Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - PB - 01/01/2010 - Planning Board Meeting Minutes 2010 (4) Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 1of 12 December 15,2010 COHASSET PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DATE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 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: 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT (10 MINUTES MAXIMUM)—no comments 7:10 P.M. SCITUATE HILL UPDATE—ROB SCHWANDT—In attendance to represent this agenda item: Rob Schwandt, John Cavanaro—Cavanaro Consulting, Inc. Finally received permits from Mass. Highway a few days ago. Will submit approved version of plans to Modzelewski and Board for review. Moving material around on top lot to see what the top lot will look like with cuts and fills. Next step is visiting traffic light issue again with the State. Temporary access permit lapsed and when they returned to have it reinstated following the directions as to what the State wanted to see, it was exclusive of the traffic light issue. Now that they know where the access will be located,they can begin to address traffic light. Erosion controls on bottom of the site are continually maintained. Board would like Schwandt to return again in May,2011 for another 6 month review and update. 7:20 P.M. HIGHLAND ESTATES UPDATE - Planning Board Administrator explained that Mr.Nader asked to be removed from agenda-informed Board that due to other previously scheduled events,he would be unable to attend a Planning Board meeting until March, 2011. Board reviewed outstanding items that have been completed: sign at subdivision entrance has been removed; crosswalk across Beechwood St.has been painted; letter from Capt. Trask re: placement of fire hydrants has been received; engineering deposits have been brought up to required minimum. Board also reviewed outstanding items that have not yet been completed—including,among other things: subdivision as-builts still not received; bounds still not installed; extension has not been voted on by the Board; final resolution and Board vote as to the issue of the utility pole vs underground utilities as required by the Subdivision Rule&Regulations. Since the last update was in May. 2010 and follow-up was scheduled for November 2010,Board is not agreeable to waiting until March, 2011 for a meeting with Nader. Board will request that Building Inspector not issue any further building permits for this subdivision until Nader attends a meeting to review outstanding items. Planning Board administrator to inform Nader of Board's decision. 7:30 P.M. DRAFT OF UPDATED COMMON DRIVEWAY STANDARDS—(Was on December 8,2010 agenda but not covered due to lack of time) During open time on the agenda, Planning Board Administrator distributed draft of updated 1989 Common Driveway Standards to Board.Administrator has been working on this update with John Modzelewski- most comments are spelling corrections,reformatting etc. Modzelewski's review resulted in only four technical comments. Draft is also now in electronic format so final update can be put on Planning Board webpage. Administrator asked Board to review for discussion in January, 2011. Planning Board Administrator to check with Town Counsel as to whether review and vote to adopt must happen via public hearing. 7:45 P.M. INFORMAL DISCUSSION—PAT'S BARBERSHOP—applicant removed item from agenda Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 2of 12 December 15,2010 7:45 P.M. ZBA RECOMMENDATION, 82 WHITEHEAD ROAD In attendance to represent application: Neil Murphy. Lot was approved in 1986 as an 8 1 L and is a legal lot. . Approved by Land Court. House on lot 25 was built in 1930 and the house on lot 25A was built in 1940. Chapter 4l, 81L is under subdivision regulations. If there is no frontage listed in the bylaw, there must be a minimum frontage of 20 ft. or, if there are a number of buildings on the lot,the lot can be divided so that each building has a lot around it. There are two existing buildings that are legal. There are many easements and rights of way. Driveway has easements over it and goes to Whitehead Road,crosses another piece of easement and then to Whitehead Road again. Owner wants to demolish the structure and rebuild a new home. No changes to setbacks or lot width. Same footprint area. Lot is>62,000 ft. Is in the flood plain in an AO Zone—minimum of 2 ft. above existing ground—documentation shows this without question. Proposed structure will be 85 ft. X 45 ft. ZBA has requested a full set of architectural documents. Will be modifying application to include 8.7.2. Woody Chittick explained that when the lot was subdivided, it created a non-conformity in that it does not have the required lot width and therefore, lot will either have to be reconfigured or they will have to seek relief under 8.7.1 and 8.7.2. Murphy noted that when 81L allows for a lot to be divided to give each existing house a lot around it, it does not provide any criteria for what is non- conforming at all—no criteria for frontage, area or setbacks. The new placement of the house will have no impact on the ocean with respect to sewage, drainage. Sullivan owns two of the adjacent properties—the nearest land owned by someone else in quite a distance away. The application currently before the Planning Board is to seek approval of a special permit pursuant to §9.7. 8 (flood plain)and does not include the change to include 8.7.2. MOTION: By Member Samuelson to recommend ZBA approve this special permit. SECOND: Member Ivimey VOTE: 4—1 MOTION CARRIES (Member Brewer opposed) 8:00 P.M. RICK SWANBORG—INFORMAL DISCUSSION—SCITUATE TENNIS CLUB, ZONING ISSUE FOR INDOOR SWIMMING POOL—Chris Horne, Gary James, Woody Chittick in attendance to participate in discussion. Zoning Bylaw Amendment to 4.2—"Permitted Uses"was not adopted at November, STM—Chittick thought that perhaps article was too broad a brush that effected about 2/3 of the Town. Question now is what can be done? Swanborg not able to attend,but did have a list of ideas of what might be able to be done. Horn thinks one of the things that might work best is under Section 3.3.4 Boundaries and Districts—Scituate property is business zoned and adjacent Cohasset property is zoned residential -Horne would be asking if they could extend 200' into the adjacent residential. Brewer thought that the fact that properties cross difference municipal and county boundaries is an issue in that Scituate use and zoning cannot be extended into Cohasset whereas Cohasset use could be extended further into Cohasset. Chittick agreed and added that districts were setup in 1969 and the land would have had to be in common ownership in 1969. Brewer suggest expanding an existing HB district several hundred feet in the NW direction—he did not think this would be spot zoning. Moore explained that if this was the option Horne wanted to take,the Planning Board could work with him—he should hire counsel to draft a zoning change to expand the HB district(Moore cautioned that the Attorney General might consider this spot zoning)and Planning Board could sponsor,advertise,hold public hearing etc. Mike Milanoski, 171 So. Main St. (Planner by trade) noted that to expand an abutting zone, other towns have Form A'd the lots putting lot line as far back as land is needed—this does not qualify as spot zoning as it is a continued use. Horne asked about membership&non-profit sports organizations allowed by Special Permit in RB District—he said this is a membership club but could be changed to a non-profit. Board suggested this be addressed by his attorney. Ideas were discussed further but final advice to Horne-he should have his attorney write the zoning article—if Planning Board supports it, they will get it on the warrant as long as it is not spot zoning. Board suggested he move quickly as warrant closes on February 14th and that he should come before the Board again at Jan. 12th meeting but no later than the Jan. 26th meeting. Brewer suggested that the Planning Board take a general look at the zoning map and change/update accordingly. Chittick thought this was a big task but Home's lot could be used as a springboard. 