Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (19) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 9 January 12,2009 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 12,2009 TIME: 6:30 P.M. PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— AUDITORIUM 41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025 Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore,Jr. - Chairman Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair Charles A. Samuelson,Clerk Michael R. Westcott Clark H. Brewer Board Members Absent: Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M.Pilczak Meeting called to order at: 6:30 P.M. 6:30 P.M. 438 BEECHWOOD ST. &28 HILLSIDE DRIVE -FORM A—APPL: CATHERINE CARUSO, OWNER: HERBERT MARSH, filed: 12/29/08 Herbert Marsh, Catherine Caruso,William Needle in attendance to represent this Form A Application. Rear of the 438 Beechwood St.property has 50' of frontage to Hillside Drive next to the 28 Hillside Dr.property owned by Ms. Caruso. However,this strip of access narrows to 40' in width. Mr. William Needle is interested in purchasing the rear portion of this property in the future with access via Hillside Dr. This form A is to swap equal amounts of land(1,138 SF and 1,140 SF)between the current owner of 438 Beechwood St. (Mr. Marsh) and Ms. Caruso to widen the access strip so it is 50' in width for the entire length to the back of 438 Beechwood St. property. If this Form A is endorsed, a second Form A will be filed to divide the 438 Beechwood St. lot into two parcels—Mr.Needle will purchase the newly created back parcel on which he plans to build one home using the 50' access and frontage to Hillside Drive. MOTION: by Member Brewer to approve the swap of equal amounts of land as presented in this Form-A application SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES (Member Westcott had not yet arrived at meeting for this vote) 6:35 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE DECEMBER 15,2008 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the December 15,2008 minutes SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES • VOTE TO APPROVE 2008 ANNUAL REPORT MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the 2008 Annual Report as written by the Planning Board Administrator SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES L2010 BUDGET OTION: by Member to approve the 2010 budget with the 5% reduction in the Contracted Services line item as prepared by the Planning Board Administrator SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 9 January 12,2009 • SET FEBRUARY MEETING DATES- February 2 and February 23 • PLANNING BOARD GOALS FOR 2009 AND BEYOND—Not addressed at this meeting • BEECHWOOD DB DISTRICT DRAFT LETTER—Member Moore asked that abutters be expanded to include Bates Lane residents. Draft letter is fine. Hold off on scheduling this discussion and on mailing letter until after Town Meeting. • ATM WARRANT—Schedule and advertise Inclusionary Zoning Public Hearing for February 23,2009 • SUBDIVISION RULES &REGULATIONS—DRAFT-Board agrees with corrections to scrivener's errors and to edits for format consistency. Requested Town Counsel opinion as to whether this should be done via a public hearing. If public hearing is required, schedule after Town Meeting. 7:00 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION— 2 PLEASANT ST. -PAUL CLEARY, STEPHEN CLEARY In attendance: Developers -Paul Cleary, Stephen Cleary; Architect Ricardo Romao Santos; Property Owner Joseph Rosano. Parcel is complicated because of commuter rail tracks, location to Pleasant St. and easement on the Brook which cuts diagonally through the Brook. Building is"L" shaped so front door is facing the center of village so people in village or on train will see the front of the retails. Creates a new line sight for the village. This was the only site location possible without interfering with the easement. James Lane side is<5' from the property line. <80%coverage. Three story building—6,594 SF on first floor, 7,148 SF on second floor, 4,512 SF on third floor. Architect has mimicked the designs of surrounding homes into this building design. Would like to get basement in for elevator. This building will be 100%retail/commercial which,when combined with the James Lane building will result in the mixed use. Envision medical/health related services occupancies. Member Westcott likes overall design but would like to see more articulation on James Lane side as he is concerned about Pleasant St. and James Lane three story, side by side, facades facing residential area. Westcott would also like to see a total"master plan" of both properties at once rather than seeing them as separate projects. Clearys own 8 James Lane,but 2 Pleasant St. is owned by Rosano. Parking is not completely self-contained parking at Pleasant St.—in conjunction with James lane. Cleary noted that most cost-effective approach would be to build one larger building that straddles 8 James Lane and 2 Pleasant St.but that splitting the commercial building on Pleasant St and the residential building on James Lane into two separate buildings also splits the commercial and residential activities and times of day for those activities to be more compatible with surrounding neighborhood. Member Samuelson likes the idea of two separate buildings. Member Ivimey concerned about setbacks. Cleary asked the Board if this design fits into the spirit of what the Board is looking for in mixed-use village. Board thinks overall architectural design is good— Westcott thinks it still looks a little too commercial on side facing other residences. Member Brewer thinks commercial building has a residential scale and residential building has a commercial scale—he suggests they consider moderating scale of residential building. Will be meeting with neighbors as well as other Boards. 