One of the largest businesses in town is working toward going green. Decas Cranberry Company in South Carver has proposed installing a test tower to measure the wind on the property in an effort to determine whether a wind turbine would be a viable future energy source for the company.

The initial project proposal -to see if a full site plan review would be necessary in order to erect an anemometer tower that would allow for accurate wind measurement- raised concerns from abutters Jim and Cara Dahill, who own the private company Firefly Inc., an agricultural flying service that utilizes helicopters. It has also drawn concern from Planning Board member Bryan Lauzon.

Decas plans to rent the 175-foot tall tower at a cost of $46,000.

Since the FAA does not govern private heliports, clearances that are necessary for public heliports do not apply.

The proposed tower would be located within 2,000 feet of Firefly's heliport. Google Earth puts the Firefly landing site at approximately 1,900 feet from the heliport. Jim Dahill disagreed with that number.

According to the FAA Web site, heliport design standards require the following for public facilities: a final approach and takeoff area (FATO) with a length and width or diameter that is at least one and a half times the overall length of the design helicopter; a safety area surrounding the FATO that is the greater of one third times the main rotor diameter of the design helicopter or 10 feet; and a load bearing portion that is centered within the FATO. If the entire FATO is not load bearing and is delineated as a touch down and lift off area, it is required to be least one and a half times the undercarriage length or width, whichever is greater, of the design helicopter. At least one clear 8:1 approach surface to the FATO, centered along an approach/takeoff path, is also required.

Architect Stephen Kelleher, who represents Decas, said questions that arose in initial discussions have been answered. He said the proposed test tower does not violate airspace requirements, according to the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission. The property is currently used as a MedFlight staging area, and Kelleher said there is not an issue with the tower as far as MedFlight is concerned because just a 100-foot clearance is required.

Although a determination has yet to be made of exactly how large a turbine would be needed to make the proposal successful, Kelleher said it would most likely be similar to the same model that is currently located at Massachusetts Maritime Academy in Buzzard's Bay. The Fuhrlander 1500 turbine would be 353 tall from the ground (or 443 feet above sea level).

A 400-foot fall zone would be necessary.

Planning Board member Ed Fuller had concerns that there was no true clear fall zone laid out in the plans for the turbine. Board Chairman Will Sinclair reminded him that the board was currently just looking at the test tower proposal.

Lauzon said he felt it was critical to know if the project was feasible. He said he wanted a rough idea of where the turbine would be located and what size it would be, specifically since it would impact the surrounding businesses.

Both Lauzon and Firefly's Dahill said they couldn't understand why Decas would want to put money into the 175-foot test tower without knowing if the project could be completed. Sinclair said it would be the company's decision to spend the money and that he didn't want confusion between the current request and any future hearings relating to the project.

"They are trying to circumvent a full blown hearing," Lauzon said. He said he would vote to see a full site plan review and public hearing.

Fuller again questioned how an actual wind turbine could be installed if there appears to be little room available. Currently, the fall zone necessary for the tower is not a clear zone and contains some structures.

Lauzon said he is concerned about the neighboring heliport and the amount of space needed for the takeoff and landing zone. He said while the project has merits, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed. He said he wants to hear everything, "not just pieces and bits." Lauzon said he read that a 5,000-foot clearance is between where the helicopters takeoff and land and the tower.

Planning Board member Allan Kingsbury questioned where Lauzon got that figure. Lauzon said it was contained in the previous paperwork submitted by the company's engineer. Kelleher countered that the 5,000-foot clearance was for public airports, like Plymouth, not a heliport, which only services vertical lift aircraft.

Not convinced, Lauzon cited a recent incident in which a helicopter hit guide wires on a 734-foot radio tower and crashed, killing all four people on board in Aurora, Ill., recently. According to reports, the tower was clearly marked on aviation maps.

Kingsbury cited letters regarding MedFlight, which currently utilizes the property, stating there is not a problem, and he felt that aircraft that do not land on the property have less impact. Lauzon said the board is making a dreadful mistake assuming that.

"Tom Walsh and the fire chief checked with MedFlight, and they don't have a problem with it," Kingsbury said.

"Well they're not the owners of the business next door that have to fly in and out of there on a daily basis," Lauzon retorted. "This board's purview is to look at all reasonable data and act on requests form any abutters. If we're going to do this, I think the abutters need to be addressed."

He said because the board is looking to have an informal hearing, it is trying to circumvent comments from the abutters.

"If this board doesn't see fit to do so, then shame on us," he said.

Fuller asked Lauzon to settle down and proceeded to say that the board had responded to the abutter, visited the site, and also made note of a cell tower that is located a lot closer to the abutter than the proposed test tower.

"We've delayed this a couple of times to ask the questions. Mass Aeronautical, the FAA, Homeland Security; everybody has been asked," Fuller said. "I think we've addressed the abutters' concerns, and I see nothing in any of the correspondence that suggests there is a problem with this test tower. I don't think that we should be told that we should be ashamed of ourselves. I think we've done absolutely everything we have been asked to do at this point."

He then suggested they vote on the issue.

Jim Dahill said the tower originally mentioned to him was 140 feet, not 175. He also referenced the turbine not having enough clearance. He asked the board to look at the whole project, but Sinclair said the current focus is solely on what is in front of the board: the test tower.

Fuller said the original number for the height proposal was 175 and didn't know where the 140-foot number came from that Dahill had previously stated. Dahill apologized and said there were so many numbers thrown out that he could have been mistaken.

Sinclair said he also has questions concerning the turbine, but if a business wants to spend the money to install the test tower, it has the right to do so.

"If you or somebody else would like to invest $50, $60, $70, $100,000 to measure wind on your property, when no one knows whether or not you could put a wind turbine on there, that's your money and your prerogative to try to be green and energy efficient and try to maximize your benefit of wind power," he said.

He said he didn't want to look at the final project without first looking at what was before the board for a decision.

"I understand that, but why do something that you're not going to be able to achieve?" Dahill questioned.

Cara Dahill said she was concerned that she had not been notified of the proposed test tower and only heard about the proposal while watching a previous meeting on television. She said her main concern is that if a larger structure is installed, it would impact her business, which has been on the site for quite some time. She asked if she would be notified when and if the turbine was proposed. Sinclair said there would be a full site plan review and a public hearing.

She addressed Kelleher and said no one ever sat down and talked with them about the plan for the turbine. She said they had to go in a roundabout way to get their information. The aforementioned cell tower was also erected without informing abutters, Cara said. Kingsbury said he agreed the proximity of the cell tower would scare him.

Lauzon said he understands that because the heliport is private the project, it does not need to follow the same guidelines. Still, he felt it should be required to do so for safety reasons.

According to Massachusetts Aviation Commission (MAC) representative Klark Jessen, it is not within his agency's purview to regulate such issues. He said MAC works under the umbrella of the Executive Office of Transportation.

"We at the state level, Massachusetts Aviation Commission, act as liaisons with the FAA," he said. "The Executive Office of Transportation registers and inspects all of the public air facilities, and, in addition, private air landing and heliports file registrations with MAC. However, we have no jurisdiction over those facilities. The bottom line is, at the state level, we do not have any jurisdiction over these circumstances."

Jessen said what MAC did not know is, that despite the fact the heliport is private, does the FAA have the right to regulate air space in that area?

"We just don't know," he said. "I'm assuming this type of circumstance has come up before. We exist at the state level and fall within the federal regulations. That's a decision the FAA must make."

Dahill questioned whether the board had asked for pilot input regarding the project. He said Firefly is the busiest heliport in the state.

He cited Channel 4, State Police, MedFlight, a flight school, his operation and people who fly in and out of the country as those who land at his heliport.

"I don't care about what the general office says, I want to know how the pilots feel," he said. "I'm more concerned about the people who fly around me. I'm not the one who's going to hit it, not me; it's going to be somebody else. I'm looking out for my fellow pilots and people I work with. We've got the busiest heliport in the state of Massachusetts," he said.

Planning Board Sheila Sullivan-Jardim said Emergency Services Director Tom Walsh emphasized that MedFlight is on the property as a courtesy from Decas. If circumstances change, MedFlight may no longer use Decas as a landing zone due to geographical alterations.

"Decas has provided that as a courtesy to the town and to the residents of our area. If their project was put at risk because of MedFlight, it would be perfectly in their purview to remove the permission of MedFlight," Jardim said.

She said not registering a heliport as public is the business owners choice.

She said she feels MAC had done its due diligence with respect to public facilities, but private facilities are not in their purview for whatever reason.

"While safety does have to be first, we should be avoiding these other issues that are not related to the safety of the individuals around that area," she said.

After a few heated exchanges, Fuller said all concerns raised by Lauzon and the Dahills would be answered in a public hearing should the anemometer determine that indeed the site is suited to a turbine.

Jim Peters, spokesperson for the FAA New England region, said if local zoning allows landing zones on private properties, there is still a requirement that heliport property owners file with the FAA.

"Even though the paperwork claims we have no oversight, we still need to have it on file for aeronautical maps," he said.

As far as the wind project, he said the FAA assumes that all projects are initially judged to be unsafe to aviation. But there is usually no need for FAA involvement with projects less than 200 feet tall.

Peters said specific to the turbine, the FAA would require an application to conduct an aeronautical study to determine the location and height of the turbine project and to determine whether it would be a hazard. If the turbine were determined to be a hazard, the owner would be directed to install mitigation measures that could include lighting on the turbine and specific painting.

"We always provide a menu on how to mitigate the hazards so that it is safe to navigation," he said. He added that the FAA criteria for projects as Decas with relation to Firefly, Inc. is to determine whether a helicopter could exit and enter the air space safely.

In a 4-1 vote, with Lauzon as the dissenting member, the board granted a waiver to Decas pursuant to section 3650 of the town's zoning bylaw regarding wind energy facilities. The provision allows the board to waive the need for a special permit for the project.