HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (3) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1 of 9
December 8,2010
COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8,2010
TIME: 7:00 PM
PLACE: COHASSET TOWN HALL— AUDITORIUM
41 HIGHLAND AVENUE, COHASSET,MA 02025
Board Members Present: Alfred S. Moore,Jr., Chairman
Stuart W. Ivimey,Vice Chair
Jean Healey Dippold, Clerk
Clark H. Brewer
Charles A. Samuelson
William Hannon,Associate Member
Board Members Absent:
Recording Secretary Present: Jo-Ann M. Pilczak, Administrator
Meeting called to order at: 7:02 P.M.
7:02 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT (10 MINUTES MAXIMUM) - no public comment so Member Brewer
mentioned that he attended a presentation at MAPC South Shore Coalition by the Marc Racicot,Director of the
MAPC, of pending legislation for zoning reform- some things could benefit Cohasset. Zoning reform bill has been
in committee and is pending a vote in legislature. An example is better definition of zoning variance which is
applied unevenly by cities and towns under MGL 40A and could be improved. Feedback for home rule application
can be given. Brewer is MAPC Rep, so any interests, comments can be forwarded through him.
7:10 P.M. GLENN PRATT, INFORMAL DISCUSSION, SENIOR CENTER -Glenn Pratt and John
Campbell, Chairman of Elder Affairs. Pratt and Campbell are meeting with all boards and committees to keep
everyone informed of status of and proposed plans for senior center. Distributed a brochure prepared by the
Office of Elder Affairs entitled"Our Vision—Willcutt Commons" (dated Fall,2010)which is on file in the
Planning Board Office.
• 16,000 sq. ft.building adjacent to town pool parking lot
• Did have a successful perc in the little league parking lot so they may have that or sewer connection options
• Senior like the area—close to pool, library,village
• Feasibility study has been done
• 1st Floor: multifunction hall will seat 200; series of rooms; clinic; computer learning center; social day care
area; small offices,meeting rooms; veterans' agent office; activity rooms; common room with fireplace,
screen porch. 2nd Floor: 4 1 bedroom apartments; storage, elevator
• Cost expected to be $5.9 million—expect to raise money from capital campaign, CPC,private fundraising,
taxpayer help
• Should make cost to run a neutral cost
• Have not yet studied"green"approaches but building will be energy efficient
• Board suggested that they look at the effect on traffic in the area
7:30 P.M. SPECIAL PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW CONT'D PUBLIC HEARING-
CONSERVATION WIND LP(TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS) WIND ENERGY CONVERSION
FACILITY - TURKEY HILL In attendance for Planning Board: John Modzelewski, CDI; James Barnes,
Acentech; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam. BOS Chair Karen Quigley introduced: Laura Burns, Chairperson,
Hingham BOS; and,Ted Alexiades,Hingham Interim Town Manager.
In attendance to represent applicant:
Attorney Richard Henderson
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2 of 9
December 8,2010
Steven Sloane—Greater Boston Regional Director and Deputy Director of Field Operations for TTOR
Jim Younger—Director of Structural Resources&Technical Operations for TTOR
Dennis Loria— Mechanical Engineer-Loria Emerging Energy Consultants LLC
Stephen Andrus, P.E. —GZA,Providence Office
Daniel Mendelsohn, -ASA(Applied Science Associates,Inc.)
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED/REFERENCED AT THIS MEETING. ON FILE IN PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
(information in documents listed in the 11/16/10 meeting minutes may also have been used again at this meeting)
Applicant Reports:
• 11115110: ASA—Applied Science Association response to Civil Designs verbal review comments
• I I/15110: GZA — GeoEnvironmental, Inc. response to Civil Designs verbal review comments
• 11/16/10 Plan showing distances of fall zone with surveyor's stamp. Requested by CDI and delivered to
CDI at 11/16/10 Planning Board meeting and delivered to the Planning Board office on 11/18/10..
• 11/16/10: Letter from Andrew Kendall,TTOR President. Read at 11/16/10 Planning Board meeting by Jim
Younger (original, signed copy submitted 12/08/10)
• 11/12/10 81X Plan eliminating intervening lot line. Requested by CDI and delivered to CDI at 11/16/10
Planning Board meeting and delivered to the Planning Board office on 11/18/10.
• 11/18/10: Enlarged versions of plans(in application packet) showing original land conveyances & surveys.
Enlarged versions had been requested by CDI and were delivered to CDI at 11/16/10 Planning Board
meeting and delivered to the Planning Board office on 11/18/10.
