Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />home to 100 percent wind power reduces car- <br />bon emissions as much as driving one car 40 <br />percent less and not using the other car at all! If <br />we take the need to reduce carbon emissions <br />seriously-as many studies and recent global <br />events strongly suggest that we should-then <br />incorporating WECs into our communities may <br />be a more practital approach than radital <br />changes to our driving behavior. Communities <br />should seriously consider how and where to <br />allow WECs to ensure that regulations are not <br />so strict as to eliminate their potential for effec- <br />tive energy production. <br /> <br />THE CASE FOR LOCAL ACTlm,j <br />In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, there <br />are several important reasons that local gov- <br />ernments should draft reasonable standards <br />for WECs: <br />(1) Respond to community desires. Ultimately, <br />permitting decisions are local decisions. <br />Permitting takes public time and resources, <br />especially when uses must be approved <br />through discretionary approvals. Good zoning <br />standards thataddress potential impacts can <br />allowWECs to be permitted as by-right uses, <br />at least in some districts, reducing public cost <br />and NIMBY battles. <br />(2) Maintain local autonomy. In several windy <br />states, state legislatures have restricted the <br />ability of local governments to deny permits <br />for WECs. By proactively adopting reasonable, <br /> <br />64 <br /> <br />locally appropriate standards, local goyern- <br />ments reduce the likelihood that states will <br />override local control. <br />C3) Protect local resources. Many states offer <br />incentives such as rebates or buy-down pro- <br />grams for WECs. Where public funds are <br /> <br /> <br />-> BREWSTER, MASSACHUSETTS <br />(www.town.brewster.ma.us) <br /> <br />-7 CENTENNIAL, COLORADO <br />(www.centennialcolorado.com) <br /> <br />4 CHICAGO <br />(www.cityofchicago.org) <br /> <br />.. DULUTH, MINNESOTA <br />(www.duluthmn.gov) <br /> <br />.,FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA <br />(www.ci.fairfjeld.ca.us) <br /> <br />-.. MASON Cny, IOWA <br />(www.masoncity.net) <br /> <br />SACO, MAINE <br />(www.sacomaine.org) <br /> <br />-, SAN FRANCISCO <br /> <br />(www.cLsf.ca.us) <br /> <br />I Note: Not all communities fully conform to the <br />1 recommendations in this article. <br />L <br /> <br />used to encourage WECs, standards- should <br />ensure that this money is well spent. <br />(4) Diversify energy supply. Small-scale WECs <br />can help diversify energy supply. Many small <br />WECs are less vulnerable to attack than a cen- <br />tralized plant. If a storm, system overload, or <br />terrorism event shuts down energy grids, <br />small WECs can provide dispersed backup <br />. power. <br />One of the least expensive alternatives <br />for small increases in grid energy capacity is <br />to allow small-scale producers'- since they, <br />ratherthan the utility, purchase and maintain <br />the infrastructure. Such investments may <br />delay or reduce the need for major capital <br />investments by the utility. <br /> <br />LArlD-USE lMPACTS AND RESPONS1VE <br />STANDARDS <br />Wind turbines can have !mpacts on surround- <br />ing property owners and land uses. Permit <br />requests for wind turbines may be controver- <br />sial-partitularly in residential areas-due to <br />both real and perceived impacts. Impacts can <br />be grouped in four categories: noise impacts <br />(normal and storm conditions); safety impacts <br />(electrical and structural safety, potential for <br />climbing, and avian impacts); aesthetic <br />impacts (appearance and visibility); and prop- <br />ertyvalue impacts. Each ofthese categories is <br />discussed below, along with zoning tools and <br />standards to address them. <br />In this discussion the assumed goal is to <br />adequately address impacts in a way that is <br />responsive to realistic concerns but not oner- <br />ous to the turbine owner. Time and cost <br />requirements for permitting are among the <br />biggest hurdles for many potential turbine <br />owners and can quite easily determine <br />whether a WEC is cost effective. For this rea- <br />son, local governments sh()uld strive to keep <br />requirements to the minimum necessary to <br />address impacts. <br /> <br />NO~SE iMPACTS AND STANDARDS <br />Although noise is often a first concern of <br />neighbors, small WECs are less noisy than <br />most people expect and rather easy to regu- <br />late. The noise from a modern small WEC that <br />would b-e used in a residential setting (up to <br />about 10 kW) can be compared to a flag flap- <br />ping in the wind. To further illustrate, the <br />noise ievel measured 50 feet away from a WE(;: <br />on an So-foot tower is approximately 45 deci- <br />bels-quieter than standing nextto a kitchen <br />refrigerator. When operating in extremely <br /> <br />ZONINGPRACliCE 7.08 <br />AMERICAN PlANNING ASSOCIATION I page 4 <br />