My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 08/25/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2009
>
Agenda - Council - 08/25/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 4:18:31 PM
Creation date
8/20/2009 1:34:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
08/25/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
347
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
"By placing these <br />windmills where many <br />people can see them, <br />[people] will be able <br />to learn about and <br />experience alternative <br />energy as part of their <br />daily lives. " <br />- Pennsylvania Gov. <br />Edward Rendell <br />Monopole Tower. <br />Lattice Tower <br />. Guyed Monopole Tower <br />3. Aesthetics: <br />To function, wind turbines must be tall <br />and unobstructed, which means that <br />they will likely be visible at some <br />distance (see p. 6). It is also a fact that <br />some people object to their appearance. <br />However, legislating "taste" becomes a <br />difficult task - and an inappropriate one <br />for any authority other than a <br />homeowners' association (and even <br />homeowners' associations may wish <br />to create policies that prohibit aesthetics <br />from entering the debate). Regulating <br />aesthetics requires balancing the <br />perceived or desired character of a <br />community; the public and private <br />benefits of clean, renewable energy; <br />and property rights of all parties. <br />Advocates say that small wind turbines <br />are icons of the American rural <br />landscape, dating back to the 1920s, <br />and that today they have again emerged <br />as a symbol of independence and a - <br />cleaner future. They argue that so long <br />as a turbine is installed safely, <br />particularly on private property, they <br />should be' allowed. System owners <br />compare the aesthetics of their turbine <br />to that of a street lamp., utility pole, or <br />flag pole, and like a flag on a flagpole, <br />a turbine only moves or makes a sound <br />when the wind blows (see "Sound," p. 11). <br />Advocates also point to precedent, - <br />noting that communities already accept <br />water towers, buildings, billboards, relay <br />towers, cell phone towers, utility poles <br />and lines, grain silos, and radio <br />antennas as part of the landscape. <br />But the aesthetic impact of wind <br />turbines may be unacceptable in <br />areas with historic significance where <br />aesthetics play an important role in a <br />district's long-established character. <br />Opponents say that their height and <br />movement are a distractive and <br />unpleasant sight and visually intrude <br />on their rights as property owners. <br />Both views are based on emotion, <br />however, not fact. As such, aesthetics <br />are often a very sensitive issue and. <br />policymakers should take care to <br />address any concerns fairly. <br />Small. turbines are designed to blend in <br />with their surroundings as much as <br />possible. Studies show that turbines <br />best blend into the sky when painted <br />the factory -default color. Manufacturers <br />avail themselves of expertise to <br />determine how to prevent their turbines <br />from standing out like a sore thumb on <br />the landscape. So requiring owners to <br />"disguise" a turbine or tower by painting <br />it green or other colors to match <br />vegetation would actually make it stand <br />out more and should be avoided. <br />Some communities regulate appearance <br />by prohibiting the use of commercial <br />markings, messages, or banners on <br />the turbine or tower. Some towns also <br />dictate which tower types are acceptable <br />in order to ensure only the most visually <br />appealing design. This, too, is a <br />subjective assessment, and such <br />decisions are often made without <br />considering the added cost of a <br />"sleeker" tower that performs just as <br />reliably as another design. A monopole <br />tower (like a flag pole) generally has a <br />"tidier" appearance than a lattice tower <br />(like a radio tower) or guyed tower <br />(like a flag pole with wire supports), <br />but they can cost several thousands <br />of dollars more and should not be <br />considered equal economic substitutes. <br />All towers on the market are <br />professionally engineered for safety <br />and reliability, leaving appearance and <br />cost the only significant differences <br />among them. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.