• 11/16/10: Email from Joanna Lynch re: Turbine B coordinates
• 11/18/10: Email from Dennis Loria with attachments:
o Colored version—description of flicker analysis provided as part of the Special Permit Application
(Attachment 19.4.1.1)
o Colored version—Improved version of the flicker contour image provided in Figure 1 of attachment
19.4.1.1.
o Email from ComSearch confirming coordinates of Turbine B location
• 12/07/10: ASA letter -Response to Capt. Trask 11/16/10 comments
• 12/07/10: ASA—Response to CDI 12/02/10 review and comments
Civil Designs Engineering Inc. (CDI) Submissions/Correspondence:
• 12/02/10: review and comment letter
• 12/08/10: Shadow Study Third Party Review prepared by Emergent Energy Group
• 12/08/10: Draft of Acentech review and comment letter re:Noise Study
• 12/08/10: Enlargement of figure in Emergent Energy Group Preliminary Report dated 12/08/10 showing
worst case flicker situation—enlarged by CDI Inc.
Submissions from Public:
• 12/08/10: Letter from Mrs. Jack Hall re: Golden Living Retirement Resident Notification and Concerns
• 12/08/10: Letter from Attorney Jeffrey Tocchio(representing several owners of real property located on or
off Turkey Hill Rd.,Hingham,MA) delivered and distributed at 12/08/10 Planning Board Meeting.
Dennis Loria: updated what has happened since last Board meeting:
• NOI approved by ConComm
• Had additional meeting with Golden Living Center representative—reviewed entire analysis of noise,
visual, shadow flicker etc. Golden Living does not have any objections to the project.
• Met with Hingham residents
• Responded to John Modzelewski comments
• Responded to Cohasset Fire Dept. comments
• Additional photosimulations (showing view of turbine without leaves on trees)were completed—did
photosims at more locations than requested by Board:
o Rose Hill, Cohasset—turbine not visible
o Fair Oaks, Cohasset—turbine not visible
o Forest Ave&No. Main St, Cohasset—turbine not visible
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3 of 9
December 8,2010
o Cohasset Common—turbine not visible
o Pheasant Run,Hingham(cul-de-sac at end) —turbine not visible—trees created visual&noise barriers
o Quaker Retirement Ctr.,Hingham—turbine not visible
Daniel Mendelsohn, -ASA: explained how they adjust for the elevation of the turbine- they know exactly
where the photo was taken,the direction the photo was taken into,the view the camera can see(60°),the
exact location where they are standing to take the photo, the location of the turbine itself—they can locate by
placing longitude and latitude coordinates on a geo-reference map,then correlate the elevation of each of
those above sea level to determine exactly the relative elevation between the two. Because of the distance,
they can determine the size the turbine will appear from that very vantage point and then create the photosim.
Turbine used in these photosims is representative of the Vestas V90 turbine on an 80 meter tower.
John Modzelewski: is comfortable with the photosims. The coordinates have been submitted to him so that
what is represented tonight can be verified post construction and can be handled via conditions of approval.
He can also check each photosim by the coordinates if the Board would like.
• Shadow flicker analysis— For flicker to occur, it must be a clear, sunny day,wind has to be blowing so
turbine blades are spinning. For the leg of the shadow that falls into Hingham, 30%of the time,the wind
will be too low to operate the turbine so there will not be any flicker. The models do not take trees into
consideration and trees create a big obstacle—if turbine cannot be seen, flicker will not be experienced.
John Modzelewski: his consultants,Emergent Group, concurred with the findings. Only reason this report is
called"preliminary"is because the person who wrote it wanted to spend a little more time to confirm his
numbers. At a distance of about 3000 ft. it is generally understood that flicker cannot be seen because of the
disturbance of the light particles in the air by dust etc. There is no standard—but 30 hrs/yr seems to be the
number adhered to. Modzelewski had asked Emergent to do the flicker analysis with 0 reduction for cloud
cover or any other factors to produce a butterfly showing the absolute worst case scenario. However,
Modzelewski explained that the worst case will never be seen because of the number of days there will be
cloud cover etc. At the Golden Living site and the caretaker's cottage,there will be an issue with flicker
which should be addressed during deliberations along with mediation via shades,tree plantings etc.