8:25 P.M. ATTOR. CHARLES HUMPHREYS,INFORMAL DISCUSSION—HOWARD GLEASON RD. FORM A (No documents submitted for this discussion) Adelaide Pratt Estate off Howard Gleason Rd. Family wants to expand and retain a lot,by taking land from the roughly 10 acre parcel, plus Lot A(15,000 sq.ft)plus 7,000 sq. ft. for a total of 22,200 sq.ft. for existing house. Proposing Form A for remaining 8.5 acres. Cavanaro explained the full perimeter of the lot as well as configuration of each proposed lot. Common drive access road Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 3of 12 December 15,2010 with hammerhead to be used for access to 3 parcels. All lots will be well above 60,000 sq.ft.. Will file formal application within few weeks. Board does not see any issues but reminds them about common driveway standards. 8:50 P.M. ADMINISTRATION • VOTE TO APPROVE DECEMBER 8, 2010 MEETING MINUTES—no vote—minutes not complete • CONFIRM JANUARY 12 & 26 AND FEBRUARY 9&23 MEETING DATES-confirmed 9:05 P.M. SPECIAL PERMIT & SITE PLAN REVIEW CONT'D.PUBLIC HEARING CONSERVATION WIND LP(TRUSTEES OF RESERVATIONS) WIND ENERGY CONVERSION, FACILITY FILING- TURKEY HILL In attendance for Planning Board: John Modzelewski, CDI; James Barnes,Acentech; Town Counsel Richard Hucksam; In attendance to represent applicant: Attorney Richard Henderson Steven Sloane—Greater Boston Regional Director and Deputy Director of Field Operations for TTOR Jim Younger—Director of Structural Resources&Technical Operations for TTOR Kathy Abbott,TTOR Dennis Loria— Mechanical Engineer-Loria Emerging Energy Consultants LLC Stephen Andrus, P.E. —GZA,Providence Office Christopher Menge - HMMH Noise Consultant DOCUMENTS REVIEWED/REFERENCED AT THIS MEETING. ON FILE IN PLANNING BOARD OFFICE (documents listed in the 11/16/10, 12/08/10 meeting minutes may also have been used again at this meeting) Applicant Reports: • 12/14/10: FAA Advisory Circular AC 70/7460-1K • 12/15/10: ASA response to comments raised at 12/08/10 meeting • 12/15/10: TTOR Power Point Presentation used at 12/15/10 meeting • 12/15/10: Attorney John O. Mirick re: Opinion as to TTOR legal right to use site • 12/15/10: Drawing PL dated: 11/16/10, revised 12/06/10 Civil Designs Engineering Inc. (CDI) Submissions/Correspondence: • 12/14/10: CDI Email"ties shadow study to the Vestas V-90 currently proposed" • 12/8/10: Final Report—Shadow Study Third-Party Review prepared by Emergent Energy Group Submissions from Public: • 12/14/10: Letter of protest from Patrick Leahy,Hingham • 12/14/10: Letter of endorsement from Robert C. Broker, Treasurer,REACH • 12/14/10: Statement of protest from Edward&Carol Muldoon,Hingham • 12/15/10: Letter of concern from Dr. Stephen Shoemaker,Hingham • 12/15/10: Email of opposition from John Leffel, Cohasset • 12/15/10: Email of opposition to this and all potential future wind turbines in Cohasset from Jeffrey Kripke, Cohasset • 12/15/10: Letter from Bruce Rabuffo, Chairman,Hingham BOS with letter to Steve Sloane from Roger Fernandes, Hingham Projects Engineer attached • 12/15/10: Email of opposition from Mark Babka, Cohasset • 12/15/10: Opposition to Special Permit 2010-02 Application by Conservation Wind, LP and the TTOR prepared by Attorney Jeffery A.Tocchio • 12/15/10: Submitted by Scott Bushley, Cohasset: "Wind Siting Rules, Clearinghouse Rule 10-057" • 12/15/10: Submitted by Scott Bushley, Cohasset: "Residential Property Value Guarantee Agreement" • 12/15/10: Submitted by Scott Bushley, Cohasset: "Affidavit of Dr. Michael M. Nissenbaum, M.D." In the Court of Queen's Bench Judicial Centre of Saskatoon *********************************** Kathy Abbott,TTOR read letter—TTOR is taking long view look at the next 100 years. Goal is to show they can increase the use of renewable energy and they believe they are living up to their charter. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 4of 12 December 15,2010 Dan Loria: provided update of issues raised at last meeting: • Henderson submitted Mirick opinion letter to Town Counsel for his review • Met with Hingham BOS on Dec. 14th • New photosims: does not think new photosims are same caliber as previous ones partially because camera did not have as wide a view angle as previously used camera. Reviewed photosims including from rear of Golden Living Center • Additional noise analysis: Christopher Menge met with Jim Barnes. Incorporated new information about noise emission from turbine. Added 3 dBA to noise source as design margin safety factor as recommended by Barnes. Decreased ground factor from 0.7 to 0.5 as suggested by Barnes. When compared to MA DEP criteria, in this worst case analysis,there is an 8 dBA increase at Golden Living which is still 2 dBA less than MA DEP limit. Menge reiterated-this is worst case condition and he actually expects it to be more in the order of a 5 dBA increase. As wind increases, ambient noise and turbine noise increase,but background sound increases faster. In residential communities surrounding turbine, increases are only up to 1-2 dBA so turbine noise in all cases is expected to be less than background ambient. Background ambient noises were obtained in August during lowest sound period—around 5 AM. Menge prefers to obtain noise levels during time of year when people would have windows open—summer time is generally considered to be most noise sensitive time of year. Relative increase(dBA)is difference between the update sound level increase(dBA) and original sound level increase(dBA). In all cases,whether wind speed is 7 m/s at hub height or or 11 m/s at hub height, original sound level increase and updated sound level increase is<10 dBA at all locations measured. Recent general specification data from Vestas gave a range of sound power levels for different modes of operation— these levels were higher than the measures before and represent a specification that is a conservative specification. Applicant chose the mode O operation for the modeling,which is the loudest operation. So, applicant used the updated volume noise emissions and, as Barnes recommended, added 3 dBA to noise source as design margin. Modzelewski noted that the wind shear issue and the relationship between wind at 2 meters above ground and the wind to be expected at the hub has been resolved —it was an unfortunate application of wording in one of the tables. Barnes had opportunity to review original report and addendum and to speak with Menge. Barnes was able to exercise the model and be comfortable with the results. Barnes: agrees that the model used is an accurate representation of the different points being used; is comfortable with vendor values that have been proposed, the sound power levels that the vendor provided(he has actually measured a similar sized turbine),the vendor data and the propagation method that was used utilizing more reflective ground than was originally used. The 3 dBA margin is quite useful—not as a fudge factor—it accounts for things that vary such as time of year, operation levels etc. Barnes feels the standard of care used in the analysis is appropriate and the results are reasonable. Barnes noted that there are things that can be done through reduced operation such as changing pitch