HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (22) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 5
February 23,2009
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23,2009
TIME: 7:00 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
Clark H. Brewer
Michael R. Westcott
Board Members Absent:
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak
Meeting called to order at: 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. 438 BEECHWOOD ST.,FORM-A APPLICATION. OWNER: HERBERT MARSH, APPL:
WILLIAM NEEDLE, filed on February 10,2009 William Needle and Herbert Marsh in attendance.
Subsequent Form A to Form A#918 which was endorsed by the Board on January 12,2009 which allowed the
applicants 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 on Hillside Dr. so it is 50' in width for the entire length to
the back of 438 Beechwood St. property. This current Form A is to divide Mr. Marsh's lot into two lots with access
and frontage for the newly created back lot from Hillside Drive. The newly created lot is to be purchased by Mr.
Needle. Planning Board noted that Hillside Drive is not a public way although it appears to have adequate width,
construction etc. to be allowed,however, details about Hillside Dr. were not on the plan submitted. Mr.Needle will
request in writing that the 21 day deadline for this application be extended to March 16,2009 to allow to obtain
Hillside Dr. details and reviewed again at the March 9,2009 Planning Board meeting. Board agrees with extension
for review at that meeting without another application and application fee.
AMENDED: Mr. Needle did file a letter requesting an extension to March 9, 2009. On February 24, 2009 it was
brought to Chairperman Moore's attention that Hillside Drive, while a not a public road, was an approved
subdivision and subdivision road as endorsed by the Planning Board on April 20, 1966 and constructed to
approved subdivision road standards. As such, the road is a subdivision road with adequate width etc. to be used
for access and frontage by Mr. Needle. Therefore Moore endorsed this Form A application on February 26, 2009.
7:15 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
• VOTE TO APPROVE FEBRUARY 2,2009 MINUTES
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the February 2,2009 minutes
SECOND: Member Samuelson
VOTE: 5 - 0 MOTION CARRIES
• ZONING MAP UPDATE & MARCH 2 BOS MEETING Planning Board Administrator explained the cost
estimates and that there is still a delay in final estimate because of questions regarding accuracy of the parcel layer
the Water Dept. has updated. Should have final estimate finalized by the end of this week. Member Brewer to
attend the March 2,2009 BOS meeting to represent the Zoning Map Update and Subdivision Rules &Regs.update
articles submitted by the Planning Board.
• BOSTON REGION MPO SUBURBAN MOBILITY PROGRAM(not on agenda)Member Brewer
explained that MPO has indicated that Cohasset's proposed shuttle service is eligible to be considered for funding.
MPO forwarded the extensive application. Brewer explained details of this proposed shuttle service to the Board.
Member Westcott thought this makes up for the mistake of putting the train station on Rt. 3A instead of in Village.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to support the concept of intermodal transportation with the understanding
that the matching funds must come from private funding and not from Town funds
SECOND: Member Westcott
VOTE: 5 - 0 MOTION CARRIES
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 5
February 23,2009
7:35 P.M. 215 CJC HWY, WIND TURBINE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, APPL: JAMES SWEENEY, CCI ENERGY; OWNER: PAUL
BARRY In attendance for applicant: Applicant Jim Sweeney, CCI Energy; Howard Quin, Tech Environmental;
Richard Tabaczynski and Simon Thomas,Atlantic Design Group; and, Sumul Shah,President, Lumus
Construction. In attendance for Planning Board: John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc; Jim Barnes,Acentech
Inc; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. Chairperson Moore explained that this evening's session would be turned
over to the applicant and his consultants to present information and answer questions from the Board and the
Board's consultants. Questions from the public would be taken at the end.
