|
There has been an increasing interest in the past year, both
locally and statewide, in alternative energy sources. At a
local level, and especially in rural counties, this idea has
most recently manifested itself in the proliferation of wind
energy systems such as small wind turbines, or windmills, as
a viable independent energy source for personal (i.e.,
private and/or non-commercial) use. Since these systems are
becoming more popular among citizens, local governments
statewide have started to consider the land use policy
questions that are presented by wind turbines, as well as
the regulatory challenges they pose to both the Virginia
Uniform Statewide Building Code and local zoning ordinances.
Among local governments in Virginia, Rockingham County was
the first to implement local zoning regulations for wind
energy in 2004; more recently, Halifax County passed zoning
ordinance language addressing the use of personal Wind
Energy Systems. Many other jurisdictions are in the process
of reviewing the issue (See Attachment 1 for
Ordinances/Articles related to other Jurisdictions).
In Fauquier County, staff received several inquiries
throughout 2008 regarding individuals seeking to erect wind
turbines on their property for personal use and, in October
2008, approved the first two permits for personal windmills
in the rural zoning districts. While there is no specific
language regarding windmills in the current Zoning Ordinance
regulations, the general provisions found in Article 2 and
Article 6 do address accessory uses and structures in
general terms. As a matter of interpretation, staff relied
on language found in Section 2-506 of the Ordinance, which
states that “the height limitations of this Ordinance shall
not apply to barns, silos, residential chimneys, spires,
cupolas, elevator penthouses, domes, flagpoles, birdhouses,
flues, monuments, radio towers, television antenna or
aerials, water towers, water tanks, transmission towers and
cables, smoke stacks, air conditioning units or other
similar roof structures and mechanical appurtenances.” With
respect to setbacks, staff relied on the existing location
regulations for accessory structures found in Section 6-105,
requiring that any structure over seven (7) feet in height
meet the required side yard setbacks for the zoning district
in which it is located and a rear yard setback equal to the
overall height of the structure. In both cases, the subject
properties were located in the Rural Agricultural (RA)
District and consist of more than five (5) acres. In
addition, both applicants were applying for approval of the
same structure, a Skystream windmill that is approximately
54 feet in height, measured from the lowest point of the
finished grade to the uppermost projection of the arc of the
blades on the turbine itself. Although the minimum side yard
setback of the RA District is only 25 feet, in both cases
the applicant agreed to staff’s request that the windmills
be located a minimum of 55 feet from the side lot lines,
which would provide a setback ratio of 1 foot for every 1
foot of height of the structure.
During the review of the two permits for private windmills
that were approved in October 2008, staff identified the
height and setbacks of the proposed structures as being the
primary areas for concern. Given the interest in the
application of these systems for private use and
anticipating their more frequent application as a viable
alternative energy source for citizens, staff has determined
that a more comprehensive set of Ordinance provisions is
warranted at this time to address wind energy systems that
provide power for on-site users.
Staff would note that commercial Wind Energy Systems (i.e.,
systems installed for the purpose of generating power for
sale) are currently being regulated under existing Zoning
Ordinance provisions for public utilities (Category 20) and
require special exception approval. This text amendment
makes no changes to these larger-scale types of facilities.
Proposed Amendment
The proposed text amendment would specifically establish
on-site Wind Energy Systems as a permitted accessory use in
Section 6-102.32, with specific limitations as further set
forth in the proposed text. The provisions establish lot
size, setback, design, and maintenance standards related to
such systems, as well as approval procedures. For
additional background information, staff provided two
detailed documents with additional technical information as
well as a review of local ordinances with the previous staff
report dated May 14, 2009: A Guide for State and Local
Governments prepared by the American Wind Association
and published in September 2008 and Local Ordinances to
Regulate Wind Energy Projects prepared by John D.
Hutchinson V of the Jennings Gap Partnership for the
Shenandoah Valley Network and Rockingham Community Alliance
in February 2009.
