|
<br />te'cture. Visibility and appearance are two
<br />major issues related to wind turbine
<br />aesth eti cs.
<br />
<br />Visibility
<br />WECs are usually quite visible because they
<br />must be placed high enough to access good
<br />wind. Sometimes, height can actually
<br />decrease their visibility from the stre.et. More
<br />often, though, a community has to decide if
<br />the aesthetic impact is serious enough to
<br />enforce height standards that would compro-
<br />mise a system's functionality. Small WECs .
<br />must be mounted at least 25 to 35 feet
<br />above surrounding objects-between 50 to
<br />120 feet (the higher the better) in order to-
<br />perform well. At lower heights, even if there
<br />is a lot of wind; it will be so turbulent that
<br />the turbine will wear out quickly, before
<br />installation costs can be recouped. In
<br />densely built environments, where there are
<br />many objects at varying heights creating tur-
<br />bulence, height becomes even more impor-
<br />tant. A local jurisdiction with standards that
<br />
<br />· Lighting. Do not require special lighting
<br />except in airport districts. Structures less than
<br />500 feet in height are not considered flight
<br />hazards unless located in close proximity to an
<br />airport.
<br />. Restrictions. Consider rest~icting WECs in
<br />specific unique areas. The aesthetic impact
<br />of wind turbines may be unacceptable in his-
<br />toric and char?cter districts or in special
<br />view corridors.
<br />
<br />PROPERlY VALUE IMPACTS
<br />One concern that resonates with local offi-
<br />cials is the potential impact of wind turbines
<br />on surrounding residential property values.
<br />. Although there .have been no statistical stud- .
<br />les ofthe impact of small WECs on property
<br />values, most available evidence suggests
<br />that adjacent property values and sale prices
<br />do not decrease. In fact, values may increase
<br />because the WEC signals a positive commu-
<br />nity attitude toward renewable energy and
<br />because adjacent owners recognize the
<br />potential benefits of a turbine on their own
<br />
<br />A community has to decide if the aesthetic
<br />impact of a \NEe is serious enough to enforce
<br />height standards that would compromise a
<br />system's functionality.
<br />
<br />allow WECs but severely restrict heights can
<br />inadvertently undermine the effectiveness of
<br />the system, its potential sustainability bene-
<br />fits, and the substantial investment of the
<br />turbine owner.
<br />
<br />Appearance
<br />The appearance of a turbine is an aesthetic
<br />issue, and one that is readily and easily con-
<br />trolled without impacting effectiveness. Sound
<br />responses to appearance issues include the
<br />following:
<br />. Color. Do not require special colors to blend
<br />with trees. Studies show thatthelight gray fac-
<br />tory color of most turbines is the best for
<br />blending into a range of sky conditions.
<br />· Signs. Clarify that WECs cannot be used as,
<br />or used to support, signage that is not other-
<br />wise approved through the sign ordinance.
<br />. Removal. Require removal of abandoned
<br />WECs. If a system is not productive, the visual
<br />impact should be eliminated.
<br />
<br />property. The likely effect from s(11all systems
<br />can also be inferred from studies of large
<br />WECs. The only longitudinal study of prop-
<br />erty values near windfarms shows that on
<br />. average, after an initial dip during the farm's
<br />construction, the value of properties within
<br />sight of a win-dfarm actually increased faster
<br />than simiiar properties.
<br />On properties where windfarms had
<br />detectable nuisance impacts (such as
<br />noise), value does decrease. It is important
<br />that local standards protect against any
<br />nuisance impacts of small WECs, but com-
<br />munities should not assume that aesthetic
<br />impacts alone lower adjacent property
<br />values.
<br />
<br />SUMMARY
<br />While turbines can have a variety of potential
<br />impacts in urban areas, most are easily reme-
<br />died through reasonable standards. Local
<br />standards should strive to protect neighbors
<br />
<br />from nuisance or safety impacts without
<br />restricting property owners who wish to install
<br />WECs. Pelfonnancestandards such as permis-
<br />sible noise levels, setback requirements,
<br />height limitations, and exceptions can ensure
<br />that one man's turbine is not another man's
<br />migraine.
<br />Local standards and requirements
<br />should consider the impacts of permit costs
<br />or regulations that substantially reduce the
<br />ability of WECs to effectively serve their pur-
<br />pose. The aesthetic impact of turbines is a
<br />real concem for many residents, but aesthet-
<br />ics alone do not appear to have a measurable
<br />effect on neighboring property values. The
<br />impacts ofWECs should be compared to simi-
<br />lar structures that are allowed to create visual
<br />impacts in (lur urban settings, particularly
<br />those associated with power generation and
<br />transmission. Ultimately, each community will
<br />need to decide if the benefits of clean, local
<br />power generation are valuable enough to jus-
<br />tify the visual impact of turbines in some zon-
<br />ing districts.
<br />
<br />
<br />VOL. 25, NO.7
<br />Zoning Pioctice is a monthly publication of th-a
<br />Ame.rkan Planning Association. Subscriptions
<br />are available ror 575 (U.S.) and $100 (roreign).
<br />W. Paul r3rmer, FAICP, Executive Director;
<br />Williar.J R. Klein, AICP, Director of Research.
<br />
<br />Zoning Practice (ISSN 1548-0135) is produced
<br />at APA. Jim Schwab, AICP, and David Morley,
<br />Editors; JUlie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa
<br />Barton, Design and Production.
<br />
<br />Copyright @2008 byAmerican Planning
<br />Association, 122 S. Michigan Ave., SUite 1600,
<br />ChiCago, IL 60603. The American Planning
<br />Association also has offices at 1776
<br />Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.
<br />20036; www.planning.org.
<br />
<br />All rights reserved. No part of this publication
<br />may be reproduced or utilized in any rorm or by
<br />any means, electronic or mechanical. inclUding
<br />photocopying, recording, or by any information
<br />storage and retrieval system, without permis-
<br />sion in writing rrom the Ameritan Planning
<br />Association.
<br />
<br />Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70%
<br />recycled fiber and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE 7.08
<br />AME.!'ICAN PLANNING ASSOOATION I P"ffl
<br />
|