Jim Sweeney, CCI Energ gave a power point presentation which included:
• a recap of the history of this application
• emergency response including potential helicopter rescue by the Air National Guard; safety personnel
training and the HiFog Water Mist Suppression System. Mr. Shah showed a video of the HiFog Water Mist
Suppression system in operation and explained that it puts out fire quickly with minimal damage to the
turbines as a high pressure water creates fog and suffocates fire in seconds
• location and description of more than 10 turbines already in operation in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
• Discussion of trend of turbines becoming larger,taller and more efficient
• Comment that this filing is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Commonwealth
• A look at the future
• Energy Savings to Cohasset—Sweeney explained that Town Manager does not want to enter negotiations until
after application is approved, if approved. Sweeney did note that 100% of power that can be supplied to the
Town will be supplied and that some examples of savings options include a fixed price for 25 years or a
discount off retail prices
• Locations of turbines including new location of Turbine 1
SOUND:
Howard Quin, PhD, Tech Environmental(Noise and Vibration Senior Scientistl: explained that perception varies
with individuals but the sound level people find annoying is about 35-50 dBA., that noise is more noticeable with
a quiet background, and, steady sound is usually less annoying. Mass Regs—cannot exceed 10 dBA over
background and cannot have pure tones. Cohasset does not have regs so Mass. Regs. must be met. Factors
effecting sound levels: equipment power and age—newer turbines are much less noisy; distance to receptor; wind
and meteorological conditions; ground and terrain conditions. As background noise level increases (from things
like wind increases) wind turbine sound becomes masked. Refrigerator or air conditioner, (if standing right next
to it) measures around 50-55 dBA, suburban neighborhood is usually around 50 dBA, a highway about 65 dBA,
construction equipment is about 80 dBA. Levels at Avalon were 32-35 dBA at night and were lower than the
levels at Rose Hill. Modeling and analysis factored in reflective surfaces such as parking lots—but,trees were not
built into modeling. Analysis showed that Rose Hill increases<2 dBA and Avalon increases , 7dBA over
background noise. John Modzelewski noted that: he did not receive Rose Hill data—this was just put together
today in response to John's email and will be sent to him; he wants measurements taken by Sweeney to be
verified by a certified engineer consultant who will sign off on them. Quin noted that Hingham Lumber measured
an 11 dBA increase,but is a"consenting abutter" which MASS DEP will allow. Jim Barnes (Acentech Inc,
consultant retained by John Modzelewski) felt that as long as equipment was calibrated,he has no reason to doubt
measurements provided,but would prefer certification by an engineer. Barnes also noted that more
measurements could be taken,but that the results will not change much one way or another. Barnes also requested
the updated computer model with ground factors for his review. Quin explained that they modeled worst case
scenario which assumes that everything is downwind(even though that is physically impossible) so the results are
showing the loudest the noise can get—the noise cannot get louder than those figures. Quin added that: most
measures in Eastern Mass do not go below 30 dBA; if people close windows,they should not hear turbines at all;
that trees with leaves result in '/z to 1 dBA attenuation; and,during the summer,the background noise increases
making it harder to hear turbines. He also explained that Avalon will obviously hear the turbines and that when an
the noise level is 38—40 dBA, it can be heard,but most people would not be bothered by it. John Modzelewski
asked if the MADEP regulations apply only to abutting properties. Quin explained that MADEP does not
distinguish commercial and residential. Noise falls off 6 dBA for every doubling of distance—falls off quickly.
FLICKER:
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 5
February 23,2009
Richard Tabaczynski, Certified Engineer, Atlantic Designp: Shadow flicker analysis reflected new location
of Turbine 1. Anything within 1000m of turbine could be affected by flicker—mostly in an east-west direction.
WindPro program factors in topography,turbine elevation,receptor elevation, #of cloudy/sunny days and
direction of wind over the span of a year. The resulting formula produces the number of hours/year that flicker will
be noticed a given location. Tabaczynski explained the amounts of flicker that will be experienced at various
locations . There are no state or local standards as to what is acceptable,but the industry standard that is used is—
30 hrs/yr. is acceptable. Anything>30 hrs/yr is considered a nuisance and must be mitigated. All receptors in this
study showed<30 hrs/yr and, some showed 0 hrs/yr. Tabaczynski pointed out that these are very conservative
figures not taking any obstructions between a receptor and the turbines into consideration—based on a clear path to
turbines—in reality,there are topographic and vegetative obstructions, so the hrs/yr will be less. He did note that
the program does not measure intensity or sharpness of the flicker which is difficult to quantify but that the further
away the receptor is from the turbine,the more dust in the air, resulting in less intensity or, a"soft"shadow.
Model also takes turbine height and blade diameter into account. Modzelewski asked why they did not use NOAA
data. Tabaczynski explained that they looked at the data the previous company used which was National Weather
Service which they considered adequate even though various sites differ a little,they are similar enough.
