Resource Documents: Law (56 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. These resource documents are provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Economics, Filings, Florida, Health, Nebraska, Noise, Property values, U.S. •
Kohmetscher v. Nextera
Author: Kohmetscher, Kevin; Healy, David; and McGuire, Myles
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Plaintiff, Kevin Kohmetscher, brings this Class Action Complaint & Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant, NextEra Energy, Inc. (“NextEra” or “Defendant”), to stop Defendant from operating wind turbines near residential communities in a way that causes a nuisance and interferes with homeowners’ use and enjoyment of their property. Plaintiff alleges as follows based on personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences …
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Defendant is one of the largest electric utility companies in the country, and the largest generator of wind energy in the world.
2. To generate wind energy, Defendant has constructed numerous “wind farms” across the United States. A wind farm is an array of wind turbines. Each turbine sits high in the air atop a tower and consists of a large rotor with three blades that spin as wind passes over the blades. Defendant’s wind farms often consist of dozens of turbines and stretch for miles across open terrain.
3. Although wind farms can supply renewable energy, they can also pose a number of hazards when built too close to homes and residential communities.
4. For instance, a turbine’s spinning blades create flickering shadows that pass over nearby land. For those in the path of a wind turbine’s shadows, the “shadow flicker” effect is similar to a constant strobe light. Those who experience prolonged shadow flicker often complain of severe headaches, nausea, difficulty concentrating, and in some cases seizures.
5. Turbines are also very noisy. The spinning blades create a deep thumping noise that sounds similar to a distant helicopter or train. This constant sound can travel for miles depending on weather conditions, and results in a decreased quality of life for those within a certain radius of the wind turbines due to stress, loss of sleep, and anxiety.
6. Rather than constructing its wind farms away from residential areas to prevent interfering with homeowners’ use and enjoyment of their land, Defendant has instead sited many of its wind farms in the middle of farm fields, near houses, and next to important roads.
7. Although Defendant’s chosen wind farm locations may be optimal for wind energy generation, the turbines’ proximity to residential areas can be devastating to those living in the surrounding community. The turbines drive people from their homes due to the unreasonable inconvenience, interference, annoyance, and adverse health effects caused by the turbines. Wind farms also destroy the scenic beauty of rural areas, cluttering the horizon with conspicuous towers and spinning blades.
8. Those who attempt to sell their homes and move away from Defendant’s wind farms are often unable to do so because the value of land near turbines plummets.
9. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated individuals to obtain redress and injunctive relief for those who have suffered harm as a result of Defendant’s substantial and unreasonable interference with their use and enjoyment of their property.
10. On his own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class defined below, Plaintiff seeks an award of damages compensating him and the putative class members for the negative effects that Defendant’s turbines have had on their health and well-being, use and enjoyment of their property, and diminution in value of their property due to Defendant’s turbines. Plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction barring Defendant from continuing to unreasonably interfere with his and the putative class members’ use and enjoyment of their property.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
Background
16. Wind energy is produced through the use of wind turbines. Turbines generally consist of three spinning blades connected to a rotor and a generator that sit atop a tower. As wind passes over the blades, the blades rotate and spin the generator to convert the wind’s kinetic energy into electrical energy.
17. Towers range in size up to 500 feet high, and blades can be more than 260 feet long. Due to their size, wind turbine towers require a large foundation to stay upright. Turbines are generally painted white to make them visible to aircraft.
18. When used to generate energy for commercial applications, large numbers of wind turbines are grouped together for efficiency in arrays known as wind farms.
19. Wind farms require use and control of extensive land area in order to optimize the spacing between turbines and minimize turbulence at downwind turbines.
20. Wind farms are typically sited in wide-open, rural areas. As such, the turbines often disrupt the natural scenic beauty of the land where they are placed. Wind farms also pose a risk of mortality to migratory birds whose flight paths pass through wind farms.
21. Many industrial wind turbine manufacturers recommend that turbines be at least 1,500 feet from any residence—a minimum setback—to provide a safety zone in the event of catastrophic failure (e.g. a blade breaks and flies off, or the turbine flings shards of ice that have accumulated along the blades during winter).
22. As a result, there is typically a “no-build” zone in a 1,500 feet radius surrounding any turbine. In many instances, however, this “no-build” zone overlaps with the property of landowners.
