The
Springwater
Preservation Committee
Springwater Preservation Committee |
|
Home | Meetings | News | Pictures | Wind Power | Stories | Links | About Us | Contact Us |
|
|
|
Does the proposed WECS ordinance go far enough to protect you? By the webmaster As stated in the proposed Wind Energy Conversion System law, the purpose of the ordinance is “protecting the general public of the Town of Springwater and properties adjacent to Wind Energy Conversion Systems”. We applaud the intent of this ordinance, but have concluded that the current draft falls far short of its intended purpose. There are a number of areas that we believe the law can be strengthened to protect the health, safety, and property values of the people in Springwater. Here are just a few examples:
1) In Section 2, Paragraph 3, Section C, the ordinance is specifying minimum setback requirements (i.e. the distance from the base of the wind turbine tower and the adjacent landowner’s property line). The ordinance currently states: “The minimum required setback for any WECS tower from property lines, overhead utility lines, dwellings, agricultural buildings, or other WECS shall be equal to 1.5 times the proposed structure height, including blades.” Why is the proposal only 1.5 times the height? For your protection, it is recommended that the ordinance specify a MINIMUM setback of 3,000 feet from the nearest adjacent property line, unless the adjacent property owner signs a waiver permitting a smaller setback.
2) In Section 2, Paragraph 3, Section D, the ordinance defines the minimum allowable noise levels the turbines can emit. The ordinance currently states: “WECS towers shall be properly maintained and operated at all times and shall be located with relation to property lines so that the noise produced during operation shall not exceed fifty (50) dbA, measured at the boundaries of all of the closest parcels that are owned by non-site owners.” Why would the Town want to enact an ordinance that permits this high level of noise when the World Health Organization recommends that “For a good night's sleep, the equivalent sound level should not exceed 30 dB(A) for continuous background noise, and individual noise events exceeding 45 dB(A) should be avoided.” (See Guidelines for Community Noise, Executive Summary, WHO for details). Keep in mind 50 dbA is the noise equivalent of someone carrying on a normal conversation. (Ref: Ohio State University Fact Sheet) Would you want someone talking in your bedroom at night when you are trying to sleep?
3) In Section 2, Paragraph 3, Section F, sub-paragraph 5, the draft ordinance reads: “The applicant shall meet all FAA requirements for lighting.” That’s fine; we know that they will make sure they are in compliance with FAA regulations. But let’s make sure they do not over do it and pollute our beautiful night skies with unnecessary lighting. Why not change it to something like: WECS shall not be artificially lighted, except to the minimum extent required by the FAA or other applicable authority.
Do other areas of the proposed ordinance concern you as well? If so, send us an email by clicking here. |