 |
Minutes of Joint Public Hearing with the City Council and Planning Board
November 13, 2008
A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Planning Board was held Wednesday, November 13, 2008 at 6:00 pm in the Council Chambers, 93 Washington Street, Salem, Massachusetts on the Proposed Salem Zoning Ordinance Amendment Section 5-3 for Land-based Wind Energy Facilities. The meeting was posted on November 7 and advertised on October 29th and November 5th by the City Clerk.
City Council Members present: |
|
President Mike Sosnowski, Ward 2 |
Joan B. Lovely, Councillor at Large |
Steven Pinto, Councillor at Large |
Joseph O’Keefe, Sr., Ward 7 |
Arthur Sargent III, Councillor at Large |
Paul Prevey, Ward 6 |
Jerry Ryan, Ward 4 |
Robert McCarthy, Ward 1 |
|
|
Absent: |
|
Jean Pelletier, Ward 3 |
Thomas Furey, Councillor at Large |
Matthew Veno, Ward 5 |
|
|
|
Planning Board Members present: |
|
Chuck Puleo, Chairman |
Pam Lombardini |
John Moustakis |
Tim Kavanaugh |
Tim Ready |
Nadine Hanscom |
Gene Collins |
Christine Sullivan |
City Council President Mike Sosnowski opened the meeting, read the meeting notice and noted the City Councillors who were absent. He introduced the Planning Board members as well as Tom Watkins, who is from the Mayor’s office and the Renewable Energy Task Force.
Tom Watkins explained that this amendment to the zoning ordinance stems from the Mayor’s green efforts for the City. The Renewable Energy Task Force, whose goal is to promote alternative energy, was formed in February 2006. They have been looking for alternative power sources for the city such as solar, geothermal and wind power, as economic benefits for the City of Salem. They are proposing a wind energy facility siting ordinance to help streamline the process for applicants in a constructive way which fosters proper use of wind turbine technology and provides appropriate guidelines. They have been working with the Planning Department, which he commended; Amy Lash took the lead in getting the ordinance’s language together. The ordinance includes height and noise restrictions, lays out
areas of zones in which wind energy facilities are allowed by special permit, and contains guidelines for applicants. The applicant would have to go before the Planning Board for a special permit before obtaining a building permit.
Councillor Sosnowski recognized Christine Sullivan, Planning Board member who arrived, and then he Opened the Meeting to Questions.
Joseph A. O’Keefe, Sr, Ward 7, explained that he needed to leave at 7 pm for a meeting at SSC. He noted in a section of the ordinance on page 3, it states that height of a commercial-scale tower be no more than 400 ft, or in a residential area no more than 150 ft., which would be the height of a 15-story building. For that height, Councillor O’Keefe recommends an amendment be added to the ordinance that says the structure should be equipped with a site-specific fire detection and fire suppression system. He presented this in memo format that was distributed.
Councillor Paul Prevey asked if information regarding the height and size of the turbines had been taken from existing ordinances. Tom Watkins explained that, as far as the height of the wind turbines, for commercial, 200 ft height for facilities is pretty average given the economic viability and that a lot of recommendations came from neighboring towns and the state.
Councillor Mike Sosnowski and Tom Watkins discussed that the area of height measurement for a tower is to the top of the blade/arch. They also mentioned the wind turbine on Highland Ave. Tom Watkins believes the tower is on residential property. It’s a “met” (meteorological) tower that measures to see if a wind turbine would be feasible at that location. A met tower is exempt from height restrictions but would follow the regular setback requirements of the ordinance. It collects data which are then used to determine what height for a wind turbine would be feasible.
Councillor Steven Pinto, noted on page 2, section 3 it states that under R3 commercial scale is allowed with special permit but that in the other zones, commercial scale is not allowed at all. Could this have been an error? Tom Watkins said there are two other sections where a commercial-scale facility is allowed by special permit. Councillor Pinto pointed out that the other two zones are not residential. Tom Watkins said it may have been an error. Councillor Pinto then asked how we determine the length of blades in comparison to the height of pole. Tom Watkins said the length of blades would be, anywhere from 30-80 ft from hub to top, and that the particular size depends on each facility.
Christine Sullivan, Planning Board, asked about the average height of a wind turbine in a residential area. Tim Watkins: They vary from house to house, city to city and state to state; we are recommending a special permit for 150 ft or greater, but each facility’s height is determined after a professional organization collects wind data at the site, assesses the site’s feasibility, then come back with height recommendations for what would be the most economically feasible size particular to that site. Christine Sullivan mentioned how she was in France a few years ago in a seacoast area and she saw wind turbines there. She felt they added to the charm. John Moustakis, Planning Board asked if are there any locations they’re looking at. Tom Watkins mentioned 40R Highland Ave, Salem
Heights, testing at SESD sight, and possibly Winter Island.
