The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009-06-24 Planning & Zoning Packet - Work SessionCITY OF KENAI PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Work Session Reminder Immediately Following The MEETING June 24, 2009 - Amendment to Kenai Municipal Code Wind Energy Systems -Proposed Ordinance ~~V'~ja e wit~i a Past, Gi wit,~t a Fr~t~re" .~ .~-`~~., 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99511-7794 ~~ Telephone: 907-283-75351 FAX: 907-283-3014 ~ I ~ I ~ = - - ' 1992 floe city u f K~HA~ SKA MEMO: TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Marilyn Kebschull, Planning Administration DATE: .tune 17, 2009 SUBJECT: Wind Energy Systems (WES) Proposed Ordinance I have compiled information for reference as we develop guidelines for WES in the City of Kenai. The information is as follows: • City of Kenai Draft Ordinance enacting KMC 14.20.235 Wind Turbines. • City of Homer memo dated 5/6/09. • Brochure for Skystream 3.7 -1.9 KW Residential Power Appliance from Alaska Wind Industries web site. • Michigan land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems. Page 7 addresses Commissioner Wells concern about setback to include the blade diameter. Page 8 provides diagrams showing setbacks. And, page 11 provides a sample of common sound levels in decibels. • "In the Public Interest -How and Why to Permit for Small Wind Systems" - American Vyind Energy Association -September 2008. This is a lengthy document but it can be easily perused and provides some good reference information. have invited 1im and Nadia Daggett of Alaska Wind Industries in Nikiski to our work session. According to Mrs. Daggett, they are the only supplier hereon the Peninsula. I also invited Brad Hibberd of Homer Electric Association. We can answer questions regarding interconnection with the Homer Electric grid. Wind Energy Systems (WES) Proposed Ordinance ~~ - r 3 ~'~f e~' •, thecllyof K~NA~ SKA Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI ORDINANCE NO. *-2008 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF KENAI ENACTING KMC 14.20.235 ESTABLISHING A PROCESS, RULES AND STANDARDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF ACCESSORY WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS WHEREAS, the City of Kenai has enacted the Kenai WHEREAS, the use of accessory wind energy~systems WHEREAS, the use of accessory wind energy the Kenai Zoning Code; and, WHEREAS, the intent of this ordinance is to es' for the construction and operation of accessory for on-site power consumption WHEREAS, it is iri the best interest o s of the ordinance regulation the installation, an ion systems (wind turbines). NOW, THEREFORE, BI ALASKA, that the Ci new section to be n. 14.20.235 Wind Ti Accessory ~ ' existing buil+ rimarily for associat KMC 14.20; and, in rules and standards ;ms used primarily Kenai to enact a sort' wind energy O ED B E COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, Kenai e of Ord ces is hereby amended by adding a red KM,. 14.20.235 ch shall read as follows: ier ~ = ' stem: A system designed as a secondary use to or lines, wherein the power generated is used to consumption. The system consists of a wind turbine itrols and may include a tower. distance measured from ground level to the center of the (3) Total I~eight: The distance measured from ground level to the blade Extended at its highest point. (4) Wind Turbine: a device which converts the kinetic energy of the wind into a useable form of energy. (b) Where allowed: (1) Accessory wind energy systems shall be considered an allowed secondary New Text Underlined; DELETED T1±XT BRACKETED] Ordinance No. *-2008 Page 2 of use on lots that are a minimum of one acre in size in the following zones: . Roof mounted systems are an allowed secondary use in any of the above mentioned zones that are a minimum of one-half acre in size. (2) Any deviation from the required standards of this ordinance may be approved through the issuance of a conditional use permit. (c) Performance Standards and Design Requirements. (1} The requirements of this ordinance shall wind energy systems proposed after the ~ ordinance. {2) All accessory wind energy systems uniform codes contained in Title 4 the industry standards adopted b~ (AWEA) . (3) No more than two {4) Maximum height shall be from preexisting natural ~ horizontal and v _ sy date to the applies unicipal Cod+ ~•.,-,'M'ind Energy fifng district measured turbine hub for (5) Setback re ement all be 1 % of the total height of the accessory wind en system fr all prop nes, No part of the wind system structu "• din wire anc ,may extend into the minimum setback are o . ~~ ~ ~ ~ g district or into any access or utility X11 porno the e , ~, stem shall be anon-reflective, non-obtrusive color, subje the a '~` oval of the Cfty Planner. The appearance of the turbines, tow and y other related components shall be maintained roughout th fe of the accessory wind energy system pursuant to AZ747EA (7) Sys not be used for displaying of advertising. (8) Syste shall not be illuminated unless required by a state or federal agency. (9) The electrical collection system shall be placed underground with the interior of each parcel. The connection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. All grid connected systems shall have a completed contractual agreement New Text Underlined; [DELETED TT1,~'i` BRACKE'T'ED] Ordinance No. *-2008 Page 2 of with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. (10) Accessory wind energy systems shall be designed, installed, and operated so that noise generated by the system shall not exceed fifty decibels (50 dBA), as measured from the nearest property line, except during short- terxn events including utility outages and severe wind storms. (11) Building permits shall be obtained for any accessory prior to installation. (d) Obsolescence and Removal. If the accessory v nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall c The owner shall remove the abandoned sy a demolition permit has been obtained. o~ structure including foundations to be atL equipment. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE . of to a includes the ade, and 1 energy system remains ,the uisance. sense after this day of 2009. PAT P ER, MAYOR ATTEST: Carol L. Freas, City Introduced: 2008 Adopted: 2009 Effective: 2009 New Text Underlined; IDEI,EI'l;l] TEXT BRACKETED] City of Homer memo dated 5/6/09 ~~~~: ~~~ ..t U' ~ ! ~ ,r.~LA S~/ M'tACH 3t, tggd City of Homer Planning & Zoning 491 East Pioneer Avenue Homer, Alaska 99603-7645 STAFF REPORT PL 09-30 TO: Homer Advisory Planning Commission THROUGH: Rick Abboud, City Planner FROM: Dotti Harness-Foster, Planning Technician MEETING: May 6, 2009 SUBJECT: Small Wind Energy Systems (WES) Telephone (907) 235-8121 Fax {907) 235-3118 E-mail Planning@ci.homer.ak.us Web Site www.ci.homer.ak.us At the February 18, 2009 meeting, the Homer Advisory Planning Commission (HAPC) asked staff to review other community requirements for small wind energy systems {WES). This staff report summarizes key distinctions pertaining to how small WES are permitted, building mounted small WES, guy wires and lattice towers, bird protection, shadow flickers, noise, installation and size. The draft regulations proposed by staff provide a range of possibilities. On page 4 of this report, staff recommends adapting, modifying or denying the draft ordinance and forwarding to the city attorney for review. Currently, Homer City Code {HCC) does not address WES. Based on Homer's code: • WES are not considered a building per HCC 21.03. • WES are considered a structure per HCC 21.03. • A zoning permit is required for a structures per HCC 21.70.010(a)(1). • HCC 21.OS.030(b) excludes numerous items from the building height requirements as in: chimneys, flagpoles, television, and radio antennas with no mention of WES. • WES do not meet the definition of Public Utility facilities and structures per HCC 21.03. • Unlisted uses are outlined in HCC 21.04 which requires Planning Commission review, yet there are no guidelines for this review. • The residential districts do not require compliance with nuisances such as noise per HCC 21.59. The City Planner has determined that WES are structures that must conform to the maximum building height of 35 feet. Presently a property owner can apply for a zoning permit to install a 3 S foot WES that conforms to the setbacks which range from S to 8 feet from the property line. 1f the Planning Commission wants to exclude WES from the City limits, it needs to be addressed in code. 1f the Planning Commission wants to adopt conditions for WES, this also needs to be addressed in code. 1n regards to permitting, other communities: • Permit WES outright as a property right. • Require WES to be an accessor.r~ use to an existing structure (i.e. no small WES on a lot without a principal structure.} • Require a Conditional Use Permit when FAA lighting is involved. C:1Documents and Settingsltnkebschu111Loca1 SettingslTempoxary Internet FileslContent.0ut1ook14KAB737L11SR 09-30 WES 5-6-09 (2).docx Staff Report PL 09-30 Homer Advisory Planning Commission May b, 2009 Page 2 of 4 • Allow one WES per parcel with exceptions for larger (10+ acres) parcels. • Accessor,~ In Homer, an accessory use is "subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal use" per HCC 21.03.040. Typically, an accessory use is a shop or a greenhouse that is "subordinate" to the principal residential building. To protect the neighborhood integrity, Hamer code requires that the principle structure be built prior to the accessory use per Homer City Code {HCC) 21.14.020(j). Accessory uses are permitted in mast districts. Therefore, if a WES is considered an "accessory use" in the residential districts, the residential structure must be built prior to the installation of a small WES. Staff developed and recommends the grid below which seeks a balance in property rights while considering local conditions. As proposed, the HCC would allow one small WES as an accessory use in the residential districts, CBD, TCD, GBD, GC1, GC2 and the BCWPD. Since Homer's GCl and GC2 districts are near the airport, Beluga wetlands and the landfill, areas critical to bird protection, these commercial districts are limited to one WES par lot as an accessory use. Two ar more small WES would require a Conditional Use Permit on parcels 10 acres or more, in the RR and BCWPD. The concept is to provide allowances for larger parcels and ten acres is an arbitrary number. Multiple small WES would be permitted in the MI district. This grid does not allow WES in the SGD. Consider allowing WES on the north side of the Sterling Highway in the SGD. CB TC GB GC GC M SG BCWP RR UR RO D D D 1 2 C MI C D l~'V1'] ;~ ~~er lbt ~ic~c~ssor}, t«~ _ ,~ y' y; ~ -` x x; ~' x' x x 1 + 11'LS Conditionally Pcrmitteti s r 1 c~T ~t(~r; EVES Peryr~jttea t, How other communities permit: Valdez, AK permits WES as an accessory use and structure in all areas except the airport, conservation and avalanche districts. Anchorage, AK DRA1~T ordinance is as follows: • One small WES is permitted as an accessory use and structure in the residential districts inclusive of multi-farniiy, the Turnagain area, residential office, marine and industrial dlStriCtS. • One building-mounted small WES is permitted as an accessory use and structure in the business districts. Multiple small WES are allowed in the industrial and marine commercial districts. • Building-mounted WES shall not exceed the maximum height of the principal structure of the underlying zoning district by more than 10 feet. • Large multiple WES are allowed in the heavy industrial and marine districts. • No lattice or guyed towers. Rockingham, PA: Conditionally permits WES in all zoning district where structures are allowed. Brewster, MA: All small WESs, under 75 feet, are permitted outright. All WES over 75 feet require special permitting. Staff Report pL 09-30 Homer Advisory Planning Commission May &, 2009 page 3 of 4 San Bernardino, CA: Allows one WES per i0 acres. The acreage requirement may be met by one parcel or the total acreage of multiple parcels held under common ownership. WES must be below rdgelines to protect view sheds in designated scenic corridors. Building Mounted small WES: Are most common in urban areas where small parcels prevent the use of towers elsewhere on the property. Anchorage's Draft Ordinance allows small WES to exceed the maximum height by 10 feet. Using the Anchorage DRAFT in Homer, the maximum building height is 3 S feet, a small WES could extend to a maximum of 4S feet. As proposed, all building mounted small WES must meet the design standards including setbacks and noise. Another option: when measuring building height, HCC 21.OS.030 excludes, in part, chimneys, ventilators, flagpoles, and television and radio antennas. Staff included building mounted WES in the draft ordinance to provide standards for installation, setbacks and noise while excluding WES from building height measurements. Guy_wTres and lattice poles: Monopole towers (like a flag pole) generally have a "tidier" appearance than a guyed tower {like a flag pole with wire supports). Guy wires also increase the potential for bird fatalities. Guy wires and lattice poles provide additional stability. Some say that lattice poles have less visual impact because the smaller lattice cross-frame blends with the sky. Due to the additional engineering costs, monopoles are more costly than guyed and/or lattice towers. Bird Protection: Many ordinances state that WES shall not have a negative impact on birds and puts the burden of proof on the applicant. There are federal guidelines and suggestions, but no required permits for the installation of a WES. To minimize the impact of small WES on birds, agencies recommend avoiding guy wires, landfills, salt marshes, and wetlands to include areas like the Beluga Slough and Beluga Lake. Unknown is the cumulative effect as the number of WES increase. In part, for this reason, this draft ordinance does not allow guy wire towers. Many communities allow multiple WES in the commercial districts; however, Homer's commercial districts include wetlands and the landfill. Therefore, this draft ordinance permits one WES per parcel in the General Commercial 1 and 2 districts. Shadow Flicker: This is when the moving blade casts a visible flickering shadow most noticeable during sunrise and sunset. Large, utility scale blades have a larger shadow flicker than a small WES with narrower blades. Furthermore, setbacks dictated by property lines or sound requirements reduce the potential nuisance. This draft ordinance does not mention shadow flicker. Noise: Currently, only the business-commercial districts in Homer have regulations for noise. HCC 21.59.010(b) states, "Ail noise shall be muffled sa as not to be objectionable due to intermittences, beat, frequency, or shrillness. Off site noise, when measured at the lot line, shall not exceed SO decibels between 10 pm and 6 am, and 80 decibels at all other times." This draft ordinance requires that all WES meet the requirements of 21.59.010 {b and c), noise and vibration respectively. Ynstallation: Most communities require that a professional trained in the installation of small WES install small wind energy systems. This ensures quality control, but adds costs and a barrier if a trained professional is not in Homer. This draft ordinance requires installation by a professionally trained installer. Size: Small is a relative term. The wind industry defines small as WES less than 100kW. As shown on page 1 of the DRAFT ordinance, small WES range from 1 kW to 100 kW with heights from 52.5 -- 200 feet. Some ordinances have a tiered approach ranging from very small, less than 10kW, to commercial Staff Report PL 09-30 Homer Advisory Planning Commission May 6, 2009 Page 4 of 4 regulations aver 100kW. Also helpful is the October 2007 attached article Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems. STAFF COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt, modify or deny the WES grid on page 2 of this staff report which allows: a. One WES per lot as an accessary use in the residential, CDB, TCD, GBD, GC1, GC2, MC and BCWPD, and; b. One WES per lot as an accessary use in the SGD on the north side of the Sterling Highway only, and; c. Two or more WES conditionally permitted on the RR and BCWPD, on lots 10 acres or more, and; d. One or more WES permitted in the MI district. 2. Discuss and forward standards for the type of freestanding WES that is allowed: a. Freestanding monopole tower. Guy wires and lattice towers are prohibited, OR b. Free standing monopole, lattice and/or guyed wired. Page 3 of the draft ordinance. 3. Discuss and forward a definition of a "Small WES means a wind energy conversion system used to generated electricity at a rated capacity of less than kW and whose total height is less than feet" per Section 1, page 1 of the draft ordinance. 4. Forward the draft ordinance to the city attorney for review. ATTACHMENTS 1. Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems, October 2007. 2. Homer's DRAFT Ordinance 3. San Bernardino County Development Code 4. Photo page of SOkW and 100kW WES 5. Small Wind Energy System Ordinance by Renew Wisconsin a nonprofit organization Brochure for Skystream 3.7 - 1.9 KW Residential Power Appliance i ~} .i ~ 1 ~,~Hi ~v~ ~'~`' 1 u ~'~ rY i ~1 ...ti,~ ~~ ~~~ .., MagFIHTBf tJ~1i There's a great dig electricity s©urce up in tf~e sky. l/lfind~ It's free, non-polluting, and endless. But until nova only a ~l=ew could tap into it. 1}Et.:: }"tt_)t+tl±'.•t` TS.~ ~~.,r~t{)C~!`~l', ~~"t'.i i~r{)i,~~1.~~ ~.it~I~tt'_~ ~~t.?~IVQ_,r Introducing Skystream 3.7~ - a now generation Residential l'ower,Applianco that hooks up fo your home to help you reduce or eliminate your monthly electricity costs, it's the first compact, user-friendly; all-inclusive wind geherator (with controls and inverter built in) designed'to provide quiet,'clean electricity in very ow tivinds That's how a leading'publication describes Skystrearli. 4evelopei~ in collaboration with tho U.S. Dopartnaenf of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Skystream was designarJ from the start for honicowners looking for a quiet, convenient, affordablo way to protect themselves from ever increasing electricity :costs. With Skystream, homeowners and small husiness oavners now f~ave the power to - choose their eleckricity source. f ihoughf we needed to fake advantage of the wrnd If rt's chore, we should capture it and use it. Then you came out with Skystream. !t is the perfect solution, the perfect blend of features for the average homeowner. !couldn't be happier wrth it. 1-iow it L^lorks' is simple. With. no batteries*, Skystream connects directly to your home. When the wind is blotiving, your homy is powered`(iti part) by Skysfri3am; when it's not, your home is seamlessly powered by your utility as usual. During periods of strong winds, Skystream can actually produce oxcess electricity. pepending on your utility, your meter will spin backwards-giving you credit for a later dato. -Rena Wrlson Jones, Urbana, 1 t "Battery charging for home energy back-up systems is also available. iPod is a registered trademark of Apple Compute, inc. Unlike the lPod, the Skystream is very quiet. 1 ~` ~~ ~ f ~ t• x C f '~~ , 1~ tl '~ ~~ Et ~ ~f~ '(j , ~iL "'4 i t tis ~ ~k F ' ~ t{ ~': si 4.... £ ?:~. )> k f ~ j ~~~ ~Y fy. Y ~~t {t1 i"Sy~~~ ~y`iq~ , ~ 4 ~ f~tEUr1 {fz~tp Y9 FY4t~~:~t~A+~il~?1.4-tlli?111[%:iS44k~..,,J:bf _ -.~-. tH:k~"~~' c~ `` i :~; 4 ~~ 3 v~ ~~ . .t ~. 1 a ~ ~ k , ' tt 1~' ~ f ~ e t ~ a 1_ ~ - - I ~ i ~ x }{ 7 e. , d5, k T 1 ~ r r ~ t ~' f ~~ ~ t ` 1f 1 1 :n 4 d ~ Y. E / ; ~ r ~ ~ , f .R ~ `F I' z t ? ~ ~ '~. fft ~ 'E z- ~~ k ~~ %~ t ~ k ?'~ S i- ~ f ~ j ~ t [ '' 4 ~ ` r ~ _ M~'i Lt ~ ~~i ar ~ ` ' ~ ~ g f t - i ' ~ a~ } E ~, ~ } ~ i ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ i f 3 t~ . y~; . ~~ ' ;1 F , ; .L~14 ;1 y ~ti J lj~ i S~ }'.i + `t 1 7t { `'t~t F r f ~ 1t lJ ~ t F1 ~ + a~ ; y = ~ f~ S i i : 3 ~ a~ d f s -i _ f ~ ~{ { r ~ 1 t _ i i }~~ ~ J. F ,~ k i ri i '' 4 r- L ~ ! < q t R i. 1 ~ 1 t I Na f } - _ t•l _ ' :.. ... ~ Y, .. c:l. i 4S ,, ~r ~ i .~ -~. ~: ~ ~~ a ~~~c,f `t~c.,:~ ~:_~i° ~.~I?~~.ft:.~ij~. '~~;~3t~1 =Et°c..tr,il, ~.il( -Skystream fs the frrsCtivind-F~owered, grict- conneeted f~esidential Power Appliance that produces electricity for less than the retail rate of many utilities: Since everything is ijuilt in and there are no synificanY rnainteilance costs, once your Skystream Is operating and .the wind is blowingr.you.'If.sae an in~tl~ediate reduction in electricity costs. Qepending on your installed cost, cost of electricity, and average wind speed, Skystream can pay for itself in as little as five years. Some states offer investment incentives in the form of rebates that improve the cost payt~ack. Visit www. skystreamenergy.com or contact your local dealer for more information. 1#vel .;f~.' h;ii . J ,Iu E: ~ I i;o f .I::u~lf~ii~~n Flc-h rty Lar:~una3 hr / ~ ~~ / / ~f / ~}5( i.~i f`d~i. r ,~ 9 ~ '!i '~~ ~~' ti'!I'Ff _ 11f iy - r wintOr Sp ring &ummor Fall s=nergy aulputs based on average seasonal wind speed fluctuations and avorage household energy consumption, Individual sites will vary. E X { i a a r Sky trr:an~ prc~vide;:Y e` 3ectricity icy I inrr~tr .A i e a e x t trnnr, c;ontic;r..tr:.d °. ~ ~~ to atilay ttri~i ~, 1r'~~~i[(~ a~,~}I:=:~>,~:~i~~~~ 1fl.~p:-~3~ I ~=~i~ ''~~~~Ir.l'~ -Our goal from the stmt was to make the production has opened up',that opportunity.'. free energy in the wind. accessible to more. to millions of homes around the world, If your people han e~ier before. Skyst~eam's site fits the following' criteria; chances'ara compact design and.h.gh•eiiicency energy Skystream will work for you:' ~ At least 10 mph ;(4.5 m1s) average wind speed. Best results at 12 tnph (6:4 mis) or mare* ~ Your property is at least 0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) and has unobstructed views a, The local zoning allows a structure that is at least 42 ft (13 m) #alf ~ Your local utility has an existing interconnection agreement for homeowners (Your local Skystream dealer can help determine this) Visit www.skystreamenergy,comtor wind maps for your area, or consult your local Skystream dealer, ~~~>ilr~r~~'f.:`~1 ~lu'11~tt..