11/11/08
Wind Turbine Ordinance Moves to Council -
Categories:
|
The amount of wind expended discussing a Wind Turbine Ordinance for Garland these last two years would surely power several homes. The ordinance has been bounced from committees to the Plan Commission to the Council and to work sessions so many times that we should rename it the Superball Ordinance. On Nov 18 the ordinance should be given a final review and consideration at the regular Council meeting scheduled that night. If approved, the ordinance would accomplish several things: • Allow residents to have a wind turbine up to 40 feet high, if approved for the necessary permit. • Create a public hearing process. Approval for the permit would be decided by the Plan Commission (or, perhaps, the Council). Notices of the hearing would be mailed to all residents within 400 feet of the property. • Require such installations be to manufacturers' specifications or with appropriate state-licensed engineer approvals. • Require proper maintenance and require removal when no longer being used. A number of concerns have been expressed by many individuals at different stages in the process. Some have been ligitimate, some irrational, and some have been simply personal preferences. In truth, very few such installations will be attempted. The costs offset the returns in most Garland locations. The approval process and the construction costs are significant, all before considering the cost of the equipment and electrical installation. Our area of the country rates a "2" on a 7-step scale as to the amount of wind. A "1" rating is for generally insufficient winds. The cost of installing photovoltaic panels would most likely bring a much quicker return. But there are differences. Winds are more common in the evening and night than the day, when photovoltaics would work. Charging your electric car or Segway would be most efficient at night while you're sleeping. The opportunity may not even be available to some citizens, such as those that live in some homeowners associations, have deed restrictions, or those that have insufficient space to meet clearance requirements. If Garland is going to consider itself a Green City, we have to be open to alternative forms of energy. Claiming to be green and then restricting residents from access to alternative forms of energy strikes me as hypocritical. For the 85% of our residents that use Garland Power & Light as their power source, saying "you have to use the city utility or else" also strikes me as hypocritical. The forty-foot maximum height being considered is the lowest industry-suggested height for such installations. Height limits in residential districts vary between 30- and 35-feet. The proposed height limit is not much more, yet any lower would render the turbines useless if wind is blocked by other structures or trees. The ordinance recognizes new generations of roof-mounted turbines also becoming available. These systems would be allowed by right (no special permit necessary) if they do not extend more than five feet above the roofline. In a district allowing 35 feet by right, another five feet would be the same as a 40-foot pole installation. The possible structural modifications and long-range stresses to the roof might make the pole installation preferable. Ironically, residents can install such a turbine now as long as they don't exceed the height limit for their particular zoning district. Yet we have much less specific regulations for maintenance and removal as contained in the proposed ordinance. I favor the ordinance. It would improve the quality of installations while impacting residents minimally over what is allowed now. It would enable residents seeking greater energy independence. And I don't want to be one of those that talks a good game about being green but is unwilling to practice what is being preached. |
UPDATE: Comments closed to block spam hits.
[Return to Website] [District 1 Development Updates and Interactive Map]
[District 1 September Crime Stats] [Contact Numbers—City Departments]
[District 1 September Crime Stats] [Contact Numbers—City Departments]
1 comment
11/17/08 @ 15:09
Comments:
Comment from:
J.S.Andrews [Visitor]
Mr. Athas,
"The ordinance recognizes new generations of roof-mounted turbines also becoming available. These systems would be allowed by right (no special permit necessary) if they do not extend more than five feet above the roofline."
Thank you for your supporting dialog on this issue and indeed recognizing the hypocritical nature of a city that preaches and claims green-ness and yet doesn't allow it to evolve and be utilized at a consumer level.
I do have a question about the definition of the phrase "not extend more than five feet above the roofline"
What does this mean ? Does this include the rotor assembly when it is at rest or in operation? Does this perhaps mean five feet to the rotor axis? I'm not contesting the provision's inclusion. I'm asking for a clarification and how it will be measured for compliance.
"The ordinance recognizes new generations of roof-mounted turbines also becoming available. These systems would be allowed by right (no special permit necessary) if they do not extend more than five feet above the roofline."
Thank you for your supporting dialog on this issue and indeed recognizing the hypocritical nature of a city that preaches and claims green-ness and yet doesn't allow it to evolve and be utilized at a consumer level.
I do have a question about the definition of the phrase "not extend more than five feet above the roofline"
What does this mean ? Does this include the rotor assembly when it is at rest or in operation? Does this perhaps mean five feet to the rotor axis? I'm not contesting the provision's inclusion. I'm asking for a clarification and how it will be measured for compliance.
11/17/08 @ 15:09 Comments are closed for this post.