Modzelewski also noted that he received pix from the front of the building whereas it would be better to
receive them from the back of the building to see the tree growth back there. Loria explained that they met
with Exec. Director of Golden Living a third time to review the photosims,the flicker analysis,the sound
analysis and he had no objections. He has also committed to working with Golden Living to mitigate(via
trees, shades)if they do have issues in the future. He does not expect them to be greatly affected by the
flicker as they will experience it in March/April and Sept./Oct. time frames in the late afternoon when the
residents will most likely not be outside. Loria also explained that,to be even more conservative,they took
into consideration that even during partly cloudy circumstances, flicker might be seen. Northeast Regional
Climate Center(NRCC) 60 yr. climate data shows that, on average, 27% of days/yr are clear, 28% of the
days/yr are partly cloudy and 45%of the days/yr. are cloudy. Member Samuelson noted that the Board could
condition that if flicker exceeds X amt.per day or per year, the turbines would be shutdown during the
expected time. Member Hannon asked if,technologically,the turbines could be shutdown when conditions
exist that will cause flicker—Loria explained that this is possible,but the turbine does not generate power
when it is not operating. He also explained that this is a very subjective thing—some people are bothered and
others are not and that there are not any regulations that indicated it should be shutdown at"X". Member
Samuelson noted that the bylaw does not read"if people are bothered", and that the bylaw also refers to
mitigation by siting. Loria explained that the caretaker's cottage is permanently occupied by TTOR employee
and is under a long term lease with Hingham. Samuelson noted that the bylaw talks about siting so there are
no significant shadowing or flicker impacts on adjacent uses—the significant factor is not"who"occupies the
building, it is if the"impact"is significant—and, the applicant must demonstrate there is not significant
impact. Member Ivimey added that the Planning Board has to determine what is"significant". Attorney
Henderson noted that there is a distinction between the Golden Living Center and the Caretaker's Cottage-
the Caretaker's is not adjacent, the TTOR is the Caretaker's Cottage - it is a long term lease that exceeds
the life expectancy of the turbine and a TTOR caretaker occupies it, not an adjacent property owner. Member
Healey Dippold noted that they bylaw speaks to adjacent"uses"not to ownership, lease holdings etc. and
asked what mitigation measures might be applicable to the caretaker's cottage. Loria answered providing
shades and tree plantings. When asked if, as representative for Hingham and therefore landlord of the
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4 of 9
December 8,2010
caretaker's cottage she had any input, Laura Burns, Chairman of Hingham BOS, answered that she would
have to put some thought into that and consult her colleagues as well as they just learned about this the other
day. Unidentified Hingham resident asked if the applicant spoke to Golden Living employees and residents
and their families—all of whom have rights - or just the owners, stating that if his mother was in that facility,
he would consider flicker significant..
• Iced Throw Potential: Ice"falls"off the turbine, it is not"thrown"off. The proposed turbine is a state of the
art turbine which will detect ice buildup and automatically shutdown. Applicant also proposes posting
warning signs (showed sample wording) and rerouting trail traffic during winter months to keep the public
away from turbine areas that ice may fall off of. John Modzelewski added that at certain times while the
blades are static, ice& snow can build up and then fall and perhaps be blown a little by wind as it falls. He
suggests that, in addition to the signage,the Board consider requiring some type of fencing for a radius of
1.5X the turbine height so people cannot walk under the blades. Modzelewski knows of no instances in MA
of people being injured by ice fall/throw although that doesn't mean it is not possible. He also noted that
some turbines(Mass Maritime,Portsmouth Abbey)are located such that students regularly walk close to
them. While there have not been any issues to date,that does not mean there might not be an issue in the
future. Loria noted that currently there is no plan to put a fence around it. TTOR feels a fence is too much of
an obstruction to people and animals in the woods and the more flexible way to handle this is with signage
and rerouting of traffic. Samuelson added that the Portsmouth Abbey is fenced but that TTOR area is
generally open to the public. Daniel Mendelsohn sited the Portsmouth Abbey turbine—fall zone just misses
the actual school proper and there is a town water tank within the fall zone and,has been of no real impact or
significance. Mendelsohn also noted that the proposed TTOR site is very remote and,while it is a public
area, it is not easily accessible.
• Color Issue: FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-lK states that daytime lighting is not required as long as
turbine structures are painted in a bright white or light off white color. If painted gray or a color other than a
bright white,the FAA would require the light on top of the turbine to be lit 24 hrs/day. This does imply that
the turbine is more visible if painted white.