~3. f~~uc:t~, zll~ f~F~it~.)Is=' l~~t•,f7irtr_1 ~~k~~~,,tr, i (=or `~4'yoars, Sasrihwcst Wind:;nv~f3r, Ipr;,, ih Flar~si~ff, Arizona, has tir~ii{jht Ir,,Vr•cost, reliat~lcj, cicar7 4~nr'ryy to thEi ^.vorld, As thr3 ti4o,lrt';z ]ngr,<t l~n7rfucer of ;:mall vriii~ t tlunurators w~~''Ja pionenrrJCl necv t©~ hrlr,It~~1iu5 to make rc;na.vablo oru>rgy .imisle, Visit srs at s+.nvw >vrnclenF~4Y.cprrti. ~c~S~(11"1tC~~( :~~?C(:If(t:Citl~til,; NfpidaL• SkystrPatn ;~.'/ ! - - , '__ Ratcd Capacity: 1.9 kVd cont;i~unus output; 2.8 kVJ'l~,;c-rk F1V1w YEAR L'VAR RA~ETY 1Neight; 1'IO lnp / 77 k~ Rntar Dlarrister 12 it i 3.'%1 rrr SYrept Area: 1 15.% it2 / 14.13.7 in2 Type; Dutvrn^rinci rotor ~n~ith stall re~l~rlatinncr~ntr,;l Direction of E2afatian: Cl~rkrrisa lnul;iny upvnnd B€ada Material; ~iboryla,s rpinfurec:d con;t~osite t^lurnber of Blades: ;~ !?ated 5peed::iU-37.x, rpn~ Tip apuorl: ~1 Si ft/~ 1 fill mis Alternator; Slotlea:~ purrriitnurri rTi~gnat hru$hless Ya~~v Gantral:l'a:~sivu GYid Fp[sdin{i: SbuthwescV'Jnulpawer invertci 1241?.^14 VAC'~0•C;0 Hz ~rakirl~ System: Elr:ctr{:nir, :tall re~ulatiorrti^rdh rpdundaitt relay switch rontrr~l' Cut-in Wind 5pead: B rr~p€~ 1 3,S riil~ Rated Wind Specd: 2C1 mph / fl rn/~ User Control: VJirpla~~: 2-way InteifaCS: ruiriotr~ syst~:tn Survival tJ'Jind Specd: i Ac) rnph / 63 rr~ls .Sound: 4~ derihel,.~r? ^1c~ (t 112 rn ~ner~Y ~erftarrrrer~c~ avo y. 840 ~ ~ 74D ~ ~ s4o ~, ~ 600 .~,, ~, 40D o ~ 300 ~ ~ 200 100 n s.u 2.5 2.D 1.6 1.0 0.5 n Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems 1licfzct~l fifc~irz~;~^r, L'a'tc~risi~,ri~ AS'~~~c~~iadi,tif i1~IiLF~d~E n b'r_i~t~ I1~i~i~~crsit~~~ ! tn~7 ,. T rj S`~ 13{~tti~ s yhr _ h i. > i~f ~ L 7~ .-4'h~ ~FF ~1 F ~~E ~ti a'~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ _ 1 l t~. _ ~ 1 ~ ; l F.:. { • , ~ ,,1{ '. j ' ~~ 1 ~ ~ I - ~ 1 '. I { t 1. ~ F - f xa x ` h i I } ~ y ~ ~. ~: ' 'r- ~ _. ~ ` ' ~ .'~~. MCCHICAN STATE U N I V E R S I T Y ~~NN L ~Nll i7O uI r nn l 1 As public interest in renewable energy increases, plan- ning and zoning for wind power are beginning to come of age in Michigan. Publication of new wind potential maps in 2004 helped fuel an increase in landowner interest in wind energy across the state (USDOE, 2004} Wind power companies are prospecting for new sites among landowners, and when landowners inquire at their local government offices about local permits, they often discover the rules are unclear. Very few Michigan jurisdictions have wind system siting laws on their books. Although only three commercial-scale turbines were operating in the state at the end of 2006, an additional 52 turbines were reportedly under construction or pro- posed during the year (Sarver, 2006; AWEA, 2006). Some neighbors of these wind development projects are voicing concerns to township, city and county officials. The most common concerns are about tower heights, tower setbacks, wildlife impacts, blade shadow flicker and noise. These topics, and related scientific studies, are addressed in this bulletin. Communities that proactively plan for wind turbines and carefully develop regulations for their installation will avoid a measure of uncertainty and the unfortunate public discord that sometimes comes along with new land use proposals. (Recall, for example, the spate of Deli tower controversies during the 1980s and 1990s,} All local officials are advised to consider adopting plan- ning policies and regulations before an energy facility siting application is received. Guidelines for siting wind energy systems were released in December 2005 by the Michigan Energy Office in the Department of Labor and Economic Growth (DLEG). The DLEG guidelines are titled "Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems," and they are now available online. The new guidelines are meant to -help local officials strike a balance between the need for clean, renewable energy resources and a local govern- ment's responsibility to protect the public health, safety and welfare. They present background commentary and suggested zoning language for local governments. This bulletin describes the most important provisions of the new guidelines and how they suggest handling the most common concerns of neighbors, it lool~s at the sci- ence behind the guidelines and provides a glossary and references for further reading. It concludes with a short list of Michigan communities that have adopted local planning and zoning laws about wind system siting. Growing supply and demand for renewable energy According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other authorities, the cost of the fossil fuels most commonly used to generate electricity continues to rise. The aver- age end-user price of electricity in the United States 'was 8 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2005 (EIA, 2006a}. Since the early 19$Os, the pride of wind-generated elec- tricity has dropped more than tenfold-from about 40 cents per 1cWh in X9$0 to about 4 cents to 6 cents in 2005 (Aabaldcen, 2005). The Federal Energy Information Administration assumes in its most recent forecast that current (wholesale-level equivalent) costs from coal and natural gas generation range from 4 cents to 5 cents per 1cWh, which suggests that recent wind power prices can be competitive with the most common electricity fuels (EIA, 2006b). If the United States were to impose so-called carbon taxes on fossil fuel-based facilities, as is done in other countries, wind-generated electricity would become relatively cheaper (Duke, 2006). Now that wind power is competitively priced, it offers real advantages over conventional sources because it generates energy without using fossil fuel. Wind energy production is immune from fuel price spikes caused by natural disasters and by political instability. Wind pro- vides, ahedge against rising energy costs. A study released in 2006 by the Rand Corporation states, "Wind is the fastest growing form of renewable energy in the United States and the only source of Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems renewable energy that is currently cost-competitive in multiple markets with conventional electricity sources." In 2005, wind industry capacity in the United States expanded by about one-third (Rand, 2006; ETA, 2006b). According to industry sources, 2,454 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity was installed in 200b, an investment of approximately a~4 billion, (One megawatt of wind power produces enough electricity to serve 250 to 300 homes on average each day.) These new wind farms boosted cumulative U.S. installed wind energy capacity by 27% in 2006 to 11,603 MW (AWEA, 2007). Benefits of renewable energy Renewable energy is part of the current conversation around Michigan. Proponents note that electricity gen- erated by wind energy systems will reduce air pollution and help slow global climate change. It will increase the fuel diversity and security of our electric system, reduce the impacts of coal mining, and relieve pressure to extract oil and gas from fragile environments. It will provide a hedge against increases in the price of fossil fuels while reducing the need to build new central power plants. And industrial or agricultural activity can continue in and around wind tower sites. Many people see renewable energy, particularly wind energy, as a substantial part of Michigan's diversified energy supply in the future. Fossil fuel-based electricity generation is responsible for 3b% of carbon dioxide pollution, 64% of sulfur dioxide pollution and 26% of nitrogen oxide pollution in the United States (EIA, 2005). Coal=burning power plants are the largest human-caused source of mercury emis- sions to the air, accounting for over 40 percent of all domestic human-caused mercury emissions (USEPA, 2006). Although most of Michigan's electricity supply is currently derived from burning coal in plants built in previous decades, there are now viable alternatives. Wind energy is also the fastest growing source of elec- tricity in the world. Approximately 1,bS0 new wind tur- bines were installed in the United States during 2005. Although leasing arrangements vary widely, the American Wind Energy Association estimate for income to a landowner from a single utility-scale turbine (1.5 MW) is about X3,000 a year. Many landowners {particu- larly farmers) are currently considering lease offers from wind development companies. Despite the many attractions of wind energy, proposals to install new wind generation towers and facilities can stir up controversy in community planning and zoning meetings (as local officials know is true with any type of proposed development). I'ra~3anettts uttr.~ ~p~~E3rtent~: a special rtrlte t~bo'tct 4cac'Ttt'i~ic fcrL'fs arifl 2SSZlL' CxE~~I?()L'[YC~+< It is sometimes difficult to know whom to believe in a land use controversy. Proponents and opponents alike can be very convincing -and sometimes they misuse scientific data. Sometimes an issue revolves around personal opinion or personal taste and aesthetics; sometimes there isn't one "right" answer. Most local officials are not trained scientists, but they are nevertheless asked to decide wind power siting issues grounded in scientific studies. 1. tiVind>turbines arc crist1a11y interesting: 2. ~'Lrincl turGiries ~trc cltti~t. :1. ~Vinelpo~ver does rtoi p«11ute. 4. ~~'inci,potvef`increase5 riatiorial security. 5. ~~rind turhiiies lease a srnaIl f~otpriflt. 6.'>~Vind ~owct~ can supplement c~tl~cr sc>uroes: I. 14'ind;~x~wer is z~et~er goiti~; to rise its cast. ~ a 1: ~Vindturhires s~~c~l the sc:enery': 2. Vinci turl~incs ~trc t1~>i5y, 3. ~~'ind tuxbites bill a lot. ~,f I~rds. 4. Vinci catulot totallST replace other sources. 5. ~~rinci turbine blacies'ai;e dangerous. h. 1~Vinc1< lower ,is intertn.tterxt. 7. 11'inc~ powex costs more thari coal. Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind i;nergy Systems Local officials can expect some or all of these difficult data interpretation issues to arise, and it is a very chal- lenging job. Despite these challenges, a thoughtful review of the science, engineering and field experience behind wind energy is required of local land use offi- cials who want to take a fair and objective look at the issues. 1?ublieations and Web sites of proponent organizations and opponent groups often refer to scientific research. Unfortunately, references are sometimes taken out of context, and they are sometimes misused. The sidebar at right is a recent example of how one scientific paper was used. Opponents and proponents both erred (in their favor) when making a case for a decision on the size of a property line setbaele. Neighbors raised the possibility of ice throw. In this example, the proponent claims the Morgan study says the probability of being hit by ice throw is just as low as the probability of being hit by lightning. But any- one who rakes the time to read Morgan's study can see the inaccuracy of the proponent's claim. Morgan does not say this. Also in this example, the o n n claims that industry guidelines (not just one scientist} recommend a very high risk protection level --~ setbacks should be large enough so that the chance of being hit by ice remains as low as the probability of being hit by lightning. Morgan does not say this, either. Reading Morgan's scientific paper and the scientific papers he cites makes it clear that there are no guide- lines agreed upon by the industry. How can these advo- cates make such claims? It is fair to say that neither the opponent's nor the proponent's use of Morgan's statement is based on an objective reading of the statement. From this example, we can see why planners and local officials must carefully investigate any controversy. Independent third-party information is required. Officials must ask: What do we know to be true and what further research is needed on the issue at hand? The Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems provide a good foundation for local decision makers. The guidelines were written with deliberation and substantial input from a group of Michigan stalte- holders and experts in the field. EJtti~itl<<l ~vorcliTtg of the st.ttcment lIl ET St't('nt1f1C fll'til:1C': "The Ie~r~I of risk whiclt is ~tceeptable should he detertiiired, This is sttl~lect to ease-s~ccific factor's sttuh a5 ease of recess, however a stiltalilc le~~el rrta}~ hei(1 f' strikes/rxi~/year which is the tylical i~r•ohzthilty of ll;~htning strikeiu the UK" (141organ; 195, cti~tg M~i:c)uccn). lt~tfcrence as .used 1>'t~ ol>I~utzellt; "The wi-zd industry's ~tuthoritativc ice thr'o«~ ~iaidelittes recoinntcnd an iecthrow risk of 10 h ar one strike ~~cr million square meters per year,. ~1t this risk le~~el, a mirlinturtX ice threw safety set- liitclt for ...an b2 meter rotor diameter windtur- l~ine in Heavy icing eoldltioris...is 65(i meters 0,152 feet}" {citing 14organ,l9)S), - Rc:f~rcnce as used ~~~ l~rc>~~onelt: "The pstl~er eoricltrdCs 'that the risk of lnytltiitg or anyone being hit 1iy iec front ii wind turbine is `1'0-6 stril.es/m~/year, ti~'ltich is the typical prohahil- it.y of being hit by a lit;lltuiug strike in the UK"' (citing li'far~;rn, 3 c)~>H} Ilow the t>t•i;tlt.al stfttemeift by ]~•IttT•gat~ iti tt9ed iu'this ll•1~C1L publicatlctnt The author is st~~ting t.l~at an acceptable risk l~v~l liar not yet heeat deter•iitinccl and 1!e irt<~r•ell' ~?ttE:?~~ c~ le~~~c:f that rrx~v lie ytcitcxl~le. ~1nd th~xtgh dial is s~ruewli~~t interesling,;it dc:es not rnaIce the case fcr either side of the sethaelt itisuo, {It also liap- Dens that 1~lorgr~n's article refer•cttcecl a 1983: study. c~r~c;err~irtg rotor blade fragrnentatioi, not: set- haclcs o~• the Ali}~sies cif ice throw. Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems ~Va`~at~ iChe ,Ylicll;i~ura ~tcicletii<~es lta~ve t~ f~,t,~~r As a starting point, the guidelines suggest that local gov- ernments should adopt different requirements for sys- tems constructed for on-site use and for larger systems built to supply the utility grid. They suggest that com- munities place personal systems in one class and utili- ty-scale systems in another class of land use. The guidelines suggest placing large projects, referred to as "Utility Grid" systems, into a special land use permit process of site plan review, They recommend that utili- ty-scale site plan requirements should include a map of: First, the recommended setback between a consumer's wind energy system and property lines is to be a mini- mum of 1~Iz times the height of the wind tower. Height should be measured From the base of the tower to the top of one of the blades in a vertical position. And sec- ondly, the guidelines suggest that, to handle noise issues, small wind energy systems should be metered and proven not to exceed 55 decibels on the "A" scale (dB[A]) at the property line. (However, if the ambient sound pressure level exceeds 55 dB]A], the guideline standard is the ambient level dl3[A] plus 5 dl3[A]. Local officials should use caution here. See "Noise levels" on page 9). • The project area boundaries. • The location, height and dimensions of all existing and proposed structures and fencing. • The location, grades, dimensions of all temporary and permanent roads. • Existing topography. • Water bodies and wetlands. • All new aboveground infrastructure related to the project. Furthermore, there are utility grid system provisions for liability insurance, regulatory compliance, preconstruc- tion environmental studies, visual impact simulations and a shadow flicker analysis. These are recommended in addition to addressing setbaelis and sound levels for smaller, so called, "On Site Use" wind systems {described below). A decommissioning plan and a com- plaint resolution plan are also suggested for larger utili- ty grid proposals. For Large systems, the guidelines refer the reader to the Michigan Airport Zoning Act (Public Act 23 of 1950, MCL 259.431 et seq.) and the Michigan Tall Structures Act (Fublie Act 259 of 1959, MCL. 259.481 et seq.). ~S~autll >~iyg#~~m~: 7~:0 >rCcy Conc~errts Small "On Site Use" wind systems are defined in the DLEG guidelines as systems "intended to primarily serve the needs of the consumer" on whose property they are constructed. There are two primary concerns for on-site systems in the guidelines: setbacks and sound. R Fc~v ntorlc un-site snrtll'systenr safety conccrris ale adc~ressc:t~ iti the Michib;tti ~;tridelincs:'Cr~ protect'passers- by,>it is rcc~tnnrended thin the tnlnlnunt~ vertical blade tip cleai'anec from ,~raund'lcvc] should1rc ?.f}feet (for a'wind energy systeut euil?leyin~ a borizoitta] a3is rotor.=-- vertical axis ~enet~Ztora are'enrrently tiuite rare}. bT additicin, the ,~uideftnes sij~:est li~htnirig pr~~tec.tlori and ~n autuitiatie br~al.in~ or ,t;ovet'niri,~ reciuiz-ernc;nt. to preveirt utreontrolled t'r~tataon or ovcrspccrlin~;. i'litd if a tower is'sup~orted liy gu}~ wh'es,'the wires shotrlcibc:eleaily visible to a:heightof ntlcast 6'feet ahdvc' the gruund. '1'hc gtaicleliiir•s reeornincttd tliat on-site use wind energy systems should he classific~i as a ~'permitted:use" lF the tmver pr~iir~sed iti "?SI n-rctcrs tall or.l~ss, As suck, a-small system w~ul[1 he allrn~+ccl as a use by rlglt within any zon- iti~ district selected by local officials.'Towers more than 20 meters itr hci,~ht, lurwer~cr, whether.they`are.de.olated to be for' lersun~l ttse qr are k~~ pr'ov'ide utility-scale.power, should he elassifietl ats "tipeelal use'' structures: So, the height of a tiysterit tleteririittes the amount oF.itiformation the; ;applicant rtntst prouicle. 5tualler "permitted use" Sys- tcm itpprouils raiuiro lesa nfornrzitiort than: larger "special use" system approv.tls. It',i ~icrsnnal-use tower is io be pet•mitted~.a1tst.oFappliea- tion pro<<isions is sti~;~ested its the guide]tzes, These include applicant identification;.asite~~lan;~docil~nentation that sound ~n•cssin-e levels; construction codes, tower int~~rit}•, iriteruontreotiorr (if applicable) and safety rc;quircrnc:rits have beetrrrtet; and proof of the applicant's public ]iahilil}= insurance, Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Neighbor concerns with utility-scale s~~stems: issues for local officials A number of issues are at hand when large-scale wind systems or wind farms are proposed. The following sec- tions provide a description of how the guidelines address stakeholder concerns about siting larger utility- scale wind systems and what the available scientific evi- dence says -about the issues. Tower height The DLEG guidelines do not suggest setting a maximum height for wind systems. This is because, at least in parr, rapid innovations in technology dictate that indi- vidual installation requirements will change (Sarver, 2006). But the guidelines do suggest that it is prudent for Iocal government officials to consider the proposed height and then classify the development accordingly. Regulating the height of structures is nothing new in Michigan communities. Michigan law specifically allows regulation of building heights. It follows, therefore, that wind generator towers, which are "built structures," should be subjected to the same IegaI treatment as any other building. Building heights are in some cases regulated because of the size of local fire and emergency equipment (public safety). In others, heights are limited because of aes- thetic or cultural concerns (public welfare). Washington, D.C., For example, restricts building heights to "the width of the street plus 20 feet" (which, incidentally, preserves the record local height of the Washington Monument}. In Madison, Wisconsin, city law limits the height of buildings within ]mile of the Wisconsin State Capitol {Madison General Ordinances, 2002). Michigan communities are given quite a bit of discretion when regulating structure heights, so Iong as there is a valid public safety purpose or public welfare purpose. As discussed in the next section, the guidelines estab- lish adirect relationship between tower heights and property line setbacks to ensure public safety. Setbacks Property line setbacls for primary structures such as a house or a store and for accessory structures such as a residential garage or storage shed are often provided for in local zoning codes and regulations. And though set- back provisions are sometimes enforced to preserve air- space or views for the welfare of the public, the genesis of setback regulation lies in public safety. This is in large part due to the Great Fire of London in 1666 and subsequent experience here in the United States. Access between buildings in crowded urban areas is particularly important to fire suppression, Setbacks are important for a number of reasons. When applied to a wind power development, property line setbacks address two potential issues of public safe- ty: equipment failure and ice throw or ice shedding. There are no recorded injuries to passers-by or neigh- bors from wind energy systems (Sipe, 2005). As many as 25 people have been killed while installing or servic- ing wind turbines. The literature indicates that only one non-industry person has ever been billed by a wind power installation - a parachutist (Sipe, 2006). Wind tower or turbine structural failures rarely occur, but in fact they have occurred, It is prudent, therefore, to require a horizontal setback at least equal to the verti- cal height of the system in case o£ a tower collapse. -With this simple provision in place, damage to neigh- boring property could be avoided in the event of a tower collapse. Cold-weather icing of generator blades and turbine components is a possibility in Michigan, as it is in parts of Europe, where reliable independent studies have been done on the dangers of falling ice. Insurance industry sources indicate that no liability or injury claims have been incurred because of icing in either Europe or the United States (Fox, 2004). 