New issues face wind project; hearing continued to Jan. 20
Credit: By Nancy White, Cohasset Mariner, www.wickedlocal.com 8 January 2010
COHASSET — The CCI-Energy wind turbine project blew back into town for official business on Wednesday night.
Eight months to the day after the Planning Board denied the two-turbine special permit application they convened to determine if modifications made to the application now make it comply with the town’s zoning bylaws.
The application is back for this further consideration on a remand order from Land Court.
The remand hearing, which is for the “limited purpose” of reviewing the modified elements of the application, covered major ground during the just over two-hour meeting (for history of the project, see sidebar).
The first part of the meeting was devoted to the applicant presenting information on the modifications made to the original application. The applicant’s attorney, Kenneth Ingber, led the presentation, which focused on the updated sound study and a setback issue. The second part was devoted to public comment.
The meeting got off to a rocky start when Planning Board chair Al Moore used the gavel to squelch a question from the audience, then read a threatening letter he had received at his home related to the project (see sidebar). However, the remainder of the meeting was largely civil and orderly.
While the Town Hall auditorium was not as packed as it has been at previous public hearings on the project, a strong showing of about 50 people was in attendance.
For the most part, the Planning Board was quiet and listened to both the applicant’s extensive presentation and public comment. They asked very few questions over the course of the meeting.
The public hearing was continued to Wednesday, Jan. 20 at 7:30p.m. Moore said the likely format for the next hearing would have the applicant wrap up the loose ends of the application and answer the board’s outstanding questions. He said it was likely the hearing would close; the board would deliberate and could take a vote on the special permit application that same night.
Among the key information the planning board will deliberate is an updated and, according to the applicant’s attorney Ingber, substantially more conservative sound study.
“We revisited the entire sound study with even more conservative data,” Ingber said, explaining “worse than worst conditions” (middle of the night ambient noise values, wind speed and direction where the turbines would make the most noise, etc.) were used for the estimates.
In addition, the sound study also details a shift in location for both proposed wind turbines in an effort to reduce the noise impacts on the surrounding area.
Ingber said the closest sensitive receptor — the fifth floor of to-be-constructed Avalon apartment complex — registered under the maximum noise level as outlined in the town’s wind turbine bylaw.
“The sound study focuses on the worst case scenario, but that’s not what you get – it’s worst that worse case conditions. What you can expect is actually substantially below that maximum,” Ingber said.
John Modzelewski, the town’s consulting engineer, said his sound expert found the methodology of the applicant’s sound study “reasonable and appropriate.” However, he said there were violations of the maximum sound level at the property lines, but not at actual residences, or “sensitive receptors.” Modzelewski said in some cases the requirement can be relaxed. That determination would lie with the planning board.
The town’s sound engineer agreed with the study’s finding that the ambient noise at nearest sensitive receptors would not exceed the bylaw’s limitations.
Ingber’s description of the sound study’s extremely conservative, “worse than worst case” approach drew some criticism and doubt from Sanctuary Pond Road resident Conrad Langenhagen.
“It still is using the wrong data, it still has the wrong absorption, and it still violates the Mass DEP guidelines at the property line,” Langenhagen said. He and another speaker said the sound data did not use the data specific to the turbine model intended for the project.
Other aspects of the applicant’s modified proposal received criticism from the audience. Several speakers spoke to the inability for the applicant’s proposed ice throw/drop safety measures to work. Others advocated for the Planning Board to stick to the letter of the bylaw when it came to noise and setback. Some questioned if the Planning Board even had discretion when the zoning bylaw was clear-cut.
Hingham attorney Adam Brodsky, who represents 13 Cohasset families, questioned if the Planning Board was even able, legally, to reconsider the application for the project. He said he believed none of the five grounds of denial described in the decision were substantially or materially changes to warrant the re-consideration of the application.
Town Counsel Kim Saillant said she and Brodsky were of quite different opinions, “the five reasons for denial contained within decision having nothing to do with this remand hearing.”
Setback issue
A new issue, something that was not discovered in the initial project application process, has surfaced in regard to the setbacks with the project. The wind bylaw states there must be “laydown area” equal to the height, including the turbines’ blades, and that laydown area must not encroach on a residential area.
Recently it came to the attention of the applicant and the planning board that the Trustees of Reservations’ Whitney and Thayer Woods, the adjacent property to the proposed siting for the turbines, is zoned “Residential C District.” The land also has the designation of “state/municipal/recreation/conservation,” as does the other large swaths of open space in Cohasset, Ingber said.
The laydown area largely falls on property zoned technology/business district, but part of the turbines’ laydown area falls on the Whitney and Thayer Woods property.
Ingber argued the Planning Board needed to take into account the whole picture and not read the bylaw “narrowly.” He said the residential district designation was the default designation when zoning was developed.
“This location is about as remote a location as there is in Cohasset,” Ingber said. “The purpose of the setback is to protect actual residents (and that’s) not applicable here.”
Lori Langenhagen of Sanctuary Pond Road did not agree with Ingber assessment, “the bylaw is there to protect property, not just the people living there.”
Andrew Willard, chairman of the town’s Alternative Energy Committee, the drafters of the wind turbine bylaw, said he was surprised to learn of Whitney and Thayer Woods designation as residential zoning.
“Knowing that now we might have written the bylaw differently. Our intent was to protect homes or dwellings where people lived,” Willard said.
Additionally, the applicant briefly outlined the possible financial benefits to the town of Cohasset and its residents if the project goes through. Ingber said CCI-Energy is working toward creating a green energy program where Cohasset households can buy the energy created by the turbines for their homes. Ingber also said CCI-Energy is committed to negotiating with the town to provide discounted energy to power town buildings, which could result in a 10 to 20 percent annually saving on energy costs.
The CCI-Energy application and all related files are available for review at the Planning Board Office in Town Hall. The public hearing on the wind turbine project proposal will continue on Wednesday, Jan. 20 at 7:30p.m. For more information, contact the Planning Board office at 781-383-3517.
Tags: Wind power, Wind energy
Some possibly related stories:
The copyright of this article is owned by the author or publisher indicated. Its availability here constitutes a "fair use" as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law as well as in similar "fair dealing" exceptions of the copyright laws of other nations, as part of National Wind Watch's effort to advance understanding of the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development. For more information, click here.
