Laserfiche WebLink
Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Minutes <br />January 8, 2019 <br />21 <br /> <br />stamping it as a professional engineer. In his estimation, and based on the information provided, <br />that is not going to happen. You are not going to have anybody that is driving down the road and <br />has so much glint or glare that it is going to impair their ability to drive, much less than if a <br />headlight hit you directly in the eye or reflected right off of your rearview mirror or side-view <br />mirror into your eyes. <br />Mr. Benshoff said the county standard from the CDO for this project is, "Any glare created from <br />the project will not adversely impact surrounding properties or vehicles travelling in the right-of- <br />way near the site". He said does the Burns & Mac glare study address that point; is the standard <br />met? <br />Mr. Wingo said again, the standard is relatively ambiguous. Therefore, applying a standard that <br />the FAA deems as acceptable for pilots seems to be applicable to apply to the health and safety <br />of the public in this case, which says you are not adversely impacting. That is normal, in several <br />instances and in several reports that he has read. He said not just from myself, but others, that is <br />the standard that would still be met. He said without more specifics in the particular county <br />ordinance, he would lean on the FAA standard that is approved by the government. <br />MR. BENSHOFF does not have any more questions for Mr. Wingo. He has two affidavits to <br />hand up when you are done. <br />Mr. Corley is sort of seeking one clarification that came up last time, and he does not want to put <br />words in anybody's mouth here, but he is going to say it the way he thinks he heard it. The glare <br />study, if he heard it correctly, and call him crazy if he heard it wrong, is that there is an <br />assumption at lower levels, up to ten feet, that there is an impenetrable buffer from zero to ten <br />feet, as part of those studied assumptions. Can you clarify specifically that fact in that <br />assumption in that study; whether that is correct, not correct, close to correct, anything you can <br />clarify for him on that point? <br />Mr. Wingo said the way it is written, is not quite as strong as impenetrable, as you had said there. <br />You do have the assumption; there are two parts of the analysis. There is the glare analysis, <br />which is independent of that particular assumption. The other assumption is whether or not the <br />farm is actually visible or not visible, based on the site analysis that was performed. So, yes, <br />based on the existing topographical and landscape at the time that the original report was done, <br />that was the assumption that was placed into the data set. <br />Subsequently, because of the questions that were raised, again, I drove the site today and I <br />looked at the areas where we had an overlap of glare and where we had stated it was not visible. <br />Basically anywhere, where we had stated that the solar farm was not visible and there was glare <br />that was possible, those are still intact, based on my physical observation today as I drove around <br />the farm. So, while that assumption is a little bold today, based on the fact that some of that was <br />removed inadvertently, but the new buffer plan that has been put in place replaces and enhances, <br />actually, in lot of situations. There are probably four or five of the observation points that I <br />observed where we currently have it listed as visible that no longer will it be visible.