23. More importantly, wind turbines often interfere with residents’ use and enjoyment of their property even where they live beyond the recommended minimum setback.
24. For instance, the rotation of turbine blades causes a rhythmic flickering of sunlight, commonly called “shadow flicker.”
25. Shadow flicker can be especially noticeable in the mornings and evenings, when the sun appears close to the horizon. During such times, turbine blades can cast intermittent shadows that completely obscure sunlight each time a blade passes in front of the sun, causing a strobe-like effect. Shadow flicker can be an issue both indoors and outdoors when the sun is low in the sky.
26. Prolonged exposure to the strobe-like effect of shadow flicker is not only distracting and annoying, it also causes headaches, nausea, and has been reported to cause seizures in certain individuals.
27. Wind turbines can also be very noisy, exceeding prescribed decibel limits in many residential areas.
28. In addition to the noise made by the mechanical equipment inside turbine towers, turbines also cause aerodynamic noise. Aerodynamic noise is created by wind passing over the blades of a wind turbine. The tip of a 40-50 meter blade can travel at speeds of over 140 miles per hour under normal operating conditions. As the wind passes over the moving blade, the blade interrupts the laminar flow of air, causing turbulence and noise. Although current blade designs attempt to minimize the amount of turbulence and noise caused by wind, it is not possible to completely eliminate turbulence or noise from turbines.
29. Those who live near wind turbines have described the noise that turbines make as a rhythmical beating that sounds like “like a train that never gets there,” a “distant helicopter,” “thumping,” “thudding,” “pulsating,” and “beating.”
30. In addition to this audible thumping, turbines also emit inaudible low frequency sound waves known as infrasound. Although these sound waves are below the range of sound audible to humans, prolonged exposure can disturb sleep and impair mental health. Infrasound has been linked to increased instances of insomnia, stress, stroke, heart failure, immune system problems, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, ringing in the ears, breathing problems, abdominal and chest pain, urinary problems, effects on speech, and headaches. Further, high noise environments negatively impact learning in young children, making it hard to concentrate and communicate with others.
31. Health effects related to noise emissions from wind turbines have been observed in individuals living up to three miles from turbines, with the effects being greatest for those within one mile.
32. Individuals who live near Defendant’s wind farms usually decide to move away from the farms shortly after their installation due to the various ways that turbines interfere with their use and enjoyment of their property, including issues stemming from shadow flicker, noise emissions, and related health issues. However, many who reside near Defendant’s wind farms are unable to move due to the financial strain caused by the decreased value of their property and the inability to find a buyer willing to live near a wind farm.
Facts Specific to Plaintiff
33. Plaintiff owns a plot of land located at 2034 Rd. 1900, Blue Hill, Webster County, Nebraska. Plaintiff’s plot is approximately 11 acres in size, and Plaintiff currently resides in a single-family dwelling located on his land.
34. Plaintiff’s plot has been in his family for decades. Plaintiff grew up on his land, and he purchased it from his father.
35. Plaintiff’s property is adjacent to the Cottonwood Wind Farm, a wind turbine farm owned and operated by Defendant. Defendant began constructing the Cottonwood Wind Farm in or about mid 2017, and the turbines began commercial operation in or about November 2017.
36. The Cottonwood Wind Farm is miles-long and consists of more than 40 wind turbines built and maintained by Defendant.
37. The rear of Plaintiff’s residence faces the Cottonwood Wind Farm. In relation to Plaintiff’s property, the turbines are located to the east, south, and west of Plaintiff’s residence. The nearest turbine is located approximately 1,300 feet from Plaintiff’s property line.
38. Since the turbines near Plaintiff’s property began operating, the turbines have negatively affected, invaded upon, and interfered with the Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property by:
a. creating sustained, incessant, cyclical, and highly disturbing and annoying audible noise created by and emitted from the turbines, often described as sounding like an airplane flying overhead that never flies away;
b. creating vibrations or amplitude modulation of sound pressures or a pulse sensation when the rotating blades of the turbines pass by the turbine pedestal;
c. creating a shadow flicker/strobe light effect that often covers all of Plaintiff’s property and intrudes into Plaintiff’s home when the rotating blades of the turbines pass in front of the sun;
d. disrupting and/or preventing Plaintiffs’ ability to entertain guests or relatives, who are unable to visit for extended periods of time due to headaches and sleep disruption caused by the turbines;
e. creating highly visible glare or glint which emanates from the turbines when they reflect sunlight;
f. disrupting and obscuring Plaintiff’s views and vistas with turning blades, where such vistas were previously unobstructed;
g. preventing Plaintiff from enjoying normal outdoor family activities on his property such as barbeques, and other recreational activities;
h. Preventing Plaintiff from keeping his windows open due to persistent noise.