• Responded to Fire Dept./Capt. Trask comments via 12/07/10 ASA letter
• Responded to CDI 12/02/10 comments via 12/07/10 ASA letter
John Modzelewski: review of his 12/02/10 comment letter(see letter for full details)and updated status:
#1: suggested TTOR consider connecting to poles already at Golden Living—this would be shorter, easier to
maintain and would not require clearing land along Side Hill Rd. Loria replied that they do not have an easement
with Golden Living at this time so they chose land they had available to them and had control over.
#2: efforts should be made to reduce 12% slope of access road to 9%. It is only being used for maintenance and
emergency vehicles but should ask Capt. Trask if emergency vehicles can negotiate that slope in bad weather.
Andrus noted that road is being designed to handle heavy loads—will be crushed stone to deal with icing. A
change in grade would require raising retaining wall about 12 ft. (to about 20 ft. total height)which would create
another hazard. Road will also be gated at top to prohibit unauthorized access and will be plowed in winter.
Modzelewski still thinks slope should be reduced.
#3: already discussed earlier in meeting
#4: Noise addressed by James Barnes,Acentech. MA DEP has clarified application of noise guidelines. In the
past they looked at applying the 1 Odb increase above ambient at property line and at sensitive receptors which
typically includes residences, schools, churches. However, due to projects such as this,the question arose as to
why the same level of protection of undeveloped land is needed. As long as town is comfortable that there will not
be any residences or other sensitive receptors built in the future,DEP will relax the lOdb at the property line.
Barnes did note that this does then preclude development in the future. Loria pointed out that their analysis has
shown that they do meet the state regulations at all property lines. Barnes noted that information he has received
thus far would indicate that it is right on the border—he would like to look at the actual computer model and data
output. Barnes added that overall methods used were appropriate. Barnes noted that models commonly used have
been developed to meet international standards and there are several parameters that can be examined in trying to
propagate the sound from the source up to the receptors and there are some that have a modest difference but the
assumption as to what type of ground it is (totally absorptive or hard,reflective ground) can have a very large
impact on estimated sound levels. Barnes has found that on a worst case basis,that under some conditions,no
matter what the ground condition, levels are more indicative of a reflective surface. For long term estimates over a
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5 of 9
December 8,2010
24 hr. to one week period, it is more appropriate to use softer surface. Modzelewski noted that some post testing
would need to be done. Samuelson added that sound studies are simulations that provide good information,but, if
after construction, monitoring shows that actual sound performance exceeds DEP standards, turbine would not be
allowed to operate. When asked if he could opine,based upon his education,training, analysis and study of this
material,that the operation of this proposed turbine will comply with the bylaw based on what has been submitted,
Barnes replied that he cannot make this opinion today—has not had a chance to review all data—it appears that
they are several db under the regulations,but he needs more review to confirm.
Attorney Jeffrey Tocchio -represents 10+families on Turkey Hill Road and a Hingham resident: g factor, sound,
icing over- these are issues his clients are concerned about and would want addressed by the Board and would
suggest that this not be something that is"massaged" after the fact. Member Ivimey clarified that his use of the
word"massaged"was not used to depict fabrication of fiction to make this turbine work but that the applicant
provide data that substantiates and supports their position that Barnes can review and be comfortable with to
formulate an opinion that this complies with the bylaw and noted that any suggestion Tocchio is trying to make is
wrong. Individual whose name could not be understood wondered if the Board had looked at the next generation
of wind turbines that are quieter etc. Member Moore noted this is not relevant to this hearing as the Board cannot
dictate what turbine is used by the applicant—the Board must evaluate what is in the application.
#5 and#6: already discussed earlier in meeting
#7: new revised 12/06/10 plan answers his questions—except—he wants the actual height of the turbine cited on
plans, not<350 ft. Loria explained that since they have not yet selected the actual turbine,they are unsure of the
exact height—other than it will not exceed 350 ft. so, they referred to the height as<350 ft. for now.
#8: GZA has provided large scale plan
#9: Color copies have been provided
#10: Board should have signed, stamped reports etc. - not accompanying letters— so the Board can trace back
who is actually responsible for the work. This should be done before final decisions.
#11: Suggests that the Board has applicant stake the location now so the Board can look at it or have some sort of
approval with conditions. GZA explained that they show 10 ft. on each side of the pole with the exception of the
wetland proper as was the agreement with Conservation.
#12: Board needs more dimensioning on plan for future enforcement if needed. Applicant reviewed what is
dimensioned on the plans. Modzelewski reiterated that he wants all dimensioning on all plans.
