BECKET Large Wind Sub-Comm. Minutes 2/11/2013
Meeting came to order at 9:10am.
Attendees: Bob Gross, Al Blake, Maria Wallington, Bill Girard, Ann Krawet.
Minutes of Meeting on 1/28/13 were approved unanimously.
The Sub-committee continued its review of Becket’s Large Wind Energy Systems Bylaw, section 6.7. The following additions and modifications were agreed upon:
Section 6.7.12 (d) Vicinity Map (on p.49) – retain the wording “.. within ½ mile radius of the proposed large wind energy system” until (and if) any decision to modify the established setback distance is changed;
Section 6.7.12 (e) (ii) Site Plan (on p. 49) – delete “one ½ mile” and insert “1.5 times” so the provision would read “Outline of all existing structures including their uses, located within 1.5 times the height of the large wind energy system with exact distances to the large wind energy system listed.”
Section 6.7.12 (g) Technical Information (on p. 50) – add a third requirement, to read “iii. A listing of all hazardous materials on site.”
Section 6.7.13 Waiver. (on p. 51) -- Delete “S 1.12” and insert “S 6.7.12” so the provision would read “Upon written request of the applicant, the SPGA may waive any of the application requirements contained in S 6.7.12, as the SPGA, in its discretion, deems appropriate.”
Section 6.7.15 (a) Abandonment & Removal of Large Wind Energy Systems (on p. 51) – In the last sentence, delete”applicant” and insert “ most recent operator(s)/owner(s)’” so the sentence would read “The Building Inspector may engage at the most recent operator(s)/owner(s)’ expense, a licensed professional engineer to help determine whether the large wind energy system has been abandoned.”
Section 6.7.15 (c) (on p. 52) – Replace the faded “a-b” designation with the letter “c”.
Members discussed information gathered from studies/articles concerning turbine setback distances in various towns/cities. The present shadow flicker maximum was deemed acceptable and retained as is in the present Bylaw. Bob suggested requiring a site-specific sound analysis rather than an arbitrary setback distance since topography and wind direction are factors that might avoid negative impacts in one direction while increasing them in another direction; however, members concluded that such measurement tests would be overly difficult, excessively costly, and unreliable. After review of the Town of Heath Committee Findings, a decision regarding setback distance was tabled until the next meeting. Members agreed to request the Planning Board to approve our request for legal advice from our
town atty regarding overly restrictive provisions or a prohibitive Bylaw before making any decision.
Respectfully submitted – Ann Krawet