39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s ongoing interference with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer:
a. an inability to sleep, repeated awakening during sleep, and sleep deprivation;
b. headaches;
c. vertigo and/or dizziness;
d. nausea;
e. stress and tension;
f. fatigue;
g. and anxiety and emotional distress.
40. The Cottonwood Wind Farm and the impact it has had on Plaintiff’s property has thus substantially and unreasonably interfered with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property. On information and belief, Plaintiff’s property has decreased and will continue to decrease in value due to its proximity to Defendant’s wind turbines, and Plaintiff will be unable to lease or sell his property for its fair market value prior to installation of the turbines.
COUNT I: Private Nuisance …
COUNT II: Negligence …
Dated: March 1, 2019
Download original document: “Kohmetscher v. Nextera”
Sanders and Rosskopfs versus Bavaria Windpark
Author: Higher Regional Court of Munich
‘The defendant is ordered to cease operation of the wind power plant erected and operated on Plot no. 146 in the township of Ammerfeld, brand ENERCON E-82n, 2 MW capacity, hub height 138 metres, rotor diameter 82 metres, total height 179 metres, during the period of 22:00 hours to 06:00 hours, at a night emission rate of more than 45 dB(A) that is measurable at the residential building of the plaintiffs in 1) and 2) at 86688 Marxheim, St.-Gertraud-Straße 15.’
Higher Regional Court of Munich, Augsburg, August 14, 2012
Download original document: “Sanders and Rosskopfs versus Bavaria Windpark”
[translated by Simone Gabbay, translator for All Languages, Toronto, Ontario, paid for by a citizen of Ontario]
Judgment in the cause Andrew and Rosemary Milne against Stuartfield Windpower
Author: Miller, Andrew
SHERIFF COURT OF GRAMPIAN, HIGHLAND AND ISLANDS AT ABERDEEN: 10 May 2018
The sheriff, having resumed consideration of the cause, Finds the following facts admitted or proved, namely: …
10) The planning consent was subject to a number of conditions including planning condition 17, which was in the following terms:
At wind speeds not exceeding 12 metres per second, as measured or calculated at a height of 10 metres above ground level at the site, the noise level generated by the wind turbine cluster at any noise sensitive premises shall not exceed:
a) During night hours, (2300 – 0700), 35 dB LA 90 (10 minutes) or the night hours LA 90 (10 minutes) background noise level plus 5 dBA, whichever is the greater, and;
b) During daytime hours, (0700 – 2300), 38 dB LA 90 (10 minutes) or the daytime hours LA 90 (10 minutes) background noise level plus 5 dBA whichever is the greater.
Reason: In order to ensure that neighbouring residential properties are protected from unacceptably high levels of additional noise arising from the operation of the turbines.
11) The pursuers received no formal notification of the defender’s application for planning permission for the turbines and were unaware of the precise locations chosen for the turbines until construction commenced.
12) On becoming aware of the proposed location of the turbines the pursuers did not complain or attempt to intervene to prevent construction of the turbines.
13) The turbines were constructed during 2011 and commissioned on 7 November 2011.
14) The turbines were manufactured by Enercon. They are each approximately 80 metres in height to blade tip. …
25) The nearest turbine to East Mains of Crichie (‘turbine 1’) is situated approximately 477 yards (436 metres) northeast of the dwellinghouse there, the base of the turbine being no more than 8 metres higher than the ground level of the dwellinghouse. 26) The turbines were operated for the first time on 7 November 2011, when they were tested at high speed (‘the high speed test’). On that occasion Mrs Milne was in the grounds of her property at East Mains of Crichie, exercising one of her horses. Mr Milne was working offshore. No prior notice had been given to Mrs Milne of the high speed test.
