Wind tower ordinance draft gets objections from both sides

After hearing complaints, compliments and calls to “Git r’ Done” throughout two hours of public testimony last Wednesday, Sept. 16, Whitman County’s planning commission decided to delay a vote on the proposed industrial wind tower ordinance until Oct. 7. The commission has been working on the ordinance since October of 2007.

The ordinance requires wind turbines be placed at least five times their overall height from buildings and 1.5 times their height from adjoining property lines.

Wednesday’s hearing drew criticism of the proposed draft from those who are in favor of wind farms in Whitman County and those against.

Proponents of wind generation said they thought the ordinance’s five times height setback requirement was too restrictive, while opponents thought it not strict enough.

“I’ve heard opinion from both ways,” said Planning Commissioner Rick Finch from Pullman. “It kind of reminds of a divorce. It’s probably fair.”

If approved, the five times tower height setback would be the most restrictive in the state.

Critics Roger Whitten of Oakesdale and Carolyn Kiesz of Thornton have sued the county to reverse Planner Alan Thompson’s decision that the ordinance would not have any negative environmental impacts under the state’s SEPA standards.

Both said the setback requirements are not sufficient to protect neighbors from low-frequency sound, and need to be increased to 3,300 feet.

Wind power developers last Wednesday said the space requirements would consume more land per installation and take that much more acreage out of farm production.

“The five times setback is excessive, and it infringes upon the rights of property owners,” said Ben Fairbanks of First Wind, a Massachusettes-based company that is testing to site a wind farm on Naff Ridge near Thornton.

Brian Walsh of Iberdrola Renewables said the setbacks in the ordinance are too burdensome. He said his company has lease sites for a farm near Colton.

Walsh said larger setbacks that limit areas of turbine placement mean the company will have to place turbines on more ground to develop a profitable wind farm. That would increase both the cost of installing a farm and the environmental impacts, he said.

“By trying to protect the aesthetics, you might actually be increasing the visual appearance of a wind farm in the county,” he said.

The wind farms reps argued the five times height setback was made for aesthetic reasons and not to protect public health. That justification, they said, is not defensible in court.

Whitten and Kiesz in their court petitions have contended larger setbacks would be needed because of problems caused by low frequency noise emitted from turbines.

Before the hearing, Thomson criticized their source information, saying the studies they presented to support their arguments had not been reviewed by the science community.

Mark Bastach, an engineer with the CH2M Hill, said peer-reviewed studies showed the amount of low frequency noise produced by the wind itself is more than that produced from wind turbines. It is not harmful to neighbors more than 1,000 feet away.

Chelsea Miller, a WSU student who grew up near Dayton, said her family’s home is in the middle of the Hopkins Ridge project. She said she has not experienced any ill effects from the turbines.

“I sleep with the window open at night, and never once was I kept awake from the noise,” she said.

Miller noted she leads tours of Hopkins Ridge during the summer months.

Attorney Erin Anderson of Ellensburg worked on a case in which the state Supreme Court overruled a Kittitas County decision that banned a wind farm along Highway 97 northwest of Ellensburgn. The Kittitas ban was appealed by Horizon Wind Energy.

Anderson noted the greatest turbine setback any court in Washington has allowed for aesthetics is four times the tower height.

Chris Schultheis of Colton said the five times height setback was created purely for aesthetics, and is an “unjust infringement” on the property rights of landowners.

“That setback can and should and will be challenged successfully because of its arbitrary nature,” he said.

The sole contentious moment of the hearing occurred when Kiesz’ husband Rick asked the planning commission if they or their families own land under consideration for a wind farm.

“I’ll answer that. No,” Planning Commissioner Steve Naught of St. John said abruptly.

“I am tired of the accusations and insinuations that anyone here is in the tank with these companies,” Naught said during a planning commission discussion after the hearing. “None of us are profiting on this. I would stake my reputation on it.”

If the planning commission approves the ordinance at its Oct. 7 session, it will be passed on to county commissioners for approval.