Modzelewski also stated that it looked like the results were median case instead of worst case. Tabaczynski
explained that the report does have calculations for the"worst case scenario" which means it is sunny every day
and the turbine is facing the receptor everyday of the year so there is no time when flicker is not occurring—they
did not include that data as they felt is was too unrealistic and,the figures presented are conservative. Member
Samuelson asked what the%impact would be if sensitivity was off 10%? Tabacynski stated that they felt
confident in the results presented. Member Ivimey asked if there is a way flicker can be monitored on a real time
basis and the turbines shut down if flicker approaches the max so the flicker can be mitigated. Sweeney thought a
program could be written. Tabazcynski pointed out that their program can indicate which days and times flicker is
expected to occur for a particular receptor and from which turbine. In most cases for a particular receptor,there are
only some times of the year when flicker is expected for 10-15 minutes per day and, for many months no flicker is
expected at all. Modzelewski will work with applicant on this and noted that it could be written in as a condition
of approval.
PHOTOSIMULATIONS
Simon Thomas, Certified Engineer,Atlantic Design Group: Showed photosimulations of various locations in
Cohasset—Modzelewski asked why the blade orientation was chose—Ans. -no orientation was consciously chosen
over another. Simulation program requires that camera be level, on tripod so orientation is always zero'd out.
SITE PLAN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT CHECKLIST
Modzelewski reviewed an update of the Site Plan Review and Special Permit checklist, item by item outlining what
still needs to be done on the site plan. Applicant should review the checklist and implement all outstanding items
on the site plan. Modzelewski explained that he has questioned the role of the consultant when there are very few
standards to compare it with and he poses that decision may be based on how persuasive the applicant's data is—
Planning Board will have a lot of deciding to do.
OTHER—BOARD COMMENTS,QUESTIONS
Member Ivimey is uncomfortable with the site of Tower 1 over a road and with Hingham Lumber in the lay down
area—asked if this is fundamentally safe. Modzelewski replied that he is concerned about ice—the taller the
turbines,the more prone they are to icing; also,Hingham Lumber is at risk for ice throw; Hingham Lumber and
Graham Waste bldgs, and the road are in the lay down area; blades go right over road. He is uncomfortable with it
but it is a structural engineering issue and,the question is whether it can be mitigated. Modzelewski wants to look
at the lay down recommendations for radio towers for input. Canadian Wind Association suggests a distance pf
the rotor diameter plus 10 meters. There are suggestions that people wear hard hats in the area because of the
possibility of ice etc. Ivimey questioned how the Board can get to the bottom of this to determine if it is a real
safety concern or a statistical improbability. Modzelewski commented that the applicant has had time to produce
a statistical analysis and should produce one. Westcott and Samuelson agreed that everything comes with a risk,
but that the impact of failure, although unlikely, could be significant—the statistics should be looked at. Member
Moore added that, realistically, if there was a weather event that could cause a lay down, evacuation from the area
would probably already have happened. Moore felt that icing was a more realistic issue and asked if there were
ways to mitigate. Sweeney explained that there were ice sensors that sense weather,temperature and moisture
content of the air which will shut down the blades if conditions are conducive to icing. Sweeney will provide
technical data on icing mitigation. Member Brewer pointed out data reported from the Renewable Energy
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 5
February 23,2009
Research Lab (RERL) at UMASS and asked that it become part of the official record for the Planning Board to
review as it might provide additional guidelines for the Board to consider in making a decision. Brewer also noted
that the Board has not seen any safety signage or information about the monitoring controls of the unit that will and
actions that are taken in the event of, for example,the need to shutdown the turbine. Sweeney explained that there
is a status system that is monitored by the manufacturer with shut down capability as well as many electronic safety
systems that sense conditions and automatically shutdown. Brewer also inquired about safety mitigation noting that
it would be helpful for abutters to know what the plan is in similar locations and what the plan would be in this
location. Sweeney will provide information about this and about safety and educational signage they propose.
Member Ivimey question to Town Counsel—If Hingham Lumber will waive the sound intensity and DEP
recognized"cooperative abutters", can the Planning Board waive that requirement even if there is nothing in the
bylaw that allows the Board such a waiver? Town Counsel will research and provide opinion. Capt. Trask asked
about transmission towers bringing power down to CJC Hwy. - Ans.—all will be in existing underground,no high
intensity towers. Member Westcott again addressed that the community is being asked to take on something that
not everyone wants or likes and that they still have not seen anything concrete about benefits to the Town. Member
Moore asked Sweeney,understanding that the Town Manager does not want to enter negotiations before Planning
Board approval(if approved)of this project, to outline an initial proposal etc.until a real contract with the Town
can be negotiated so residents have some idea of the potential financial benefits to the Town. Sweeney to provide
report on benefits to Town-tax benefits, energy savings etc..