Definition
The text
amendment is intended to address wind energy systems that
are utilized for the generation of utility power for private
consumption, as opposed to generation of utility power for
commercial sale. The proposed definition makes it clear that
the systems are for on-site consumption while still
maintaining flexibility for net metering, or the selling of
excess power back to a utility company:
Wind Energy System: A wind energy conversion system
consisting of a wind turbine, a tower and associated control
or conversion electronics. A system is considered an
On-Site Wind Energy System only if it supplies
electrical power solely for on-site use, except that when a
parcel on which the system is installed also receives
electrical power supplied by a utility company, excess
electrical power generated and not presently needed for
on-site use may be used by the utility company (i.e., net
metering).
Permitted Zoning Districts
The proposed amendment limits on-site wind energy systems to
the RA/Rural Agricultural and RC/Rural Conservation
Districts.
Lot Size and Setbacks
Staff originally drafted amendment language that limited
wind energy systems to rurally zoned parcels containing a
minimum of five acres. The intent was to discourage the use
of such systems on smaller parcels where they may have
increased impact on neighboring properties. However, after
some discussion with the Planning Commission, there was
consensus that a setback requirement provided better
protection than a lot size requirement, as the location of
the facility on the lot would determine its impact on
adjoining properties. Therefore, the 5-acre minimum lot
requirement was eliminated from the draft regulations as
proposed by the Planning Commission.
The proposed setbacks are to be based on the proposed height
of the overall structure. The original setback proposed by
staff was one foot for each foot of height. However, based
on discussion at the work sessions, the Planning Commission
recommended additional setbacks to protect the surrounding
community from potentially negative impacts of the use.
The provisions now contain a setback requirement from the
property line of 110 percent of the height of the structure
plus an additional setback requirement from existing
residential units on adjoining properties of 150 percent of
the height of the structure. A waiver provision has been
included for the 150 percent setback from a residential
unit, based upon written consent and recordation of an
easement from the affected adjacent property owner. The
waiver provision is based on that utilized in Rockingham
County.
Height
The majority of the local governments with existing
standards for personal Wind Energy Systems do regulate
height in some manner. Specific examples include:
|
Jurisdiction |
Height Limit |
|
Clarke County |
Allowed by-right up to 100 feet, maximum 2 units.
More units with special permit. |
|
Halifax County |
No height limit specified, but none allowed without
special permit. |
|
Highland County |
Height limit of the Zoning District, greater height
allowed with special permit. |
|
Pulaski County |
60 feet, with special permit (~70-80’ with turbine). |
|
Rockingham County |
65 feet on lots 1-5 acres, with special permit
(~75-85’ w/turbine) and up to 80 feet on lots >5
acres, with special permit (~90-100’ w/turbine). |
|
Rockbridge County |
No height limit specified, but none allowed without
special permit. |
|
City of Suffolk |
120 feet for a small system (output of 25kW or less)
by-right and 250 feet for a large system (output of
26kW up to 999 kW) with a conditional use permit. |
The review of other jurisdictions shows that regulations
vary significantly, from allowing no systems, regardless of
height, up to as high as 120 feet by-right or 240 feet with
a special permit. The text amendment proposed by the
Planning Commission includes a maximum by-right height limit
of 80 feet, which is consistent with the by-right height of
telecommunication towers in Article 11 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Staff has further researched the issue of height
based on several questions posed by the Board of Supervisors
during the May 14, 2009 public hearing. Specifically, the
Board requested information relating to the performance and
cost of systems, and how those factors are related to
increases, or decreases for that matter, in overall
structure height.
Generally, wind speeds increase with height, so it is
logical that a wind energy system could produce more power
at a greater height. Conversely, overall wind speed
decreases as you move closer to the ground, and a system
that is closer to the ground will receive more turbulence
and will operate inefficiently. As previously described to
the Board, a general ‘rule of thumb’ established by the
American Wind Energy Association, and widely used by both
local governments and industry related groups, is that the
entire turbine itself must be a minimum of 30 feet above
anything within 500 feet of the tower or the local tree
line, whichever is greater. Since the turbine itself can be
as large as 10-20 feet in diameter for a small wind energy
system, this means the total height of the tower must be 40
feet above obstructions to be effective.