which can reduce noise,but reduces output also. However,in this case,the Vestas information that was chosen for the analysis was the noisiest mode of operation which does provided an additional margin of dBA. Modzelewski suggested that it might not be a bad idea to confirm the background noises while deliberating— also, since it might be a while before this goes into the conceptual phase, could collect date during other times of year to confirm it and make everyone happy. James Gruver, 16 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: If the study was done now,while windows are shut, ground is frozen,no leaves on trees—would it still pass the test at the property line? Barnes noted that a factor that has not come into discussion yet is the assumption that sound propagates from the turbine in all directions equally. If winter winds are primarily from the N/NW, receptors on the Hingham side will be upwind and noise will be somewhat reduced in that direction—then yes, in those cases, it would pass the test. In the case of wind from another direction, during the winter,with g factor down to .3, it would take some monitoring to see what the spread would be. Gruver requested that the Board consider this to make sure everyone knows worst case on a windy winter day. An unidentified individual asked if it is possible,under the conditions mentioned by Gruver, that it would not pass the test? Barnes replied that, given the numbers they have, a substantial amount of increase could be allowed above what they have and still pass. Chances are quite low that it would not pass- not to say people will not hear it or think they hear it—anytime there is a new noise source in the community, people are going to hear it- there is no guarantee that people will not hear it on occasion, but it should certainly meet the MA DEP 99%of the time. Des MacIntyre, 10 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: lives in the Weir River Valley—does not see any testing in that area of the river—asked if sound would be different in this more confined area—will noise become confined Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 5of 12 December 15,2010 and echo? - suggested that it would be interesting to see real analysis rather than modeling. Menge replied that acoustic model incorporates analysis to those distances and model is a 3-D terrain model that incorporates all the terrain and, also noted that the only way to test is via modeling. Victoria Starr, 108 Turkey Hill Lane: the prevailing wind 90%of the time is westerly. Julie Dale,40 Turkey Hill Lane: lives in a bowl like area—sound is different where she lives—she hears fire trucks at central fire station, football games at high school,trains going by-sounds come and go- she enjoys sound of football games but worries that she is going to hear turbine all day long-it is not her imagination— there are days she hears the Hull turbine. Khela Thorne,44 Bonnie Brier Circle,Hingham: asked if neighbors to Hu112 have been interviewed and if other research has been done. She says it is not loudness of turbine, it is infrasound which is a very different sound that is like a jet going by that doesn't ever pass—has there been testing for that? Menge replied that older studies done in 1990's on older types of turbines did show significant amount of low frequency sound and concern. However, latest research indicates that low frequency sounds from modern upwind turbines generate low frequency sound that is sometimes audible(most of the time not audible) but does not have any deleterious effects on human health. Thorne replied that she lives with it first hand and she knows it is there. Henderson thought it would be helpful to know the proximity of her home to Hu112 because none of the homes relative to TTOR tower may be as close as her home to Hu112 —without knowing the distance,her point is meaningless. Attorney Tocchio: Studies that disassociate medical problems and sound do however recognize the correlation with noise—is that correct? Those more modern studies that(Menge)was talking about were basically funded by the United States Wind Power Assoc. - do recognize the annoyance factor from the effects—is that correct? Menge replied that one study points out that there can be an annoyance effect. Tocchio stated that there is a high correlation in that the more a person is negatively predisposed to wind turbine presence—isn't that correct? Member Moore pointed out that this is not a cross examination of the applicant. Tocchio explained he is trying to clarify the answer to the question the woman was asking and he did say that is correct? Scott Bushley,25 Surrey Drive, Cohasset: submitted "Affidavit of Dr. Michael M.Nissenbaum,M.D." In the Court of Queen's Bench Judicial Centre of Saskatoon" - about inaudible noise. Jim Tartol, 8 Pheasant Run,Hingham: asked if applicant has considered contacting and finding out how may people in the area have atrial fibrillation like he does and how this sound can be affect them. Answer—no. Jeanne Sylvester, 810 Main St. Hingham: does not understand if there has been analysis about rock and echo involved in rock or is it just distance - if just distance,topography should be taken into consideration in a lot of these areas. Menge replied-both distance and topography were taken into consideration. Sound propagation models used incorporate a conservatively hard ground factor, however, it should be pointed out that if they increase the ground factor to asphalt all the way from turbine to the residences, sound level would not increase. As clarification for the public, Moore added that this Board has to consider a lot relative to this type of application-the state guideline is not increasing the sound by more than 10 dBA-no one is saying there will be no impact and no sound—there will be sound-but the Board has to determine if it meets state regulations. Andrew Strehle, 231 Leavitt St.,Hiingham: There is a lot of bird sound where he lives. Asked what the 34 dBA would be reduced to if there was no bird sound in winter. Menge replied—he thinks not much less than 30-32 dBA,but reiterated that summer is the time when people will be most likely to hear anything—when background sounds are low in the middle of the night,windows are open etc. Charles Dale,40 Turkey Hill Lane,Hingham: asked for clarification of a yellow line on map being displayed. Answer—a property boundry Dr. Stephen Shoemaker, 275 East St.,Hingham: asked if, after installation, actual sound measures will be taken and, if they exceed predictions,what steps will be taken? Answer: Any approval by the Board will be conditional that they have to do what they say they are going to do-there will be subsequent tests-if they cannot meet what they say they say they are going to meet, they will not be allowed to run turbine or, until there is mitigation. Shoemaker clarified that there will be actual measures taken after installation which will be reported to Planning Board and,mitigation or shutdown will take place? Moore confirmed. Member Samuelson added that applicant is betting $4- $5 million that they are going to build something that will meet the bylaws—if they fail to meet bylaw or special conditions imposed on them,they will not be able to operate it. Loria added that when people are outside in summer and windows tend to be open, turbine will be operating the least. The wind blows stronger in the winter in N.E. so there is more operation in winter months than in the summer months. Samuelson noted however,that they bylaw does not take that into account—it does not speak to different seasons of year or different times of day—it says it cannot exceed the 10 dBA limit. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 6of 12 December 15,2010 Samuelson also commented that based on the Cape Wind studies,the single biggest factor effecting sound is keeping the blades clean so the Board has to condition regular maintenance to keep the blades clean. • Access Road: Loria addressed access road and slope of access road. Access road will only be used for construction and then, during operation,by maintenance or emergency vehicles. GZA feels 12% is appropriate and best slope for this location. They provided information and research to Modzelewski. GZA met with Fire Chief and Captain—they did not have concern with the 12% slope. Capt. Trask added that the road that they talked with him about was a road which is typically used in woods of Maine for accessing wood lots and other low frequency use types of activities. Cohasset fire apparatus is all two-wheel drive designed to go on paved roads. Trask does not have a problem with 12% slope if they are going on pavement. Description he was given for a packed gravel road is probably adequate for 4-wheel drive logging machinery,but that is not what they have. Trask would ask the Board to condition the permit requiring a paved road down to the pad. There is plenty of operational room at bottom of the road,but they need to get there safely. Andrus, GZA, - this will increase stormwater flows on site and increase the area required for stormwater mitigation but, it certainly could be done. The primary reference he used comes from U.S. Dept. of Agriculture for low volume access roads and, he will agree that most of those roads are designed for major logging operations however,that one does state that a 12%road between Wand 24'wide is adequate for RV's,trucks and trailers. It is a crushed stone road not a packed gravel. He thinks it is negotiable,but will not argue with Trask. For landfill work,they traditionally run 15%on access roads which are accessed by single axle,2-wheel drive landfill equipment, also by semi tractor trailers -he thinks 12%is a reasonable grade for this design—he stands behind it but they can certainly pave the road if the Board wants. Modzelewski added-the Scituate Hill Commercial Subdivision site on Rt. 3A is a 6% and driveway up to the top of the hill is 9% and the highest the Board has gone in 25 yrs. is about 9.5%. Modzelewski thinks 9%is reasonable. He also noted that there is an existing driveway that goes to a communications tower which runs for about 50'before the road starts going down—if they started the slope down immediately after the driveway,they gain another 50'with which to go down. He also has not received an answer as to why road has to stop where shown—he asked if this could be extended allowing them to get the 9%. Overall,Modzelewski recommends 9.5% paved roadway. Trask added-even if road was brought down to 9% slope,emergency personnel are trained to drive on a paved surface and when responding to emergencies,they do not move at the speed that forest roads are designed for-whether slope is 9%, 10% or 12%,he recommends paving road. Moore asked Modzelewski the slope of the bottom of Forest Ave.— Modzelewski will find out. Attorney Henderson suggested that access to base of tower is not as relevant as everyone thinks-fire will be handled by automatic suppression systems—information about which has been given to Board. Des MacIntyre, 10 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: fire trucks respond to accidents as well as fires. Katia Orth, 12 Great Rock Road, Hingham: asked if road will be issue with conservation. Henderson replied that they already have order of conditions to work along side of road. Road will not be in wetlands and will not require a conservation commission ruling. There will be a second conservation commission hearing—under the Cohasset Drainage bylaw,they have jurisdiction over stormwater so there will be a stormwater hearing. Jeffery Tocchio: asked for confirmation that 450'of roadway would be paved. Loria answered approx. 450'. Tocchio suggested that, absent plans depicting that,the applicant has failed to show compliance with special permit 12.4.1.b.1 and 2. Henderson noted again- stormwater is under the jurisdiction of Stormwater Committee not the Planning Board so 12.4 does not apply to it—drainage will be covered under a separate filing and committee. Samuelson noted that a standard condition imposed by the Planning Board is that applicant must obtain all other permits from other agencies which have jurisdiction,one of which is the Conservation Commission which specifies impervious soil, etc. Tocchio replied that 450'feet competes with many subdivision roads and issues with drainage and because all of the neighbors did not have notice,they were not able to participate in any Conservation Commission proceedings. Again, Samuelson noted that the Planning Board will not approve or disapprove of the Conservation Commission's evaluation of this project—the Board will require that the applicant get that permit—so whatever conditions Conservation puts on any applicant will be enforced. Tocchio understands but is concerned with 12.4.Lb.2. Ivimey alerted Board and applicant that he is not sure the Stormwater Bylaw does not do away with the Planning Board's obligation under the general laws of Mass. to opine or make comments. Steve Andrus, GZA: stormwater was evaluated for a preliminary plan submitted for the overall site alterations that are being made and some areas of the site around the NIKE site cleanup when that was removed—actual stormwater as presented in this plan—has been before the Conservation Commission. Paving the road is obviously a change that will have to be brought back to Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 7of 12 December 15,2010 Conservation Commission with finalized construction plan. Modzelewski noted that he did review certain drainage aspects but not everything the Stormwater Agent looks at. • Benefits to Town—will be taxed and provide additional tax revenue to Town of approx. $50,0000/yr. Have had discussions with Interim Town Manager Lombard and Director of Hingham Light and Power regarding potential sale of power from this facility that could result in additional savings to the community. Loria noted that TTOR have been able to respond to substantive issues raised during this review process because the team's consultants have worked very carefully and very hard to do a comprehensive evaluation of the project in preparation of engineering,the extensive public outreach by TTOR and in preparation of this permit application. Applicant has worked diligently to promptly answer all questions/issues raised by the Board, its consultants. Permit approval they seek tonight is only one step towards creating clean power. They respectfully request that the Planning Board vote tonight—they have provided all requested information and have demonstrated that the project will comply with Cohasset's Wind Zoning Bylaw. Ivimey asked if TTOR will pay for equipment or training Cohasset emergency services may need? Loria- they will provide training to police, fire, emergency services in Cohasset and Hingham and equipment within reasonable costs. Trask- this is a pretty open ended situation—Cohasset belongs to Plymouth County High Angle Rescue Team-county wide organization-organized to effect rescues in structures such as this,however, it takes time to assemble and he expressed to the proponent that CFD wants to be sure they have the equipment necessary to effectively setup any type of rescue that might be needed prior to arrival of the High Angle Team. Des MacIntyre, 10 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: TTOR has put