6 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Why do the guidelines recoYnmend a setback based on system height? It is true that, with any type of tower or building, large pieces of ice can dislodge and fall to the ground. This is called ice shedding or ice sloughing. Wind energy sys- tems do not present any new or unusual risk from ice sloughing when they are standing still -the force of gravity is in control Shedding can occur on a calm, sunny day. Setback provisions to protect from ice sloughing could be the same for wind systems as those used for other structures. Some scientists (Seifert et al., 2003) recommend a simple formula to protect the public during the few days each year that heavy icing occurs: r;etbaclG = liu]y hui~;ht + 1-1adc d•unctcr x 1ti0% Spinning rotor blades do present a certain amount of risk of ice throw because of the centrifugal force of the rapidly spinning blades. Proponents suggest the risk is negligible -very thin ice sheets and small ice particles have never hurt anyone. Opponents, on the other hand, have suggested that all risk must be considered. It has been suggested that perhaps protection from ice throw should be based on the statisti- cal risk of being struck by lightning (Morgan, 1998). Why not ,just use a scientifically calculated, modc;l-based setback distance? Modeling ice throw will take us only so far. Though we really cannot make progress in today's world without projections and models, neither will models provide all the answers. Because there are so many variables involved, all models include fundamental assumptions about what will occur. And no matter how carefully a model is crafted, the assumptions in a model will not satisfy all opponents or proponents. So, ultimately, local officials have to decide for them- selves. How large is too large? It is true in system mod- eling that the larger the horizontal setback require- ment, the safer. What distance is really needed to pro- tect neighbors from ice throw? Fortunately, experience shows that property damage or personal injury from ice throw is very limited. It is a matter of basic physics that ice buildup significantly and negatively affects the aerodynamics of windfoils. lee-laden blades do not spin very fast, if they spin at all. The range of ice throw (distance from the tower) is determined largely by blade speed. Scientific models and practical experience both tell us that the greatest risks from ice or any other falling material are within one blade diameter of the tower base {MacQueen, 1983; Eox, 2004}. Local officials can rely on the laws of physics -small particles and thin sheets of ice are more likely than large, heavy chunks to be thrown from rapidly spinning blades, Off-site risks appear to be quite Iow, There are no recorded injuries to passersby or neighbors from wind energy systems. Clearly, ice fall is not the only perceived safety issue with wind energy systems. Towers have collapsed, and large pieces of blades have fallen to the ground. There have been turbine fires. Small components -for exam- ple, nuts and bolts -have fallen to earth. But, as with ice danger, there is no record of anyone being hurt off- site because of system component failure. Evidence of damage to off-site property could be called negligible. So, local officials are advised to require property line setbacks for turbine towers, and a horizontal distance of 1 to 1112 times the system height is recommended in the new DLEG guidelines as a good benchmark to pro- tect neighboring property. Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Setbacl~s ttffect the developer's bottollt litre When local officials decide how large the setback must be, they are also determin- ing the total number of wind generators a landowner can install. This affects the economic viability of developing wind power projects on each site and in the community as a whole. In addition to legal setback requirements, wind developers must calculate how close- ly turbines can be located to one another within the setback area. This spacing is necessary because of the turbulence or "wake" each turbine creates. Wind devel- opers often base their calculation of tur- bine spacing on the size of the rotor diam- eter, in part. Depending on prevailing winds and land features, a distance of three, five or even 10 rotor diameters between turbines might be required to maximize the efficiency of the installation, For example, a required setback from property lines "equal to the system height" on the illustrated rectangular $0 acre parcel allows the installation of as ' many as five turbines. A larger setback - in the second example it is "equal to 1.5 times system height" -allows three tur- bines. An even larger setback -the third example illustrates a setbacle requirement "equal to 2 times system height" --- excludes placement of any turbines on the rectangular $0 acres. There are more issues than safety, prof- itability and economic development to consider when local officials decide on a setback requirement. Setbacks affect the character of a community because they affect the overall aesthetic experience of residents and visitors to the area. All set- bacli provisions should be based in the community plan. The setback distance to neighboring property also affects the potential for noise pollution and light strobing or shadow flicker that neighbors will experience. 2,640 Feet Feet ~` These setback illustrations assume min€mal tower spacing of three rotor diameters or 690 feet and system height of d10 feet on a rectangular 80-acre parcel. The same assumptions on a square 160-acre parcel would allow installat€ons of 11, nine and five turhines, respectively. 8 Five turbines on $0 acres with setback of ~i10 feet. Three turbines on 80 acres with setback of 615 feet. No turbines on 80 acres with setback of 820 feet. Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Noise levels At higher wind speeds, the ambient sound of rushing wind tends to mash turbine sounds. Wind machines have three sources of sound: the turbine blades passing through the air, the spinning generator and the moving gears. Regardless of the source, local government is responsible for setting local rules about excessive sound or noise. The authors of the new guidelines considered many aspects of wind system sounds and then present- ed their recommendations, based on potential Iong- term health effects, potential interference with speech and other activities, and potential sleep disturbance. These issues are sometimes raised by neighbors during wind system permitting and siting. Unfortunately, very few scientific studies (related to wind power systems) address these effects. Field studies are needed to investigate the impact of wind turbines on people living in their vicinity {Pedersen and Waye, 2004; van den Berg, 2004). This is a new and active area of research. Scientists held the first International Conference on Wind Turbine Noise in Berlin in 2005, and a second international wind turbine noise conference will be held in France in 2007, organ- ized by the Institute of Noise Control Engineering. Local decision makers currently find themselves in an awkward position - without a scientific basis for their judgments about noise effects. And because noise is gen- erally defined subjectively as "unwanted sound," scien- tific studies might never be conclusive. Noise is a subje~- tive judgment -some people enjoy the hum of a tur- bine. And what is music to same is just noise to others. Noise issues are complex; many communities have never adopted detailed noise standards. Very few communities have purchased sound level meters to measure noise objectively, and most people do not routinely judge sound in terms of decibels. (One of the best places to learn about sound pressures and decibels is the Australian University of New South Wales Web site, currently at beep:li~v-vw.phyfi.unsw~.edu.atrl~jw/dl3.l>Itrul.) Although the newest turbines are relatively quiet, all wind tur- bines emit low frequency, midrange and high frequency sound that can be perceived for same distance. C;ciltlrnunities that do h.ivc a tiuise. nrdinanee usually l<iltc a relatively ii~cffcetis~c apprc3oh sirnilar to this: Secti~rt 2. Pr~ltibited Noises, _. A, GerteT'ct2 Rc,~utctttnrr Tt sh<+11 he urlla~vful for'a3r~~ per~sr~n t<~ retake, coutlnne or cause to be made br cuntinuecl airy lbiui, uIU•eas~riabie, uruec;essiiry or utttlsuaE noise or <iny rioisi; +ti~hich either aruluys, rliskurhs, iniures rir cnclan~crs khc comfort, repose, health, pc{~cc ur safety of any eNlcr persut>., res= icjcnt or property,awilcr willtiu tliu Towrlsllip. . H; ~ti>>eciftc Pr'nhi.t,itinris The follr,~ving activities aiiil noises .are. preshibited if they produce clearly ata~lible sound beyond:the_pr'operty line cif the prop77erty oli ~w~hich they .are coudueted. ~,, .IIIOrP,..,..I '. Note that this pgnr crarulilo orc[1tiHElce uses the subjee- uYi; stand~lyd of "clearly audible" snu»d. Suh~eptive siandard5 have failed in A~Uuhi~;:ur uoul•ts. The Michigan `1?llld +51ti11;; Cuidelilies sugt;cst < different approach-- utiiltg a rnceslirahle objective standard rather than a suE,~cc;tfvc standard, {All local ordinance provisions sbbuld lie reviewed by ~a mcrnhca• of the Michigan Bar .1550ciat10[l,} versies with sound level meters. The cost of access to expertise is some- times asignificant barrier to objective judgment. Although acoustic sci- entists have adopted a standard that provides a uniform methodolo- gy to ensure consis- tency and accuracy in the measurement and analysis of sound, there are no generally agreed upon standards for how to apply the measurements when regu- lating wind system noise in a community. Sound engineering consultant fees of several hundred or even a few thousand dollars have been incurred in attempts to quantify off-site noise in land use eontro- There are no directly applicable federal or state laws. The U.S. Department of Labor Qccupational Safety and Health Administration {OSHA) has issued regulations Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems .Must inr{onr rrr,rzverscrt~i,o~ ds :ire tfie range, of 55 LUDIDiON SOIJI`'I) LEVELS 5ourtd pressure .level dI3(A) Threshrj)cl of hearing f) - l~rr><zdettst studio o-- z~ustlint; leaves 1(1 _ ~uict hourC int.i;rior or rural eveni»~ 2{I Quiel i>fficc interior or ticlcirig watch ~,lltiet rural area gin' theater int.eric~r ~uict suburban area office iiicerior or ordinary corrvcrsat.ion 3{~ 4{} 5[). 60 ~Jacnunr cleane~•;len feel away. Passing car ten feet a~ti~ay . 7U.- 801 Fassiirg bus or truck ten fe"et away 9!7 Pr3ssin~; :~ttb~ray train ten feet"away..:.. 10() N#;I~tt cltzh with bstncl Pl~tyinig J 7.U T.hreshald crf pain 120 $nura e xtate oJ~lh~iiie 7tN 1~4 Noise, 2.000. for protection of worl~ers in the worl~place, but it has no authority to regulate noise off-site. Congress passed the Noise Control Act of 1972 and the Quiet Communities Act of 1978, and although these laws remain in effect today, they are essentially unfunded. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency issued an advisory document in 1974 that is still used by state and local governments that have the responsibility to regulate most neighborhood noise (USEPA, 1974). The advisory is also used by sound engineering consultants who advise local government officials. It identifies a 24- hour exposure level of 70 dB(A) as the level of environ- mental noise that will prevent any measurable hearing loss over a lifetime. Levels of 55 dB{A) outdoors and 45 dl3(A) indoors are identified by the EPA as "preventing activity interference and annoyance." These levels of noise are considered appropriate to permit spoken con- versation and other activities such as sleeping, worlting and recreation (USEPA, 1974}. The EPA levels are not single-event or pear levels. .Instead, they represent averages of acoustic energy over periods of time, such as 8 hours or days or years. For example, occasional higher noise levels would be con- sistent with a 24-hour exposure average of 70 dB(A), so long as a sufficient amount of relative quiet prevails for the remtaining period of time (USEPA, 1974). Acceptable noise levels for various areas are identified by the 1+;PA according to the use of the area. Levels of 45 dB(A) are associated with indoor residential areas, hospitals and schools; a level of 55 dB(A) is identified in the advisory for certain outdoor areas {USEPA, 1974). hr crsntrast to lhc: LYA advfsttry``on ueiglrbnrhix,d nr~ise, the n~,o 11'liclrig~ut ~vincl ezt~rgy;ytticfeline5 dr, Welt suggest iliffc<relrt clli(~.) levels for ~is~riotts 1~lttees (I~vspitals, schc~~tly, etc:) or land, trse icicles. Rather, they titiJ~tiest tlrctt;, in rrtt?tit eases, a d~~cihel level r>f 55 1113(.1) measurc;d at tlrr: ~rt'ui~erty lino slutild ni,t he ceeeclerl for tncrc th~tii ~ ttri-ittes 1n <urv houruf'the clay. Itecrigttizint iha[ sciiue instzllatio~ls will lie 17ru, closed iu'are~ts that already have hi~;hcr sound lc;~~els, tliuy also rec;r>artnzcud that, if file aml~icnt sc,u11i1 pi•essurc level ert~eeds 55 dB(.1j, cite standard should be set as arnbient dI3(A~:pltts 5 d13(A), Vinci finally, as pi{t•t of the l~at~t;e-scale w3iic[ s}•stent rt~pliuatictt pruoetis, the'applietzitt is to ~trr,vicEe'ntoclel- it> anti sinalysis that will shore that the utility ~i'id wind ener`;v syst~ru will nr>t exceed the nraxlnrctn~ perrrzitteti sound ~~ressui•e levels. A[t~r iirstallati~~n of file systeiir, sout~i pressure level tncasurc;meuts must be dune E>}• a clualiflcd third party <and suhruit[cd in a report as j~3'~of ~f cornl~liauce. 10 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems ~hado~;r flicker Shadow flicker is a term used to describe what happens when rotating wind turbine blades come between the viewer and the sun, causing an intermittent shadow. For residents close to wind turbines, shadow flicker can occur under certain circumstances (most notably near sunrise and sunset) and can be annoying when trying to read or watch television {AWEA, 2006b). Screening of neighboring property with plants, awnings or structures is the most common treatment for shadow flicker annoy- ance. Opponents have raised health concerns, particular- ly mentioning the idea that shadow flicker might trigger epileptic seizures. However, there are no documented health affects associated with shadow flicker: 'l~l[e b}ic:hi~,t[i:Sit3nF; CTitidelltcs fur lltincl i,rterby 5ystert~s su~~est utility.-grid s}'sterns tihuulcl Ila~~e a ;;5}-aclc,~v f[ic;ker sttt,tl}•sis subni4tted as }art of the si,e- vial use 1>ern[it ,ipt,li<<tit,n pctiltag~s. 't'he an:iivsis rmtst "%~ietrtiiv-tire lucitio[[s of shado«~ 1liuker thztt tna~~ be eaused;b~~ the'Prujeet and the ~:xpc~~t~,d dur,~- tiorts ui' the i}i~~ker <tt tlrese 1,cations From sciirrisc to ` sttuset ever t}re unu•se>uf a year." Tlrc analysis report shutilcl'also descrile measures that t}~ itrstallar will 'take to eliminate ur rnftigate effects. ° hceordtng to [lac Brttlsh t;p%lepsy Foundation, around 59S Qf people with epilepsy are likely fo exper[ence seisures triggered by flickering orJlashing light, but the founds[%on is not nware gfJlickering from wand turbines triggering a leisure. Most people with phntaserrsit%ve epilepsy are sensitive to flickering arc:and 16 to 25Hs, although some people mt;y 6e sensitive to rates as low as 3IIs (Brrtish 1,•ptlepsy Foundation, 2006). A current model General Lleetr%o turbine bas a rrom4ial rotor speed of I0 to 20 r•pm, which translates to a blade pass frequency of less than 1Hw, A NEG-Niece wind turbine w[th a 72-ureter rotor diarneter and a nominal rotor speed of 17.3 rpm translates to a blade pass frequency of 0.87Hw. Birds, bats and aviat;< impacts Virtually alI construction on the land is capable of dam- aging habitat of birds and bats, altering flight patterns and causing mortality. Both the positive and the nega- tive effects of wind power system development should be considered when energy choices are made by power companies, by permitting authorities and by con- sumers. Because of the well-documented bird kills caused by some early wind farm installations, concerns are some- times raised by citizens in local land use meetings about the need to avoid serious avian mortality when siting new windmills. Industry advocates, biologists and bird advocates have said that obsolete, first-generation turbines that were poorly placed have paused an exces- sive number of avoidable bird deaths. Steps have been taken to minimize avian impacts. The bird kill problem in the United States surfaced in the late 1980s and early 1990s at Altamont Pass east of San Francisco, where approximately 6,000 turbines were installed on 70 square miles of rolling hills. Within a few years, scientists estimated that several hundred red-tailed hawks and kestrels, and dozens of golden eagles were killed each year by turbine collisions, guy wire strikes and electrocutions (Hoover and Morrison, 2005; Orloff and Flannery,1992). Biologists suggest that proposals for new wind farms that consider bird migra- tion routes, bird abundance and turbine height will help to minimize fatalities (DeshoIm and Irahlert, 2006; USFWS, 2005). Recently, bat scientists estimated that more than 2,000 bats were Billed during acne-year period at a wind power facility in the mountains of eastern West Virginia (Kerns and Kerlinger, 2004). Bat mortality at wind tur- bine sites is currently poorly understood {CBWG, 2006). There are no estimates for wind-power-related bat deaths nationwide. Hoae~ many birds dtie each year? Scientists provide currently reliable estimates of around two bird deaths per turbine per year outside California {NWCC, 2004; Erickson et al., 2001). {California is an exception because the old Altamont Pass turbines have skewed the data over the years. Many of these outdated installations are being decommissioned.} Therefore, with the current number of installed U.S. wind turbines 11 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for ,Siting Wind Energy Systems U.S. Arta~unl Bia'r1 ~Io~•talit_v ~or?tpr~k•isolt ~ +Selected [;auses C!-u5c5 of bird ;<Ilortality 20~>S etitilitatcll Nh>luld hir/l llturtalih' range 21)2U et~tinlatecl anrn>lal bird rrlurt.llify luntin~;;l>,y Ilou,c cat:; ~ S n1illion to 1l)0 million hl~n'c thatl 75 millinll Cullic~io>I>is - F~ehicles ; 10 million trl': (i{) n1lHon h4i_ire tli~ltl T{) rtillfon COl1l5iOrrG - b11IlllirlQ5 Rnrl Sti'lIC'tlll'eS 'Wind pr>rvcr dc~~clopmcuts 1{I{) I11.1111Ui1 t0' S{~~) illllllr)11 20 thUllS~ild tC) 3i) lhcillsarld ' hlOre t}l~lll lOt) 11111110111 i3U tllrltisalld t0 12~ thollSaTld \c~te '€iiln Thai t, ttilil~h dt.nvs 4n the !o[esL hh~l moitalit}~ studies, sssulu~, the nuriibci ..f n~Lid turhinec iylll rlsc friiirhdd bchvcen 2005'aiul ZU«i1 (ii p~sslbilit}• birt br nn mcnnt a rrrrdkt[y). outside of California standing at between 10,000 and 15,000 units, a current estimate of 20,000 to 30,000 annual wind-power-related bird deaths can be made. It is reasonable to expect a quadrupling of wind system installations during the next 15 years. This would yield an estimate of 80,000 to 120,000 annual wind-power- related bird deaths. To put this into perspective for local decision makers, independent biologists and the National Audubon Society estimate that house cats kill between 75 million and 100 million birds per year in the United States (ABC, 2006; Malakoff, 2004}. One of the greatest risks to birds is plate glass. Windows in buildings kill between 100 million and S00 million birds each year (I{lem, 1990}. Travel by air and car kills between 2 million and 60 million birds each year (USFWS, 2005; Veltri, 2005). Future land development will eantribute to increased bird-windowpane collisions, bird-automobile collisions and house cat hunting -these are concerns of local officials. Fossil fuel extraction and combustion will also contribute in unquantifiable ways to avian mortality, so a choice must be made by local officials. It should be noted, tao, that although wildlife welfare is everyone's concern, primary responsibility for wildlife management most clearly lies with federal and state authorities under federal and state law. The nerv'~ui[lcliilc.5 str~rr.tit tll£It lanai t>lfiuialti ta[te 1>~ite r1f t{t~i;ltt rn~irtalityrislzs s1n~E rci~tiire an avirln ;till ~ti'ilcliifc iulli;int slririlysiti ilr `an appllcalion fur x itility-sorilu illslallati[>n: `1`hc stnsllvsis sltoul[I e[1n- frn~n1 t[1 tit;ltn anc! i'uclel'al n~ilcllit~ a~cticy rccoirunctt- ~latiolts h;lsu~l oil loc;ll ecltlditi[iils. Local officials are correct to defer to the federal or state government when pressed by citizens to protect birds and bats from construction of wind systems, but they do not have to be silent about the issue. As with air and water pollution, local ordinances may require appli- cants simply to sho~v that they have obtained "required permits from state and federal authorities" (e.g., the federal Endangered Species Act and Michigan's Endangered Species Protection Law, P.A. 451 of 1994}. All developments in a community involve trade-offs. Bird safety advocates are correct that wind systems might disrupt habitat and cause mortality. Wind energy advocates note that wind energy provides clean elec- tricity without many of the environmental impacts associated with other energy sources -air pollution, water pollution, mercury emissions and greenhouse gas emissions associated with global climate change. Reducing these environmental impacts by installing renewable energy systems can significantly benefit birds, bats, and many other plant and animal species (NWCC, 2004), 12 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems For more information The Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems provide focal Iand use leaders with a menu of provisions to select from and offer useful baeliground and guidance to answer some of the questions local offi- cials will undoubtedly hear from neighbors of proposed wind power developments. Contact your county MSU Extension office for more information on land use and wind energy, or find more information online at ~v~v w.~n i.chigan.gcsv/docuxn en ts/Wirxcl_and_Solxir_ Siting_t=uicllin es_Dra f t_5_9G872_7.pdf. Michigan's main planning enabling acts are the Township Planning Act {P A. 168 of 1959), the County Planning Act (P.A. 282 of 1945) and the Municipal Planning Act (P.A. 285 of 1931.