Bill Driscoll, 4 Pheasant Run, Hingham: asked if applicant had picture of the type of truck that would be going
through Hingham during construction. Loria replied that he does not have one with him but explained that the
blades that have to be transported are 45 meters long and that a special permit for a long load and wide load is
required as well as a special permit from the State.
Carrie Donovan, 3 Pheasant Run,Hingham: asked how much the trucks transporting blades will weigh. Loria did
not have the figure off the top of his head.
James Gruver, 16 Great Rock Rod. Hingham: mentioned the nacelle is 100 ton and asked how much additional the
truck would weigh and which truck can transport a 100 ton nacelle. Loria did not have that information at hand.
Darren Donovan, 3 Pheasant Run,Hingham: this is a bucolic road,two cars passing at the same time need to slow
down as they are not more than 18"apart,no sidewalks,used by pedestrians for walking,jogging,cycling,
horseback riding. Member Moore explained that when the Board looks at the impact on the community, what will
be faced down the road, such as construction deliveries and abilities is not a subject for their discussion—that will
be addressed by other boards—the Planning Board review is of the site and the proposal. Moore added that this
construction would be one time delivery of parts not ongoing delivery and traffic. Modzelewski added that the
bylaw does not require the Planning Board to look at how the applicant will transport to the site. Member Healey
Dippold wondered if they might be able to access the site via any roads in Wompatuck.Moore suggested that there
must be some history to draw from when Hu112 was transported to its site for construction.
Attorney Jeffrey Tocchio: (citing 19.4 which states that the Planning Board may grant the special permit only if it
finds that the proposal complies with the provision of this bylaw and is consistent with the equivalent criteria for
granting special permits and 12.4.1.b.(1)which requires that the Planning Board make findings with respect to
access and suitability of the proper way or the populous which is proposed), suggested that since the targeted
roadways are located outside of the boundaries of Cohasset and, unless a special permit is filed with Hingham, it is
incumbent upon this Planning Board to undertake the analysis to protect these neighbors from adverse effects from
this proposal. Member Healey Dippold,noting the twists in the roadway, the Weir River bridge and the size of the
trucks that might be used to transport the turbine, suggested that the applicant meet with the Hingham engineers
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6 of 9
December 8,2010
who recently reconstructed the bridge to determine the capacity of the bridge—she thinks there might be question
as to whether the bridge could support the trucks. Sloane noted that TTOR had concern about this issue because of
the weight limit sign on that bridge and,had a discussion with Hingham about the capacity with respect to the
weight loads they were expecting and Hingham did not seem to see issues.
#13: the width of the trench still needs to be added to the typical detail
#14: details have been provided
#15: discussed already in terms of conditions of approval
#16: width is called off at 16.4 ft. Modzelewski takes some exception to the 3 ft. shoulder—the shoulder slopes
down 3:1.
#17: already discussed earlier in meeting
#18: since all access to site and poles will be pervious,maintenance plan should be provided as to how they will
keep access passable.
#19: OK - has been stated that it will be about 3,000 sq.ft.
#20: OK—a new plan has been submitted
#21: Stormwater report seems fine
#22: No indication of who did rare species analysis and report. Loria explained they did not do a rare species
analysis but looked at map database—no rare species were indicated. If area where work is proposed does not
show a habitat area,there is no need to apply for a permit. This is an appropriate standard of care. Sloane indicated
that a"No Take"letter is appropriate when inquiry shows habitat and other rare species might be impacted. Not
the case here.
#23: vetted earlier
#24: vetted earlier
#25: catalog cuts not provided yet. For the record,Member Ivimey would like to see a non-strobe light
#26: visual impact analysis vetted earlier
#27: data corresponds to what they submitted
#28: location 1-7 photosims have been provided
#29: Modzelewski requested pix from the back of the building facing towards the turbine area
#30: Planning Board can determine if the letter is sufficient or if they want the visual impact study signed by
professional responsible
#31: Barnes charge is tell the Board if standard of care has been used by applicant. He is not doing his own study
or using his own data. He did state in his letter that standard of care was appropriate and, according to Henderson,
Barnes did say that levels projected by the applicant's studies do comply with MA DEP regulations and, according
to Henderson,that is the sole criteria. Barnes would like to look at model used. Modzelewski can't get wind
speeds and measures off the ground to correlate and needs to discuss further with applicant. Coordinates seem fine.
#32: no water available—how will they fight fires? NFPA approved Automatic suppression systems (CO2 or
some other gaseous system)will be installed in nacelle which will put out fire in the tower—covered in 12/07/10
response letter to Trask. Ectrical fires are not fought with water.
