 |
| 100 foot tall turbines, 1/8th mile apart 110' from Parkway Boundaries |
In an emotional plea at last Tuesday night's public hearing regarding "small scale wind turbines", citizens' pleaded that their Planning Commission consider economically damaging impacts regarding the imposition of utilitarian structures in our scenic views, particularly from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The above photo-simulation represents a theoretical visual impact of "small scale" 100' tall wind turbines along a one-half mile section of the Blue Ridge Parkway in the Bonsack area in eastern Roanoke County, that the proposed ordinance amendment would have allowed. Specifically, 100 foot tall wind turbines as close as 110 feet from the parkway boundaries at every 1/8th mile along the entire length of the parkway through Roanoke County.
A long-time Planning Commissioner from the Catawba Magisterial District quickly recognized the visual damage that the amendment as written might impose. The other commissioners and a planning staffer entered into a discussion with intent to modify the proposed amendment to protect the scenic views.
Hastily, within a public hearing format, one commissioner insisted that the amendment MUST be forwarded to the BOS for passage because they had "...been working on the amendment for 18 months." Staff concerns were expressed based upon one citizen's expressed desire to erect a 113 foot tall wind turbine, which would have already been required to be reviewed on an individual basis by Special Use Permit.
During the hearing, notes were hastily shuffled between staff and the commissioners (Chairman Gary Jarrel was not present) in a hurried attempt to respond to agreed upon view shed concerns.
This resulted in a arbitrary discussion of heights of turbines and related setbacks, because, in a public hearing format, none of the governmental participants knew how to explore open discussion of options.
The Result?
 |
| 60 foot turbines 1/10th mile apart 66' from Parkway Boundaries |
The difference as our Planning Commission understands the ordinance is that the scenic views will not be affected if we allow more turbines of smaller size closer to the Blue Ridge Parkway. Hello?
Now let's view it as a parkway visitor will see it with a 60 foot tower in view:
 |
| This is a close up of the 60 foot size from the Parkway. |
Yet our "politically-oriented" Planning Commission members rationalize to themselves that they are acting in the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke County.
From my personal experience and understanding of "governmental dynamics", I am confident that none of our appointed officials has any motive, other than fulfilling "civic duty", at heart in their actions.
Does this make sense?
I don't think so and our ordinance should be not be compromised with such a lack of thoughtfulness.
I don't think so and our ordinance should be not be compromised with such a lack of thoughtfulness.
Even if we allowed the installation of turbines within 66' or 110' of federal land, i.e. the BRP, tourists aren't going to stop frequenting the BRP. I'm willing to bet it more people would want to see them turning. Give sustainable energy a chance.
ReplyDeleteActually, a "lack of thoughtfulness" is pushing out opportunities for our community to embrace sustainable energy alternatives.
After all, your federal tax dollars will be paying for sustainable energy regardless of what happens in the Roanoke Valley.
Its time we step up and start embracing energy alternatives like the rest of the US and world already has.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI certainly don't oppose energy alternatives nor the concept of sustainability. Until "near-miraculous" storage technology is developed, wind generated electrical energy will never be more than an energy supplement. I believe building-integrated, point of use, energy generation is the most efficient and effective direction for our future.
I do oppose the "stampeding herd-like" mentality surrounding Wind Energy as some sort of Utopian solution to our gluttonous appetite for energy , trashing our natural environment in its wake.
I'm not sure how windmills "trash or natural environment." I've seen wind turbines along the Spanish coastline and I didn't see them as a visual deterrent. You can put wind energy on the grid as has been done in Denmark and other European countries, it is just the US (due to lack of incentives) has been slow to respond. Wind energy is a very viable form of alternative energy and is developing rapidly.
ReplyDeleteHi Gintaras,
ReplyDeleteWhen you connect industrial-scale, wind-driven electicity generators on the grid, you severely compromise their productivity.
According to annual studies conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, we lose between 25% - 30% of all electricity produced through generation, transmission and distribution.
Small "point of use" systems are a wiser solution, however, our planning commission must be sensitive to visual impacts from the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Appalachian Trail, at least.
Eldon,
ReplyDeleteAs an opponent of the big ones, this decision doesn't sound too bad to me.
Unless I'm mistaken, it requires that a Special Use Permit (ie, special permission) be required for even a much much smaller turbine 60' vs. 400'). Isn't that correct?
If you want to keep the big ones out, would a compromise - allowing small ones - make sense? Perhaps.
Can you post when the next hearing on the larger ones will be?
Thanks.
I can appreciate your point, Eldon, but small "point of use" wind turbines strike me as even more limited in use as they would be subject to the winds on any one day, with the user requiring storage capacity, which would similarly run into problems.
ReplyDeleteOn the whole, I am very supportive of wind farms, but they are not the best solution to any given situation. I think we have to look at a number of alternatives, not put all our eggs in one basket like we did with oil, allowing energy companies to similarly control these systems.
I think the best compromise is to come up with regional solutions on a variety of scales, allowing them to be administered cooperatively within the community.
If you are dealing with a big land area, it strikes me that geothermal is a reasonable alternative.
ReplyDeleteHi Rob,
ReplyDeleteI am not opposed to smaller scale systems either. However, as we on Bent Mountain and Roanoke County continue to benefit both economically and esthetically from the presence of the Blue Ridge Parkway and Appalachian Trails through our county, we should not ignore the continuing pleas of our citizens to protect our viewsheds.
Roanoke County has already developed a viewshed assessment with particular emphasis on the Blue Ridge Parkway. As the Bent Mountain Community pursues its relationship with the Parkway as a "service" community, we need to be sensitive to our viewsheds that are integral with the Parkway.
I think this could be most easily handled by requiring a "Special Use Permit" for any wind turbine with 1/2 mile of the BRP. Otherwise, the amendment should be returned to the Planning Commission, to allow them to address their expressed viewshed concerns in a way that satifies the concern, such as designated viewshed areas by "Special Use Permit."
As it stands, wind turbines up to 60 ft tall shall be permitted "by right". At a 110% setback, that equals 66 feet from parkway boundaries, regardless of any view shed impact.
"First Reading" of the Small wind turbine ordinance is today at the BOS meeting at 3:00 pm in its hurried route to passage.
Hi Gintaras,
ReplyDeleteAs I said before; "Until near-miraculous storage technology is developed, wind generated electrical energy will never be more than an energy supplement."
In the meantime, we can take advantage of the in place grid to "store" point-of-use surplus generated electricity with "net metering".