7:30 P.M. 215 CJC HWY, WIND TURBINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: JAMES SWEENEY,CCI ENERGY; OWNER: PAUL BARRY In attendance: Applicant Jim Sweeney, Property Owner Paul Barry; Simon Thomas and Rich Tabaczynski of Atlantic Design Engineers; Town Counsel R. Hucksam. Chairman Moore began meeting by explaining that, on advice of Town Counsel, anonymous,unsigned documents (such as the 52 page document circulated by the Cohasset Wind Advisory Committee)will not be recognized or become part of public record. If anyone would like to identify themselves as responsible for the documents,it will become part of the record. Member Westcott commented that name of the committee—"Cohasset Wind Advisory Committee"—is being perceived as an official town committee and it is not. Member Samuelson noted that information being circulated by this committee is extremely one-sided and biased and that the committee would be providing a more valuable service if they presented more balanced information—that citizens of Cohasset are able to read both sides of the issues and form their own opinions. Balloon Test Results: Jim Sweeney, Simon Thomas,Rich Tabacz.. 11� Balloons were raised on Sat., Sun,Mon., -Dec. 13, 14, 15. Weather prohibited raising balloons on Friday, Dec. 12. Demonstration did prove that there is very good wind at the site,but it was so windy,the wind kept knocking balloons down so they did not get to the height hoped for although they were able to raise them 150'- 300'. Original agreement was for larger balloons and two balloons on one line to represent height to the tip of the blades and height of the nacelle. Did begin with 6' diameter balloon, but could not raise it,nor could they raise two balloons on one line—would just not go up. Were able to raise a 4' diameter balloon and,were able to have colored streamers to represent the height of the nacelle. Balloons were Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 9 January 12,2009 placed at the proposed locations of each turbine. In first simulated pictures submitted,there were questions about the location of the base of, at least,the closest turbine. For the first simulation,Emergent used Google information (about 15' difference)whereas Atlantic Design used newer MASS GIS elevations for shadow flicker analysis and when compared to site plans done by SITECH—which have more accurate topography—they were right on. Sweeney will redo photo simulations once final locations are chosen. Modzelewski checked equipment calibrations to make sure equipment was calibrated correctly. He noted that: they did miss the full turbine height by several hundred feet due to difficulty caused by wind and weather;that balloons depicting turbine 2 were hard to raise; and, that the balloons are hard to see in pictures of this test. Member Moore noted that visual impact is one of the most significant impacts on the Town. Further,he noted that he could see the balloons from Sandy Beach even though they were not raised to the full 463' height and that the 150' off vertical of the wind test made it difficult to get a handle on the total height and visual impact. Modzelewski noted that the timing of the submission and subsequent schedule(fall and winter)makes tests like this difficult. Sweeney noted that pictures were taken from many locations around Cohasset. Sweeney also noted that they are considering moving front turbine further back(about 350') from Rt. 3A,Rose Hill, Sunrise which would lower the sound, flicker etc. impacts across the board. Mark Babka,258 Forest Avenue,requested that the Board"tell the residents if Bylaw 19 was written specifically for this project". Board replied"not to their knowledge"but that they did not write it. Babka stated that"he did not ask who wrote it". Babka then asked how long this company(CCI Energy?)been working with the owners (Barry?). Member Moore replied that we are not here to put anyone on trial,but to ask and answer questions and that,to the knowledge of the Board,this bylaw was proposed by Selectmen's appointees (Babka—so not elected?). Member Samuelson commented that this is not relative to the topic of discussion at the moment about the balloon test. Member Moore recognized Mike Bliss,member of the Selectmen's appointed Alternative Energy Committee who wrote the bylaw. Bliss, 76 Elm St. stated that the bylaw had no input from this company,nor did they consider this company at all when writing the bylaw. This company only explained their proposal to the AEC. Babka stated "So,the AEC considered this project when they wrote this bylaw?" Member Ivimey pointed out to Babka that this a public hearing,not a court room and,this is not forum for cross examination or for tearing people apart. Babka sat down. Member Moore asked if anyone else would calmly like to ask a question that is relative to the balloon test. Marie Dunkelberger, 116 Pleasant St., asked the size of turbine tower base—A.— 16'. Dunkelberger felt a 4' wide balloon was a trick to the public in that such a tiny diameter balloon does not accurately convey the magnitude of the turbine. Member Samuelson explained that the purpose of the balloon test was to show the height and scale compared to surrounding structures. Sweeney further explained that photo simulation is the standard way of simulating the turbine because it shows the exact width,height etc. of the turbine in relation to surrounding structures from different vantage points in town and that they knew the balloon test would be difficult to execute but that the balloon test was the will of the Town. He further noted that the photo simulations will be done for next meeting once the final location of the turbine (to be relocated) is identified. Modzelewski did point out however that the tip of the blade is about 4' wide, so balloon did simulate top width of the structure. Merle Brown, 546 Beechwood St. - Asked if there was an overlay of original turbine proposed location and proposed new location to show comparison of the two locations—A. will