27) During the high speed test the blades of turbine 1 were rotated at high speed, which generated a loud noise for approximately a minute, after which a braking system was applied, which generated a different, very loud noise similar in character to the noise of a jet aircraft. The noise emitted by the turbines during this high speed test was frightening to Mrs Milne and to her horse, which bolted.
28) A further high speed test of turbine 1 was carried out later on 7 November 2011, with the same results. The noise emitted during the second test was again frightening to Mrs Milne and to her horse.
29) On 8 November 2011 Mrs Milne approached a member of Enercon staff who was working in the vicinity of turbine 1 and complained about the noise emitted by the turbines during the high speed test the previous day. As a result Mrs Milne has received prior notice from Enercon of all subsequent high speed tests of the turbines, although on some occasions the period of notice has been as short as 30 minutes.
30) Similar high speed testing of the each of the turbines, with similar results in terms of the volume and character of the noise emitted, has been conducted on three or four occasions each year since the first such test on 7 November 2011. Each testing period lasts around half a day.
31) After the first high speed test of the turbines on 7 November 2011 the turbines commenced routine operation under wind power.
32) Under routine operation the turbines emit noise of a volume and character which is disturbing to Mr and Mrs Milne.
33) The volume of the noise emitted by the turbines is frequently loud and intrusive to Mr and Mrs Milne’s domestic routines and activities. The volume of the noise emitted by the turbines can unexpectedly drop and, having dropped, can unexpectedly resume at an intrusive level. The noise emitted by the turbines is often clearly audible within the grounds of the pursuers’ property and is sometimes audible within their house even with the double glazed windows closed.
34) The character of the noise emitted by the turbines varies from high frequency rhythmic ‘blade swish’ corresponding to the rotation of the blades to continuous lower frequency noise. The noise often pulses in time with the rotation of the turbine blades. The frequency of the pulses increases with the strength of the wind and hence the speed of rotation. Gusts of wind can result in sudden, sharp, particularly loud pulses of noise. The noise can be maintained at an intrusive level for long periods of time, extending to days at a time, depending on the wind conditions.
35) The volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines changes with the strength of the wind.
36) The turbines emit noise of the volume and character described in the preceding findings in fact constantly except when the wind drops to a level at which the turbine blades do not rotate, or only rotate slowly.
37) The noise emitted by the turbines has been disturbing to Mrs Milne. She became more upset and emotional as time went on due to the impact of the noise from the turbines on her peace of mind and quality of life. She experienced difficulty concentrating and became irritable and unable to relax as a result of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines.
38) From approximately 1991 until January 2017 Mr Milne worked offshore in the oil industry on a four week on/ four week off rotation. This limited his exposure to the noise emitted by the turbines during the period after they were commissioned in November 2011, although during his periods onshore Mr Milne has experienced the same general level of intrusion from the noise emitted by the turbines as Mrs Milne.
39) Until February 2017 Mrs Milne spent a significant proportion of her time at East Mains of Crichie outdoors exercising, riding or tending to her horses. The noise emitted by the turbines has been particularly intrusive in relation to her domestic routines and quality of life whilst she has been undertaking these activities.
40) As a result of the noise emitted by the turbines Mrs Milne has been unable to sleep in the master bedroom of the house at East Mains of Crichie since approximately November 2012. Since then she has had to sleep in a bedroom at the opposite side of the house.
41) Mr Milne’s sleeping arrangements have also been affected by the noise emitted by the turbines. He has refused to move to a different bedroom and continues to sleep in the master bedroom when he is at East Mains of Crichie. However he is only able to sleep in that bedroom with the window closed, in contrast to his longstanding practice of sleeping with his bedroom window open.
42) One component of the noise emitted by the turbines is amplitude modulation (‘AM’), a phenomenon whereby the level of noise generated by the passing of the turbine blades through the air fluctuates periodically over time.
43) Different forms of AM are associated with the operation of wind turbines. One form (normal AM (‘NAM’)) is associated with the high-frequency ‘blade swish’ arising from the rotation of the turbine blades. Other forms of AM (‘other AM (‘OAM’)) associated with wind turbines are less well understood but include a form of OAM which results from the turbine blades coming into contact with the surrounding air at too flat an angle, resulting in the generation of low-frequency ‘thumping’ noises at locations distant from the turbine. Scientific knowledge in relation to AM as it pertains to the operation of wind turbines is a developing field.
