Setbacks

A setback is the minimum distance between a wind turbine & a “dwelling”.  In Ontario, the setback for new projects is 550 m from non-participants.  Older turbines are even closer than 550 m.  There is no setback protection for participants, (homeowners who signed with wind companies) SLIMunicipalities 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”.

Below are dozens of setbacks that are more stringent than Ontario.  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. Click this link for European Setbacks.

Spreadsheet: (not as up-to-date as the list below)

List:

  1. 10,000 m called for by a prominent physician (with many references)
  2. 10,000 m: Page 90 of this 10.9 MB report from Scotland recommends a 10,000 m exclusion zone.
  3. 5,000 m (3.1 miles). This study from France concluded “wind turbines must not be sited less than 5 km from all habitation, because of the risks produced by infrasound.”
  4. 3,219 m (2 miles) to a rural home – Umatilla County, Oregon (20110628)
  5. 3,219 m (2 miles) from a residential development – Riverside, California pdf
  6. 3,000 m (3km) for turbines greater than 150 metres – Wiltshire, UK 20120713 TIW QLS
  7. 3 kilometres from homes and forested areas – Poland WCO (proposal)
  8. 2,414 m from property lines – Catarunk, Maine 2011/11/18
  9. 2,414 m from property lines – Moscow, Maine (2011/12/29)
  10. 2,253 m Wind farms should not be less than 1.4 miles from people’s homes (UK) planning minister GWEI Tel
  11. 2,253 m (1.4 miles) from “a residential property” Lincolnshire, UK QLS Tel
  12. 2,100 m for 3MW recommended in Denmark 2011/12/22
  13. 2,010 m (1.25 miles) recommended by this European Human Rights
    study pdf
  14. 2012 m (6600 ft) new rules would require setbacks of 1.25 miles to non-participating property lines – Woodstock, Maine WCO AEI
  15. 2,000 m from the nearest residence – Haut-Richelieu, Quebec HR
  16. 2,000 m from a home and 1 km of a road in the Haut-Saint-Laurent, in the Montérégie, Quebec OWR
  17. 2,000 m to habitations, and 5 km from 21 named agglomerations – Victorian Government, Australia
  18. 2,000 m unless there is an agreement – Queensland, Australia (2011/04/12)
  19. 2,000 m Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (Finland)
  20. 2,000 m restriction: Cambridgeshire, UK WCO
  21. 2km (1.2 miles) to 2.5km (1.6 miles): examining increasing the recommended distance between wind farms and the nearest town or village Wind farm companies warn against wild land ban – Telegraph: Scotland
  22. 2,000 m away from housing in Scotland under plans to be unveiled by the Conservatives today 2013/01/29 QLS
  23. British House of Lords debates 2km wind farm setback bill
  24. 2,000 m from existing homes proposed in New South Wales, Australia 2011/12/23
  25. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) – Montville Maine 2009/03/28
  26. 1,950 m (13 times the turbine height) – Buckfield Maine 2010/06/26
  27. 1900 m was the distance that this scientific study found that residents still “expressed annoyance.” pdf
  28. 1,770 m / 6,000-foot / 1.1 mile Fayette County PA 2008/06/20
  29. 1,609 m (1 mile) from non-participating property lines – Frankfort Maine 2011/11/01
  30. 1,609 m (1 mile) from inhabited structures Trempealeau County, Wisc.
  31. 1,609 m (1 mile) buffer zone to homes – Hillsdale County, Michigan 2011/07/23
  32. 1,609 m (1 to 1.5 mile) – UK Noise Association 2006 – 06
  33. 1,609 m (1 mile) – Sumner, Maine, recently enacted a 1-mile (1.6 km) setback from property lines
  34. 1,500 m in an environment characterized by a 35 DB ambient noise level Germany
  35. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x height) – Bavaria spiegel
  36. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x height) – The little isle of Anglesey in the UK QLS
  37. 1,500 m for a 150 m turbine (10x tip height) from rural residences – Ellis County, Kansas
  38. 1,500 m Acoustical Ecology Institute Special Report on Wind Energy Noise Impacts (pp 3-4) pdf
  39. 1,500 m recommended by French National Academy of Medecine 2006/03/14
  40. 1,500 m recommended by Medical Officer of Heath – N. Carolina