have the overlay of changes for the next meeting. Modzelewski did note that new location laydown area encompasses fewer buildings. Jim Huse, 34 Cedar Acres Lane, stated that 19.4 indicates that the Board should minimize any impact on visual character of surrounding neighborhoods and asked for the Board's ideas as to how the Board can minimize the impact of a 40 story structure on top of a 10-15 story hill?Member Samuelson asked(a serious question)—minimize compared to what? - other turbines?The size is the nature of wind turbines. Samuelson further replied that given the class of this wind turbine, does this generally fit and where does it fit into that category of turbines? Member Moore noted that height is a key point that the Board is aware of and will have to grapple with during future hearings and deliberations. Further,Moore noted that the reference Mr. Huse is looking at has more to do with ZBA considerations for variances and special permits for non-conforming uses as opposed to this turbine filing which is for a special permit for a zoned use— this is someone seeking to build a permitted use. Moore further noted that this is the first filing of its sort and that the Board is still seeking to gather much more information to take a very objective and hard look at it and is not at all prepared at this point to make a decision. Elizabeth Durant, 119 No. Main St.—commented that she is looking for the turbines when she drives to Boston or through Hull or is on the commuter boat and that Hull is proud of their turbines. She feels it would be a privilege to have turbines in Cohasset. Jeff Patterson, 10 Sanctuary Pond Rd. The purpose of the balloon test was to show the height and was a failure because the balloons never reached that height. The wind bylaw requires that the developer minimize the visual impact and he proposes the two tallest wind turbines in New England on the highest point of land in Cohasset—this is maximizing not minimizing visual Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 9 January 12,2009 impact.What steps are taken to minimize the visual impact? Member Ivimey asked what Patterson's position would be if the developer was required to install 75 meter turbines—would he be satisfied with that as a standard? Member Westcott recommended holding further discussion on visual impact until new photo simulations are available. Julie Halaby, 10 Heather Dr.- suggested it would be helpful to know the standard being applied to this filing—is the Board applying provisions of 12.4 which governs all special permits? Member Ivimey explained that they will consider 12.4 as one of their guideposts and obligations for making a determination as to this application as well as 12.6 and 19. Halaby read the first portion of 12.4 and asked if this part is being applied. Member Moore reiterated that the Board will certainly look at that as well as the other provisions. Halaby asked if written recommendations would be available to the public. Member Moore explained the process of public hearing, deliberation and vote after which a written decision will be rendered which may also contain conditions if it is approved. Ivimey further noted that the Board is in the information gathering phase of this process while the public is trying to focus on conclusion and rationale phases and is asking"why the Planning Board wants to do X" when the Board has not reached a point of doing"X". This is causing a great deal of frustration as it is prohibiting the Board from proceeding in gathering the facts. Ivimey strongly urges the public to let the Board continue with fact and data collecting phase—the Board is not near a decision making point. Halaby continued to ask if the written report will contain a written report from the Board of Health. Moore explained that for any application, it is routine procedure to forward applications and plans to other Boards and Committees for review, comment and input. Michael Walker, 63 Windy Hill Road—stated that it appears as though the Board has a predisposition toward approving some kind of major turbine. Member Moore replied that Mr. Walker is mistaken about any predisposition and,that this hearing is not an opportunity to discuss the bylaw legislation which passed unanimously at Town Meeting a year ago—rather,this is a hearing for an applicant who has come forward under that bylaw and the Board has somewhat of a duty to that applicant to listen to their application—if that is perceived as a predisposition,that would be incorrect—it is the process. Walker then asked the economic beneficiaries of the turbines are. While Moore recognized this as a good question,he explained that he is not sure the bylaw requires that as a consideration. The applicant has talked about reduced rates to the Town,but the Board must review what is in the bylaw. Sean Mullaney,480 Jerusalem Road—Asked if the Board is looking to apply objectives elements outlined in the bylaw or,if the Board believes that there are subjective elements that give them the ability to reject any application for a variety of reasons. In other words, does the Board believe that under Article 19, it has the ability to reject an application for purely subjective reasons or, does the applicant have the right under the law to put up any tower as a permitted use simply because it is a permitted use that the Town has passed. Member Ivimey explained that under Section 19,there is not a lot of subjectivity—it is almost all objective whereas Section 12.4 has subjectivity under which the Board has the tools to disapprove. Mullaney hopes that the Board can find the subjective leverage somewhere to say that this is too much for a small town. Member Moore again reiterated that the Board will get to the decision point somewhere in the process,but that they are not yet there. Member Samuelson explained that he sees two questions here that people are confusing: 1. Who benefits from