ZBA members press developer on turbine setbacks, siting choices and micrositing limits
Board members asked why some turbines (e.g., T37/T38) are sited near roads despite meeting setbacks; developer Carson Robers explained siting balances multiple constraints, noted a voluntary commitment of 1,500-foot distances from occupied residences, and described micrositing allowances and alternate locations such as T102-alternate.
The full story
A member of the Zoning Board of Appeals asked why turbines T37 and T38 appeared so close to a public road even though they met the statutory setbacks. The member said: "Why are they so close to I mean, I know there's a reason, but why are they so close to a road or not participating?" The developer replied that siting requires balancing many factors beyond the county setbacks and that in many places the company has gone beyond ordinance requirements—for residences it has voluntarily committed to at least 1,500 feet.
Sign up to keep reading.
Your free newsletter brings you what your city council, county, and school board discussed and decided.
Keep reading for free
Create a free account to finish this story and see the video, transcript and key details.
Continue with GoogleContinue with emailAlready have an account? Log in