44) AM is present within the noise emitted by the turbines situated at West Knock Farm.
45) In 2012 Mrs Milne began to keep diary entries describing the noise emitted by the turbines. She maintained that practice each year until the end of 2016.
46) Mrs Milne wrote to Aberdeenshire Council Environmental Health Department on 7 January 2012 expressing her concerns about the noise emitted by the turbines. That letter made reference to 11 almost constant noise pollution” from the turbines and complained about the 11 acoustic character” of the turbine noise as well as its volume. …
50) In response to the concerns expressed by Mrs Milne about the noise emitted by the turbines, Aberdeenshire Council served an Abatement Notice on the defender on 11 December 2013 under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Proceedings at Peterhead Sheriff Court, initiated by the defender, followed. Those proceedings are presently sisted.
51) In November 2016 Mr Milne took up a temporary assignment with his employer based onshore in Surrey. He commenced work in Surrey in January 2017. His assignment there is due to come to an end in November 2018.
52) Mrs Milne chose to relocate with her horses to Surrey in February 2017 in order to get away from the noise emitted by the turbines. She presently lives with Mr Milne in Surrey and her horses are stabled near to the rented property where they currently live.
53) Mr and Mrs Milne expect to return to live at East Mains of Crichie when Mr Milne’s assignment in Surrey comes to an end.
54) Mrs Milne’s state of mind and emotional wellbeing have improved since she moved to Surrey. That improvement is due to the fact that, whilst resident in Surrey, she is not subject to the noise emitted by the turbines.
55) Solicitors acting for the pursuers served a notice on the defender on or about 14 January 2017 under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That notice asserted that the frequency, character, duration and repetition of the noise emitted by the turbines gave rise to a statutory nuisance within the meaning of that Act.
56) As at Sunday 11 February 2018, when Mr and Mrs Milne returned to East Mains of Crichie in order to attend the proof in these proceedings, there was no abatement of the volume or character of the noise emitted by the turbines which was noticeable to them.
57) The volume of the noise emitted by the turbines has always complied with the limits imposed by planning condition 17.
58) Planning condition 17 relates only to the volume and not to the character of the noise emitted by the turbines.
Findings in Fact and Law
1) The combined effect of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines situated on the defender’s land at West Knock Farm would not be tolerated by a reasonable person and amounts to a nuisance at common law.
2) The combined effect of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines situated on the defender’s land at West Knock Farm amounts to a statutory nuisance within the meaning of section 79(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
3) The pursuers are persons aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance for the purposes of section 82(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as a result of the combined effect of the volume and character of the noise emitted by the turbines situated on the defender’s land at West Knock Farm. …
Download original document: “SCT-Milnes-v-Stuartfield-Windpower-Judgment”
Wind Energy Facilities Law, Town of Richland, New York
Author: Town Board, Richland, N.Y.
The Town Board of the Town of Richland finds and declares that:
5-1 The New York State Constitution’s “Bill of Rights for Local Governments” (Article IX, §2-10) obligates local legislators to protect the health, safety and well-being of their community.
5-2 While wind energy is a semi-renewable energy resource of electricity generation, and under some circumstances it may reduce the use of nonrenewable energy sources, the possible benefits must be balanced against potential negative impacts to local citizens, local economy, local ecosystems and regional military facilities.
5-3 Regulation of the siting and installation of wind turbines is necessary for protecting the health, safety and well-being of neighboring property owners, the general public, the local economy and local ecosystems.
5-4 Several independent legal and economic experts have concluded that there can be serious legal and economic detriments for landowners entering into the secretive, complicated and one-sided lease/easement contracts written by industrial wind energy developers.
5-5 Large-scale multiple-turbine industrial wind energy facilities present significant potential negative aesthetic impacts because of their enormous size, lighting, dissimilarity from the natural environment, and possible shadow flicker effects.
5-6 Installation of large-scale multiple-turbine industrial wind energy facilities can create and/or exacerbate drainage problems through erosion and lack of sediment control of facility and access road sites, and harm farmlands and agriculture through construction methods utilized and arable land conversion to industrial purposes.
5-7 Construction of industrial wind energy facilities can create traffic problems, dangerous road conditions for local and other travelers and damage local roads
5-8 There is significant evidence from independent appraisers that industrial wind energy facilities will likely reduce property values of nearby property owners. Said property value reductions will reduce the Town’s tax base, resulting in a tax rate increase on all Town property owners.