forward a financial benefit to Cohasset,mentioning a tax revenue of$50,000—his understanding is that when Hull put forward its turbines,there was understanding that there was public benefit- not benefits solely to one small group and, as such,people were more accepting of the blight of the negative features and aspects of the turbines—has TTOR given any thought to compensating Hingham and/or Cohasset with free electricity to share the financial benefit? Moore noted that the Planning Board is not "selling"a permit -the fact that the town may benefit by tax revenue from an approved property is not any different than the tax benefit from any shopping mall or big home. Town Counsel added that normally,that kind of mitigation is done on voluntary basis or, as an agreement,not as a requirement. Samuelson added that Hull has its own public municipal power grid so the whole financial model is different and cannot be compared with this situation. Loria added that Hull Power&Light is owned by Hull's ratepayers and taxpayers—they paid for and own that turbine—a very different situation than one that is privately owned. MacIntyre: suggested to TTOR that they give consideration to sharing the spoils of the electricity with the neighbors adjoining this project- show good faith and invest in the success of this venture and share cheap electricity with the surrounding neighborhoods. Scott Bushley,25 Surrey Dr., Cohasset: asked for analysis of tax revenue that will be lost due to depreciation of properties surrounding turbine. Henderson replied- Cohasset Tax Assessor Quill has said there will be absolutely no effect on property values. Bushley cited what is done in another areas such as Property Value agreements that all contractors have to sign as part of clean energy which guarantee value of all properties within a two mile radius of any turbine for five years. If properties cannot sell on public market, contractor has to purchase them. He asked if we have one of these agreements? Bushley submitted documents showing contracts and agreements implemented in other towns and suggested Cohasset does not want to lose $1 million in tax revenue to gain $50,000 so these guys can pat themselves on the shoulders. Bill Driscoll, 4 Pheasant Run,Hingham: TTOR has described this site as a less than desireable site, an industrial site—he would like to know the ranking criteria that was used to identify this as one of TTOR's least attractive properties and,how the TTOR categorize World's End. Sloane suggested that Driscoll is using some words TTOR has not used and clarified that TTOR feels this site is appropriate from an aesthetic prospective -there are beautiful prospectives that can be had from Turkey Hill over the Harbor and that the turbine,which will be in back of this prospective will not detract from the aesthetics. Reference to prior industrial uses is reference to the fact that the ecological make-up of the site over time—the turbine will not detract significantly from the uses of the site. Driscoll asked if impact on recreational uses has been studied- will people who go up on Turkey Hill to face the beautiful views be exposed to the effects of the turbine behind them. Sloane indicated that they have not actually studied that but they anticipate some people may not like the turbine and will not use the area for recreational purposes,while others will enjoy it. Khela Thorne,44 Bonnie Brier Circle,Hingham: she was not at previous meeting—asked if shadow flicker was addressed —she lives on the good side of Hull turbine and is not effected by flicker,but looks at the houses in Hull Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES sof 12 December 15,2010 and does not know how they live in their houses. Moore explained to her that an inordinate amount of time was spent addressing flicker at last meeting. Matt Shanley, Sheldon Road,Hingham: asked-has looked at how many tons of pollutants will be reduced by this turbine as compared to a power plant. Younger replied-this turbine will produce 5 million kilowatts/year of electricity which offsets 4,000 metric tons of carbon/yr. Mr. Schiavo,24 Turkey Hill Lane: suggested cart is being put before horse. Asked if TTOR knows more about the situation than he does—asked when TTOR acquired the property. Moore replied that this type of questioning is not relevant—TTOR owns the land and has the right to try to do certain things with it. Henderson replied that TTOR acquired majority of the land in 1933. Schiavo replied that he was here in 1933 and does not remember TTOR—he remembers Mrs. Starr,her caretaker and asked them to show him proof. Victoria Starr: spoke to clarify the matter—her grandmother gave a good part of the woodlands to the south of Turkey Hill Lane land to TTOR after the war—probably 1947. Her mother gave management of Weir Rive r Farm to TTOR in 1993 and deeded it to TTOR in 1997. Joseph James, 141 CJC Hwy.: is curious as to what TTOR receives for leasing this land—are they giving the land away, selling it, donating it? What does TTOR receive for doing this? Henderson noted that TTOR owns the land —will generate income by selling electricity to the grid. Again,Moore explained that Cohasset unanimously passed a Wind Turbine Zoning bylaw at Town Meeting- since then,Board has learned a great deal and last year, had an application before them for two turbines(near where this proposed turbine is proposed)which was denied because it failed a significant zoning test which had been overlooked for some time during the hearing process- TTOR's project is not a Cohasset project or a Hingham project—it is a permitted use under the Cohasset bylaw and in this case,the applicant is TTOR but there is nothing that says it has to be TTOR—it could be anyone. What they choose to do with the power and how much money they make is not an issue at all. This is a judicial board that has to look at the zoning bylaw,weigh all evidence and make a hard decision—it is not a town project where town is out to make money—all development yields some tax revenue to the town. Charles Dale,40 Turkey Hill Lane, Hingham: what TTOR proposes to do with the land that this turbine will sit on is sell it. They are going to sell it to the applicant—Conservation Wind—in limited partnership which will simultaneously take in an equity investor and leverage the property with bank debt—Dale read p. 5 of the feasibility study. Moore asked why this would influence the Board's decision. Dale replied-they have not explained site control—they have not even told the Board who Conservation Wind LP is because it does not exist. Dale contends this is in the very first portion of the bylaw. Ivimey senses there is a lot of discomfort in the room with TTOR and, like or hate TTOR,they own the land and they can do anything with it that is permissible under the bylaws - the fact that the public thinks they should be managing their property in another way, does not impact the Board's decision—the Board's decision is based upon the bylaw. Dale replied that this is essentially saying the Board can permit a project without knowing whether than can even turn it on. Moore answered that this is correct. Ivimey replied that(using an animal rendering plant as an example)the Board is looking at a commercial use that is permitted in Cohasset and whether you like that commercial business,whether you think Cohasset shouldn't have the bylaw or whether you like the applicant or not is not relevant. Moore added-is not the Board's job to analyze applicant's business plan and make a judgment that they may or may not succeed—that is up to the applicant (Moore cited the TOD building on Rt. 3A as not being fully leased to tenants—this