}. Michigan's main zoning enabling acts, adopted in 1921 and 1943, were recently consolidated into a single act (P.A. 110 of 2006) palled the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (M.C.L. 125.3101 et seq.} {MZEA, 2006). Tlc- follo~rirri; states ha<<e arlrirtcd l.lr~~s related to wiucl cncrgl' p1:3l~rriu~;, 2orring ~~r sithl~. (The Stale ~>f b4ichi~an doeti Writ ll~vc spocifio e~ytrhlin~ lcgis- lat.rnr fo• rviud fac+iHh• ~itiut;) State Prtirnar•y Itefercrret~ C.iilituri~ia Government (Node Seelic~n bSS9~.13 blinrtesr,tsl Statues of 20l}fi Ghapter:~ 276t acid SOt}.30 IE~limlana t;aodc Annolaed Scetioit 7(}-77 ;3{)3 N. C,arol3na General SC:~tueti Seetic~u 11;3A-. ~0~(3'}fib) C>rebon Revised Statutes Ciha~ter 469;300 `C~iscorrsi~r State Statutes Seotion 66.0!01 References Aabaklcen, J. 2005. Power Technologies Energy Data Book {3rd ed.). NREL/TP-620-37934. Golden, Colo.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Online at h ttirllnuri.aL'CC6s.gpo.gov/(1.P0lI,PS{}5772. ABC. 2006. American Bird Conservancy Factsheet: Cats indoors! Campaign, Online at h ttp:/l~vww.abebi.rcls. nrg/eats/dowuloacls.htrrr. AWEA. 2007. American Wind Energy Association January News. Online at http:/hvww.awesr.org(ncrvsl. AWEA. 2006a. American Wind Energy Association December News. Online at ]rttix:i/rv+vw.awea.oa•g/~rewsl. AWEA. 2006b. Wind power myths vs. facts. Factsheet, Online at hair//~vw~v.ifxrErt~vir~d.org/pcif/Ibiyths°Yo 20&%20Faots.pdf. British Epilepsy Foundation. 2006. Photosensitive epilepsy --other possible triggers. Living with epilepsy information series. Online at http:/lwww.epilepsy.org. ulrlit~fo/glroto._other.l~ tail. CBWG. 200b. Guidelines for assessing and minimizing impacts to bats at wind energy development sites in California. California Bat Working Group. Online at htti~:Il ww~v.wbwg.or•g/Papers/()13W(~~9n20windr34~20 errergy°/a2Oguidelines.pdf. Desholm, M., and 1Zahlert, J. 2006. Avian collision rislt at offshore wind farms. Journal of Ornithology 147{Suppl. 5}: X56. 13 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems DuILe. 2006. Taxing carbon to finance tax reform. Issue brief. Duke Energy and World Resources Institute. Online at Iittir/fpdf.wri.oz'gltz-xi~zg_.caz•boz~_£~zll..pdf. EIA. 2006a. Energy Information Administration Factsheet; Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector. Online at http:!/~vrv~v.c;ia,doe.gov/cneaflelcetricitylepf~/epat7 p4.Iztnzl. EIA. 2006b. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2006 with Projections to 2030. Online at Izttp:/hvw~v.eia.doe.gov/olaf/aer)/prlf/03$3(2pp6).pdf. EIA. 2005. Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005; Market Trends-Electricity Supply and Demand. Online at http:/lw~v-v.eia.do c.gnv/oiaf/~u•cl~ ive/aer)0.5/ clectricitv.lztml. EMD International. 2006. WindPro modeling software for turbine siting. Product description. Online at littp:/hvww.emd.dlr/Wi ~ic1l'lt()/1 zitrodzzctiorzl. EriclLSOn, W., et al. 2001. Avian collisions with wind turbines; a summary of existing studies and compar- isons of other sources of avian collision mortality. Report to the National Wind Coordinating Committee, Washington, D.C. MaeQueen, J.R, et al. 1983. Ice Throw. IEE Proceedings, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 9, pp. 574-586. Madison General Ordinances. 2002. Madison Zoning Code, Sea 28.04{14}. Malakoff, D. 2004. Clear & Present Danger. Audubon Society Alert Factsheet. Online at httlr//:urdllbUll maga:~izze.orgifeatures(}403/alort.lrtml. Michigan Siting Guidelines for Wind Energy Systems. 2005. Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth Energy Office. Online at htti~://~vsvw.mich igazz.gov/aisl0.:t G(17,7-:! 5<t- 2567 fi_2S 774---,(I().Iatru 1. Morgan, C., E. Bossanyi, and H. Siefert. 1998. Assessment of safety risks arising from wind turbine icing; Paper presented at BOREAS 4, April 1998, Pyha, Finland. Online at ]zttp://virtLZal.vtt.fi/viz~tual/aro- tie~crincUbozeasiv/asscssrnent_of_safety. pdf. NREL. 1987. Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States. Washington D.C.: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy. NWCC. 2004. National Wind Coordinating Committee Factsheet: Wind turbine interactions with birds and bats. Online at ]zttp://ww~v.uaticznalrvizzd.orgl i3zzblicatiouslrvildlifeh~rildlife, fact<slzeet.pctf. Fox, B. 2004. Letter to M. Rubin, November 16, 2004. Energy Insurance Brokers. Online at Iztti~:/lrvww.power na ttrrully.org/ProgramslWi ucl/Loollcit/icetlrzYZ«•ins copy.pclf. Hoover, S., and M. Morrison. 2005. Behavior of red- tailed hawks in a wind turbine development. Journal of Wildlife Management, Volume 69, Issue 1 (January 2005), pp150-159. Kerns, J., and 1? Kerlinger. 2004. A Study of Bird and Bat Collision Fatalities at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, Tucker County, West Virginia. Annual Report for 2003. Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, W.V. I~lem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and win- dows: mortality and prevention. Journal of Field Ornithology, Volume 61, Number 1 (Winter 1990), pp.120-128. IQem D., Jr. 2006. Glass: A Deadly Conservation Issue for Birds. Bird Observer. Vol. 34, No. 2. Online at http:/hvrF~v.biz'C1sC:z'ee.Il.eonilPI)F/Bird-Observer 2006.pcif. NWCC. 20p2. Permitting of Wind Energy Facilities. Washington, D.C.: National Wind Coordinating Committee. Orloff, S., and A. Flannery. 1992. Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity, Habitat Use, Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County wind resource areas, 1989- 1991. Final report. Sacramento: California Energy Commission. Pedersen, E., and K. Waye. 2004. Perception and annoy- ance due to wind turbine noise: adose-response rela- tionship. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116{6) {December 2004), pp. 3460-3470. Rand Corporation. 2006, Impacts on U.S. Energy Expenditures of Increasing Renewable Energy Use. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation. Sarver, J. 2006. Personal communication. John D. Sarver, Energy Office supervisor, Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. December 2006. 14 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Seifert, H., A. Westerhellweg, J. ICraning. 2003. Risk analysis of ice throw from wind turbines, Paper present- ed at BOREAS 6, April 2003, Pyha, Finland. Online at blip://web1..ms ue. mstr, edi~/cdxn'/iecth rc~ rvseife rtb.i~df. Sipe, P. 2006. An Archive of Articles on Wind Energy, EIectrieity Feed Laws, & Other Topics. Online at http:l/wrvrv.wincl-rvorlfs.ol ~artiales/indc;x.htinl. I~ef erenee ~n.cc~eyials, nab eit~d Barias, L., and A. Rodriguez. 2004. Behavioural and environmental correlates of soaring-bird mortality at on-shore wind turbines. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41 Burkett, E. 2003. A Mighty Wind. The New York Times Magazine. June 15, 2003, pp. 48-51. Sipe, P. 2005. Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality Rates. Online at blip:/hvws~~.rvincl-rvorks.orglar•ticles/ BreatlrLife.html. USDOE. 2006. Wind Energy Guide for County Commissioners. Online at httzr//rvrvr-•.eerc. e:nergy.govlrvirrdanclhycirofwiuc~porv- ei~ngam erica/pdfs/rvpa/county~co~rznr issio~~ ers.pdf. USDOE. 2004. Michigan Wind Energy Resource Maps. Online at htkp://wrvrv.iriichigan.gavleis/0,:lfi()7,7-154- 25G 7G_257 74-1.01.765--,OO.htnil. USEPA. 2006. Frequently Asked Questions About Mercury. Factsheet. Online at wrvw.el}a.gov/mereur•y/aborit.la rrr~. USEPA. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Online at blip:/lrvw~v.epa.gov/lrist€>ryltopies/noise/01.htrn. USFWS. 2005. International Migratory Bird Day Factsheet: Clear the Way for Birds! IMBD Explores Bird Collisions. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Online at http:/lrvrvrv.fws.gov/l~irdslclocusr~ez~l.g/(aollisions.ixlf. van den Berg, G. 2004. Effects of the wind profile at night on wind turbine sound. Journal of Sound and Vibration, Volume 277, lssues 4-5 {November 2004}, pp. 955-970. Veltri, C.J., and D. I~lem. 2005. Comparison of fatal bird injuries from collisions with towers and windows. Journal of Field Ornithology, Vol. 76, No. 2, pp.127-133. Cascade Township. 2003. Cascade Charter Township, Dent County, Michigan, Noise Ordinance. Ordinance No. 1 of 2003. EWEA. 2003. Wind Force 12: A Blueprint to Achieve 12% of the World-s Electricity from Wind Power by 2020. European Wind Energy Association. Online at htt2r:i/N~vw.ervea.org/index.php~ic1.30. Hoffert, M., et al. 2002. Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet. Science, Nov. 1, 2002:981-987. Prete, L. 2002. Transmission Pricing Issues for Electricity Generation from Renewable Resources. Online at ljtklr/hr~rvw.cia.dor:.gov/cneafls€-Iar•. repo-val]Ieslrea~issuosltranspriLe, ai't.pdf. TrueWind Solutions, L.L.G. 2003. The New England Wind Map. Online at httl3:lltruervirul. teamcamelot.con>/ne/. U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. Wind Energy Guide for County Commissioners. Online at http://wr-~v.~rrel.g<-v/does/fy07osti140403.pclf. Wind Powering America. 2006. About Wind Powering America. Online at l~tti~:ilrvrvw.eere.energ3:gov/windi~owe ri nganaeztica/wicrcl ~po-vez ing_ameriefi .ht1n1. 15 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Sitting Wind Energy Systems Catalo of Michi an Communities with Wind S stem Plannin IZonin Code Lan ua e Jurisdiction/Provisions Noise Setback Studies Required Before andlor Afte r Max. Hei ht Blade Clearance Banks Township 60 dB(A} 1 x height Roport of soil present on site. Hazard prevention plan, 44D' 15' Anlrim Co. illings Township No adverse impact as determined by Planning Commission. 00' 11,000' Documentation regarding wind speed, direction & steadiness. Security and fire plan. Impact assessment. No adverse impact as determined by Planning Commission one Gladwln Ga. Caseville Township 5 dB(A) .5 x height Site plan: Documentation of sound pressure level and safety requirements being met. 50' 0' Huron Co. Claybanks Township 55 dB{A) 800' 1.75, 1.5 x height Site plan. Sound impact study. None 60' Ocaana Co. rystal Township 5 d6(A} Meight plus 2D0 feet Environmental impact study, noise emission study and written malntinence plan. 00' 0' Oceana Co. Elmwood Township 6o dB(A) iDD' Slte plan, 250' 2D' Laelanau Cp. Emmet County 60 dB(A) 1 x height Site plan. Certification of noise standard. 4DD' 2D' 16 Michigan T.and Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems studies Required L~lade s nns. -JttrisdietionlPros..--.-..~ ..... o se ...........................~.~........._~.._ Set ac ....:............_.--..-...-- ~-~--:....-.......-.~.~.... andlor After a are.........-.-........-..........-.......... Max. Hei ht . Clearance 1 year wind resource study. Report of still, present & Evellrte Townshl 5(l d8(A) 2,6170' 15tlil' description. pf foundaUan. 23q' 130Q' 20` cha~lvvatx ca site pion. Visual impact Established In analysis. 1=1ro protcctlon the spacial use Filer Townsh1 55 d13~A~mmm 1 x he~ht .,...:: .plan. Conslruction_plan., wµ, ~ermlt~~~ 20' ::.,.....,...~ _ Comply with MI Tall structures Site plan,. Sound pressure Act & local Golden Townshl 55 d6(A) 7.5 x height IevPl report, requirement 50` oceans Co aoo ft ar z x height. discretionary in caso.of Wind sitQ assossmentfor Grant Township..,..,. _. _-- _-- - . 55 dR(A) wind-farm....... feaatbility . ....................... f?IaCreflottary .. .6q ft........... . Rewaygn Ca. Year's data of sufficient Mamlin Townshi . 4Q d~(A) 2 x hatght wind. Avian stud . None None Mason.Gn Site plan. Avian study. 5q dB (A) or 1.5 x huh Sound levels. Bi-annual ambient loves + hoight, 2 x inspection. pscomissioning Huron Coin a d8(A) hub height Ian with bond~ z75' 75' . - __ _ ____-_ ~ - ~_ __-___ Lake TownShlp---- °_..-°.__..~... 60 dB~A~ ~_ 1 x he[g-ht __ . Site glan..._.~.__~.__.. __~_~_. ~~ .............~..,.... iVone_~~__._- 0en~leCa. Site plan. Avian study. $ubJetF to Annual insp©ctlons. provisions of Lodi Tpwnslii ~R~~'-~~~"~~~~ 55 dB(A) 1.5 x hot ht DeGOmmisslonln Ian, s ecial uses None WFFN1anuW Co, i.7 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siring Wind Energy Systems 5tctdies Required Blade JurisdictiartlPf'ovisiotls Npise Setback Befnrs andtor After Max. i`1ei ht Clearance Mackinaw:City 6t7d8(A ,5 x i1Gi ltt Site fan. 900' 20' Cheboygan Co. _ -_-----.-_-- _-____ ___--_-.-- _~_.-..~_ Annual wind resources and ..-_ ___ ---..--- soiireport. Flazard prevention plan. Annual wind product(an.report by Marian Township v_ 5fl dt~~~ '7.5 x height month. A00'_ 20' ~__- Chadevofx Co. Site plan. DIVR avian data. Wind Rose Chart. Sound cha~f. Yearly Enalntendnae Masan Caudt~r~ _._.___~._ 45 de~A)_ -_~._ 2 x h®t._.~ht-_._. inspection.-------_~.._.__. Nanc~_-__-.._-_ 3b~ -- 55 d~(A) or Site plan, Avian analysts. ambient lave! 2_x hub 1 Sbundstitdy at "Ao~rtt€;ally Minden Township w w._.w_...e_- Alas 5 d8(A}w.._. 1:000 affcc;t~t! exislin~" buildings Candltfnn8i _-- bU....-e_e.~_~. Santlnc Ca Stfe plan sound revel .. Oliver Township ^. _. ..~ ._ µ 55 dB(A}M_ 1.5 x he~ht ~ dncumontatinn.- ~__.-___ _ _..._...____.___ '150'___._____ __°_ 20'_~__ d~a,co. ~ - ~ ~ _-~ _ Govorned riy ~ Site plan. W[nd resource - - --- ambient 1,250' I 1 BO' study. Avian study. EYaise basellrte noise OC ar-atysis. Costestlmate for Otsego Gount~ - - _ stuff _ 1.5 x he~ht removal of WTG. 300' ! 4Q0' S0` Site plan, visual anatysls. Buttons Bay Periodic physical 7nwnship -..-._._ .. ................ 60 d0{A)....~.. ~.. 50' + helc~ht _ inspections.,..,....-......_~.............. ~. 230' 20' o~a~a c Site plan, Environtnentai Whiteriuer study, f=inancial impact TawnshiP: 4b d8(A) ~ x helc~ht stud~. 400` 20' ~~.....~..~.~.~..~.~ Muskegon CO. .... .....-_--_ -_ ...-.... -., .-..,..~.~.. _, ~~._ ................. .~....~.~.....~.~....~... .................................~.,. ...~.~.,__,..,_~.~~_~_ 18 Michigan Land Use Guidelines for Siting Wind Energy Systems Glossa>ty'x Airfoil-The shape of the blade Dross-section, which for most modern horizontal-axis wind turbines is designed to enhance lift and improve turbine performance. An>Ilxerc-iraur-A unit for the quantity of electricity obtained by integrating current flow in amperes over the time in hours for its flow; used as a measure of battery capacity. Axte~uo~xxeter-A device to measure wind speed. Avers~ge rr~€ntl slxeei~ Tho mean wind speed over a specified period of time. Iilsxxle-The aerodynamic surface that catches the wind. I€rsilx~Various systems used to stop the rotor from turning. (:crt-i~~ wind s€t'ecc!-The wind speed at which a wind turbine begins to generate electricity. Cue-ox~t rvinil nlreect---The wind speed at which a wind turbine ceases to generate electricity. I+'xxrling-A passive protection for the turbine in which the rotor folds either up or around the tail vane. €x~Vlx-Gigawatt-hour, a measure of energy equal to the use of 1,000 megawatt-hours. €iEx•id-The utility distribution system -the network that connects electricity generators to electricity users. ~e~verter A device that converts direct current {DC) to alternating current (AC). lr~'V-kilowatt, a measure of power for electrical current (1,000 watts). liiVlx-Kilowatt-hour, a measure of energy equal to the use of one kilowatt in one hour. 1131'~V-Megawatt, a measure of power (1 million watts). Nacelle-The body of a propeller-type wind turbine, containing the gearbox, generator, blade hub and other parts. lf'orver ec-eft~ciexxt-The ratio of the power extracted by a wind turbine to the power available in the wind stream. Power curve;-A chart showing a wind turbine's power output across a range of wind speeds. 1'IJRI'~1-Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (1978), 16 U.S.C. § 2601.18 CFR X292, which refers to small generator utility connection rules. €tate~l xrx~tlrFxt crelxue3ty-The output power of a wind .machine operating at the rated wind speed. 1[rsxtecl rvixet;l ytxcod-The lowest wind speed at which the rated output power of a wind turbine is produced. Itotx~€r-The rotating part of a wind turbine -either the blades and blade. assembly, or the rotating portion of a generator. €€ator xlisixneta;r---The diameter of the circle swept by ,the rotor. Rotor I`a~xeccl-The revolutions per minute of the wind turbine rotor. Start-cip -vixxd h(xcecf-The wind speed at which a wind turbine rotor will begin to spin. (See cut-in wind speed.) brvclxt arelx-The area swept by the turbine rotor; A ~ 1T R2, where R is the radius of the rotor. 'litj s~yeexl ratio-The speed at the tip of the rotor blade as it moves through the air divided by the wind velocity. Tllis is typically a design requirement for the turbine. 'nllrl-xx(ence-Changes in wind speed and direction, frequently caused by obstacles. Wind farlu A group of wind turbines, often owned and maintained by one company. Also lmown as a wind power plant. ~~iv-The movement of the tower top turbine that allows the turbine to stay into the wind. * hdapterL from the National Renewable hhtergy Laboratory Glossary 4f 7~rrns, 2006. M[CHIGAN STATE M1fSU €s an af(Irmativc•actlan, equal•opportunlty employer. Afic€dgan State Unlverel[y Extension programs and materials are open to all w€thoul regard to race, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ~_, _,,,.,,,,,,.,,_,.,,.,,,,,,,._._,_,_,_____, rnlor, national origin, gender, religion, age, d€sability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital stauss, or Family status. • issued In furtherance of F.xtensfon 1.1 N I V E R S I T Y work In agActdture and home economic, sera of M1iay S and Junc 30, 1914, In coopcratlon with the Us. Department of Agriculture. Thomas G. Coon, "- - _-'- "" __--- ____-- Extension director, Afichlgan Slate University, E. Lensing, Efl 48524. • Th1s information is For educational purposes only. References to commercial products or trade names do not Imply endorsement by MSU Fxtens€on or bias against [have not menUaned, Tlds hulletbt becomes public property upon publ€aatlon and may 6c prlnlcd verbal€m rvith credit to M1[sU. Reprinting cannot be used [o endorse or advertise a commercial praluct or company. 19 In the Public Interest -How and Why to Permit for Small Wind Systems .~ I j 3 i r f l kE ky 6~ f 4 [i. } ~ ;~ - ri ~ ~r'Ei ' - _ ['- •~ . ~ ~ ~~ E 1 ~ ~: .. 1 y ~. 3 ~ ~ ~ f k fi . ~ ~ ~ .e '' In the Public Int+ ~ t'. ~' ..~ ... .., How and why to P ,. , ,:: for Srnal~ Wind Sy: A~ Guide for State and . Locc "We ought to have a law that allows lYCrfllEOwller'S and smal{ business people to pert up photovoltaic generMors anti smaN windmills and any other r~ew sources of vvldely distributed generation that they cart come up wrth. " Ai Gyre, March 1~3, ~dB7 CNIV Glenn Beck 51iow "f3ad zar~ing not aniy scares away pptentk~l customers, but also dealers -the local stria!! t~usinesses that distribute, lnsrall, and rrralntarn small wind systems. " Milo Bergey, Bergey windPawer Ca. "Planners can encotrragc~ ('~fiClCr7t G'r7ergy trSG', divcrslflcatfon of energy supply. z'rnd emissions reciuCtlons through their influckrrCe ever the' bcrift anti n~rturai cyr7viranrrrc:nty including bot=h where acrd haw wc~ build, and where and crow we presErve open spaces. " - American F~lar~~ing f~~sociartio~. Planning and Climaie CP~ar~ge: Miliga~:inn and Clean Enorgy Strategies. wwu~.planning.orgf ener9ylindex.htm ~.~ ~: "' T ,. ~~~ A Chide fear Stag andl Lc~ca1 C~QVernrnents The greatest challenges to small-scale renewable energy are not technical, but rather financial, political, and regulatory. Confusing, inconsistent or even absent permitting processes discourage the very people aforward-thinking community would want to enable: those with the motivation and resources to generate their own clean electrlGlty. Small wind turbines allow homeowners, farmers, small business owners, and public facilities to generate their own clean, safe, and reliable energy for on-site use. Though thousands of towns and counties already do; many have not yet included small wind systems in their zoning codes to allow their use. The reason is often no more than a lack of familiarity with the technology, resulting in overabundant care to avoid setting a controversial precedent. This often renders the permitting process the single most daunting obstacle for would-be consumers and prevents the installation ~ and associated public benefits - of thousands of small wind systems. The good news is this is easy to fix. Making the permitting process affordable, streamlined, and accountable is in the best interest of the consumer, environment, and community. This guide explains why, and identifies best practices for local governments to balance the interests of property owners and the community. Ron Stimmel September 2008 American Wind energy Association rstimmel@awea.org (202) 3832546 ~(3NTENTS Introduction What Are Small Wind Turbines? ...................................................... 2 How Are They Used? ...................................................................... 3 What Can Neighbors and the Community Expect? ,~ ............................ . 3 Responsibilities of Turbine Owners ................................................... 3 The "Power" of Good Zoning Precedent: Commonplace ar "Bleeding Edge"? .................................. 4 Why Zane for Small Wind Systems? ................................................. 4 The Importance of Height Why Do They Need To Be Tall? ........................................................ 6 Issues 1. Setback Distances and Height ......................~.......................,..... 8 2. Lot Size ................................................................................ . 9 3. Aesthetics ............................................................................ 10 4. Sound ................................................................................. 11 5. Property Values ..................................................................... 13 5. Insurance ............................................................................. 13 7. Abandonment ....................................................................... 13 8. Multiple Turbines ................................................................... 14 9. Urban and Building-Integrated Installations .............................. 14 10. Potential of Structural or Electrical Failure ................................. 