Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2009 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2009 (24) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 8 March 30,2009 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: MONDAY, MARCH 30,2009 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. Chairperson Moore thanked Michael Westcott for his service to the Planning Board and the Town. Westcott's term ends as of the Town elections on April 4,2009. Westcott did not seek re-election. 7:00 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE MARCH 9,2009 MINUTES MOTION: by Member Ivimey to approve the March 9, 2009 minutes SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES • APRIL 8 MEETING—DISCUSSION TO OPEN 8 JAMES LANE PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 8, 2009 AND CONTINUE TO APRIL 22,2009 - Paul Cleary in attendance. Board will open hearing on April 8, 2009 and immediately continue to April 22,2009 to allow time for newly elected Planning Board member to be at the first public hearing for this filing. Applicant had previously given extension to April 24,2009. • PROJECT UPDATES—Board would like Barry Joseph, Joseph's Hardware to attend an upcoming meeting to discuss the SPR approval granted in January, 2006—no work has commenced. Also would like Leggat-McCall to attend to discuss the status of Cedarmere. Planning Board Administrator to coordinate. 7:30 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; Richard Tabaczynski and Simon Thomas,Atlantic Design Group; Sumul Shah,President, Lumus Construction; Paul Barry,Land Owner and Gordon Deane, Palmer Capital Corporation. In attendance for Planning Board: John Modzelewski, Civil Designs Inc; Jim Barnes,Acentech Inc; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. Sumul Shah presented power point presentation overview, summary and benefits to town: Qualifications: • CCI Energy,Lumus Construction and Palmer Capital have over 100 yrs. development experience Safety: • Committed to safety • Have developed award winning safety programs • Lo accident incident rate • Supervisors trained in high elevation training Turbine Structural Engineering: • Will be contracting with Patrick&Henderson—premier group for turbines • Will conduct extensive strength testing Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 8 March 30,2009 • Routine monitoring and adjustments • Foundation will be reviewed by DEP and analyzed to insure it complies with DEP regulations Turbine Fire Safety: • Will install state of the art fire"HiFog"suppression system in nacelle • Periodic fire and emergency rescue training Ice Shedding(Ice Throw): • Analyze risk and potential hazard 1 yr. study of turbine at Portsmouth,RI—no incidents of ice throw No incidents reports in Hull,Mass. Maritime or Local 103 turbine Study in Europe showed that smaller particles may fall further from turbine while larger pieces have more drag and just fall to ground around turbine base • Applicant proposes installation of state of the art and redundant ice detection systems 3 independent methods to detect icing will be installed and used at all times ■ Anemometers—to detect ice ■ Blade imbalance systems ■ Ultrasonic detection -4 All 3 systems operate at all times, each one can independently shutdown turbine if icing is detected —> Only project in New England that will have the independent and redundant methods installed. • Safety protocol in the event of icing Turbines will shut down immediately if icing is possible Turbines can only be restarted after visual inspection at the site Safety perimeter around turbines will be established to keep people away during icing event Sound Level Monitoring: • Estimated sound based on cut-in speed and also a worst case analysis which is downwind, incorporated the actual measured sound conditions at various locations and, operation at peak design speed • Turbines are typically perceived between 35 and 50 dBA • State requirement is an average of 10 dBA over background ambient noise • Most of the residential neighborhoods are within the 30-35 dBA range(turbine+ambient noise) • Max. increase was 6 dBA(at Sunrise , Sanctuary Pond Rd.) , 5th floor of Avalon will see a 7 dBA increase -no measured properties exceeded 10 dBA threshold Photosimulations: • Conducted by Atlantic Design • Quite a bit of engineering involved in setup and process to verify the accuracy • Reviewed the photosims with Hull 2 superimposed Shadow Flicker: • Reran flicker analysis using NOAA data average of last 61 years • Increased data by 25% and looked at last 60 months of data—Max. deviation on any given month was 7% • All locations came in<30 hours of flicker • If towers were lower, flicker hours would decrease, sound change would be negligible Town Energy Benefits: • If property tax is applied to project, Cohasset would realize $78K annually • Regardless of what Green Communities Act states about renewable energy being tax exempt, the equivalent of what the taxes would be will be paid to Town or alternatively,the cost of the power will be further discounted by that amount. • Targeted discounted energy costs to Town = 10-20% Variables include cost of energy at the time, energy needs of the town etc. (Exact Green Communities Act rules are not finalized as of yet, so exact numbers are difficult to determine at this time) • Total savings to Town could be in$150K - $225K range annually • Member Ivimey concerned that once others are supplied there will not be enough energy left to supply Cohasset-wants condition that negotiations with Town would happen before negotiations with others • Sweeney made commitment that 100% of Cohasset's needs will be met first. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 8 March 30,2009 • Green Communities Act(implemented by Dept. of Public Utilities)has rules for how power will be transported to municipal buildings etc.which will go into effect July 1,2009. • Green Communities Act also has a 1% rule(1%of the total consumption of electricity within the state) for net metering -the Ist 1%of projects can qualify for net metering so it is important to move along so Cohasset qualifies for the discounts. Developer applies for it. Other Benefits: • Reduces carbon footprint • Will create several jobs • Reduces dependence on oil • Demonstrates Cohasset's commitment to renewable energy • Decreases threat to ocean, shoreline,marine life in that oil transport via ocean is reduced John Modzelewski asked how siting minimizes the impact—Shah explained that the towers had to be high enough to capture the wind and had to be far enough apart so they operate efficiently. Were mindful of keeping towers away from Rt. 3A. Sweeney added that they began with higher towers and reduced the height and, have moved the towers several time to minimize flicker and sound. Member Ivimey asked if delivery of the tower sections will be on oversized vehicles that will be able to turn into the site. Shah confirmed delivery on oversized vehicles but,will be able to make the turn. Delivery will be at night so Rt. 3A will not have to be shutdown. Steepness of Crocker Lane hill is not a concern. Ivimey also asked if first tower could be reduced in height to eliminate concern over Hingham Lumber being in the lay down area. Shah indicated height could be reduced but would have significant effect on energy production and ultimate benefit to Town. Sweeney added that reduction to an 80 meter tower would reduce energy output by 20%. Also,turbines could be moved closer to Avalon reducing Hingham Lumber risk,but increasing noise to Avalon. John Modzelewski is uncomfortable with icing noting that Hull indicates they have had some icing issues and that heaters in blades are not possible. Higher towers are actually in(clouds at times)which contributes to icing. Modzelewski would like a study conducted specific to this site with this specific turbine which gives a numerical estimate of the probability of injury due to falling ice. John Modzelewski: cited points to be considered as close of public hearing nears (Member Moore noted that the public hearing will remain open until all data is submitted): 1. Ice and risk data have not been submitted and are important data 2. Noise—applicant did all that was requested of him 3. Board needs to make decision about lay down area on land owner's property and Hingham Lumber property 4. Several things on the site plan can be conditioned—grading should be added to site plan,bollards should be added around the turbines to prevent trucks etc. from hitting them 5. Flicker report arrived just before meeting and needs to be reviewed 6. Hazard lighting—Modzelewski visited the turbine in Portsmouth,RI and noted that the lighting—if the same lighting is proposed for these turbines, is vM unobtrusive Jim Barnes,Acentech, Inc. (sound consultant): eviewed Dec. &Feb. technical reports, computer model and additional information submitted by applicant. Barnes had a draft report which Modzelewski had not had chance to review—was distributed to Board at this meeting(on file). General comments: 1. Standard of care: • reasonable and appropriate for this type of project study and standard throughout the industry • long term ambient measures were reasonable and expected • short term measures do show that there is some range from position to position and time to time 2. Project Compliance: • Was indicated that there was to be a non-compliance in the regulation at the future Avalon location. Barnes could not find it and does not think there will be a large issue or a single tone issue—he has call into to consultant to discuss this • Was prediction that there would be an increase above the guidelines for broad dBA and sound at several property lines. Barnes noted that there is precedent within the State where criteria at property line has been relaxed by MASS DEP as long as the project can provide assurance that locations where people reside will be adequately protected —State may grant waiver. 3. Expected Accuracy: • Locations of sources and receptors appear to be reasonable and within the model Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 8 March 30,2009 • The commercial computer program employed for this project is a widely accepted program based on international standards • Acoustics community moving to more conservative approach with less absorptive ground conditions in models to predict shorter term"worst case"levels • Barnes typically recommends 3 dBA design margin for many types of projects to account for some of the uncertainties of modeling,the potential for late design changes, additions of equipment etc. The 7 dBA increase over ambient predicted for this project with Barnes' 3 dBA design margin equates to 10 dBA which is within the acceptable State and bylaw limits Barnes suggested mitigation techniques included: • Conditions with rigid monitoring • Noise needs to be reduced at the source or at the receptor o Tonal problems are usually from mechanical sources such as gear boxes—newer turbines have quieter gear boxes