#33: coordinates have been received
#34: Communication Tower report needs attribution
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Charles Dale, 40 Turkey Hill Lane,Hingham: just found out about this on Monday,Dec. 6.Asked what can be
done to take a breath and approach this more slowly. Dale began a review of the history of the alternative energy
and wind turbine bylaw studies in Cohasset beginning with AEC studies in 2005 and including UMASS studies.
Member Moore asked the Mr. Dale to please get to the point and state his concerns. Mr. Dale reiterated that he
just found out about this two days ago and would like more time. Mr. Moore replied that: those who had to be
notified by statutes were notified; the hearing was advertised in the newspaper; TTOR have gone to great lengths
to notify the public; and,that while the Board wants to listen to Mr. Dale, the Board would like him to get to his
point. Dale believes that: 19.3.2 requires evidence of legal right to use the property and that TTOR does not have
authority to get into the power generation business;that the application does not show the relationship between
Conservation Wind and TTOR(applicant and owner) or how the applicant can overcome the TTOR total lack of
authority for the project and on what basis the applicant has the right to install the proposed turbines; how can the
TTOR overcome the public trust and conservation restrictions imposed on the property they intend to use for this
project; that Cohasset has repeatedly concluded that Turkey Hill is not appropriate due to conservation restrictions;
that 19.3.3.2 of bylaw does not allow turbines to be built in residential; that the 2008/2009 CCI application was
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7 of 9
December 8,2010
rejected because it encroached on residential property while TTOR proposal is right in the middle of residential
property; with respect to general conditions, CCI proposal review took 1.5 years; the Vestas 90 was modeled,not
the Vestas 100; the applicant does not know how they will get 100 tons of equipment up Turkey Hill using Leavitt
St. and Turkey Hill Lane is the sole point of access; it is ironic that TTOR have not identified rare species and they
are a group to whom money is given to make sure that developments like this do not occur; no analysis has been
done as to the impact of this project on people; the applicant has talked to management at Golden Living Center
but not to the residents; Cohasset Planning Board members do not live in the flicker butterfly whereas Hingham
residents do; this application violates bylaws; and,that it is unthinkable that the neighbors and friends in Cohasset
would approve this project for which Cohasset will receive 100%of the benefits and Hingham will bear 100%of
the burden. Member Ivimey asked Dale if it is his position that according to 19.3.2—"the applicant shall submit
with the application, documentation of the applicant's legal right to install and use the proposed facility at the
subject property" etc. - the term"legal right to install and use"go beyond just control of the property—in other
words,that they do not have the authority to use the land in the way that they want to? Dale confirmed and referred
to Ch. 352, the laws of 1891. Dale contends that TTOR charter is very clear and very limited—to acquire,
preserve and maintain beautiful,historic places within the Commonwealth—in fact,there is nothing in there about
energy generation—in fact, every year,they solicit funds so they can take property out of development. Member
Ivimey asked that if all this is true, does this prevent this Board from issuing a permit or, regarding this apparent
conflict between TTOR and whoever holds the restriction of the use of their land, is it the position of this Board to
get into disputes between neighbors? Dale feels there is no doubt about it—if the applicant cannot do what they are
proposing to do, the Board is not supposed to allow it. Dale states that this land is perpetually in Conservation.
Ivimey would like to see law that says a permit granting authority can deny a permit to enforce a private land
restriction. Attorney Henderson added that with respect to site control,they submitted two full title exams of
almost 60 years which confirm that TTOR own the land and showing control over the site. Steve Sloane explained
that portions of the Turkey Hill Reservation owned by the Towns of Cohasset and Hingham are subject to
permanent conservation restrictions and turbines could not be put on those portions without going to the general
court. However,the portion of Turkey Hill Reservation owned by TTOR is not subject to a conservation
restriction and,this parcel is on the Turkey Hill Reservation owned by the TTOR and does not have restrictions.
Member Ivimey asked Dale if there is no deed restriction,would Dale's argument then be that TTOR are
proscribed by some statute from being in wind generating business because they exist for purposes of land
preservation only. Dale contends that they do not have corporate authority to get into the wind generation business
and they have conservation restrictions on the land use—there may not be deed restrictions but there are
conservation restrictions both by common law and by statute.