15 11. Sail Studies .......................................................................... 16 Non~Issues/"Red Herrings" i. Shadow "Flicker" .................................................................... 17 ii. Fences/Attractive Nuisance ...................................................... 18 iii. Birds .................................................................................... 19 iv. "Icing" .................................................................................. 19 v. Electrical Signal Interference .......................~....,..................,... 20 vi. Lightning Strikes .................................................................... 20 vii. Stray Voltage ........................................................................ 21 Making It Happen: Best Practices and a Model Ordinance Permitted use? Accessory use? or Conditional use? ........................... 22 Recommendations For State and Local Governments ........................................ 23 Specifically for Loca[ Governments ....................................... 24 Specifically for State Governments ...................................... 25 Permitting Process: Time & Cost .......................................... 26 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 27 Contributing and Additiional Resources ............................................... 28 Appendix: AWEA Modei Zoning Ordinance .......................................... 30 ~~ye ~~«~E :a /~rr~~ r'<<'•~r; ` is rr7~.~ I-~~~,t{ay fk~,~;osrz~P~if1t~ t~.~;nrvd,~,~r~~,,or~!%~nt~;ll~vil~cl ` ~. R (~.prgrvlCd ~ ~~W Ci~€sic pads rlf ~ traditional, i-lorkzontak-Axis Small wind Systerrt €- t >'~ 7 ~~~~ 111dhat Alr~ Small Wind 7ulrl~in~~? A small wind turbine is a device that produces electricity from wind. Moving air causes the turbine to rotate, which generates clean, emissions-free energy that can be used to power a home, farm, school, or small business.''' Though most small wind turbines look like a miniaturized, "back yard" version of the large, utility-scale, three-bladed turbines, the industry encompasses over z00 different models and they can vary widely in appearance. A small wind turbine is technologically advanced but mechanically simple, with only two or three moving parts, Most feature three blades of 2-15 feet in length, a generator located at the hub, and a tail, The turbine is mounted on a steel tower 35-140 feet high, which is designed as a freestanding monopole {like a street light}, a lattice tower {like a radio tower), or a guyed monopole (like a street light with 760' ~4a' ~za` Boa' Ba' 6a' 40` za' a " arnali tvinc `>Y>t.5?rn'~ c~r~:~rraP)asss>s nok urTiy the ttilrk)irlu, tlltt t:h~ Cr)Kr~rf €t1u€lriai:ion, and k~irirs~ F~[I€€iW€nr.l~t of[:r~u €1(:CE'.55:i1r`I fc)" ill1 i€7St<3il<~_ tlt)r3. °~iitti€li :i'nd $.l5€'t71nc?' ilt?Ci ",rrTali vvincl s;vst'trrt" ure sr)n'!rx€:in'€>=s u.~c=.u inte~'ci'kJnywal~ly, 7Y€r>. Sn'€~lli Winck £;c€-til~ic<€P.irsn l.c~un<:il (a4~£:£;) is ii iT i~t[€e7w!ldrnt„ 4:€1ir€:'-;?c'tr,'y p=-acPrzirrl that will, upon it~t irtil"OC1l1L:€:ti)11 .1 ~~#{~~, L~t'.f"tif} tiiliikli 4V1€ltil turt€€ne~ tt>l'Ed support cables from mid-tower to the ground}. {See p, ].0 for illustration) Some models eliminate the traditional propeller-shaped blade design and instead feature acylinder-tike component that revolves similarly to a barbershop pole or corkscrew, Systems of this configuration are known as "vertical axis" turbines because the plane of rotation is perpendicular, or vertical, to the ground. The technology has advanced considerably in the recent years, making small wind turbines quieter, more reliable, and better able to blend in with surrounding aesthetics. A forthcoming (2009) program to certify small wind turbines to a safety, performance, sound, and reliability standard will further promote high performance and increase consumer confidence. ec, a pe.r'I'arlrrar'€ce, safety, at1e1 reliat~i€iiv utr~nclarci. W'r€lan~d anrn enart€~d incentv€as far's€nai€-turtairlr;! cr)rTSClrnc~t> ~Jt statc>. <€nci texde€'i~l it~veis I'€avEt <+.Ir~:z€rSy br~r~u€1 to iTr r„fit€ni i[Tr this imnr~n£lir~ci Wro€~rttrr'i ?~y rlttzi<irir~ fr€Cure ~:e~rii:r.:<€€:ic~n ~a rc:~,€Jt,site fn€' erca€~uity. nihrr• str.~cr:s, :~t€c€'! :i> Cal{ifc€rnia a€1d Ne.Yr YDrE<, i;av~ incor,:lua'<'€k=d tir~ir cv~n crii:c*rr€ fnr~ el€yi[~€lity int;1 thc:i!• inrc~ntvr: pr€JC,r:a~€s in order to ~r~;ni' ir€rtiantivr:s cJniy :.cl €rech)c.ks tlly"I: €1'tc'.t31: €:c'€'i:ain pt.rforn~nncc: alld ..fety r:3:~cistirsns, V~€•tical-Axis Turbine Skystream 1.HkW turbine ae::~thetic comparison to lampposts Haw ~41re They Used? Tens of thousands of homes, farms, small businesses, schools, and other institutions throughout the country use small wind turbines to lower or eliminate their electricity bills. Uses are diverse and quite similar to those of solar photovoltaic panels. The two technologies are in fact natural complements {wind resources are strongest in the winter and spring while solar resources are strongest in the summer) and are often used together in hybrid systems. Some small wind systems connect to the utility grid while others charge batteries for backup power far remote, stand-alone applications like cabins or even sailboats. Connecting to the electric grid allows a turbine owner to use electricity from the local utility when the wind does not blow, but also allows any surplus electricity - energy produced in excess of consumption, such as when winds are strong and usage is low - to be sent back into the grid and used by a neighbor. But unlike large turbines that power entire cities, small wind systems are used to produce power primarily an-site for a single user. 'Vi!'hat Can Nfeighbors and the Community Expect? After installation, which takes about two to 10 days to complete, life with a turbine in the neighborhood is largely uneventful. Visual assimilation of the new turbine is similar to neighbors becoming accustomed to a new building addition, landscaping project, or the removal of a prominent tree. The best way to assess the impact is to visit an actual installation. With approximately 10,OOa turbines sold in the U.S. every year, and in all 50 states, they are relatively easy to locate. Contact a manufacturer or local installer to see an installation first-hand. (See www.awea.org/smallwind/smsyslst.html} ~espvnsibilities ©f Turbine ®wner~s The small wind industry is indeed small, and every installation potentially affects public perception of not only small wind turbines, but of renewable energy as a whole. Each installation is, in essence, an ambassador of the industry. It is In the long-term, self interest of the industry and consumers alike that owners exercise good judgment and courtesy toward their neighbors and community. Doing so often Includes informing neighbors, in writing, of a proposed installation and educating them about potential impacts - both real and perceived - of a small wind turbine (see www.awea.arg/smallwind/ toolbax2/TNSTALL/buildi ng_permits.html for a sample letter to neighbors). For fundamental reasons though, topography and the wind itself largely determine precisely where and haw high a turbine must be installed. Sometimes there is no way to avoid these physical constraints other than to place or elevate the turbine into a more aesthetically sensitive place on a property. But a~turbine owner should make a deliberate effort to take all reasonable measures to minimize impacts on neighboring areas. ~arfnrr-ara Applicatiinn,s t7n- ar Off-Grid._. • Single-Fai~nily Homers • Businesses • Far~~ns • Institutions ® Sct~aals + Gavernmer~t Builclinc~s • Industrial Sites • Military • Cammunicatians Systems ,Everybody knows tt~e gaud things at~out using ronewat~le energy. I wanted to set art examlale clown trere and perhaps encocrrage others to cfa the same tiring." - ~rnali-turbirne owner Chuck He[dE', Snrners, WI f~klT;r ! i~'s'11~ I/11i1iC~ ~17E'i'Ci~~ ~i ~t)('1~1tlUl~ ~:v'i~V~+"J.~lUVF'c~,Crt'[~r~~,rllcill4'Ji11i:~ .,' .:~ 0.4 kw turbine an a sailboat "lU~,vcr t~efor~e has the gEknerai pudic heer7 so ir7tc~r~.~sted irr solar and wind c~nr'r•gy, nor- has the prat>~rrtia! fc~r politico! support ever l~eert sa high. „ - ~~tgrid N. Kelley, Chair, Envirc~nnlient, Nattrrarl Resources and Enemy division, Arr~erican Planlnin€~ Associ~ttitan "The lay we plan urlaar~ areas significantly affects the energy usage of individuz~f buiirlir~g sites. Appropriate Site t~esigr~ standards r3l7d l~ull(~fl7g COde5 can r~nc~>uragc energy cnnservatian and the use of rcr~ewabie er7r5rgy techr~alagles an sire. „ - Amrerica~ti ~lanning Association ~~ '„ ~i PireCeden'~: Commonplace or "~le~ding Edge"? Understandably, community leaders are sometimes hesitant to enact regulations that appear to be first of their kind. But with tens of thousands of small wind turbines in the' U.S., in every state, zoning ofFcials need not fear being on the "bleeding edge" of a new movement. Thousands of townships, counties, and cities have had small wind zoning regulations on the books for decades, setting a substantial precedent far others to follow. Below is a very small sample of Nocalities with small wind zoning ordinances: Great Falls, MT San Bernardino County, GA Clarke County, VA Currituck County, NC Kern County, CA Long Lake Township, MI Norwich, VT Ocean Gate, N] Masan City, IA Wicasset, ME Rockingham County, VA Denver, CO Thetford, VT Eliot, ME henry County, GA Cape Elizabeth, MA Rochester, NY Tippecanoe County, IN San Francisco, CA Chicago, IL Fillmore County, MN Weber County, UT 1AIhy Zone fog Small Wind Systems? Your family's electric bill has climbed to $400 per month and you expect it go higher. You are worried how global warming will affect your kids. And you don't want to wait around for others to fix these problems. Generating your own, clean power sounds fike a great idea, and something you may even be able to afford with the rebate program your state offers for small wind turbines. So you spend months researching equipment, your neighborhood's wind resource, and ways to pay for a new turbine. All your ducks are finally in fine, but when you apply for a building permit, the county office has never heard of small wind systems, or if they have, only of rumors that they are noisy and kill birds. This technology is also nowhere to be found in the zoning code and It Is hard for the zoning office to find out information about how to treat this unique structure. Or, since the closest thing the zoning office has dealt with before is large, utility-scale turbines, your 5 kilowatt turbine is treated the same as a 50,000 kilowatt power plant and the permitting requirements and costs are Impossibly out of reach. " "~"csliry €>uidc: c,n Etic:rcl~~." ~!Y€c~rrc<~ri i~l<rrrr€irry As>caefrrtit~rr, hpril ~t10 a, http:/ivvw'v~.;Irrrrnlriy,ti€'gi fialicy~u€c,csltxif/fir€ergy.ptli `sr:(: a>ri: °f~l<~r~rri.>icY ~n.l {,llfYli~st:S." {,rk'irri~JC.": 1~'~Il'1C3i)kiC3r3 i;Sil(1 {: [C!i€rl ~fif1'Cf~ ~il:l'ii~€~q E4'.5.`~ l~rr€erlrr~n E~I~Ynnirru ~s~;nt~aEior€. 1'€EC~afrrsu~:r.t7le~rrrrsra~-ark; e:rr^rgY/iEiclc2x.ti~rr~. Ac:c~v~ssc~:l F1:zY 20i)t;. ~} :a rr,r ~ tsr oP skata:> ias~€rl ii(.c:r€P.iu(ts av<.il<:L1.: '~oE- s€rxtii 'k'i Et(1 3y51.'c: ril.`i, 5@t' khe t)i34;~.`k?<75P- (il t>~'c77•#: lrf~"c:ftCl V(:1S t~i7Y Fleruw'uiti;ct, t;: ffficiency al'. ttti:{i:/; el~,tretrszi.t3r~. QeMr•gcty wfndPtwuer ].Okw turbin~ Left without a solution readily at hand, the permit is denied, and you are stuck with high electricity bills and a for small wind installations can be a rewarding investment. dependency on conventional fuels. Your For the Personal Benefits. Owners community misses-the opportunity to increase clean, in-state generation, reduce the pressure on a stressed power grid, and employ local businesses to sell, install, and maintain these systems, of small wind systems enjoy: • Personal energy independence • Free electricity after recouping costs • Relief from high and volatile prices of other farms of electricity Simply listing small wind systems as an allowed use (such as an accessory, permitted, or conditional use) can avoid this scenario that happens with startling frequency around the country. t~tl~er re~srans to permit fnr smell wind systems include: To Be Prepared. Many states` carefully craft incentive programs to help consumers purchase small wind systems only to find that local zoning ordinances stand in the way of the systems' Installation. Communities may wish to design zoning policy to anticipate and accommodate small wind installations, especially in states that try to encourage them. To Retain Autonomy. The states of California, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Vermont, and New Hampshire have been the first to create statewide rules for the permitting of small wind systems. Whether to follow suit ar preserve local autonomy, knowing how best to deal with this technology in your community is good long-term strategy. • Reliable electricity • Ability to supporC clean energy and fight global warming in a tangible way • Increased property values For the Public Benefits. Though the power generated by a small wind system is used only by a single residence or facility, the benefits of wind power extend to the entire community. Community benefits include: • Reduced pressure on the local electricity grid • Increased security: can provide back-up power to strategic applications like police stations or hospitals for "hazard mitigation" purposes' • Increased local energy independence • Increased property values • Enhanced reliability and power quality of the power grid • Reduced peak power demands • Increased in-state electricity generation • Diversified energy supply portfolio • Reduced pollutants from traditional forms of energy • Increased market competition from more consumer choice To Conserve Public Resources. Case- Increased visible indicators of by-case application reviews and hearings cost time and money. Proactively planning S~~t?t'li<~ !~,?€iaei~.l Ltat~tar<'.tt~€'y i~~is bec3tsia s~c;vc:=c~ta~nc~€?t at'r;Yt<~tr.caie Erir:?rc~u `iureLy h9icrc~c~~r t'€Clt'i;!/w:>~4v.s~ rirli<r.clc?vjrxxw,iresourc<~r>IE'c~te<?:~e:s/ community support for clean energy • Increased regional. economic growth A turbine`s productivity is i~r~ely in the hands [~f ~®nir~~ ~i~fici~ls. "l~rsrr}bated small wrnci enerr~y systerrrs,., enhance the re}}ab}lity and power qua}it y of the power cdrrd, reduce peE~k power derYt~rtds, ir?CrE'c7Sf' lr3-Stc7t~' e}eery}city generation, rilver~}fy the safe's energy suppfy partFa}ia, End m~~}se the e}ecrric}ry supp}y m~-~rker rnor-e. camper}r}ve by pram©t}nc~ consumer c}~a}ce. " - California Government Grade, Section 6589I.3. (a)ft) www.leginfn.ra. grrv/cgi-bin/displaycadc: ?section=gov&group= 650(13.-G6000&fi Ec.= 658g2.I3 Manufacturers ask: "In which state sh~ottlcl I base my aperati{~ns?" The ansvtrer is: "States with the best policies." ~';l11c ! iC <<!i 1.1~iI1{r }=l7F'1'(J~' /i:7?if)f ici('i{air VJ~^+tN.~1N: F'~7,CrCCi/titTlF:ililh'ttl(~ `i ~ ~ ~ ~~ Vrntera 1fll<w turl~lne i~uttirr~g a turbirne on tae shirt of a t~w~r is Eikc~ placing a sml~r pac~~l In the shac(e. F~estrictive Zanir~g F'8ules fan Ur~ei!ermine State taw several states r~ffer financial incentives ter promote 5rrtall wind turbine5 and clean energy. But inning height lirr~itations can prevent turbines from generating any rrreaninc~fui amount of energy, thwarting the: intent of thc~ state incentive:. ~~"1j/ ~3U T'~'1G''~' NE'LC~ TC3 ~~ T7~~~ A tall tower is the single most important factor in the economic viability of a small wind system. Tall towers enable turbines to access faster and better quality winds, and even small increases in wind speed translate to exponentially more energy the turbine can generate. In other words, a taller tower means far more -and cheaper -energy. The best sites for turbines are those where the wind is least obstructed, which Is often the highest point on a property. The bottom of the turbine rotor should clear the highest wind obstacle {rooftop, mature tree, etc.) within a 5a0 foot radius by at least 3fl feet. Doing so ensures the turbine reaches consistent, fast wind speeds and prolongs the life of the turbine by avoiding stressful air turbulence. ~+Ifuri Sirseds It1sr®t1~9 wilirlieiyhl ~~ - ~~ ~~ ,; . y~ „ - J ~. ~ Incre fsa fo wi(uipawer ' P 4(FO-vsratt . .., 5i3Q feet SO`-1~0` taw+gr iQ^kl lbUVt~tt Fora 10kW residential-scale turbine fiovfer LVind kWh~yeai- system Increm~"htal Incremental increnit5nk~l height speed r_ost cast from _' 4nr3rgy energy + (feet) (trlph} bU' oukput from lncrenlenkal so' ca t ~ Ro~* 60 7.3 2 709 46 665 --- --- --- 80 9.3 6,136 $49,841 $1176 or 226% 226% _ 2.4% 2,4% = 94 to 1 ROI 104 10.7 9,338 $51,34fi $2fi81 or 344% 344%+ 5.5% 5.5% = 63 to 1 ROI * =Return on Investment Micksagrillo,AWEAWIndietter,January2446 Overly conservative zoning height restrictions therefore cost the owner money - and a lot of it, They can also mean more sound, since taller towers raise the generator high above the ground, diluting sound considerably, Sound decreases four-fold with every doubling of distance from the turbine (including distance above the ground) so taller towers are better for their owners as well as neighbors. (See also "Sound" p. 11.} For zoning officials, the importance of strong winds also means that tower height cannot be compromised as a gesture to neighbors concerned about the visibility of the turbine. "Hiding" a turbine From neighbors using a shorter tower almost always means hiding it from the wind, too. Power from the Wind 944% _ - 844% - _ - -- 744% - - - - _ _ „ 600% - - 544% -- e 440% _ - - - E 304% - - E F 4 244% -- _ - _ _ 1464% a . ` - - - T .. ~° o Wlnd Speed Increase ^ Power Increase Nor do two shorter installations make an acceptable substitute for a single, taller one. A tower alone can comprise 50% or more of a system's total cost, so multiple, shorter turbines (on multiple towers) cost the owner far more than a single, taller system. {See also "Multiple Turbines," p. 14,) It is also important to keep in mind that a turbine's generator size (generating capacity, measured in kilowatts or kW) has little, if anything, to do with its tower height. Sometimes zoning regulations mistakenly limit tower heights based on the size of the turbine's capacity, thinking that a 2kW turbine, for example, always corresponds to a 40 foot tower, Thls is not the case, Appropriate tower height is matched to a turbine depending on surrounding terrain, trees and buildings, and wind resource. Therefore, tower height restrictions, if any, should only reflect sound and safety concerns rather than be designed to correspond to a system's generating capacity. Most often, in fact, established sound and setback requirements negate the need even to mention height in regulations for small wind systems. _~„ ' i ~i, S' ~ ~, tl`~ /K i~~t a F- ~',~. ,Mxi n„~ ~ ' .. M~~riail Pour r windspire ikw turbine f'~,r,rf~~-ic°~~r~ lrt/irlcf Eta=~:;y .~1ssc~ri~JC~ior VJb•VV'J.~4"?t'~,CII-.C)r1~•l'fiflli~n:ltl~ 7- f3err~ey WindPo>Ner .tf7kW Xt_S turbine r~ . , ` :~~~= Many existing height lirnitatians still exist Lased upon the fact that lqq years ago water pressure in Firefighters' bases could not reach higher than 35 feet. ~~~ i ~' ~ i=nergiEPGE 35kw turt~in~ 1=lagpales, larr-p pasts, and utility poles are allowed in front of schor~ls and parking lots among cars and people because they are engineered structures, just like wind turbine t©wers, They sh©uld all receive the sa~~re treatment under law. 5~ The following issues are key components of land use law, as well as public acceptance of small wind systems, and are critical for the successful placement of a turbine: Z. Setback Distances and Height 2. Lot Size 3. Aesthetics 4. Sound 5. Property Values 6. Insurance 7. Abandonment 8. Multiple Turbines 9. Urban and Building-Integrated Installations 1Q. Potential of Structural or lEaectrical Failure ZZ. Soil Studies ,. Setback Distances and Height: To balance against the need for tali towers (see p. 6), good practice requires that a turbine in a residential district be "set back" from a property line some given distance. {For commercial or other zones, this distance is often considerably less, even zero, since in these areas affected parties seldom exist immediately outside a property line.) The mandated distance in residential zones should reflect valid concerns for property rights of abutting neighbors, as well as those of the turbine owner. This most commonly translates to the tower height plus the length of one blade (the turbine's "total extended height") from the property line, inhabited neighboring structures, utility lines, and/or road right-of-ways, This distance should suffice so long as the tower is prafessionapy engineered and/or the installer provides engineered plans of the tower, the foundation, and the system does not exceed the definition of nuisance noise as established in the zoning code. {See also "Sound," p. 11.) Independent structural analyses of a tower and its foundation are readily available from the manufacturer, so requiring additional studies is unnecessary and also prohibitively expensive for a turbine owner. For their own protection and insurance considerations, the manufacturer conducts these studies for reasons of economics, responsibility, and -even if for no other reason -self-preservation. (See "Potential of Structural or Electrical Failure," p. 15.) 