News
The blustery meeting, so to speak, had many voices of opposition as the Planning Board gathered information on the project application.
The meeting atmosphere got tense at various points during the evening. On separate occasions, the Planning Board nearly stopped the meeting altogether when emotions ran high in both the audience and in members of the board. One of the Planning Board members called for a short recess within the first 30 minutes of the meeting after a resident began heatedly questioning a member of the Alternative Energy Committee (the recess was not taken). Then, twice later, when outbursts of applause made it difficult to hear, Planning Board chairman Al Moore said he would stop the meeting and continue to another day.
In between the high emotion of the crowded, standing room only meeting, there was discussion of the balloon demonstration done in December and the noise impacts study. The next public hearing will be held on Monday, Feb. 2.
With few exceptions, the speakers at the public hearing were largely opposed to the project. The proposed two 1.65-megawatt wind turbines will have noise, shadow flicker and visual impacts, particularly in the area immediately surrounding the development, including residences. The to-be-built Avalon apartments, the Sunrise Assisted Living facility, the Rose Hill Development are in the area that will feel the most effect.
A few speakers accused the planning board of having a predisposition toward the project. The Planning Board denied the accusation and explained they were in the information-gathering phase. Any deliberation or decision would be made after several more public hearings.
"I think you are mistaken. We are not predispositioned toward the applicant," said Moore, adding the forum was not the arena for discussion on the merits of the wind bylaw. "We have a certain duty to hear the applicant. We're not trying to be adversarial to the applicant as much as we aren't trying to be adversarial to the townspeople."
Planning Board vice chairman Stuart Ivimey expressed frustration at some comments that seemed to suggest the Planning Board was ready to make a decision - and the decision would be to approve.
"We are in the information-gathering phase. I suspect the vast majority here want the conclusion...my frustration is we are trying to find out the facts here," said Ivimey. "There is a sense of panic that we're going to snap our fingers and approve this project...take a deep breath, relax and let's focus on the data."
Balloons
What was eventually termed a "failure" by Planning Board chairman Al Moore, the balloon demonstration was never able to get fully off the ground. The three-day, Saturday to Monday (Dec. 13, 14, 15), endeavor was never able to get the weather balloons higher than 300-feet off the ground - about 150-feet short of the actual height of the proposed turbines (from ground to blade tip).
"The demonstration proved there was good wind on the site," said project applicant and CCI-Energy president, Jim Sweeney. To supplement the failed balloon test, the applicant will be providing photo simulations of the wind turbines from various locations around town will be brought forth at the next meeting.
During this discussion, Sweeney said there is serious consideration being given to moving the turbine that would be situated closer to Route 3A.
"To a certain extent, people got some feeling of the height," said John Modzelewski, the town's consulting civil engineer.
The balloons, even not at the proposed height of the turbines, could be seen around town as far as Sandy Beach.
Moore expressed concern at not being able to fully grasp the visual impact of the project on the town.
"I'm concerned there are many impacts on this project, but the visual impact will affect the most people. I don't want to short shrift it...it's important to get a handle on the visual, I don't want to give up just because the wind was blowing," said Moore. "There is a sense with all of use that we need to get a handle (on the size and visual impact)."
Several residents spoke out about some of the problems that occurred during the balloon demonstration.
· Maureen McCarthy, Pleasant Street, said the balloons which were approximately four feet in diameter were not an accurate representation of the turbine hub, which is approximately 16-feet at its widest berth. "It's such a trick to the public...one can't truly grasp the size of this beast."
· Jim Huse, Cedar Acres Lane, asked what the planning board saw as a detrimental visual impact. "It seems to me this is going to have a huge visual impact on the town, it might not be appropriate for the town, site."
· Elizabeth Durant, North Main Street, was one of the few voices that spoke in favor of the turbines. "It would be such a privilege for Cohasset to have windmills."
· Jeff Patterson of Sanctuary Pond and Planning Board member Stuart Ivimey had a brief argument when Patterson pointed out the bylaw calls for the turbines visual effects to be minimized. Ivimey challenged Patterson in asking him if the limit was 75-meters, would he be happy? Patterson did not get the chance to fully answer before Moore recognized another citizen.