was not the applicant's goal,but it was also not the Board's responsibility to analyze). Joseph James, 141 CJC Hwy.,Hingham: clarified his point- it seems like Cohasset and TTOR benefits,while the people who live near it and the Hingham people get an eyesore , something they don't want,possible health risks. Member Hannon suggested that James' issues are with TTOR and not with the Town of Cohasset—the Planning Board does not have the flexibility that James seems to think they do— regardless of personal opinion of Board members,there is a bylaw that was voted on by the Town of Cohasset which says this is a permitted use of the land if it conforms with certain requirements and, if it conforms,it must be approved. Samuelson suggested that there is probably some land in Cohasset that they could move to if they are that concerned. Mark O'Neill, 38 Turkey Hill Rd.,Hingham: wondered if the Board would feel the same way if all the land around the turbine was Cohasset land. Moore answered that Board would be approaching it in exactly the same way. O'Neill suggested that the Board buy his house. Member Healey Dippold added that—if for example the Board denied this application simply because Hingham believes Hingham is burdened while Cohasset benefits and, without regard for the bylaw requirement—TTOR will appeal and likely win—and Hingham will get the turbine without any reasonable conditions—there is a reason why there is a process, in part, for the public's protection as well as balancing the rights of TTOR—if Hingham wants an arbitrary decision,that comes at the risk that the court Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 9of 12 December 15,2010 ultimately finds in favor of TTOR and the public gets a turbine without any safety or other conditions that would have protected abutters. Unidentified woman: Chairman stated that Cohasset stated unanimously that they would love to have this in their town but she saw that the entire sound study was about Hingham—she did not see any areas of Cohasset that would be concerned, so if they had a unanimous desire to have this,why is it on the extremities effecting Hingham and not Cohasset? Moore replied that when Cohasset passed the bylaw allowing turbines,they did not specify where one could be built—the last filing was completely in Cohasset but was denied because there was a zoning violation that could not be surmounted - it was not denied because Cohasset residents thought it was ugly—although a lot of residents did say that. In fact,there was a subsequent town meeting at which opponents could not gather the needed majority to overturn things. The people spoke clearly that, in this town,they wanted to be part of the solution to the fossil fuels problem. Again Moore reiterated that if this project were located in the most central part of Cohasset,the Board would be approaching it in exactly the same way. Dr. Stephen Shoemaker, 275 East St.,Hingham: looking at the worst case scenario for flicker, Shoemaker wonders if there are guarantees similar to sound,that assure that flicker will be confined to the area as represented —he has a family member who suffers from migraines - if undulating light from flicker reaches his home which is just beyond the reach of flicker represented in the worst case scenario diagram, they would have to live with blackout shades during the time flicker might reach his home and living with blackout shades does not seem like a nice way to live. Ivimey replied that this was discussed extensively during the last application filed and the Board discussed requiring some sort of monitoring that could be tied to a computer that could calculate if flicker at a particular site exceeded"X", at which point the turbine would probably have to be shutdown until the sun moved or a cloud cover became apparent. Shoemaker wanted clarification that if exceeded the 30 hrs. ... Ivimey explained that 30 hrs. is a universal standard that really has no basis. Shoemaker stated that there is supposed to be no flicker at his home—will there be a guarantee about this? Ivimey noted that the Board can guarantee him nothing,but the Board can guarantee that should the Board approve this,Ivimey will make sure that Shoemaker's home is factored into monitoring software and analysis—Shoemaker should provide his address to the Planning Board office. Moore added -Board holds applicants accountable for what was proposed - if it is not measuring up in the future, Board will take action. Ivimey also pointed out that if flicker numbers are wrong, turbine will not be allowed to operate and, if it is not operating, it is not generating electricity—it is to the applicant's financial advantage to have real and accurate data. Modzelewski noted that worst case scenario diagram stops at about 3000 meters because it is generally agreed in the industry that between 500— 1,000 meters, flicker dissipates to the point that it is not seen at 1,000 meters, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone, somewhere won't see it. Scott Bushley,25 Surrey Dr., Cohasset: not convinced health issues have been properly addressed. There is a bill before House of Lords moving setback distances to 1500 meters because of sound. Largest state owned power company in Denmark is has suspended all future onshore wind programs. Bushley contends there is growing proof that something is going on here—wind turbine syndrome. Cited CZB 12.4 referencing public health, safety, welfare, comfort or convenience of the community. Bushley wants assurances about tax revenue and property value guarantee agreement and monies set aside for litigation expenses and,thinks"community"includes Hingham as we mutually shop in each other's shops, eat in each other's restaurants,use each other's beaches etc. and that emergency services support each other and the Board should not want Hingham fire trucks to stop at the town border. Member Healey Dippold asked if it was Bushley's contention that turbines should not exist in Cohasset at all. Bushley answered they should exist under the right circumstances—the issue is we do not know what the proper setback should be (cited revisions that are being made in other areas)—we do not need to be guinea pigs in this— there is no rush to approve this—information is not conclusive—have a moral responsibility to each other. Moore replied that Bushley's comments might have been better taken at town meeting when the turbine bylaw was enacted -the fact of the matter is we have the bylaw-we are not here tonight to re-examine or dismiss the bylaw— it is the law. The Board is trying to collect as much data as it can to evaluate this proposal against the bylaw. Member Brewer: could not find anything that shows the Vestas model the applicant proposes to use. If there is an option for one model or another,he would like to see manufacturer's cut-sheets that showssomething about the tower construction,base etc. Dan Loria replied that they will supply- a V-90 Vestas was used in the model. They want to have the liberty to look at competing turbines that are comparable. Brewer noted that if there are 1,2 or 3 models that they are considering that are comparable but made by different manufacturers,he would like to see the manufacturer's information as part of the approval. Moore pointed out that they have modeled on the V-90 and if, after approval,they decide to use another turbine,they will have to return for a re-evaluation. Brewer suggested Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 10of 12 December 15,2010 the Board look at the options now. Ivimey suggested the applicant chose to model everything on the V-90 so permit should be issued on the V-90 and they will have to