o Could run turbine at lower speed to lower the noise o Regular maintenance program including blade cleaning o Barrier or muffler in the path of the noise(harder to do with turbines) o Landscaping unless substantially dense usually doesn't do much o Better windows, closing windows help reduce noise at the receptor Member Ivimey asked if Mr. Barnes could put his signature to an opinion that the 10 dBA threshold will not be met - Barnes indicated that the measures(7 dBA f 3 dBA) are right on the line but he has no reason to believe the data is not valid and is, in fact, similar to the data he has seen in other similar projects. Member Westcott asked if maintenance documents and specifications manual be submitted—Shah indicted yes. Open to public 9:00 PM): Conrad Lan eg nhagen, 24 Sanctuary Pond Rd: • Rose Hill sound study shows<2dBA increase. Sanctuary Pond showed 6 dBA increase. Which is it?A: 6 dBA • Study gives a f 2 dBA tolerance while Barnes recommends a±3 dBA margin of error. If 3 dBA is added and another 3 dBA is added for the absorption component is it really a 7-10 dBA potential error? A: no,the 3 dBA margin accounts for all those factors,they are not added up • Article in paper about Newburyport turbine referred to it as a"240' mistake" because of all the errors and misjudgments in the sound,visual impact and flicker studies to the extent that the noise bylaw has been sent back for reevaluation—asked Shah to comment on some of those errors? A: Shah not aware of any errors made in engineering—in fact studies have been done since the turbine was installed which show that the turbine sound is actually less than was initially modeled and predicted. He has read many of the same articles,but frankly thinks it really equates to a matter of perception as to whether that is appropriate in that particular area. • Noise measure is objective measure with objective threshold. Langenhagen is of the understanding that objective measures that have been violated. A: Barnes indicated there are some excesses but there is precedence to relax levels. Joseph Rosano,48 Howe Rd. and owner of new construction at 226 CJC Hwy.: Asked what the sound level will be at 226 CJC Hwy, (with 1 residential unit on 2nd floor) -will tenants be able to open windows? Barnes answered that there will probably be a slightly higher than 3 dBA increase—he believes this modest increase will not be an issue. Rosano also asked what makes the noise. Sweeney indicted mostly the swishing of the blades. Shields Day, 96 Fair Oaks: regarding financial analysis— • There is no precedent to tax wind turbines so how did CCI come up with$78K? Shah—if there is no revenue to town from property taxes,there will be a greater discounted energy rate to the town so one way or another,the Town will realize those savings • What will level of depreciation be after 1 year? Gordon Deane,Palmer Capital prepared response that was submitted to the Planning Board Office and answered that in Mass.,property taxes are not required to be paid on wind turbines—intent is to get benefits to the Town and will depend on whether this project is built this year— accelerated depreciation and tax depreciation have nothing to do with how one is assessed for property taxes. Total savings to town cannot be determined until they sit down with Town to negotiate which Town does not want to do until the project is approved. • According to new Green Communities Act, do you have to be owner of the facility and if so,how would Cohasset become the owner of the facility in order to benefit from the new Law? Deane answered that it Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 8 March 30,2009 depends on how a project larger than 2 megawatts can be net metered and in that instance it depends on if it is owned or operated by a municipality it is done on per turbine basis -what that means is not yet known as the rules just came out and no one is sure yet about the application of the rules. Law states that they must designate who the customers will be. Member Moore noted that if approved, a condition of approval will be that there must be a negotiated savings agreement with the Town that must be fully settled before permits are issued. Tom Kilroy: what is background of Hull turbines? Hull built and owns them-whole different economic setup. If Cohasset were to build turbines without buying the grid,the municipality would be under the same restrictions as Sweeney is in terms of selling the power -they could only sell it to the grid. Dan Cronin,265 Fair Oaks Lane: regarding the photosim that has the water tower and the turbines—asked how tall the water tower is above grade(about 100')and how far the turbine is from the water tower(>1000'). Cronin felt the photosim might not be presenting correct image. Was explained to Cronin that this was the second turbine and was quite far away and accurately depicted. Cronin suggested another photosim should be completed by a 3rd part. Richard Tabaczynski,Atlantic Design Group who conducted the photosims noted that the photosims are accurate depictions of where the turbine is,not an inaccurate depiction of the turbine as they would like it to be depicted, and that he is a registered engineer who would not risk his licensing by falsify reports. Mark Babka,258 Forest Ave.: Hull Municipal light plant estimates a profit of $2-6 Million profit over the life of the project for an outlay of$3,031,000/annual cost to town. Palmer Capital's estimates are that Cohasset could benefit$150K- $200K/year from this