressed concerns over wildlife, the view and property values.

Mundorff said residents' concerns were not factored into the decision because the board determined that Iberdrola failed to meet requirements of the ordinance.

She said the decision was based on balancing a landowner's right to develop against the health, safety and general welfare of the community.

"Whether we realize it or not, most of us that have grown up here take that ridge, that we affectionately call the mountain, for granted," Mundorff said. "But there is a quality of life that's provided by that view shed."

Mundorff said the project could hurt county tourism, which generates some $300 million annually and creates thousands of jobs.

But Rullo said in nearby Somerset County, guided tours include stops at pull-offs that feature scenic views of the company's wind turbines there.

Contending Iberdrola met county requirements for the project, Rullo accused the zoning board of substituting its judgment for that of the county commissioners, who drafted the zoning ordinance.

"What happened here is the zoning hearing board substituted their judgment for that of the governing body ... to find ... that windmills should not be on Chestnut Ridge," Rullo said. "They essentially trumped the county commissioners."

Mundorff denied the allegation, indicating the board's decision was based on its contention that Iberdrola failed to meet setback and height requirements.

Rullo said Iberdrola obtained waivers from property owners for turbines that won't meet minimum setback requirements from neighboring property lines.

"Lots of people waive things that aren't good for them. They do it because there's money involved," Mundorff said.

Rullo acknowledged the height of the proposed windmills exceeds the ordinance's 250-foot limit by 12{1/2} feet, but said the added footage is minimal.

Iberdrola, Mundorff said, failed to meet another aspect of the ordinance: one that governs the turbines' impact on protected biological resources, including bats. Bats consume insects that destroy hardwoods and hamper farming, she said, but the turbines' potential impact on their numbers is unknown.

"Most people aren't real warm and fuzzy about bats, but bats are an important part of our ecosystem," Mundorff said. "Bats are really good at eating insects. That's their job."

Gary Altman, an attorney who represents Thomas J. Bozek III of Springhill, said another aspect to consider is the noise the windmills will generate. Bozek is concerned that will interfere with his attempts to record music.

"They make too much noise," said Altman. "You can't put them near people. They need to be at least a mile away."

Bozek's house will be within 1,935 feet of one turbine, according to Altman.


Source:http://www.pittsburghlive.com…

Share this post
Follow Us
RSS:XMLAtomJSON
Donate
Donate
Stay Updated

We respect your privacy and never share your contact information. | LEGAL NOTICES

Contact Us

WindAction.org
Lisa Linowes, Executive Director
phone: 603.838.6588

Email contact

General Copyright Statement: Most of the sourced material posted to WindAction.org is posted according to the Fair Use doctrine of copyright law for non-commercial news reporting, education and discussion purposes. Some articles we only show excerpts, and provide links to the original published material. Any article will be removed by request from copyright owner, please send takedown requests to: info@windaction.org

© 2024 INDUSTRIAL WIND ACTION GROUP CORP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
WEBSITE GENEROUSLY DONATED BY PARKERHILL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION