Planning board hears second plea from wind turbine developer
Patriot Ledger|Kaitlin Keane|January 7, 2010
A developer who failed to garner approval for two large wind turbines off Route 3A is back before the planning board for a second attempt. But project opponents say a newly discovered zoning issue should derail the proposal for good. Developer James Sweeney of CCI Energy proposed the construction of two 450-foot wind turbines last January. After months of contentious hearings, the plan was rejected.
A developer who failed to garner approval for two large wind turbines off Route 3A is back before the planning board for a second attempt. But project opponents say a newly discovered zoning issue should derail the proposal for good. Developer James Sweeney of CCI Energy proposed the construction of two 450-foot wind turbines last January. After months of contentious hearings, the plan was rejected.
But opponents cite newly discovered zoning issue
COHASSET — A developer who failed to garner approval for two large wind turbines off Route 3A is back before the planning board for a second attempt.
But project opponents say a newly discovered zoning issue should derail the proposal for good.
Developer James Sweeney of CCI Energy proposed the construction of two 450-foot wind turbines last January. After months of contentious hearings, the plan was rejected in May when it failed to gain the unanimous approval required to go forward.
Sweeney appealed the rejection to state Land Court, where a judge ordered it back before the planning board for reconsideration.
At the first of the new hearings Wednesday, opponents demanded the …
... more [truncated due to possible copyright] But opponents cite newly discovered zoning issue
COHASSET — A developer who failed to garner approval for two large wind turbines off Route 3A is back before the planning board for a second attempt.
But project opponents say a newly discovered zoning issue should derail the proposal for good.
Developer James Sweeney of CCI Energy proposed the construction of two 450-foot wind turbines last January. After months of contentious hearings, the plan was rejected in May when it failed to gain the unanimous approval required to go forward.
Sweeney appealed the rejection to state Land Court, where a judge ordered it back before the planning board for reconsideration.
At the first of the new hearings Wednesday, opponents demanded the board reject the plan because it violates part of a wind bylaw passed just months before the turbines were proposed.
According the the bylaw, which was approved by town meeting in 2008, no part of a turbine’s “fall zone” can be within a residential area.
But officials recently discovered that Whitney and Thayer Woods, an 800-acre parcel of conservation land next to the turbines, is zoned for residential use.
Opponents say the zoning issue puts the project in direct violation of the bylaw.
But those in favor of the turbines asked planning board members to consider the intent of the provision, which was meant to protect neighborhoods while allowing alternative energy sources.
Kenneth Ingram, an attorney for the developer, told the board that the project has the support of Trustees of Reservations, the nonprofit group that owns the parcel, and said the land will never be developed.
“That’s not what the bylaw is supposed to protect,” Ingram said.
But neighbors who have expressed a number of aesthetic and acoustic concerns about the project called the zoning issue unavoidable.
Rose Hill resident Conrad Langenhagen asked board members not to make the bylaw irrelevant by ignoring crucial provisions.
“Otherwise we might as well crumple them up and throw them all away,” he said.
The meeting was continued to 7 p.m. on Jan. 30.