project which is $3-$4 million benefit to the Town over 20 years. How can Cohasset get equal profit without owning the project as Hull does—it doesn't make sense? Sweeney noted that Hull and Hu112 combined are less than this proposed project and,when Hull states that they produce a million dollars worth of revenue,that is not taking Hull's debt into consideration. When Hull was first installed,the cost was less than half of what it is today. Lori Langenhagen, 24 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: What will be the cost of infrastructure to the Town? Shah explained that there is a cost for transformers, connection fees etc,which are assumed in the developer's budget cost. Member Ivimey added that any decision will include conditions that there is to be no cash outlay for Cohasset. Langenhagen also asked if manufacturers have recommendations as to how far turbines should be placed from people and buildings as protection measures. Sweeney indicated that manufacturers visit the site to approve the site for their turbine. This manufacturer feels this location with the described safety measures is OK. Langenhagen responded that we should be following industry standards,not what a particular manufacturer—whose business is to sell turbines- is suggesting. Paul Ognibene, 44 Beach St.: Submitted 941 signature petition of opposed citizens with petition statement requesting denial of this application. Julie Halaby, 10 Heather Dr.: began history of options for turbine locations and changes of locations, foundations, post closure use permit from DEP—(never got to a question). Member Moore noted that the Planning Board does not review or question the jurisdiction of other Boards and Depts. But always conditions that the requirements and conditions of other Boards and Depts. must be met and signed off. Halaby asked what would happen if the turbine foundation location approved by the DEP is different from the turbine location identified by Sweeney. Member Ivimey explained that applicant would have to return to Planning Board for permission based on the new location. John Modzelewski noted that site plans refers to 394'f and told applicant that this "f"must be tied to a definite measurement in the final plans so plans are specific. Kevin Norgeot, 75 Aaron River Road: commented that if he were looking at a house in Cohasset,he is not sure he would buy real estate in Cohasset if turbines were installed. He thinks the Planning Board should consider this. Peter Brown, 38 Atlantic Ave.: Noted there are other benefits such as providing education programs for the school systems that have not been identified and offered. The size of these turbines do not fall within the character of this area and the character issue is critical to the long term feeling people have about the town. Paul Barry, 20 Hobart Lane& owner of property: Structural and stabilization engineering was done in building high rises in major cities so they would stay up. The same is done for turbines so they will stay up. Also,this project should not stand on being tied to a contract with the Town—bylaw does not read in that way. Wind mills are tall and there is no way they will not be seen and he does not believe that people will decide whether to move into Hingham or Cohasset based upon whether there is a wind mill installed. Mark Babka,258 Forest Ave.: Assumes Mr. Barry will have contract with the wind mill company for his property! Chris Mele, Sunrise Assisted Living, 125 King St.: wants to make sure that the turbines are constructed to be safe for the 75 fragile residents of Sunrise and asked what the latest studies have shown for flicker at Sunrise. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 8 March 30,2009 A- flicker estimate is 19 hrs/year at Sunrise which is less that the 30 hrs/yr. measure considered to be a nuisance. Susan Driscoll,240 FairOaks Lane: Asked for explanation of flicker and what studies they are aware of that address the effect of flicker on seniors. Tabaczynski ,Atlantic Design Group gave explanation(see explanations in past minutes) . Heather Peracchi, 305 Fair Oaks: What is the manufacturer date on the components? No dates yet-the components are not built until an order is received. Ken Ingber, 5 Woodland Dr: Asked Town Engineer Modzelewski to comment on whether the project as a generally presented is credible—Modzelewski answered that the generation of information has been credible,the programs used are generally recognized programs and the presentation of information have been credible. The interpretation of the data is where the issues lie. The information that has been presented is in keeping with the information that is available and has been acceptable. Ingber stated that the Planning Board has to focus on safety and a variety of other factors and,he asked if the Town is entitled to financial benefits and how does that go into the mix to determining the conditions to the special permit?Member Moore answered that financial benefits are not in the bylaw and that the Planning Board charge is to grant a special permit while doing the best it can for the Town —the developer has offered to do things for the Town and the Planning Board wants to get that in writing. Member Moore provided lengthy explanation of"denial"and"approval with conditions"and what each means for applicant and for Town and,how this is a special permit for a permitted use,which does not go before the ZBA. Tucker Glavin, 107 Nichols Rd.: Is there a crux of this issue that depends