|
Residential wind turbine tower approved
MONTEREY - Highland will soon be home to wind turbine tower, on a farm, but it's not much like the industrial sized utility planned atop Allegheny Mountain. It will power one house, and is much smaller.
The zoning ordinance requires a conditional use for structures over 35 feet in height. The Highland County Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors held a joint public hearing Thursday to consider a request for a single tower above that height. Citizens didn't have much to say about the proposed 100-foot tall steel lattice tower with a 15-foot rotary turbine on top that will be built on land owned by Keith Carson in a mostly agricultural area off Hardscrabble Road near Blue Grass. The only mention was that the tower would negatively alter a view shed, and a recommendation the tower not be lighted.
The tower will be built 1.25 miles from Hardscrabble Road. It will be 312 feet behind Carson's house and 60 feet from the nearest property line, according to the permit application.
"My wife, Polly, and I are asking for permission for this steel lattice tower, similar to one at the sheriff's office,to get above the trees," said Carson. "The model we are looking at now has a blade diameter of less than 12 feet. Itís about 90 feet from the nearest property line now."
"Keith and Polly should be commended," said Nancy Witschey, a Hardscrabble Road resident. But, she added, "that tower is going to be in a direct line from my house (in my view shed). I'm going to see it. If the trees stay where they are, I'll probably see it in the summer about 35-40 feet of the top of the tower and the blades. I respectfully request the stipulation that no lights be put on the tower and the structure not be illuminated in any way," she said.
County attorney Melissa Dowd, a resident on Wimer Mountain Road, spoke as a private citizen. "I am not representing anybody but myself. I reiterate exactly what Nancy said. I will look straight at this windmill. This is a first for a lot of us. So long as there aren't any lights on it. I don't like it; it's in my view shed I don't object to the granting of the conditional use."
"You did tell us when we visited the site there would be no lighting?" supervisor Jerry Rexrode asked Carson.
"Anything under 200 feet doesn't require lighting," Carson responded. "We have no plans to put lighting on it."
"I commend you. It is cutting edge for the county to be more self-sufficient," said Rexrode.
Supervisor Robin Sullenberger asked about efficiency and adequate wind velocity in the area of the proposed tower.
"We have had a wind monitor on the site," said Carson. "From June to November we averaged 12-15 mph. That's not the windiest time up there. We are 99 percent sure we are going to get a significant amount of wind to produce 400 kilowatts of energy a month with this turbine. It's a mediumsized residential turbine."
Further wind data was not available because the wind monitor stopped working with the onset of colder temperatures, Carson said.
Sullenberger asked if it was similar to the commercial units board members have seen.
Carson said the turbines were much smaller and affixedto a lattice tower, not a solid tower like the much larger commercial turbines planned for the county.
Supervisor David Blanchard asked about the potential threat to birds the turbine might present.
Carson said he was unable to finddocumented studies on residential turbines and their effect on birds and bats.
Carson, president of the Bath Highland Bird Club and an employee of The Nature Conservancy, said, "It is unlikely migrating raptors will come near; they travel higher. Faster turning blades are more visible than slower turning big turbines and there are no guy wires."
He inferred that a slow moving blade and guy wires were more dangerous to birds and bats than the smaller, faster moving residential turbine he is planning to build.
Neighbor Deborah Huso wrote that she recommended Carson put trees around the structure.
Neighbors Goog and John Colaw wrote they had no objections to the tower.
Planner Jim Cobb said, "They've done a lot of work on this; there's no opposition except for lights. We should move this forward to the supervisors recommending approval as long as there are no lights on the tower."
The planning commission took that as a motion, passed it, and forwarded the conditional use application to the board of supervisors for approval.
Supervisors approved the conditional use with one condition - that it not be lighted.
- James Jacenich
No comments have been posted. Be the first!
| 