5cauth~vest windpower "Air„ an lamppost However, in residential zones, some argue that a turbine's setback should be no different than that of a house, cellular tower, flag pole, street lights, or any other engineered structure, and that height should not be expressly limited nor specified in zoning regulations. Instead, they argue that in residential zones turbine heights are already self-regulated based on sound level restrictions at the property line. Also keep in mind that: ^ Turbines on the market are engineered to withstand hurricane force winds (110 -130 mph). ^ Allowing abutting property owners to submit signed easements may be an alternative form of compliance should roads and utility lines be absent in the immediate vicinity. A manufacturer's engineering specifications should be an acceptable means of ensuring safety and practicality. ~~, Allowing abutting prnpc:rty owners to submit signed c:asc:ments may lit' an alternative; form of rompliancc sho~.ild roads and utility lines l3G abse~i~t in the ii~~rr~ediate vicinity. E3ergey Winc~Pc~wer fkw turbine ~. L.et Size: Some zoning rules limit turbines and/or their heights to a corresponding property size. For example, some jurisdictions limit tower height to 80 feet for lots 0.5-1.0 acre and impose no height limit for lots larger than 1.0 acre. This regulatory approach, however, usually has no meaningful effect simply because sound and setback requirements, which are usually more restrictive, make such a stipulation redundant. Such a requirement may contribute only to additional administrative burdens and unnecessarily limit the use of wind turbines. CIF t f~•,i ,::krl~~° ic°t~r~ I~Vit1Ci rrz~;~~Y r1;i4f(~1<3t~ivtl '~"vL'1b^~.c34~1F'~,C1rC~~,dl"SEi~~V~Ja13E~ tl Skystream I.Akw turbine Skystream 1.8kw turbine dual-Erse nn larrrppost "~y placing these windmills where many 1J~f3jJle Cc7n SGB tllefl?, ,~peopleJ will be able fo learn shout and experience alternative energy as part ol• their daily lives." w Perrnsylr~aniz~ ~pv. Edward Bendel! ~~ 3. A~S~~'1kw'~[CS: To function, wind turbines must be tall and unobstructed, which means that they will likely be visible at some distance (see p. 6). It is also a fact that some people object to their appearance However, legislating "taste" becomes a difficult task -and an inappropriate one for any authority other than a homeowners' association (and even homeowners' associations may wish movement are a distractive and unpleasant sight and visually Intrude on their rights as property owners. Both views are based an emotion, however, not fact. As such, aesthetics are often a very sensitive issue and policymakers should take care to address any concerns fairly. Small turbines are designed to blend in to create policies that prohibit aesthetics with their surroundings as much as from entering the debate). Regulating aesthetics requires balancing the perceived or desired character of a community; the public and private benefits of clean, renewable energy; and property rights of all parties. Advocates say that small wind turbines are icons of the American rural landscape, dating back to the 1920s, and that today trey have again emerged as a symbol of independence and a cleaner future. They argue that so long as a turbine is installed safely, particularly on private property, they should be allowed. System owners compare the aesthetics of their turbine to that of a street lamp, utility pole, or flag pole, and like a flag on a flagpole, a turbine only moves or makes a sound when the wind blows (see "Sound," p. 11). Advocates also point to precedent, noting that communities already accept water towers, buildings, billboards, relay towers, cell phone towers, utility poles and lines, grain silos, and radio antennas as part of the landscape. But the aesthetic impact of wind turbines may be unacceptable in areas with historic significance where aesthetics play an important role in a district's long-established character. Opponents say that their height and possible. Studies show that turbines best blend into the sky when painted the factory-default color. Manufacturers avaiE themselves of expertise to determine how to prevent their turbines from standing out like a sore thumb on the landscape. So requiring owners to "disguise" a turbine or tower by painting it green or other colors to match vegetation would actually make it stand out more and should be avoided. Some communities regulate appearance by prohibiting the use of commercial markings, messages, or banners on the turbine or tower. Some towns also dictate which tower types are acceptable in order to ensure only the most visually appealing design. This, too, is a subjective assessment, and such decisions are often made without considering the added cost of a "sleeker" tower that performs just as reliably as another design. A monopole tower (tike a flag pole} generally has a "tidier" appearance than a lattice tower (like a radio tower) or guyed tower (like a flag pole with wire supports}, but they can cast several thousands of dollars more and should not be considered equal economic substitutes. All towers on the market are professionally engineered for safety and reliability, leaving appearance and cost the only significant differences among them. Monopole -Cower L~uyed Mnnupole Tower ~. ~®und: Modern wind turbines have better insulation, lower rotation speeds, fewer moving parts, no gearboxes, and more efficient blades that make them much quieter than their ancestors, Today's turbines emit sound that is barely discernible from ambient noise, even with a decibel (dB) meter. Sound from traffic, rustling trees, airplanes, and people in fact often sufficiently mask the dull, low, "white noise" sounds a small turbine can make at certain wind speeds. Only during short-term events like severe storms or utility outages do turbines make distinctive sounds, but in these occurrences ambient sound levels increase as well. To put this into further perspective, the sound made by the lanyard clasp on a flagpole line hitting its pole is far more "tonal" and distinguishable than any sound a small wind turbine makes, and is less easily masked by ambient sounds,b zoning policy should reflect ambient sound levels as well as occasions where no affected parties are located immediately outside a property boundary, Therefore, except during short-term events like storms and utility outages, a small wind system should be instalEed and operated such that sound pressure levels do not exceed the definition of "nuisance noise" as established by existing zoning code. or at the nearest dwelling, whichever is greater, Sound Levels should always be measured downwind of the turbine to account for the canceling effect of the sound of the wind itself. 1[f ambient sound levels exceed "nuisance" levels on certain occasions, such as during storms, sound level limits of small wind systems should also be given reprieve during these events which are out of everyone's control, Or, instead of singling out wind turbines in sound regulations, it may be more fair and administratively simple to use default sound/noise regulations that apply universally to other objects and appliances in a community, The small wind section of Wisconsin's (state-wide) zoning ordinance, for example, has no mention of sound because its designers chose to treat small wind turbines equally with other allowed devices/structures. 4.,.T, 1qI Wryllrna ~; ~~ f. ' ` ~~~ ~ i~ Prtcumttlr indusMal l + € i No1so ~ r «. ;~ ,. `" ~~i,, M SkereaMuslo insilo c8r < <~ ~,~, , _ r E r? 'F ` , 4.~, t i ~. t ~ ~_ i I~an+d '' ~ i%~~ r ~= ~ : ~,,. s, ,; - ~ ~ r~ 5metli~lnd Bad[Q4rtt ~~~ . _~ t Ti~{i71n0~ ~® _~ fei~n~ ~ ~~ ~-- .._ j, Whupa~~ Y .Learns ~~ _Y1 ~ -_y 'SoundpraaaurehvelatedEstance4tiElflft' Sound Leave) Comparisgi~ Modern srr~ali wine[ turbines are typically gt~iet~r than mist external air con~litlaners. R clasp hitting a flagl~c~le is far rrrore dlstinguisha(~te tfrart any sound a small wind turbine makes ~ ~~,~ . ~ 5 .~~ .~~ '~. s flag clasp pl~ato credits: ~1ags Unlimited W„~,~ fir]+t ~:::+L: ~ itr::l,~i1('?"~~y'.~;iSC)C1c71~It)?7 ~:rv1+4N.X34`J{'~1.C~1`Cj,~`;r11~1~4'J111~`:1 11 mast people's reaction to t~rfaines, even up close, is that they are much cloister than they expected. „Var-rrrorrt tur6irte owne~- fJa~id L31itt•ersclorf reports that thc~ home next to his sold within one clay far the full asking price. !-lis new neighbors later told ttirr~ that his .tOkUV turbine was a major factot° in the clulck sale. 'They said they wanted to live in a place where the camrnunity cared about the envlronn'rent. They told n're that they, too, waster! to install a smat! winCl tcrrbine someday, says C3litter5dor f; " Perrttitting ~rnali Wind Turbines: A Mandt~oak: Learning from the California experience. California l;r~ergy Cc~rnrnissi€-r~, ~~#~. www.awea.org/ srrt a l l wi n cl / tdt~c u rte a nts / ~erfllit~irlg.pdf ~. ~®und (con's): Planners and zoning committees should also keep in mind that: r Sound decreases significantly with distance from the source (including height -another good reason to allow tall towers}, Doubling the distance from the turbine decreases the sound level by a factor of four. For example, sound level readings at 25ft. from the turbine hub drop by a factor of ~F at 50ft., and by a factor of ~.6 at 100ft. Noise intrusion across a property line from a turbine that is set back 100ft. or more is typically very limited. ^ Turbine manufacturers are keenly aware of the public demand for quieter machines and have invested in new materials and designs to minimize sound. As a result, today's turbines operate at near-ambient sound levels. ^ Only a few events or circumstances can cause a normal operating wind system to become audible, including utility blackouts (or a full battery bank for those models that Incorporate batteries). Both situations are temporary, and in many cases (but not a!I), easily remedied by the owner by manually shutting down the turbine. ^ Sound level test data far some turbines is available from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),' ^ Requiring certified noise tests for a residential wind system is unnecessary given the lower sound emissions of today's turbines and that sound data is readily available from manufacturers. Such tests are also beyond the budget of any homeowner. ^ "Noise" is a subjective term. Whether a person generally favors wind turbines or not can determine how he or she views a single, seemingly objective sound. ^ The single best way to understand the nature of a turbine's sound is to visit an installation site. All turbines are a marginally different so be sure to visit a location with a similar wind resource and the same model turbine as is in question. Round ~~aaves, diluted ti4th distance) iedoia, rr/ eaatca, i' ~ ~ l ~, r! ~/ /~~~ -~/ 4doirs.} ,.i f ~ [dlagohal] - I " T!ta,~ tiittaruti i1e€r:vraa[Jlc Er€ergy L~tber<tt:try (NT~' is '., 9€~t5 tr~stecl s(:v[t€~<.I rc::sifler€ti~€,-stzrc9 Yvtr€c turt'Jirtes:s fxn• sv;3r€ci r:ntisr>isrt Ir:sel,. Nfdt~C, ertgiru~etrs t€r)Ct€c,9 <€ "€rtts! keri t'Jrcyras:i tcsuat~rf r;:;i£trc:t- turt]irtc:>" in r(:£:ertt yr>rtr~s <'srtci CO€4r:i; riE!(~ iri (SY€N. (:i7,`iG'. LttE?l: "t.tlt; LL€rtsirt£? rtalSft £;4)LIiCi IIrJ ~: t'te >ctsitreitc~ct rrc)r€s t.t€e tt<JCkr,~raunct rxticrr'." ~t€iy i actrt<;rti311y ;:rtac~ (tP €ttost. <)( t.(tc:ray':i rr>.rsirl<:rtt.itti ~ir€fi :ttuifsrner€R r)ver <t arc*§tt_ r<trtc,(,. of rspc:rrtfirs~ ?virtri spk'c:xlt>. N€i~t, c,nySrxaers r€r~tesi, ha':><r.uEr, tt€at "the np rai:h €, r:ar€riitt')rt ;r)t t.tu urirt£t i:trrt>irtG~ ilas <€ si:rrJnc rtfturtrtct: ctr€ thc: rui>£~ cat~sractt~J-i>tir:>."'T'hey fa!snri t:va sr,§ma€•ias 4Yttt~;Cr." :if)trr€ft <1f:CUi113 ~+ trtr:i"(',it:it:r,~ 7ft)ttVf: r)(trttk?i E)t?i:re?t'.I?t~ t'art('Iii:ittr€r>: svtt8r€ yrie r:(,:tnti;cti£?r€ :vas icsst {far c;ri<J- cr)rt€~rt,:i:erl rr€ot~r;is) an£i tut€c.€t tt€e t'J<Jt~~;rias :~e('.rr." ft€i {f'cr Ltzti'.Cc?ry-(:tt<€rc€int~ rrtfsctc'ais). Thct host€ticJn i> >rnt'JtY frl r' i;tt(~', t)VJr1E!r' l:a S'itttt Of lit§? tis rttEl€C i€t GI'€Ca>? ,>l i;l€Z€f:13ft°, to i"VCJiC1 e;xce~>~siue €tc;ise. ~i~.c i:I€~ NREL rct;ctrc, "ACUUStiG T(s[5 Of S:'r ls3I 1~^,}iYtCt ~<:a~ifilBS," Ntt~t.,?C.F`-a~C1.. ~~4F;6?, ray P, t~€it)tirJ€t?, J. t.<~€rt CJ~~r€, artct A. }i;:skeY ~~t http:f!~'+~ rrt^r. r€r r_' I<yovjsr]c51fy04ast:i?:34u;i2. fttif, AdeiCiar€tJl Rea+surc:es; !tlxsrt5, t7~nif:t 7. "Pr'im.=r fu" Atdria:ssirtc vVrtct lu'tJirtr: Nc~i~,a". t_~~v:~re€€c~ T:,~€:r:toiogiretl ltnivt•:r~,ity, 2(l3'.i. ttlCt):1!Ctrs€n(~~,n:t.l'€ere,carrtfrlja 1.7f1~.! tct:hnicta'~,._.evrli:iru~;' Rcci3e€'>fAcSctrez~tsinc;~FJinci'fu~';JiE~eNc~isc . rtc,f a ,' ~. Property Values: Evidencef' indicates that the presence of wind turbines increases neighboring property values. No study has ever concluded that wind turbines -neither large nor small -have had a depressing efFect on nearby residential property values. A recent survey found that most people are interested in or willing to pay more for homes equipped with solar panels or wind turbines.' ~. TnsUrance: The small wind system should simply be added to existing homeowner, farm, or business policies as an "appurtenant" (uninhabited} structure and not require a separate policy. Precautions such as setback requirements for wind turbines are designed specifically to protect that which is beyond one's own property line. Homeowner's insurance policies make no distinction based on how far a turbine is from one's own house, so neither should zoning rules. 7. Abandonment: Some towns require assurance that any Inappropriate and unduly burdensome non-functioning turbine will be removed after a period of time to prevent unnecessary clutter in a community. Abandonment due to malfunction has become particularly rare due to today's improved technology, though a community should be entitled to recourse should an abandoned turbine present a nuisance. Security bonds may be required for large, utility-scale turbines which are located on land leased from athird- party property owner, but these are for owners of small systems who install turbines on land they own. It Is recommended that any small wind turbine owner whose equipment is inoperable for six months be notified by the zoning committee that the owners have six months from the notice date to restore their system to operating condition. If the owner fails, the wind turbine should be removed from the tower for safety reasons. The tower itself would then be managed under the Public Nuisance language of the rest of the existing zoning code. s n r~]<y 1t?()3 St1AGy 1)y ttte Ftf;newctbtet t''ns.:€"c;y P£ris.:y t'=. rrjr:r'!: (f{f~#'6s; st,,ry, Ttrrt r:'ff<:ser cf t~Jirrci i7t~vtJrrsr!,cnk [rr: 1.it:;r-z3l~rni7c:r-cy Vatrrr~s, firtcs t'i~at "...far 1:ttct g!'~~al' majority at f3r£)j~c~ts ttrr Ksrr)t,~rty vrt(ues ztrtu~tlty rt~sE` rrtctrcr ra:lr:itly in ttte vlt~.v strc~ci tr:an ttrc;y c'licl i?t fitrc ;:c>n,t):ar=ai7lr! trrrt,rrttrrtiCy. tlorr:avcr, u<tr!re~~ 's:u:c:e~ser( (:ar>tr:r in ti,<~ view shc:c( after .htr trrrjrt:ls rarrt; cartl'srrr t <Frt:~lt~r>/~tttCt:f l~tt~irtr+r~rr5/It:t~lr~ ~C;rt~>:,'{v~Jr;rr.t:rE:yt'.trrgi .. ~ ~ a r'i~,d.._urttirt:.._Firr<{I.rrdf. See r!I ,c,: Rrlvice`-errs ast i~xtsrrt.; Resi;'lertfir~` wi;,c1 Ttrrt>in'.'::'; ~nci i>r3tsr^r•i:y Vraltr~~. Arrt~tricrtr, V^Jirrci iwrtc rc~y ~s~;oc. 1tte~:f.'~"r'~+.at+n<:e~.ctr~lFz,ri/stig: =iEo; rrts..._ro!,in~ ;xat)e~~y valrrc:s.trernl. ~} "tZ<:rie.",'at>ie t:r,[:rt1y Strrciy." (:<;IiFt>rr!ir~ ~rtct~-gy CE?3'ri!Y114itiiai'I, i~14)~!. ,~~()~., ttttii:,1%4`r4YVJ.k?I'rfr"Uy. (:i~].i~OV/ ra~ctr[slZC(T1 (fA-Q;3_:rQ:l 02-01.(i.rrli`. s3, li) rj; ~ .a t r` ~'. ;: YF ~1 ~ r R ~ windward i=ngin(~ering ~4.7.5kw tw•EzinE: Eowered for grour•tci rnaintertanc~ /`If?tt'flC~rr~ ~~,'.'11~;?_Il~f'C~y~,~~~f)E:f~7rltolT "J.~IG'd. ~~ir';3.C~!'~~~~fil€3~IFnI111C1 -13_ #~er~ey windPower 10kw XL.S turtaine ~i. Multi~Ne Turbine: AY~undant Renewai~{e i~€i~ryy I~RI~ i.~1.a ?.~kw and AftE 442 1.akw ~t~rbines .~ i ~. F f~R'XE4~ Aerc~Virnnrnc:nf ropfrop ar€'ay Though rare, some small wind systems come in "arrays" of multiple turbines, each of which is usually very small. However, regulations should treat additional turbines no differently than the first. So long as each turbine, or the resulting aggregate installation, meets the sound, setback, and safety requirements as exist for other structures, there should be no need for further or special considerations. ~. Ftr~of~~p Turbines and Urban En~irc~nmen~ks: In very rare instances turbines are installed directly onto building rooftops or even designed as part of the building itself (known as "architecturally integrated"). These installations appear mostly in urban or densely-built areas where small property sizes may prevent the use of towers elsewhere on a property. These types of installations currently account for less than 1% of all applications, but interest is increasing rapidly and zoning officials may receive permit applications for urban ar rooftop installations. Siting becomes especially important for turbines in urban settings. Wind ISOI~te~ _ f =F , , r.,. When determining height limits (if any -see "Setback Distances and Height," p, 8), keep In mind that rarely are multiple units equal economic substitutes for one larger, taller turbine. Therefore to meet restrictive height limitations, multiple small turbines are not an equal substitution. See the payback period table in the "Height" (p. 7) section of this guide for an illustration. patterns behave very differently around buildings and in densely-built areas, so a turbine must be sited very precisely in order to gain access to wind of sufficient quality. Height, for example, becomes Increasingly Important in order far the turbine to rise above aerodynamic obstacles and turbulence, as depicted in the graphic below. Regardless of these unusual physical conditions, as long as other sound and setback requirements are met, no additional or unusual standards should be imposed far architecturally- Integrated turbines and/or those in dense environments. 't.5 ~ Q'8 1.Q VelnoltylE!'u ~~ ~°urcc; Watson, 5.7. "Predict€itg the Yielcl of Micro-Turfines in the IJrt~an Roof-Top Env€ronme€it,"Centre for Renewable Energy Syster~is Technology, Loughborough llniversity, u.iC. Presentatiaai, March 200$. ~_~~ _ Provc~r€ Cnergy 2,sl~w tur~iinc raofGop array 10. IPoten~ial off' S~r~c~wrai ©r ~lectlrical Failure. Requiring code compliance and manufacturer drawings should sufficiently balance the public and private needs far an installation to be safe, practical, reliable, and affordable. Wind turbines are professionally engineered structures and are designed to withstand decades of near-constant operation (see "Setback Distances and Meight" p. 8). They shut dawn automatically during utility outages in order to protect utility line workers, and will not energize a dead power line. They are also equipped with manual and automatic aver-speed protection devices that keep the turbine operating in a controlled range of speeds. Because of these and other factors, mechanical failures are very rare, especially those that would have an impact on surrounding areas. But as a precaution, just as for any other allowed structure, the applicant should submit to the zoning board a line drawing of the electrical components, as supplied by the manufacturer, in sufficient detail to allow for a determination that the manner of installation conforms to the National Electrical Code. Doing so also serves to demonstrate that the installer and manufacturer are engaged in an evaluation of the suitability of the site. Though rare, some zoning boards require an engineering analysis of a tower and its foundation, but this is a very costly and often redundant measure. Even more rare is the requirement of an engineer's "wet stamp," which is afrom-scratch calculation performed by a structural engineer of the tower's integrity. Such a study can cast thousands of dollars and serves only to duplicate work that the manufiacturer originally performed as a prerequisite for securing liability insurance. r:~ ,: r><~lir~y t,~.;t{c>, c5rt t.:rrcresy." ~nirzi~ic:~=.rr fylz=.ni~in 3~ssrat~.i~titti~, Ai~ril :7.f)Ct~, blip;!/rr;~;uJ.,~lr~,vying.i~E'r~i€'•c~iicyguirl.*=;/nr:fi i:n~:~~c~Y.i~cl ~ t<n>~ ~~} "ftenewahfe energy ecfitipment~ 1~as hecome met ~ ref1a61e and ~CQnOf771C~~f, c7!)d instaflat~ion standards are more pr•ofessienal. „ - ~4mericar~ Manning Assoaiatifln, 201)4.:`.`' 13crgny windPawrr blade testing 4' .~: ~. y _.. n 44 .. w~~ ~!t_I~.t I~~i? k !f r1 ~ ' i, ' ~~° a R srr'all wind turbine can in fact: tre one aP ihc~ mare aesthetirally pleasing features in a city. Rnnftnp heating ar7d ventilation systems, antennas, and att~er structures €ound in urban environments usually reduce any aesthetic impacts Prom small wind turbines in comparison. proven Energy, Ltd. manufacturing facility tt~ Scotland, UK ii. Soil Sicudies: e:nter~rity Wind 5ysteir~s 5okw tu+•bine~ in Quint~r, Kansas Wind turbine foundations face .forces that are not unlike those seen in light- poie or flag-pole foundations, but far the same height, wind turbine towers generally experience higher forces at the very top of the tower. The wind turbine foundation therefore plays an important role in an installation, as does the soil in which it is installed. As standard practice, manufacturers engineer foundations for "worst-case" scenarios by assessing soil conditions based on U.S. Geological Survey sail maps, core samples, studies from the National Resource Conservation Service, or other resources. For "abnormal" soils consisting of rock, gravel, sand, peat orwater-saturated earth/muck, etc., a manufacturer or local professional engineer conducts a tailored, praject- specificsoil review and often designs a custom foundation for the site, The installer always confirms with the manufacturer or an Independent professional engineer that the site's soil conditions meet minimum standards as specified by the tower manufacturer, and that the tower is designed to local engineering standards (which vary by jurisdiction). For decades this has effectively ensured safe, durable installations while maintaining their affordability. These built-ln safeguards make formal site sail analyses unnecessary for residential-scale (20kW or smaller) turbines and avoid the need for special studies and designs that can exceed the cost of the Foundation itself. For example, a foundation designed for a "worst case" scenario might require 50% more concrete than that for another, similar structure, Assuming this Fortified foundation also costs 50% more, an installation far a residential turbine normally costing, say, $4,000, would Increase to $6,000. This is expensive, but a relatively small share of the total cost of the system. However, a foundation 50% more robust {and expensive) for a turbine larger than 20kW, where the foundation might normally cost $30,000, would now cost $45,000 - an increase of $15,000. At this point, a professional engineer's "wet stamp" based off asite-specific geotechnical study is now the best economic option for achieving the same, safe ends. The best practice would be to require an engineer's wet stamp and a soil analysis for turbines greater than 20kW, but allow "worst-case" foundations (already the industry's standard practice) for turbines any smaller. This would ensure quality, secure, and affordable installations. Nc~€~thern Power .