Recently, the Orangeville town board held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the zoning laws of the town. Although there are several sections in the proposal, the overflow crowd in attendance focused on section 1309 (Alternative Energy Sources) and section 1116 (Wind Energy Conversion Device/Farm); specifically, wind turbines and setback requirements.
The notice for this public hearing summarized the proposed zoning law amendments stating, "All amendments outlined in the proposed law were drafted after reasonable consideration, ... among other things ... with a view to conserving property values and natural resources."
How does the Town Board propose to conserve property values and natural resources? An examination of section 1116 of the proposed amendments reveals some of the their proposed setback requirements for wind turbines as follows:
"i. From the property line of the parcel on which the wind energy conversion device is located by a minimum distance of five hundred (500) ft. unless waived in writing, in the form of an easement...
ii. From any dwelling that is on any parcel by a minimum distance of one thousand two hundred and fifty feet (1250ft.), unless waived in writing, in the form of an easement.
iv. from the property line of a non-participating resident a minimum distance of sevenhundred feet (700 ft.)"
There were more than 45 persons that presented arguments in response to these specific proposals. The overwhelming majority of the speakers were opposed to the proposed setback requirements citing evidence that erecting 400+ foot high industrial wind turbines in such close proximity to residences and property lines causes documented health and environmental risks and negatively impacts one's quality of life while dramatically lowering the property values of those non-participating residents located within the view shed or auditory circumference of these 35-story high mechanisms. The speakers in favor of the proposal were either employees of the wind development company or property owners that signed a 40-year financial land-lease agreement with the Invenergy Corporation. The attorney representing the wind developers inappropriately "lectured" the town officials regarding their representative "obligations."
In contrast with the Orangeville Town Board proposal for setback requirements, Dr. Pierpoint, an international authority on Vibro-Acoustic-Disease, (wind turbine syndrome) recommends 6,600 foot setbacks (more than a mile) for wind turbines because of the negative health effect from noise made by wind turbines. The French National Academy of Medicine has called for a halt of all large scale wind development within 1.5 kilometers (about 1 mile) of any residence, because the sound emitted by the blades constitute a permanent risk for people exposed to them.( Also, a German study found significant noise levels one mile away from a two year old industrial wind farm of 17 turbines, especially at night. In Vermont, the director of energy efficiency for the Department of Public Service, Rod Ide, said that residents in this area who reside 1.5 to three miles downwind in otherwise quiet rural areas, suffer significant noise pollution. These are but a few of many documented findings regarding this topic.
While wind developers and town officials deny that industrial wind farms have any effect on property values of neighboring residents, they refuse to provide legally enforceable guarantees of compensation for property value losses caused by such an aesthetic alteration of the natural environment. In fact, a view and a serene environment add value to rural property. There are many documented articles that substantiate the argument that the location of wind turbines within sight and sound of property causes significant devaluation and that this loss is in direct proportion to their proximity.
As elected officials, the Orangeville town government is empowered to enact zoning ordinances for the town. However, their current proposal for setback requirements is in stark contrast with their stated goals and objectives. Article XIII, section 1309 of this proposal states as its goal to "allow development of alternative energy sources to take place within the town but direct it to those areas that are most appropriate." Policy No. 3 of this same section proposes to "pinpoint the sites with the greatest potential for development with the lowest potential for adverse environmental or other impacts." Since land-lease agreements are negotiated directly between the property owner and the wind developer, and the town's proposal allows for variances in the setback requirements, it is essentially impossible for this proposal to achieve its stated environmental objectives.
Expressing goals and objectives is important. However they remain immeasurable and ineffective unless accompanied by specific details for their implementation. Therefore, it is strongly advisable that the Orangeville Town Board use setback guidelines recommended by the objective scientific conclusions abundently documented and cited in the literature, rather than the "workable" guidelines recommended by wind developers.
In the event that our local government officials choose not to follow scientific recommendations nor to honor their stated goal of "... conserving property values and natural resources," it is extremely advisable that concerned Orangeville land owners have their property professionally appraised and retain counsel.
Dr. Joseph A. Zampogna lives in Orangeville.
No comments:
Post a Comment