Planning Board tackles turbine issues

In a packed Town Hall auditorium, the continued public hearing on the proposed twin wind turbine project off Route 3A began to give residents a better picture of the breadth and impact of the project. The nearly three-hour meeting was a mix of technical information, questions and answers and airing of resident concerns.

The 100-plus audience was well informed and it was clear through many of the comments made residents had done their research on turbines. Dozens spoke on myriad concerns from noise to shadow flicker to the impact on property values.

It was clear that Monday night's hearing would be the second session of what could turn out to be many public hearing sessions on the proposed Graham Waste wind turbine project. The wind turbine project public hearing opened nearly three months ago on Sept. 8. Subsequent public hearing dates were postponed at the request of the applicant in order to collect more data.

"This board takes our responsibility very seriously. Believe me, we are very serious and we are very thorough and we are nowhere near done," said Planning Board chairman Moore toward the end of the meeting. He added he was heartened by the turnout and public input. "Everything said tonight will be taken into consideration and we have a tough decision to make."

Moore set out the agenda early on in order to limit discussion to certain topics: height, wildlife, lighting, and shadow flicker. Moore promised from the outset that residents wanting to be heard or with questions would get ample time to do so.

"There are other concerns, very real concerns but we can't do everything in one night," said Moore. The next public hearing scheduled for Monday, Dec. 15 at 7:15p.m. is set to include discussion on the noise impacts of the project.

The project application, put forth by a private developer, CCI-Energy, is proposing the installation of two 1.65-megawatt sized wind turbines sited on the Graham Waste Services site off Route 3A. Jim Sweeney, president of CCI-Energy, made a brief presentation to re-introduce the project before the discussion on the technical aspects began.

"We want to make sure we are very thorough in everything we do. We want this project to be a win-win or we don't want to do it at all," said Sweeney.

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.

One of the primary concerns in the first public hearing was the applicant's oversight of the to-be-built 200-unit Avalon complex. Sweeney said one of the major changes was the siting of one of the turbines. The turbine sited closest to the Avalon property has been relocated approximately 900 feet from its original location to lessen the impact on the future development. The new turbine site is supposed to decrease the sound and shadow flicker impacts on the apartment complex, said Sweeney.

Two manufacturers - Canadian-based AAER and Danish company Vestas - make the 1.65-megawatt turbine models that generally have the same specs (same height and size).

"We have two turbines in mind so one doesn't think they have the corner on the market," Sweeney said.

Height

Envisioning a 460-foot structure along Route 3A is not an easy task. The town's consulting engineer John Modzelewski was concerned the public and the planning board would not have a clear picture of the size of the turbines. Although the developer created several photo simulations of the turbines from several points in town, including nearby residences, Modzelewski was skeptical of the computer-generated simulations.

"I want to get a better handle on the scale of the turbines and how they will affect the viewscape around town," said Modzelewski.

The hub, or nacelle, where the blades originate will soar 100-meters, or 328-feet above the ground and the blades will extend 41-meters off of that hub making the tip of the structure 462-feet above ground.

To offer residents and the Planning Board an as true to life simulation of the turbine's scale, balloons will be placed at the height of the turbines beginning Friday, Dec. 12 and continue through the weekend during daylight hours.

Some residents asked if the noise and light associated with the turbine could be simulated at the same time, both the Planning Board and the developer agreed there were too many challenges with those type of simulations. Other residents wanted a balloon the exact size of the turbine's hub. Still others asked if a three-dimensional scale model to show the size of the turbines in comparison to other buildings and landscape would be helpful to envision the size of the turbines.

"This may be good, it's not perfect, but at least we'll be able to see the height," said Moore decisively.

Wildlife and avian impact

With the turbines sited next to a capped landfill, which is already considered a disturbed habitat, and its proximity to Route 3A, Modzelewski did not think there was reason to be concerned for the four-legged and walking wildlife. He did have some concerns with the avian impacts, but his concerns were assuaged by through an interview with Hull Municipal Light, who reported they have had little problems with bird deaths.