~noi<w turbine y The Following are common misconceptions about small wind; i. Shadow "Flicker" ii. Fences/Attractive Nuisance iii. Birds iv. "Icing" i. Shadow "'F~ick~r"": Under very specific circumstances, low sunlight passing through the moving rotor of a turbine can cast visible shadows on the ground or on structures This issue pertains almost exclusively (and similarly rarely) to large, utility- scale turbines because of their slower- moving blades. Shadows also depend on the time of day, day of year, and latitude of the site's iocation.a~ Small turbines are shorter, have narrower blade profiles, and spin much faster than utility-scale turbines ~. Electrical Signal interference vi. Lightning Strikes vii. Stray Voltage so that any shadows become essentially invisible at operating speeds. Turbines of all sizes are designed to start spinning only after a minimum wind speed has been attained, so chances are very slim that a small turbine will spin slowly enough to make shadow flicker a concern. Furthermore, normal setback distances dictated by property lines or sound requirements mitigates, if not entirely eliminates, this potential nuisance, especially at U.S. latitudes. ~R~hresenta[lonofSiaadoivFli~kc.rlrilC~tict~ ~ G ~ hc~ t>c> siEaiity <sf s~~radrf~s flir;l<~~r ;~Pte::rirx; < t;ivarri Icx:al€csn r~tarl btu e~l~~:.t:~:e:d vt:~ry ~r<<riseiy. Se; htti7, JJw w4>~, vrindt~oLVC~r.urca/errJtc~u rJrtnvJsStracia+tr/ rsl~~rioux:.~trr} Par a ~~3i;t~rTt.' Pficl«r~ c~lr_~~tsator. r [~~ Northern paw~i' IDOkw turbino in Golden, Colpradr~ ii. ~en~~~/Attractiv~:IVui~anc~: Some voice concern that a turbine could pose a temptation to unauthorized cumbers and should be fenced off to prevent potential climbing-related injuries. However, decades of experience and tens of thousands of installations have shown that unauthorized climbing is exceedingly rare, A fence, which is itself climbable, can Impose its own attractive and aesthetic nuisance and in the process do little more than create false, negative impressions about renewable energy. Furthermore, far a turbine tower to be an "attractive nuisance" to the public, in most cases a potential climber would first have to trespass on private property - a much more prevalent Issue and one that should be dealt with separately.- Requiring fencing also places a burden on turbine owners unlike any imposed on flagpoles, utility towers, or other common, climbable structures. Perhaps most detrimental of all, fences prevent access to the turbine in emergencies. Sometimes a turbine must be shut down manually during storms ar electrical problems, and emergency shut-off switches are most often located at the base of the turbine tower. Utilities also require that the turbine be readily accessible to workers performing routine or emergency maintenance on power lines. Instead, to prevent unauthorized climbing: ^ Remove climbing foot rungs on the lower 10 or ~.2 feet of a freestanding tower. ^ For lattice or guyed towers, fasten sheets of metal or wood to the lower part of the tower to cover all hand - and foot-holds. ^ Display "Danger-High Voltage" or "Caution-Electrical Shock Hazard" signs to the sides of the tower, Qf the thousands of Freestanding utility high- line towers across the country, few, if any, are policed or Fenced, but they all are pasted with such signs. Utilities, tower manufacturers, and the small wind industry have successfully employed these techniques for decades and are more effective deterrents than any fence. k3eryey wlnciPower 10kw XI^S r~onopafe turhina with Fence In Crie, PA iii, birds: The most common -and most exaggerated -misconception about both large and small turbines is that trey are disproportionately harmful to bird and bat populations. Even the vastly larger, utility-scale wind farms that are grouped closely in large arrays account for less than 0.003% of all human-caused bird deaths.~~ House cats and glass windows, by comparison, cause 1D,000 times more bird deaths than do wind turbines. No study has been performed specifically to address avian effects of small wind turbines, but because of their dispersed nature and small size, it can be inferred that IV, "TC117ig": Like trees, street lamps, or other structures, turbines in cold climates can become covered in ice, which falls to the ground as it melts. But just as an airplane's wing must be de-iced in order for it to fly, a turbine's blade must be free of ice in order to rotate at any significant speed. The weight and aerodynamic interference of ice buildup slaws the blades' rotation to a near ~_^ "[:ntira7';ttrtl7l Ji~f~z?:.ts t3F V;incf-C:.r~ergy Pr~3~ec:Fs,`~ it:aPirn~~l rlcr~cie:my of S:c:ir:.~s, 1007. E7[tC3~ j,~C~rxaks.3~~p. ^~ril crit~~i lo~_ ~Ct~?rt*, Lard.... Sri x.11, ~:i~ ~' i-ri~:ksort, ct1.<~I, 7,QC1Z. Srarrtir€r.ry ~F!ltiE.l7r-c;11c~r~c~niC Cause , rsF lair: htr,€~talii.y they have an even smaller Impact than their larger counterparts.~~~ Environmental Impact or avian migration studies should not be required for individual small wind turbine installations. Are environmental impact studies required for every plate glass window or pet license? Small wind turbines in fact offer a net benefit to local and global environments: they emit no air polEutants, require no mining for fuel nor water for cooling, and have land use "footprints" of only a few square feet, stand-still, making any melting ice fall straight downward rather than being thrown from the blade. To put this in further perspective, a 1998 study calculated that the risk of personal or property damage from ice falling from a (large) turbine is lower than the risk of being struck by lightning.'f ,. - CSC~ss~€3yi, Mfl?C,=il="7, a€ul `~ir~fc:rt. "!~s ,c:ssmrnt C)f tir~fety Risks A€-isinr~ I:rc3n~ 4r,~inri °1~r~7inc'. Tc;n.1•„ f:ihl~ri£i, Rpril 1.0~3fi• •r.~~« - -.......-~..,.e~µ:r~#ttr.FiL'~tr~;tjr'3~u~~~ a %'~1'1C''11:"r`111 <'~1/]Cf }-'f7G'~"t~;b' ~'~S:afJf,'fc1CfC3t ':`JL'J~~J. c1L~Ir-'r7.:If'C~~Si71e'€iV+.~tfl(~ ~rnall ~rvincl turbine arm cortr~mic~nly used t~ power cornrnunicationi~ er~e~iprr~ent. °They will not caiuse ~i~r~l Interference. :,,} ,,i ti ,r^ 1' ~ f:;~ ~ ~. , k ~'~ Proven Energy 6kW tarrbirre powering £clecarnrr~unications equipment Z,_ v. Ede~~rical Signal Inter~erenc~: Small wind turbine blades are made from materials that are "invisible" to radio frequency transmissions and cannot cause interference problems. In fact, small wind turbines are used by the U.S. Navy to power military communications equipment.~'~~' In the past, wind turbine blades were sometimes made of metal which did create unwanted rad[o or television interference, but the industry has long since abandoned the use of metal blades. Any structure under 200 feet high - that is to say, any small wind turbine - is also too short to interfere with civilian or military radar. Radar usually does not even scan for objects this close to the ground because common land features at this height, like trees, would normally cause distorted, cluttered, or misleading radar images. vi. Lightning S~Irik~s. Wind turbines do not attract lightning, so pose no threat to neighboring properties. Lightning is essentially the release of pent-up static electricity that moves from a turbulent atmosphere to the ground. Small wind turbines are "grounded," meaning that any static electricity on the tower or generator is dispersed into the ground, preventing a build-up that could invite lightning strikes. As a result, even though small wind turbine towers are made of metal (a conductor of electricity), by virtue of their grounding they are less susceptible to lightning strikes than trees, which cannot shed built-up static electricity. To a lightning bolt, a turbine is therefore no more "appealing" than the ground itself. However, lightning strikes are still passible, which is why small wind turbines incorporate back-up technologies like surge and lightning arrestors (also known as silicon oxide vrrstors) and metal oxide varstors, which are also used to protect home computers from electrical surges. lightning strikes are never completely preventable, but these industry- standard measures offer the best protection available to the owner of the wind system. Good practice in the wind industry includes grounding of all towers and guy wires, which significantly reduces the chance of a lightning strike. ,', 5~a~rtlln, P1;ck. "rFtl€xrarn€nunicz,fiin~, t€,t€xr~re!i,~e frc€E'rt ric€ne 4vin€' ~ysr€.!-~s." Atv`[;.A 4hlF=,cflc'tr4~ ; Volu€nF! )1, I~ergc~y wlndPower 13~w turbinf~ on tel~;comrrrunications si:atir~n ire C3r3stal C3ay, Alaska iii. Strad Volta~~: This unusual phenomenon, primarily affecting farm livestock, is the result of faulty wiring on any number of electrical systems (not just wind turbines) and easily prevented by industry-standard practices. It is also a strictly localized issue that will not affect off-site parties or properties. For safety reasons, Including to minimize lightning strikes (see above), nearly all types of electrical systems in the U.S. are, at some point in the system, connected to the earth or "grounded." Electric current flowing in the ground dissipates quickly as it moves away from its source (much like sound from a wind turbine). Grounding also allows power systems to detect equipment malfunctions and automatically shut down before harming people or equipment. If a system is not properly wired, the point(s) at which a system is grounded can develop a small voltage (electrical pressure, essentially) that can push current through the earth and end up contacting unintended objects. Mence the name, "stray" voltage. This phenomenon Is rare and primarily affects cattle, whose legs are far enough apart to stand an two points where different voltage levels in the ground exist. The cow may or may not feel this voltage difference, depending on the level and duration of the exposure. While the design of electrical system makes stray voltage possible, its actual occurrence is the result of poor grounding practices, improper or inadequate wiring, or deteriorated wire insulation. Most small wind turbine inverters -those that are IEEE 1547 or UL1741 compliant -can detect faulty grounding and automatically shut down current flow. Like solar photovoltaic installations that require "ground-fault circuit interrupter" {GFCI) devices to protect consumers from any stray voltage, small wind turbines are also equipped with GFCI measures, In other wards, stray voltage is caused by problems on a particular customer's side of the utility billing meter so is not a problem beyond the electrical system of a particular home or farm. Nor can stray voltage move or be transferred from one property to another, since it is an "on-site" problem stemming from electricity distribution or wiring, not the generation of electricity. The issue therefore does not fall under the jurisdiction of zoning rules, which are designed to protect that which exists outside a property line. ~ ~ Porlmlitted use? ~Iccessory use? ~r c®ndi~ional use? Anticipating, acknowledging, and understanding small wind turbines not only reduces administrative burdens for zoning boards, but it lowers permitting time and casts to the point where it makes the project within the realm of financial reason for the owner. Streamlining the permitting process is often best achieved by listing small wind turbines as a conditional or accessory use, A Permitted Use permit allows a small wind system by default, provided it meets applicable design standards, and is applied commonly to flag poles, church steeples, and grain silos. A permitted use indicates that a justification has been established for the structure's standing eligibility. As such, no public hearings are required and a permit can be obtained quickly, Permitted uses are frequently Found in rural areas where potential impacts are minimal. A Special/Conditional Use permit allows an installation under Certain conditions identified in the statute. This option usually requires a more detailed description of the project from the applicant and often involves a public hearing. A hearing can disadvantage both the zoning board and potential owner, however, since each application must be decided on a case-by-case basis and educational efforts must begin from scratch. Many documented experiences show that this process can cost potential small-turbine owners thousands of dollars and take hundreds of hours to accomplish, if at all. A Site Plan Review allows an installation after a physical inspection of the proposed project site and surroundings. This option is usually accompanied by a special/conditional use permit. An Accessory Use of land is one that is subordinate, incidental ta, and customarily found in connection with the principal use allowed on a lot by the zoning law. A garage, for example, is incidental to the principal use of a lot as asingle-family residence and customarily found on asingle-family lot. For small wind, this normally appears in agricultural, commercial, or industrial settings where energy produced by a turbine Is instrumental in accomplishing a main function of the property's use. Importantly, allowing Small wind as an accessory use avoids the need far special use permits for future applications. z' A Variance is a modification or waiver of certain zoning requirements for a permitted use structure. For a small wind turbine, this usually means making an exception for setback distances or height limits. Variances are issued when prevailing regulations cause an unreasonable "burden" on the property owner and usually require public hearings, making a variance for a small wind turbine very difficult to obtain. An Overlay Zone supersedes prevailing zoning rules in certain geographies. A jurisdiction may establish an overlay zone to indicate that a certain area is appropriate for small wind turbines or other renewable energy technologies. This expedites the permitting process, but planners must be careful that this strategy does not overly limit areas outside of zone. i7ntegrity wind Systems sol<w tuE•bine It~cOlrnmenda~iOn~ See also AWEA's "Policies to Promote Small Wind Turbines: A Policy Menu for State and Local Governments" 2008. www.awea.org/smallwind FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ^ Create regulations in advance of public inquiries. ^ Recognize that small wind systems have very different impacts than large, utility-scale turbines and require completely separate siting considerations. In terms of impact, a residential-scale wind turbine has more in common with a solar photovoltaic panel than it does with autility-scale wind turbine. ^ Treat small turbines as Improvements to an individual property, not as commercial or industrial projects. ^ Promote consistency among fees, requirements, and procedures across jurisdictions. Doing so reduces complications and Inefficiencies for installers, applicants, and governments. ^ Experience your own permitting process firsthand: Mayors or governors may want to try to obtain a permit For a turbine for installation at city hall or the governor's mansion. ^ Educate permitting staff, zoning officials, and governments about small wind. Share with them this and other publications listed In the "Contributing & Additional Resources" section (p. 28}. ^ Base code compliance on a common set of standards (IEEE 1547 and UL 1741} that ensure the reliability and safety of a turbine's electrical S5 ~'ICi:~#: ~~4tiW4.1.f1F?Yv[?;1f Yt1}~C:tla311:(~?.. f}rFjf ltr)I;Ji:iCt5i! rra?eir~tc~"~h€cGri4,~007..,ret~arC. pc~f components, as installed according to the National Electric Code. But also ensure the grid interconnection process formed around these standards is well- faunded. See "Freeing the Grid" 2407 repart.'~' Keep in mind the public benefits of email wind: • Increased property values • Increased in-state electricity generation • Reduced pressure on the utility grid • Increased local energy independence • Increased security/can provide back- up power to strategic applications like police stations ar hospitals for "hazard mitigation" purposes'' • Reduced dependence on polluting forms of electricity • Enhanced reliability and power quality of the electricity grid • Reduced peak power demands • Diversified state energy supply portfolio • Displaced pollutants from traditional forms of energy • Increased consumer choice • Increased visible indicators of community support for clean energy • Increased regional economic growth. Manufacturers ask, "Tn which state should I base my operations?" The answer is: "States with the best policies." '' ~,<';Yrcfr; N:;rCi4r€a€ I.rakrt#€~~stf#€~y I€as Tn:y:;n , , tlf;vf=i[~r3rrutni. tri'sl~rater~ir: Fr€rrf,~y fit#ret_y t~€icro~rkly ~" • ~ . '`'' t31[r):/r4YN:t1.`iuE7;11~;,COY)i?,rIf~6Sy'~re}gi)lll"GF3:i(~ 1'ti ~ i r:?I;'i1:it:,`i/~~~)G~Yi;iLrf3Cj YILI. i1i.Y€)i --~•,,.~n~w.a:~ ~ ~k ~q~ ,,~iJl1€,'.t,r117 ~ ~t+i(~ E 1€c'i;C'y~ ~SSC1Giciir?c~il 6ti v~: VV . cl .^! r3 ct , C' I'[~~ 4: f l~ ~ I 1111 f i ~ i' la IEducatiian may be the single most important factor in streamlining the permitting process. I~rc#ven Er€~rc~y 7.5kW Euri3tne Additional Options Creating incentives: Beyond removing obstacles and enabling installations to occur on their own, a state or community can create incentives to make small wind turbines a more attractive option for individuals and businesses. These include: Reducing, or waiving, permit and development impact fees Fast tracking review periods Permitting small wind systems by- right in some or all districts to avoid costly and contentious hearings • Awarding paints in performance- based review and green building programs • Awarding density bonuses for developments that reduce or generate ~5i3% of energy demand on site Protecting windy areas: A town or state mlghf also anticipate future installations by protecting areas in the community that have exceptionally good wind resources. Local dealers and installers are trained in wind resource assessment and can help locate these areas. Federal preemption of home rule for cell pk~c~ne towers enabled tl~e industry to expand dramatically, which waL€Id not have likely occurred without it, l=air zoning for small wind turbines could baring similar economic benefits, _,•~;3 SPECZFZCALLY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ^ Implement astand-alone ordinance specifically to address small wind turbines (see "Appendix;' p. 30). overrule neighborhood covenants that unnecessarily restrict renewable energy. Initiate a Community Energy Plan to ^ Expedite processing times by consolidating a jurisdiction's permit review process to as few departments or agencies as possible. ^ Encourage permit applicants to notify their neighbors of their proposed installation. r Educate permit department staff about small wind to ensure safe, fair, expedited, and less costly installations. Demonstration projects offer an excellent educational opportunity. Contact a local dealer to locate a nearby installation. r Coordinate with neighboring zoning jurisdictions to establish consistent practices, rate schedules, etc. This can be done through Regional Councils of Government or independently, and will save time and money for the town, turbine owner, and Installer. r In the absence of pertinent state legislation, local governments can assess the renewable energy potential of a locality and devise strategies for meeting energy goals. (This may include implementing a renewable energy overlay zone -see last paragraph.} ^ Consider establishing renewable energy overlay zones.ia This policy would be ideally situated 1n a local government's Comprehensive Plan (or equivalent) that describes a town's future objectives and strategies. Without proper care however, a renewable energy overlay zone could inadvertently prevent small wind installations outside the zone where they may be perfectly acceptable. As a precaution, make the zone sufficiently large and create or maintain a provision that allows small turbines (and other renewables) outside of the zone. It may in fact be easier to identify any areas not suitable for such installations and make distributed renewables an allowed use elsewhere by default. SPECIFICALLY FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS State government action can very effectively streamline the permitting process by standardizing permitting requirements across local jurisdictions. Consider implementing the following: ^ Establish statewide zoning standards for renewable energy systems. Oregon state law, for example, requires cities and counties to list small wind turbines as an allowed use on any land zoned for agricultural or forest use, pending they meet certain conditions.' r Provide educational opportunities for planners and zoning officials. ^ preempt private covenant restrictions that prohibit or restrict small wind and other distributed renewable energy systems on aesthetic grounds. ^ Follow precedent set by aver 10 states that prohibit the unreasonable restriction of renewable, distributed energy use within planned communities.`' These laws are, unfortunately, not often publicly known and so are violated frequently. Therefore accompany any such rules with educational outreach efforts. The Community Associations Institute (CAI) and its chapters, for example, could provide a platform upon which to educate community associations and homeowners about their rights and responsibilities under the law. ^ Preempt local zoning jurisdictions. Though likely a politically sensitive measure, the most effective way to enable small wind installations is for a state to preempt "home rule" jurisdiction of local zoning codes to allow the (conditional), statewide installation ofsmall wind turbines under a single umbrella policy. Several precedents demonstrate that doing so helps consumers, communities, and industry. Home rule was preempted on a national scale for cell phone towers (Telecommunications Act of 1996) and was far stronger than what would be needed for small wind systems. This federal preemption succeeded in passing largely because of the perceived national benefit that wireless communications would bring. Advocates argue that the same could surely be said of renewable energy. The states of Wisconsin,'1 Nevada," Vermont,' Michigan,'` Oregon,`' New Hampshire,`' and California?