upon the ruling from the DEP re-the noise factor—aren't you relying on the DEP for some relief of the noise factor? Barnes answered that the DEP has regulations that say noise pollution should not be created and has adopted a set of guidelines that are intended to be flexible. Glavin asked if the Regional Director doesn't see any leniency possible,would this current project have to be changed? Member Ivimey stated that our experts need to assure the Board that the turbine will fall within the numbers or,the Board will not approve it. DEP looks at the noise at the front door of a residence and not concerned with the commercial area. Planning Board will uphold the bylaw and the DEP law. Glavin summarized his concerns by stating that he would like to see potential mitigation. Member Ivimey: stated the opinion that he thinks if someone would identify the days and hours during which flicker would occur and simply not operate the turbines during those times if sensors indicate it is a bright, sunny day, the flicker problem would go away. Regarding noise, Ivimey's discussions with people in Hingham and Hull who live right near the turbines indicate that they do not find the turbines noisy. He is not sure what can be done about the noise from an engineering perspective but people either believe the data or do not believe the data— he thinks they have to rely on the sound experts analysis. Regarding size,the bylaw says the turbines can be built up to 120 meters. Ivimey proposed that when the bylaw was passed at Town Meeting allowing 120 meter turbines in commercially zoned areas,the Town was saying it accepted the impacts of industrial sized turbines. Peter Brown, 38 Atlantic Ave: asked if the Board can allow the construction of one turbine at a time to allow an opportunity to study it before approving any others. Ivimey answered that there would have to be a legitimate, legal reason for doing so—could not do this just because"we are not sure'. Jim Fox, 179 Fair Oakes Lane: stated that in early meetings developer was talking about 60 meter turbines,then went to 100 meter turbines and with that, all the problems and nuisances increased exponentially.Asked if the Board can approve with condition that they cannot exceed 60 meters? Applicant corrected the figures stating that he always proposed 100 meter towers. Answer is no,bylaw allows up to 120 meters unless there is a reasonable, rationale,non-arbitrary and non-capricious reason for doing so that will stand up to judicial review. Fox wants the Board to err on the side of protecting the Town without fears of litigation. Member Moore explained that the Board has never made decisions based on fear of litigation—decisions have always been made according to standards and requirements of the bylaws. Member Ivimey also explained that landowner has the right to use his land as is legal and permissible so the Board has to balance protecting Town's interests while upholding Zoning Bylaws. Maura Rogers(?), 80 Brewster Road: commended Board for their forward thinking—she supports the turbines Peter Pescatore, 12 Lantern Lane: asked for dBAs comparison of train noise and turbine noise. Barnes stated that it depends on distance from the trains and that they have not measured for this and therefore don't have data. Member Brewer mentioned that, in his yard, crickets are about 45 dBA, cars traveling by his house on No. Main St. measure about 55 dBA and planes measure about 60 dBA—all of which are less than measure of the turbines. Scott Dale,representing Avalon Bay: Avalon has had dialogue with developer and feels their concerns are solvable but they do get concerned when they hear certain members of the Board say that Avalon doesn't matter—in their opinion,Avalon does matter and should be taken into account in any conditions of approval imposed. Avalon's Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 8 March 30,2009 concerns are the same as anyone else's—noise, flicker and safety,which they think can be solved. They will not support any move closer to Avalon, and will have concerns until agreement has been reached that is enforceable. Conrad Lan eg nhagen,24 Sanctuary Pond: His read is that pure tonal noise violation is at the 1"floor of Avalon property not at the property line. He also provided the Board with information about industry safety standards— hard hats,goggles, steel toes shoes etc. which would effect Graham property and Hingham Lumber and asked Board for thoughts on how this will apply to these locations. Member Ivimey rejects these as"industry required standards"—these turbines are being constructed on school campuses and other populated areas. Sean Mullaney„480 Jerusalem Rd.: Not ashamed of the letter he wrote to the editor of the Cohasset Mariner,the obvious fact is whether Cohasset benefits from a single dollar is irrelevant to these proponents. The fact is that you cannot condition economic benefits to the town with promises that is the definition of arbitrary and capricious. Mullaney continued that you cannot condition on whether a turbine falls on a building where the setbacks were modified specifically tied to this project---Mullaney was asked to cease accusations and sit down. Jeffrey Patterson, 10 Sanctuary Pond: Feels this is a borderline application,but the language in the bylaw is mandatory-applicant must submit a full report that shows the project shall perform with Mass. Building standards and that has not happened yet. If this application is in violation of the noise standard and this Board approves it, it will be appealed and a court will kick it out on those grounds. Flicker has not been talked about much yet—some houses will be subjected to flicker 180 days/yr.