return. Darren Donovan, 3 Pheasant Run, Hingham: asked Board to consider another sound study—one study with revised numbering really pushes the numbers up significantly—even consider an independent study by group not paid by applicant. Health should not be risked without more study. Don't just go by the law-do what is right—do what is courageous—do another study—wind turbines do not belong in residential areas. Hannon pointed out that Board has done that—they had questions about acoustics and flicker and had engineering consultants for the Town -who are independent of the applicant -review and opine. Donovan replied this was not another study—this is one expert concurring or not with merits and reasonableness of application—that is peer review-another study should be at a different time of year using actual data from operating turbines (not modeling). Healey Dippold asked how difficult it would be for applicant and Board's consultants to review flicker and noise at certain addresses—is it as simple as just imputing addresses into a computer program? Barnes thought it could be done but Modzelewski thought addresses would have to be within 1000 meters. Jeffery Tocchio: distributed a list of concerns correlated to the bylaw(submitted- see full document in Planning Board file)and reviewed the concerns as detailed in his document. Tocchio mentioned that he made a public docs request on Dec. 9tn which is still outstanding and town has 10 days to respond but he would like those docs so he can meet with his own acoustics experts. Tocchio also requested a four week delay in the hearings due to holidays and, until they receive requested docs to allow them time to meet with their own experts. Moore reiterated that it is Planning Board that will be making the decision—not Mr. Tocchio or the audience—Board will not have a sound meter to see who can applaud the loudest. This is going to be a very difficult decision for Board to make but when Board is satisfied that they have enough information,they will close public hearing, deliberate and make a decision —it is not going to matter if Mr. Tocchio understands, what matters that Board understands. Tocchio noted that they would also like the documents so they can ask intelligent questions. Henderson noted that applicant would be opposed to a four week delay. Planning Board Administrator noted, for the record,that as of this date, a public documents request has not been received by the Planning Board Office. Among other points in his document, Tocchio addressed: his opinion that a"For Profit"is not allowed as TTOR is operating as a public trustee and requested a copy of the title abstract to ascertain if title is as stated and, stated opinion that it is incumbent on Planning Board to ask more questions; Tocchio contends there is a discrepancy in turbine height measurements and height to nacelle and that applicant has not demonstrated under 19.3.3.1 that the 60'additional height (above 350') is needed; that there are residences within the 410' of the tower site; that the lines on the southerly and northerly are not fixed; asked that the applicant be required to make a presentation on compliance with other Fish and Wildlife Service criteria; Hingham Highway Dept. should be consulted and comments should be solicited from Town of Hingham about adequacy of Turkey Hill Lane and Turkey Hill Road for this project which also goes through an Historic District and about emergency response from Hingham; applicant has not shown (19.4.1.1) that siting and proposed mitigation minimizes visual impact on character of neighborhoods and communities; as recently as a few weeks ago, TTOR sent affirmation that Weir River Farm land would be protected forever. Town Counsel offered opinion that this is not land owned by the Commonwealth or by a city or town and to the extent that there has been an assertion made that land owned by TTOR is equivalent to land owned by the Commonwealth or a city or town is incorrect and he has not seen any legal authority supporting Tocchio's use theory. Town Counsel also looked at the issue of site control and the assertion that the applicant has failed to establish site control as required pursuant to 19. 3.2 on the basis of alleged lack of authority by TTOR to do this kind of project on the basis of its articles of organization and believes that this is a fundamental misinterpretation of 19.3.2 which is about the ownership interests of the applicant and the owner of the property and whether they have sufficient ownership interest in order to construct and operate the project—it is not about interpreting their articles of organization as to proper purposes of the organization—Town Counsel disagrees fundamentally with the concept that the alleged lack of authority in the articles of organization can constitute a lack of site control under 19.3.2— this is a clearly erroneous concept. Attorney Henderson noted that TTOR's General Counsel concurs almost exactly with Town Counsel and that,with respect to lot lines, the 81X plan was recorded to the Registry of Deeds on I l/16/10 and there is no question that this is one large parcel. Dr. Stephen Shoemaker, 275 East St.,Hingham: asked if the Planning Board is willing to ask if TTOR are willing to volunteer to honor the new height guidelines the Planning Board is considering to adopt in the future? Moore replied- Planning Board has no new guidelines—AEC is working on changes which may include height—but there currently are no changes. Changes would have to go through Planning Board vote,public hearing,Town Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 11 of 12 December 15,2010 Meeting vote and Attorney General approval if passed at Town Meeting and, applicant has filed their application under the existing bylaw, so even if there were changes in the future, applicant has the right to build under the existing bylaw. Shoemaker asked if TTOR will make a commitment that there will not be any additional turbines on this property in the future. Sloane replied that there are no plans at this time but cannot make a commitment for 100 years from now. Shoemaker noted that reference to"large scale" here and"farm scale" elsewhere,makes the point that overlooking Weir River Farm,the applicant has not produced any alternative analysis with respect to other less offensive options. Samuelson noted smaller turbines are more detrimental in terms of noise and flicker. Julie Dale,40 Turkey Hill Lane,Hingham: TTOR mailing in Nov. described the site as being not pristine and having a history of industrial use—that is not where this turbine is going—it is going in Whitney Hill Woods—they are going to clear and excavate these woods to put in a turbine with a 450'paved road —she is in these woods every single day—water pours down that hill—it is icy right now—last spring,the rail trail completely washed out— TTOR deceived them into thinking this turbine was going on top of Turkey Hill—this is not an industrial site—this site is pristine—letter she received from TTOR on 11/24, had nothing about their decision to change their focus to wind energy, all they talked about was preserving land forever—they are going to take this beautiful land away from the public and that is not right—she asks the Board, as human beings to consider the impact this will have on those who live there and love this place. Moore explained what closing a public hearing means—no more questions or submissions. James Gruver, 16 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: Asked—they did not have time to review docs—what are they to do? Board has responsibility to give them time so they can review and ask questions. Moore reiterated that Board