Jeffrey Tocchio, distributed letter to Board which is on file in the Planning Board Office. Tocchio reviewed the
points of this letter including points relating to: TTOR's ability to transfer or use these parcels for wind turbines
and sell the energy without a 2/3 vote of legislature; the tax exempt status of the TTOR and subsequent holding of
the land in public trust for the benefit of the public generally; lack of evidence showing site control required by
Sections 19 and 12 of the Cohasset Zoning bylaws; lack of ability for TTOR to create a separate profit making arm;
lack of any analysis of economics; lack of any analysis of compatibility with the surrounding parcels. Planning
Board members questioned whether the Planning Board has the authority to look at the legal structure of TTOR
and into the issues mentioned by Tocchio or whether the Board is limited to looking only at the zoning bylaws and
the Board's rules ®ulations. The Board also questioned if the Town of Hingham has standing before this
Board and if the issues raised by Tocchio are questions and issues between Hingham and Cohasset in the courts.
Tocchio claims this is a constitutional issue and will submit further information. Town Counsel will review
Tocchio's document. Tocchio urged the Board to listen to peoples' concerns about access to the site etc. Member
Healey Dippold suggested that Tocchio supply of list of his clients' addresses so applicants can do photosims from
those properties to see how those properties are actually effected and what mitigation might be appropriate. It was
pointed out to Tocchio that the Town of Cohasset has voted several times in favor of the construction of turbines in
this town and the Planning Board therefore must analyze applications and vote based upon the merits of the
application. Tocchio replied that often wind turbines are approved with all the best intentions but once constructed,
there are problems. Tocchio's clients ask that the Board go through a complete analysis and also review
documents they supply showing negative consequences. It was pointed out to the audience that the previous CCI
Energy application for two turbines was denied because the fall down zone crossed a residential line and,that the
property line was between the owners of the property and TTOR and,that TTOR had the opportunity to address
that and they did not so it was denied because the bylaw specifically states that the fall down zone cannot cross a
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 8 of 9
December 8,2010
residential line. Tocchio, as a final note,pointed out that depending upon which turbine is selected,the turbine
could be the size of a 747 turbojet. Member Healey Dippold asked Tocchio if,by his interpretation of the Enabling
Act,the TTOR would not be able to build a welcome center with solar panels used to fuel that property and
potentially other properties that feed back to the grid. Tocchio thought that, if the solar panel was used to heat this
building it would probably be permissible,but in this instance, TTOR is proposing an industrial turbine and is
going to sell energy to the grid in exchange for credits, and,that selling green credits is fundraising. He would also
have a problem if they sold excess energy to the grid from the solar panels on the roof.
Steven Sloane, TTOR: It is clearly TTOR's position that they have the authority to do this. Attorney Henderson
added that the Planning Board analysis stops at use and control. Towns do not address title issues—it is a pure title
info. issue. Property.tax or corporate aspects of this are not fundamental to this application and do not have
anything to do with the land title, land restrictions or this Board. TTOR owns the land, controls the land and has
the right to use the land. No conservation restrictions exist on this parcel which is the subject of this permit.
Henderson added that if there were an easement or a conservation restriction,the Board would have to respect that
(but that is not the case here). However,the Board would not violate that condition by granting a permit because
the restrictive provision is still in the hands of a third party to enforce if they want to. Sloane added that none of
the subject TTOR land in Cohasset is subject to conservation restrictions—there are certain deed restrictions on
certain parcels not involved in this application. Tocchio added that it is a 3 part process— 1). is the land that is
close to the project under the 1933 deed to the Trustees of the Public Lands? 2.Was this held by them going
forward? and 3). in tax credits which then means it is a public trust, so, it is not a registry of deeds issue, it is a
legislative constitutional law issue.
Cynthia Hidell, 63 Gilford Rd.,Hingham: looks across George Washington Blvd. at Hull turbine—her house is
small cottage, surrounded by oak trees, about 1000' from the turbine —flicker gets through the oak trees and can be
seen—hears noise from the blades—doesn't know the extent the Board expects people to go to to mitigate the
effects of the turbine. She walks Turkey Hill 2x daily, snowmobilers are on Turkey Hill which police have not
been able to keep out—how can Trustees safely keep people away and why would they want to keep the public
away from this conservation area. This area does not lend itself to this kind of construction—appalled that TTOR
are planning to do something like this to conservation land—this is not in the spirit of why it was created.