"The wildlife issue is one that I think the test has been met," said Modzelewski. "I'd like to put this issue to bed, or have the public enlighten me."

The applicant also received necessary approval from the US Wildlife and Fisheries, which certifies there are no endangered or threatened species in the area.

A resident pointed out the proposed turbine location is between three conservation lands - Turkey Hill, Whitney-Thayer Woods and Wompatuck State Park - and across the street from a bird sanctuary, all havens for birds and bats.

Planning Board member Clark Brewer asked if for some reason a problem with birds developed with the turbine, what could be done to address the problem?

Jim Sweeney, president of CCI-Energy, the project developer, said if he believed there would be an issue, they probably wouldn't install the turbines.

Another resident called on the board to give more thought to the avian issues, especially in light of the bird sanctuary across the street.

The issue was tabled.

Lighting

A single red LED light will flash from the hub of the turbine primarily to alert planes of the towering structure. The light will flash upward, but can be seen from the surrounding area.

Jim Sweeney, developer and president of CCI-Energy, said he is requesting the most up to date lighting technology for the turbines.

Avalon vice president of development Scott Dale asked if additional screens would be put up to lesson the lighting impact on both the Avalon apartments and other surrounding buildings.

Sweeney indicated the light will have some screening to block the light from shining on nearby residences.

"The latest lighting has the minimum affect on the neighborhood," said Sweeney.

Planning Board member Stuart Ivimey said he has looked at the light on top of the Hull II turbine and did not the harsh blinking. He would rather a more gradual blinking.

Besides the two lights on the nacelles the project will add no other lighting to the area. The few above ground utility poles will not have lighting on them.

Modzelewski asked the applicant to submit an up-to-date site plan showing the proposed location of the poles and whether they will be below or above ground.

Shadow flicker

Opening up the discussion by saying the date is "still a work in progress," the town's consulting engineer John Modzelewski opened the door to many questions from the Planning Board and the audience.

Shadow flicker is a strobing effect produced when the sun passes behind the blades of the turbine - and it could potentially affect the daily lives of residents and business within 1000-meters of the turbines during certain times of the year.

The applicant has submitted two reports from separate consulting firms on shadow flicker. Both used a computer program to determine how many hours there will be of shadow flicker each year. Modzelewski said there were some questions about how the two firms got their results and whether they were conservative enough.

There are several unknowns in the process, clouds and wind direction, being the two major variables.

"The methodology still has to be reviewed by my consultant," said Modzelewski. "I think we should look at the worst case scenario until convinced otherwise."

Planning Board member Stuart Ivimey wondering what, if any, different there would be in the shadow flicker effect if the turbines were 80-meters high. "How much of the shadow effect disappears?"

The consulting firm, Emergent Energy, agreed to run a model for an 80-meter tower to compare to their results for the 100-meter tower.

Part of the problem the Planning Board faces, as noted by member Charles Samuelson, is there is no empirical measurement criteria in the wind energy bylaw. "There no measurable standard for flicker."

The bylaw only dictates there are "no significant shadowing or flicker impacts...this effect [should not] have significant adverse impact on adjacent uses through siting."

The only industry standard for shadow flicker comes from a ruling in Germany where they determined more than 30 hours per year would be adverse, said Jesse Gossett of Emergent Energy.

Alternative Energy Committee chairman Andrew Willard asked for a clarification on whether the hours of shadow flicker was a hard shadow or a flickering effect. The consultant said another model would have to be run to figure that out.

Representatives from Sunrise Assisted Living and the currently under construction Old Colony Square (next to the MBTA station) said the flicker effect could affect the daily lives of their residents. Geoffrey Wolf, Senior Vice President of Connell Real Estate & Development Co., whose affiliate Connell Cohasset Greenbush LLC is building now Old Colony Square, said it was important to give the data context.

"Twenty hours a year doesn't mean anything, but 30 minutes a day for three and a half months a year does," said Wolf.

Sunrise Assisted Living was concerned about the health effects a flicker from the turbine may have on their already fragile elderly residents.

Once the additional studies and data requested are submitted to the Planning Board, they will revisit the issue.