HARTSVILLE - While a public hearing in Hartsville was hosted for discussing a proposed wind ordinance, questions for town attorney David Pullen also delved into conflict and lawsuit questions.
Pullen was at the meeting to outline the law he developed based on one recently adopted by the Town of Clinton. He told the crowd he wants to make sure Hartsville protects itself.
“As of right now there is no zoning and no land use law in place,” Pullen said. “That means if someone wants to build windmills you have no way to stop it. I was asked to create one that allows the town board to consider each project.
“As soon as this has been adopted, every potential windmill would be required to submit an application,” he added, saying projects would have to meet a certain set of standards. “Since no one has had any project approved by anyone, this would apply to any project.”
Before the law could be adopted it would have to go through the State Environmental Quality Review process, he said, adding he'd already approved the environmental assessment form. He stressed this SEQR process would only look at the environmental impact of the law, not wind farm projects. It is not expected the law would cause any negative impact, Pullen said, because it is not doing anything to the environment.
If the law is approved, it would require any permits submitted for a wind farm project to be subject to a public hearing.
“Every time there's a permit application there will be a public hearing,” Pullen said. “A notice will be sent to everyone within the site area.”
The standards set in the law include all power lines to be buried underground, a maximum height of 450 feet for turbines, a minimum distance of 20 feet from any blade to the ground, and a 50-decibel sound limitation. An exception with the sound standard would come if the ambient sound level exceeds 50 decibels; then it be the ambient level plus 6 decibels.
Setbacks also are provided for in the law. Turbines would be required to be at least 1,000 feet from off-site residences, 100 feet from state-identified wetlands, and 1.1 times the turbine height from nearest boundary lines, rights-of-way, above-ground utilities and off-site cabins.
Resident Steve Dombert did not feel the setbacks were adequate and called for longer distances.
“I think a setback of 1,000 feet is too permissive; that needs to be beefed up,” he said. “There should be a minimum of 1,200-feet on setbacks.
“I also don't think there should be a different standard for off-site cabins,” Dombert added. 𔄙.1 times the height from property lines isn't enough, it's going to be flying a lot farther than that (if a turbine came down).”
He also said penalties spelled out in the law - $350 per week for violations - needed to be stiffer.
“There should be some mechanism in the event it goes on where the violator be increasingly punished,” Dombert said. “The one listed here seems to be insufficient.”
Pullen noted the law also spells out the fact the town may go to court to get an injunction if the violations continue.
“I think you have to give it more teeth,” Dombert responded. “It's unfair to expect one person with an uphill battle to fight it.”
Pullen said he was open to suggestion on how to do that.
“I don't know how to level the playing field between the people with money and the people without money,” he said.
A question about whether leaseholders would be able to sue the town if they declined to allow the Airtricity project to go forward, elicited an affirmative response from Pullen. He did, however, note that anyone is able to file a lawsuit, but it doesn't mean they'll win.
“Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything,” Pullen said. “You may be unhappy about something, but you may not be able to do anything about it.”
As for a perceived conflict of interest for Supervisor Amy Emerson voting on the wind ordinance due to the fact she and her parents all have some sort of agreement with Airtricity, Pullen said there is no conflict.
“If you adopt this law dealing with a matter of general interest - not a specific permit - she gets no special benefit from adopting this law,” he said. “No official will benefit from this law.
“If anything, it would protect all people in the town equally,” Pullen added.
The attorney will meet with the board to discuss the law, and if significant changes are made another public hearing will be scheduled. If only grammatical-type changes are needed, the law will go before the board for consideration.
No comments:
Post a Comment