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue the public hearing to March 30, 2009 at 7:30 PM and to note
that applicant must submit all new requested data by March 12,2009
SECOND: Member Westcott
VOTE: 5 - 0 MOTION CARRIES
OPEN TO PUBLIC:
Sandra Driscoll,240 Fair Oaks: Asked how many projects the experts have seen to fruition and what their batting
average was in terms of the accuracy predicted sound&flicker estimates? A- Shadow, flicker model has been used
worldwide to a very accurate degree and the formulas have been proven. The 7 installed turbines in Mass. were
installed without sound& flicker studies needing to be done. Quin,relative to sound, added that his company has
done almost all the sound studies for NE based projects. Follow-up reports have been very favorable—had only
been concerned about one location's study and follow-up showed his estimates,being conservative,were higher
than the reality after installation. Member Moore explained that the Planning Board hires their consultants to
analyze this data and make those decisions, and that there is professionalism among the engineers who would not
risk careers by certifying bad data and results. Sweeney to have all consultants submit resumes and credentials to
Planning Board.
Conrad Lan eg nhagen, 24 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: Mentioned that Hul12 turbine was to have been overlaid on the
photosimulations to give idea of scale—can this still be done? Atlantic Design will do.
Heather Verrochi, 305 Fair Oaks: Is project contingent upon Town approving the fiscal relationship? Member
Samuelson noted that Board can only evaluate this proposal against the bylaw which does not cover some things
such as economic gains for the Town. Member Moore added that the Site Plan Review process always includes
some give and take negotiations with the applicant and,in this case, applicant has expressed interest in entering
economic agreements with the Town,which Board can put into the decision as a condition of approval. Member
Ivimey added that the Board will require bonds for such things as demolition,maintenance, liability insurance etc.
Unidentified individual: asked who monitors that conditions are met and who pays for it? Member Ivimey noted
that monitoring and reporting to the Planning Board will be required and that if it operates outside the parameters of
the approval,the turbine will either be fixed or shutdown.
Mark Babka,258 Forest Ave: encourages Board to look 1-2 standard deviations in the safety zone rather than at
the best case scenario.
Peter Brown, EDC and 38 Atlantic Avenue: questioned whether these turbines are"consistent with the character of
the town"and felt the applicant should willingly reduce the height of the turbines. Member Moore recognized that
the visual impact on the Town is a significant consideration that the Board will look at although it is not a straight
forward consideration. Moore also noted that points such as these should have been vetted at the time of the public
hearings for this bylaw—but now, it is a permitted use that must be reviewed and decided upon. Moore also cited
the Old Colony Square mixed use project being constructed next to the MBTA station on Rt. 3 A, explaining that it
is a massive project that will be a major impact as people drive down Rt. 3A—Board voted in favor of it after
making hard decisions and, as with this filing, Old Colony Square was a"permitted use." Sweeney added that this
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 5
February 23,2009
project is in keeping with the goals of the Commonwealth to promote sustainable communities and reduce
dependence on oil.
Marty Aikens, IBEW business representative: commended Cohasset for being forward thinking with this wind
turbine filing. It is a tough decision but America has to make these decisions to reduce dependence on oil.
Sean Mullaney,480 Jerusalem Road: Economic benefits have been a big selling point of this filing,but without a
letter of intent, Cohasset cannot rely on getting a fair deal. Also mentioned that lay down is a great concern and
that setback should be the full height of the tower and should be reconsidered.
Laura Reed,258 So. Main: Cohasset Medical is nearby,what is probability of ice throw and failure—there are
hundreds of children entering that building every day. Aikens(IBEW) stated that their turbine has never had one
incident of ice throw and, it operates at 3X the speed of the proposed and it is located right on Rt. 93. Sweeney
explained that Cohasset Medical is outside of the diameter of the rotors, so ice will not land on that location.
Paul Barry, Owner, Cohasset Heights Ltd.: President and Governor are looking towards alternative energy—this is
the right thing to do and, it will not affect the value of Cohasset one bit.
Bill Haywood, 31 Elm St: agrees with renewable energy and is sympathetic to those who don't want the turbines,
but feels that if there are no serious issues,the turbines should be approved. More and more will be seen in the
future,these will not be the biggest in NE for very long.
Brian Curran,289 Beechwood St.: Does not think the turbines are any worse in visual impact than the cell towers
or water tower on Rd. 3A.
MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 10:30 P.M.
SECOND: Member Samuelson
VOTE: 5 - 0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, MARCH 9, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk
DATE: March 9, 2009