—according to Patterson,his house will be affected 104 days—to Patterson that is significant. The current project as it is proposed fails on the noise and flicker standards and should be denied. Patterson hears Board talking about mitigation and asked if Board and Applicant can meet in middle,but does not hear the same from the applicant. Samuelson again reiterated that it is a balancing act between the town and what the applicant is allowed to do to his land as a"permitted use"and, disagrees with Patterson in that he feels the applicant has been very good about negotiating and doing everything the Board has asked him to do with the balloon test,moving the turbine a number of times,redoing sound and flicker tests etc. Jim Sheerin,40 Cedar Acres Lane: asked Board if anyone had knowledge of a similar project that had been before a Board in another town that was denied due to noise, flicker etc. Member Moore mentioned that he was not aware of any but that it would probably be irrelevant unless the bylaws were identical. Lori Lan eg nhagen, 24 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: was one of the people asking individuals to fill out the petition that was submitted at this meeting and showed the photosims to people-people were aghast at the size of the turbines in the photosims and she thinks that a 60' turbine would be lower the visual impact and would be more palatable to the people in town. Sweeney commented that there simply would not be enough wind at 60'. Mass. Maritime went with a 50'tower rather than the proposed 65'tower and are now debating what to do because they are not getting the production that they wanted. Shah added that the turbine in Newburyport—although a slightly different application than the one proposed for Cohasset—is feeding one private manufacturer rather than going into the grid to feed the town—so ,the turbine was sized for that particular application by the manufacturer. Selection depends on proposed use, location and wind—it is very site specific. Newburyport also has $500K in grants which makes the economics much more compelling. This project will not have grants. Julie Halaby, 10 Heather Drive: asked if a smaller turbine with solar panels has been considered. Sweeney commented that they actually did consider a solar system, but the economics don't work- pay back is 3X longer- not economically viable. John Modzelewski: summarized what is needed for next meeting— 4.Noise report from Jim Barnes -needs to be discussed with and reviewed by applicant's consultant— finalized report needed 1. Icing- Board needs to make decision about icing - so far applicant has only mentioned shutdown techniques—Modzelewski would like examples of other turbines with these and other techniques used for similar turbines and locations - Board should have some sense of the probability of icing occurring —Modzelewski would like a probability study done regarding ice throw for this turbine at this location 2. Flicker—report from Modzelewski consultants(received just before meeting) needs to be reviewed by applicant consultants for comment and report. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to Wednesday,April 8, 2009 at 8:00 PM. SECOND: Member Westcott VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 8 of 8 March 30,2009 Kevin(?) O'Brien, 28 Sanctuary Pond Rd.: Commented that it has been mentioned the biggest impact is the visual impact asking if there could be another set of visuals and photosims produced by a 3rd party—Member Moore indicated that commissioning another set of photosims is not in the plan at this time—Member Moore thinks that at this point,people have a clear understanding of what the proposed turbines are going to look like and that another set of photosims are not going to help the Board come to a decision. O'Brien commented that the TOD construction project approval on CJC Hwy.,was an improvement over what existed —visualization is the common denominator in this decision process. Member Samuelson again stated that according to the bylaws,the developer is allowed to go this high with this is a permitted use; that the developer has compromised somewhat by reducing the height to 100 meters;that the bylaw indicates what the town has viewed as acceptable; that the Board may agree or disagree with that,but that the Board is bound to go by the bylaw as written; so what the Board has to consider is—in the whole universe of turbines, do the proposed turbines in the application have a more or less significant visual impact than other wind turbines. As John Modzelewski understands the site plan component,the actual construction is geared to the building codes. The Board can condition that the design has to be reviewed as approved according to the structural design,but at this point in time,Modzelewski will not be giving any subsurface construction review as this is under the purview of the DER Generally,zoning bylaws cover setbacks etc.,but do not get into the construction design. Shah indicated that part of the process includes the submission of complete geotechnical studies. MOTION: by Member Ivimey to adjourn at 11:45 P.M. SECOND: Member Samuelson VOTE: 5—0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY, April 8, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: Charles A. Samuelson, Clerk DATE: April 8, 2009