5-9 A large-scale industrial wind energy facility may be a significant source of noise and vibration, These can have negative health impacts on residents in neighboring properties, particularly in areas with low ambient noise levels. According to various medical experts (by way of limited example, the World Health Organization), the infrasound component of such noise can be the most problematic.
5-10 In certain circumstances, industrial wind energy facilities can cause electromagnetic interference with some types of communications.
5-11 Independent experts have concluded that bats killed by industrial wind energy turbines can result in an appreciable reduction in regional agricultural yields. Estimates have been done for every county in the United States, and these experts have projected that this could adversely affect our local community’s economy.
5-12 Independent experts have concluded that turbines kill large quantities of birds. Especially troublesome are the raptors that are destroyed. The Town of Richland is located on a major migration route for many species of birds, and is habitat for many species, both year-round and seasonal.
5-13 Independent experts have concluded that industrial turbines can have a variety of adverse health effects on other wildlife, livestock and domestic animals.
5-14 Independent experts have also concluded that industrial turbines can have a variety of adverse effects on hunting and fishing.
5-15 The Town of Richland has many scenic viewsheds, and some of these would be negatively affected by industrial wind energy facilities.
5-16 The Town of Richland is considering adopting a Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan which will include the establishment of a Scenic Overlay District in recognition of the importance of the scenic assets of the community.
5-17 Public and private dollars have been invested in infrastructure within the Town to enhance and promote tourism, an important regional industry. Several studies by independent experts have concluded that nearby industrial wind energy facilities can have a major negative economic impact on tourism-sensitive communities.
5-18 The Town and its citizens desire to maintain the pastoral, rural nature of this region. An industrial wind energy facility is in conflict with the culture and character of this community.
5-19 Due to the unusually broad array of potentially problematic findings (and lack of scientifically proven net benefits), the precautionary principle dictates that the Town be particularly conservative and cautionary in its regulation of industrial wind energy.
5-20 In formulation of this Local Law, many studies have been reviewed – and those written by independent experts were given the greatest consideration. (See WiseEnergy.org for good examples of such reports.) Many wind energy ordinances through the United States have been analyzed. Experiences of other communities with industrial wind energy have been studied. An ad hoc Committee was appointed to make recommendations regarding industrial wind energy regulation. Some of the Committee’s conclusions were incorporated into this Local Law.
Noise Impacts:
Applicant will provide a post-construction noise monitoring plan which shall, at a minimum, provide verification from a qualified party that at the WEF [Wind Energy Facility] boundaries and at proximate residences, WEF noise does not exceed 35 dBA for more than five (5) consecutive minutes during a representative range of operating and atmospheric conditions. Instrumentation to verify this shall meet ANSI or IEC Type 1 standards, and measurement procedures shall comply with relevant portions of ANSI 812.9, Part 3. Each report will include the SCADA/Power output data at the time of the testing.
WEF Dimensional Requirements:
To provide for at least minimal operational safety for persons and property located outside of a WEF, all WEFs shall comply with the minimums and maximums contained in the following table:
| Type of Wind Energy Facility | Minimum Wind Turbine Setback* from any Property Line, Public or Private Right of Way, and/or Access Easement | Maximum Wind Turbine Height† |
| Small (≤100 kW) | 1.5 feet for each foot of height from any property line and any vacant or occupied dwelling unit on the same property | 75 feet |
| Large (>100 kW) | One (1( mile from facility property lines | 500 feet |
* Such minimum setbacks for a WEF shall be measured from its outermost extension (whether blade tip, nacelle/turbine housing, or tower/pole edge) that is nearest the WEF property line, public or private right-of- way, and access easement.
† Height is measured from the lowest adjacent grade to the highest point of the structure, including any attachments (such as a lightening protection device or a turbine rotor or tip of the turbine blade when it reaches its highest elevation). No portion of any wind turbine blade shall be closer than 25 feet to any portion of the ground that surrounds any WEF. No LWEF wind turbine shall be permitted to be within five (5) miles of any operating or proposed radar facility (NEXRAD, military, commercial etc.).
Download original document: “Wind Energy Facilities Law, Town of Richland, New York”