Nadine Hanscom, Planning Board, wondered that since Christine Sullivan saw some wind turbines directly, what was the noise like and Christine said she didn’t notice any noise. Nadine has seen studies and reports on the news stating that wind turbines are noisy – even though studies were done in advance that determined noise would be minimal, all neighbors hear is “swish, swish.” She expressed concern that perhaps we would not really know what noise levels would be like until the turbines are all up and running. Neighbors near new facilities are likely to be very upset if the facilities are louder than promised. Tom Watkins explained that a lot of the new wind turbines are “noise friendly.” Also, Section 6J of the ordinance requires that a noise study be done. Gloucester had the same thing. Anything over a 10 decibel limit from the closest property line wouldn’t be allowed. Sosnowski inquired about what would happen if two companies come in with proposals, one using much
better, quieter technology than the other – how would the city know which was the better one?
Councillor Sosnowski acknowledged Adam Siegel from the Renewable Task Force who arrived. Nadine Hanscom brought up the possible scenario of people who bought their property for the ocean view who won’t want to look at wind turbines, and said that we needed to be conscientious of that. Tom Watkins acknowledged she was correct that some people may object, and explained that specifications such as the color of the pole, any lighting, and other features would need to be agreed to. Additionally, abutters would be notified, and placement of wind facilities would be a public process, and residents could attend the public meetings. Even so, Nadine expressed concern that abutters objecting to the facilities would not be able to stop them from being built if all the boards and councils felt applicants had met all
requirements and the proposed sites were appropriate. Chuck Puleo, Planning Board Chairman, pointed out that because this use is by special permit, each proposal is considered case by case and the decision is discretionary. A concern of the Chairman’s had been the possibility that three or four facilities could be proposed within the same neighborhood, and whether there would be any mechanism for limiting the number in an area if there were too many. However, Chuck Puleo noted that if there were too many in a neighborhood and they became noisy and unsightly, future facilities could be limited because each petitioner would need a special permit; this is the advantage of allowing the Planning Board to make a discretionary call. Christine Sullivan also pointed out that those who may object to facilities near their properties “do not own the ocean,” they just own their property.
Councillor McCarthy noted that a feasibility study is being done at SESD. According to the chart on page 2, SESD is zoned industrial and they’re required to get a special permit on height. He noted that the only relief they would need would be for height; would this mean that none of the other requirements would need to be met? Tom Watkins said that the by-laws state that anything on state property is exempt. They discussed setbacks and Tom Watkins said he’d refer this to the Planning Department. Councillor McCarthy also inquired about whether any particular areas of City had been identified as potential sites; he wondered who would be affected and how. Tom Watkins explained that on 6/2006 UMass did a site survey of city owned property including Winter Island, Forest River, and some areas
surrounding the High School. There was no real analysis or technical analysis done yet, with setback criteria. No studies were done on residential properties.
As far as how many local communities have done this, Tom Watkins mentioned Beverly, Gloucester, South of Boston and Cape Cod. McCarthy encouraged anyone who had the time to go visit the wind facility in Hull. The wind turbine at the transfer station is huge, but the one by the high school isn’t as overbearing – do they know what scale size it is? Adam Siegel thinks it’s about 30 or 40 ft shorter than the one at the transfer station.
Tim Ready has also seen the one in Hull that sits on the waterfront. He noted that the facility is a huge piece of machinery, but that it is set far from homes way out on the waterfront. He believes it has been so efficient that Hull is interested in increasing the size of it. They realize a significant cost savings from the electricity from the facility (including savings on energy used by the schools). Tim noted the importance of wording the ordinance so as to not discourage the development of this innovative technology. While he noted that Salem is a small city with limited space, we do have an interest in inviting wind energy, particularly for the electricity savings which will become more important in coming years. He urged balance in the ordinance between accepting and
discouraging the technology.
Councillor McCarthy asked the Renewable Energy Task force to talk about recent legislation on allowing transmission lines to cross property boundaries, making it easier to install wind turbines. Tom Watkins responded there is legislation floating around the State House, and had perhaps already been passed, which would allow for wind turbines to have transmission lines that brought power to other properties.
In reference to page 3, section (6) b. Tim Kavanaugh asked why monopole towers are “preferred” and whether other types of support are available; would other types of structures be appropriate in a residential/commercial setting? Should the ordinance specify that in residential areas, only monopole towers are allowed? Also on page 2, paragraph 3c it states “the finding the Planning Board must make” lists “nuisance” and wondered what defines nuisance? Odor? Visual? What constitutes visual nuisance? Adam Siegel mentioned one visual nuisance known as a strobe factor, which is a bright light combined with movement of the blades.
Councillor Sosnowski mentioned that there are other styles of wind turbines such as spiral ones (although he doesn’t believe they are as efficient) that rotate and asked if they were considering those as well. Tom Watkins said yes, they are considering those as well. Councillor Sosnowski suggested that if the other styles are not in ordinance they should include them. He also mentioned that he went around to homes located near the met tower and most residents didn’t even know about it.
Chuck Puleo said there is a residential scaled wind turbine, for demo purposes, on Swampscott Road and there is also one on the roof of the Carlton school. Also, it seems as though the smaller the wind turbine, the poorer the design/construction.
No one to speak in opposition.
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor Pinto to close the public hearing.
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor Sargent to refer this matter to the Planning Board, all in favor.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the City Councillors and Planning Board this evening, a motion was made by Councillor Pinto to adjourn the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Stacey Dupuis, Clerk
Salem Planning Board
| |