building these towers? and 2. What is the economic benefit or detriment to the Town if these towers were to be built? Paul Ognibene,44 Beach Street—Asked if the developer—since the balloon test was a failure—would consider doing another type of test such as hovering helicopters with a wingspan more representative of the turbines. Sweeney noted that photo renderings are a better,more permanent rendering. Someone in the audience commented that the applicant's unwillingness to consider other tests such as hovering helicopters will only open him up to criticism as renderings are not like seeing the real thing. In reply to this,Ivimey commented that the best way to get an idea of the scale is to go to the Hull turbines and look at them keeping in mind that the turbines for this filing are higher. Ognibene also asked what the ultimate process is if the people and the Board differ in conclusion—is there a referendum or appeal process? Member Moore explained that it is a majority vote of the Board requiring a 4 out of 5 member vote which must be a unanimous (supermajority)vote and, since one of the Board members has missed a meeting,he can participate in the public hearings,but he will not vote. The appeal mechanism is not a referendum vote it is an appeal lawsuit. Moore further explained that the Board tries to be extraordinarily thorough in their review and decision. Craig Bleicken, 351 No. Main St. -when the applicant supplies the renderings, can he superimpose the Hull turbines for comparison? Yes, he will somehow indicate the height of the Hull turbines on the renderings. Name not given—asked for updated flicker studies with information about lunar flicker. Modzelewski noted that he has not found anything about lunar flicker but that the moon seems to produce a lesser shadow so lunar flicker probably is not a concern and, new flicker studies will be available for the new locations. Ruthie Walker, 63 Windy Hill Rd.—Will the Board look at the turbines in other towns and the effect on their property values? Member Westcott indicated that the Board has looked at data, some of which is contradictory and Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 9 January 12,2009 will continue to look at this. Sandra Driscoll, 240 Fair Oaks: Indicated that a UK court ruled that property owners have the right to compensation due to proximity to turbines and asked the Board their opinion. The Board responded that this filing is not in the UK and is not applicable to the application before this board at this time. Melissa Schorr,27 Cedar St.—stated that the wind test was shoddy(signs were on the side of the road with jumper cables)and questioned how the public can trust that the applicants can construct and maintain a turbine when they could not get balloons up. Member Samuelson replied that the applicant made every effort, in good faith,to make the balloon test work,but had no control over the weather and,that most applications of this sort use, almost exclusively,photo renderings of the turbines to illustrate scale and height.. Member Ivimey added that if a developer does not come through on requests for information,the Board is less likely to believe them or have faith in them in the future and,that the Board does not innately believe that developers have anything but their own interest in mind—the Board objectively evaluates information submitted. Eileen Flaherty, 61 Fair Oakes Lane— very concerned about how the turbines will look in Cohasset. Asked if the Board has consulted with other Towns who have rejected turbines. Member Ivimey replied that they will be looking at these other Towns. Member Samuelson added that he has read exhaustively on other filings in Hull,Hanover,Fairhaven, Salem,Marblehead, and Cape Wind and that there is an abundance of information available on the web. Steven Wenner, 195 Hull St.— stated that some people think turbines are ugly and don't want to look at them and others think they are beautiful— how will the Board determine which group has play here—will there be a referendum on the turbines? Member Moore answered that the Board will do the very best they can with this. Kevin O'Brien„ 28 Sanctuary Pond Rd.— asked if pictures will be in the library for review and if there would be a scale model made for the public. Member Moore answered that they will be in the Planning Board Office for view and that a scale model has been discussed at prior meetings and the consensus of the Board consultants is that the scale model will not provide proper perspective—right now, a scale model is not being requested by the Board. Modzelewski added that people often feel that pictures can lie,which was why the balloon test was requested and that while the goals of the balloon test were not completely met because of weather,he would suggest that the developers present photo simulations again so the Board can compare the photo simulations and any data that was able to be obtained from the balloon test and then determine if they would like another test of some kind run. Modzelewski added that while it would be nice for everyone in the room to be happy with having the field work, it is the Board that has to make the decision and it is the Board that has to have a fix on the size and scale(he did add that lowest wind speeds are in June and July and the Board would have to determine if the balloon test will produce any further data that would be significant enough to them to make the applicant wait until June or July). A consultant for the applicant noted that special effect type simulations can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Member Ivimey asked Modzelewski to investigate if there is a computerprogram that would show a simulation of what would be seen as one drives down Rt. 3A or find something else that can be done that would be less than a hundred thousand dollars. Lori Lan eg nhagen,24 Sanctuary— she did review the photo renderings that