has been transparent but Board has to make the decision,not the public -while Board wants everyone to observe,ask and submit—Board has to decide when they have received enough information to begin to deliberate and then to move forward to deliberation. Attorney Henderson noted that this entity will not be tax exempt—it is a for profit entity that will be subject to income taxes and real estate taxes and there is no basis for thinking it will not be taxed-it will be subject to taxes. Samuelson suggested that this is a sticky issue because the Board cannot be put in the situation of appearing that the permit was"for sale", yet zoning bylaw clearly states that Board is empowered to consider economic benefit or detriment to the community—this is a conundrum. Member Healey Dippold noted that the reality is-the permit is not for sale. She requested that Barnes provide an analysis of specific addresses(40 Turkey Hill Lane., 275,236 East St., 3 Pheasant Run,231 Leavitt and, Tocchio's clients)with respect to noise and flicker to provide a greater comfort level to public concerns and, she recommended holding the hearing open until this analysis is received as well as any information TTOR feel they need to submit with regard to the paving issue. Tocchio again requested four weeks to get documents and engage their own consultants to conduct mirror analysis. Healey Dippold commented that she is not talking about having another long set of hearings. Modzelewski noted that he and Barnes reviewed data provided by the applicant—they do not have their own data—so TTOR data would be required. Menge replied —with respect to those addresses- in conducting TTOR analysis, they selected the closest locations,the worst case locations and, all the locations just mentioned are further away than those in their analysis—since sound levels drop off with distance,noise impacts will be reduced at those locations and, given the significant margins shown at the residential areas for any potential impacts in regards to State requirements there is no chance they will come close to any violations of State Standards at any of those further locations. Andrew Strehle,231 Leavitt St.,Hingham: suggested they are ignoring the straight valley that runs between his home and the tower—the houses that are closer are behind hills. Menge noted that given the turbine height—they don't see the variations in sound levels with changes in terrain—there is less variation with distance,valleys and hills and the assessment did account for the shielding effects of the global terrain but there is not a lot of variation associated with that. Healey Dippold asked Barnes if he would agree that it is fair to say that to the extent that any of the properties she cited are farther away from the property listed on that previous chart,that the decibel projection would be lower than the worst case scenario for the farthest away property which is less than one? Barnes replied that it is representative—all else being equal,the further away you get from the source, sound will drop off—if there are significant reflective surfaces, it could increase. The model shown in the original report— there are some areas to the NW of the turbine where noise drops off faster, otherwise it is fairly uniform as you move away from the tower. Healey Dippold would still prefer information with respect to the paving of the road and the shadow flicker. Planning Board Meeting APPROVED MINUTES 12 of 12 December 15,2010 Joseph Joyce, 141 CJC Hwy.,Hingham: Is possible to get an actual physical simulation? Moore replied that the Board has tried this in the past with very bad experiences so the Board has chosen to go with modeling and peer review by experts. Stephen Andrus, P.E. —GZA,Providence Office: with regards to paving the road and Modzelewski's request to regrade the road he requests that the stormwater not be redone at this point as it has to be done again after the geotechnical and foundation design and impervious area will change again—he would request that they be allowed to make all those changes once. Healey Dippold asked Modzelewski if he has enough data—notwithstanding the paving issue-to assist the Board with site monitoring with respect to drainage—Modzelewski believes he does and that we generally ask applicants to meet existing runoff conditions post-construction—it is easy for applicant to hit that target with a pervious surface but now that it is going to a percentage more impervious, it might require a somewhat larger detention basin but it is entirely doable. Andrew Strehle,231 Leavitt St.,Hingham: re: 20'retaining wall—how will reducing grade to 9.5%impact the height of the wall? Andrus replied that they can make some changes to the driveway and shift the crane assembly area to the east. If he left the crane assembly area and pad where it was, they would propose a 10'retaining wall in that area—and he feels they can adjust things without changing the height and,the holly growth is approx. 700'to the east of the proposed tower area and will not be effected. Joseph Joyce, 141 CJC Hwy.,Hingham: Is there any change of reverberation against the water tower? Menge replied that there is not significant reverberation off a round structure. James Gruver, 16 Great Rock Rd.,Hingham: Great Rock Rd. is in a rocky cove. Asked if Board would request addition information for this location with a .3 ground factor now,before the turbine is built rather than waiting until after it is built and shutting it down if noise exceeds state levels? Loria replied that they were already requested to look at .5 and they looked at.5 and now they are being requested to look at a different number. Loria added that the location of the turbine to the nearest receptors is primarily woods,not paved surface. Modzelewski noted that sound consultant Barnes has given verbal opinion—suggested Board leave hearing open to accept Barnes' written opinion. MOTION: By Member Ivimey to close the public hearing SECOND: Member Hannon Member Healey Dippold thought there would be no harm to leave the public hearing open to receive Barnes' material and written submission. Member Samuelson stated that he has listened to the objections to the turbines and is empathetic, is concerned about the benefits to Cohasset but, the Board still has to evaluate this application against the bylaw and does not think more discovery will help him make a decision. Samuelson also added that if the Board were to deny this application and it were appealed,the Board would have no ability to impose any conditions on it whereas an approval with stringent conditions that represented the strong feelings that residents have provides better control than an appeal. Samuelson leans towards closing the public hearing. Member Hannon thinks the Board is at the point of beating a dead horse—he leans towards closing the hearing. Member Brewer thinks the Board has a lot of information and is fine with closing the public hearing. Member Moore,while he is torn about this and has tried to give everyone a chance to speak at the hearing and,while he understands the issues very well,he does not think additional information will make a difference for him. VOTE: 5- 1 MOTION CARRIES Henderson to provide Site Plan Review extension to January 20`h MOTION: By Member Ivimey to reconvene for deliberation on January 12,2011 at 8:00 P.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 6-0 MOTION CARRIES MOTION: By Member Ivimey to adjourn at 12:50 A.M. SECOND: Member Brewer VOTE: 5-0 MOTION CARRIES NEXT REGULAR MEETING: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 12 , 2011 AT 7:00 P.M. MINUTES APPROVED: JEAN HEALEY DIPPOLD, CLERK DATE: JANUARY 26,2011