Tall structures debated
BEAUFORT — Deborah Golden applauded Carteret County’s proposed tall structures ordinance this week and sees it as a positive step in regulating the utility-scale wind turbines she fears could end up in her community.
Golden lives across the highway from a proposed project to locate three utility-scale wind turbines on 33 acres in the Bettie community and said she worries about impacts from noise and vibrations as well as possible danger to nearby homes if a turbine were to break or malfunction.
She was one of seven people who spoke at a public hearing on the county’s draft tall structures ordinance, which is now under consideration by the Carteret County Board of Commissioners.
She said residential areas aren’t suitable for a wind energy project of such magnitude and the burden of the potential impacts of industrial, utility-scale turbines would be on residents who have long lived there.
“I’m already there; I have nowhere to go,” she said. “It’s the same issue for a lot of people in the area.”
The proposed wind farm project would be the first of its kind in the county and property owners Nelson and Dianna Paul of Raleigh see the proposed wind farm as an opportunity to further alternative energy efforts in the county.
But the plans have also been a source of concern from residents who have cited public safety, health and aesthetic concerns.
In March, the Carteret County Board of Commissioners imposed a nine-month moratorium on the permitting on such structures to give the county planning staff time to develop regulations. The moratorium ends Dec. 3 and a draft ordinance is now before the county board for consideration.
A series of public hearings was held before the Carteret County Planning Commission as the ordinance was developed and public comment was accepted during each of the commission’s meetings on the issue. The public hearing Tuesday night was an opportunity for residents to present comments to commissioners.
There was no time limit on the comments made and the seven individuals who spoke presented information for nearly two hours.
For some, it wasn’t the wind turbines of greatest interest.
Residents Bob Chambers and Art Gill asked that the county address regulations for communications and cell towers separately from the rest of the ordinance and cited a number of concerns with the draft rules.
For one, they said, the draft rules tread into areas that are private business decisions and go beyond zoning and land use concerns.
“This ordinance is getting involved in private business matters,” said Chambers, who has experience as a zoning administrator and has worked with communications systems.
Chambers said he doesn’t want to see the towers section of the ordinance become a “victim” of the wind turbine concerns.
County attorney Rob Wheatly said the intent is to keep the tower regulations focused on public safety and he and the planning staff would continue to work on the regulations. No decision was made to separate the two sections of the ordinance.
For the majority of the speakers, it was the wind turbine regulations of primary interest.
Stephanie Miscovich has followed the issue closely out of concern for public safety. Carteret County is a hurricane prone area and she believes utility-scale turbines should only be in remote areas to reduce the risk of any danger from debris from turbines that may break or malfunction.
She cited a case where turbine had destructed and the debris field extended out a distance 7.5 times the turbine’s height. Carteret County is proposing a setback requirement for large utility-scale turbines of a maximum 3,300 feet, which she feels is justified.
“In the past eight months of soliciting guidance from industry professionals, no one offered me a substantial argument for any setback less than the one proposed in this draft ordinance,” she said.
Charles Renda and Ernest Filep, Down East residents who formed Responsible Citizens for Responsible Siting, favored the moratorium but said the ordinance hasn’t gone far enough to address concerns.
Renda presented information on wind turbine syndrome and health effects of the low frequency noise and vibrations. Filep noted several questions he raised that haven’t been answered, such as who will respond to concerns from residents who may be impacted by noise, shadow flicker or other potential problems if they live near a turbine.
“If a turbine is rattling around and shaking your window, who are you going to call?” he asked.
Tony Castagna of Beaufort would rather not see utility-scale wind turbines at all. He said geo-thermal energy is the way to go.
He said utility-scale wind projects come with transmission lines, substations and other substantial costs as well as prospective legal battles with environmental law firms.
“If you want to have 60-foot, 75-foot wind turbines to generate some power for a home, so be it,” he said. “There are no transmission lines, no dealing with litigation.”
The Board of Commissioners took no action following the public comments.
Jannette Pippin
22 October 2008
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
Some possibly related stories:
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