were included in the materials first filed and stated that new photos need to be done objectively that do not hid the turbines behind small caliper trees. She is very unhappy about height of the turbines. Unidentified individual—asked if the Board was open to receiving information from the public. Member Moore answered in the affirmative as long as the submissions are signed and not anonymous. Kevin Myers,20 Jerusalem Road—asked who the Cohasset Wind Advisory Committee is (who is generating all the emails being circulated around Town)and,what are their credentials? Board answered that they do not officially know who the members of this committee are,but that the committee is doing things that are causing problems and, are losing credibility with their tactics. Member Samuelson stressed that he prefers to receive more balanced information so citizens of Cohasset can see pros and cons and form their own opinion. Myers asked how this turbine is different from the one that fell in Vermont(as cited in the Cohasset Wind Advisory Committee docs). Member Ivimey replied that right now there is nothing before this Board regarding a turbine falling in Vermont because the only information submitted was submitted anonymously and has therefore not been made part of the public record and,the Board does not even know if the information is true and accurate. Conrad Langenhagen,24 Sanctuary Pond—identified himself as a member of the Cohasset Wind Advisory Committee,participated in developing the presentation that was circulated around Town(which,he added,might be biased,but is accurate). He was notified that a name must be supplied when documents are submitted to the Board. He said it was emailed to all members of the Board as well as the BOS. He is an investor in wind power,who has invested in over 2,000 megawatts of wind power in over 1500 turbines—he thinks that while the presentation might be biased, it is reasonably accurate factually. Document represents his opinion (although not only his opinion)and he is available to answer questions. He also mentioned that there was an article in the Mariner that identified a host of members. Member Moore asked that any documents submitted not be a Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 9 January 12,2009 mystery,but be attributable to someone and requested that Mr. Langenhagen put this in writing for the record. Member Ivimey added that he does not, as a policy, just trust developers and what they submit—they must prove data to him and,he requests same from the public—give him straight data and,he will form an opinion. SOUND DATA: Jim Barnes,Acentech Inc. (Noise Consultant retained by John Modzelewski)—Barnes was asked to render opinion about data and reliability of methods and data presented and about conclusions that have been made—in other words,how much should the Board depend on data presented. Applicant Jim Sweeney, CCI Energy—had study done at two locations but will have to do sound study again if they change the turbine location(s). Results show the current locations are within the 10 decibel range but, on the property lines themselves,they were slightly over the 10 decibels and are working on getting approvals from abutters about that. From the standpoint of distances,the turbines are about 1300' from occupied buildings where sound would be an issue. If turbines are relocated,distances are about 2000' from Rose Hill(Sanctuary Pond Rd.) 1600' from Sunrise Assisted Living and 1000' from Avalon. They are in discussion with Avalon in regards to the noise issue. Night time noise is as low as 32-33 decibels. Noise cannot be more than 10 decibels higher than currently existing noise. Ambient bedroom noise with windows closed should be around 30 decibels so the studies show that with house windows closed,the turbines should not be heard at all. Member Ivimey read the appropriate portion of the bylaw which requires that the noise given off by the turbines cannot exceed 10 decibels louder than the ambient noise at a residence and indicated that this is the marker the Board will be looking for. Sweeney indicated that the lowest ambient over the course of a week of measurement was 32.3 at Avalon,while the average was closer to 40 decibels (Avalon would be the closest occupied property). Barnes explained that 310 CMR basically states that there should not be creation of unconditional noise pollution. "Noise"is unwanted sound so to put a quantitative meaning behind this,the Mass DEP created a set of noise guidelines in the late 1960's-1970's that have been used for over 30 years and which have basically two points: Sound from a development or an activity: 1. Should not cause an increase in sound level above the baseline of more than 10 dba and, 2). Should not create a pure tone condition. Mass DEP guidelines do not have regulations about specific locations or distances but does traditionally consider churches,residences, schools etc. as "noise sensitive receptor locations". Member Samuelson noted that the applicable DEP regulation states: "... the ambient sound level,measured at the property line of the facility or at the nearest inhabited buildings, shall not be increased by more than 10 decibels ..." although he questioned whether "inhabited building"—means a residence where people live, eat, sleep or does it mean(for example)the Hingham Lumber warehouse is defined as an"inhabited building"because someone is inside once in awhile? Samuelson summarized by stating that the Planning Board would therefore look at the ambient noise at an occupied location such as Sunrise Assisted Living and the developer must prove to the Board via some kind of analysis that the sound emitted by the turbines would not be 10 dba above that ambient measure. Barnes confirmed that as accurate. The applicant did supply some locations showing ambient noise and the dba increase with the turbines but the Board can request more locations. Sweeney's