  41. 1,500 m recommended in Wales – depending on the topography and ambient noise levels OWR BBC
  42. 1,500 m recommended in England by Dr Hanning WCO TBN 2012/10/17
  43. 1,372 m (4500 ft) from rural villages Lyme NY May 2008 WCO WTD
  44. 1,219 m (4,000 ft) from property line – Rumford Maine 20110930
  45. 1,219 m (4,000 ft) from occupied structures – Clifton, Maine 20110602
  46. 1,200 m / 8 x total turbine height to residences San Diego
    California
     2010/09/15
  47. 1036 m from non-participating property lines recommended by advisory board – Ashfield Mass 2011/11/25
  48. 1km to 2km away: Bill would keep wind farms far from homes – The Irish Times WCO April 9, 2012
  49. 1,000 m to habitable building – Halifax, Nova Scotia 2011/08/17
  50. 1,000 metres away from homes – District of Argyle, NS – July 21, 2012 Herald OWR
  51. 1,000 (m) setback in place for wind turbines in rural Pictou County (Nova Scotia) Credit:  The News | Published on January 06, 2015 | www.ngnews.ca
  52. 1,000 m (10x rotor diameter) to nearest receptor or residential zoned area – Barnstable County, Massachusetts 2011/04/24
  53. 1,000 m (10x blade diameter) from residential zones – Brewster, Cape Cod 2011/04/27
  54. 1,000 m (10x rotor diameter) Virginia Sept 15 2011
  55. 1,000 m (10x rotor diameter) Goodhue County, Minnesota (20110915)
  56. there will be a one-kilometre buffer between houses and wind farms – South Australia
  57. 1,000 metres between residential housing and wind power plants, a press release issued by the State of Saxony
  58. 914 m (3,000 ft) from property line of nearest non-participating receptor Claybanks Township
    Michigan
     2011/03/14
  59. 914 m (3,000 ft) from residential areas Riverside California 2011/04/18
  60. 900 m (6x height) Carteret County ordinance in North Carolina has been long established at 6 times the total height, measured from the farthest lateral extension of the turbine to the property line www.jdnews.com
  61. 900 m (6x height) from the nearest residence etc. Cape Vincent, New York 2012/06/20 WCO WTD
  62. 884 m (2,900 ft) Potter County PA 2007/10/10
  63. 853 m (2,800 ft) to closest residence Wareham, Massachusetts 2011/06/02
  64. 830 m (5.5x height) from property line – Lafargeville New York 2011/11/11
  65. 805 m (1/2 mile) from nearest homes Roanoke County
    Virginia
  66. 805 m (2640 ft) from a residence, and 1500 feet from a property line TIPTON COUNTY, Ind. www.wishtv.com 2013/10/17
  67. 805 m (2640 ft) from residences Union Township Wisconsin 2008/11/13
  68. 805 m Perry NY 2011/05/17
  69. 805 m Rock County, Wisconsin 2008
  70. 805 m National Research Council 2007
  71. 800 m an expert opinion on the noise caused by the wind power plant (Lärmschutzgutachten) would have to be submitted Bavarian wind power decree
  72. 762 m (2,500 ft) from turbine base to dwelling or building Charlton, Massachusetts 2011/08/17
  73. 762 m (2,500 ft) Allegeny NY 2007/08/28
  74. 762 m Frankstown Twnshp, Blair County, PA 2009
  75. 750 m for a 150 m turbine: five (5) times the turbine height from occupied buildings – Antrim New Hampshire
  76. 750 m to residence or 2,000 m to towns Quebec Province 2011/07/13
  77. 750 m (2460 ft) from dwelling Hartsville NY 2009
  78. 750 m for a 150 m turbine (5:1 ratio) – Charlestown, Rhode Island (20010810)
  79. 700 m – Saskatchewan – 2011/07/13
  80. 700 m buffer zone – Lincolnshire County, UK WCO
  81. 700 m – the State of Baden-Württemberg (Germany)
  82. 610 m (2,000 ft) + consent + compensation for loss of value Lenawee County, Michigan 2011/08/15
  83. 610 m (2,000 ft) from homes and other buildings Douglas Twp., Illinois 2011/07/20
  84. 600 m / 4 x turbine height Denmark 2009/02/20
  85. 549 m (1800 ft) from nearest property line (better than 550 m to homes) State of Wisconsin 2011/03/06
  86. 36 dB(A) noise limit Shepherd Flat Oregon 2012/01/03
  87. 35 dB(A) night time max noise Libertyville, Illinois 2011/06/29

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

  • California
  • Louisiana
  • Nova Scotia
  • Oregon
  • Prince Edward Island (PEI)
  • Vermont

One Response to Setbacks

  1. Lisa DeJong says:

    May the truth be revealed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: