| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Hanover holds public hearing on proposed windmill
Credit: By SAMANTHA MCDONNELL - OBSERVER Staff Writer | Observer Today | May 19, 2014 | www.observertoday.com ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
HANOVER – For the second time, an Angell Road resident is requesting a variance for a wind energy conversion system. The Hanover Town Board held a second public hearing recently for a WECS to be located at 12037 Angell Road for a 1.5 foot variance.
Previously, the board held a public hearing and approved a variance of 12 feet over the 120-foot limit. Padma Kasthurirangan of Niagara Wind & Solar, who will be installing the WECS, approached the board for an additional variance to total 135 feet. The original drawings were incorrect and a variance of 133.5 feet – instead of 132 feet – was actually needed.
During the hearing, residents had concerns. Kelly Shumaker, who also lives on Angell Road, had questions about noise and shadow flicker.
“I did a lot of research into wind turbines. They create 55 decibels of noise at a quarter of a mile. They can be very hazardous to people with migraines or epilepsy due to shadow flicker created by the wind turbine itself as it passes over homes. … I have a serious problem with this going up almost across the street from my house,” she said.
Kasthurirangan said the shadow flicker would not impact any adjacent properties; the turbine would be located 200 feet from the nearest property line. Shumaker also had a question about ice shearing off the turbine in the winter. Kasthurirangan said this is physically impossible. She explained the blades are “completely balanced” and they will not rotate if there is something on one of the blades. Shumaker wanted to know what recourse actions she would be entitled to if this scenario were to happen.
Supervisor Todd Johnson asked if the turbine could be cut or dug down deeper during installation to reach the variance already approved. He also asked if the dimensions were going to change in the future again.
“My simple solution would be go down in the ground another foot and a half and we wouldn’t be here talking about it. You’d be at your 132 (feet),” Johnson said.
Councilman Bernard Feldmann said since the public hearing brought up concerns which were not previously addressed at the first one, he was uncomfortable voting on the matter. Feldmann made a motion to “reserve decision, re-evaluate the facts and comments heard tonight and come back with a vote at a later time.” The motion was approved unanimously.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Paypal) |
 (via Stripe) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=64011 ]