Katia Orth, 12 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: just recently found out about this and is asking for more time so she can
learn more about this and feel comfortable with the impact of the turbine on her. Asked how Hingham can be
engaged in this process and if Hingham has standing. Member Ivimey replied that the Town of Hingham only has
standing because they own the piece of property(that caretakers residence is on)that abuts this. Att. Henderson
noted that Sect. 11 does not recognize municipal boundaries—it obligates the applicant to notify individuals who
are protected by the Statute and, in this case,TTOR went above and beyond and notified not only the abutters
provided by the Town of Hingham,but all abutters to TTOR property almost all the way to Scituate. They also had
approx. 7 voluntary public hearings/forums since August, 2010. They complied with every Stature and beyond.
The Board suggested to Orth that Hingham residents go to their BOS and Town Planner. Member Moore explained
that while the Board wants to hear citizen comments, when this Board feels they have adequate information upon
which to make a decision,they will move smartly and make the decision.
Bob Broker, 15 Barnes Rd., Hingham: not an abutter. To live in this area and not know about wind energy is to
not have eyes open. It is in our neighborhoods—Hull at the Hull High School and Hu112. For 15 years there have
been feasibility studies for this area. Hingham has a committee that has been looking into this with the municipal
light board. There have been a number of investigations and public forums and multiple opportunities to examine
this at least 11 different sites. The primary factor is—is the site feasible? The second factor is—who owns the
land. TTOR was not considered a possibility because it was never of interest to them. This is nothing new- there
is a great interest in wind power in Hingham. In his opinion,this is one of the better sites.
Al Engelhard, Hingham Wind Turbine Committee: not an abutter. As far as the mandate that is claimed to prohibit
TTOR from erecting a wind turbine, generating electricity and selling it for green cash,then you have to question
everything else like the 5 acre organic garden from which produce is sold for green cash. What is the difference
between selling electricity and selling produce?Both are generating income.
James Gruver, 16 Great Rock Rd., Hingham: (referencing shadow flicker butterfly)45%of the inclusive area is in
Hingham. He is proud member of TTOR. Just found out about this and is trying to get information to figure it out.
He has spoken to hundreds of Hingham people in the last 48 hours who did not know about this project. Turkey
Hill is not Cohasset's alone—Hingham shares it. He asked the Board to be more conservative on the g estimates.
Sound is a concern and Gruver would like to see more sound study, especially in the winter months. He would like
Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 9 of 9
December 8,2010
to see both clear and cloudy skies in the photosims and, see more pix in recent season—Att. Henderson noted that
all the photosim pix were taken on clear day. Gruver asked if the Board has thought about models and sound
differences since the applicant has talked about a Vestas,but has not made a final selection. Member Ivimey noted
that the permit will reference"X"turbine and that TTOR will have to come back to the Board if they want to build
"Y"turbine. Gruver also asked about the guarantee about maintenance—Board noted that they establish conditions
of approval and contingencies(such as financial protections). Modzelewski reiterated that the flicker butterfly
represents absolute worst case scenario.
Darren Donovan, 3 Pheasant Run,Hingham: Will be effected by this. He appealed to Board to look at the hedging
language, limitation of scope etc. in this report. Modeling is done with manufacturer's data. Asks the Board to be
courageous, look into their hearts, look at the public good—onus is on this group to do no harm. He wants more
time,more research. Doesn't want to lose this treasured land. Placing industrial sized turbine on this conservation
land is an oxymoron. Referenced applicant's use of words"site has long history of disruption" asking"so why not
disrupt it more?" Also questioned applicant's reference to the Nike site as"past industrial use". He also added
that whenever money comes into the equation—such as a$2 million tax incentive for this year-good people can be
rushed into making bad decision. He asked Board not to be bamboozled—slow down—do more research.
Member Samuelson would like applicant to show how this project will benefit the Town.
Town Counsel to have opinions at next meeting.
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to continue this public hearing to December 15, 2010 at 9:00 P.M.
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 6-0 MOTION CARRIES
10:30 P.M. ADMINISTRATION
• DISCUSSION—ZONING MAP UPDATE - not discussed
• VOTE TO APPROVE NOVEMBER 16, 2010 MEETING MINUTES
MOTION: By Member Healey Dippold to approve the November 16,2010 meeting minutes
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 4-0 MOTION CARRIES
• SET JANUARY AND FEBRUARY MEETING DATES—not set
• COMMON DRIVEWAY RULES & REGULATIONS UPDATE—not discussed
MOTION: By Member Ivimey to adjourn at 11:50 P.M.
SECOND: Member Brewer
VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES
NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY,DECEMBER 15, 2010 AT 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD, CLERK
DATE: JANUARY 26,2011