According to Department of Energy information on small wind
energy systems, relatively small consumer investments in
increased tower height can yield high rates of return in
terms of performance. For example, to raise a 60 foot tower
to 100 feet in height would require approximately a 10%
increase in system cost but would produce nearly 29% more
power in optimal conditions. Similarly,
most studies show that even small increases in height can
yield very high rates of return as far as performance. This
is worth noting since small wind turbines are not
particularly efficient in capturing energy from wind over an
extended period of time; even with optimal siting conditions
and increased height, only about 30% of the energy from
annual wind speeds will be captured. As such, it would be
beneficial for homeowners over the long term to opt for a
slightly more expensive system, at the maximum height
allowed by-right. That being said, staff believes that the
industry standard described above is absolutely appropriate
and that by siting a system below the standard would make it
significantly inefficient and, ultimately, could make the
technology undesirable from the public’s standpoint.
Additional review of many of the small energy systems
available for purchase suggests that a height of 70-80 feet
to the top of the blade is the typical height, which assumes
that the system is adjacent to a home and tree line no more
than 30 feet in height. Typical house height is often
slightly more (the maximum allowed by-right in all
residential districts in Fauquier is 35 feet), and while the
height of tree lines varies substantially from site to site,
it is not unusual to find tree stands more than 30 feet in
height. For these reasons, an 80 foot by-right height limit
was proposed by the Planning Commission. As an alternative
approach, the Planning Commission also included language
that will allow an applicant to erect a system up to 100
feet in height with a special permit. This would allow such
proposals to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking
into consideration the constraints of a particular property
that may necessitate a greater tower height, and allowing
the BZA to mitigate potential impacts that result from an
increase in height.
Visual Impacts
While the issue of visibility is based primarily on the
height of a wind energy system, several other factors do
contribute to its visual impact. As originally drafted,
staff has included several other provisions into the text
language aimed at reducing the visible obtrusiveness of wind
energy systems.
Tower Type
There are three typical types of towers utilized for most
wind energy systems: guyed towers, lattice towers, and
monopoles. According to industry sources, the lattice tower
is the least expensive alternative for most systems, but the
most utilized is the guyed tower, in part because these can
be raised and lowered with a winch for maintenance.
  
Guyed Tower (being raised) Lattice
Tower Monopole
Staff is recommending that only guyed and monopole towers be
allowed in cases where the tower is visible from adjoining
property or the public street and/or public places, in order
to reduce visual impact.
Color
A provision regulating the color of wind energy systems has
also been provided, and this particular issue was
specifically identified by a Board member as an area of
concern during the May 14, 2009 public hearing. A review of
industry information indicates that most systems come in a
galvanized steel finish or in an unobtrusive color such as
white or gray; this is consistent with the regulatory
practices in other communities and was the justification for
including similar language in the proposed text language.
Staff has also included an alternative that would allow a
property owner, with Zoning Administrator approval, to paint
the system in order to further blend it into the surrounding
environment. However, it may appropriate to further modify
this language to include a provision addressing the finish
of any metal or painted surface in order to reduce light
reflectivity. In addition, the Board may wish to consider
language that encourages or requires a broader range of
color selections.
Ridge Lines
Also related to the visibility of wind energy systems is the
concern that a unit could be placed on a visually prominent
steep slope. This is of particular concern since ridgelines
typically would provide the best location for wind
generation. For this reason, the Commission recommended at
that a ridgeline prohibition be drafted and staff has
included this in the draft provisions.
Signage and Lighting
Additional standards are included that prohibit signage and
lighting on wind energy systems.
Removal if Abandoned
With respect to the concern regarding the existence of
abandoned systems, a provision has been included that will
require the removal of any wind energy system that has been
abandoned and/or is inoperable for a period of more than
twelve (12) months.
Process
The Planning Commission initiated this proposal at its
regularly scheduled meeting held on December 10, 2008. Work
sessions and public hearings were held on January 29, 2009,
February 26, 2009, and March 26, 2009, with the Planning
Commission voting 4-1 in March to recommend approval of the
amendment to the Board of Supervisors, with Ms. McCarty
voting against because of concerns about height.
The Board of Supervisors held an initial public hearing on
the proposed amendment on May 14, 2009. The Board tabled
the item for up to 90 days in order to allow staff the time
to further research various questions and issues raised by
various Board members during the hearing. At staff’s
request, the hearing was deferred an additional 30 days
until the September 10, 2009 meeting.
|