· Sean Mullaney, Jerusalem Road, requested clarification about how the planning board is evaluating the project and if they had the tools under the law to deny the project.
· Paul Ognibene, 44 Beach St., asked the planning board to consider another test to better judge the height of the turbines. He offered hovering a helicopter at the proposed height as one idea. The developer, Jim Sweeney, said the photo renderings would do a "much better job" in representing what the turbines will look like.
· Melissa Schorr, Cedar Street, said she was unsatisfied with the professionalism of the balloon demonstration. "It was done in a shoddy way," providing examples as the small sign placed on 3A to notify the public of the demonstration and the fact the balloon never got to the actual proposed height.
The Planning Board will review the photo simulations and decide where to go from there as far as the visual impacts at the next public hearing.
Noise
The meeting has gone on for nearly two hours before the main event - a presentation on the noise impacts -came before the board.
One of the stipulations of the wind energy bylaw, and state regulations, is any new source of noise will not increase ambient noise levels by 10 decibels or more. In addition, the source cannot produce a pure tone, like fire engine sirens or the whistling of a steam from a vent.
The town hired a noise specialist to look at the applicant's study: Jim Barnes of Acentech based in Cambridge.
At the end of the meeting, it still wasn't clear whether the project is meeting the state noise guidelines. Sweeney said they were seeking waivers from several surrounding properties including Hingham Lumber, Avalon and Sunrise Assisted Living. The Planning Board told Sweeney, the president of CCI-Energy, there is no provision for waivers in the bylaw or state regulations and would not be accepted.
"We want to make sure they are happy," said Sweeney.
There needs to be some clarification of the bylaw as to whether it applies to inhabited residences, a residential district or a property line. Both Sunrise Assisted Living and Avalon properties are zoned for industrial use.
The town's noise consultant, Jim Barnes noted the latest wind turbine models are significantly quieter than turbines erected 10 years ago.
"The new style has a broad-based swoosh sound," said Barnes.
The Planning Board requested the applicant provide a sound analysis for the same five points they specifically looked at for the shadow flicker study, which included Sanctuary Pond Road and Forest Avenue.
"Make the study relate to those specific neighborhoods, that's where the rubber meets the road," said Ivimey.
Planning Board member Charles Samuelson said if the project is approved and the turbines erected, the developer is taking the risk the sound will be greater than 10dB.
"If (the noise) is outside the bounds, the town is not going to allow the turbines to be turned on," Samuelson said.
As the meeting wrapped up, Paul Barry, the owner of the property where the turbines are proposed, said he was more than disappointed in the tone of the meeting.
"We're going to beat this to death when we all know its needed in this country," said Barry. "I think this is the right thing to do. I'm disgusted at the way it is being approached. If I had my way I'd stop the project."
The Planning Board is continuing the public hearing on the Cohasset Heights wind turbine project on Monday, February, 2 at 7:30p.m.
Turbine project in brief
The application is a landmark project as it is the first for the town and the first application under the Wind Energy Conversion Facility bylaw passed at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting.
The project application, put forth by a private developer, CCI-Energy, is proposing the installation of two AAER 1.65-megawatt sized wind turbines sited off Route 3A on the hill behind Graham Waste Services and Hingham Lumber. The project is being called the Cohasset Heights wind turbine project.
Jim Sweeney, president of CCI-Energy, is the primary name on the applications.
The turbines will be 100-meters (328-feet) tall from the ground to the hub, or nacelle, where the blades originate. The three blades will extend 41-meters off of that hub making the tip of the structure 462-feet (141-meters) above ground.
Items on the docket for future meetings
· Discussion on the re-location of the turbine closest to Route 3A. The developers said moving the siting of the turbines could minimize some of the turbine's impact. The turbine's base is proposed to be moved about 350 feet.
· Due to the movement of the turbines, the flicker and noise studies will have to be repeated.
· Presentation of photo simulations of the proposed turbines. The simulations will compare the size of the proposed turbines to the size of Hull Wind II.
· Additional noise studies for specific locations/neighborhoods around the proposed siting.
· Possible mitigation measures to minimize possibility for ice throw.
· Discussion on how emergency personnel could access the tower in the case of fire or medical situation during routine maintenance.
| < prev | next > |