Sep 24, 2010 By Amy Revak 5 min read

A proposal to change a portion of the Fayette County zoning ordinance that deals with the allowable decibel level for wind turbines at neighboring properties was debated Thursday during a public hearing. Fayette County Commission Chairman Vincent Zapotosky held the hearing, which was scheduled and then canceled last month due to an advertising error. Commissioners Vincent A. Vicites and Angela M. Zimmerlink did not attend, both for personal reasons.

While attorney Daniel Webster spoke in favor of changing the zoning ordinance to allow 70 decibels at a neighboring property line, attorney Gary Altman spoke against the change.

Webster appeared at the hearing on behalf of Iberdrola Renewables of Portland, Ore., a company that has been planning to construct a 23-tower wind project in Georges, Springhill and Wharton townships for years. Altman attended on behalf of his client, Thomas Bozek of Springhill Township, whose property is located near the site of the proposed South Chestnut Ridge project.

The proposed change would raise the allowable level from 55 decibels to 70 decibels and it would be measured at the property line.

The ordinance currently reads that the allowable sound level from the neighboring property line is 55 “dBA and dBC”.

A few months ago, Iberdrola was seeking for the ordinance to only include a measurement of 55 “dBA” decibels from an occupied structure, and exclude any reference to a “dBC” decibel level. The “A” scale is more widely used than the “C” scale for measuring sound.

However, Zapotosky then proposed that the decibel level be raised to 70, and that the measurement be taken from the property line and not at an occupied structure. He also agreed that the “C” scale should be dropped to keep the ordinance uniform because the rest of the sound measurements in it use the “A” scale.

To demonstrate how loud a 70 decibel sound is, sound expert Richard R. James of Michigan, hired by Bozek, played a recording of wind turbines that was taken, and raised the level to 70 decibels using the A scale. The loud swooshing sound permeated the meeting room. At the request of Zapotosky, the microphone was moved inside the election bureau and behind a door. What was 70 decibels in the meeting room dropped to 50 decibels behind the door.

James also took a reading of the room when no one was talking and said it was at 35 decibels.

While Webster mentioned that the zoning ordinance sets an allowable level of 90 decibels for industrial uses, Altman pointed out that 90 decibels is the standard level that is used for nuisance ordinances because that level can cause hearing loss.

James said the current issue isn’t hearing loss, it is “the ability of a person to use their property for peaceful enjoyment and sleep.”

James said studies of wind turbine sites in Maine have shown that 82 percent of people within 3,500 feet of a ridgeline of the turbines reported new or worsened chronic sleep deprivation, compared to 4 percent of those in a non-exposed group.

Bozek said he is concerned about his property and he doesn’t feel the proposed turbines are far enough away.

James said he knows of no ordinance in several states of which he had done sound studies where the allowable decibel level is more than 55 decibels.

Altman said he would rather see an allowable level of 55 decibels at the house than 70 decibels at the property line, adding that 55 decibels at the property line would make a lot more sense.

“I think after hearing it that it is clear that 70 is too loud,” Altman said.

Zapotosky said the decision on the proposed change would likely be made by the full board of commissioners at the next regular meeting, which is slated for Oct. 28.

The entire wind turbine matter started in 2007 when Iberdrola filed petitions with the county zoning board asking for variances and special exceptions to permit construction of the project.

Following several hearings, the board denied all of the requests, prompting Iberdrola to appeal. In April 2009, Judge Ralph C. Warman sent the application back to the board, which granted requests related to 22 turbines, and denied requests for eight others. Iberdrola appealed again and the case was assigned to Judge Steve Leskinen. The company alleged the board should have granted setback various and special exceptions for the eight unapproved turbines. Leskinen agreed, and granted setback variances and special exceptions for those turbines.

The company also claimed that five of the seven conditions that the board imposed on the 22 approved turbines were unreasonable.

The conditions included a requirement that the company construct a 12-foot-high, chain-link fence around the base of each turbine, revegetate any forestland that was disturbed in construction and conduct sound studies.

Leskinen found that fence construction and revegetation and sound requirements were unreasonable and threw those out. In the meantime, the commissioners changed wind turbines to a permitted use, and not allowed after a special exception is approved.