sound engineers took the location that would be the quietest—which is a wooded location that Avalon will develop. Then the sound engineer drew the sound as it would dissipate into surrounding areas which showed that any areas beyond Rt. 3A would not hear the turbines at all. Member Moore asked: if ambient is 30 db for example and, a machine was introduced that creates 35 db of noise,is the total cumulative to 65 db? Barnes answered that yes,there is a doubling of the sound "energy",but subjectively,the ears do not hear a doubling—for every 10 db increased,the ear perceives 1 db. Therefore, if ambient is 30 dba and a machine is introduced that creates 30 dba of noise, the total perceived is 33 dba. Any change<3 dba is not perceptible. Sharon Smith, 65 Windy Hill Rd. considers noise an enormously significant factor. What she deduces from Barnes explanation is that, if ambient is 30 dba,to go up to 43 dba,there would be a significant amount of noise on top of ambient. Smith would like to hear actual noise and noise increase and, suggested that the noise level on top of a hill will travel and sound greater. Member Westcott suggested a field trip to Hu112 and listen to the turbine at various distances. Samuelson explained that she is correct,but that the sound would be inaudible from a certain distance away. Member Samuelson noted that if the wind is stronger,the ambient is greater and therefore the turbines would be heard less. Samuelson explained that the intensity of sound decreases inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source. That is, if you make two measurements, one twice as far away as the other,the one further away will be four times weaker and, if you move three times further away,the intensity will be nine times weaker. Further, Samuelson stated that this requires an analysis on the part of the developer of the sound heard based on the distance the residences are from the source. Therefore, Samuelson would like to specific points chosen and see what ambient is at each of those locations,what the distances of those points are from the turbines and, what the decrease in the noise would be as you get that Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 9 January 12,2009 distance away for each of those points. This analysis must indicate both: 1. The ambient sound level at each location(perhaps as a function of the time of day) and 2. The amount of increase over that ambient level produced by the turbines at each location given its distance from the source. Samuelson also noted that maintenance of the turbine has a huge impact on the sound generated—more so than the inherent noise of the blades—dirty blades produced more noise than clean blades. Sweeney stated that the average outside sound level in a suburban area is around 30-35 db which is the same as an empty field or a library and 25-30 db in a rural area which is the same as a quiet bedroom at night. Sweeney concluded that when in the<40 db range,they will not be adding to the existing noise level at any location on the other side of Rt. 3A. Member Samuelson stated that it does not matter what the ambient noise level is—what matters is the total of the ambient noise with the turbines added to it. Modzelewski stated that Sweeney's data could be presented a little more clearly, showing more of the other side of Rt. 3A,but what has been presented has shown that 32 dba has been the measure of the quietest area and the study projects that with both turbines operating, any location beyond the blue line on his chart is 35 dba so anything beyond that is pretty low. Gerald Earle, 36 Ash St. - noted that Cohasset is not a very quiet town and asked if, compared to the ambient sound in the town including lawn mowers, leaf blowers, Rt. 3A traffic, seashore, sirens etc., the public will really be able to detect the difference with the turbines operating. He also asked if,with two turbines operating, there be a combination of peaks and valleys in the sound like a harmonic effect so one cancels out the other. Barnes answered that with two turbines operating,there are occasions when the level will be somewhat higher than if one were operating and then will drop lower but there are some operational changes that can be made(operating them out of sync)to help minimize that. For people to believe the sound is"noise",the sound has to be: 1). above the threshold of human hearing; 2). above background sound; and, 3). once it is above background sound, it has to be up to a certain level so people actually take notice—but at this point it is still sound. It becomes"noise", according to Barnes,when the sound begins to disturb people and they actually begin to think about the sound or experience interference with speech or other activities. Barnes added that for the most part, for the distances being talked about here,he does not see that occurring—some people may be slightly disturbed by the sound, but it will probably not interfere with their activities. This is when a subjective area is reached. Barnes agrees that a visit to Hull2 is a good idea. Barnes received Sweeney's data quite recently however he has no reason not to believe that the data is representative of a similar turbine of this size—the sound tends to be relatively broadband with a periodic"swishing" sound. Barnes added that turbine gear box noise, generator noise and other equipment noise have been engineered out of today's turbines. Modzelewski stated that there were a few areas where he questioned whether Sweeney meets the DEP regulations—areas where the report said waivers will be supplied—Modzelewski asked Sweeney to show the areas where waivers will be sought. Sweeney identified Hingham Lumber and Avalon. Sunrise Assisted Living is far enough away that,in Sweeney's opinion,they will not notice the noise. In Member Samuelson's opinion, if the turbines are approved,the Board could condition the actual operation such that if it is found that measured noise of the actual turbines exceeds the limits,they will be ordered to remove the turbines. Marie Dunkleberger, 116 Pleasant St.