The Zoning Board of Adjustment says it needs more information before approving a variance that would allow for the construction of a small wind energy turbine on a property bordering Lake Winnipesaukee.

Members of the Zoning Board voted to continue the application made by Richard Lavalliere and in the mean time, have the applicant hire an independent licensed engineer ascertain potential noise level and the amount of energy production that will be done on the site.

"I think we need an engineer before getting to the technical aspect of this," ZBA Chairman Andy Howe said. "I've been sitting on this board for a while and this is really an unusual application."

Lavalliere wants to construct a small wind energy turbine on his property at 62 Belknap Point Road. The plans call for the turbine to be built on the far end of the property closest to the road, reaching 52 feet into the air. But the town has restrictions of how high the tower can be and where it can be built.

According to the new small wind-energy-system ordinance adopted last March, the height of a tower cannot exceed 35 feet above the tree canopy nor can it exceed a maximum height of 150 feet. Lavalliere said he needs a variance because the site plan calls for the wind system to be placed within the minimum setback from edge of the property.

The state created a model ordinance for towns to adopt, in which Gilford did, but the town decided to change the setback ratio to the maximum distance for liability reasons. Instead of the 1.1 times the height of the system, the town adopted the maximum of 1.5 times the height of the system.

"The town picked the maximum because there are a lot of unknowns," said Dave Andrade, building inspector and code enforcement officer for Gilford. "Through time and education, we might be able to get it lowered."

According to the ordinance, a tower with a height of 38.7 feet would be allowed on the property since the ratio to the lot line meets what the town has set as proper distance from the setback where Lavalliere wants to build.

A tower with a height of 52 feet, which he is proposing, could be placed on his property, but it would have to be located on the area of the property closest to the lake. The property line is wider near the shore (150 feet) than it is in the rear (116 feet), which allows for the taller tower in that area.

Lavalliere's attorney, Regina Nadeau, showed the board an arrangement of photos taken on and around the applicant's property showing where the turbine would be constructed.

"The only abutters who could see it would be the Hickoks," Nadeau said. "They wouldn't see it from their house, just their garage."

Abutter Dick Hickok was present at the meeting, noting that he and Lavalliere are not only neighbors but are good friends. He said that if he had a choice of where the system were to go, he would put it directly behind the garage on Lavalliere's property.

"When I walk out of my house, I will see that turbine and I will hear it," Hickok said. "Noise does bother me. It's undoubtedly going to cost me some money."

Hickok said that he called a real estate broker about the situation and was told that where the turbine is placed could directly hurt the marketability and value of his property.

A small wind energy system of the same model was constructed in Hill recently and is currently in use. Board members discussed the idea of traveling over there to see the turbine in action.

"I would like to see the one in Hill and have someone who could answer questions relative to the application," board member Scott Davis said.

Board members agreed that some testing should be done and a consultant should be present at the meeting to answer any technical questions during the process.

"For the applicant to meet all five criteria of the application, we need more input," Howe said. "I think they have a long ways to go if they want to meet all five."

Howe said he believes it's in the public interest to keep the windmill out of the shoreline.