Setbacks

A setback is the minimum distance between an industrial wind turbine & a “dwelling”. In Ontario, the setback for new projects is 550 m from non-participants. There is no setback for participants. Older turbines are even closer than 550 m. Municipalities have no control over the setback in Ontario, unlike other jurisdictions.  Ontario’s setback is arbitrary, not “based on the most up-to-date science”.

As of May 2012, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment is still claiming:

Our setback of 550 metres for wind projects is the most stringent in North America 1

Below are dozens of North American setbacks that are more stringent than Ontario (and some from other countries). Click this link for European Setbacks. Page 90 of this 10.9 MB report from Scotland recommends a 10,000 m exclusion zone. The University of Paris recommends 3.1 miles or 5,000 m. Some of the following distances use an assumed rotor diameter of 100 m & a total height of 150 m, based on a 2.5 MW turbine. Note that 1 mile = 1609.344 m and that 1 foot = 0.3048 m.

Spreadsheet: Setbacks more stringent than Ontario as of May 11

1. 3,219 m (2 miles) to a rural home – Umatilla County, Oregon (20110628)
2. 2,414 m from property lines – Catarunk, Maine 2011/11/18
3. 2,414 m from property lines – Moscow, Maine (2011/12/29)
4. 2,100 m for 3MW recommended in Denmark 2011/12/22
5. 2,000 m to habitations, and 5 km from 21 named agglomerations – Victorian Government, Australia
6. 2,000 m unless there is an agreement – Queensland, Australia (2011/04/12)
7. 2,000 m from existing homes proposed in New South Wales, Australia 2011/12/23
8. British House of Lords debates 2km wind farm setback bill
9. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Montville Maine 2009/03/28
10. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) - Buckfield Maine 2010/06/26
11. 1,770 m / 6,000-foot / 1.1 mile Fayette County PA 2008/06/20
12. 1,609 m (1 mile) from non-participating property lines – Frankfort Maine 2011/11/01
13. 1,609 m (1 mile) from inhabited structures Trempealeau County, Wisc.
14. 1,609 m (1 mile) buffer zone to homes – Hillsdale County, Michigan 2011/07/23
15. 1,609 m (1 to 1.5 mile) – UK Noise Association 2006 – 06
16. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x tip height) from rural residences – Ellis County, Kansas
17. 1,500 m recommended by French National Academy of Medecine 2006/03/14
18. 1,500 m recommended by Medical Officer of Heath – N. Carolina
19. 1,372 m (4500 ft) from rural villages Lyme NY May 2008
20. 1,219 m (4,000 ft) from property line – Rumford Maine 20110930
21. 1,219 m (4,000 ft) from occupied structures – Clifton, Maine 20110602
22. 1,200 m / 8 x total turbine height to residences San Diego
    California 2010/09/15
23. 1036 m from non-participating property lines recommended by advisory board – Ashfield Mass 2011/11/25
24. 1km to 2km away: Bill would keep wind farms far from homes – The Irish TimesWCO April 9, 2012
25. 1,000 m to habitable building – Halifax, Nova Scotia 2011/08/17
26. 1,000 m (10x rotor diameter) to nearest receptor or residential zoned area – Barnstable County, Massachusetts 2011/04/24
27. 1,000 m (10x blade diameter) from residential zones – Brewster, Cape Cod 2011/04/27
28. 1,000 m (10x rotor diameter) Virginia Sept 15 2011
29. 1,000 m (10x rotor diameter) Goodhue County, Minnesota (20110915)
30. there will be a one-kilometre buffer between houses and wind farms – South Australia
31. 914 m (3,000 ft) from property line of nearest non-participating receptor Claybanks Township
    Michigan 2011/03/14
32. 914 m (3,000 ft) from residential areas Riverside California 2011/04/18
33. 884 m (2,900 ft) Potter County PA 2007/10/10
34. 853 m (2,800 ft) to closest residence Wareham, Massachusetts 2011/06/02
35. 830 m (5.5x height) from property line – Lafargeville New York 2011/11/11
36. 805 m (1/2 mile) from nearest homes Roanoke County
    Virginia
37. 805 m (2640 ft) from residences Union Township Wisconsin 2008/11/13
38. 805 m Perry NY 2011/05/17
39. 805 m Rock County, Wisconsin 2008
40. 805 m National Research Council 2007
41. 762 m (2,500 ft) from turbine base to dwelling or building Charlton, Massachusetts 2011/08/17
42. 762 m (2,500 ft) Allegeny NY 2007/08/28
43. 762 m Frankstown Twnshp, Blair County, PA 2009
44. 750 m for a 150 m turbine: five (5) times the turbine height from occupied buildings – Antrim New Hampshire
45. 750 m to residence or 2,000 m to towns Quebec Province 2011/07/13
46. 750 m (2460 ft) from dwelling Hartsville NY 2009
47. 750 m for a 150 m turbine (5:1 ratio) – Charlestown, Rhode Island (20010810)
48. 700 m – Saskatchewan – 2011/07/13
49. 610 m (2,000 ft) + consent + compensation for loss of value Lenawee County, Michigan 2011/08/15
50. 610 m (2,000 ft) from homes and other buildings Douglas Twp., Illinois 2011/07/20
51. 600 m / 4 x turbine height Denmark 2009/02/20
52. 549 m (1800 ft) from nearest property line (better than 550 m to homes) State of Wisconsin 2011/03/06
53. 36 dB(A) noise limit Shepherd Flat Oregon 2012/01/03
54. 35 dB(A) night time max noise Libertyville, Illinois 2011/06/29

It is interesting to note that Ontario is one of only 7 North American jurisdictions with Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) programs. The other 6 are:

1. California
2. Louisiana
3. Nova Scotia
4. Oregon
5. Prince Edward Island (PEI)
6. Vermont