`' have all agreed and enacted laws that preempt home rule specifically to prevent undue prohibitions of small wind systems in their states. As a direct consequence, these states enjoy mare in-state (non-imported) energy generation and other environmental and economic benefits that small wind offers. )` E~:Xa^1(71E: Cu~Y3t.?:Y<113!€) £',ftr,'r{7Y 1:)Vr'r'ir.1y x0=~€;; KIfC{C 1l:d l: Cot€r€ty, L'JA. I.tit:kit:~ t Cc7r?t7ty f~t~rrtt'€irty C)c>.3<trtrn:rtt.: http:lf sYmv?aa.:clickitatroE,rely.Orta/P1c~€3r€inr.)ifii~5€-Itirtllf :1..f3(7G}i)t3 t:.()% f=i!7%(7fi-i)9. rrtrtt7 t::i3Z,ISdf r~ hr)rtElv.~t*~,t tiu:;l:~i€t7l:lr: E'nnrg~~ for E. cvnanic UFrvh'Pi£;IS€Y€e1:. Ccrnrrt€.tr€ity VJin{i: lSrt C)rktgort (»tairiet?nof<, ftBf3t~rl: for i:l1e t.:€1Prc;y'1'i~c€r;t: ct` Ur~yca:~. {fvn {isktc> c~ivr:€r1). E7. ±1.-4"1.., t€t?:(3:;'J~t~~v,rr€c:rclutrusC.orr7! I~Rj vvirullcurt €rn{€rti::y/`r)r t7'€s;_r r+qL€ esL tttn'€I , :%0 .... € I€fit; St.t;tE'.ti I:'1f:1:€r!C ~fE"1_£)ff<t, i:;flll''f31'nFct~ t..Qli)r<!£!f), !'tori;ia, Ft2r.v~7ii, i,uiiar~;~, ir7kvu; T•t~ss~lcilusetks, Nr,E~3r.±xa, tJ ruEtE. <rntl 4~1~~>cal~€siEt. ~z :tS33:. €fJscr3nsin str?tt€tc~ i>ti.Q~01.. 4Vi:,{',c3€15i€~€'s3 s€t1a1i evrrd ,o€lirsc, ordir€arlce 31tCf1:jle~rse:~'zali5ts3n.5in,q€'sal:tiE:k1: ritoliuox-IO€lima/`~€~ni~Itr:~:L()Ni€€1d°fo2.(3Syvt~rn&ic ~[)rloclel 2i7d€~iin~s7c;~r°fo7.(1:i1-o6~{~rl`~. Availaktl.-;rorr€ tltt.i?: jire.>.€lewtvi5con,in.c3ec)J:~.ir7rlvrincllrroi!>ax, hCm l I?t=rvu[4a'itzste I.egi::iat;ure r~l42~>;>If3.7.otit7ttl3:!/vasRr4v.i€~cp. stet.r=.av.tts/r~lr's/i<lTtS~-2.7i3.1~L'ml ~%fdfY~yJ`r'f3~ir3CLl2.t)f> `'r V4rrnr€:1t'r~tz3t€.€tk 'fiCi~ 30 5rrrcitln; l `s S(atj and 2.t.9(rs), ~€nd 2~di3 u€ncrndtttt ~~dif:il bit!J.ti9 frprn :7oog hlz'~;I/vJ. ~tik.le[.).5titt4.v4:.tisr'St.~7€€tr<,/5~atut~5"l..htn1 `~r M11iChig~€1 :iitint) C~uid~1€1e~snr lr'in(i t.`3€~rtlY Syst{ rrs Izttfl: j/s~urv~.mirlli{)an.t7nvldor..u€rtr?nt ,firv'i€1ti__z7nrt__`.iola;'__ W3it€1i7,._r;:UICi€in£;,5__t.)r'c'IrL'_._:a_.t)C3~t /1_. f.~~€: ~s f+If:~;=;tle.7rrt€a5lirhtlOU; 1'si3l:;:[U:1tt1.7:j;:x;rt4L.gt'r3:ctU:'t:. st~ttkr. €1 t€.us!irg?sfttic€ t;' ~;ti)t3; IiF3t)~ i f3, tt:mf IV 3. i..i]s1~.hE'rtl.1 !'ttS t C()r i1?'.t:):/{fi)f().Sk'rl.Cil.!){7Vi i)k.l ~'3/~). ~~~,~/ x3111/FeSr; V <9b.,,,,1.aC):t - !.>iC)i t]f).....1. ~(S 1,...f)i ll,.,, t)ft':i.i7t)1..,.ritG=.pte€•r:>,r~.37t€nl _...,• ~~ ~~i' Northern P+3wvea- 1 DDkw turbine in Kcstzebue, fIK '"+r %7fllt J'li;!!) ll~l/7t>' Ff7E`I't75! fi5:if)T'fci(,'If71'1 'v J'~ ; V'J . [14V i~:-l . •`,l r'~~ ~ x;111 i3 ~ ~ U0t 1l1 C 1.`.,' V~rrr~ornir's N~~-Met~rinlg t~~ri'ktin~ ~ra~e~~ Vermont's permitting process for net mc:ter~.ad {thras, grid-tied) small wind turbines is straightforward and sirrrple: A cr~stomc..r applies for a Certificate of Public Good (CPG), at na cost, from thc~ Vermont Public, Sc:rvicc Board {PSB) and distributes tt~e application to adjacent landowners, the town planning committee, and 5elec;t board, local utility, and several stag agencies. Barring any objections within 30 days, the CPG application is generally approved and is exempt from additional state or° local ;i'oning regulations. Should there he any public objections, witnesses for- each party testify at a public hearing where the PSB makes a final deCisipr'r. _-~ Ae it ~ ; qtr ~ ^ ~ .y. , r ~S' windward FngD~eering f-ndurance 4,25kw tur•bin~, in Arkport, RtY PERMITTING PROCESS: TIME & COST Even the best zoning ordinances are often thwarted by overly expensive and lengthy requirements for obtaining a permit. We recommend the following: t~c4r~rnittc~ci o~~ C.t~rs~tiiticsrz~l t«sc~ Et~r;e~»s-c~ry llr~s~ Hearings are usually required to determine The permit should whether the installation meets the "conditions" be granted upon upon which permission is contingent. Any hearings timely review of should be held within 30 days of the application ~, the application not date. Promptly thereafter the zoning board should 'tR, , exceeding 30 days. notify the applicant whether or not the permit has been granted and what conditions are necessary to satisfy the permit. If an application must be approved by a town or county board after being passed through a planning committee, a reasonable timeframe is 60 days or less. Total permitting casts should be commensurate with any other non- commercial end-use objects or structures, and should reflect the cast of administering the permit and any associated reviews or inspections. Most localities levy fees at a flat rate, but some occasionally use a "valuation method" that calculates the fee as a percentage of the system's cost. However, there is little, if any, correlation between the size of a turbine and the costs and time required for its inspection and review process. Flat Fees are therefore more practical and desirable. s Furthermore, tfte valuation method inadvertently discourages larger systems and their associated public benefits. Paradoxically, under this ~'~ fee structure, the more a turbine owner wants to contribute to the community, the more difficult it becomes to do so. Some localities have implemented a tiered fee structure to distinguish between residential and commercial uses. Still others have waived permitting fees entirely for an-site renewable generators, sending a powerful message of loco[ government support far clean energy and their associated community benefits. Some communities that have waived permitting fees for on-site renewabies include Tucson (A~), San Diego {CA), Fairfax {CA), and the entire state of Vermont.'' 2d tittrrf/IUna~r3rieta.sierrc4club~crn~/,~,Ivba'_;~arr~rr3€)/ ttv_pr:rrrrit_:~tut~y.tatn~ D2rn'rtar3 Pi;a', '"taking t=ra Rcd Tar3e cart ~F' Grtien Pqu.€tr:" PlcL~t.urt<?"ur' r~rw [nrrr7y Chuir.t~xs, 5r3r.31:er1'rt;C"rl(#GkS. lr'r Vcsrrrrrsnt, 13c:rrx'ritYirir:, is fr~W+a it'fr X3:1 cric'I.4';err rcnr.vuable.i SCatevaisJe t:cuter' itte (;erti€ica°:w vt' PurJlic ti~r~ccl r~w~r~liraCiun ISrcrce~s. .%#~ ~~~ Good zoning far small wind is important, achievable, and good public policy. Planners and zoning officials are In a unique and powerful position to help renewable energy and those who rely on it. Of all the challenges consumers and the industry face to deliver the benefits of clean, on-site power generation, the permitting process can be the most severe. But fortunately, a remedy is available and implementing it can come at a net benefit to the community at large. By understanding the issues and identifying a variety of potential solutions, renewable energy will be able to play a more vibrant part in American communities. fhli?C'il.~=~f1':~1~!'PC~t.~p(?1~C71' ~iS,SCJC:'1riElt~i7_ ':'~! UV iN , ;:} 4^J (' ~ . Cl [ { j~.^, rte %} I I J1` C n C~ 17, Entegrity Wind Systems SQkW turbine :' 's / ,~ ~~~ . ~~ Abundant Renewable Energy (ARE) 110 ?.5kw turbine in Newberg, ©rec~o~t ~IN~ t~tJ "Policy Guide on Energy." American Planning Association, April 2004. http://www.planning.org/policyguides/pdf/Energy.pdf "Wind Energy Siting Handbook" for large turbines. American Wind Energy Association, 2008. http://www.awea.org/sitinghandbook/ "Small-Wind Policy Menu for State and Local Governments." American Wind Energy Association, 2008. www.awea.org/smallwind. Asmus, Peter; K. Fullerton; S. Peterson; H. Rhoads-Weaver; A. Shutak; and S. Savitt Schwartz. "Permitting Small Wind Turbines: AHandbook -Learning from the California Experience." September 2003. www.awea.org/smallwind/documents/permitting, pdf Beltrone and Constanti; U.S. Department of Energy /Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; National Association of Counties; National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Wind Energy Guide for County Commissioners." October 2006. http://www. nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40403. pdf Daniels, Katherine. The Rale of Government Agencies in the Approval Process. Report for the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority's Small Wind Toolkit. 2005. Green, ]im and Sagrillo, Mick. "Zoning for Distributed Wind Power: Breaking Down Barriers." U.S. Department of Energy/National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Conference Paper NREL/CP-500-38167. August 2005. http://www. nrel.gov/dots/fy05osti/38167. pdf Phillips, et.al. "Micro-Wind Turbines in Urban Environments: An assessment." BRE Press, 2007. www.brebookshop.tom/details.jsp?id=287567 Pitt, Damian. "Taking the Red Tape out of Green Power." Network for New Energy Choices, September 2008. RENEW Wisconsin Small Wind Toolbox. Web site. http://renewwisconsin.org/wind/windtoolbox.html Rogers, et al. "Wind Turbine Acoustic Noise." Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. January 2006. http://ceere.org/rerl/publications/whitepapers/Wind_Turbine_Acoustic,~ Noise_Rev2006.pdf Rhoads-Weaver, Heather; P. Asmus; S. Savitt Schwartz; C. MacIntyre; M. Gluckman; and A. Healey, Canadian Wind Energy Association. "Small Wind Siting and Zoning Study: Development of Siting Guidelines and a Model Zoning By-Law for Small Wind Turbines." April 2006. www.smallwindenergy.ca/downloads/Small_Wind_Siting_Guidelines.pdf Stronberg, Joe]. "Common Sense: Making the Transition to a Sustainable Energy Economy." American Solar Energy Society. May, 2005. http://www.ases.org/programs/policy/common_sense.pdf Sweatt-Essick, et al. "Land Use Compatibility and Airports: A Guide For Effective Land Use Planning," Federal Aviation Administration. N.d. http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarters_offices/aep/planning~,tooikit/ media/III.13.pdf U.S. Department of Energy /National Renewable Energy Laboratory. "Distributed Energy interconnection Procedures Best Practices for Consideration." March, 2007. http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/doe_interconnection,~best_practices.pdf www.stray-voltage.com. Far in-depth information and a tutorial on stray voltage. Articles written for the American Wind Energy Association's Windletter by Mick Sagrillo, Sagrillo Light & Power, available at http://www.awea.org/smallwind/ Sagrillo/index.html and/or RENEW Wisconsin's SmaIl~Wind Toolbox at http;//renewwisconsin.org/wind/windtoolbox.html: Abandonment Perceptions and local Tower cost versus power Aesthetics concerns Tower height versus Barriers to small wind systems Code Compliance Considerations for wind turbine towers FAA Fences Ice shedding Keeping hearings under control Net metering and zoning Payback Property values Protecting your right Rules of thumb for tower heights Setbacks Shadow flicker and strabing Siting towers and heights for small wind turbines Sound Stray Voltage Tall Power economics power Tower engineering for building permits Tower heights and zoning hearings Tower Styles Towers and Engineering Trials and tribulations TV and communications interference Visibility Zoning obstacles A special thanks to Erica Helier of Clarion Associates, Mick Sagrillo of Sagrillo Power & i.ight, and ]im green of the National Renev~rable Energy [»aboratory for their expertise and contributions to this document, Fntegrity wind Systf €r~s 50kw turi3ine i€, C~uinter, Kansas ;'6iliC17C~~17 ~'i~iK1Cl ~rIL'i'Ci~~ f~t>'SC•'{zl~.iECt~l7' W LL`;PJ , d .^l G~ ~ , [} {' ~~ ~ <•~ F l' i .'~ [ i LLB l t 1 C1 ~r See p. ~ far a sample of cities, counties, and states that have enacted zoning laws for small wind systems. ~~ I~ "UI'iri~ing small '~Ilind Ingo I~xisting Laws This model.zaning ordinance is used by many localities across the country and aims to strike an equitable balance among the interests of the consumer, industry, and community. It is the product of lessons learned over decades of industry experience and tens of thousands of installations. ~WIA, M~~~i~ ~QNII~G ~ftl'JINAIdC~ Use Regulation far Small Wind Energy Conversion Systems Section is f'urpase It is the purpose of this regulation to allow the safe, effective and efficient use of small wind energy systems installed to reduce the on-site consumption of utility supplied electricity, SeGtian ~: IFindings The [city or county] finds that wind energy is an abundant, renewable, and nonpolluting energy resource and that its conversion to electricity will reduce our dependence on nonrenewable energy resources and decrease the air and water pollution that results from the use of conventional energy sources. Distributed small wind energy systems will also enhance the reliability and power quality of the power grid, reduce peak power demands, and help diversify the State's energy supply portfolio. Small wind systems also make the electricity supply market more competitive by promoting customer choice. The State of has enacted a number of laws and programs to encourage the use of small-scale renewable energy systems including rebates, net metering, property tax exemptions, and solar easements, [As appropriate] However, many existing zoning ordinances contain restrictions, which while not intended to discourage the installation of small wind turbines, that can substantially increase the time and casts required to obtain necessary construction permits. Therefore, we find that it is necessary to standardize and streamline the proper issuance of building permits for small wind energy systems sa that this clean, renewable energy resource can be utilized in acost-effective and timely manner. Section 3; lC~efinitions Small Wind Energy System; A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine, a tower, and associated control ar conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity of not more than 100 kilowatts (kV+n and which is intended to primarily reduce on-site consumption of utility power, Tower Height: The height above grade of the fixed portion of the tower, excluding the wind turbine itself. Total Extended Height; The height above grade to a blade tip at its highest point of travel. Section 4: Allowed tJse Small wind energy systems shall be allowed as an accessory use in all zoning districts where structures of any sort are allowed; subject to the requirements of Section S below. Small wind energy systems not meeting the performance standards of Section 5 may 6e allowed by conditional use permit. "3'~ _ - ~ectian 5: Use ~tand~rds far ~m;ai1 Wind Setback: The base of the tower shalt be s~ 5 [? I' public utility lines a distance equal to the toy property line than its total extended height and the installation poses no interference w Tower Height: So long as the total exten ~. E! 2'- ' shall be na specific height limitation, except as stated in 5.07. Sound: Sound produced by the turbine un S.C33' property Ilne, shall not exceed the definition during short-term events out of anyone's cc WlndTurbine Equipment: Small wind t 5.114 ' benefits program or any other small wind ce EnergyAssociatlon. Requirement for Engineered Drawing; 5. E3 5 , systems shalt be accompanied by standard d engineered drawings ofthe tower, base,fOOt WeC stamps shall not be required, Soil Studies: For standard soil conditions 5.U 6 by the wind turbine manufacturer shall be a~ not require project-specific soils studies or; Compliance with FAA Regulations: N 5.f17 to project above any of the Imaginary alrspa on airspace protection. Compliance with National Electric Co fl t; '' `s systems shall be accompanied by a line draw , manufacturer, in su(ticient detail to allow for to the National Electrical Code. Utility Notification: No small wind ever 5.4) 2 that the utility company has been informed customervowned generator. Off-grid systerr ~. ; f1 Insurance: Additional Insurance beyond h Abandonment: If a wind turbine is inope that they must, within six months of receivln _. i If the owner(s) falls to restore their system then the owner shall be required, at his expr reasons. The Cower then would be subject t 5ignage: All signs, other than the manufau ;'-5l 1 2 signs,or owner identification on a wind gene a smolt wind energy system visible from any i. i ;~ - lighting: No llluminatlon of file turbine o Access: Any climbing foot pegs or rungs b 5. I +~' prevent unauthorized climbing. For lattice o to the bottom tower section such that it car for more information contact Ron ~1f't1E,'f!i'~~f7 i;~IP~~ ~ rrV"t~~' ~`iSC?(iici~'it}1?' S^dUUti1~.c3LV(~c3 Chi'{j/~it~'I~ ;1'trJi(lCj xl.' ` ,; .. :,,\ ~{ '4T ~~~k } ~');~,~a 3~" r ~r(Y ~ .,_ ~t b t ..YO rt s - p1 ( fA t t s ~ 4 s + ~ - a t :tip \ -~ ~. ~ k t _ -. l I S ~ll ~ 4 i ~Ilc~ja~t,~ I r k ~ ~ A i 5 4, " ~ j'. ~~t~i ~t"r r , j~t•.~_` A 1° rty... t I S ~ , 1 .~ k S' ~ I ~ , i ~4r J4if-,' J; rr ifh~ t ~'" S} c ~. ~ r pr ~f ., ' t~ ~ l ~ ') U~ 4 ' _ tE7 tltir i~ 4 ~ V J ~ 4'~S \ ~ # : s ~r~~ I ti ~ ? ~'1 _ _ t i ' r 4 ti f2 r tr l ~. r t° 7+ Y~ : 1 ,' Y . ! fl~i .:r.~S 1 y ~<4 AY. ~'f ~ 4_. r 1 ~ ~ Y , k4t ~ ,~. _ ~ ¢ k '. ,-,rr ?.c ~F^r a y,tit e!; 4 '4 ', ,r i.`s, s s ~' ~ ~ ' t i t i '' .tc _ s. ,4 \ y% } ~:. '~ _ S 5 a 4 L'.t ~\ 1~ 'S t+.y i4 ~_ c ':i 'i S ~4 ~ ` ry: r~` 1 y 1 S ri qty t~v r r )t a 1 ~ } r}_ rf ~~ t 1 }... \ :~. ~~ l L?,. , iii 1, f. r r a, t ~ ti S\,t.~\~.;r r t fr1 r~}a r 1. tih ~i}k l`~f ~'~iRl+~ S l7 ps ~ {Zs'J y,r~ ~ ~ i s~ { i >•'>"x ~ f ,4i\ Ry;:+`~!` ~41~ °i4tk l~~t r~} Fr~~4 ,; t.' \r4 `. ' r ,, T " a f -. ~ }S~.:i ~Y*i,4~f ,f i, y, kh tk ~+!{f{ ~ ~ 1 ~ y ~ ~ ~` s } 1 'l; `~r xr `'sr ~ t •:. i~ '~ ~ t1 L .ht FW. y 4 R ~'a ~ - ~ 1 ~ J ~ 4~a r , ; I `} u1 i ` ~ 5 1 r kk_ r ~ k 'r` t ~ €,. I ` r,~ ~f~ t ~ ~ s 's, `+ r` 'I l ~' f a : T 1 ~ its !?~ I t } E . 4 , i ~ } ? 44 ~'. Y '. ~ ' I y h S . y,~~~, ~:. f ~ ~ ; 4fu a~.J ~t '~ iy ~ a+ i k 4t~ ~ i r ~~~ -. I h , ~ ~ t ,' y 4r ~_ 11 ~ ' + 4 '~ ~~ 1Z Y4 ~~~~i~{~~~~ R.+4 ~'F rr \SR\~C'}~.t\ 1 1~4'tk i t7;~\l `R1~ ~1 ~, ' \~1~'.~ x,'' ~ ~~t4 { k rF ~ k r e~ w ~ r j : t. I Y ~ a :~. - h ~ ,_4 ,~ ~s~ ~ s1 _f ti, 4,}$ s;l ' ~ t4ti~ 1~ 1'. .. ie- ~ s1.4.'µ1 si ~ ~ r 4k; , 5 i s `, ~1 T s ~ r:: s'1 i`s 1 4 ` : r + ~ r f 1 ~ ' ~ ~4 f T~'yr,;. ! z s ~\1 ~~, ^ i ~ 1~'i ~' s y °i ` r r ~ v ' , ~' ~t s ' , T i ;~ , ~ ~,,}} ~t h 4 L ~ t1l < + s[ ~w a + 1s ~ r`,s 1 ~~ ~,. " v `S {! C s ~ ~ 11 .'a T s } 14 S -• l i _ ~ -. 1 f •.r.~=`!±r ~. ' i~t1S~y'.to Ti )a~t? '}t ! . ~ L { -!' {~ 4R,}: ~ ~ ~ •T s t; Tt 1, 1' ^i ~ 1 t ~lr ; 1 r ~`` l+i ~ 1l~ ~ y,4, , - 1 ~ ti 4c rite', t a k + :.s .r s. S I Z 4 l ~. I~ r: - ~l 4 Ott S S` .`yS ~ •~ 1 v..:. 4t s 4 -~T 1 S 4~ -~ 1 -: ' 1s 1 s ~~ , iJ _ - ~' ~~ 4S ~: 5 i • t 1 ' t i S ~ 4 .' ,, t' C 1 1~ .; • ? _. y I . ... yS 1 S .~'t 1 ~; _ar rf ~~ E l~,1' ~v^ Al l.iul S' ' 1 11 4 ri: s- o ~ , I t 1 r } r , i ~1 i \: 1 ~ ~','4: { i ~ ~ ' + i a ~ 5, t Fp j , r ~ ~k E i jir t k' tttt ~r i i _ 't5 i~ 1 r - , ~rl _ S ~C `S a ' 1~ C 4 s- a i j 1 j i t<• ~ 1 .: ~ L r •. k {i { - , ti s I.:. r f ;t ~ +tl ! T d ' 7l _, i i 4 i 1 7 1 . 1 . L 4 f} y y r' I~~" " i~,l L ~ a k d ~ll'~ti' i 5 .~ ,` .' + J 1~ a ~ st~ ~ 4T ~ ~ t , l~r}. f { I 41.:- # fr L. ~} Rlt>,~ S{i, sr}+ ,J`, ; r h r f~ r I- , f 1f14~~1j., ` ~ f rr } s, r ~ s , ~ ,i z i I 5 r I. ,. rr dr f It s Fsi yy ~. tS x; ,s rti 1 71 J i iyl~~ ~ I S { "r t t4 I } la` - 4 ~j d, ~~~1 l~~~k}{~j Elt 1` ', - St :" 4 ~ ~ ,.+ 4~ t1 -: y i S3 rS 1 y, 4~_i , ~~ } 1 t,,~4~j~.f S;3' r ~ is t t i.- i ~ l t y 3 } 1 >, ~ Jt ~ r 1 = _ I ~rrk !t~ ttR ..' 1~~, tls ' itrt .r ~ .l~ 1 Fr r4 ~ I ' l4 `~l ,}`~ ~ r ; ~' t ~r . t x ~- ~ 1 1 ~~ s r ~~ z- {: I'. , v t ~ s r A i ', 1 i l r ~,~ 1 ,. '. ~ ttt f ~ t kl (' ` ~. s. r'~ kl ~4~ sC ~~ sb. , ~ s: ih it pZ`:r~ a r I,' i ~~~i( ""~ ~ r t1 t l + 19 ~ ~i~;1t'~~ssr; v ha t'1~ t~ i . ti islt t ', 1 '1 t },~11. ?~ S+ 4 t4 ~{ Sj ~ ~~.1~111 s y~;ii,~ ~r !`'`: r t S R I t 4# y = 3 i; a +:l -;. ; ' "'• 4 [ { a ~. °• 1 s t..~ i 1t 44 E 1 ~ 1, Y '{4 ~tv} ~ ~ x t ,'. •v1 I i ~:~ ~ 1 ~ ,. a ' E~ 'R ti~~l~e4 i4 t~;~h ~ ~,i.sr~ ,t4~s~i)'bSs ~~4f5~L~tt:~ll }I t i "+` I ly , ~1 4 ' i~: L~~r )r } \4 ~1t, \ y S'} r~~55 ~t rt~1 114 7 F} , 1, ~ 1 y 'S v ~; s yi t ~ , { Y 1 jet' tij t' ~s r, 1 1r11+ Y+ r - <. 1 C - ~ i~ n , t~ y ~ S 5 4 - r t 1't 41 R4 i. -1 s s.;' 4. ill' ~4 45{ - rlt i 'ii1 ~~.:, 17 ..~~ ~'~ tt~ ~Jjie' t,:;l k I Ye +4 y~' i r. i S1i J ~ 41.,, ,} I 1 s -,. ~ r yt -4 Ir i 1 S ~y t ,t { ,ii T t i ! 4 1 ~'. ! '4 ~ l~ P ~.t ~Ft i'f ( t 'I~ sTS .air ° ~', ';i ili' 1' I •1 6 wl ]l ,1' ~I } ~ "ri I s Ia 'i~S41 s t 1xl }fit ~r? tr ~ '` t 4th t ~ ` t; ~ r rl :. I sl r "yt ~~ 4~. .~~ ' ; 1t t%~~~yl pl,',4.5,.11 S h~ ~ ' ~1.r ~ 1~. v~ 5 ~l t. ~ •a ~ v 1 i r, i r io r, > ~.It~ ~ ~~ S +. 'I js\ ~ r. `i !? 1 vr. 1 ~ ~. a's4 ~ j -. , 7:1 3 s 1 •' it{'s7 ~'sj-lt'.,S ~ Sr - 1 -~ v 1, r';tr ks~..f j 4.yt tS,' + r tr I~ ° j ~ "f ~ } ~` 4t ''tyi~ i Is 1 S<iy~ r -_ }yr R ! ~; 1 %a f ' S-, sll `j" `• l i # ~ vi l - t ~' , .# ' 1ft r~}]~' ~.' ~:~ f~-[-- '.~? si' lG• tri ~~~y aI~ i, 54i +iY, r 7, E +`lhl ~ ~ ! .l_ . ~L I' ':, o ~ ~" _ 3 .., ~ a ; 1 f r r ~ rS~ 1 ~ s J I -:4 1 : s , ~- ~ ~.t f I 1i tc~~ l S YY i' t ,.:t 1 5_ 1 ,.it~ ~ i 4 a r w i r s' ~~ 1 4 S;~ I l i i .Ri _ ;.}S i vt15 ~ y~ t ~ 1't' ^s s s .~~ I ,' , i~ } '' ~ I ~i* ' t I S 1 F ! 3{ } l+r~ { r t_ ~ R st~7 1 '7{:: A~ T l i$~r ._ 4 y i m.:I i r ~ l r;~t i 1 1` t~ ,~ R NF y R prat Y~~t ~ 4, 1 ~ ~~ }4 + T ti._lft; ~h ,` T'li 4 ~ 4 V I t h e ~yl ~ ! ~St\ Zsit T _ !k ~ 1 l t l '• h ~: ,1 ' `}~ s ',. ~ -: i 4 5 lT #~ 4 t, 1511 t , x ~ i t1 s 1 4 , t L, I 1 y t ` ! I' ~ 1 's l _ 4a, : ~s h 4 i ' ~', s s l! s r ` ~ '1 , t ~ , 4, 1•~ ~ ~' k I ' t` t ~ t ,- I , ,*1 ^ ~i ~~ .t• 4 t s~ , tt ~ ;1~ It +~, r L 1 t, y, ~ ~? 4 i } r,; ~ l{~~ri ~' r \ y ryl}F C,~~. t a4 k tl ":j ~} *~ ~:4 r s t- { ! i." ,aky s ::h 4 ° i1{' i'. t F`' r ..41',1 y t,'{ i"}.4 t 1'. ty _i ' ~t4't S:( ll li;t} ~I~i~.ti tlC a: a.. ai', 1 3 s ,.~ { I t I- 1 Y ~ T}~ t t t ` t ~. y i S Ise 4 i t , ,_r 1 Li: 5 1 I _ S + T I ? i is ~1 t " ..: 4sr4 , / rt T\r ~ e~tH'f'~~IClil '1~ 4 1. , ,Il ; 5 I ,!S I " ' 11' { :.,a''1 [-k°~f>,}'JL^, ~1~~~(fC?~ ~ f GI ~:c.%J t - . t j~sst ''~ ~; '.yµ~ : f;,.. ~ ~~~".~r~ ~~~~~~r~~ Fg¢~y;S ' rr~up~ _ ~~-tl ~i~! 86+'in99~ _ r ~~ ._ ~ Jf' r ~rA~~b7:: ~ ~- 1 1. ;_ `- 1,.: ~ k v .. xf T~11 r- 1 ~~ 5 ,S CfiRitljN ~, NI~UI AF' ,.~-r ~4 t (l,:_ 5 " "~4 s `lqj ~rr~r r~`S 4, t }!} -, t4+ r~ Y M,+ ,. - kn 4. - -_