—asked what the decibel projection is from the base of Hu112 compared to the estimated projection of the two turbines proposed for Cohasset. Sweeney explained that it is the rotor that makes the noise and that while the turbine towers proposed for Cohasset are taller than the turbine towers in Hull,the rotor in Hull is larger and,therefore noisier, than the rotors proposed for Cohasset. Hull is a 1.8 megawatt turbine while the proposed Cohasset turbines are 1.65 megawatts(shorter blades). The fact that the Cohasset turbines are higher also means the noise is further from the ground which lowers the noise levels. The Board indicated they will seek to obtain the decibel projection numbers for Hull compared to Cohasset. Sweeney added that the Hull turbines are smaller and move much faster whereas the newer turbines are taller,but the blades move more slowly and are designed to be quieter. Sweeney indicated that, as requested by the Board, they have made a final turbine selection—the quieter,AAER turbine. Unidentified individual—asked if the study measured low frequency sound which seems to be the most annoying noise from turbines. Barnes stated that ambient sound level does take all that sound into account,but that it takes a much greater amount of lower frequency energy for the ears to perceive that as a sound. As to the issue of wind turbine low frequency noise,right now,the new style wind turbines have an upwind blade and a downwind mast which has eliminated the large impulse of low frequency"bumping"sound—the newer turbines have a broadband low modulation"swish" sound. Member Ivimey asked several questions: 1). Is all the data we are looking at based upon the wider blade and based upon the turbine selected for Cohasset or, is the data based upon turbines in general?Barnes indicated that the data report he was provided was of a fairly extensive set of measurements but they are sort of an industry set of standards to calculate the overall sound power of a piece of equipment. He added that the AAER manufacturer's report is very extensive and thorough.Barnes explained that according to the report, at 1300 feet away from the Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 8 of 9 January 12,2009 turbine,there is approx. 6-7 db increase. 2). In Table B 1 —the measurements of sound occur over a 7 day period— is this a long enough time to get adequate data? and, 3).As a practical matter would not a better way to handle this simply be to go to Sanctuary Pond,Fair Oaks,Forest Ave. etc., and do sound studies to determine the ambient measure of "X"at each of those locations and,based upon the science,the additional noise will be"Y" so the Board does not have to interpolate data and the public would be more comfortable with the levels of sound to expect. Barnes responded that such a plan is good in that it does take into account what the overall background level is and how people respond to not just the overall sound level,but the change. The negative about that is people will always argue that that the sound should have been measured during the summer or,"during last night when it was super quiet". Barnes added that the Field Investigator will often take measures at other field locations to indicate if a field is or is not uniform. Member Ivimey wants all data in the future in the specific neighborhoods where the residents are particularly concerned such as Sanctuary Pond,Forest Ave., Conrad Langenhagen,24 Sanctuary Pond- (he will also submit his comments in writing) thinks there is more work to be done. He asked if it is appropriate for the Board to accept waivers for future Avalon residents. In other words, if there is a belief that there is a health impact from the noise as some studies show—can the developer waive the future consideration of residents? He would also like to see a breakdown of the night time only ambient noise rather than an average over time as most people have a concern about the noise at night.Member Moore commented that the effect of noise at night in residential areas should be addressed more. Langenhagen is concerned that the Board is looking at November sound data rather than summer data when people are living with windows open and the noise will be at its most disruptive. Langenhagen also encourages the Board to look at the calibration of the wind since the proposed turbines for Cohasset will be higher than Hull's and the study used figures at the Hull turbine(which should be less than the higher turbines).Sweeney commented that he will look into this further,but that they gather wind speed data from Hull 1 and Hu112 which is measured every ten minutes and,that the speeds will generally not be that much different in Cohasset which is only two miles away. These general wind speeds are similar to weather forecasts—when weather forecasters indicate a 12 mph wind,that is a general wind—not all locations will experience that exact wind. John Bryant, 251 Forest Ave.—went to both Hull turbines and commented that the turbine noise is so mild it is kind of like the surf on the beach a quarter of a mile away and that there is no heavy blade lift noise etc. —it is a very mild, easy noise. Member Westcott again encouraged the audience to visit Hu112 at various times of the day and night to listen to the sound. Melissa Schorr,27 Cedar Street —commented that the WHO links 35 db with sleep disorders and she does not think that visiting Hul12 replicates lying in bed at night and hearing the turbines. Member Ivimey did go to Hu112 and talked to residents closest to the turbines who commented that within about 3 weeks, they no longer heard the turbines and,that they find the vehicle noise on George Washington Blvd. exponentially more irritating. Residents on a hill overlooking the Hu112 turbine commented that they never even hear any sound from the turbines although a few commented that there are some nights when they find the noise a little irritating. While unscientific,he also encourages people to visit Hu112. Jeffrey Patterson, 10 Sanctuary Pond Rd.