 |
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING HELD
MARCH 25, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Patricia Halpin, John Baker, Karen Paré, Lawrence Salate, Vincent Vignaly
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: None
DISCUSSION OF WIND TURBINE BYLAW
Ms. Paré assembled and submitted for review a draft “Wind Energy Conversion Systems” bylaw, to be finalized in time for the October town meeting. She posed several questions for consideration of the members during their review process.
- Should there be a simpler version of the bylaw for residential “by right” use? Different communities handle this issue in various ways, such as leaving the permitting of towers with specific criteria to the Building Inspector. Mr. Vignaly agreed that this is a good idea, as long as the project complies with the structural setbacks and other standards. Roof top placements should be encouraged. It was agreed that residential projects will be treated separately in the bylaws.
- Multiple residences share turbines in some communities, such as Sterling, which allows sharing anywhere as long as the 100’ setback criteria is met. Ms. Halpin stated that any bylaw enacted has to be viewed through the lens of a “good neighbor” and no project should be allowed that will disturb reasonable neighbors or devalue their property. Mr. Baker questioned how the issues of ice throws and bird endangerment would be handled and suggested that placement on DCR land on the causeway would be preferred due to the wind currents
- Height of the towers needs to be considered. In Sterling, the allowed height span is 100 – 130’. Harwich allows 150’ in residential areas and Ashburnham allows 160’. To be effective, placement on Malden Hill would be best, Mr. Baker stated, because an elevation with sufficient wind is needed. Mr. Vignaly added that a 100’ tower would require a 100’ clear radius, so a half acre lot would be necessary. Ms. Halpin questioned whether the industry is regulated. Is the quality of the product assured? Mr. Vignaly stated that a building permit would be necessary for free-standing towers
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting -2-
March 25, 2009
as well as a structural analysis by a professional engineer. Mr. Baker stated that there is probably a 20 – 30 year payback for a wind turbine project.
- Do we allow meteorological “test” towers in all zones, Ms. Paré queried, and should they be allowed only for the Municipal Lighting Plant (“MLP”). They should be allowed for one year, Mr. Vignaly stated, with the height commensurate with zoning, or a Variance should be obtained. A great amount of land-clearing is necessary for such a tower. Should construction only be allowed on municipal land?
- Can all the electrical power that is generated be used by the tower owner, Ms. Halpin asked. With multiple owners, excess power generated goes to the MLP Plant, Ms. Paré stated. If the site is on a grid, then the MLP guidelines must be followed. Some towns use a tower’s kilowatts as criteria for permitting but this town will use the tower’s height. It will be the job of the MLP to monitor kilowatt generation.
- There are different types of wind turbines used for wind energy. Should they all be allowed? Placement on rooftops must comply with the Building Code. Currently, their standard heights reach 10 – 20’. Now, nothing is yet feasible on a rooftop, Mr. Vignaly stated, however we want to be encouraging this use as technology is changing so limitations should be minimal. In Ashburnham, Ms. Paré stated, none are allowed to be taller than 10’ above the ridge line (top of the tower with rotors above).
- Should there be a distinction between commercial and residential districts? Should taller towers be allowed in the industrial zone with a commercial use? Mr. Baker favored being more restrictive in the residential zones and giving more latitude in the commercial zones. The height limit now for a building in the industrial zone is 68’. A sign could be put on the roof and the tower on top to comply with the “ridge line” rule, Mr. Vignaly stated. In Sterling, there have been noise level complaints and complaints about the electromagnetic field. Regulations are needed to deal with complaints, Ms. Paré stated. Mr. Vignaly stated that noise can be measured but was unsure of electromagnetic activity. Mr. Salate stated that electromagnetic interference can also be measured.
- Will a taller tower be allowed if the applicant gets an easement? Roof top towers will be allowed by right in residential areas but otherwise, erection of towers of 100’ will require a full site plan review. Those who require site plan review can request waivers but neighbors’ rights must always be protected, Ms. Halpin stated. Mr. Baker queried whether any CommCap points can be earned by passing a wind turbine bylaw.
REVIEW OF COMMONWEALTH CAPITAL APPLICATION RESULTS
The “CommCap” application was completed this year by CMRPC. The town received a score of 75, which was above average state-wide. The application was not sent to the Planning Board this year for review prior to submittal.
Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting -3
March 25, 2009
REPORTS ON OTHER BOARDS
ZBA: Mr. Vignaly reported that the ZBA will hold hearings on March 26th on applications from the MLP for a Special Permit to allow a 359kw Solar Panel Array on Shrewsbury
Street and from Angell Brook Development for a Variance to construct a fence in the setback. The Planning Board has no issue with either of these requests.
Community Preservation: Mr. Salate reported that the records preservation request by the Town Clerk has been approved. Ms. Halpin reported that the CPC return this year is 29%.
CORRECTION TO MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2009 RE ASSESSORS
A request was received from the Assessor’s Department that a correction be made to the Minutes of February 25, 2009 wherein it was stated that the Assessors “have shown opposition to” putting large parcels of land under Chapter 61 protection. In fact, the Assessors take no formal position on Chapter 61 land acquisition.
MiNUTES/BILLS
An invoice was approved for payment to VHB for engineering review services. Upon motion of Mr. Salate and second of Ms. Paré, the Minutes of the March 11, 2009 Meeting were approved as amended.
Members of the Board all thanked Mr. Baker for his service to the Planning Board, since this is his last meeting. His experience and knowledge of the planning process were invaluable as well as his confidence in expressing himself and ability to look at a project from a different viewpoint and ask important questions from his extensive professional experience in site development.
At 8:35 p.m., upon motion of Ms. Paré and second of Mr. Salate, it was unanimously voted to adjourn.
Date Accepted:____________ By:____________________________
Karen Paré, Clerk
Submitted By:_______________________
Susan Abramson
| |