—commented that this project does violate noise regulations at Avalon and Hingham Lumber and, according to the applicant,require waivers. Patterson asked if noise level can be waived by the Board. Member Ivimey thought that the Board cannot waive. Sweeney pointed out a distinction-that the project meets the regulations at residential districts as required but that Avalon is not in a residential district— but that as a courtesy,he wants to confirm that they are OK with it. John Modzelewski will research noise further. He also added that the noise study needs a signature and a resume of the consulting company responsible for the report. He added that he will get input data from the model to make sure that the model is reflecting reality. He also pointed out that since discussion is turning to relocating one of the turbines, the Board can get a good idea of the shadow studies and flicker effect by tracing the existing butterfly shape of the shadow area and moving it appropriately and,that the Board needs to discuss how far the turbines would/should be moved before they ask the applicant for more information so the applicant is gathering information appropriate to a new site. Member Ivimey suggested that the Board investigate what, if any,hazards exist for being under the turbines and the rotating blades (ice throw)because this may impact their decision about siting the turbines. Modzelewski noted that the ice throw rule of thumb is 900' which means that in the current location, ice could be thrown on Hingham Lumber roof and people in the parking lot etc.,but an active system can be installed which stops the blade rotation. Member Samuelson mentioned that there are mitigation measures(such as heating coils on the blades; not operating turbines during times of icing)that could be conditions of approval. Samuelson wants to make sure the Board has the information it needs to be able to impose the right conditions. Member Westcott mentioned that the net benefit to the Town has to be significant in order to be able to overcome some of the issues, so the Board has to think about how to model up the economic benefit to the Town both in terms of a tax perspective and an electric rate Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 9 of 9 January 12,2009 perspective.Westcott suggested that the Board needs a pretty firm commitment as to what the benefits will be before the Board can entertain whether this application makes any sense at all because it might make more sense to place these turbines in a town where the wind is the same,without the same implications. Paul Barry,land owner, thinks this is being beaten to death when in fact,the turbines are all over without problem and,this alternative energy source is needed. He lives in the Town and will be living with it along with everyone else. Member Ivimey asked Chief Silvia if he is comfortable that his dept. is equipped to deal with an emergency at the turbine site (remove an injured individual). Silvia replied that the CPFD does not presently have the training or equipment to perform a rescue here. Silvia will consult with the experts to see what kind of training is required and will begin to compile a list of training and equipment necessary. Member Samuelson, asked about the positive environmental impacts of turbines? For example,regarding coal plants in the area-what kind of CO2,nitrous oxide abatement emissions can be expected with turbine replacement—is it significant? What is the minimization of the risk to the fishing industry from oil spills by tankers transporting oil by Minot's Ledge daily. Kathryn Earle, 36 Ash St.— commented that there are many people in the audience who have been very quiet at this meeting but who are in full support of the turbines and hope they are approved after appropriate information gathering and safeguards. She and her colleagues believe this alternative is the wave of the future and that all alternatives come with some degree of risk and impact on towns. She requests that we learn from other towns and find out what other towns have done regarding turbines applications and put conditions into our agreement with the developer that reflect the other towns' experiences and learning and,that the Town does gain benefits that can count on in advance. Modzelewski advised that the Board look at the flicker analysis only using the 100% analysis unless Sweeney's engineer provides Modzelewski's consultant the background for lessening the effect of flicker based on cloud cover,wind direction etc. so Modzelewski's consultant can accurately evaluate the results. Sweeney's consultant indicated they use WindPro Software. Member Ivimey asked if the whole flicker problem can be eliminated by mathematically calculating the days and hours when flicker will be an issue and just shutting the turbines down during those times. The answer is yes,but the more you shut down the turbines for flicker, ice etc. after a while, you have a tower just sitting there. Sweeney will submit for next meeting: • New photo renderings with Hu112 superimposed for comparison(within a week). • Sound and Flicker consultants have indicated that sound and flicker impacts will be improved at the new turbine location and that they will run the model for the new location • Ambient noise levels at Avalon, Sunrise, Sanctuary Pond and Forest Ave. and attenuation data at various distances MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue to February 2, 2009 at 7:30 PM SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 11:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, JANUARY 26,2009 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk DATE: February 2, 2009